dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.

Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/b462d92ef167acfbc27f97a3b278fe86/tenor.gif?itemid=16967331

---

To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

---

But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?

---

Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.

But I think there is a good argument for term limits on SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments clearly can become political deathmatches, but if you know you're getting regular turnover on the court then it's not so much.

---

I think the best solution would be 9 Judges with 18 year terms. A President picks a new Justice every 2 years. We also need to add states like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. to eliminate the Senate imbalance with the people. Would be good to break California in two also - dare to dream.

But since term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, I think we should just have a 13 Justice Supreme Court. Easiest way to rebalance the Court with the American people.

---

I think you're a typical Democratic Party moron who, per usual, doesn't see the long term consequences of what would be a stupid decision.

What the Dems need to do over the next four years is win the Senate majority and then pull every dirty trick in the book to confirm as many judgess that identify with their social agenda (because the corporate agenda is the same for both parties) and find a way to fsck the Republicans very very hard on everything they care about. Don't be a pvssy like Obama and look for some consensus that isn't there.

The Republicans took their opportunity, played dirty, and won both times because they figured there would be no long-term consequences. Packing the Court starts a very slippery slope where the Court gets even more politicized than it already is and the Dems aren't going to have the Senate and President every four years. Take the opportunity you're gonna have over the next two years and fsck them hard in other areas. Maybe they get lucky and a spot unexpectedly comes available in the next 2-4 years.

Yogi Dont Pay said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.

Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?

---

To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

---

But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?

---

Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.

But I think there is a good argument for term limits on SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments clearly can become political deathmatches, but if you know you're getting regular turnover on the court then it's not so much.

---

I think the best solution would be 9 Judges with 18 year terms. A President picks a new Justice every 2 years. We also need to add states like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. to eliminate the Senate imbalance with the people. Would be good to break California in two also - dare to dream.

But since term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, I think we should just have a 13 Justice Supreme Court. Easiest way to rebalance the Court with the American people.

---

I think you're a typical Democratic Party moron who, per usual, doesn't see the long term consequences of what would be a stupid decision.

What the Dems need to do over the next four years is win the Senate majority and then pull every dirty trick in the book to confirm as many judgess that identify with their social agenda (because the corporate agenda is the same for both parties) and find a way to fsck the Republicans very very hard on everything they care about. Don't be a pvssy like Obama and look for some consensus that isn't there.

The Republicans took their opportunity, played dirty, and won both times because they figured there would be no long-term consequences. Packing the Court starts a very slippery slope where the Court gets even more politicized than it already is and the Dems aren't going to have the Senate and President every four years. Take the opportunity you're gonna have over the next two years and fsck them hard in other areas. Maybe they get lucky and a spot unexpectedly comes available in the next 2-4 years.

---

You're attacking me for not playing hardball - except for the area where I want to play hardball. Consistency, my friend. Consistency.

OaktownBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Supreme Court is an authoritarian institution staffed by the hacks of the two parties to do their bidding. The idea that our rights are surrendered to nine people with no accountability is astonishing enough but the idea that these old fogies are peeing into the 18th century mind to tell us what they think about corporate speech and gay wedding cakes is not only astonishing but a mind blowing surrender of individual freedom to autocracy.

The Court has always been reactionary and trampled more rights than they recognized. Although the Warren Court is heralded as the great facilitator of black equality, those rights were won in the street ( MLK) and by the people (LBJ)

Don't reform it. End or neuter it.

---

This is idiotic and a total misunderstanding of the role of the court. As I said elsewhere, without the Supreme Court as a back stop, the bill of rights becomes a mere suggestion that no one has to actually follow.

It is extremely annoying how stupid Americans are about their own government. Almost all of the things that the Supreme Court gets blamed for are not primarily their fault. They are laws that were passed by state or federal government.

The Supreme Court will never make abortion illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, abortion would have been illegal in much of the country for decades.

The Supreme Court will never make gay marriage illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, much of the country would not have gay marriage.

The Supreme Court never made segregation law of the land. For too long it did not stop states from making it the law of the land. The Supreme Court was the first branch of government to end segregation and it was years before the Civil Rights Act was then passed.

I may not be fond of the current view of Search and Seizure rules by the court, but they don't set the law. They set the floor. Without the court, many places would be far worse. Communities can on their own have rules and laws that are more protective than what the court provides, and many do. But they can't do worse than the court. The court does no harm.

The Court's role is to REVIEW LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATES. In almost every case IT IS THOSE LAWS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. The Supreme Court didn't create segregation. States did. The Supreme Court never made segregation the law of the land or made segregation worse. For a long time it did not overturn those laws, but it was the laws themselves that were the fundamental problem and the Supreme Court was the only avenue to overturn them.

As for the ACA, the Democrats could have expanded Medicare to cover everyone and the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Because the hoops they jumped through to get moderates on board and the way they wanted to sell the ACA, they structured the law in a way that made it susceptible to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court basically upholds individual rights. In most cases, for those that care about individual rights would see the Supreme Court at worst does nothing and at best protects individual rights. In some cases, like Citizen's United, that may give you a result you don't like. I would gladly accept Citizen's United in exchange for all the protections the Supreme Court provides.

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

I see what you are saying here, but you give the Supreme Court much too big of a pass for their failings. First some specifics with your "The Court does no harm" claim. Many cases are more complicated matters of jurisdiction - Federal or State. Missouri or Wisconsin.

1. The Supreme Court actively dismembered the Voting Rights Act taking voting rights away from individuals which had been granted to them by Congress, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
2. You mentioned Citizen's United. This caused harm by equating money with individual rights. You could make a strong argument that without Citizen's United we don't have a President Trump.
3. The ACA - The Supreme Court allowed states to disallow Medicaid for its citizens despite Congress' specific intent to provide this good everybody, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
4. And the infamous Dred Scott decision which ruled blacks were not included in the Constitution as citizens. This caused harm.

To the bigger picture of why we have a Supreme Court. I think most of us agree we want a government with majority rule and minority rights. The Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court are supposed to be the bulwark of our minority rights. Despite what we are taught, we can throw the Senate and Electoral College right out. Despite what is said, they have never protected minority rights and will never protect minority rights. In fact, they are there to protect rural rights (isn't that what a small state has a preponderance of?). Rural citizens may be a minority, but they are not all minorities. Rural rights are not minority rights.

That leaves us with the Supreme Court. It is there to determine arguments about the Constitution and protect our rights - like the Bill of Rights. When they do not do their job and they allow the majority to deprive the rights of the individual (or even worse, allow the minority to deprive the rights of the majority of individuals) the Supreme Court is failing in its purpose. It is there for a reason. I have rights the majority (or an empowered minority) should not be able to take away from me. That causes harm.

This is not to come across as agreement with what anarchist was saying in his mindless complaints.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Supreme Court is an authoritarian institution staffed by the hacks of the two parties to do their bidding. The idea that our rights are surrendered to nine people with no accountability is astonishing enough but the idea that these old fogies are peeing into the 18th century mind to tell us what they think about corporate speech and gay wedding cakes is not only astonishing but a mind blowing surrender of individual freedom to autocracy.

The Court has always been reactionary and trampled more rights than they recognized. Although the Warren Court is heralded as the great facilitator of black equality, those rights were won in the street ( MLK) and by the people (LBJ)

Don't reform it. End or neuter it.

---

This is idiotic and a total misunderstanding of the role of the court. As I said elsewhere, without the Supreme Court as a back stop, the bill of rights becomes a mere suggestion that no one has to actually follow.

It is extremely annoying how stupid Americans are about their own government. Almost all of the things that the Supreme Court gets blamed for are not primarily their fault. They are laws that were passed by state or federal government.

The Supreme Court will never make abortion illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, abortion would have been illegal in much of the country for decades.

The Supreme Court will never make gay marriage illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, much of the country would not have gay marriage.

The Supreme Court never made segregation law of the land. For too long it did not stop states from making it the law of the land. The Supreme Court was the first branch of government to end segregation and it was years before the Civil Rights Act was then passed.

I may not be fond of the current view of Search and Seizure rules by the court, but they don't set the law. They set the floor. Without the court, many places would be far worse. Communities can on their own have rules and laws that are more protective than what the court provides, and many do. But they can't do worse than the court. The court does no harm.

The Court's role is to REVIEW LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATES. In almost every case IT IS THOSE LAWS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. The Supreme Court didn't create segregation. States did. The Supreme Court never made segregation the law of the land or made segregation worse. For a long time it did not overturn those laws, but it was the laws themselves that were the fundamental problem and the Supreme Court was the only avenue to overturn them.

As for the ACA, the Democrats could have expanded Medicare to cover everyone and the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Because the hoops they jumped through to get moderates on board and the way they wanted to sell the ACA, they structured the law in a way that made it susceptible to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court basically upholds individual rights. In most cases, for those that care about individual rights would see the Supreme Court at worst does nothing and at best protects individual rights. In some cases, like Citizen's United, that may give you a result you don't like. I would gladly accept Citizen's United in exchange for all the protections the Supreme Court provides.

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

I see what you are saying here, but you give the Supreme Court much too big of a pass for their failings. First some specifics with your "The Court does no harm" claim. Many cases are more complicated matters of jurisdiction - Federal or State. Missouri or Wisconsin.

1. The Supreme Court actively dismembered the Voting Rights Act taking voting rights away from individuals which had been granted to them by Congress, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
2. You mentioned Citizen's United. This caused harm by equating money with individual rights. You could make a strong argument that without Citizen's United we don't have a President Trump.
3. The ACA - The Supreme Court allowed states to disallow Medicaid for its citizens despite Congress' specific intent to provide this good everybody, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
4. And the infamous Dred Scott decision which ruled blacks were not included in the Constitution as citizens. This caused harm.

To the bigger picture of why we have a Supreme Court. I think most of us agree we want a government with majority rule and minority rights. The Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court are supposed to be the bulwark of our minority rights. Despite what we are taught, we can throw the Senate and Electoral College right out. Despite what is said, they have never protected minority rights and will never protect minority rights. In fact, they are there to protect rural rights (isn't that what a small state has a preponderance of?). Rural citizens may be a minority, but they are not all minorities. Rural rights are not minority rights.

That leaves us with the Supreme Court. It is there to determine arguments about the Constitution and protect our rights - like the Bill of Rights. When they do not do their job and they allow the majority to deprive the rights of the individual (or even worse, allow the minority to deprive the rights of the majority of individuals) the Supreme Court is failing in its purpose. It is there for a reason. I have rights the majority (or an empowered minority) should not be able to take away from me. That causes harm.

This is not to come across as agreement with what anarchist was saying in his mindless complaints.

---

I said the court does no harm in the context of search and seizure. I specifically said that there are cases that the court causes a problem, but that most they are a back stop. I specifically mentioned Citizen's United. Frankly, the Medicaid decision was a Constitutionally reasonable decision. The way that ACA was structured on the point, it probably is the State's right to make that determination. So you blame the Federal government for how they structured the law and the State government for not accepting the Medicaid. Yes, there are times when it is the within the authority of the states to do certain things instead of the federal government.

Dred Scott is from 1857. Now, first of all, in the actual case, Scott's only hope of freedom was that the Supreme Court would give it to him. So as far as Scott was concerned, the court was not the one who harmed him. As for the ruling that Blacks were not citizens under the Constitution, well, in 1857, they weren't. That wasn't on the Supreme Court. That is on the founders and on those in government that had not modified the Constitution to that point. The Dred Scott decision WAS however a horrible decision that did harm beyond its core holding. It was very political and a clear overreach of the pro-slavery side. I'm not sure that Dred Scott is relevant to the court today, but of course the Supreme Court CAN do harm, but this narrative that the Supreme Court is a bunch of old guys that hold us back on individual freedoms is dangerous. Most individual freedom cases come to the Supreme Court where a government entity is trying to restrict rights of an individual. The Court either protects the rights or they don't.

I am not giving them a pass when they fail to protect rights. I am saying that procedurally, the court does not take away rights. When they fail to protect rights, they effectively allow someone to take away rights who was going to do so anyway. Even if the court only protected rights 10% of the time, that is 10% more than if they didn't exist.

Without the court, the federal government does not have to follow the Constitution. The state government does not have to follow the Constitution. The state government does not have to listen to the federal government. Without the court, segregation doesn't end until the Southern states end it. Brown doesn't happen. The Civil Rights Act is ignored. The vast majority of the protections put in place for racial minorities in the 50's through 70's do not happen. So, yes, you and I can be upset about the Shelby decision in 2013 on the Voting Rights Act. But that is a tiny part of the whole story. Without the court protecting the rights of people to vote, we never get enough votes to get the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will never be the most liberal entity. However, they are never the most conservative either. They are constantly swatting down ridiculous things the conservative states want to do.

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Supreme Court is an authoritarian institution staffed by the hacks of the two parties to do their bidding. The idea that our rights are surrendered to nine people with no accountability is astonishing enough but the idea that these old fogies are peeing into the 18th century mind to tell us what they think about corporate speech and gay wedding cakes is not only astonishing but a mind blowing surrender of individual freedom to autocracy.

The Court has always been reactionary and trampled more rights than they recognized. Although the Warren Court is heralded as the great facilitator of black equality, those rights were won in the street ( MLK) and by the people (LBJ)

Don't reform it. End or neuter it.

---

This is idiotic and a total misunderstanding of the role of the court. As I said elsewhere, without the Supreme Court as a back stop, the bill of rights becomes a mere suggestion that no one has to actually follow.

It is extremely annoying how stupid Americans are about their own government. Almost all of the things that the Supreme Court gets blamed for are not primarily their fault. They are laws that were passed by state or federal government.

The Supreme Court will never make abortion illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, abortion would have been illegal in much of the country for decades.

The Supreme Court will never make gay marriage illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, much of the country would not have gay marriage.

The Supreme Court never made segregation law of the land. For too long it did not stop states from making it the law of the land. The Supreme Court was the first branch of government to end segregation and it was years before the Civil Rights Act was then passed.

I may not be fond of the current view of Search and Seizure rules by the court, but they don't set the law. They set the floor. Without the court, many places would be far worse. Communities can on their own have rules and laws that are more protective than what the court provides, and many do. But they can't do worse than the court. The court does no harm.

The Court's role is to REVIEW LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATES. In almost every case IT IS THOSE LAWS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. The Supreme Court didn't create segregation. States did. The Supreme Court never made segregation the law of the land or made segregation worse. For a long time it did not overturn those laws, but it was the laws themselves that were the fundamental problem and the Supreme Court was the only avenue to overturn them.

As for the ACA, the Democrats could have expanded Medicare to cover everyone and the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Because the hoops they jumped through to get moderates on board and the way they wanted to sell the ACA, they structured the law in a way that made it susceptible to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court basically upholds individual rights. In most cases, for those that care about individual rights would see the Supreme Court at worst does nothing and at best protects individual rights. In some cases, like Citizen's United, that may give you a result you don't like. I would gladly accept Citizen's United in exchange for all the protections the Supreme Court provides.

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

I see what you are saying here, but you give the Supreme Court much too big of a pass for their failings. First some specifics with your "The Court does no harm" claim. Many cases are more complicated matters of jurisdiction - Federal or State. Missouri or Wisconsin.

1. The Supreme Court actively dismembered the Voting Rights Act taking voting rights away from individuals which had been granted to them by Congress, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
2. You mentioned Citizen's United. This caused harm by equating money with individual rights. You could make a strong argument that without Citizen's United we don't have a President Trump.
3. The ACA - The Supreme Court allowed states to disallow Medicaid for its citizens despite Congress' specific intent to provide this good everybody, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
4. And the infamous Dred Scott decision which ruled blacks were not included in the Constitution as citizens. This caused harm.

To the bigger picture of why we have a Supreme Court. I think most of us agree we want a government with majority rule and minority rights. The Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court are supposed to be the bulwark of our minority rights. Despite what we are taught, we can throw the Senate and Electoral College right out. Despite what is said, they have never protected minority rights and will never protect minority rights. In fact, they are there to protect rural rights (isn't that what a small state has a preponderance of?). Rural citizens may be a minority, but they are not all minorities. Rural rights are not minority rights.

That leaves us with the Supreme Court. It is there to determine arguments about the Constitution and protect our rights - like the Bill of Rights. When they do not do their job and they allow the majority to deprive the rights of the individual (or even worse, allow the minority to deprive the rights of the majority of individuals) the Supreme Court is failing in its purpose. It is there for a reason. I have rights the majority (or an empowered minority) should not be able to take away from me. That causes harm.

This is not to come across as agreement with what anarchist was saying in his mindless complaints.

---

I said the court does no harm in the context of search and seizure. I specifically said that there are cases that the court causes a problem, but that most they are a back stop. I specifically mentioned Citizen's United. Frankly, the Medicaid decision was a Constitutionally reasonable decision. The way that ACA was structured on the point, it probably is the State's right to make that determination. So you blame the Federal government for how they structured the law and the State government for not accepting the Medicaid. Yes, there are times when it is the within the authority of the states to do certain things instead of the federal government.

Dred Scott is from 1857. Now, first of all, in the actual case, Scott's only hope of freedom was that the Supreme Court would give it to him. So as far as Scott was concerned, the court was not the one who harmed him. As for the ruling that Blacks were not citizens under the Constitution, well, in 1857, they weren't. That wasn't on the Supreme Court. That is on the founders and on those in government that had not modified the Constitution to that point. The Dred Scott decision WAS however a horrible decision that did harm beyond its core holding. It was very political and a clear overreach of the pro-slavery side. I'm not sure that Dred Scott is relevant to the court today, but of course the Supreme Court CAN do harm, but this narrative that the Supreme Court is a bunch of old guys that hold us back on individual freedoms is dangerous. Most individual freedom cases come to the Supreme Court where a government entity is trying to restrict rights of an individual. The Court either protects the rights or they don't.

I am not giving them a pass when they fail to protect rights. I am saying that procedurally, the court does not take away rights. When they fail to protect rights, they effectively allow someone to take away rights who was going to do so anyway. Even if the court only protected rights 10% of the time, that is 10% more than if they didn't exist.

Without the court, the federal government does not have to follow the Constitution. The state government does not have to follow the Constitution. The state government does not have to listen to the federal government. Without the court, segregation doesn't end until the Southern states end it. Brown doesn't happen. The Civil Rights Act is ignored. The vast majority of the protections put in place for racial minorities in the 50's through 70's do not happen. So, yes, you and I can be upset about the Shelby decision in 2013 on the Voting Rights Act. But that is a tiny part of the whole story. Without the court protecting the rights of people to vote, we never get enough votes to get the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will never be the most liberal entity. However, they are never the most conservative either. They are constantly swatting down ridiculous things the conservative states want to do.

---

A lot of your argument above seems better pointed at anarchist's response than mine because I agree with you that the Court has been and can be and should be a great force for individual rights.

I would just hold it's feet to the fire a little more strongly than you, it appears to me, in their responsibility to grant individual rights. To me, the most underused amendment is the 9th. Does the Court ever use it (maybe they do, I don't follow it closely enough, but I never hear about it)?

It's just not good enough, for me, to say the Court struck down a Federal law granting rights and allowed some states to deny those rights so it isn't actually the Court taking those rights away. Yes it is. If somebody in Mississippi is denied their individual rights I want my Congressperson to do something about it. I want the Court to respect those individual rights more than a states' rights. The state is the most overvalued thing in our Constitution.

Get The Facts: What Leader McConnell Actually Said In 2016

Leader McConnell Consistently Explained That A Senate Controlled By The Party Opposite That Of The President Hasn't Filled A Supreme Court Vacancy In A Presidential Election Year For Over A Century

https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/research/get-the-facts-what-leader-mcconnell-actually-said-in-2016

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

They don't want facts. They want outrage and revenge.

bearlyamazing said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

They don't want facts. They want outrage and revenge.

---

I want government of the people, by the people, for the people

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Supreme Court is an authoritarian institution staffed by the hacks of the two parties to do their bidding. The idea that our rights are surrendered to nine people with no accountability is astonishing enough but the idea that these old fogies are peeing into the 18th century mind to tell us what they think about corporate speech and gay wedding cakes is not only astonishing but a mind blowing surrender of individual freedom to autocracy.

The Court has always been reactionary and trampled more rights than they recognized. Although the Warren Court is heralded as the great facilitator of black equality, those rights were won in the street ( MLK) and by the people (LBJ)

Don't reform it. End or neuter it.

---

This is idiotic and a total misunderstanding of the role of the court. As I said elsewhere, without the Supreme Court as a back stop, the bill of rights becomes a mere suggestion that no one has to actually follow.

It is extremely annoying how stupid Americans are about their own government. Almost all of the things that the Supreme Court gets blamed for are not primarily their fault. They are laws that were passed by state or federal government.

The Supreme Court will never make abortion illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, abortion would have been illegal in much of the country for decades.

The Supreme Court will never make gay marriage illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, much of the country would not have gay marriage.

The Supreme Court never made segregation law of the land. For too long it did not stop states from making it the law of the land. The Supreme Court was the first branch of government to end segregation and it was years before the Civil Rights Act was then passed.

I may not be fond of the current view of Search and Seizure rules by the court, but they don't set the law. They set the floor. Without the court, many places would be far worse. Communities can on their own have rules and laws that are more protective than what the court provides, and many do. But they can't do worse than the court. The court does no harm.

The Court's role is to REVIEW LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATES. In almost every case IT IS THOSE LAWS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. The Supreme Court didn't create segregation. States did. The Supreme Court never made segregation the law of the land or made segregation worse. For a long time it did not overturn those laws, but it was the laws themselves that were the fundamental problem and the Supreme Court was the only avenue to overturn them.

As for the ACA, the Democrats could have expanded Medicare to cover everyone and the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Because the hoops they jumped through to get moderates on board and the way they wanted to sell the ACA, they structured the law in a way that made it susceptible to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court basically upholds individual rights. In most cases, for those that care about individual rights would see the Supreme Court at worst does nothing and at best protects individual rights. In some cases, like Citizen's United, that may give you a result you don't like. I would gladly accept Citizen's United in exchange for all the protections the Supreme Court provides.

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

I see what you are saying here, but you give the Supreme Court much too big of a pass for their failings. First some specifics with your "The Court does no harm" claim. Many cases are more complicated matters of jurisdiction - Federal or State. Missouri or Wisconsin.

1. The Supreme Court actively dismembered the Voting Rights Act taking voting rights away from individuals which had been granted to them by Congress, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
2. You mentioned Citizen's United. This caused harm by equating money with individual rights. You could make a strong argument that without Citizen's United we don't have a President Trump.
3. The ACA - The Supreme Court allowed states to disallow Medicaid for its citizens despite Congress' specific intent to provide this good everybody, throwing it back to the states. This caused harm.
4. And the infamous Dred Scott decision which ruled blacks were not included in the Constitution as citizens. This caused harm.

To the bigger picture of why we have a Supreme Court. I think most of us agree we want a government with majority rule and minority rights. The Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court are supposed to be the bulwark of our minority rights. Despite what we are taught, we can throw the Senate and Electoral College right out. Despite what is said, they have never protected minority rights and will never protect minority rights. In fact, they are there to protect rural rights (isn't that what a small state has a preponderance of?). Rural citizens may be a minority, but they are not all minorities. Rural rights are not minority rights.

That leaves us with the Supreme Court. It is there to determine arguments about the Constitution and protect our rights - like the Bill of Rights. When they do not do their job and they allow the majority to deprive the rights of the individual (or even worse, allow the minority to deprive the rights of the majority of individuals) the Supreme Court is failing in its purpose. It is there for a reason. I have rights the majority (or an empowered minority) should not be able to take away from me. That causes harm.

This is not to come across as agreement with what anarchist was saying in his mindless complaints.

---

I said the court does no harm in the context of search and seizure. I specifically said that there are cases that the court causes a problem, but that most they are a back stop. I specifically mentioned Citizen's United. Frankly, the Medicaid decision was a Constitutionally reasonable decision. The way that ACA was structured on the point, it probably is the State's right to make that determination. So you blame the Federal government for how they structured the law and the State government for not accepting the Medicaid. Yes, there are times when it is the within the authority of the states to do certain things instead of the federal government.

Dred Scott is from 1857. Now, first of all, in the actual case, Scott's only hope of freedom was that the Supreme Court would give it to him. So as far as Scott was concerned, the court was not the one who harmed him. As for the ruling that Blacks were not citizens under the Constitution, well, in 1857, they weren't. That wasn't on the Supreme Court. That is on the founders and on those in government that had not modified the Constitution to that point. The Dred Scott decision WAS however a horrible decision that did harm beyond its core holding. It was very political and a clear overreach of the pro-slavery side. I'm not sure that Dred Scott is relevant to the court today, but of course the Supreme Court CAN do harm, but this narrative that the Supreme Court is a bunch of old guys that hold us back on individual freedoms is dangerous. Most individual freedom cases come to the Supreme Court where a government entity is trying to restrict rights of an individual. The Court either protects the rights or they don't.

I am not giving them a pass when they fail to protect rights. I am saying that procedurally, the court does not take away rights. When they fail to protect rights, they effectively allow someone to take away rights who was going to do so anyway. Even if the court only protected rights 10% of the time, that is 10% more than if they didn't exist.

Without the court, the federal government does not have to follow the Constitution. The state government does not have to follow the Constitution. The state government does not have to listen to the federal government. Without the court, segregation doesn't end until the Southern states end it. Brown doesn't happen. The Civil Rights Act is ignored. The vast majority of the protections put in place for racial minorities in the 50's through 70's do not happen. So, yes, you and I can be upset about the Shelby decision in 2013 on the Voting Rights Act. But that is a tiny part of the whole story. Without the court protecting the rights of people to vote, we never get enough votes to get the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court will never be the most liberal entity. However, they are never the most conservative either. They are constantly swatting down ridiculous things the conservative states want to do.

---

A lot of your argument above seems better pointed at anarchist's response than mine because I agree with you that the Court has been and can be and should be a great force for individual rights.

I would just hold it's feet to the fire a little more strongly than you, it appears to me, in their responsibility to grant individual rights. To me, the most underused amendment is the 9th. Does the Court ever use it (maybe they do, I don't follow it closely enough, but I never hear about it)?

It's just not good enough, for me, to say the Court struck down a Federal law granting rights and allowed some states to deny those rights so it isn't actually the Court taking those rights away. Yes it is. If somebody in Mississippi is denied their individual rights I want my Congressperson to do something about it I want the Court to respect those individual rights more than a states' rights. The state is the most overvalued thing in our Constitution.

---

I think you misunderstand my argument, so yes, I am responding to anarchist's argument. My argument is ONLY in response to anarchist's argument. I am in no way saying not to criticize the court.

I am not failing to hold the court's feet to the fire for how they do their job. I'm arguing about WHAT that job actually is.

Should the Court preserve Roe? Yes. Should they overturn all these stupid laws that massively undercut Roe? Yes. Do they deserve massive criticism if they don't do their job and protect Roe? Yes.

I am merely pointing out that in cases like Roe, the Court is the only protection the individual has against State laws that take away their rights. The state is the perpetrator. If the Court does its job, it stops the state. If it doesn't, the state does what it was going to do anyway. If there is no Court, the state does whatever the hell it wants.

This is the second time someone from the left on this board has made this leap from criticizing the court to arguing we essentially ignore it.

If they overturn Roe, I will be here ripping them to shreds. That is a different proposition than arguing against the whole notion of the court.

So, to clarify, if you take my argument to be one that says don't criticize the court, that is not my point. Criticize the actual actions of actual justices. Criticizing the institution of the court and arguing against its existence is ridiculous.

I will say this, though. The Court takes a lot of blame for not adopting policies that are not within their jurisdiction to adopt. Often the Court's decision is not in support of a State's policy. They may think the policy is stupid. It is an acknowledgment that the court has no jurisdiction to substitute its judgment for the idiocy of the states.

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

They don't want facts. They want outrage and revenge.

---

I want government of the people, by the people, for the people

---

Correction: You want government of the people, by the left, for the left. I prefer it more down the middle.

Liar. You lie. You want far right, batshyte crazy, RWNJ candidates like Mango Mussolini.

AunBear89 said:

---

Liar. You lie. You want far right, batshyte crazy, RWNJ candidates like Mango Mussolini.

---

Keep talking and exposing exactly how dimwitted you really are. I've never used the ignore feature before but your continued inane responses are tempting me.

bearlyamazing said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

They don't want facts. They want outrage and revenge.

---

I want government of the people, by the people, for the people

---

Correction: You want government of the people, by the left, for the left. I prefer it more down the middle.

---

The middle of the country is currently well to your left.

Go!Bears said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

Seriously? There are so many reasons you are wrong. Ask Czechs what was won in the streets, or Filipinos, Indians, or the French... the list is long and I believe includes Dr. King. I understand your affection for the court but believe it is misplaced. We have gotten lazy and allow our democracy to operate within the constraints the Court allows. Relying on the ballot box is futile. Our democracy has been rigged so a majority cannot win. Even with a victory at the ballot box, anti majoritarian institutions impede a popular will expressed In an election (filibuster, Electoral College)

There are countries who enjoy liberty without an all powerful court. They do not wait for crumbs to fall from the table of the elite, their legislature decides what will be. Ours does not. (See McCain-Feingold or the Voting Rights Act) We could be one of those countries. But we may have to go into the streets to get there. I think you have it backwards: "Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change." Those institutions won't change until there are people marching in the streets. I wish we could ask Dr. King what he thinks, though I think his actions give a hint.

---

Dr. King was also working hard to get new laws passed. That's why he took to the streets: to convince LBJ to take up Civil Rights legislation, by showing him the situation was untenable.

Go!Bears said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

Seriously? There are so many reasons you are wrong. Ask Czechs what was won in the streets, or Filipinos, Indians, or the French... the list is long and I believe includes Dr. King. I understand your affection for the court but believe it is misplaced. We have gotten lazy and allow our democracy to operate within the constraints the Court allows. Relying on the ballot box is futile. Our democracy has been rigged so a majority cannot win. Even with a victory at the ballot box, anti majoritarian institutions impede a popular will expressed In an election (filibuster, Electoral College)

There are countries who enjoy liberty without an all powerful court. They do not wait for crumbs to fall from the table of the elite, their legislature decides what will be. Ours does not. (See McCain-Feingold or the Voting Rights Act) We could be one of those countries. But we may have to go into the streets to get there. I think you have it backwards: "Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change." Those institutions won't change until there are people marching in the streets. I wish we could ask Dr. King what he thinks, though I think his actions give a hint.

---

I didn't say the court was responsible for everything or the court should be all powerful (the notion that it is in our country is moronic). Essentially I said nothing is won in the streets unless the government decides it is. I was referring to the United States. So to be clear, if people in the streets can overthrow their government, than things can be decided in the streets. Good luck with that in the United States.

MLK would agree with me. His movement was absolutely reliant on action in the courts and in lobbying voters and lobbying politicians. Marching in the streets is a tool and the point of that tool in America is to convince the levers of Democracy to change. If you march around and don't vote and don't lobby and don't get the government to agree with you, marching is useless. And too many of the people marching in the streets do not do a modicum of what is necessary on the political side of things to actually effectuate change. Marching is easy bullshyte if you don't follow up. No one cares if you are mad.

Demonstration works best when the country is either ill informed about an injustice or is finally ready to address it. Yes, the Civil Rights movement, WITH THE APPROPRIATE POLITICAL FOLLOW THROUGH, was a useful TOOL to get the government to change the laws. (Make no mistake, though Brown was a huge influence brought about by 9 people in 1954 before the Civil Rights movement was making any inroads). Divestiture in the 80's was a good example of awareness. On the flip side, Anti-war protests were going on for years and mainly had an impact when people were just tired of the war. The Occupy movement who specifically refused to back any politician or put up their own candidates were completely useless.

Conservatives through the Tea Party and otherwise have put in place an electoral system where the Democrats have to win by like 5% to actually hold office. They didn't do that by marching. They did that by running to control school boards and town councils that no one cared about. By running for state legislatures and redrawing district lines. That is how our political system works.

I would also point out that BLM has to date done nothing tangible. Now, it is a process, and the movement has a chance to make change, but until that happens at the ballot box and laws are passed, the marching has not accomplished anything.

The government is not going to be overthrown by violence like in France, or by people taking advantage of a crumbling Soviet system to kick out politicians who were half way out the door. We have a stable political system. That isn't changing. There is a clear way to work in that system. March if you feel like it, but frankly, 95% of liberal marching and yelling is nothing but an emotional release signifying nothing. Until the left realizes that they need to make change in every political venue, from city to federal, the marching is useless

And you know what? Liberals have been far to complacent relying on the Supreme Court to fix everything. If you want abortion to be legal, you don't need to ask the court to make it so. You can vote. Abortion will never be illegal if laws are not passed making it illegal.

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

They don't want facts. They want outrage and revenge.

---

I want government of the people, by the people, for the people

---

Correction: You want government of the people, by the left, for the left. I prefer it more down the middle.

---

The middle of the country is currently well to your left.

---

You don't know that. You just know the corruption that pisses me off. My liberal friends would tell you I'm always fair.

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

Moscow Mitch is a liar.

In 1958 (an election year) Brennan was appointed by a Republican President (Eisenhower) and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate with only one vote against.

If asked about that he would probably weasel around that fact by pointing out that the vacancy actually occurred at the end of 1957, which is not an election year so his statement is technically true but misleading.

In reality, since 1888 (and before Garland) there was only one appointment made in an election year when there was a divided government and that judge was indeed confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court Vacancies That Occurred During Election Years

McConnell's fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

The only red garment in my wardrobe:

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

Moscow Mitch is a liar.

In 1958 (an election year) Brennan was appointed by a Republican President (Eisenhower) and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate with only one vote against.

If asked about that he would probably weasel around that fact by pointing out that the vacancy actually occurred at the end of 1957, which is not an election year so his statement is technically true but misleading.

In reality, since 1888 (and before Garland) there was only one appointment made in an election year when there was a divided government and that judge was indeed confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court Vacancies That Occurred During Election Years

McConnell's fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

---

"Liar?" Get your facts straight. You yourself said it wasn't an election year but "near" an election year. So if that was the case, he wasn't lying. But you were even more wrong. Brennan was nominated January 1957 and confirmed March 1957. So no. The election was in 1960. Not even close.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

Oh, what will I ever do if a dipshyte like you chooses to ignore me? I am so desperate for RWNJs to pay attention to me.

Psst: I value your opinions on anything at just above used bandages.

bearlyamazing said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

Moscow Mitch is a liar.

In 1958 (an election year) Brennan was appointed by a Republican President (Eisenhower) and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate with only one vote against.

If asked about that he would probably weasel around that fact by pointing out that the vacancy actually occurred at the end of 1957, which is not an election year so his statement is technically true but misleading.

In reality, since 1888 (and before Garland) there was only one appointment made in an election year when there was a divided government and that judge was indeed confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court Vacancies That Occurred During Election Years

McConnell's fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

---

"Liar?" Get your facts straight. You yourself said it wasn't an election year but "near" an election year. So if that was the case, he wasn't lying. But you were even more wrong. Brennan was nominated January 1957 and confirmed March 1957. So no. The election was in 1960. Not even close.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

---

Read the links I posted. Sorry, I had my years wrong as I was in a hurry and unlike a lot of Republicans who post here I am not old enough to remember the situation firsthand.

Brennan was appointed in 1956 (an election year) by a Republican and confirmed in 1957 by a Democratic Senate. That contradicts Mitch's statement.

So does the Kennedy appointment in 1988.

Anarchistbear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Supreme Court is an authoritarian institution staffed by the hacks of the two parties to do their bidding. The idea that our rights are surrendered to nine people with no accountability is astonishing enough but the idea that these old fogies are peeing into the 18th century mind to tell us what they think about corporate speech and gay wedding cakes is not only astonishing but a mind blowing surrender of individual freedom to autocracy.

The Court has always been reactionary and trampled more rights than they recognized. Although the Warren Court is heralded as the great facilitator of black equality, those rights were won in the street ( MLK) and by the people (LBJ)

Don't reform it. End or neuter it.

---

This is idiotic and a total misunderstanding of the role of the court. As I said elsewhere, without the Supreme Court as a back stop, the bill of rights becomes a mere suggestion that no one has to actually follow.

It is extremely annoying how stupid Americans are about their own government. Almost all of the things that the Supreme Court gets blamed for are not primarily their fault. They are laws that were passed by state or federal government.

The Supreme Court will never make abortion illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, abortion would have been illegal in much of the country for decades.

The Supreme Court will never make gay marriage illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, much of the country would not have gay marriage.

The Supreme Court never made segregation law of the land. For too long it did not stop states from making it the law of the land. The Supreme Court was the first branch of government to end segregation and it was years before the Civil Rights Act was then passed.

I may not be fond of the current view of Search and Seizure rules by the court, but they don't set the law. They set the floor. Without the court, many places would be far worse. Communities can on their own have rules and laws that are more protective than what the court provides, and many do. But they can't do worse than the court. The court does no harm.

The Court's role is to REVIEW LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATES. In almost every case IT IS THOSE LAWS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. The Supreme Court didn't create segregation. States did. The Supreme Court never made segregation the law of the land or made segregation worse. For a long time it did not overturn those laws, but it was the laws themselves that were the fundamental problem and the Supreme Court was the only avenue to overturn them.

As for the ACA, the Democrats could have expanded Medicare to cover everyone and the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Because the hoops they jumped through to get moderates on board and the way they wanted to sell the ACA, they structured the law in a way that made it susceptible to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court basically upholds individual rights. In most cases, for those that care about individual rights would see the Supreme Court at worst does nothing and at best protects individual rights. In some cases, like Citizen's United, that may give you a result you don't like. I would gladly accept Citizen's United in exchange for all the protections the Supreme Court provides.

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

You're doing a lot of lawyering here but you sound like George Will defending the designated hitter out if some allegiance to the purity of the game

Supreme Court justices are vetted and selected based on party loyalty, who they clerked for, their decisions, etc. The idea that they are calling "balls and strikes" is naive. They have been acting as an extension of their party masters.

Was Bush vs Gore about the law? No it was about the candidates.

Was overturning case law in Citizens about the law? No it was allowing corporations to spend money in ways that undermine democracy. Whose interest is that? The constitution's?

When you say that the courts never made segregation worse do you think Plessy vs Ferguson didn't maintain and legitimize segregation? It set the country back 70 years. Wasn't the 14th amendment relevant then?

Whose balls? Whose strikes?

---

IMO you are rebutting an argument that Oaktown did not make. He never said the justices don't carry political slants in their decisions.

Anarchistbear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Supreme Court is an authoritarian institution staffed by the hacks of the two parties to do their bidding. The idea that our rights are surrendered to nine people with no accountability is astonishing enough but the idea that these old fogies are peeing into the 18th century mind to tell us what they think about corporate speech and gay wedding cakes is not only astonishing but a mind blowing surrender of individual freedom to autocracy.

The Court has always been reactionary and trampled more rights than they recognized. Although the Warren Court is heralded as the great facilitator of black equality, those rights were won in the street ( MLK) and by the people (LBJ)

Don't reform it. End or neuter it.

---

This is idiotic and a total misunderstanding of the role of the court. As I said elsewhere, without the Supreme Court as a back stop, the bill of rights becomes a mere suggestion that no one has to actually follow.

It is extremely annoying how stupid Americans are about their own government. Almost all of the things that the Supreme Court gets blamed for are not primarily their fault. They are laws that were passed by state or federal government.

The Supreme Court will never make abortion illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, abortion would have been illegal in much of the country for decades.

The Supreme Court will never make gay marriage illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, much of the country would not have gay marriage.

The Supreme Court never made segregation law of the land. For too long it did not stop states from making it the law of the land. The Supreme Court was the first branch of government to end segregation and it was years before the Civil Rights Act was then passed.

I may not be fond of the current view of Search and Seizure rules by the court, but they don't set the law. They set the floor. Without the court, many places would be far worse. Communities can on their own have rules and laws that are more protective than what the court provides, and many do. But they can't do worse than the court. The court does no harm.

The Court's role is to REVIEW LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATES. In almost every case IT IS THOSE LAWS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. The Supreme Court didn't create segregation. States did. The Supreme Court never made segregation the law of the land or made segregation worse. For a long time it did not overturn those laws, but it was the laws themselves that were the fundamental problem and the Supreme Court was the only avenue to overturn them.

As for the ACA, the Democrats could have expanded Medicare to cover everyone and the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Because the hoops they jumped through to get moderates on board and the way they wanted to sell the ACA, they structured the law in a way that made it susceptible to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court basically upholds individual rights. In most cases, for those that care about individual rights would see the Supreme Court at worst does nothing and at best protects individual rights. In some cases, like Citizen's United, that may give you a result you don't like. I would gladly accept Citizen's United in exchange for all the protections the Supreme Court provides.

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

You're doing a lot of lawyering here but you sound like George Will defending the designated hitter out if some allegiance to the purity of the game

Supreme Court justices are vetted and selected based on party loyalty, who they clerked for, their decisions, etc. The idea that they are calling "balls and strikes" is naive. They have been acting as an extension of their party masters.

Was Bush vs Gore about the law? No it was about the candidates.

Was overturning case law in Citizens about the law? No it was allowing corporations to spend money in ways that undermine democracy. Whose interest is that? The constitution's?

When you say that the courts never made segregation worse do you think Plessy vs Ferguson didn't maintain and legitimize segregation? It set the country back 70 years. Wasn't the 14th amendment relevant then?

Whose balls? Whose strikes?

---

You simply do not understand how the court works and it's place in the system. I never said they aren't political or they don't make bad decisions. I never said they shouldn't be criticized. I said they are in the position of either validating or overturning laws. If the law doesn't exist the court has nothing to uphold.

Plessy was a terrible decision. Please explain how you think it set things back 70 years. It did not create new law. It upheld the status quo. If there was no court with any power as you are suggesting the law would have been the same. The court didn't make the law. It incorrectly failed to strike it down. And then in 1954, long before anyone else acted, it struck it down.

If the Supreme Court doesn't have the power of judicial review, you can kiss freedom of speech, search and seizure, civil rights, freedom of religion, gay marriage, all of it, good bye. This is not George Will bullshyte. That is our system. Not understanding the protection the Supreme Court affords is effing ignorant

dimitrig said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

Moscow Mitch is a liar.

In 1958 (an election year) Brennan was appointed by a Republican President (Eisenhower) and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate with only one vote against.

If asked about that he would probably weasel around that fact by pointing out that the vacancy actually occurred at the end of 1957, which is not an election year so his statement is technically true but misleading.

In reality, since 1888 (and before Garland) there was only one appointment made in an election year when there was a divided government and that judge was indeed confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court Vacancies That Occurred During Election Years

McConnell's fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

---

"Liar?" Get your facts straight. You yourself said it wasn't an election year but "near" an election year. So if that was the case, he wasn't lying. But you were even more wrong. Brennan was nominated January 1957 and confirmed March 1957. So no. The election was in 1960. Not even close.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

---

Read the links I posted. Sorry, I had my years wrong as I was in a hurry and unlike a lot of Republicans who post here I am not old enough to remember the situation firsthand.

Brennan was appointed in 1956 (an election year) by a Republican and confirmed in 1957 by a Democratic Senate. That contradicts Mitch's statement.

So does the Kennedy appointment in 1988.

---

Those two scenarios were far different from Garland's.

Nominating someone in an election year isn't the issue. It's when they're confirmed. When the opposite party from the president holds the Senate, they NEVER confirm the opposite party's nominee in the year prior to the election. The republicans would've been idiots to do so with Garland. No way would the dems do something that hadn't been done in over a century and magnanimously confirm a republican nominee before an election.

The opposite party confirming after they lost the white house again was going to have to happen at some point. You can't turn down nominee after nominee for 4 years and hope you eventually win the white house back and hold the senate and get your own guy in. Plus they Borked Bork prior to Kennedy and held the seat vacant for a LONG time. After Bush was elected, Kennedy was as palatable choice as they were going to get. Of course they'd confirm him with with 4 years till the next election.

bearlyamazing said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

Moscow Mitch is a liar.

In 1958 (an election year) Brennan was appointed by a Republican President (Eisenhower) and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate with only one vote against.

If asked about that he would probably weasel around that fact by pointing out that the vacancy actually occurred at the end of 1957, which is not an election year so his statement is technically true but misleading.

In reality, since 1888 (and before Garland) there was only one appointment made in an election year when there was a divided government and that judge was indeed confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court Vacancies That Occurred During Election Years

McConnell's fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

---

"Liar?" Get your facts straight. You yourself said it wasn't an election year but "near" an election year. So if that was the case, he wasn't lying. But you were even more wrong. Brennan was nominated January 1957 and confirmed March 1957. So no. The election was in 1960. Not even close.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

---

Read the links I posted. Sorry, I had my years wrong as I was in a hurry and unlike a lot of Republicans who post here I am not old enough to remember the situation firsthand.

Brennan was appointed in 1956 (an election year) by a Republican and confirmed in 1957 by a Democratic Senate. That contradicts Mitch's statement.

So does the Kennedy appointment in 1988.

---

Those two scenarios were far different from Garland's.

Nominating someone in an election year isn't the issue. It's when they're confirmed. When the opposite party from the president holds the Senate, they NEVER confirm the opposite party's nominee in the year prior to the election. The republicans would've been idiots to do so with Garland. No way would the dems do something that hadn't been done in over a century and magnanimously confirm a republican nominee before an election.

The opposite party confirming after they lost the white house again was going to have to happen at some point. You can't turn down nominee after nominee for 4 years and hope you eventually win the white house back and hold the senate and get your own guy in. Plus they Borked Bork prior to Kennedy and held the seat vacant for a LONG time. After Bush was elected, Kennedy was as palatable choice as they were going to get. Of course they'd confirm him with with 4 years till the next election.

---

Mitch said:

"[T]he Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888."

The reality is:

1. Eisenhower appointed a justice in an election year and a Democratic Senate confirmed him.

2. Reagan appointed a justice in an election year and a Democratic Senate confirmed him.

Brennan was a recess appointment prior to the election, the Dems approved of the choice and did not block the recess appointment. They could have, but they didn't and the Dems confirmed him after Eisenhower won. They didn't confirm him because they had no choice. They would have confirmed him anyway because he was a good choice.

In 1988, there was no guarantee a Republican was going to win again. The Democrat-led Senate could have held out for a year like Mitch did to await the results of the election. They didn't, because, again, Kennedy was actually not a bad choice.

Mitch's entire narrative is a lie.

"You can't turn down nominee after nominee for 4 years and hope you eventually win the white house back and hold the senate and get your own guy in."

Pretty sure Mitch would disagree with you on that.

dimitrig said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

February 22, 2016
Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): "Of course it's within the president's authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago " (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

---

Moscow Mitch is a liar.

In 1958 (an election year) Brennan was appointed by a Republican President (Eisenhower) and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate with only one vote against.

If asked about that he would probably weasel around that fact by pointing out that the vacancy actually occurred at the end of 1957, which is not an election year so his statement is technically true but misleading.

In reality, since 1888 (and before Garland) there was only one appointment made in an election year when there was a divided government and that judge was indeed confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court Vacancies That Occurred During Election Years

McConnell's fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote

---

"Liar?" Get your facts straight. You yourself said it wasn't an election year but "near" an election year. So if that was the case, he wasn't lying. But you were even more wrong. Brennan was nominated January 1957 and confirmed March 1957. So no. The election was in 1960. Not even close.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

---

Read the links I posted. Sorry, I had my years wrong as I was in a hurry and unlike a lot of Republicans who post here I am not old enough to remember the situation firsthand.

Brennan was appointed in 1956 (an election year) by a Republican and confirmed in 1957 by a Democratic Senate. That contradicts Mitch's statement.

So does the Kennedy appointment in 1988.

---

Those two scenarios were far different from Garland's.

Nominating someone in an election year isn't the issue. It's when they're confirmed. When the opposite party from the president holds the Senate, they NEVER confirm the opposite party's nominee in the year prior to the election. The republicans would've been idiots to do so with Garland. No way would the dems do something that hadn't been done in over a century and magnanimously confirm a republican nominee before an election.

The opposite party confirming after they lost the white house again was going to have to happen at some point. You can't turn down nominee after nominee for 4 years and hope you eventually win the white house back and hold the senate and get your own guy in. Plus they Borked Bork prior to Kennedy and held the seat vacant for a LONG time. After Bush was elected, Kennedy was as palatable choice as they were going to get. Of course they'd confirm him with with 4 years till the next election.

---

Mitch said:

"[T]he Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888."

The reality is:

1. Eisenhower appointed a justice in an election year and a Democratic Senate confirmed him.

2. Reagan appointed a justice in an election year and a Democratic Senate confirmed him.

Brennan was a recess appointment prior to the election, the Dems approved of the choice and did not block the recess appointment. They could have, but they didn't and the Dems confirmed him after Eisenhower won. They didn't confirm him because they had no choice. They would have confirmed him anyway because he was a good choice.

In 1988, there was no guarantee a Republican was going to win again. The Democrat-led Senate could have held out for a year like Mitch did to await the results of the election. They didn't, because, again, Kennedy was actually not a bad choice.

Mitch's entire narrative is a lie.

"You can't turn down nominee after nominee for 4 years and hope you eventually win the white house back and hold the senate and get your own guy in."

Pretty much Mitch would disagree with you on that.

---

Bork was nominated a year and a half before the election. The dems borked him. Kennedy was next up. He was a moderate and was as good as they were going to get. I suppose they could've turned him down and kept turning down nominees for going 2 years from July '87 till late January of '89 in hopes of getting Dukakis in but that would've been totally unprecedented and they knew they'd probably pay the price in future elections for a stunt like that.

Just stop it with the whole lie business.

Anarchistbear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Supreme Court is an authoritarian institution staffed by the hacks of the two parties to do their bidding. The idea that our rights are surrendered to nine people with no accountability is astonishing enough but the idea that these old fogies are peeing into the 18th century mind to tell us what they think about corporate speech and gay wedding cakes is not only astonishing but a mind blowing surrender of individual freedom to autocracy.

The Court has always been reactionary and trampled more rights than they recognized. Although the Warren Court is heralded as the great facilitator of black equality, those rights were won in the street ( MLK) and by the people (LBJ)

Don't reform it. End or neuter it.

---

This is idiotic and a total misunderstanding of the role of the court. As I said elsewhere, without the Supreme Court as a back stop, the bill of rights becomes a mere suggestion that no one has to actually follow.

It is extremely annoying how stupid Americans are about their own government. Almost all of the things that the Supreme Court gets blamed for are not primarily their fault. They are laws that were passed by state or federal government.

The Supreme Court will never make abortion illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, abortion would have been illegal in much of the country for decades.

The Supreme Court will never make gay marriage illegal. They only say whether or not the states can do that. If it were not for the Supreme Court, much of the country would not have gay marriage.

The Supreme Court never made segregation law of the land. For too long it did not stop states from making it the law of the land. The Supreme Court was the first branch of government to end segregation and it was years before the Civil Rights Act was then passed.

I may not be fond of the current view of Search and Seizure rules by the court, but they don't set the law. They set the floor. Without the court, many places would be far worse. Communities can on their own have rules and laws that are more protective than what the court provides, and many do. But they can't do worse than the court. The court does no harm.

The Court's role is to REVIEW LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATES. In almost every case IT IS THOSE LAWS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. The Supreme Court didn't create segregation. States did. The Supreme Court never made segregation the law of the land or made segregation worse. For a long time it did not overturn those laws, but it was the laws themselves that were the fundamental problem and the Supreme Court was the only avenue to overturn them.

As for the ACA, the Democrats could have expanded Medicare to cover everyone and the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Because the hoops they jumped through to get moderates on board and the way they wanted to sell the ACA, they structured the law in a way that made it susceptible to Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court basically upholds individual rights. In most cases, for those that care about individual rights would see the Supreme Court at worst does nothing and at best protects individual rights. In some cases, like Citizen's United, that may give you a result you don't like. I would gladly accept Citizen's United in exchange for all the protections the Supreme Court provides.

Nothing is won in the street. Ask Hong Kong or Tian An Men what is won in the street. It is won at the ballot box. It is won in the state legislatures and governors' houses. It is won in the Congress and the White House. And sometimes it is won in the Supreme Court. Marching around in the streets does nothing until those institutions decide to make a change. Frankly, if liberals were more interested in voting than running around yelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

---

You're doing a lot of lawyering here but you sound like George Will defending the designated hitter out if some allegiance to the purity of the game

Supreme Court justices are vetted and selected based on party loyalty, who they clerked for, their decisions, etc. The idea that they are calling "balls and strikes" is naive. They have been acting as an extension of their party masters.

Was Bush vs Gore about the law? No it was about the candidates.

Was overturning case law in Citizens about the law? No it was allowing corporations to spend money in ways that undermine democracy. Whose interest is that? The constitution's?

When you say that the courts never made segregation worse do you think Plessy vs Ferguson didn't maintain and legitimize segregation? It set the country back 70 years. Wasn't the 14th amendment relevant then?

Whose balls? Whose strikes?

---

This is the problem of having people talking about stuff they don't know anything about. Like most internet mouthpieces, you laud or criticize the Court, according to our viewpoints, solely without understanding or reference to the Court's own history and the legal doctrine and decisions, the basis on which court decisions are more often than not based: federalism, substantive due process (and level of scrutiny), and the like.

Citizens United was a foregone conclusion when in 1978 a majority consisting primates of liberal justices decided money equals speech (the opinion was per curium, but was primarily written by Brennan according to insiders). There were several SCOTUS cases that followed this case; nevertheless, you don't like Citizens United since greedy corporations get rights, so it must not be based on legal principles. Whine as you may, when you go get your law degree instead of repeating Vox, you can play the game. Until then I suggest people read you for the primary purpose of finding out what names you can make-up, and leave views on what the Supreme Court does to posters like Oak. I'm reminded by someone positing a stupid Vox article that said SCOTUS was going to overrule Roe one week after Kavanaugh's nomination was approved. I wonder who posted that? The reality is the Roe decision of Justice Blackman doesn't exist today. It was basically overruled (other than in name only) in 1992 when Blackman's tri-semester balancing test was simply rejected and replaced with a different standard. Then came cases that said Congress could ban some types of abortion procedures, varying cases on what limits or restrictions state laws could place on abortion procedures. In fact, abortions can't be obtained in a good portion of the country, and even Planned Parenthood in its briefs admits that the number of abortions has plummeted due to birth control, education, etc. The reality is that SCOTUS rarely overturns any decision explicitly as Oak is trying to tell you. They just interpret the earlier rulings a lift differently, see what happens, and let society evolve. Look at the cases on gay marriage. It took several cases and a huge change in society's view of gay rights They rarely get out in front. Want to change things, win elections. The court is not designed to meet your political whims. That most cases are decide by huge majorities consisting of judges from different ideological backgrounds should tell you that, assuming you even knew that or had the grey matter to understand the significance of the same. Stick to inventing names

bearlyamazing said:

---

Bork was nominated a year and a half before the election. The dems borked him. Kennedy was next up. He was a moderate and was as good as they were going to get. I suppose they could've turned him down and kept turning down nominees for going 2 years from July '87 till late January of '89 in hopes of getting Dukakis in but that would've been totally unprecedented and they knew they'd probably pay the price in future elections for a stunt like that.

Just stop it with the whole lie business.

---

If it's a lie I'm going to call it a lie. Mitch lied. Even you know it's a lie. You think what he did is justified. That's fine, but just admit he lied about it and move on. Arguing technicalities is exactly what Mitch did. The reality is that the Senate has confirmed justices appointed by the opposite party in election years since 1888. Twice.

Forget Bork. He's not part of the discussion. He got a confirmation hearing and he was not confirmed. No one blocked his confirmation hearings.

Kennedy was nominated on 11/11/87 and Bush was elected 11/8/88. That would have been almost a year if the seat was held open until the election. Garland was nominated on 3/16/2016. Don't pretend that is a significant difference. It's not. The difference is that the GOP had scruples then. The Dems have always displayed them, twice confirming judges appointed by GOP Presidents in election years.

"I suppose they could've turned him down and kept turning down nominees for going 2 years from July '87 till late January of '89 in hopes of getting Dukakis in but that would've been totally unprecedented and they knew they'd probably pay the price in future elections for a stunt like that."

This is pretty much what Mitch did and it was unprecented, despite him lying and trying to claim that this is common practice in modern times. It's not.

We will see in a week if the GOP pays a price.

dimitrig said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

Bork was nominated a year and a half before the election. The dems borked him. Kennedy was next up. He was a moderate and was as good as they were going to get. I suppose they could've turned him down and kept turning down nominees for going 2 years from July '87 till late January of '89 in hopes of getting Dukakis in but that would've been totally unprecedented and they knew they'd probably pay the price in future elections for a stunt like that.

Just stop it with the whole lie business.

---

If it's a lie I'm going to call it a lie. Mitch lied. Even you know it's a lie. You think what he did is justified. That's fine, but just admit he lied about it and move on. Arguing technicalities is exactly what Mitch did. The reality is that the Senate has confirmed justices appointed by the opposite party in election years since 1888. Twice.

Forget Bork. He's not part of the discussion. He got a confirmation hearing and he was not confirmed. No one blocked his confirmation hearings.

Kennedy was nominated on 11/11/87 and Bush was elected 11/8/88. That would have been almost a year if the seat was held open until the election. Garland was nominated on 3/16/2016. Don't pretend that is a significant difference. It's not. The difference is that the GOP had scruples then. The Dems have always displayed them, twice confirming judges appointed by GOP Presidents in election years.

"I suppose they could've turned him down and kept turning down nominees for going 2 years from July '87 till late January of '89 in hopes of getting Dukakis in but that would've been totally unprecedented and they knew they'd probably pay the price in future elections for a stunt like that."

This is pretty much what Mitch did and it was unprecented, despite him lying and trying to claim that this is common practice in modern times. It's not.

We will see in a week if the GOP pays a price.

---

Dude, just stop. Brennan was confirmed after the election, not before. The elections were in '56 and '60. He was confirmed in '57 so quit depending on or misinterpreting your incorrect sourcing and including him in your argument.

As for McConnell's statement and Kennedy, I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

What about "filled a vacancy ARISING in an election year" isn't clear to you? When did the vacancy arise? In mid 1987. Was 1987 an election year? No, it wasn't. It was a year and a half ahead of the election. That fact doesn't get erased just because Reagan was forced to then put someone else forward after Bork.

You will find exactly zero examples of a vacancy arising and being filled in an election year when a president of the opposite party holding the majority in the senate is in power without going back to the 1800s.