Utopia Talk - Politics - Supreme Court jurisdiction question?

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Oct 24 19:20:27 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Supreme Court jurisdiction question?

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 05:48:24
http://www...ts-to-all-eligible-voters/amp/

So I read in another article that due to geography, Kagan gets the decision whether or.not to bring this case before the court.The case aside.

I never realized how powerful the 9th circuit was. I'll post a link explaining it below.

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 05:50:00
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx

It had a map and lists. Just go.to the damn link.

So what dictates what justice gets what circuit and what areas a circuit covers?

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 05:50:08
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx

It had a map and lists. Just go.to the damn link.

So what dictates what justice gets what circuit and what areas a circuit covers?

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 05:54:27
RBG only has NY, Vermont and Connecticut.

Clarence Thomas Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Seems laughably racist to give the black guy the least.

Kagan gets

(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)

jergul
large member Mon Oct 12 07:21:07
Seems like there are not enough Supreme court justices if they are so thinly divided at State level.

Something for the next president to look into I imagine.

habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 07:23:43
haha, indeed.

or Trump could just so it now by 2026 we could have 128 justices.

jergul
large member Mon Oct 12 07:31:15
"Research by Enns and other scholars has found that the Supreme Court rarely gets too far outside mainstream public opinion. But when that does happen, faith in the court drops and calls for court packing or term limits usually aren’t far behind. In recent times, politicians haven’t acted on those threats — but that was because the court backed down. Most famously, in the late 1930s, after then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his plan to add as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court, a member of the court’s conservative majority suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was very similar to laws he and the other conservative justices had gutted the year before.

If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day, and the Democrats win the White House and Senate, the Roberts court could be heading for a similar reckoning. Packing the court or enacting term limits for Supreme Court justices would be radical, historic moves — but if the court’s legitimacy is eroded in the eyes of the public, it could be easier for them to become reality."

source: 528.

That is sort of my feeling from the other thread. Either the GOP or the Supreme Court has to be very careful, or the democrats will change the playing field if it gets the trifecta.

In FDRs case, the supreme court backed down and stopped overturning laws the president wanted. A replay of that would work I suppose.

jergul
large member Mon Oct 12 07:32:11
538*

Forwyn
Member Mon Oct 12 07:38:17
Ah yes, FDR, the cause of most of our modern SCOTUS problems

habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 08:07:00
Jergul, Perhaps. But even Biden has said ( in the past) that its a bad route to go down.

There is a small group within the Democratic party that wants a more cutthroat party.These were the roughly 1/3 ( iirc) who routinely wanted Obama to go down a more forceful and partisan path to get things done that were not overly popular.

Generally the Democrats either havnt pushed overtly as this group wants or when it has it regretted it because the Republicans would come back into office and reply in kind.

I think where we mostly disagree is equating Mitch's procedural tricks to court packing. In actuality they are both constitutional, although one does need a law passed, thats not my objection.

The perception in the US I think would be an overwhelming negative for the Democratic party.

I am skeptical a Biden/Harris administration would actually do it, but they want that threat for two reasons.

1. To help fire up the base.
2. As a threat to last minute persuade Reps.from not going through with it.

------------

That said has anyone yet found out what dictates which Justice gets what circuit? also when and how.were these circuits themselves.defined?

Rugian
Member Mon Oct 12 08:15:43
"That said has anyone yet found out what dictates which Justice gets what circuit?"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/42

"also when and how.were these circuits themselves.defined?"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/41

habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 08:32:11
The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation.

A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit.

------

Bare with me, Im slower than usual this morning as I'm entirley out of expresso.

When it says "Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court."

This is what gives them discresion over cases coming from said areas?

patom
Member Mon Oct 12 08:59:58
Packing the Courts has been going on for the better part of 11 years. The first step was to block any and all nominees to Federal Judge seats that were proposed by Obama. When Trump won and the Senate was flipped to complete Republican control, it opened the floodgate and there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop it. The Court is already packed. It will be for quite a while.

Rugian
Member Mon Oct 12 09:04:18
Patom

Not confirming Obama's leftist judicial appointments was literally the opposite of court packing.

You cant pack what doesnt exist.

habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 09:06:30
Ok, Again, the term court packing is being misused. It specifically refers to expanding a court to add seats that will vote to your favor.

Rugian
Member Mon Oct 12 09:11:14
Habebe

You can tell that the Democrats are running full propaganda on this one. If patom and jergul are suddently and simultaneously talking about the Obama years as an example of GOP "court packing," you know they got that narrative from whatever Democratic-leaning media they consume.

Seb
Member Mon Oct 12 09:14:28
Democrats should institute term limits, create new posts equal in number to the vacancies blocked under Obama, and then propose a constitutional amendment to create a judicial appointments commission staffed by existing, sitting judges (initial membership to be drawn 50:50 nominated by both parties from existing judiciary) who will take full control of appointing judges in future by 2/3rds majority.

Failure to get this approved results in further court packing.

Done.

Rugian
Member Mon Oct 12 09:18:22
Seb

Funny how all of your proposals seem to favor having more liberal judges in the judiciary.

Coincidence, that.

Rugian
Member Mon Oct 12 09:23:37
Maybe we can also remove all of the Obama-era judges who were only appointed due to Reid's nuking of the filibuster?

Oh wait. Your knowledge of American politics is so one-sided that you think the Democrats have never pulled any shit in your lifetime

TJ
Member Mon Oct 12 09:45:47
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html

Anything is possible, but it appears as though another Justice could be replaced by the next President. Stephen Breyer is 82.

jergul
large member Mon Oct 12 09:47:15
Ruggy
Packing in the FDR sense is a two step progress. Expand, then pack. The term in that use is archaic, particularly as the envisioned expand, then pack never occurred.

Any reasonable suggestion will result in more democratic judicaries representative of the population as a whole. Because of course the senate is not representative of the population due to the constitutional irregularities on its composition.

patom
Member Mon Oct 12 10:02:14
Rugian, OK lets not call it packing. Lets call it something like rigging. or dismantling to create vacancies until you can fill them with your picks.

You can then claim that Obama left all these vacancies when in fact McConnell wouldn't give them a hearing in the first place.

Forwyn
Member Mon Oct 12 11:22:39
"We need packing to fill more spots with Living Document faggots! Therefore, let's look to the first packing enthusiast, a far bigger fascist than muh Drumpf"

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 11:28:39
Seb, You realize that womt pass.

Maybe adding the one SC justice.

Thats the only one that doesn't require changing the constitution. A task that as you know takes a national overwhelming amount of support.Its just not realistic. Not without concessions.

Tj, Could you imagine if Trump won the response to him getting another judge? Hahaha

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 11:31:20
Tom, "You can then claim that Obama left all these vacancies when in fact McConnell wouldn't give them a hearing in the first place."

It was absolutely credit/fault of Mitch because of his control of the Senate, that's true.

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 11:34:30
Jergul, You prefer direct democracy. The US traditionally does not. The founders as well as most Conservatives do not.

Hell, I was still never sold on electing Senators directly. Originally they were chosen by state legislatures.

Seb
Member Mon Oct 12 12:52:48
Habebe:

The Constitution sets no limit on the number of justices.

Fine, it won't pass.

In that case, the Dems should just stack the court high.

After all, if it's constitutional, and the Republicans are going to be shit weasels, no reason for the dems not to be.

Keep going, with each party stuffing the benches until everyone's a judge or the amendment I suggest passes.

Rugian
Member Mon Oct 12 13:02:04
patom

Why do you place the blame for those vacancies exclusively on the Senate? If Obama had nominated judges that were more palatable to the Senate, they would have been more likely to have been confirmed.

The Senate does not serve as a rubberstamp for the president. "Advice and consent" means that they have the power to confirm or deny nominations as they please. Just like the president has the power to nominate or not nominate justices as he pleases.

Rugian
Member Mon Oct 12 13:03:52
jergul

We're a federation, not a unitary republic.

And please stop invoking the name of the biggest demagogue to ever inhabit the White House (speaking of people who speculate about serving sixteen years in office...Trump just talks about what FDR actually did).

habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 13:22:41
Seb, I pointed out adding judges is the only one that wasnt constitutional.

You seem salty that I pointed out they're go nowhere proposals.

Rubio's proposal from last year to make an amendment limiting the SC to 9 judges has a betrwr chance, and it would likley fail.

Now, some bargaining with that may get you somewhere.

You seem to get frustrated frequently at how its near impossible to change the US Constitution.

habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 13:25:09
was* not wasn't.**

Seb
Member Mon Oct 12 17:47:05
Habebe:

No, I'm laying out the strategy the Dems should take. The republicans have made it clear that they will do whatever they can legally get away with, with no self restraint or view to propriety.

The US Constitution wasn't really built for such no holds barred partisan behaviour across different branches. Cf. Madisons critiques etc.

The only way to fix the issue is for the Dems to adopt an escalatory approach until either:
A. Constitutional fix
B. Some kind of grand bargain and return to traditional modes of behaviour (impossible I think).
C. The system breaks down entirely

So, I think they should do that, see if they can force everyone to the table up agree a constitutional change as a demonstration of good faith; and if that fails, just take this bare Knuckle approach. Might as well dust off the plan to make DC a state etc.

You can impeach federal justices too can't you, right?

Maybe just get rid of all the republican appointed justices, and then start doing something with districting.

Just go nuts. Cause anything that's not explicitly illegal it's fair game right?

Habebe
Member Mon Oct 12 17:54:08
"Just go nuts. Cause anything that's not explicitly illegal it's fair game right?"

This is like the guy who lost a fist fight, so he pulls out a gun.

Ive never seen you so whiney.

This all started over RGBs death, as if Trump killed her.

Forwyn
Member Mon Oct 12 22:19:04
"The US Constitution wasn't really built for such no holds barred partisan behaviour across different branches."

It wasn't built for unilateral judicial review that amounts to Constitutional amendments that have drastically altered that powers of the federal government, and created the partisan fighting we see today. But here we are.

Honestly, it's surprising it took this long.

Seb
Member Tue Oct 13 04:48:25
Habebe:

I love that you are so invested in your culture war that you can't conceive that I'm outside of it and a spectator.

I'm what the UK would call a liberal conservative. Generally in oscilate somewhere around the right wing of the liberal democrats and the left wing of the conservative party.

I look at the republicans aghast in the degree to which they've adopted a strictly legalistic approach to institutional framework and their willingness to undermine institutions to achieve political power. It demonstrates a distinctly unconservative set of values.

This didn't start with the death of RGB, it started with the republicans reaction to Obama, which was to consider his administration fundamentally illegitimate and set about a frankly ridiculous level of obstructionism defended purely on the fact that such methods were legal and therefore appropriate; particularly in judicial appointments.

Making judicial appointments nakedly political - which is what they essentially did by not considering any judicial appointment nominated by the president of another party - and the supreme court position based on a made up convention they are now immediately ignoring.

You yourself praised how Trump used raw power to get what he wants, but you interpret the alternative as being "salty".

What I said at the time, and am saying again: do you want to be in the other side of such abuse of process? And if not, why should the democrats show any restraint when to you actively encourage and support leaders who do not?

Frankly, at this point it would be more dangerous for the democrats to show restraint. In such situations you must negotiate from strength. They should set out to royally ratfuck the republicans and do everything they can to build in a democrat advantage and republican disadvantage. Only then should they offer a restoration via constitutional change. Thats the incentive.

This is simply a dispassionate observation of what their strategy should be in the face of over a decade of republican behaviour aligned to this "big man" politics you support.

habebe
Member Mon Oct 19 20:09:36
http://the...ent-to-block-supreme-court?amp

This is nothing new I think Rubio pushed a similar bill last year.

It's Republicans trying to limit the SC to 9 justices.

Forwyn
Member Mon Oct 19 22:57:20
"Making judicial appointments nakedly political..." is the natural consequence of an inherently partisan court that has granted itself the ability to incontrovertibly alter the political landscape with its decisions; almost always in favor of a massive federal government, utilizing tenuous linguistic interpretations.

jergul
large member Tue Oct 20 02:22:41
Forwyn
Is not the best example departure from the gold standard? Blatantly unconstitutional! Unfair!

jergul
large member Tue Oct 20 02:53:34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

I stand corrected. Its the use of legal tender that is blatantly unconstitutional

Seb
Member Tue Oct 20 04:12:09
Whatever happened to "A govt of laws, not men"? Common law judicial decisions rather than capricious legislation used to be the foundational view of how liberty should be preserved.

Forwyn
Member Tue Oct 20 06:18:07
That was before a group of browbeaten judges threatened with packing if they made the wrong decision started ruling that a dude could be ordered not to grow grain on his own land for his own cattle.

"Is not the best example departure from the gold standard? Blatantly unconstitutional! Unfair!"

Yes. That's a pretty good example. The idea that the President was constitutionally empowered to unilaterally jail people for owning gold is uniquely retarded.

show deleted posts

Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 05:48:24 http://www...ts-to-all-eligible-voters/amp/ So I read in another article that due to geography, Kagan gets the decision whether or.not to bring this case before the court.The case aside. I never realized how powerful the 9th circuit was. I'll post a link explaining it below.
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 05:50:00 http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx It had a map and lists. Just go.to the damn link. So what dictates what justice gets what circuit and what areas a circuit covers?
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 05:50:08 http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx It had a map and lists. Just go.to the damn link. So what dictates what justice gets what circuit and what areas a circuit covers?
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 05:54:27 RBG only has NY, Vermont and Connecticut. Clarence Thomas Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Seems laughably racist to give the black guy the least. Kagan gets (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
jergul large member	Mon Oct 12 07:21:07 Seems like there are not enough Supreme court justices if they are so thinly divided at State level. Something for the next president to look into I imagine.
habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 07:23:43 haha, indeed. or Trump could just so it now by 2026 we could have 128 justices.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 12 07:31:15 "Research by Enns and other scholars has found that the Supreme Court rarely gets too far outside mainstream public opinion. But when that does happen, faith in the court drops and calls for court packing or term limits usually aren’t far behind. In recent times, politicians haven’t acted on those threats — but that was because the court backed down. Most famously, in the late 1930s, after then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his plan to add as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court, a member of the court’s conservative majority suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was very similar to laws he and the other conservative justices had gutted the year before. If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day, and the Democrats win the White House and Senate, the Roberts court could be heading for a similar reckoning. Packing the court or enacting term limits for Supreme Court justices would be radical, historic moves — but if the court’s legitimacy is eroded in the eyes of the public, it could be easier for them to become reality." source: 528. That is sort of my feeling from the other thread. Either the GOP or the Supreme Court has to be very careful, or the democrats will change the playing field if it gets the trifecta. In FDRs case, the supreme court backed down and stopped overturning laws the president wanted. A replay of that would work I suppose.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 12 07:32:11 538*
Forwyn Member	Mon Oct 12 07:38:17 Ah yes, FDR, the cause of most of our modern SCOTUS problems
habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 08:07:00 Jergul, Perhaps. But even Biden has said ( in the past) that its a bad route to go down. There is a small group within the Democratic party that wants a more cutthroat party.These were the roughly 1/3 ( iirc) who routinely wanted Obama to go down a more forceful and partisan path to get things done that were not overly popular. Generally the Democrats either havnt pushed overtly as this group wants or when it has it regretted it because the Republicans would come back into office and reply in kind. I think where we mostly disagree is equating Mitch's procedural tricks to court packing. In actuality they are both constitutional, although one does need a law passed, thats not my objection. The perception in the US I think would be an overwhelming negative for the Democratic party. I am skeptical a Biden/Harris administration would actually do it, but they want that threat for two reasons. 1. To help fire up the base. 2. As a threat to last minute persuade Reps.from not going through with it. ------------ That said has anyone yet found out what dictates which Justice gets what circuit? also when and how.were these circuits themselves.defined?
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 12 08:15:43 "That said has anyone yet found out what dictates which Justice gets what circuit?" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/42 "also when and how.were these circuits themselves.defined?" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/41
habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 08:32:11 The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation. A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit. ------ Bare with me, Im slower than usual this morning as I'm entirley out of expresso. When it says "Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court." This is what gives them discresion over cases coming from said areas?
patom Member	Mon Oct 12 08:59:58 Packing the Courts has been going on for the better part of 11 years. The first step was to block any and all nominees to Federal Judge seats that were proposed by Obama. When Trump won and the Senate was flipped to complete Republican control, it opened the floodgate and there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop it. The Court is already packed. It will be for quite a while.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 12 09:04:18 Patom Not confirming Obama's leftist judicial appointments was literally the opposite of court packing. You cant pack what doesnt exist.
habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 09:06:30 Ok, Again, the term court packing is being misused. It specifically refers to expanding a court to add seats that will vote to your favor.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 12 09:11:14 Habebe You can tell that the Democrats are running full propaganda on this one. If patom and jergul are suddently and simultaneously talking about the Obama years as an example of GOP "court packing," you know they got that narrative from whatever Democratic-leaning media they consume.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 12 09:14:28 Democrats should institute term limits, create new posts equal in number to the vacancies blocked under Obama, and then propose a constitutional amendment to create a judicial appointments commission staffed by existing, sitting judges (initial membership to be drawn 50:50 nominated by both parties from existing judiciary) who will take full control of appointing judges in future by 2/3rds majority. Failure to get this approved results in further court packing. Done.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 12 09:18:22 Seb Funny how all of your proposals seem to favor having more liberal judges in the judiciary. Coincidence, that.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 12 09:23:37 Maybe we can also remove all of the Obama-era judges who were only appointed due to Reid's nuking of the filibuster? Oh wait. Your knowledge of American politics is so one-sided that you think the Democrats have never pulled any shit in your lifetime
TJ Member	Mon Oct 12 09:45:47 http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html Anything is possible, but it appears as though another Justice could be replaced by the next President. Stephen Breyer is 82.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 12 09:47:15 Ruggy Packing in the FDR sense is a two step progress. Expand, then pack. The term in that use is archaic, particularly as the envisioned expand, then pack never occurred. Any reasonable suggestion will result in more democratic judicaries representative of the population as a whole. Because of course the senate is not representative of the population due to the constitutional irregularities on its composition.
patom Member	Mon Oct 12 10:02:14 Rugian, OK lets not call it packing. Lets call it something like rigging. or dismantling to create vacancies until you can fill them with your picks. You can then claim that Obama left all these vacancies when in fact McConnell wouldn't give them a hearing in the first place.
Forwyn Member	Mon Oct 12 11:22:39 "We need packing to fill more spots with Living Document faggots! Therefore, let's look to the first packing enthusiast, a far bigger fascist than muh Drumpf"
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 11:28:39 Seb, You realize that womt pass. Maybe adding the one SC justice. Thats the only one that doesn't require changing the constitution. A task that as you know takes a national overwhelming amount of support.Its just not realistic. Not without concessions. Tj, Could you imagine if Trump won the response to him getting another judge? Hahaha
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 11:31:20 Tom, "You can then claim that Obama left all these vacancies when in fact McConnell wouldn't give them a hearing in the first place." It was absolutely credit/fault of Mitch because of his control of the Senate, that's true.
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 11:34:30 Jergul, You prefer direct democracy. The US traditionally does not. The founders as well as most Conservatives do not. Hell, I was still never sold on electing Senators directly. Originally they were chosen by state legislatures.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 12 12:52:48 Habebe: The Constitution sets no limit on the number of justices. Fine, it won't pass. In that case, the Dems should just stack the court high. After all, if it's constitutional, and the Republicans are going to be shit weasels, no reason for the dems not to be. Keep going, with each party stuffing the benches until everyone's a judge or the amendment I suggest passes.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 12 13:02:04 patom Why do you place the blame for those vacancies exclusively on the Senate? If Obama had nominated judges that were more palatable to the Senate, they would have been more likely to have been confirmed. The Senate does not serve as a rubberstamp for the president. "Advice and consent" means that they have the power to confirm or deny nominations as they please. Just like the president has the power to nominate or not nominate justices as he pleases.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 12 13:03:52 jergul We're a federation, not a unitary republic. And please stop invoking the name of the biggest demagogue to ever inhabit the White House (speaking of people who speculate about serving sixteen years in office...Trump just talks about what FDR actually did).
habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 13:22:41 Seb, I pointed out adding judges is the only one that wasnt constitutional. You seem salty that I pointed out they're go nowhere proposals. Rubio's proposal from last year to make an amendment limiting the SC to 9 judges has a betrwr chance, and it would likley fail. Now, some bargaining with that may get you somewhere. You seem to get frustrated frequently at how its near impossible to change the US Constitution.
habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 13:25:09 was* not wasn't.**
Seb Member	Mon Oct 12 17:47:05 Habebe: No, I'm laying out the strategy the Dems should take. The republicans have made it clear that they will do whatever they can legally get away with, with no self restraint or view to propriety. The US Constitution wasn't really built for such no holds barred partisan behaviour across different branches. Cf. Madisons critiques etc. The only way to fix the issue is for the Dems to adopt an escalatory approach until either: A. Constitutional fix B. Some kind of grand bargain and return to traditional modes of behaviour (impossible I think). C. The system breaks down entirely So, I think they should do that, see if they can force everyone to the table up agree a constitutional change as a demonstration of good faith; and if that fails, just take this bare Knuckle approach. Might as well dust off the plan to make DC a state etc. You can impeach federal justices too can't you, right? Maybe just get rid of all the republican appointed justices, and then start doing something with districting. Just go nuts. Cause anything that's not explicitly illegal it's fair game right?
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 12 17:54:08 "Just go nuts. Cause anything that's not explicitly illegal it's fair game right?" This is like the guy who lost a fist fight, so he pulls out a gun. Ive never seen you so whiney. This all started over RGBs death, as if Trump killed her.
Forwyn Member	Mon Oct 12 22:19:04 "The US Constitution wasn't really built for such no holds barred partisan behaviour across different branches." It wasn't built for unilateral judicial review that amounts to Constitutional amendments that have drastically altered that powers of the federal government, and created the partisan fighting we see today. But here we are. Honestly, it's surprising it took this long.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 13 04:48:25 Habebe: I love that you are so invested in your culture war that you can't conceive that I'm outside of it and a spectator. I'm what the UK would call a liberal conservative. Generally in oscilate somewhere around the right wing of the liberal democrats and the left wing of the conservative party. I look at the republicans aghast in the degree to which they've adopted a strictly legalistic approach to institutional framework and their willingness to undermine institutions to achieve political power. It demonstrates a distinctly unconservative set of values. This didn't start with the death of RGB, it started with the republicans reaction to Obama, which was to consider his administration fundamentally illegitimate and set about a frankly ridiculous level of obstructionism defended purely on the fact that such methods were legal and therefore appropriate; particularly in judicial appointments. Making judicial appointments nakedly political - which is what they essentially did by not considering any judicial appointment nominated by the president of another party - and the supreme court position based on a made up convention they are now immediately ignoring. You yourself praised how Trump used raw power to get what he wants, but you interpret the alternative as being "salty". What I said at the time, and am saying again: do you want to be in the other side of such abuse of process? And if not, why should the democrats show any restraint when to you actively encourage and support leaders who do not? Frankly, at this point it would be more dangerous for the democrats to show restraint. In such situations you must negotiate from strength. They should set out to royally ratfuck the republicans and do everything they can to build in a democrat advantage and republican disadvantage. Only then should they offer a restoration via constitutional change. Thats the incentive. This is simply a dispassionate observation of what their strategy should be in the face of over a decade of republican behaviour aligned to this "big man" politics you support.
habebe Member	Mon Oct 19 20:09:36 http://the...ent-to-block-supreme-court?amp This is nothing new I think Rubio pushed a similar bill last year. It's Republicans trying to limit the SC to 9 justices.
Forwyn Member	Mon Oct 19 22:57:20 "Making judicial appointments nakedly political..." is the natural consequence of an inherently partisan court that has granted itself the ability to incontrovertibly alter the political landscape with its decisions; almost always in favor of a massive federal government, utilizing tenuous linguistic interpretations.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 20 02:22:41 Forwyn Is not the best example departure from the gold standard? Blatantly unconstitutional! Unfair!
jergul large member	Tue Oct 20 02:53:34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases I stand corrected. Its the use of legal tender that is blatantly unconstitutional
Seb Member	Tue Oct 20 04:12:09 Whatever happened to "A govt of laws, not men"? Common law judicial decisions rather than capricious legislation used to be the foundational view of how liberty should be preserved.
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 20 06:18:07 That was before a group of browbeaten judges threatened with packing if they made the wrong decision started ruling that a dude could be ordered not to grow grain on his own land for his own cattle. "Is not the best example departure from the gold standard? Blatantly unconstitutional! Unfair!" Yes. That's a pretty good example. The idea that the President was constitutionally empowered to unilaterally jail people for owning gold is uniquely retarded.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: