Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 342: Biden: His Time

(+) Yeah! (+)

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Even if you drop the retaliatory framing, it doesn't make sense.

Congress controlling the makeup of the Supreme Court is literally in the Constitution. Expanding it is following the powers it has by law. How would that lead to a constitutional crisis? You can complain that it'll escalate tensions, but the fact of the matter is that the structure of government remains completely intact.

It is also completely in the law for Trump to be elected president if the electoral college elects him through faithless electors.

I will ask you if you think that happened if you think we would have one country any more, because I would put the odds of california seceding in that case over 50%

---

red sox 777 posted...

Court packing would be the end of the rule of law in this country.

When red sox is chiming in to agree with you, always a sign you need to double check your stance.

Rule of law will completely break down once there are more judges enforcing it. Real galaxy brain hours

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Maybe tell this to the GOP?

Dude, there is a reason I formally switched parties. It's insane what they are doing

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

When red sox is chiming in to agree with you, always a sign you need to double check your stance.

Rule of law will completely break down once there are more judges enforcing it. Real galaxy brain hours

So you are ok with Republicans putting in another 10 judges 5 years from now?

Because this is being pragmatic here

---

masterplum posted...

It is also completely in the law for Trump to be elected president if the electoral college elects him through faithless electors.

I will ask you if you think that happened if you think we would have one country any more, because I would put the odds of california seceding in that case over 50%

Well, states can't secede, so in this scenario the onus for breakdown is on California seceding, or people rioting, or whatever. I get your point though. But I also don't see any state attempting to secede because there are more judges than they like. No one gives enough of a shit about it.

---

masterplum posted...

So you are ok with Republicans putting in another 10 judges 5 years from now?

Because this is being pragmatic here

Of course not, but if that's the battle we have to fight then so be it.

Also they wouldn't add more judges, they'd more likely shrink it back down to the original size.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Well, states can't secede,

Correct. They couldn't in 1861 either

---

What does it matter? They already control the Supreme Court and will for an extremely long time unless something is done. There is no point in NOT 'retaliating' because waiting it out isn't going to make the pendulum swing back towards the left. You're not going to get any benefit by taking the high road in this situation. Better to control the Supreme Court sometimes instead of never.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Of course not, but if that's the battle we have to fight then so be it.

Also they wouldn't add more judges, they'd more likely shrink it back down to the original size.

Lol no. You think Republicans are going to retaliate to that by making it even again? What universe are you living in? They would pack it so full that every liberal didn't matter

---

Honestly, given Breyer's age, I would not be surprised if we wind up with a 7-2 conservative court, so long as McConnell maintains Senate control (as he's more than likely to do, given how the Senate is made up).

---

They're already packed it. I think that's what you're not understanding. 6-3 is indistinguishable from 99-3.

---

masterplum posted...

So you are ok with Republicans putting in another 10 judges 5 years from now?

Because this is being pragmatic here

I mean, they effectively have done this by other means already.

They blocked Obama from filling judicial vacancies, leaving over a hundred empty seats and just letting those courts go on short-staffed until they got a Republican president and could then pack them themselves.

5/9 of the SCOTUS justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

shit's broken already

Court expansion is really only a band-aid and not a permanent solution but something needs to be done.

---

masterplum posted...

Sometimes people mistreat you and the best course of action isn't to get revenge as badly as you want it.

It's not revenge. It's mutually assured destruction. Republicans made a power grab, and faced no consequences for it. If we just let it go, they'll keep undermining our constitution and their voters will be 100% okay with it.

---

masterplum posted...

Correct. They couldn't in 1861 either

Right! Now you're getting it. Abraham Lincoln being elected led to the civil war, if you are being literalist about cause and effect. But was he the primary actor? Do you assign the bulk of the blame to Lincoln?

masterplum posted...

Lol no. You think Republicans are going to retaliate to that by making it even again? What universe are you living in? They would pack it so full that every liberal didn't matter

When did I say they'd make it even? They'd expel liberal judges. They don't need MORE judges to stack the court.

---

Like you guys are acting like you would rather have a civil war than a conservative supreme court.

And if that's true, I strongly suggest you leave the country, because I don't think this country is going in a direction that you are going to like. And I'm serious. This isn't some right wing love it or leave it, I don't like where this country is going either but I'm a white straight man. I can deal with it at least temporarily

---

The Trump admin has made me extremely paranoid about politics and even then I still don't think this is civil war territory. Texas wouldn't destroy its own economy over some fucking judge picks.

---

Bruh the GOP has already fucked with the courts almost as much as possible and not one civilian cared. Where are you getting this Civil War thing from?

---

You guys are acting like a truly packed court would be the same as now. That's just not the reality. Imagine a Supreme Court with a majority of Chief Justice Donald Trump, Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka, and Barron. They find that Biden received 8 million fraudulent votes and Trump won the election. And that the President/Chief Justice has all the powers of a King.

---

Also part of the democratic reforms that should be done is expanding the size of the House of representatives and making it more proportionally representative of the population. This is just good for Democracy. But a side effect is that it will make it more difficult for Republicans to win the House with their current strategy, if you are really worried about the political tug of war of court reform.

---

I feel like "Well, the GOP is doing all this shitty stuff, but you shouldn't want the Democrats to do anything in response. You should just accept it or leave the country" is a pretty bad argument.

---

masterplum posted...

Like you guys are acting like you would rather have a civil war than a conservative supreme court.

And if that's true, I strongly suggest you leave the country, because I don't think this country is going in a direction that you are going to like. And I'm serious. This isn't some right wing love it or leave it, I don't like where this country is going either but I'm a white straight man. I can deal with it at least temporarily

And what about all the people who aren't straight white men? Should they just get fucked? Or should they leave to and give the bigots the white nationalist haven they've wanted all along?

---

Plum, I'm not gonna mince words with you

These are some of the most fucking moronic takes I've ever seen (Definitely the dumbest since last time Black Turtle posted), and they're predicated in something you've already acknowledged is bullshit (the premise that the Republicans are at all interested in bipartisanship, fairness, or governance in general). Trying to "Both Sides" this matter is 100% bullshit, and you should damn well know it.

Expanding the house to make it more proportional doesn't really solve the root problem when the American government system. The fact that so much power is concentrated with the president, combined with the 2 party system is the real issue. Getting rid of FPTP is the correct way to protect democracy without screwing over large parts of the country that have different needs/concerns from the large metropolitan areas.

In actual news, Trump fired his SecDef, Mark Esper.

Being replaced Christopher Miller, who I know nothing about but definitely expect to be confirmed any day now. /s
---

xp1337 posted...

I mean, they effectively have done this by other means already.

They blocked Obama from filling judicial vacancies, leaving over a hundred empty seats and just letting those courts go on short-staffed until they got a Republican president and could then pack them themselves.

5/9 of the SCOTUS justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

shit's broken already

Court expansion is really only a band-aid and not a permanent solution but something needs to be done.

The correct approach is to close the loopholes that let one party unilaterally block appointments like that. Perhaps by setting a time limit for senate to confirm appointments before defaulting to the presidential nominee

Not_an_Owl posted...

And what about all the people who aren't straight white men? Should they just get fucked? Or should they leave to and give the bigots the white nationalist haven they've wanted all along?

The question is if a civil war is better than this alternative. I personally think no

---

Unless you think there isn't going to be a civil war when Donald trump jr is appointed as the 16th justice to the supreme court

Because you can't say both "Republicans will do literally anything" and "If Democrats pack the courts Republicans won't retaliate"

Those two views are mutually exclusive

---

cerna_zelva posted...

The correct approach is to close the loopholes that let one party unilaterally block appointments like that. Perhaps by setting a time limit for senate to confirm appointments before defaulting to the presidential nominee

Senate sets its own rules. Doing something to this effect would require a Constitutional Amendment.

In the many tiers of: "Reforms needed to make the US system of government less awful" many fall under "Require a Constitutional Amendment" which is essentially near impossible at this stage because the systemic flaws in the Constitution itself that would need to be addressed would be shielded by the minority whom they benefit.

That's why court expansion is only a band-aid, not a permanent solution. It's an outcome you can achieve at the significantly less impossible tier of "Achieve a trifecta." DC and PR statehood (as well as any other territories that desire it) also fall here, or removing the cap on the size of the House, as does - for the moment - shoring up Voting Rights. Therefore its an outcome that is realistically achievable in terms of meeting the prerequisite needed to enact it... but on the other side of the coin would be that much more vulnerable to being messed with at a later time.

---

masterplum posted...

Because you can't say both "Republicans will do literally anything" and "If Democrats pack the courts Republicans won't retaliate"

Those two views are mutually exclusive

you'll note that literally nobody has said the second quote

everyone understands packing goes both ways, which is still preferable to only one side endless fucking over the other with no correction (particularly from the minority position for decades)

---

cerna_zelva posted...

Expanding the house to make it more proportional doesn't really solve the root problem when the American government system. The fact that so much power is concentrated with the president, combined with the 2 party system is the real issue. Getting rid of FPTP is the correct way to protect democracy without screwing over large parts of the country that have different needs/concerns from the large metropolitan areas.

Last I checked, people in rural areas still need housing, healthcare, quality of life, infrastructure, and education....is this not true? I don't actually know, I'm a metropolitan elite.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Court packing would be the end of the rule of law in this country.

Please stop pretending you've ever cared about the rule of law in this country.

---

masterplum posted...

The question is if a civil war is better than this alternative. I personally think no

I feel bad for the slaves you would have let be in chains tbh

---

trdl23 posted...

Please stop pretending you've ever cared about the rule of law in this country.

This is a total ad hominem attack my man.

---

trdl23 posted...

Please stop pretending you've ever cared about the rule of law in this country.

Don't be ridiculous.

---

I mean, your entire argument is "Well, the Republicans are bad, but oopsie, oh well! Better suck it up or leave, chumps!"

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

you'll note that literally nobody has said the second quote

everyone understands packing goes both ways, which is still preferable to only one side endless fucking over the other with no correction (particularly from the minority position for decades)

This is the fundamental piece of my stance, and I believe many others, that is being missed by those less "radical"

---

cerna_zelva posted...

Getting rid of FPTP is the correct way to protect democracy without screwing over large parts of the country that have different needs/concerns from the large metropolitan areas.

Agreed, switching our voting system is one of the most major changes we can realistically make that would benefit the country.

There is a great video from a week ago that goes over the pros/cons of different voting systems that I quite enjoyed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU

---

masterplum posted...

This is a total ad hominem attack my man.

Yes, and that was the intention. The dude doesn't give a damn about institutions or "rule of law"; all he cares about is to make the other team "REPENT." Thus, I don't give a damn about what he says about rule of law, since he certainly doesn't either -- especially since he's absolutely wrong on this point and is just engaging in histrionics.

The correct action was probably just to say nothing and lurk this topic as I usually do, but occasionally I reach a boiling point.

---

Getting rid of FPTP would be swell but it absolutely isn't a complete substitute for repealing the Reapportionment Act of 1929 or some cure-all for democracy.

In fact the latter is the easier to accomplish and so should be done. You still work towards getting rid of FPTP of course, this isn't some either-or call. They focus on different problems.

---

Getting rid of FPTP isn't mutually exclusive with expanding the House, guys. Doing both would actually make it easier for third parties to win, since each representative is responsible for less people, and therefore needs less votes to win a higher proportion of a district.

---

trdl23 posted...

Yes, and that was the intention. The dude doesn't give a damn about institutions or "rule of law"; all he cares about is to make the other team "REPENT." Thus, I don't give a damn about what he says about rule of law, since he certainly doesn't either -- especially since he's absolutely wrong on this point and is just engaging in histrionics.

The correct action was probably just to say nothing and lurk this topic as I usually do, but occasionally I reach a boiling point.

1. Rule of law is very different from institutions.
2. I've never said the Democrats should repent for violating the rule of law. They should repent for other things.

---

court packing is just a redux of "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
stick to 9.


---

Wanglicious posted...

court packing is just a redux of "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
stick to 9.

Let's compromise. We stick to 9 but get to ignore any judicial review we don't like. Constitutional btw.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Let's compromise. We stick to 9 but get to ignore any judicial review we don't like. Constitutional btw.

Who's we? The President? Congress?

---

masterplum posted...

I strongly suggest you leave the country, because I don't think this country is going in a direction that you are going to like

last I checked pretty much nobody was accepting Americans (not that I can super blame them)

---

Why are the dems always the one who have to regret things? Why is it that Republicans never have to regret pushing a religious fundamentalist whacko into a seat with an already on-going Presidential Election after we were told last time that you can't confirm a SCOTUS Justice in an election year?

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Why are the dems always the one who have to regret things? Why is it that Republicans never have to regret pushing a religious fundamentalist whacko into a seat with an already on-going Presidential Election after we were told last time that you can't confirm a SCOTUS Justice in an election year?

If Republicans lose the Senate they will indeed regret that decision.

---

https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1325812962259570690?s=21

---

if Rs seriously wanted to try to avoid court packing they could always offer up other solutions like a forced retirement age!

at 75 (same we have in Canada) the only justice that'd have to go would be Breyer, with only Thomas as an R coming up within this Biden term - so it's even a sneaky concession that could keep that status quo running a bit longer!

---

The number of uncounted mail/early ballots in Alaska just increased by 15k (to 157k).


---