I like how you didn't even try to give an alternative scenario, you just basically say "no you're wrong" with nothing to back it up but petty insults.
-
Hey everyone! sn00zer has created a vote for your Favorite Games of All Time! Voting ends at 7 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes, 51 seconds. Happy voting!
Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
You set up a silly scenario that assumes some binary choice. It's childish.
And, again, you can think whatever you want. No party will pack the court.
Well ok if it's not a binary, what is the alternative? Impeachment?
I'm asking genuinely here.
Saying "no party will x" seems extremely naive given the state of things.
The notion that the number of justices is what makes the institution of the SC the institution it is is corny and shortsighted, regardless of how many times it's repeated.
@KHarvey: what kind of legislation can help unfuck some of the potential fuckery of a republican court? Say for example, abortion rights are reverted, as is civil union, and the president is free from any kind of oversight.
GOP can rush someone through during the lame duck session if by some stretch they can't get anyone through by november. There's no stopping it. They'll have that seat filled.
SO dumb. He demonstrably lies about the drinking when he doesn't have to. Eroding trust by the second.
Legislation! The court doesn't make laws and they don't arbitrarily target laws to strike down. Roe can be struck down and it wouldn't matter if we legislate properly.
No party will pack the court. The republicans aren't being asked to and the democrats just won't.
Ok so if Roe is struck down this basically relies on state governments to guarantee abortion rights? Same sex marriage? Doesn't that strike you as...problematic?
And what about things like Presidential Impeachment? How do you make legislation to fix that when it's a Constitutional process?
This seems like a short sighted defensive strategy, and is open to exploitation and corruption with loop holes.
Wouldn't they like to control it even more?
No, they haven't. There's still only 9 Justices, and the court is still 5-4. If it's cool that Democrats can add 2 Justices, why can't Republicans?
The free from oversight thing is unrealistic. It's based on a misunderstanding of Kavanaugh's views.
Roe likely won't be "struck down." It has been and will continue to be eroded regardless of if Kavanaugh or Kennedy were there. Or if Democrats add two justices. It's states adding more and more restrictions. The way to fix it regardless of the makeup of the court is legislation and challenging those restrictions. People don't like the hard path though so they'd rather lie to themselves and say it can all be fixed by packing the court. It can't be. Abortion has been and will continue to be restricted if actual real steps aren't taken.
As someone who lived in Montgomery County for almost ten years growing up, went to boarding school, went to a prestigious university, and then coached one of Georgetown Prep's rival high school golf teams I feel like I know a million Brett Kavanaugh's and Mark Judge's. This is all so surreal.
If it doesn't matter why are they sticking their necks out so much with Kavanaugh? Why did they block Garland?
That's a pleasantly idealized version of how the judiciary works. Your example specifically, there are ~20 states with "trigger laws" in place that will ban abortion the second Roe is overturned. That's tens of millions of women losing rights at the drop of a judicial hat. Ideally congress would pass a law ensuring those rights, but with the current political climate it's impossible to see that happening since a majority of Congress is actually pro-life—despite a record majority of Americans believing abortion is a woman's right, and Roe v Wade should stand.
Because they like people to vote for them and people think it's the end all be all.
If it's about popularity why haven't they dropped Kavanaugh given his favourables are underwater and this is probably damaging them for the mid terms?
I think politically they'd rather he dropped out. It's not looking good for his chances.
The GOP leadership is in full on panic mode and trying to figure out how to get him through and it's looking really bad for them. You aren't reading the room.
The rank and file wants him to withdraw, I guarantee it, because then they can dodge picking a side.
In this circumstance wouldn't they privately tell him to withdraw because they don't have the votes?
Assuming you can use democracy to have that legislation power after the red states use insane gerrymandering and discriminatory voter id policies to ensure republican state control forever.
And you litterally can't legislate campaign finance, unions, or anti-LGBT discrimination because of the weaponized first amendment conservatives use. A constitutional amendment is all you can do, and that runs into that same problem of permanent red states.
If things aren't that different from Kennedy, then it might be hard to argue. I'm certainly unsure to see where Roberts goes without him. I think it's worth preparing for the worst if they're worse than expected or get one more appointment to shift the court right.
Like, what if it gets so far right that conservatives give fetuses 14th amendment rights and full personhood under the constitution and 13 low population red states refuse to undo it through a constitutional amendment. Is that still something you just wait for the supreme court death lottery to solve?
They're trying to keep crazy Trump happy enough that he doesn't start criticizing them before the midterms. If they tell Kav he needs to withdraw it could leak out and the RWNJs could turn against them. Also they are running out of time to get somebody else confirmed; not happening before the election, and politically more difficult than now during the lame duck session. They are between a rock and a hard place. The safest thing for the rank and file GOP senators is for Kav to withdraw but while they hide in the background and act like none of them, individually, had anything to do with it.
That's one side of the dilemma.
The other side is saying fuck it, confirming him, and facing a leveled-up Year of the Woman. That scares 'em too.
You see McConnell talking tough on the floor of the Senate today? That's actually him shitting bricks while puffing up his dewlap.
What's the alternative in terms of legislation? Term limits or age limits, in other words generally making it so that we know when Supreme Court justices are gonna be replaced instead of sitting there asking ourselves which one is gonna die or retire next.
Also, if Dems were to get back the Senate in 2018, they could stop the actual nightmare scenario of Trump replacing RBG or Breyer, and who knows how long Thomas is gonna be able to stay on the court if they take back the presidency in 2020. There's a chance that in less than 10 years, we go back to the same "partisan level' of the SC that we had before Scalia died, even with Trump getting 2 picks.
No I get that they can appear to be calling on him to withdraw, but honestly if they were trying to get him to back down you'd think they'd talk to him in private and get him to use some excuse about how the pressure is too much for his family without involving Trump.
After all, he's way more their creature than Trump's when you look at his resume. Ken Starr, GWB, Anthony Kennedy, etc
There was another thread on this recently and this I think is actually a good idea.
They are cowards and they are terrified of their own out of touch leadership (McConnell, Grassley, Trump) because the leadership can see that they get primaried in the future and/or don't get RNC campaign funds and/or that their pet projects (that benefit their constituents) don't get government funding, et cetera.
They are getting squeezed from all sides. Fortunately they don't have spines, so it won't break their backs.
Don't be pedantic. Preventing your opponents from filling seats and then cheating to fill seats is, for practical purposes in the context of this casual conversation, packing the court.
This thing where you pretend republicans are just behaving normally and democrats are the ones out of line is outright delusional.
Uh, no. The supreme court largely dictates what laws congress can make. You're acting like Citizens United can be solved with legislation when in reality, it was Citizens United that made specific legislation aiming to reign in campaign contributions unconstitutional! That's how the supreme court works! To "legislate properly" in response to supreme court decisions, you often need to pass constitutional amendments.
So not only can Roe be struck down, but if they have the votes to strike down Roe, they very well might have the votes to rule that unborn fetuses are persons. And if unborn fetuses are legally persons, the 14th amendment would apply:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Which would effectively make abortion illegal in all states -- they think abortion is murder, so why wouldn't they? Because it would be unpopular? Striking down Roe is already unpopular! So maybe Roe is just stricken down and abortion is illegal in many states, which in itself would be a disaster, but it could even go further by preventing liberal states from protecting the right for women to choose at all. That's been the goal of the christian right for decades now and they very well might follow through.
That's not to say legislation isn't important or that liberals haven't mis-prioritized scotus vs legislation (I think they have to a degree), but you can't ignore the way supreme court decisions can literally rule out certain legislative avenues.
Last edited:
Basically a bunch of people insisting everything is fine whilst the house is on fire. Like that meme image.
I'm pedantic? Packing the court is increasing the number of justices; isn't that what you mean when you advocate for Democrats to do it? I never said Republicans are behaving normally; they cheated Merrick Garland out of his seat. I am incredibly disappointed in Democrats for not raising a stink every Goddamned day about it. Obama rolled over and showed his belly. But increasing the number of justices isn't going to happen, at least anytime soon. I think lower courts are a much better place to start, and then one day we can say, "All the lower courts have 11 Justices, why not the Supreme Court?"
And, again, if it's okay for Democrats to do so, what is stopping Republicans from doing it tomorrow? It's not "righting a wrong"; that would be impeaching Gorsuch. Why aren't you advocating for that?
Just watched the Fox News interview with Brett. He claims he was a virgin throughout most, if not all of college. That's... bold.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh turns out to be one of the frat boys in the Borat movie.
Why do you assume I don't advocate for that? The bit you seem to be missing is that it'd be easier to get the 51 votes to add additional justices than the 2/3rd required to impeach. Either way would effectively right the wrong by restoring the balance.
edit: and stacking the court might very well be a more appropriate response than impeachment because Gorsuch/Kavanagh might not have done anything justifying impeachment themselves -- it's the people that elected them that stepped over the line.
Last edited:
A straight, white, rich, alpha man who was in a fraternity is now claiming he was a virgin throughout college...
This is one of those situations where all the other men in the room wink and elbow each other, then say, "Sure! He was a (wink)(wink) virgin! If that's what'll get him this SCOTUS position, total (nudge)(nudge)(wink)(wink) virgin! Hey, if it'll get me a new Ferrari, I was a virgin too!"
Like smashing the playing board over your head because your opponent moved a piece behind your back. That's how I would describe court packing.
Thw German Constitutional Court (not 100% the same as the SC, as there are other highest courts for criminal/civil law "below" it and it deals with everything in relation to our constitution, e.g. if a certain sentence is even possible without violation constitutional rights):
- 2 Senates with 8 judges each (reduced from 12), with 6 sub-chambers of 3 judges each especially versed in a certain working on "smaller" complaints.
- full Senate rulings need at least 6 judges present, judges assign themself at the start of a trial and if someone has died or resigned (theoretically) and the number falls below 6 that way the case has to be re-tried.
- Senate rulings need 5/8 or in some cases a qualified two of three ruling (usually 6 out of 8); split 4-4 is possible, sadly
- Age limit of 68 and only one 12 year term is possible; while members of other highest courts are lifetime appointees if they want.
-qualifications needed are: 40 years or older, qualified to be a judge in Germany, meaning either law professor or full "law school"; in addition three judges in every senate MUST have been a member of one of the other high courts for at least three years -> several lifetimers are poached from other courts.
- half the judges are voted in by the Bundesrat, our parliament, the other by the Bundesrat - our Senate, if you will, i.e. representatives of our federal states's governments (only more inhabitants -> more representatives with a minimum ro protect smaller statea, even though their populations are less imbalanced than US states)
- The whole Bundestag votes on candidates in a secret vote, candidates are nominated by a 12 person committee selected following the proportional make-up of parties in the Bundestag. It used to be the committee votes on the judge instead of only nominating it, but the constitutional judges themselves declared that legal, but not transparent enough, so it recently got changed.
- Bundesrat nominates judges and votes on them by a gentlemen's agreement of party A - B - and now newly C thanks to our Green party getting in with enough votes to be a spoiler.
- The court is not allowed to create law, just examine existing legislation and strictly adheres to this code and insists not to overstep, even when both sides in a lawsuit demand a more concrete decision.
- This is one of the major "scandals" of the court, critics attack it as both too political and not political enough at the same time, just dependung on the side they fall on right now, but it has tremendous support in the population, is seen as one of our least-partisan and most humane institutions and served as a model for several other countries's constitutional courts. Apparently. I have to admit I never checkes the last claim, but school and uni lectures said so and I'm lazy enough to believe it.
I think it works pretty well.
- 2 Senates with 8 judges each (reduced from 12), with 6 sub-chambers of 3 judges each especially versed in a certain working on "smaller" complaints.
- full Senate rulings need at least 6 judges present, judges assign themself at the start of a trial and if someone has died or resigned (theoretically) and the number falls below 6 that way the case has to be re-tried.
- Senate rulings need 5/8 or in some cases a qualified two of three ruling (usually 6 out of 8); split 4-4 is possible, sadly
- Age limit of 68 and only one 12 year term is possible; while members of other highest courts are lifetime appointees if they want.
-qualifications needed are: 40 years or older, qualified to be a judge in Germany, meaning either law professor or full "law school"; in addition three judges in every senate MUST have been a member of one of the other high courts for at least three years -> several lifetimers are poached from other courts.
- half the judges are voted in by the Bundesrat, our parliament, the other by the Bundesrat - our Senate, if you will, i.e. representatives of our federal states's governments (only more inhabitants -> more representatives with a minimum ro protect smaller statea, even though their populations are less imbalanced than US states)
- The whole Bundestag votes on candidates in a secret vote, candidates are nominated by a 12 person committee selected following the proportional make-up of parties in the Bundestag. It used to be the committee votes on the judge instead of only nominating it, but the constitutional judges themselves declared that legal, but not transparent enough, so it recently got changed.
- Bundesrat nominates judges and votes on them by a gentlemen's agreement of party A - B - and now newly C thanks to our Green party getting in with enough votes to be a spoiler.
- The court is not allowed to create law, just examine existing legislation and strictly adheres to this code and insists not to overstep, even when both sides in a lawsuit demand a more concrete decision.
- This is one of the major "scandals" of the court, critics attack it as both too political and not political enough at the same time, just dependung on the side they fall on right now, but it has tremendous support in the population, is seen as one of our least-partisan and most humane institutions and served as a model for several other countries's constitutional courts. Apparently. I have to admit I never checkes the last claim, but school and uni lectures said so and I'm lazy enough to believe it.
I think it works pretty well.
I mean honestly. It's like we didn't just have a decade of the republicans challenging Obamacare and promising to challenge Roe.
And just like Obamacare, the supreme court will find ways to undermine legislation. We probably can't have single payer if the Supreme Court rules that, idk, you can't be forced to have healthcare or whatever.
Yes, better to keep getting kicked in the balls than to kick someone in the balls back. Because kicking someone in the balls is wrong.
HI, have you met kharvey? He's a lawyer and thus everyone is always wrong, but him. Us plebs couldn't hope to achieve concisousness on his level. Thankfully he takes a break once in a while to ascend from his ivory tower to educate us.