RBG is dead

[dan_pdx]

packing the court is a very bad idea...

I tend to agree, but would be interested in hearing why you think that's the case. From my perspective, it makes the court a nakedly partisan institution, which undermines its legitimacy, but that's been in tatters since Citizens United, so this is kind of just the natural end state: SC decisions will be as party-line as votes in the Senate and we as a society collectively agree there's no such thing as objective justice.

[fhw]

but that's been in tatters since Citizens United, so this is kind of just the natural end state: SC decisions will be as party-line as votes in the Senate and we as a society collectively agree there's no such thing as objective justice.

This post - every last word - is just complete and utter nonsense.

[DBdude]

because at the next swing of the pendulum the other side will pack the court again and then again

[glademaster]

I tend to agree, but would be interested in hearing why you think that's the case. From my perspective, it makes the court a nakedly partisan institution, which undermines its legitimacy, but that's been in tatters since Citizens United, so this is kind of just the natural end state: SC decisions will be as party-line as votes in the Senate and we as a society collectively agree there's no such thing as objective justice.

And that's the kind of society you want to live in? That's fucked up.

[fhw]

And that's the kind of society you want to live in? That's fucked up.

I don't thnk he said that. I don't agree with his Citizens United​ take but where do you get that?

[The SnowShow]

Screw you Romney and Gardner. Fucking peak of hypocrisy.

[DBdude]

the democrats went down easy over garland. the republicans have always played the long game in regards to SCOTUS. the republicans can and will get a 6 - 3 majority on the court.

democrats please vote in the election. bernie bros - stop the butt hurt and vote for biden. this country can be a better place with trump gone and a democratic majority in the senate

move the fuck on everyone

[Dantheman]

I have read some good non-political arguments in favor of expanding the SCOTUS. Primarily, the volume of cases filed has become so large that lots of worthy cases are never heard. Considering that the country's population is almost 100x larger than when the Constitution was signed expanding the court to accommodate that growth is not an unreasonable proposition. The HoR started out with less than 100 seats and arguably also should have more seats today than it does.

[riser4]

the democrats went down easy over garland. the republicans have always played the long game in regards to SCOTUS. the republicans can and will get a 6 - 3 majority on the court.

democrats please vote in the election. bernie bros - stop the butt hurt and vote for biden. this country can be a better place with trump gone and a democratic majority in the senate

move the fuck on everyone

Ya, know a bunch of Bernie bros and hos. I've told them I'll bitch slap them if they don't get some salve on the hurt and vote for Biden.

[fhw]

Ya, know a bunch of Bernie bros and hos.

You should be more discerning when choosing your social circle. Personally, I prefer people who read.

[DBdude]

A "federal pro-choice law" could also be repealed. The Constitutional protection afforded by Roe is far better than a mere statute. Of course Roe can be overturned but that is far harder/less likely than overturning long-standing precedent. I say that understanding that Roe might be in jeopardy but that doesn't mean that a statute is preferable. What you really need is a Constitutional Amendment. I'm pro choice but Roe's reasoning was somewhat tortured.

i'm pro choice and roe's reasoning is silly, but that is what got the job done. willy, the ERA couldn't pass, I can't see a pro choice amendment happening in my lifetime. there will always be states where it is legal and people of means have nothing to fear. it is a burden on poor women in states where it is difficult to get an abortion and that is with roe.

[riser4]

You should be more discerning when choosing your social circle. Personally, I prefer people who read.

I don't care who you are, that right there's funny.

[riser4]

i'm pro choice and roe's reasoning is silly, but that is what got the job done. willy, the ERA couldn't pass, I can't see a pro choice amendment happening in my lifetime. there will always be states where it is legal and people of means have nothing to fear. it is a burden on poor women in states where it is difficult to get an abortion and that is with roe.

Well, I am not so confident there will always be states where it is legal. If we were to have an R majority in both senate and house plus an R POTUS, I could see legislation outlawing it and then getting validated by a conservative SCOTUS. So vote accordingly up and down the ballot this time around. And, as you point out, people of means will always have access, legal or not.

[Mazderati]

The SC is already heavily partisan and why wouldn't it be when appointments are made by the empowered party.

Pushing RBG's replacement through given the circumstances is a pure power play. It's not leadership. What message are Ds supposed to take away? It's hard to win a fight above board when your opponent is willing to go below it to break any and all norms.

[fhw]

i'm pro choice and roe's reasoning is silly, but that is what got the job done. willy, the ERA couldn't pass, I can't see a pro choice amendment happening in my lifetime. there will always be states where it is legal and people of means have nothing to fear. it is a burden on poor women in states where it is difficult to get an abortion and that is with roe.

Can't disagree with any of that. I know a Constitutional amendment is not currently feasible. But it would put an end to the discussion. And you're right, what we are really talking about with all of this is protecting poor women in certain states. Not to be unempathetic, but I'm not sure that deserves all the renting of garments we see on both sides of this debate. The fact is, this issue has been used by both sides as a vessel in which they pour all their hopes and aspirations together with their cynicism and anger. It stands as a surrogate for their politics writ large. It is an important issue but it's outsized and sometimes consumes all the oxygen in the room.

[uglymoney]

The SC is already heavily partisan and why wouldn't it be when appointments are made by the empowered party.

Pushing RBG's replacement through given the circumstances is a pure power play. It's not leadership. What message are Ds supposed to take away? It's hard to win fight above board when your opponent is willing to break any and all norms.

Yeah. They are telling us to go fuck ourselves. I hear them. Loud and clear.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Toadman]

the democrats went down easy over garland. the republicans have always played the long game in regards to SCOTUS. the republicans can and will get a 6 - 3 majority on the court.

democrats please vote in the election. bernie bros - stop the butt hurt and vote for biden. this country can be a better place with trump gone and a democratic majority in the senate

move the fuck on everyone

I don' think the Bernie Bros have enough prep H to get over their butt hurt. Bernie and his too little, way too late rantings are worthless now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...id=mailsignout

[fhw]

Well, I am not so confident there will always be states where it is legal. If we were to have an R majority in both senate and house plus an R POTUS, I could see legislation outlawing it and then getting validated by a conservative SCOTUS. So vote accordingly up and down the ballot this time around. And, as you point out, people of means will always have access, legal or not.

No. It falls squarely in the States' Police Powers. Every abortion case acknowledges this reality.

[DBdude]

Can't disagree with any of that. I know a Constitutional amendment is not currently feasible. But it would put an end to the discussion. And you're right, what we are really talking about with all of this is protecting poor women in certain states. Not to be unempathetic, but I'm not sure that deserves all the renting of garments we see on both sides of this debate. The fact is, this issue has been used by both sides as a vessel in which they pour all their hopes and aspirations together with their cynicism and anger. It stands as a surrogate for their politics writ large. It is an important issue but it's outsized and sometimes consumes all the oxygen in the room.

we always agree - laughing

this isn't the end of the world - the grim reaper enforces term limits (not the greatest thing to say but I'm looking at you clarence thomas) or some justices leave too early - for example sandra day o'connor or david suitor

who know what will happen if Biden wins and sets up another democrat to win in 2024?

[DBdude]

I don' think the Bernie Bros have enough prep H to get over their butt hurt. Bernie and his too little, way too late rantings are worthless now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...id=mailsignout

bernie was a great mayor for burlington and really takes care of issues if you call his office

besides veteran's issues he hasn't accomplished much legislatively but has moved the democratic party to the left in health care and education

he is a complicated hornery dude and I don't think he would have been a very good president

[dan_pdx]

I tend to agree, but would be interested in hearing why you think that's the case. From my perspective, it makes the court a nakedly partisan institution, which undermines its legitimacy, but that's been in tatters since Citizens United, so this is kind of just the natural end state: SC decisions will be as party-line as votes in the Senate and we as a society collectively agree there's no such thing as objective justice.

And that's the kind of society you want to live in? That's fucked up.

Yeah, not sure how you got to that from what I wrote, but to expand, I think it's deeply fucked that the Supreme Court, which was supposed to be the last bastion of impartial justice, is now going to be as partisan as the legislative branch. It makes a mockery of the concept of the judiciary. And this is the sorry fucking point to which our society has descended.

Edited to add: if it's just going to be a bunch of figureheads in black dresses having long serious debates before rubber stamping whatever agenda their appointing administration favors/favored to provide the smallest possible fig leaf of legitimacy, I'd like liberal appointees to be in the majority. Therefore, pack away. The next time the Rs get the opportunity, they will do the same. It's a race to the bottom and it's a fucking shame that we're not smart enough as a society to do better.

[RootSkier]

I have read some good non-political arguments in favor of expanding the SCOTUS. Primarily, the volume of cases filed has become so large that lots of worthy cases are never heard. Considering that the country's population is almost 100x larger than when the Constitution was signed expanding the court to accommodate that growth is not an unreasonable proposition. The HoR started out with less than 100 seats and arguably also should have more seats today than it does.

The Supreme Court only hears 70-80 cases a year. Each Justice as four clerks. The Justices take 3-4 months off every year (sometime in June until October). That the Supreme Court only wants to decide a few dozen cases a year is 100% by choice and rooted in pure laziness + politics, and I doubt increasing the size of the Court would have any impact on the number of cases it hears.

I am in favor of packing the shit out of the Court. The more Justices there are, the less impact the death/retirement of any one Justice would have. 15 would be a good number.

The Senate should be abolished.

[fhw]

is now going to be as partisan as the legislative branch.

There's no evidence for this. But I know that won't stop you from saying it loudly and often. It just feels right and it's hard to disprove. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[DBdude]

The Senate should be abolished.

the senate and electoral college was the deal that made the union happen. the low population states have always been scared of the populous industrial states - even in the late 18th century

another side to the story is maybe you don't want change to occur too quickly and social inertia keeps bad ideas from being law. I don't think it really matters because it is never going to change

[BmillsSkier]

The Senate should be abolished.

I note that you've brought this up a few times, and while this may not be the time or place I'm curious to hear your thoughts for such a position.

To me, it's one of two branches, of one branch of three branches, of the Federal Government that is there to act as a counter balance against pure mob rule of the House, and by further extension, less populous states being run over by the more populated states. Sure the gravity the Senate carries may appear a bit more pronounced when it's highlighted by things like their confirmation powers, but they are no more kings than the Supreme Court or the Executive Branch.

But, I'm always open to hearing another dentist's thoughts.