Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, and then keep the House, it’s game over. They will 100% pack the courts.
Here is the game plan:
1) Kill the Senate filibuster
2) Pack SCOTUS to 15 members, also pack the lower courts.
3) DC and Puerto Rico statehood, extra 4 Senators to ensure the Senate stays blue
4) Kill the electoral college, opening up true mob rule
5) Give all non citizens residing in the US the right to vote, open the borders. They may be happy with the first 4, so they may hold off on this one for awhile.
I don’t think most Trump supporters understand how close they are to a complete and lasting defeat.
I don’t think most Democrats understand what Schumer, Pelosi, the Clinton Foundation, and Harris/Biden are really striving for. They keep saying that the US won’t fundamentally change, so either they don’t get it, or they are being disengenuous and trying to downplay those real objectives.
At least Biden didn’t lie and deny he wouldn’t pack the courts. He knows what they will do, he just doesn’t want us all to know it too.
Is it ethical? Not sure, but I think it makes us look like Venezuela as Hugo Chavez used this same tactic.
Politically smart? It’s very politically smart for the party that does it. Good for the nation? Not hardly. Completely disenfranchising 60 million voters is a recipe for disaster.
Why all the whining the election is not over, and the Republicans will win.
LMAO, you mean a true democracy one citizen, one vote? Not what we have now gerrymandering, vote manipulation, voter suppression, and court-appointed presidents.
PamelaIamela, sorry I can't rep you for your page 1 critique. From my perspective it is spot on to today's situation. (I think CD's thingy is messed up).
In addition I point out the Supreme Court was for mostly adjudicating issues between states, or between states and foreign governments. The Senate was made up of members chosen by state legislatures, not popular vote. Now we really have a 2 house democracy instead of a republic thanks to the 17th amendment. Hence the political bludgeoning of Supreme Court appointees instead of "advice and consent". Overall the process has been way more dignified in past appointments than those of the last 20-30 years.
PamelaIamela, sorry I can't rep you for your page 1 critique. From my perspective it is spot on to today's situation. (I think CD's thingy is messed up).
In addition I point out the Supreme Court was for mostly adjudicating issues between states, or between states and foreign governments. The Senate was made up of members chosen by state legislatures, not popular vote. Now we really have a 2 house democracy instead of a republic thanks to the 17th amendment. Hence the political bludgeoning of Supreme Court appointees instead of "advice and consent". Overall the process has been way more dignified in past appointments than those of the last 20-30 years.
So, are you advocating a return to the "Good Ole Days"?
Die hard conservatives have brought this on themselves by playing fast and loose with the appointment process. Had they gone along with the appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016 (which they should have) we wouldn't be in this place today.
Conservatives are an interesting bunch. They win the presidency with an electoral majority rather than a popular vote majority and have a slim majority in the Senate. I think in most countries--in that situation--problems like supreme court nominations would be resolved by picking compromise candidates. That's not the way that die hard conservatives think though. Instead, they try to spend most of their day devising ways to make things happen by getting a one vote margin in the Senate over their opponents. Their idea is that one vote ought to be the basis for deciding all controversial issues in the country. I submit that democrats would not have behaved the same way. Its why Obama chose a moderate nominee, Merrick Garland, for Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court.
We apparently can't prevent them from doing this to pick the next supreme court justice. We can use the same tactic after the coming election to add to the court. I'm sorry its come to this, but this is what an unwillingness to compromise ultimately leads too.
I agree with this. In a better political system (perhaps one with a centrist party that has equal electoral success to the Rs and Ds), there would be a check on this sort of thing. It is important to keep bringing up the fact that there was no mandate for a narrow Republican majority to rule from the hard right after 2016 (when Trump lost the popular vote and squeezed out a narrow victory in the EC).
We keep getting the “elections matter” crap from the right wingers, but every conservative who justifies the hardball tactic of refusing to hold a hearing on Merrick Gardner during Obama’s last year (a decision made by one person who represents a very small minority of the electorate) while rushing ahead with Barrett’s confirmation, needs to think about how infuriating it would be to them if the Democrats had done the same thing. Democrats (assuming they take power) can’t turn the other cheek here and so we are likely to see the escalation of the raw use of power. Adding justices may have to happen (at least 2 - one for the stolen Garland seat, and one as a penalty against such a naked power grab on the Rs part) just to restore some balance. If conservatives don’t like it, they need to look in the mirror.
I don't know what you mean by "Good Ole Days" but yes, I absolutely do advocate repeal of the 17th Amendment. The States, who are the signatories to the Constitution, have lost their representation. The Constitution was originally a compact between the States.
This amendment was adopted during the years of "populism" when the Federal Reserve Act was passed and a "graduated or progressive income tax" was adopted. People let their passions badly damage our system of government during those years.
And as much as I detest the phrase "elections have consequences" I have read it was Mr. Trump's predecessor who coined that little ditty.
Both major parties have turned to political thuggery to obtain their goals at the expense of the States and America's law-abiding citizens.
The Republicans can game-set-match the Dems by adding an amendment to the Constitution limiting the number of judges to nine once and for all. The states that went for Trump in 2016 all have Republican led State legislatures and they are about 34 out of the 50. Luckily, 34 states equal to exactly the 2/3rds needed to put a proposed amendment on the President's desk. This is the *only* alternative since 2/3rds of the US House and Senate would never introduce an Amendment themselves.
The last Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992, and before that the early 1970s. If Trump wins again, after we are done enjoying our yummy delicious cups of liberal tears, we should push our State Legislatures to get this done so SCOTUS stays 9.
But, why is that an issue? Whether we make a territory a state should be based on one issue and one issue alone: Are those people American citizens? (The answer to both DC and PR is yes.) If they are American citizens, they should have representation. No offense, but giving American citizens representation should not be a political football.
Using that criteria, we would also need to grant statehood to the US Virgin Islands (St Thomas, St John, and St Croix, where I happen to reside), as well as Guam and a couple other territories. I do know that the federal income taxes we pay goes to our territory, not to the IRS (interestingly, the amount is exactly the same as it would be if we lived in a state of the US.) So there is no "taxation without representation." I'm fairly certain no territory could be forced to become a state if said territory did not wish to.
The Republicans can game-set-match the Dems by adding an amendment to the Constitution limiting the number of judges to nine once and for all. The states that went for Trump in 2016 all have Republican led State legislatures and they are about 34 out of the 50. Luckily, 34 states equal to exactly the 2/3rds needed to put a proposed amendment on the President's desk. This is the *only* alternative since 2/3rds of the US House and Senate would never introduce an Amendment themselves.
The last Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992, and before that the early 1970s. If Trump wins again, after we are done enjoying our yummy delicious cups of liberal tears, we should push our State Legislatures to get this done so SCOTUS stays 9.
Keep dreaming. Trump will be lucky to carry 25 states this year. And you make the same mistake I mentioned above - assuming that states that Trump barely won in 2016 support the Republican takeover of the courts. That said, I would support an amendment like this if it also term-limited justices to 15-18 year staggered terms,
I don't know what you mean by "Good Ole Days" but yes, I absolutely do advocate repeal of the 17th Amendment. The States, who are the signatories to the Constitution, have lost their representation. The Constitution was originally a compact between the States.
This amendment was adopted during the years of "populism" when the Federal Reserve Act was passed and a "graduated or progressive income tax" was adopted. People let their passions badly damage our system of government during those years.
And as much as I detest the phrase "elections have consequences" I have read it was Mr. Trump's predecessor who coined that little ditty.
Both major parties have turned to political thuggery to obtain their goals at the expense of the States and America's law-abiding citizens.
I'm not sure why you're raising the 17th which focuses on Senators, in a discussion about SCOTUS.
I certainly don't know why you say the states that signed the Constitution, have lost representation, and I suspect I'd prefer not to know.
The phrase "Elections have consequences" has been around for decades, at least.
The GOP legally delayed hearings and voting on scores of Obama court nominees until the election of 2016; they delayed even a hearing for a SCOTUS judge. Was it ethical?
Now, is it legal for the dems to add more judges to SCOTUS, yes. Is it ethical? It is if what the GOP has done is ethical.
The GOP whines when the same standard they have used on their opponents is used when the coin is flipped. The GOP set the new lower standard of behavior. For those who are upset at the prospect of court packing, don't complain about the democrats, complain about the GOP which set the new standard.
Complaining about court packing...if it happens, is akin to someone setting their house on fire and then complaining about the fire department's response. If not for the GOP's prior actions, we would not even be having this discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
