Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Incorrect, the legislature has the right to change the size of the court as they wish.
So it absolutely doesn't go against the principle of democracy to pack the courts.
Furthermore, the Republicans control the court because they stole a seat from the Democrats. There is nothing anti-democratic about adjusting the Court to wipe out their illegitimate dominance over it.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 25th 2019 at 4:41:13 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang"I've been on this forum talking about U.S politics for at least two years now, what I've said is my informed opinion. Not saying packing the courts will end democracy, but it goes completely against the principles of democracy and I disapprove."
How does it go against the principles of democracy? The Supreme Court is not an elected body, has never been an elected body, is not nominated by popular vote, the president that nominates them is elected by an electoral college who has — following a recent legal opinion — absolutely zero legal requirement to select them based on popular vote, and the Senate, despite being enshrined with the power to confirm candidates and elected to carry out that duty by the people, can abjure that duty for months at a time in contravention to popular opinion, to leave politically inconvenient appointments unfilled.
What — if anything — about this arrangement shows a commitment to democratic principles that would be broken if the courts were packed? We need to use words carefully — what you're objecting to is a break from institutional formalism, not "democracy."
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."If on the other hand Democrats court-pack and scrap the filibuster, Evil Turtle almost certainly will do it as well as soon as he's gotten a trifecta to do so.
Uh… you are very confused. The filibuster has already been scrapped as far as judicial nominations and other presidential appointments go. It was years ago.
Republicans used the judicial/nominee filibuster over and over during the Obama years, (as in, they used it far more in the Obama years than it had been used during the entire history of the country until then
) until finally the Democrats in the Senate snapped and changed the rules of the Senate in 2013, saying that the filibuster could no longer be used for any judicial nominations, except for the Supreme Court.
McConnell then famously refused to even consider Garland, (who let us remember, was not some ultra liberal judicial candidate, he was the consensus compromise choice that Republicans were saying was the sort of judge that nobody would vote against, but evil radical socialist Obama would never choose such a man to be the nominee) and when he had a Republican president in Trump, McConnell immediately scrapped the filibuster for use against a Supreme Court nominee and changed the number of votes a nominee had to get in order to be seated to make sure he could get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh onto the bench.
There is no filibuster for judicial nominees in existence right now. Why do you think Republicans have packed the federal judiciary so effectively under Trump? (So much so that by the time Trump leaves office, even if that’s after the 2020 election, between 1/4th to 1/3rd of ALL federal judges will have been picked during the Trump administration.)
On top of that, since Republicans seized control in the 2016 election they have done the following regarding judicial appointments: stopped recognizing Blue Slips
, (a courtesy to Senators where, if the Senators representing a nominee’s home state objected to the nominee being made a judge, the nomination would be considered held up) held confirmation hearings during a Senate recess where there were only 3 Senators of a 21 member panel present
, (2 of the 3 Republicans, of course, and they asked such pressing questions like how their families are doing and about their pets before passing them to the next stage of the nomination process) cut the debate time for nominees from 30 hours to 2
, among many other changes to the process to make sure they get as many conservative and ultra conservative judges in place as possible. Including ones with no prior experience being a judge who spread conspiracy theories about Obama and Clinton on his political blog
.
Furthermore, McConnell has already said that the same "principle" that he cited for why Republicans refused to even consider Garland in 2016, (that they shouldn’t pick a new SC Justice during an election year when the public may change the president and thus, who would be nominated) is so much bullshit. He openly said a little while ago that if a new SC vacancy opened in 2020 before the election, they would immediately and unquestionably fill it
.
This idea that Republicans need some kind of excuse to behave badly and abuse the rules of how things work, or are waiting for Democrats to do it first, is straight from a fantasy world. In the real world, Republican politicians care only about winning, and despite all the reasons that they shouldn’t be winning, they’re doing a good job of it. Or do you have the slightest dream that if we get President Warren in 2021 that the judges put in by Trump, McConnell and company won’t find every excuse to strike down every single reform, label anything that goes against the Republican agenda as unconstitutional? Tell it to dickbags like the judge in Michigan who ruled that “access to literacy” and a “minimally adequate education” being taught at school is not a constitutional right
and poor kids in Detroit can go screw themselves for wanting that to be the case.
Look for a lot more rulings like that coming out over the course of the next 20-30 years. And if Democrats and progressives don’t fight back, and aren’t willing to get their hands dirty doing so, not only will they be the face that the Republican boot stomps on for those decades, it will continue on long after that time frame too.
Now, entirely separate from that, is the issue of using the filibuster during the legislative process, which McConnell is begging Democrats to keep, supposedly out of respect for the legislative practice of the past… and in reality the reason why is because under the current rules for the legislative filibuster, as long as there are at least 41 Republican senators, they can filibuster and impede any legislative agenda the Democrats have, no matter how popular it is. What’s that you say? You’ve got some policy that got 250+ Reps to vote for it, 90% approval among the general population, and 59 Senators too? *Buzzer sound* Too bad! Filibuster say we can stall it right there, and y’all can go fuck yourselves!
That’s why he wants to keep the filibuster as part of the legislative process. Unless Democrats get the sort of super majority coalition that, currently, it is nigh on impossible to get, (Democrats only got it in 2008 after Republicans completely fucked up an absolutely needless war, impoverished the country, destroyed the economy, and did next to nothing when a natural disaster drowned a large city, among other issues, and only then after months of vicious electoral and legal wrangling whose sole purpose was to deny Democrats from getting their super majority for as long as possible) Democrats are unable to push their agenda forward or get anything done. McConnell and company can wait out any political storm that doesn’t give the Democrats a super majority, assume their appointees in the courts will shoot down anything Democrats try to do, and then wait until people stop voting, they get back in power, and keep pushing their goals.
And again, if you think you’re going to get anything like equal or honorable conduct from Republican politicians, I’ve got a bridge I want so sell you. So is it time to fight back, and fight to win, or to roll over, show Republican power brokers our bellies, and hope they don’t stick a knife in it? It’s your call, and the call of everyone reading this and lots of people who aren’t, but if you want to win you gotta fight, and fighting isn’t easy or pretty. You gotta know that and be willing to push on anyway. Anything else is tantamount to saying “I actually don’t care about changing things, and am fine with things continuing to go exactly the way they are now.”
[/rant]
Edited by TheWanderer on Aug 25th 2019 at 11:02:37 AM
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |It's also worth noting that the supporters of the filibuster see it as the last line of defense against against passing legislation that does things like roll back the Civil Rights Act or other similarly dramatic scenarios, the truth of the matter is that the filibuster has never been used like that. What saves popular laws hated by the majority isn't the filibuster, it's the fact that popular laws are popular. For example, the GOP didn't repeal Obamacare even after they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, even though they voted to do so dozens of times when they were the minority — because Obamacare is popular and they weren't willing to face the backlash against killing it.
Indeed, the filibuster is more often used to stop new progressive legislation from passing, because all you need for that is one asshole in a rock-solid seat (so they're not risking being voted out in return) and any bill they choose is dead in the water. Hell, the current filibuster rules were written in response to filibuster attempts against the Civil Rights Act being passed back in the 60s! (They were watered down to make a single stubborn filibuster less devastating to normal business, but that also made it easier to use them to kill single bills.)
I've said this before, but I think that the best solution is returning to the earlier rules, rather than scrapping the filibuster entirely. As it works now, there's a "two track" system where the chamber can consider two different motions at the same time. If one of those is filibustered and unable to proceed, that means the filibustered subject is stalled, but other things can move forward. This means that there's no pressure to end the filibuster unless you support the thing being stalled. But when filibustering stops anything else from happening, then there's enormous pressure to just shut up and move on, since there's a lot of work to do and no reason to indulge one stubborn jerk unless you really support their cause.
tldr, the way the filibuster works now makes filibustering easy. Returning to the old rules would make it hard. When filibusters are easy, they can be used to block anything you mildly dislike. When filibusters are hard, they can only be sustained against things that are absolutely anathema to your party. With the minority weaponizing the filibuster against anything and everything they can, making them hard again is a reasonable and measured response to allow the majority to actually govern.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
Hell, as I said in a post at the start of the day, there's reason to be ambivalent about it. You don't want a politicized judiciary, or one that merely acts as a rubber stamp to Congress, not even for your personal side.
But the fact of the matter is that right now our judicial branch is already being politicized. (The more pessimistic part of me says that being should actually been "has already been politicized.) Ignoring the fact and not trying to at least level the playing field until the situation can be reformed is ludicrous. I think of it as being like two fighters in a boxing match who agree to fight one handed, only one shows up refusing to tie their arm behind the back while the other goes ahead with the original agreement and tries to fight that way. Expecting a good outcome to result is delusional, at best.
Currently, at least form my point of view, we're debating whether it's somehow cheating to untie that arm. Maybe it makes you feel better and more honorable to stick to the original agreement while your opponent uses both hands to beat the crap out of you, but I'd rather be hitting back as best I can.
Maybe after a taste of that the opponent will go back to the original one-handed agreement. If so, great. If not, you gotta realize that being the only one sticking to it is unsustainable and adjust to the reality of the situation. Especially when people's lives are literally at risk, (reference the refugee kids in cages, the LGBTQ population made more vulnerable to bigots and would-be persecutors, the poor people getting their healthcare taken away, the people being killed by White Supremacist terrorism, etc., etc.) you gotta do everything you can to do the most good and not let everything go the way the regressives in power want.
Edited by TheWanderer on Aug 25th 2019 at 12:06:04 PM
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |~The Wanderer: No, I am not confused about anything. You do realize that "court packing" in the sense of expanding the court requires a law to expand the Supreme Court, yes? That one can still be filibustered.
And when Democrats are talking about court packing, they are talking about that kind of packing, not simply the appointment of liberal judges which is simply the expected behaviour of any Democratic Senate+presidency combination (and vice versa for a Republican Senate+presidency) and which is not called "packing" - and which would not be adequate to redress complaints about the Supreme Court unless a number of conservative judges on it vacate their posts in the few years such a combination exist.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Aug 26th 2019 at 9:35:12 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWait, so it's pretty much impossible to pack the court then. I see no need for further debate on my part then. Except to say I prefer a SCOTUS that doesn't act as a rubberstamp for unconstitutional laws, my main concern with the consequences of the idea all along.
Life is unfair...Not really - just means that securing control of the Senate is a necessary step before court packing is an option. And given that the Supreme court being an obstacle to progressive politics is only an issue if McConnell is out of the way then securing the Senate was always necessary.
If McConnell still has power, then this discussion on the Supreme court is moot because nothing would be getting past the Senate anyway. (Other than once a year via reconciliation) The law allowing for court packing would just join the long list of other bills such as gun control, election security, environmental protection, criminal justice reform and so on that McConnell would either sit on or filibuster out given the chance.
If he is out of the picture then the Supreme court does become the most likely stumbling block - and all options for getting past that block should be on the table.
Edited by singularityshot on Aug 26th 2019 at 5:11:27 AM
In more wtf news, Trump took a page out of Sharknado by suggesting that we use bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the US
.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 26th 2019 at 9:42:56 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

JD also only barely lost in 2018. He'll have all the advantages from the Blue Wave while King will have less resources than last year to run. I'm very optimistic about flipping at least one more House seat now.