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
I really doubt the dems will do it.
Cool, I don't.
When politicians repeatedly refuse to rule something out then it's just shoving one's head in the sand to assume that it's impossible.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangFrom Politico: Supreme Court won't extend Wisconsin ballot deadline
The justices split, 5-3, along ideological lines, with all the court's Republican appointees voting to reject the six-day extension a U.S. District Court judge issued last month in the key presidential swing state.
And while browsing Politico, I found something else. It's from a few days ago but I don't think it was posted here (if it was, apologizes). Trump executive order strips protections for key federal workers, drawing backlash
The order, signed Wednesday evening, targets workers that are involved in developing policy. It would reclassify workers "in positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character" that are "not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition" into a new category called Schedule F, according to the text.
Under the new schedule, they would be exempt from protections that apply to most federal workers - allowing agencies to hire and fire them more easily and quickly.
Hopefully this is one of the things that can easily be undone under a Biden presidency.
Edited by nova92 on Oct 26th 2020 at 5:29:26 AM
The political blowback will likely be huge if they do it.
That and it still requires Biden to win.
Of course, it needs Biden to win. That should be obvious.
He's well on the way to doing so.
Furthermore, the blowback would only be huge if the public still believed in the court. And the more damage it does the less chance of that. Democrats aren't going to attempt court-packing if it's not justifiable.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 26th 2020 at 5:41:01 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe blowback would depend on how it’s packed, strait up adding justices as a one time thing will have blowback unless the Supreme Court has already destroyed its own legitimacy. But reform that say guarantees Biden gets to make appointments (and that presidents after him are also guaranteed appointments), I think that could be gotten away with.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranUltimately none of us can see the future, assuming that it's definitely going to fail only makes sense if one has some kind of deeply counterproductive desire to assume the worst. Concern is understandable, defeatism is not.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWould there be any possible way to remove Amy Barrett and replace her with someone else if Biden is elected?
No.
Impeachment requires 2/3rds of the Senate. Suffice to say that's not going to be possible.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangDemocrats have been hedging a lot on whether they would be willing to rebalance the courts or not. I don't know if they'll do it (again, no one does), it's entirely possible that all they'll do is some weak surface-level reforms. But moderate/centrist Democrats like Angus King and Joe Manchin are out there talking about the unfairness of the current system. It feels to me like the tide is shifting.
I understand why that's the politically palatable move, but it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, as it means accepting the current stolen Supreme Court seats.
Edited by nova92 on Oct 26th 2020 at 5:50:46 AM
I could go for a retirement age, which was how FDR suggested packing the court, at a certain age justices either had to retire or the court would be temporarily enlarged by 1 seat.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
Term-limits has broad support, even among Republicans at the moment (that could change if Democrats actually start pushing for it.) AFAIK, straight-up imposing term-limits would require a constitutional amendment, which is a no-go. But there is a work-around of having term-limits for the Supreme Court and then retiring Justices to the lower Circuit Courts. It's been proposed in the House, but I don't know how much support it has among the Democratic caucus so far.
Edited by nova92 on Oct 26th 2020 at 5:53:08 AM
x4 Nice in theory, bad in practice (If we had the "replace every 18 years" policy in the 80's, then the Supreme Court today would only have Conservatives, thanks to 6 years of recent Republican Dominance in the Senate), impossible to do anyways because it requires an Amendment.
We need to pack the courts and we need serious, legitimate reforms. Term limits look appealing, but in actuality are just going to encourage more radicalization of our politics.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Oct 26th 2020 at 9:01:48 AM
Or you use the temporary expansion loophole that FDR was looking at. If a justice doesn’t choose to retire after x number of years then the court temporarily expands by one seat, until said justice does either retire or die.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran2/3rds of the senate and a reason at least a majority of the public is going to buy. We cannot neglect that part. How they sell a potential impeachment to the public is important. It was important for Trump's impeachment as well.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times

And it's official: Amy Coney Barrett has been voted in 52-48, only Collins (ME) joined the Democrats in voting against her, every other Republican voted to put her in.
She'll be sworn in in a matter of moments.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Oct 26th 2020 at 8:17:40 AM