Dear Democrats, pack the court and nuke the filibuster. I dare you

Doubt it, but there is no doubt Trump was a sexual predator, and there have been accusations of rape leveled at him, as well.

Face the ugly, it simply doesn't get more venal than Trump.

 

When did Trump have to pay almost a million dollars?

 

"Donald Trump, current president of the United States, has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least 25 women since the 1970s.[1][2] The accusations have resulted in three much reported instances of litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim;[3] businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract while also suing for sexual harassment but agreed to forfeit her sexual harassment claim as part of a settlement she received relating to the former suit; and, in 2017, former The Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump accused her of lying about her sexual misconduct allegations against him.[4]

Another type of accusation was made, primarily after the audio recording surfaced, by several former Miss USA and Miss Teen USA contestants, who accused Trump of entering the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants. Trump, who owned the Miss Universe franchise, which includes both pageants, was accused of going into dressing rooms in 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2006, while contestants were in various stages of undress. Trump had already referred to this practice during a 2005 interview on The Howard Stern Show, saying he could "get away with things like that" because he owned the beauty pageants the women and girls were competing in.

In October 2019, the book All the President's Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator,[a] by Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy was published, containing 43 additional allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump."

More at the link


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

 

Allegations and payoffs but no charges. Sounds like a pretty good racket for those women.

 

So no Trump didn't have to pay almost a million dollars ..

But your rapist hero Bill Clinton did..

 

Packing the Court would be disastrously stupid. I mean, the Dems are dumb, but even they aren't that dumb, right? Packing the Court would be rightly seen as a misuse of power, and would do nothing to address the lower courts that have been stocked with far right wing ideologues because McConnell refused to confirm so many Obama nominees.

If the Dems get unified governmental control (an unlikely but possible situation), they should spend every ounce of effort creating Washington DC as the 51st state, and Puero Rico as the 52nd state (assuming the referendum passes). That would give them four new Senators, a bunch more House members, and more electors to vote for President since both territories are predominately Democrat. That would lower the opportunities for a Republican candidate to win the EC despite losing the popular vote, and it would make it far easier for the Dems to control the House and Senate (particularly the Senate where the Constitution gives the Republicans a structural advantage). That is the smart move, which is why they won't do it.

 

And then the Republicans will simply bring the number back to nine and oust the newly Dem justices as soon as they again have unified governmental control. It is not the smart move. Adding states is the smart move.

 

They sure didn't think about it when they nuked it for judicial confirmations.

 

yep, the court will be political now, republicans did this, now the courts will change with the party that controls the Senate and presidency going forward

Republicans should have thought about this before they made their change and stole the court

both sides are just following the rules... so can't be angry about it

 

dems can bring the judges to 12, then if repubs want, we can add a constitutional amendment to lock the judges in at 12 and require 60 votes going forward if they want

 

Ahhhh, thanks.

 

So you want to lock the court in on an even number, to ensure ties?

Great thinking.

 

good point, guess we will go with 13, I was thinking 12 as in a jury trial.... but your right, woudl need a odd number

 

The filibuster changed in, without peeking, 1975.

Wrong historical reference and this ain't 1964 and the people leading that effort in 1964 would be sitting on Trump's right hand today.

Prior to this change, as I believe I noted, you filibustered by standing in the well and talking. Beginning around 1918 a 2/3 cloture vote could end the filibuster. The change in 1975 was made in an effort to make the Senate more responsive. The number required for cloture was reduced to 60 while the requirement to take the well was eliminated. While this change did, in fact, allow for the Senate to move on to other business while a filibuster was ongoing it did, it also allowed for the use of the filibuster to bring the Senate to a permanent halt.

Republicans began abusing the filibuster in 2007 after losing the Senate. Admittedly, to protect Bush a tactic used by both parties. But, beginning in 2010 following the death of Sen. Kennedy Republicans began a full on abuse of the process. Abusive, to the point, that the Minority Leader was proposing then filibustering his own bill.

Changing the filibuster will not eliminate its use. But, what senator from EITHER party wants to be on CSPAN-2 for 16 hours reading the NY city phone book?

 

They have...because I suspect the goal is to simply guarantee a permanent, unassailable Democrat (progressive) majority.

 

Justices have never been more than politicians in black robes. Personally, if Justices want to be political, they should have to stand for election. How about a 10 year term?

 

they used to require 60 votes, so they had to be more moderate, but now that it's 50 votes, they will always be either far right or far left

 

I just dot know what to do about this really.

Mitch has ALREADY packed the courts is the problem. No one wants to talk about that though. So, Conservatives have appointed over 2/3's of the entire federal bench after holding those appointments up sometimes for YEARS under Obama.

Thats packing the court.

And I really dont know how to un do it other than to expand the courts and appoint liberal judges to balance out the previous mitch pack.

 

No, that's not "packing the court". I understand that it's something of a game for leftists to try to redefine language on a whim to suit their current needs, and that you and other leftists are trying to redefine "court packing" to mean something that it's never previously been understood to mean, but "court packing" is a real phrase, with an actual historical meaning, and nothing Senator McConnell has done falls under that definition. "Court packing" is expanding the size of the court to tilt it to one's ideological preference with a slate of new nominations. FDR tried it. Congress at the time wisely saw it for the toxic, destructive maneuver that it was and rejected the scheme. Whether or not the next Congress is willing to put country over party, nothing the Republicans have done has been "packing the court".

 

Why in the world do you think Republicans would agree to that then? If you want to "lock it in", 9 is the number to do it at. If the dems raise it, it's going to set off an unending cycle of growing the SCOTUS every time Congressional majorities and the presidency change parties. It'll also destroy the legitimacy of the Court (dems know this, but don't care. They'll do anything for political power. They have no morals or principles.)

 

I can get on board with DC as the 51st State, but Puerto Rico is a failed colony, actually we have to make a decision regarding our Southern/Latin frontier. Are we really going to actually commit to governing them? Or are we going to let them lavish? If we can't focus on our frontier and the America's, we're better off letting the dead weight go and committing to the North America proper.

 

Democrats won't (attempt to) pack the Court, unless we have an urge to be self-destructive. It would be difficult to brazen through Congress, it would in any event be widely seen as a pure power-play, and a Pres. Biden might even veto it.

Even if they get united gov't, Democrats will be coming back to Washington with finite political capital. We would burn it all up trying to stack the Court.

But the legislative filibuster absolutely must go. The Presidency is useless unless we can actually enact an agenda. Congress is so unpopular, precisely because under Republican rule, a blockade on legislation prevents anything from getting done (prevents even putting politicians on record with a vote).

With the filibuster gone, people will probably be shocked at how quickly Congress is able to act to make a difference in the public interest.

 

The filibuster is the new Trump. It's entirely possible for the leaders of the Senate/House to come together and to muster the votes together. They did it in non-Trump years, even in the Obama years. When will we realize the problem with the institution is not the institution itself, but the people within them?

 

I'd say this is misguided in the extreme. The Republicans are no longer a normal party anymore, they have become what the Founders always feared - a party-before-country Faction. Under Trump the party has effectively become nihilist, trying to overturn the very basis of the Administrative state and the rule of law. Given the behavior they have exhibited at least since the days of Gingrich, there cannot be any expectation of getting Republican support on anything, certainly no need to compromise with them. No; toss the filibuster, the Dems' agenda will sail through, and let the People decide on the results.

 

The Republicans have tried to 'overturn' the Administrative State? ROFL. Don't toss that credit where it doesn't belong. Who's been resisting all this time? Who's rioting in the cities? Who's calling our federal officers stormtroopers?

Actions speak louder than words(their words aren't against the administrative state either.) It's clear that Democrats have aimed and have succeeded at the destruction of the administrative state and seek to blame Trump to win an election.

And if we go back further in history, you had the House from 1954-1992. Despite that dominate control, and the social programs that followed, many such said programs are obsolete and in ruin. The ACA as a mere concept alone threatened compulsion because yes, good social works require mandates!

Democrats have always, throughout US History found a convenient excuse for their failures. And should Biden fail, the Trump excuse will be the new Bush excuse.