How to ethically "pack" the Supreme Court

Because there was a Republican majority. Did you read the scenario I proposed on the OP? I read your post, and it looks like you didn't.

No rush. I'll wait....

The last paragraph responds to all the objections you made in this post.

 

I don't know how your last paragraph "responds" to the problems, I point out. What-- is part of your new system, prohibiting Republicans from ever being in the majority? My point, to restate it for you, is that, if this were meant to be an ongoing system, this eventuality will occur. Therefore, your system must make room for that eventuality.

Now that I have explained my own meaning, in such unambiguously clear terms, would you please do me the same favor, of explaining how your own saying that Democrats must be able to "do it" on their own, without Republican obstruction, answers all-- or even any-- of my arguments?

My suggestion to you-- if you actually have come up with a feasible way to remove from Republicans, "any means to obstruct"-- is that you just go with that plan, for the time being.


Golem said: ↑
...
The only way this could be accomplished is if Democrats had the ability to do it on their own. Because there is no compromise possible with Republicans when they have ANY means to obstruct. However, this is how the country would regain trust in the highest court of the land. Something sorely needed, if we are ever to get out of the partisan standstill we are in right now

 

First disband the Federalist society

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

 

My understanding is that the list the Federalist Society made for Trump included some respectable judges. Of course, he didn't even consider them. But it does look like it's not that easy to find partisan MAGA-activists like Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett.

 

Interesting that you use your idea of justice to cloak and dignify yet another unethical attack on the right and a justification of the unethical conduct of the left.

A child (assuming genuine independence here, not pre-programmed) could look at the conduct of congress and the manipulation by both parties and place the majority of obstruction, particularly that done to initiate rather than retaliate- squarely on the democrats. You simply ignore the instigators, then attack the retaliations as the cause of problems. That's SOP for the left these days, but it will never be ethical, independent or fair- and if you want to be, you will have to stop pretending it is. Grade-school bullies do that all the time. Honorable adults would not.

Every member of congress has a duty to the people- to be honest, to be open, and to work for their best interests. Every member of congress fails to meet that duty- because the de facto game in congress allows cheating, and that gives cheaters advantage over anyone naive enough to remain honest. The concept of manipulating the supreme court to get your way is hardly a respectable idea- and an honorable congress would have no part of it.

Are you really in favor of an ethical, honorable congress? Or- just one that prevails for your view, and applies the rules of ethics only to those who have opposing views?

 

?

 

A child might do that. Not a fully grown thinking adult who bases their positions on reality.

Yes. And I read your whole post and found no indication that you had even read my proposal. Lots of comments about me and my supposedly nefarious intentions, but nothing about what I wrote. So I can comfortably say that reading your post was a complete waste of time.

 

I already responded to that.

So what? Worst case scenario we'll have an independent SCOTUS until Republicans take over again instead of decades of a continuous MAGA-court. If it lasts for even just 2 years... that's 2 years less of MAGA-rule.

Best of cases this shakes Republicans into at least attempting to project an image of honesty. But, if they don't, an escalation in which each party keeps adding justices benefits independence more than it benefits extremists.

Exactly!

There is no possible permanent solution unless Republicans participate. When they decide to participate in the implementation of a permanent option, then my proposal will be superfluous. But in the mean time, second best thing we can do is implement a temporary solution every opportunity we get.

 

The part that says the president appoints (without interference from the other two branches) justices.

 

That is not in my proposal. There is "interference" because the Senate must approve nominations. But that's already in effect. My proposal doesn't change that in any way.

 

The senate confirmation process in no way interferes with the presidential appointment process. But if the president can appoint justices only from a list given him by congress that most certainly and egregiously interferes with his constitutional appointment authority. Your idea would require a constitutional amendment.

 

Of course I read your post- but I didn't buy the motive you try to sell.
Your track record precedes you, and creates a perspective that has to be part of your proposal. Underlying agenda- behind the advertising.
You would certainly agree to include all republicans so long as they endorse the democratic position. The only "compromise" you would be comfortable with is surrender of peoples values you don't agree with.
Now- as much as the condition of the left is appalling to me, I still have hope that these people can actually want a better nation that works for all of us equally- and at least some of them can do that without a rubber ruler or foot on the balance scale. I am without doubt more in favor of that than you can imagine; I'm physically working on it, spending a lot of money and time trying to promote it. One hour from now- I will be shooting video spots to do just that. I'm trying to promote the idea of unity and values that could restore the order and decency of our system. And while that effort is totally non-partisan, that will not prevent me identifying people unwilling to be so, and having the intent to prevent it being so. You can't walk away from the track you have already laid down, and there is no reason to believe you have changed course.

Words are hot air or black ink- but regardless of what you say or claim, it is what you do that defines who you are- and it impacts the credibility of what you say next.

You have been consistently a bitter enemy of Trump, of Maga, of republicans, and of any point of view of the right. Worse, in my opinion- an enemy of what is basically fair and honest. Only a fool would assume that you suddenly set that aside and wanted to establish a truly independent court or congress. Saying it is not the same as doing something about it. Come up with a way to insure the independence. Otherwise- you actually are endorsing packing the court for your own purpose, from my point of view.

 

Go back to 60 votes, or even 75. The president should still appoint.

That is the only way to get a Justice all parties and the executive somewhat agree on.

The last five picks for Scotus have been complete political theatre by BOTH sides.

How many democrats crossed the aisle for Trump's picks? It was 4 total for all three. Both sides do their share of blocking.

 

A solution in search of a problem.

I've yet to read an opinion of the court that bases decisions on some other factor.

 

The President can appoint whomever they want. I'm saying that a Democratic President can voluntarily give Republicans the privilege of providing a list in order to avoid the "court packing" strawman.

Unless you're saying that Trump appointing justices from the list prepared by the Federalist Society was unconstitutional.

 

For the record the most egregious obstruction of appointed justices was done by Democrats against Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. Barrett would be on this list but her being a female gave the Democrats a horrific optics dilemma.

 

My motive doesn't matter. Only thing that matters is if it would accomplish what I said. I am not the topic of this thread. If you have nothing to comment about my proposal, then we shouldn't be wasting our time.

 

Your OPs always provide me with numerous chuckles.

 

Let me guess you're absolutely right about this and you will take no effort to address other people's concerns and if they've always been to you you will pathetically try to insult them.

There is what time in history where a leader made overtures to do this and that was the US's only dictator. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You probably like him because you like dictators.

 

But Republicans will not allow that to happen. That is the reason for my proposal.

If Republicans ever do decide to cooperate in making the Supreme Court independent, then my proposal will be unnecessary. But, short of that, this is the ONLY way to accomplish that goal. Even if only temporarily.

 

Now that you're saying the list is completely voluntary, I would agree there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

Of course! Because they understood they were not going to be independent justices. And reality proved them right! It makes complete sense for ALL political parties oppose nominees when they have OBJECTIVE evidence that they are partisan ideologues who are not going to rule based solely on law and precedent. Which, BTW, Democrats didn't do in the case of Thomas. Which was irresponsible.

My proposal avoids that problem by allowing Republicans to propose the candidates to a Democratic President.

 

I am pretty sure neither side is going to do any of the proposals on Political Forum

The GOP was wrong in taking away the 60 vote threshold, just as the Democrats were on other appointments in 2013.

And is the left not just as guilty by following suit with their latest appointment? They had every opportunity to return the process to require 60 votes.

Neither side has any intention of giving up the power they have with 51 votes.

Next to go will be the filibuster. And when the other side has a majority back, we would likely see a thread condemning them for not allowing the opposition to have any power.

It is not making anything independent to simply add votes to get a desired outcome. That simply creates a desired bias on the court.

So assuming eventually the R's will be back in charge: Switch the R's and the D's and run your scenario again.

1. The Dems submit a list of potential justices - BUT it is a "serious" list that the GOP can get behind...
2. GOP POTUS picks one from this serious list
3. GOP controlled senate confirmation vote passes - who saw that coming
4. The GOP senate has know pre-selected an appointment, and voted them in...

I'll bet the Democrats will line up to "cooperate" and bring "independence" back to the court.

 

In both cases, it was Republicans who were obstructing Democrats from carrying out their constitutional duty. There is no 60 vote threshold in the constitution, but there IS a requirement to appoint judges. And there is also an oath of office that REQUIRES them to perform their duties REGARDLESS of whether or not the opposing party might use it as a political maneuver in the future for political purposes. Therefore, the ONLY actions that were "wrong", according to the Constitution, were on the Republican side.

But that's a different topic. This one is intended to discuss a very specific proposal.

100% I would expect them to either pass unanimously, or with a handful of GOP objections from any MAGA extremists left in Congress at the time.

On the other hand, I don't expect that to happen on the GOP side. But it CAN happen on the Democratic side. The Republican party is too far to the right for that. If THEY wanted to fix the problem, there are even better, more permanent ways of doing it.

Oh... and, of course, this is not for ONE justice. This is for whatever additional number of justices is needed to ensure no political party controls the Supreme Court. My example uses six. But it could be more.

 

It is not a bad idea in theory, but can you explain what you mean by "independent"? I mean I know the general meaning is non-partisan but how do you know these people aren't just righties or lefties that identify as "independent" for other reasons?