Stuffing Supreme Court

Why do Democrats seem to think that the Judge Garland thing justifies anything they want to do regarding the Supreme Court now?

 

I disagree with several things here. But as it pertains to the point I was making, I don't quite understand how that would avoid the constitutional crisis I was referring to. SCOTUS has too much power in the hands of too few people. I don't mind justices having a left or right ideology. I mind them being ideologues. If we give Gorsuch and Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt (being too soon to tell, though they don't appear to point in the right direction), there are three clear ideologues in the court: Alito, Thomas and Roberts. Even though Roberts has shown a bit of flexibility lately (which I would attribute to personal dislike for Trump), his history of making decisions as an ideologue is clear.

That's what we need to avoid. So many ideologues among so few people with so much power is the big problem. And it's what creates a constitutional crisis every time one of them dies.

 

Let me guess. You can't name any liberal justices that are "ideologues"?

I suspect when you say "ideologue" what you mean is "they have ideas that I don't agree with".

 

I don't think giving the Presidency to Republicans in 2024 is the way to build a third party. A new Party would have to be built from the bottom up. Not from the top down. It's not enough to have some great ideas. They have to show that they can win elections. And they need to show that they can govern. First elect legislators. Even if only at state level. Then at a national level. Get some gubernatorial seats.... Show that they are working for the people. Once they have convinced people that they are a true alternative, then run a Presidential candidate. Not before. Doing it the wrong way is the assured way to failure.

 

I see no problem if the US stops killing babies and ends that monstrosity called Obamacare. The fact that liberals are willing to take excessive and extreme actions every time they don't get their way, is not sustainable. For each outrage liberals perpetrate upon decent Americans there will be some form of retribution. The most mature approach would just be to deal with the results so long as they are legal and within Constitutional bounds. Riots, packing the courts, and whatnot will only exasperate the situation. Worse yet, its all predicated on Biden winning, and just like Hillary, liberals are already acting as if its a done deal. You folks might be very disappointed come Nov...

 

One political party manipulating the rules and changing them to what is convenient to them every time there is a vacancy.

 

Yes they do.

 

that’s not a constitutional issue. The dems created the biden rule, McConneel simply followed it the. was nice enough to get rid of it as the dems requested why are you all flip flopping again??

 

I don't care about political parties. I just vote for those who are most likely to do the right thing. And, right now, that is not the Republican Party.

McConnell already did away with the filibuster rule. McConnell has abused power in just about all ways possible. I understand it that Democrats are tired of waiting until McConnell breaks the rules for them to start breaking them.

 

I can't. Can you?

And you would be wrong. Ideologue is somebody who places ideology before doing the right thing. No doubt about Alito and Thomas. Roberts has lately made an attempt at maintaining the integrity of the Court, but his history is not positive. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh... we'll see. But odds are not good.

 

That was Daschle.

 

Who said it was?

There is no such thing as a "Biden rule"

 

the poster i was responding to

yes the biden rule was created in 92 by Joe Biden when he was chairman of the judical committee

 

This party is a Progressive party and Progressives are already unseating incumbents within the Dem party...at all levels of government. The problem is that working from within the establishment party, grassroot funded candidates are being basically undermined by the corporate wing just as Bernie Sanders was, although I hold Bernie in large part responsible.

No time to waste and if they can get a candidate entered into the race by 2024 they will give both corporate corrupt parties actual opposition because the majority of Americans support the policies they are advocating for.

 

Are you serious?

The "Judge Garland thing" was a nakedly partisan move...which exposed the partisan nature of the GOP.

 

There never was a Biden rule...it was an excuse.

And of course is being discarded as soon as it is expedient since it never actually existed.

I'm wrong you say? When did the Senate vote on it?

 

nope Biden said it in 92.

no need for the full senate to vote on a committee rule the chair can jusr make it

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

You responded to me. Focus!

And no such thing as a "Biden Rule" has ever been passed.

 

you said there was a constitutional crisis hence why i asked

 

Have you forgotten what the Democrats did to Robert Bork? One of the most highly qualified judicial nominees in the history of the Supreme Court.

You really expect Republicans to forget that?

 

How quickly you forget.
"Daschle wasn’t done. He went on to say:

"Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands when it comes to the erosion of the institutional pillars of the Senate than Republicans going all the way back. . . . The whole budget process was a Democratic product, and that was in my view a procedural disaster. Then we lowered the threshold from 67 to 60. That was a Democratic effort. And then in 2013, we took it away completely for nominations, and that was Democratic. So, Democrats who may lament this institutional deterioration, I think there’s a lot of history here that can’t be explained away."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...mocrats-far-dirtier-hands-tom-daschle-admits/"

 

Even if they can't do it, they'll try. Any distraction from their policy shitshow will do.

 

With Trump in power, we are in a constant constitutional crisis. I think the simple way to get out of it is just to get rid of Trump, and try and return the country back to normal.

I was afraid that Gorsuch was going to be an hard right ideologue, but he's turning out to be fairly independent and not afraid to stand up to the executive branch and rather moderate on immigration.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...cord-is-surprisingly-moderate-on-immigration/

IF Roberts were an ideologue, he sure wasn't ideological when he saved the ACA calling the mandate a 'tax'. No hard liner would have taken that position.

I would give Roberts the benefit of the doubt and not base a ruling on his like or dislike of the president, but aside from the ACA, he has taken the conservative side the vast majority of the time.
You know what I think? I think he sided with the ACA because he knows the practical effect of killing it, it would take away health care from some 20,000,000 people, and I doubt he wanted to be the guy who was known for that, ideology or not. His voting to gut the Voting Rights Act, that was one of the greatest disservices to America any judge could have made. But, he's been against it fro most of his legal career, not understanding why it was needed. he was against in, in principle. I suppose in principle, as I would be, in principle, as it's an insult to one group of people, southern law makers, so it's a 'selective law' and it's easy to see why someone could be against it, but as a practical matter, if the south weren't so anti minority, it wouldn't be needed. He's an ideologue.

 

Sorry, but all I see is "Ralph Nader" and "2000 elections". That's not how you create a new political party. It's the way you perpetuate anti-progressives in power.

If you think that over 200 years worth of a poorly designed electoral system will be fixed in 4 years... I don't know what to tell you....