SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

care to tell me the answer to my question?

You quoted it.

?

[The Evil Genius]

So what keeps SCOTUS at only 9 judges?

 

?

[skinsmarydu]

6 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

So what keeps SCOTUS at only 9 judges?

 

?

You must've watched MoJoe on Friday. They brought in the dude who wrote an op-ed on how many times the number of justices has been changed. 

I cringed, just because he might've given the orange one an idea (imagine that).

[Fresh8686]

Man if I were the democrats I'd be pushing for marches and grassroots pressure out the ass from women and mutually concerned groups in Murkowski and Collin's home states. Actually same thing for Manchin and Doug Jones. I'd be reviewing which corporations have HQ's or significant investments in their home states and pressuring the hell out of them too.

Pressure them morally with high volume voter demonstrations against hard-line SCOTUS appointee choices and pressure them financially by pushing corporations to make a moral choice or deal with the boycotting of their brand.

The play here isn't to get them to stop choosing a nominee, but to counterbalance the choice so it's a conservative moderate rather than an ideologue.

[nonniey]

10 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

So what keeps SCOTUS at only 9 judges?

 

?

Just tradition and politics. Are you sure you want to go down that road?  Ya'll were pretty sure you wanted to go down the road of the nuclear option on filibusters and look how that turned out.  This is another one of those be careful what you wish for situations.

Edited July 1, 2018 by nonniey

[nonniey]

NH Union Leader: Words in your mouth: Compelled speech is one vote away. 

..........With Kennedy walking into a well-earned retirement, the court has four members who oppose compelled speech and four who would allow it. The future of the First Amendment will hinge on the vacant seat.

 

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20180701/OPINION01/180709987/1004/opinion

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, nonniey said:

Just tradition and politics. Are you sure you want to go down that road?  Ya'll were pretty sure you wanted to go down the road of the nuclear option on filibusters and look how that turned out.  This is another one of those be careful what you wish for situations.

 

I actually think doing away with the filibuster is a reasonable option.  Certainly for advise and consent function of the senate, but perhaps even for legislative.  The tool that exists to protect the minority of States from the tyranny of the majority only works if the Senate actually works through and compromises on these gridlocks.  Instead, it only contributes to Congressional gridlock and hides politically vulnerable senators from taking a position.  Nothing about the system that is around 250 years is sacrosanct.  Instead of continually discussing and tinkering with our framework, people attach too much importance to a rather young tradition.

 

A better tool to protect the minority would be to give power to force a vote on a bill without amendment process to a third or even quarter of Congress.  No more poison pills, no more tabling by leadership.  Maybe once a month to limit proliferation, but the ability to introduce and vote on a legislative agenda should be more broadly shared.  Ability of leadership to obfuscate and kill off bills before they ever see the light of day is doing serious damage to the legislative branch.

 

As for increasing the number of justices, meh.  It may give a temporary boost to the party in charge when the increase happens, but over time we'll probably revert to narrow margins on a few divisive issues with broad consensus on the rest.

[nonniey]

14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

 

As for increasing the number of justices, meh.  It may give a temporary boost to the party in charge when the increase happens, but over time we'll probably revert to narrow margins on a few divisive issues with broad consensus on the rest.

I think it would be more than a meh.  Once you increase the numbers for political/legislative reasons (ie to ensure the Court upholds or strikes legislation) the court would increase in size with every change of the party in power till it gets to the point where only one party would be allowed to be in power.

Edited July 1, 2018 by nonniey

[visionary]

 

[nonniey]

16 minutes ago, visionary said:

h

 Just don't see a conservative majority approving laws that outlaw abortion. I do believe they may approve laws that put increased restrictions on it. Admittedly these restrictions may even approach the level of restrictions normally associated with the liberal democracies of Western Europe. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by nonniey

[RedskinsFan44]

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

I actually think doing away with the filibuster is a reasonable option.  

In our current situation the filibuster protects the majority of the people from the minority. Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have 6 Senate seats with fewer people collectively than DC.

Edited July 1, 2018 by RedskinsFan44

[nonniey]

4 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

In our current situation the filibuster protects the majority of the people from the minority. Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have 6 Senate seats with fewer people collectively than DC.

You mean the filibuster would have protected.

[Cooked Crack]

This is the dumbest thing I've seen all day.

[DogofWar1]

The filibuster should have been done away with the second Ted Kennedy died.  The US would be massively better off today if they had.

 

It's ironic that trying to play nice with Republicans led to all this.

 

26 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Senators need to fill in that gap.

 

"Would you ever vote with a majority whose ruling would overturn Roe v. Wade?"

 

Naturally, they'll dodge.

 

Which is when you go for their throat.

 

18 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think of if the president killed someone in the streets, there would be enough votes for impeachment. A president removed from office can’t pardon himself. So he could be indicted.

 

 

Have you met this Congress?  Any previous President would have been impeached on like 20 separate occasions, and convicted on at least a few, thus far.

 

But that's besides the point.  If the President has the power to pardon himself and is barred from being indicted/tried/etc. while in office, he could do it at any point.  It's not like he has to wait to see how Congress acts, the moment the President whiffed any possibility of losing their immunity, they could pardon themselves.  Pardons don't just wear off after a while.

[RedskinsFan44]

22 minutes ago, nonniey said:

You mean the filibuster would have protected.

We still have the filibuster for some things. Correct?

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by RedskinsFan44

[DogofWar1]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

We still have the filibuster for some things. Correct?

 

Legislation.

[nonniey]

29 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

We still have the filibuster for some things. Correct?

 

Not really once it gets in the way of actually passing any legislation it is gone.

[nonniey]

43 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

 

 

.....  Any previous President would have been impeached on like 20 separate occasions, and convicted on at least a few, thus far......

 

 

For what?  Don't you think Congress (any Congress)  should wait for the results of Mueller's or anyone else's investigation before making such a move? He's a Jackass but even a Jackass shouldn't be impeached over accusations.    

Edited July 1, 2018 by nonniey

[CousinsCowgirl84]

45 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

Have you met this Congress?  Any previous President would have been impeached on like 20 separate occasions, and convicted on at least a few, thus far.

 

But that's besides the point.  If the President has the power to pardon himself and is barred from being indicted/tried/etc. while in office, he could do it at any point.  It's not like he has to wait to see how Congress acts, the moment the President whiffed any possibility of losing their immunity, they could pardon themselves.  Pardons don't just wear off after a while.

 

 

This congress was voted into office. We got to deal with the hand we got and not create precedent for unelected organization being able to remove people from office, that’s my point.

Edited July 1, 2018 by CousinsCowgirl84

[DogofWar1]

14 minutes ago, nonniey said:

For what?  Don't you think Congress (any Congress)  should wait for the results of Mueller's or anyone else's investigation before making such a move? He's a Jackass but even a Jackass shouldn't be impeached over accusations.    

Imagine Obama was doing all the things Trump was doing.

 

Emoluments.  Lying about, well, everything, and then, importantly, getting caught.

 

We also have to remember that if this Congress was doing their job they would have investigated much more, which undoubtedly would uncover a lot of stuff that is currently being covered up.

 

Remember Rob Porter?  WH knew of and participated in the coverup of the allegations of spousal abuse.  Who in the WH knew?  Did Trump?  There is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest he knew of at least some of the allegations.  What about Pruitt's actions?

 

Or shoot, just straight up Mike Flynn and everything he's ever done?  And then after that the canning of Sally Yates.

 

Remember how the Valerie Plame situation nearly took down the VP and Scooter taking the fall blunted things?  Now imagine that scandal but like once a month.  Eventually you run out of people willing to fall on their own swords.

 

19 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

This congress was voted into office. We got to deal with the hand we got and not create precedent for unelected organization being able to remove people from office, that’s my point.

 

I don't think you're understanding my point.

 

My view is a President can be indicted/tried/convicted/punished BUT still remain as President.

 

Impeachment is a political process.

 

Criminal prosecution is legal process.

 

So no, the Justice department cannot "remove" Trump from office, but Trump also isn't free from the consequences of criminal conduct while in office.

 

And yes, its ridiculous for a Pres to be Pres while behind bars, but its actually the least ridiculous outcome from the perspective of having the POTUS faithfully execute the laws of the USA.

 

And least ridiculous option should win.

[visionary]

18 minutes ago, nonniey said:

For what?  Don't you think Congress (any Congress)  should wait for the results of Mueller's or anyone else's investigation before making such a move? He's a Jackass but even a Jackass shouldn't be impeached over accusations.    

Corruption, incapability to tell the truth, interference in investigations, interference in court cases, etc.   people have been impeached for far less.  But it won’t happen because Reps are subservient to their Trump and Dems think he helps with their elections.

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, visionary said:

Corruption, incapability to tell the truth, interference in investigations, interference in court cases, etc.   people have been impeached for far less.  But it won’t happen because Reps are subservient to their Trump and Dems think he helps with their elections.

I think GOP is actually scared of the primaries if they impeach Trump.  I would think vast majority of GOP Congress members would prefer President Pence over President Trump.  But they will get roundedly punished for it in the primaries.  Probably even helps them in the general.

[twa]

10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I think GOP is actually scared of the primaries if they impeach Trump.  I would think vast majority of GOP Congress members would prefer President Pence over President Trump.  But they will get roundedly punished for it in the primaries.  Probably even helps them in the general.

 

scared of the voters?....what kind of ship are we running here?

I would prefer Pence or a few dozen others, but he won.

[bearrock]

23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

scared of the voters?....what kind of ship are we running here?

The type of ship where a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the election

 

One could argue that Congress should decide impeachment on principles involved rather than popular will.  In any event, you could have a situation where the Congressional member feels impeachment is warranted and 70% of the constituents support impeachment, but that member still votes against it due to fear that the 30% will control the GOP primaries.

[visionary]