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

[michiskin]

10 hours ago, visionary said:

Too many beers.

Drinking on the job again, Bart?

 

Seriously though, this is the sort of thing that would get you a failing grade on your freshman writing class. This is the kind of **** we can expect from Crazy Eyes the hand maid, Bart O'Kavanaugh and Not Merrick Garland.

[bearrock]

36 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

They were never going to get rid of Barr, the point was to stall past the election. Instead, they turned to the camera, told all of us to vote and put all the responsibility on their constituents instead of fighting for their constituents. A majority of Americans are against a SCOTUS pick this close to an election, they had a lot of leeway in the public eye to try and do something. If they don't fight now, what guarantee do I have that they're going to fight later? They're always kicking the can down the street for the next fight, but they never actually fight. They remind me of that kid in school who acts tough and says "meet me at the flagpole at 3 o'clock", but they never show up.

 

 

 

Ok, suppose the Dems impeach Barr.  In fact, why stop there?  Impeach every cabinet member and Trump and all the Trump appointed federal judges for good measure.

 

Mitch McConnell and Repub senators can still issue a blanket aquittal on every official after document only group trial that lasts an hour and still confirm Barrett.  McConnell could also hold the confirmation right after the election, because even Kelly being seated post haste after winning doesn't give you enough votes to block (and no losing the senate and white house wouldn't have shamed them into stopping).  There was no way to block this confirmation.  Enough people held their nose and voted for Trump for SCOTUS alone while enough people refused to vote for Clinton because whatever.  With Garland debacle and cancer survivor octogenarian on the court, this was always the likely outcome of 2016 election.

[Hersh]

47 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

They were never going to get rid of Barr, the point was to stall past the election. Instead, they turned to the camera, told all of us to vote and put all the responsibility on their constituents instead of fighting for their constituents. A majority of Americans are against a SCOTUS pick this close to an election, they had a lot of leeway in the public eye to try and do something. If they don't fight now, what guarantee do I have that they're going to fight later? They're always kicking the can down the street for the next fight, but they never actually fight. They remind me of that kid in school who acts tough and says "meet me at the flagpole at 3 o'clock", but they never show up.

 

 

the Democrats will lose the White House and the Senate if they don’t pass major reforms across a number of issues. Joe Biden wouldn’t win the 2024 primary if he doesn’t pack the court. I’m banking on the Dems in charge understanding this. I’m a little skeptical of the old guard but there are too many Dems pushing now 

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Simmsy said:

Even if that is the case, we have no covid relief and we still got this horrible pick for the SC. If anything, the dems pulled a double fail. They failed biggly...biggley...bigglie?

 

Ever heard of the Republican controlled Senate? The House has passed many bills this session and they just sit thanks to Mitch McConnell who won't allow any votes on them. It's futile for the House to impeach anyone if the Senate won't hold the trial to remove anyone, per the impeachment of Trump. 

 

Please pay attention to the facts of this current situation.

[redskins59]

I have supported moderates my whole life.  I supported Hillary over Obama (Obama was more liberal), and I supported Hillary over Bernie. Furthermore, I have supported Biden over the whole field. The reason being, I wanted someone who could be elected.

At some point though, you need to fight back.  So what I want is for the supreme court to be packed.

I am supporting a full-blown socialist left candidate  if they don't do certain things.  

 Don't try to reason with Republicans. It does not work.

 

 

 

[@DCGoldPants]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

They did everything they could.  They stalled it as long as they were able.

 

Yes they did. Now they need to spend every dollar raised to get the WH and Senate without doubt. Win or Lose, leadership on the Dems side needs to get younger.

 

If they pull it off with the WH and Senate. Don't even wait or pretend to reach across the aisle. Expand this court and the one below it. Lock in healthcare. Lock out dark money. Lock out former elected officials becoming lobbyists. Close every loophole you can find. Then change the requirement in the Senate to 60 to pass future Justices and even more to change the rule again. **** them all.

[redskins59]

3 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Yes they did. Now they need to spend every dollar raised to get the WH and Senate without doubt. Win or Lose, leadership on the Dems side needs to get younger.

 

If they pull it off with the WH and Senate. Don't even wait or pretend to reach across the aisle. Expand this court and the one below it. Lock in healthcare. Lock out dark money. Lock out former elected officials becoming lobbyists. Close every loophole you can find. Then change the requirement in the Senate to 60 to pass future Justices and even more to change the rule again. **** them all.

Yes, do all that, and pack every single court out there, even the jury duty types, whatever the **** they are called.

[Simmsy]

48 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Ever heard of the Republican controlled Senate? The House has passed many bills this session and they just sit thanks to Mitch McConnell who won't allow any votes on them. It's futile for the House to impeach anyone if the Senate won't hold the trial to remove anyone, per the impeachment of Trump. 

 

Please pay attention to the facts of this current situation.

Yes, I understand that, but even when the GOP has no power the Dems bow down to them and find a way to lose. You guys don't think it's time to fight fire with fire? So, even when the GOP doesn't have the power, they still do. They get what they want either way, because the dems let them have their way. You don't think it's time to stop giving in to the GOP? You see what happens, the dems are just making it harder for themselves down the line. I'm paying attention plenty.

[LadySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

Yes, I understand that, but even when the GOP has no power the Dems bow down to them and find a way to lose. You guys don't think it's time to fight fire with fire? So, even when the GOP doesn't have the power, they still do. They get what they want either way, because the dems let them have their way. You don't think it's time to stop giving in to the GOP? You see what happens, the dems are just making it harder for themselves down the line. I'm paying attention plenty.

 

I think this might be somewhat true. However, McConnell just adjourned the Senate until November 9, so there will be no movement on any legislation. 

 

Democrats try to act with decorum and work with Republicans. There used to be this in years past. Ever since the impeachment of Clinton and the rise of the Tea Party Republicans, all sense of decorum has been lost. The Republican Party was taken over by the John Birch Society although they didn't call themselves that because the JBS was pretty much anathema in this country.

[Hersh]

7 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

Yes, I understand that, but even when the GOP has no power the Dems bow down to them and find a way to lose. You guys don't think it's time to fight fire with fire? So, even when the GOP doesn't have the power, they still do. They get what they want either way, because the dems let them have their way. You don't think it's time to stop giving in to the GOP? You see what happens, the dems are just making it harder for themselves down the line. I'm paying attention plenty.

 

I would bet every Dem supporter here is ready to do away with the filibuster and pass major bills come Jan. 20th. I would bet every Dem in Congress is ready to do the same. Gotta win control first. Honestly, I have no idea how the Dems are just making it harder for themselves down the line. When you are on an island with your stance, maybe reflect on your stance?

[Simmsy]

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

I would bet every Dem supporter here is ready to do away with the filibuster and pass major bills come Jan. 20th. I would bet every Dem in Congress is ready to do the same. Gotta win control first. Honestly, I have no idea how the Dems are just making it harder for themselves down the line. When you are on an island with your stance, maybe reflect on your stance?

I don't understand how else to explain it, the Dems allow the GOP to have their way when the Dems are in power. The GOP never gives an inch when it comes to the wants and needs of the DNC. Everytime the Dems give the GOP power, they use it to get more power and they have no problem using it. As of right now, the GOP has the power to control this election through the courts, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. What do the Dems have? Hoping that people like you and I will vote in enough numbers to offset the cheating of the GOP.

 

Maybe Bill Maher can explain it a little better:

 

 

[Hersh]

6 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

I don't understand how else to explain it, the Dems allow the GOP to have their way when the Dems are in power. The GOP never gives an inch when it comes to the wants and needs of the DNC. Everytime the Dems give the GOP power, they use it to get more power and they have no problem using it. As of right now, the GOP has the power to control this election through the courts, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. What do the Dems have? Hoping that people like you and I will vote in enough numbers to offset the cheating of the GOP.

 

Maybe Bill Maher can explain it a little better:

 

 

Nobody is disputing what the Dems have done in the past. We are dealing with the present then the future. The Dems cannot force the GOP Senate to vote on a single bill. You called that a failure by the Dems. Feel free to say specifically how the Dems are supposed to force that vote. 

 

PS- Impeaching Barr right before the election and creating a side show when all the focus needs to be on health care and Trump and Covid is a really dumb idea. 

[Isifhan]

11 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Nobody is disputing what the Dems have done in the past. We are dealing with the present then the future. The Dems cannot force the GOP Senate to vote on a single bill. You called that a failure by the Dems. Feel free to say specifically how the Dems are supposed to force that vote. 

 

PS- Impeaching Barr right before the election and creating a side show when all the focus needs to be on health care and Trump and Covid is a really dumb idea. 

Now for sure impeaching Barr would be a sideshow. I think they could have played the impeachment card to delay any voting on the SCOTUS nomination though well in advance or talked about it anyway.  Pelosi said they had a lot of arrows in their quiver - I didn't see any come out except a boycott of the vote.  I have to agree the Dems have no killer instinct. It needs to change but at this point nothing we can do except vote and if we flip the senate and take the WH hold folks accountalbe.

[Simmsy]

8 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Nobody is disputing what the Dems have done in the past. We are dealing with the present then the future. The Dems cannot force the GOP Senate to vote on a single bill. You called that a failure by the Dems. Feel free to say specifically how the Dems are supposed to force that vote. 

 

PS- Impeaching Barr right before the election and creating a side show when all the focus needs to be on health care and Trump and Covid is a really dumb idea. 

The reason why we're having this problem now, is because of what the Dems didn't do in the past. I'm not trying to harp on the past, but to stop this from happening further, the Dems have to do something different than just say " the GOP won't let us". The situation we're in didn't just pop up overnight, this has been a slow burn that the Dems have allowed to happen. 

 

You and I both know that the Senate would not have passed any type of covid relief bill or a bill that would be worth a damn. The house doing as such was done purely on principle, I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, but we all know it was a waste of time. Besides, you're telling me that the Dems can't do covid relief and fight at the same time? They can't walk and chew gum?

 

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

The reason why we're having this problem now, is because of what the Dems didn't do in the past. I'm not trying to harp on the past, but to stop this from happening further, the Dems have to do something different than just say " the GOP won't let us". The situation we're in didn't just pop up overnight, this has been a slow burn that the Dems have allowed to happen. 

 

You and I both know that the Senate would not have passed any type of covid relief bill or a bill that would be worth a damn. The house doing as such was done purely on principle, I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, but we all know it was a waste of time. Besides, you're telling me that the Dems can't do covid relief and fight at the same time? They can't walk and chew gum?

 

 

You are so all over the place now. The Dems are fighting the right fight which is the election. That's how they can pack the court. The Dems passed Covid. You stated you wanted a Barr impeachment to slow the confirmation process. That didn't happen and was a bad strategy. Maybe in the Covid thread you can explain what you want from the Dems cause you are currently not making sense. 

[Larry]

I think this goes here instead of the election thread, although it touches both.  

 

First:  Two SCOTUS rulings.  

 

NPR: Supreme Court Rules Pennsylvania Can Count Ballots Received After Election Day

 

Milwaukie Journal: U.S. Supreme Court declines to change Wisconsin's voting rules, keeps Election Day deadline for mailed ballots

 

Both cases addressed the issue of whether mail in ballots can be counted after Election Day, if they're postmarked in Election Day.  In the PN case, the ruling said that yes, those votes count.  In WI, they ruled that no, they have to arrive by ED.  

 

The two rulings were different, because Roberts voted differently on the two cases.  Everybody else followed "party lines".  

 

CNN story that I just heard said that Roberts has issued a stsrement, explaining why he ruled differently on the two cases.  He said that the PN case involved the state supreme court interpreting state law, whereas the WI case involved a federal court interpreting state law.  

 

Of course, one possible speculation is, with ACB in the mix now, would Roberts' ruling have been a dissent from a 5-4 ruling.  

 

But I'm also wondering.  Do these two ruling now constitute precedent for lower courts, that the federal judiciary should stay out of state election laws?  

Edited October 27, 2020 by Larry

[Simmsy]

3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

You are so all over the place now. The Dems are fighting the right fight which is the election. That's how they can pack the court. The Dems passed Covid. You stated you wanted a Barr impeachment to slow the confirmation process. That didn't happen and was a bad strategy. Maybe in the Covid thread you can explain what you want from the Dems cause you are currently not making sense. 

If you think that all the Dems have to do is win the election, you're going to be in for a shock. The entire attitude of the DNC needs to change in order to be successful in the future. If you're happy with the way things are going, so be it. This is going around in circles and I don't know how else to say this, so I'm going to let bygones be bygones.

[Hersh]

16 minutes ago, Isifhan said:

Now for sure impeaching Barr would be a sideshow. I think they could have played the impeachment card to delay any voting on the SCOTUS nomination though well in advance or talked about it anyway.  Pelosi said they had a lot of arrows in their quiver - I didn't see any come out except a boycott of the vote.  I have to agree the Dems have no killer instinct. It needs to change but at this point nothing we can do except vote and if we flip the senate and take the WH hold folks accountalbe.

 

Well in advance? Trump announced he would select a nominee within an hour of RBG dying. It's fantasy land to believe the Dems could have prevented this from happening. 

[NoCalMike]

The reason the GOP never gives an inch when they are in power is because they know full stop that their actual policy ideas are not favored by the majority.  When you poll the people on actual issues instead of attaching the generic "Democrat" vs "Republican" to them, almost every single issue down the line comes out more approving of what the Democrats want to do.  With this knowledge the GOP know that their only play for retaining power is to lie and rig the system as much as they can to where the will of the people doesn't matter.  If we had actual free and fair elections in this country in the way people think we do, the GOP would have stopped winning elections outside of the inconsequential deepest reddest of the red districts a long time ago. 

 

This is why going into the 2020 election, the main play you see by Trump is not even about getting more people to vote for him, it has been 100% about how he can nullify as many votes as possible.

Edited October 27, 2020 by NoCalMike

[Isifhan]

7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Well in advance? Trump announced he would select a nominee within an hour of RBG dying. It's fantasy land to believe the Dems could have prevented this from happening. 

Point is they didn't try. I give up doesn't seem to be the right play.  Doesn't mean that they' prevented it but it may have slowed things down enough to be a bit effective. 

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, Simmsy said:

If you think that all the Dems have to do is win the election, you're going to be in for a shock. The entire attitude of the DNC needs to change in order to be successful in the future. If you're happy with the way things are going, so be it. This is going around in circles and I don't know how else to say this, so I'm going to let bygones be bygones.

 

2 hours ago, Hersh said:

the Democrats will lose the White House and the Senate if they don’t pass major reforms across a number of issues. Joe Biden wouldn’t win the 2024 primary if he doesn’t pack the court. I’m banking on the Dems in charge understanding this. I’m a little skeptical of the old guard but there are too many Dems pushing now 

 

It's almost like you aren't reading responses. Lastly, it's not a question of being happy or not, it's understanding the fact that the focus needs to be on winning this election then pressuring our representatives to make changes. 

Just now, Isifhan said:

Point is they didn't try. I give up doesn't seem to be the right play.  Doesn't mean that they' prevented it but it may have slowed things down enough to be a bit effective. 

 

Y'all need to think bigger picture about the narratives of the election and what is winnable. If it can't be prevented, the next best option is winning the election to make her appointment meaningless. 

[techboy]

I'm pretty sure this was posted before, but anyone criticizing the Democrats for failing to stop this should read this article:

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/72521/senate-procedures-offer-no-hope-for-dems-on-supreme-court-nominee/

 

The short summary is that there is literally NOTHING that would have stopped it.

 

Anything they did would be entirely symbolic, so they had to weigh the benefit of being seen to fight (and drawing attention to the Republicans' open flouting of norms) vs. creating a circus that distracted from the election.

 

Impeaching Barr wouldn't have worked, but it probably would have distracted voters from Trump's daily self immolation and Democrats hammering health care. Not doing it was the right call.

 

As for adding justices, my suspicion is that Biden understands it has to happen, but he ALSO knows that it's pretty unpopular with the general public... Polls show most people are against it. It doesn't make sense for him to come out and support it now... Anyone that wants to do it has to vote for him to make it happen, and there's a risk of turning off people that don't like the idea, such as moderate to conservative voters that are planning to vote for him because of how bad Trump is, but don't really want to think about the policy implications of an aggressive Democrat government.

[No Excuses]

The Democrats only weapon against the raw exercise of Republican power in stacking federal courts is to expand the courts. There are two things in this country that will always remain true:

 

1. Most of the public is low information voters, majority of the people can't name more than one SC justice, let alone keep track of how many judges are on a lower court bench

 

2. You win elections by making people's lives better. People need healthcare access, small businesses need bailouts, our infrastructure sucks and needs to be modernized.

 

If you win with a governing mandate, you expand the courts and you pass policies that are popular and that have immediate payoff. You do the Trumpian strategy of flooding the news waves with activity, where no one keep up with what happened the week before. But you do it on issues that are popular, not on garbage that is exhausting.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Larry]

OK, Sorry folks, but if you want to add more justices so you can create artificial vacancies, you're going to lose my support.  

 

But.  I'm a Trekkie.  I love stories where a bold decisive action makes things get better in only 43 minutes plus commercials.  

 

So, presented - A fantasy.  

 

Dems win the Senate.  

Dems, utilizing Congress' Constitutionally-granted power to determine it's own membership, votes not to seat any member who voted to confirm ACB.  

Since Dems now represent 90% of the Senate, they now vote to impeach and remove from office Gorsuch and Barrett.  

Gorsuch, because the vacancy was created via an unconstitutional abuse of power.  

Barret, because she was selected specifically because she was the most partisan person on the federal bench, and for the specific purpose of using her power to grant the election to the Republican Party, and lied under oath about both at her confirmation hearing.  

There are now two vacancies on the SC  

President Biden announces that in a fair world, the Republicans should have been allowed to fill one of those seats, just not both.  He proposes a peaceful way to resolve this conflict in a non-blatantly-partisan fashion.  

He will appoint one justice to fill one seat.  

And he will allow the Republicans to name one.  (They'll give Biden the name, and he will appoint the person the R's gave him.)  

And the two nominees will proceed to confirmation hearings, in a Senate which will now contain all the R Senators.  In a Senate in which Supreme Court nominees can be filibustered.  

Gorsuch and Barrett will be replaced by a moderate D, and a moderate R.