CNN Reporting that RBG Has Passed

[Spaceman Spiff]

Of course Mitt doesn't like Trump but caves when it counts because...well, power.  That's all it's really about.  

 

 

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Make another national election. Let the people choose the judges. Straight up popular vote. So much freedomz 

I feel wary of us voting in judges. First, I don't really like the idea of judges campaigning though I know some do. It feels crass. Second, I know when I see judges or school board members on my ballot I feel ill prepared to vote for them. I do think the idea has merit. Perhaps they could be selected through the Bar Association or some combination of that, universities, and amongst the pool of sitting judges.

[Springfield]

Well boys, this whole thing has been nice I guess. Probably time to stock up on ammo.

[PokerPacker]

4 hours ago, Long n Left said:

Why is the media not hammering him with this constantly? He made the statement, he should have to come up with a reasonable explanation for NOT doing what he said...oh wait, it’s Lindsay Graham we're talking about...

Are they not?  Certainly hearing a fair amount of it on NPR.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

28 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

If Biden wins, he has no choice but to go ahead and put more justices on the bench. They need to go ahead and just crush them if they win the majority. I'd go full liberal and pass every bill under the sun for this. Make it where the GOP cannot win another election for at least 10-15 years. They have holy hell to pay.

the thing is, if they take the steps that protect democracy and empower voters, the GOP wouldn’t have the massive advantages they have now. Them having control of the senate, house, and presidency would likely be rare unless they walk back the last 20 years of their Overton shift into far right lunacy and actually present a respectable party to voters. 
 

so I am not as concerned with repercussions if they get back in power. 
 

we’d have 2 more states and a more fair senate makeup with voter suppression efforts stamped out, gerrymandering dramatically reduced and hopefully more house reps altering the electoral college numbers. 
 

dems need to go for broke if they get power. This may be their last chance to save the country. 

[Jumbo]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

  Either that or to pay for more ladyboys.

 

 

mi amigo, i'm pretty sure you're not 'that guy' who meant any harm there but let me clear that up for you: you (anyone) need to lose using that kind of dialogue here or you'll get banned and we don't want that  

[Koala]

10 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

That speaks to your moral compass.

 

 

 

(It's not good)

Moral compass?  Have you been watching for the last.. I dunno.. 40 years? 

 

Tired of watching the Democrats show up ready for a fight, while Republicans show up ready for war.  Aint no morals in war, kid. 

 

By any means, necessary.  Hopefully, the more moral side will win.  But lets recognize the moral b.s. for what it is, when it comes to politics.

[TheGoodBits]

5 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

dems need to go for broke if they get power. This may be their last chance to save the country. 

Absolutely this. In the hypothetical scenario where Biden wins but Rs narrowly keep the senate, or Dems take the Senate but meekly accept that Republicans control their courts now, in 4 years we’ll be right back where we are now. Republicans don’t care about rule of law, they only care about power and holding onto it any way they can. If Dems aren’t playing the same game, they’re losing that game. Two new states? Why stop there? American Samoa and Guam need representation too. California needs to split into two. Two new SCOTUS justices? There would still be a 6-5 disadvantage. Make it 12

new seats and if you really care about impressions of fairness you could have it phased in over the next 8 years. +4 in 2021, +4 in 2025, +4 in 2029. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

13 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

dems need to go for broke if they get power. This may be their last chance to save the country. 

I think that’s part of the reason they lost control after 2010.  They had full control and couldn’t get a lot done despite all that control. Hopefully they learn from that mistake.

[Koala]

11 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Would you be okay with Dems expanding the court since they are under no constitutional obligation to have 9 justices?

 

Of course.  This shouldnt even be a threat, it should be given that theyre gonna expand the court to whatever number is politically suitable.  Seriously enough with the b.s., i aint saying politics havent always been in the sewer, but after McConnel's stewardship, Democrats really need to grow up and start playing for keeps, like the Republicans.   Thats the whole point of my post.   When the Democrats come in, they should do ever legal thing they can think of to put the G.O.P. into the ground for good.  And some illegal things too.  **** it, we're already there, its too late to put the cat back in the bag, blame the turtle neck. 

[TheGoodBits]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think that’s part of the reason they lost control after 2010.  They had full control and couldn’t get a lot done despite all that control. Hopefully they learn from that mistake.

Obama came in genuinely hoping to be the “change” President that could reach across the aisle and tear down partisan barriers. He was met with vitriol and obstruction, and lost the house in a huge way after just two years. 
 

I hope Biden won’t make the same mistake if he has the opportunity. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

They should get within 1 of the senate this year. 2022 I think is even more favorable so perhaps they could keep afloat for 2 heads until the next midterms and take the senate then. 

[DCranon21]

14 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Absolutely this. In the hypothetical scenario where Biden wins but Rs narrowly keep the senate, or Dems take the Senate but meekly accept that Republicans control their courts now, in 4 years we’ll be right back where we are now. Republicans don’t care about rule of law, they only care about power and holding onto it any way they can. If Dems aren’t playing the same game, they’re losing that game. Two new states? Why stop there? American Samoa and Guam need representation too. California needs to split into two. Two new SCOTUS justices? There would still be a 6-5 disadvantage. Make it 12

new seats and if you really care about impressions of fairness you could have it phased in over the next 8 years. +4 in 2021, +4 in 2025, +4 in 2029. 

 

For every justice Trump added, put 2-3 on the bench. Don't stop there add more federal judges in your favor. Then pass the Voting Rights Act, stomp out gerrymandering and voter suppression along with Election Day as National holiday. Also same day registration on Election Day to go along with the Voting Rights Act. They cry and call foul, tell them to kick rocks with flip flops on and pass it. Statehood for DC and PR and like you said don't stop there. Make them pay and make it hard for them to win the WH for at least a generation. I'd run the score up on them and it's nothing they could do about it. Mitch will also have holy hell to pay for in 2022 too with the Senate. Those days of playing fair are over.

[spjunkies]

I'm in full agreement, time for dems to stop being pushovers and start fighting back. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

35 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

 

mi amigo, i'm pretty sure you're not 'that guy' who meant any harm there but let me clear that up for you: you (anyone) need to lose using that kind of dialogue here or you'll get banned and we don't want that  

Sorry, no harm meant.  No offense to anyone but his wife, really. 🤨

[Fresh8686]

4 hours ago, Long n Left said:

Was watching a legal pundit on MSNBC last night (can’t recall his name) who floated the idea of increasing the SC dramatically. His argument was, that there are large judicial pools in circuits, 50-100, why should there not be in the largest court in the land?
 

He said, why not 50 SC justices? Then decisions would be rendered by a randomly selected group of 3 judges, and it would cut down on suits brought before the court, because you’d have no idea which justices would be hearing the case. The case would stand on its merits.

 

Agreed with most everything he said, though, I’d think a panel of 7 or 9 justices would be a better draw from the pool of 50, as only 3 would not slow as many suits brought forth, because the odds are better. 7 or 9 would even out those odds, and, IMO, is a more democratic way of justice in this land’s highest court than what we have now.

 

I think you're talking about this one. I saw it too and thought it was interesting.

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Double post

Edited September 22, 2020 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[Llevron]

18 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I hope Biden won’t make the same mistake if he has the opportunity. 

 

Hes campaigning on it. He 100% will try. What he does when it fails is going to matter most. Assuming we even get him elected. 

 

We tried to elect a guy that didnt want to play nice and thats not what Dems want. Dems want moderate-ish, meet you halfway play nice guy. Thats what Biden is. We are going to have to live with that. And dont expect Dems as a whole to be much better. As evidenced. 

[TheGoodBits]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

Hes campaigning on it. He 100% will try. What he does when it fails is going to matter most. Assuming we even get him elected. 

 

We tried to elect a guy that didnt want to play nice and thats not what Dems want. Dems want moderate-ish, meet you halfway play nice guy. Thats what Biden is. We are going to have to live with that. And dont expect Dems as a whole to be much better. As evidenced. 

He will try. I just hope he doesn’t keep trying when it’s clear those efforts are for nothing. It’s noble that Democrats want to be the “party of adults.” But if that party is also the party of losers, being the adult in the room doesn’t mean a whole lot. 

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

I feel wary of us voting in judges. First, I don't really like the idea of judges campaigning though I know some do. It feels crass. Second, I know when I see judges or school board members on my ballot I feel ill prepared to vote for them. I do think the idea has merit. Perhaps they could be selected through the Bar Association or some combination of that, universities, and amongst the pool of sitting judges.

 

Judges campaigning is a good point. That will get real bad real quick. Sucks

[Fresh8686]

47 minutes ago, Koala said:

Moral compass?  Have you been watching for the last.. I dunno.. 40 years? 

 

Tired of watching the Democrats show up ready for a fight, while Republicans show up ready for war.  Aint no morals in war, kid. 

 

By any means, necessary.  Hopefully, the more moral side will win.  But lets recognize the moral b.s. for what it is, when it comes to politics.

 

Sorry, but this is loser talk and keyboard jockey **** regarding morals and war.

You're basically saying we're too weak or incapable to thread the needle and fight back without retaining character and trust.

 

We can be better than that and I get that it's hard to see that threading the needle process in many dems, because they have no edge, but some of the younger ones and the constituency do or are at least learning that they need to have one.

 

There is difference between having no edge, having a healthy edge, and being a person with an edge but no character or integrity.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fresh8686

[Jumbo]

there are many situations in life where having 'adults' in a room isn't that beneficial if the 'adults' don't have the wherewithal to assert themselves sufficiently when appropriate (see 'questionable' parenting in public)

 

the old guidance holds--avoid being the bulldozer or the doormat as a default...be like bruce said...be water...maintain the ability to be anything necessary across a very wide range of options depending on the circumstances 

 

there's flawed thinking behind many suggested applications of 'take the high road' or 'set a better example' (and many where such is absolutely a great response)

 

i have long liked the approach of "yes, i like and prefer the 'high' road as a default but i reserve the right to meet you on any level depending on what you bring to me"

 

 

[Renegade7]

12 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

**** lifetime judges.    Now that judiciary has become so political; you don't want lifetime judges making key decisions.

 

When the right wing court takes over with their 6-3 majority; they will impose their tyranny of minority.  They will oppose everything the majority wants and get rid of it.  

Right to choose, Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Voting rights, etc...  They will definitely go full steam to undo every program that FDR and LBJ passed.

 

We need term limits on judges. Set the term to 10 years and they can be renominated twice; for a total of 30 years.  

 

Why not jus max at 20 period?  Military goes lifetime benefits after 20 years, right?  You don't get kicked out the military, but 20 years seems more then enough for any nominated position and any elected position except president. 

[Koala]

2 hours ago, Koala said:

t theyre gonna expand the court to whatever number is politically suitable.  Seriously enough with the b.s., i aint saying politics havent always been in the sewer, but after McConnel's stewardship, Democrats really need to grow up and start playing for keeps, like the Republicans.   Thats the whole point of my post.   When the Democrats come in, they sh

 

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

there are many situations in life where having 'adults' in a room isn't that beneficial if the 'adults' don't have the wherewithal to assert themselves sufficiently when appropriate (see 'questionable' parenting in public)

 

the old guidance holds--avoid being the bulldozer or the doormat as a default...be like bruce said...be water...maintain the ability to be anything necessary across a very wide range of options depending on the circumstances 

 

there's flawed thinking behind many suggested applications of 'take the high road' or 'set a better example' (and many where such is absolutely a great response)

 

i have long liked the approach of "yes, i like and prefer the 'high' road as a default but i reserve the right to meet you on any level depending on what you bring to me"

 

 

 Thank you Jumbo, your last line appropriately sums up what Im trying to say.  I think at this point, the Republicans have clearly brought this down to the sewer level, so its time get dirty and fight.  Thats all Im trying to say, less eloquently than you.  

[Koala]

2 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Sorry, but this is loser talk and keyboard jockey **** regarding morals and war.

You're basically saying we're too weak or incapable to thread the needle and fight back without retaining character and trust.

 

We can be better than that and I get that it's hard to see that threading the needle process in many dems, because they have no edge, but some of the younger ones and the constituency do or are at least learning that they need to have one.

 

There is difference between having no edge, having a healthy edge, and being a person with an edge but no character or integrity.

Its not keyboard jockey ****.  Thats loser talk.  Republicans are literally preparing for war.  Sending 17 year old kids out to shoot demonstrators, and then making him a hero means they are preparing for war.  But thats not even what I was really getting at, I was getting at level of seriousness/preparedness for whats coming.  Its serious.  Save me the moral high-ground B.S., lemme guess you're a twenty something political science major, pontificating on what the world should be like.  I recognize that.  I used to be that.  But the world isnt what we want it to be, and sometimes we gotta do things we dont want to do, in order to get it to be what we want it to be.  

 

Now, I expect everybody to be guided by some sort of internal ethical compass.  I actually have a pretty strong one,  God-willing, and its mostly drawn from my religion.  I dont care where you draw yours from, but I strongly suggest that it be based upon reality, experience, or the experiences of others.  The last thing it should be based on is some Aaron Sorkin-like fantasy, or whatever the Republicans are suggestings Democrats should be like.  

Edited September 22, 2020 by Koala