Supreme Court Vacancy

1333436383945

Posts

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Even with the damage trump has done to the federal judiciary you'd struggle to reach the Supreme Court on it anyway.

    Anything can get to SCOTUS if people keep appealing.

    I look forward to the supreme court being placed under a temporary stay by a lower court review of the 'Is it OK for the supreme court to have more than 9 justices' case, meaning that the supreme court is prevented from hearing cases until it has heard the case...

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Madican wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Even with the damage trump has done to the federal judiciary you'd struggle to reach the Supreme Court on it anyway.

    Anything can get to SCOTUS if people keep appealing.

    That video of Whitehouse's speech really should be mandatory viewing I think. It clearly shows how the system gets manipulated.

    Is there video of him actually questioning her yet? Because yeah, that was a great watch and I'm curious to see how he plans on following it up.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Madican wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Even with the damage trump has done to the federal judiciary you'd struggle to reach the Supreme Court on it anyway.

    Anything can get to SCOTUS if people keep appealing.

    That video of Whitehouse's speech really should be mandatory viewing I think. It clearly shows how the system gets manipulated.

    Is there video of him actually questioning her yet? Because yeah, that was a great watch and I'm curious to see how he plans on following it up.

    it's certainly already on C-Span

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Even with the damage trump has done to the federal judiciary you'd struggle to reach the Supreme Court on it anyway.

    Anything can get to SCOTUS if people keep appealing.

    I look forward to the supreme court being placed under a temporary stay by a lower court review of the 'Is it OK for the supreme court to have more than 9 justices' case, meaning that the supreme court is prevented from hearing cases until it has heard the case...

    lower courts have no power here. SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction almost certainly.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    SCOTUS saying that it can't be expanded by Congress despite a long history of the number of seats being changed would be met with a modern "Now let him enforce it."

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    PreacherElvenshaeForarAngelHedgieEmperorSethIncenjucar
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    SCOTUS saying that it can't be expanded by Congress despite a long history of the number of seats being changed would be met with a modern "Now let him enforce it."

    I think it would be wholly appropriate to get a Supreme Court judgment. Just that that judgment would include the new justices which we had appointed and had already taken their seats.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    HappylilElf
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    At this point, with her confirmation a fait accompli, I'd like to know what, if anything, is gonna be done if Democrats have three 3 branches next year. Yes, she's a horrible jurist who will stand in opposition to all progress, and will in fact set us back in many areas, and because of that [???].

    So cross-thread but Biden was asked about this tonight during the town hall and he did say that he's not talking about what he's going to do right now because the focus should be on what the GOP is doing. George said the voters have a right to know before they decide and Biden said they would, and that he'll answer the question after this (the confirmation) is done, before it (the election) is all over.

    So that's a thing.

    BattleTech KS Thread! | Mech Trade List | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The answer is you're going to push the court, but you can't say you're going to do that because people associated that with FDR's plan and that is universally said to be bad in history books. One of the like, half dozen things you're supposed to know about the 20th century.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    ArdolLabelshrykedispatch.o
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    NYT congressional reporter.


    Sara Gideon, asked about making the judiciary less politicized in the Maine Senate debate, says she thinks "we should go back to having a filibuster in place for judicial nominees."

    In the Maine Senate debate, Democratic candidate Sara Gideon (one of the most likely potential new senators) has a suggestion about the court, and it’s to bring back the judicial filibuster just in time for the Democrats potentially having power.

    As someone who likes to poke fun at Democrats, I don’t like it when they push so hard into parody territory. I don’t know how I’m supposed one-up suggestions like this.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Doodmannrahkeesh2000ChanusmilskiZeroCowYamiB.tzeentchlingmjn6172OremLKDarkPrimusBlackDragon480
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    The answer is you're going to push the court, but you can't say you're going to do that because people associated that with FDR's plan and that is universally said to be bad in history books. One of the like, half dozen things you're supposed to know about the 20th century.

    One of the numerous problems with the history textbooks, since that court was monstrous in terms of "get fucked plebs".

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Commander ZoomPhoenix-DshrykeFencingsaxTuminElvenshaeHacksawKamarDoctorArchBigJoeMdispatch.oYamiB.ZonugalHefflingtzeentchlingKayne Red RobeDarkPrimusLocal H JayArdolBlackDragon480MrVyngaardtyrannus
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    NYT congressional reporter.


    Sara Gideon, asked about making the judiciary less politicized in the Maine Senate debate, says she thinks "we should go back to having a filibuster in place for judicial nominees."

    In the Maine Senate debate, Democratic candidate Sara Gideon (one of the most likely potential new senators) has a suggestion about the court, and it’s to bring back the judicial filibuster just in time for the Democrats potentially having power.

    As someone who likes to poke fun at Democrats, I don’t like it when they push so hard into parody territory. I don’t know how I’m supposed one-up suggestions like this.

    I suppose it's at least possible she's just lying for the moderate points/to shame the GoP, but I'm increasingly worried that we'll end up with a trifecta that still can't fucking do anything because so many Senators are morons (meanwhile, the 6/3 SCOTUS will be hard at work).

    MorganVwobblyheadedbob
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    I think that a lot of Democratic senators are doing a lot of work either showing the process is a sham or that ACB is a conservative hack, but simultaneously that a lot of Democratic senators/potential senators are dumb as rocks. Gideon can't be worse than DiFi, but we can't afford that many people who want to play with both hands tied behind their backs.

    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
    Commander ZoomFencingsax
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Also Mainers have a gigantic bipartisanship fetish, even more than most of the country.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    durandal4532SleepshrykeStabbity StyleFencingsaxMvrck
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited October 16
    I’m all for requiring 60 votes in the senate for a supreme court justice as long as the requirement is applied retroactively.

    Jealous Deva on
    rahkeesh2000
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited October 16
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Lilnoobs on
    Sleepsilence1186ElvenshaeFencingsaxOrcaDarkewolfeKayne Red RobeNobeardMillGaddezBlackDragon480KetBra
  • RaijuRaiju regular Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    There's probably a certain amount, also, of "look, you all know this is useless and inevitable, just give up and stop wasting time and let me have that seat before it gets cold."
    That’s the real arrogance of it all. At least Kabanagh came prepared. With her, there is such an attitude of I don’t give a shit about these hearings, I have the votes in the bag.

    The best people. She takes after her boss, after all.

    Elvenshae
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited October 16
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    Jealous Deva on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The best rhetorical play for killing the filibuster and court expansion was always gonna be "I didn't want to do it, but they forced my hand" anyway.

    Marty81ElvenshaeExtreaminatusFencingsaxMvrckJebus314zagdrobMrVyngaardEinzel
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    SCOTUS saying that it can't be expanded by Congress despite a long history of the number of seats being changed would be met with a modern "Now let him enforce it."

    More likely we will seat our judges and then the court can hear the case.

    tbloxham
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.

    When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    i know you can't bind future congresses but can you bind past congresses?

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    No, it's a stupid idea. You expand the court or you don't.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Styrofoam SammichChanusMrMisterBigJoeM38thDoeCommander ZoomShadowfireTheSmackershrykeDoctorArchOrcaJebus314dispatch.oHacksawMillqwer12eMoanderboogedybooElvenshae
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Im not interested in a solution that's "fair"

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ChanusBigJoeMDoodmannStabbity StyleOne Thousand CablesSoggybiscuitTicaldfjamshrykedispatch.oHacksawOneAngryPossumqwer12NobodyKetBraElvenshaeMrVyngaardZonugalYamiB.tyrannus
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The only way it is permanent is via a Constitutional Amendment. Which is not necessarily a terrible idea but I think more comprehensive changes would be necessary and prudent because you might just end up with an opposite problem of being unable to fill vacancies.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    Orca
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    i know you can't bind future congresses but can you bind past congresses?

    How can you note bind past congresses. Anything you do "binds past congresses"

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.

    When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.

    Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.

    I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.

    When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.

    Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.

    I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.

    ElJeffe for SCOTUS. I like the way you think.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    Elvenshae
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.

    When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.

    Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.

    I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.

    to be fair, all the Constitution says about judicial terms is a single sentence in Article III
    The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

    it doesn't explicitly say they hold their seats for life and it doesn't define what constitutes "good behavior"

    i can think of a few justices it would be easy to remove under a not-even-all-that-loose interpretation

    Thomas for repeated direct conflicts of interest comes to mind as an easy one

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    MorganV
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.

    When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.

    Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.

    I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.

    You could always avoid the constitutional issue and just make serving for more than 12 years on the Supreme Court a capital offense...

    Elvenshae
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    i mean in the real world no justice is being removed but

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    spool32Elvenshae
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Im not interested in a solution that's "fair"

    The only thing that's "fair" is to take what may be the last good opportunity the US will have for the foreseeable future to ram as much pro-democracy policy through as you can. Which includes doing something about the courts because at this point they are probably the biggest threat to US democracy. The proposed alternatives are just about optics and don't accomplish shit.

    FencingsaxBigJoeMElvenshaeMrVyngaard
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.

    When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.

    Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.

    I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.

    to be fair, all the Constitution says about judicial terms is a single sentence in Article III
    The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

    it doesn't explicitly say they hold their seats for life and it doesn't define what constitutes "good behavior"

    i can think of a few justices it would be easy to remove under a not-even-all-that-loose interpretation

    Thomas for repeated direct conflicts of interest comes to mind as an easy one

    From what I've heard of proposals, term limits for justices should be constitutional. I'm not sure if retroactive term limits are though.

    Chanus
  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    edited October 17
    The biggest reason for a 6-3 SCotUS to stay out of the election is as a peace offering to the Dems. Literally the thing that kept FDR from being able to push through a SCotUS expansion was the Court siding with him on some key rulings. Roberts &co may try the same tactic if they're reasonably certain it'll kill the political will to expand the Court. The media will say it's Roberts protecting his legacy, but it's really them protecting their majority.

    Of course, that doesn't account for if they think they can get Trump re-elected, nor does it account for Barrett, Alito, Cavanaugh, and Thomas deciding to grant Cert anyway because eff it.

    Those are the nightmare scenarios, both for the election and in general going forward. BACT can basically force the Court to hear any case they want now. Conversely, the 3 liberals need Roberts to vote with them just to get a case before the Court.

    Tox on
    BattleTech KS Thread! | Mech Trade List | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    shryke
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    The biggest reason for a 6-3 SCotUS to stay out of the election is as a peace offering to the Dems. Literally the thing that kept FDR from being able to push through a SCotUS expansion was the Court siding with him on some key rulings. Roberts &co may try the same tactic if they're reasonably certain it'll kill the political will to expand the Court. The media will say it's Roberts protecting his legacy, but it's really them protecting their majority.

    Of course, that doesn't account for if they think they can get Trump re-elected, nor does it account for Barrett, Alito, Cavanaugh, and Thomas deciding to grant Cert anyway because eff it.

    Those are the nightmare scenarios, both for the election and in general going forward. BACT can basically force the Court to hear any case they want now. Conversely, the 3 liberals need Roberts to vote with them just to get a case before the Court.

    If the supreme court attempts to 'decide the election' as anything other than "Biden wins" then we live in a dictatorship.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    PreacherCommander ZoomSkeithTicaldfjamHacksawBigJoeMSleepIncenjucarJaysonFourDoctorArchElvenshaeExtreaminatusKoopahTroopahpainfulPleasance
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Nope, that ship has sailed.

    100% outcome: dems bring it back, republicans block all they can, demos lose the majority, republicans remove it again and continue doing their shit.

    No bringing it back as long as the current GOP stays in power.

    Well, I doubt Thomas Alito Gorusch Cavanaugh and Barrett would agree to resign and be renominated for a new vote under a democratic senate, but if they wanted to do so in the name of instituting a permanent 60 vote requirement for a supreme court justice that is fine with me.

    If it isn’t going to be retroactive then no, it should not be brought back.

    Edit: As a note, those 5 Republican justices are the only Justices in history that were unable to obtain a filibuster proof majority of 60% of the senate, and if Barrett is confirmed it will be the first time in history a majority of supreme court justices on the court were seated on party-line, non-supermajority votes.

    I actually like this idea. Permanent requirement for a 60 vote majority, but as part of the same bill it is retroactive. Bill also includes provisions for selecting judges only from a shortlist.

    When the supreme court says, "this is unconstitutional" then you pack the court in response.

    Trying to kick off seated justices outside of impeachment is almost certainly unconstitutional, as it goes against the current interpretation of SCOTUS terms as lifetime appointments.

    I mean, you can get your new court to reinterpret the constitution as allowing it, but if you're going to just make shit up, you may as well have them declare that the constitution guarantees everyone free health care and makes Republicans illegal.

    The Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 reduced the count of the Supreme Court by 3, with the current members serving until retirement or death and no replacements being made until the count was reduced by 3. So there is a historical precedence.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius It has been a doozy of a dayRegistered User regular
    I had not heard of this one and am now incandescent with rage


    "After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.” https://t.co/8Jyzqvcbnh

    vm8gvf5p7gqi.jpg
    Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
    GaddezIncenjucarshrykeDarkPrimusBlackDragon480ShadowfireNetscapeCojo MojoStabbity StyleKamarBullheadtynicchr1sh4ll3ttb3painfulPleasance
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    She shouldn’t be a judge, never mind a Supreme Court justice. What a complete mockery of justice.

    HacksawTicaldfjamJohnny ChopsockyMillPolaritieTomantaCommander ZoomFencingsaxArdolSleepPhoenix-DshrykeTetraNitroCubaneDarkPrimusNobeardJaysonFourDoctorArchVeagleShadowfireboogedybooLabelSkeithStabbity StyleEtiowsaKamarBullheadtzeentchlingHefflingelectricitylikesmeExtreaminatusKoopahTroopahtynicchr1sh4ll3ttb3dispatch.opainfulPleasanceFoolOnTheHill
  • A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius It has been a doozy of a dayRegistered User regular
    One of the other judges (there were 3) pointed out that the employee training clearly said don't rape prisoners!

    vm8gvf5p7gqi.jpg
    Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
    GaddezshrykeBlackDragon480HefflingEinzelchr1sh4ll3ttb3painfulPleasance
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    I'm so tired.

    So, so tired.

    OrcaA Dabble Of TheloniusKraintDarkPrimusJaysonFourBullheadEinzelchr1sh4ll3ttb3
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    interesting

    robbing banks falls outside of my job duties

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Rhesus PositiveDark Raven XBlackDragon480ShadowfireElvenshaeKayne Red Robechr1sh4ll3ttb3painfulPleasance
Sign In or Register to comment.