US Midterm Election Megathread II: The Stretch Run Begins

[Post War America]

The republicans would not have allowed a replacement if she did.

Just like they didn't allow Kagan and Sotomayor, right?

They didn't allow for Garland, and were more than happy to appoint an extremist in the place of Kennedy. Methinks a permanent judicial dictatorship would be more important to them than any semblance of a "balanced court".

[The Black Forrest]

Don't worry your new Governor Newsom will probably ignore what you would like.

Thankfully Justice Kavanaugh won't ignore what he likes

Oh I expect he will vote as he is told.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Just like they didn't allow Kagan and Sotomayor, right?

They didn't allow for Garland, and were more than happy to appoint an extremist in the place of Kennedy. Methinks a permanent judicial dictatorship would be more important to them than any semblance of a "balanced court".

Tbqh replacing Scalia with Garland is more extreme than replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh.

[San Lumen]

Don't worry your new Governor Newsom will probably ignore what you would like.

Of course he will, he prides himself in being my enemy.

Yeah how dare a majority has the audacity to vote for reasonable person they want to see lead the state.

[Valrifell]

Bah, we can just expand the court or recall Kav and Gorsuch if we really wanna toss everything out the window.

[Post War America]

They didn't allow for Garland, and were more than happy to appoint an extremist in the place of Kennedy. Methinks a permanent judicial dictatorship would be more important to them than any semblance of a "balanced court".

Tbqh replacing Scalia with Garland is more extreme than replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh.

Probably, but it makes one think that perhaps lifelong appointments should not be left to partisan whims, or perhaps that lifelong appointments should exist at all.

[Freezic Vast]

Of course he will, he prides himself in being my enemy.

Yeah how dare a majority has the audacity to vote for reasonable person they want to see lead the state.

You lost fair and square, get over it.

[Telconi]

Of course he will, he prides himself in being my enemy.

Yeah how dare a majority has the audacity to vote for reasonable person they want to see lead the state.

Gavin Newsom is not a reasonable person.

[The Black Forrest]

They didn't allow for Garland, and were more than happy to appoint an extremist in the place of Kennedy. Methinks a permanent judicial dictatorship would be more important to them than any semblance of a "balanced court".

Tbqh replacing Scalia with Garland is more extreme than replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh.

Extremes? That argument has zero weight as for example if RBG had to be replaced now they would place a polar opposite.

[Telconi]

Tbqh replacing Scalia with Garland is more extreme than replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh.

Probably, but it makes one think that perhaps lifelong appointments should not be left to partisan whims, or perhaps that lifelong appointments should exist at all.

I'd rather not have the court flip flopping with every change of administration.

[San Lumen]

Yeah how dare a majority has the audacity to vote for reasonable person they want to see lead the state.

Gavin Newsom is not a reasonable person.

Maybe to you and a small minority. He will be your next governor whether you like it or not as a majority of the state will vote for him. The coast and the capital region will elect him.

[Post War America]

Tbqh replacing Scalia with Garland is more extreme than replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh.

Extremes? That argument has zero weight as if RBG had to be replaced now they would place a polar opposite.

But why have a balanced court when you can ensure your party gets complete control of what laws get passed?

[Oil exporting People]

I don't think Mitch McConnell gives a single slimy turtle shit what you think he should do...

Lets say in hypothetical the legislature in your state was Republican and the people elected a Democratic governor. Would find it acceptable if the legislature refused to allow almost all of their appointments a hearing or a vote?

Given the State Constitution allows them such, yes. I understand the score in this regard; both sides do it, so fuck the other side and get yours.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Extremes? That argument has zero weight as if RBG had to be replaced now they would place a polar opposite.

But why have a balanced court when you can ensure your party gets complete control of what laws get passed?

The idea of a balanced court is overrated. Living document types have no place on the court.

[Kaggeceria]

I would encourage them to do exactly that. Just as I encouraged McConnell to block Garland.

Therefore a government unable to function is fine with you? Or they should have to nominate people they disagree with?

You keep saying "therefore" as if you are making intelligent points.

You aren't.

[Post War America]

But why have a balanced court when you can ensure your party gets complete control of what laws get passed?

The idea of a balanced court is overrated. Living document types have no place on the court.

Evangelical theocrats who wish to replace the First Amendment with the First Commandment also have no place on the court.

[The Black Forrest]

But why have a balanced court when you can ensure your party gets complete control of what laws get passed?

The idea of a balanced court is overrated. Living document types have no place on the court.

Times change. Textualists have no place on the court.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The idea of a balanced court is overrated. Living document types have no place on the court.

Evangelical theocrats who wish to replace the First Amendment with the First Commandment also have no place on the court.

I agree entirely.

The idea of a balanced court is overrated. Living document types have no place on the court.

Times change. Textualists have no place on the court.

There's a method to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not it.

[Petrasylvania]

Don't worry your new Governor Newsom will probably ignore what you would like.

Of course he will, he prides himself in being my enemy.

Yes, I'm sure Gavin Newsom dedicated his entire political career to pissing off and gathering salt off of some anonymous poster on the internet. Planning on beating Jesus's record hanging on the crucifix? :^]

[Valrifell]

Evangelical theocrats who wish to replace the First Amendment with the First Commandment also have no place on the court.

I agree entirely.

Times change. Textualists have no place on the court.

There's a method to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not it.

And if people don't like the way SCOTUS tells them the Constitution works, then they'll just ignore it as they've done in the past.

[Post War America]

Evangelical theocrats who wish to replace the First Amendment with the First Commandment also have no place on the court.

I agree entirely.

Times change. Textualists have no place on the court.

There's a method to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not it.

Then why are you in support of stacking the court with Evangelical theocrats?

[Kaggeceria]

The idea of a balanced court is overrated. Living document types have no place on the court.

Times change. Textualists have no place on the court.

Textualism is the only proper way to interpret the Constitution. Living document types would render the Constitution meaningless.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I agree entirely.



There's a method to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not it.

Then why are you in support of stacking the court with Evangelical theocrats?

I don't. I support stacking it with originalists and textualists.

I agree entirely.



There's a method to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not it.

And if people don't like the way SCOTUS tells them the Constitution works, then they'll just ignore it as they've done in the past.

That is a very real problem that we need a solution to.

[Telconi]

Of course he will, he prides himself in being my enemy.

Yes, I'm sure Gavin Newsom dedicated his entire political career to pissing off and gathering salt off of some anonymous poster on the internet. Planning on beating Jesus's record hanging on the crucifix? :^]

It's almost like demographic groups are a thing.

[The Black Forrest]

Evangelical theocrats who wish to replace the First Amendment with the First Commandment also have no place on the court.

I agree entirely.

Times change. Textualists have no place on the court.

There's a method to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not it.

Sure it is. Plessy would still be the law of the land if that was the case.