2020 US General Election Thread VIII: Cs, Ds, and Es

[Picairn]

That would possibly require an amendment to the constitution.

I know.

[Estanglia]

What does public outcry matter to the party of disenfranchisement and voter suppression?

They would be screwed in future elections. Even a majority of Republicans support LGBT rights at this point.

Would they?

I mean;

What does public outcry matter to the party of disenfranchisement and voter suppression?

Presume for a moment that Ifreann's description is accurate.

Why would a party that disenfranchises voters and suppresses votes be screwed in future elections because of public outrage? Why would a party that is manipulating elections be screwed in said elections?

[San Lumen]

That would possibly require an amendment to the constitution.

I know.

Hence why it wont happen. Setting a mandatory retirement age isnt a bad idea.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because the GOP isn't going to pack the court. They do some shitty things to win seats (Scalia/Garland) but the only calls for more seats come from the left, and almost nobody who proposes it thinks about the actual ramifications of such a move.

I'm suspicious. If Democrats do a minimal packing, Republican will double the court with packing.

But Republicans would never do it first. Hobo should chill and stop worrying until suddenly Republicans do it.

You're really worried about Democrats doing it aren't you?

Given it's not exactly a fringe opinion among Democrats I think it's logical to be more worried about the Dems destroying the judicial system than the GOP, yeah.

[San Lumen]

They would be screwed in future elections. Even a majority of Republicans support LGBT rights at this point.

Would they?

I mean;

What does public outcry matter to the party of disenfranchisement and voter suppression?

Presume for a moment that Ifreann's description is accurate.

Why would a party that disenfranchises voters and suppresses votes be screwed in future elections because of public outrage? Why would a party that is manipulating elections be screwed in said elections?

voter suppression can only go so far. If women abandoned the party if Roe was overturned they would be unable to win elections. LGBT people already vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

[Picairn]

Hence why it wont happen. Setting a mandatory retirement age isnt a bad idea.

But my idea is better for the US in the long run, imo.

Guess long-term planning is impossible in a partisan democracy like the US.

[San Lumen]

Hence why it wont happen. Setting a mandatory retirement age isnt a bad idea.

But my idea is better for the US in the long run, imo.

Guess long-term planning is impossible in a partisan democracy like the US.

Biden has long term plans but what your proposing would require a constitutional amendment and those aren't easy to pass.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If we're talking about what should ideally be done to the court, we should pass a constitutional amendment to fix its size and to implement fixed, staggered terms (say, 18 years) for justices instead of lifetime appointments. The McConnell rule should be either codified in law or removed. None of this "we can have our cake and eat it too" nonsense.

Expanding the court to some arbitrary size in order to pack it is too much of an escalatory step.

or perhaps a required retirement age.

I think a term would be better. Because even more than with politicians, old people are good at being judges.

Say you have a retirement age of 80. So a 30 year old who has to learn on the job, gets 50 years on the court. While a 65 year old only gets 15 years.

Say you're the President doing the appointing. You can pick someone young who will be there for ever. Or you can pick the most qualified judge who won't be there so long. One choice is politically good, the other is judicially good.

Moving appointments down the age scale has another drawback. Vacancies won't come up nearly as often, meaning some Administrations won't get to appoint any justices.

[Luna Amore]

Because the GOP isn't going to pack the court. They do some shitty things to win seats (Scalia/Garland) but the only calls for more seats come from the left, and almost nobody who proposes it thinks about the actual ramifications of such a move.

I'm suspicious. If Democrats do a minimal packing, Republican will double the court with packing.

But Republicans would never do it first. Hobo should chill and stop worrying until suddenly Republicans do it.

You're really worried about Democrats doing it aren't you?

They're the ones talking about it. Should we not listen to what Democrats say?

Biden is against it: "“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” Biden told Iowa Starting Line in July. At the October debate, Biden said, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Harris has shown in the past to be open to it: “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

The VP candidate has an open mind about it and it is not a fringe opinion in the party. Biden has a change of heart or dies and you now have a president that is open to expanding the court. Are we not supposed to discuss likely positions of presidential candidates?

[San Lumen]

or perhaps a required retirement age.

I think a term would be better. Because even more than with politicians, old people are good at being judges.

Say you have a retirement age of 80. So a 30 year old who has to learn on the job, gets 50 years on the court. While a 65 year old only gets 15 years.

Say you're the President doing the appointing. You can pick someone young who will be there for ever. Or you can pick the most qualified judge who won't be there so long. One choice is politically good, the other is judicially good.

Moving appointments down the age scale has another drawback. Vacancies won't come up nearly as often, meaning some Administrations won't get to appoint any justices.

Not a bad proposal. Here in New York our highest court has a retirement age.

[San Lumen]

I'm suspicious. If Democrats do a minimal packing, Republican will double the court with packing.

But Republicans would never do it first. Hobo should chill and stop worrying until suddenly Republicans do it.

You're really worried about Democrats doing it aren't you?

They're the ones talking about it. Should we not listen to what Democrats say?

Biden is against it: "“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” Biden told Iowa Starting Line in July. At the October debate, Biden said, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Harris has shown in the past to be open to it: “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

The VP candidate has an open mind about it and it is not a fringe opinion in the party. Biden has a change of heart or dies and you now have a president that is open to expanding the court. Are we not supposed to discuss likely positions of presidential candidates?

Lets worry about her positions if she becomes President.

[Luna Amore]

They're the ones talking about it. Should we not listen to what Democrats say?

Biden is against it: "“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” Biden told Iowa Starting Line in July. At the October debate, Biden said, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Harris has shown in the past to be open to it: “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

The VP candidate has an open mind about it and it is not a fringe opinion in the party. Biden has a change of heart or dies and you now have a president that is open to expanding the court. Are we not supposed to discuss likely positions of presidential candidates?

Lets worry about her positions if she becomes President.

Did you hold that view when Palin was VP candidate? Because I certainly didn't.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They're the ones talking about it. Should we not listen to what Democrats say?

Biden is against it: "“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” Biden told Iowa Starting Line in July. At the October debate, Biden said, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Harris has shown in the past to be open to it: “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

The VP candidate has an open mind about it and it is not a fringe opinion in the party. Biden has a change of heart or dies and you now have a president that is open to expanding the court. Are we not supposed to discuss likely positions of presidential candidates?

Lets worry about her positions if she becomes President.

What a disastrously short sighted outlook on the world, good lord.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

They're the ones talking about it. Should we not listen to what Democrats say?

Biden is against it: "“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” Biden told Iowa Starting Line in July. At the October debate, Biden said, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Harris has shown in the past to be open to it: “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

The VP candidate has an open mind about it and it is not a fringe opinion in the party. Biden has a change of heart or dies and you now have a president that is open to expanding the court. Are we not supposed to discuss likely positions of presidential candidates?

Lets worry about her positions if she becomes President.

"Let's worry about his positions if he becomes president" was something we could have said about religious fanatic Mike Pence.

[San Lumen]

Lets worry about her positions if she becomes President.

What a disastrously short sighted outlook on the world, good lord.

Do you think about the positions of your Lt. Governor?

[Picairn]

Lets worry about her positions if she becomes President.

When old men are President, you should always take a look at the VP.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Getting into partisan court packing would lead to even more authoritarian backsliding. The Court must remain as a credible check against wannabe tyrants.

I'm quite liberal and dislike what McConnell has done to the Court, but I say hell no to court packing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What a disastrously short sighted outlook on the world, good lord.

Do you think about the positions of your Lt. Governor?

Yeah, I do. I like to be aware of who can potentially take office and what they believe.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm suspicious. If Democrats do a minimal packing, Republican will double the court with packing.

But Republicans would never do it first. Hobo should chill and stop worrying until suddenly Republicans do it.

You're really worried about Democrats doing it aren't you?

Given it's not exactly a fringe opinion among Democrats I think it's logical to be more worried about the Dems destroying the judicial system than the GOP, yeah.

Remember what McConnell called his scheme to not let Obama's nominee get a hearing? He called it the "Biden rule".

once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over -- Senator Biden, 1992, floor speech

We did it in self-defence because Democrats said they were going to do it first!

They didn't talk about it in their party and in public off and on for years. They just fucking did it ... and tried to blame Democrats.

If you trust a Republican not to pull a dirty trick on a Democrat ... why?

[Picairn]

Getting into partisan court packing would lead to even more authoritarian backsliding. The Court must remain as a credible check against wannabe tyrants.

I'm quite liberal and dislike what McConnell has done to the Court, but I say hell no to court packing.

The Court is not a "credible check against wannabe tyrants", so long as ideologues keep being confirmed to the SC by inherently partisan politicians.

[Ifreann]

What does public outcry matter to the party of disenfranchisement and voter suppression?

They would be screwed in future elections. Even a majority of Republicans support LGBT rights at this point.

The Republicans have been working for years to essentially make it illegal to vote for anyone but them. People who protest against the GOP abortion ban will be arrested, charged with some contrived felony like illegally camping, and lose the right to vote.

[Thermodolia]

Why should Obama bow and scrape to the Republicans, just to get a conservative justice either way?

Garland was close enough to the center. Take it or leave it. And remember the election was closely contested. McConnell's gamble could easily have gone wrong. Needless to say, I would prefer a new Justice further left than Garland.

Thankfully it seems we're going to get one much to his left. Tis good for me at least.

From what I’ve been hearing we are getting either Amy Barrett, Tom Cotton, or Ted Cruz

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm suspicious. If Democrats do a minimal packing, Republican will double the court with packing.

But Republicans would never do it first. Hobo should chill and stop worrying until suddenly Republicans do it.

You're really worried about Democrats doing it aren't you?

They're the ones talking about it. Should we not listen to what Democrats say?

Biden is against it: "“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” Biden told Iowa Starting Line in July. At the October debate, Biden said, “I would not get into court packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Harris has shown in the past to be open to it: “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

The VP candidate has an open mind about it and it is not a fringe opinion in the party. Biden has a change of heart or dies and you now have a president that is open to expanding the court. Are we not supposed to discuss likely positions of presidential candidates?

"Everything is on the table" is a known phrase meaning "I'm not committing to or ruling out any particular thing" and that you find it ominous is a bit funny.

Anyway, the President can't expand the size of the court.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thankfully it seems we're going to get one much to his left. Tis good for me at least.

From what I’ve been hearing we are getting either Amy Barrett, Tom Cotton, or Ted Cruz

Barrett is the safe bet.

Cruz would be fucking hilarious though and I kinda hope it happens

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Getting into partisan court packing would lead to even more authoritarian backsliding. The Court must remain as a credible check against wannabe tyrants.

I'm quite liberal and dislike what McConnell has done to the Court, but I say hell no to court packing.

The Court is not a "credible check against wannabe tyrants", so long as ideologues keep being confirmed to the SC by inherently partisan politicians.

I'm under no illusion that the current system is ideal, but packing turns the Court into a rubber stamp for whatever the current government wants to push. Our democracy needs a strong Supreme Court.