Current Events > If Democrats pack the Supreme Court, don't complain if Republicans do the same.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Topic creator: "I am a huge fan of donald trump"
---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

For the Supreme Court there is currently no legislation that dictates how many judges sit. You can make that happen after restoring balance. Term limits further guarantee an 80 something dying a natural death doesnt throw the whole country in a tizzy again

which means you'd write a law, and then that law would get changed just as easily as adding new judges. So again, your understanding of the law is equal to the cowboys understanding of defense.

Without a constitutional amendment, which means you need 3/4 of states to agree, there is no "set it and done" and you aren't getting any constitutional amendments done with the correct system.
Damn_Underscore posted...

Luckily it's something both parties can get behind because there is a risk of either party putting in infinite justices in the Supreme Court when they have full control of Congress.

except neither party will do it unless "their" team is currently #winning.

---

Machete posted...

Topic creator: "I am a huge fan of donald trump"

Thinking beyond the current moment = Trump fan m i rite

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Thinking beyond the current moment = Trump fan m i rite

"If you don't let the Republicans dominate for the next 50 years, then they'll dominate for the next 100."

---

hockeybub89 posted...

"If you don't let the Republicans dominate for the next 50 years, then they'll dominate for the next 100."

Aren't you someone to say we shouldn't screw over future generations so we can benefit temporarily?

That's assuming your assessment is accurate, when in reality the Republicans could easily gain control of both chambers of Congress in any election based on things that haven't happened yet.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Aren't you someone to say we shouldn't screw over future generations so we can benefit temporarily?

That's assuming your assessment is accurate, when in reality the Republicans could easily gain control of both chambers of Congress in any election based on things that haven't happened yet.

the problem is you're ignoring the fact that republicans have already actively subverted the appointment process to suit their political needs. this isn't an if/then situation, republicans have already broken the judical branch and made it a political shithole; democrats refusing to take the logical next step would be down right stupid since even in the magical event that democrats hold control long enough to replace the majority of justices you'll just see republicans adding more seats to suit their purpose in the future...

---

Dems want to pack the courts to give more people rights. Republicans want to pack the courts to take those rights away. I damn will complain about that.

---

My understanding is that increasing the size of the Supreme Court requires a majority in both the House and Senate.

---

Making the court more responsive to the public would be an improvement to a system where its balance of power rests solely on the health of septugenarians approved decades ago.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Thinking beyond the current moment = Trump fan m i rite

" look at me. Im damn_underscore"
---

You can't combat the Republicans' BS with BS of your own. I know revenge sounds nice but this will just create even more chaos and destroy the United States government from within even faster.

---

Probably safe to not trust the intentions of people who want to hold one side to a standard and the other to absolutely none.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

You can't combat the Republicans' BS with BS of your own. I know revenge sounds nice but this will just create even more chaos and destroy the United States government from within even faster.

Here we go making the Democrats sound so cool again.

---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Probably safe to not trust the intentions of people who want to hold one side to a standard and the other to absolutely none.

Good idea, good summary.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Here we go making the Democrats sound so cool again.

It doesn't matter what they actually do, that is what people ITT want them to do.

I made a poll recently asking which of Obama justice 2016/Trump justice 2020 should have been appointed to the Supreme Court, and I think Yes to Obama justice 2016 and No to Trump justice 2020 had the second most votes? It's not like this board is the picture of ethicality.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

You can't combat the Republicans' BS with BS of your own. I know revenge sounds nice but this will just create even more chaos and destroy the United States government from within even faster.

you cant fix a broken system by rolling over and taking it. the republicans have literally rewritten rules to allow them to elect the last 3 justices, theres no incentive not to do the same when they've shown time and again they'll lie/cheat/steal to get their way.

---

monkmith posted...

you cant fix a broken system by rolling over and taking it. the republicans have literally rewritten rules to allow them to elect the last 3 justices, theres no incentive not to do the same when they've shown time and again they'll lie/cheat/steal to get their way.

Isn't this a perfect example of what Damn_Underscore is talking about, given that they eliminated the filibuster in direct response to Democrats eliminating the filibuster on lower court appointments like a year prior?

I know plenty of people will throw out the hypothetical "oh well they would have done it anyway," but simple reality is that they did it as a direct response to somebody else changing the rules first.

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-
line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Republicans countered that they had confirmed 99 percent of Obamas judicial selections. McConnell accused Democrats of eyeing the D.C. Circuit in an effort to stack the court, which reviews many cases related to federal laws and regulations, to tilt its balance in a liberal direction.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.
Democrats wont be in power in perpetuity, said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. This is a mistake a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.

---

monkmith posted...

you cant fix a broken system by rolling over and taking it. the republicans have literally rewritten rules to allow them to elect the last 3 justices, theres no incentive not to do the same when they've shown time and again they'll lie/cheat/steal to get their way.

That doesn't refute what I said. I know the system is broken. Breaking it faster would only be a good idea if you want to destroy the US.

Either way, Trump deserves 2 justices. It would be really nice if they don't approve Barrett so we can move on from this era which is hopefully the low point.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Isn't this a perfect example of what Damn_Underscore is talking about, given that they eliminated the filibuster in direct response to Democrats eliminating the filibuster on lower court appointments like a year prior?

I know plenty of people will throw out the hypothetical "oh well they would have done it anyway," but simple reality is that they did it as a direct response to somebody else changing the rules first.

and that's very sad, and its got nothing useful to do with the current issue at hand. its just a derivation of the both sides argument used to skirt the issue that we've got a questionably illigitimate president whos filled the court with hacks that'll vote to keep him in power and reduce the rights of the american people.

Damn_Underscore posted...

That doesn't refute what I said. I know the system is broken. Breaking it faster would only be a good idea if you want to destroy the US.

Either way, Trump deserves 2 justices. It would be really nice if they don't approve Barrett so we can move on from this era which is hopefully the low point.

we've got a court primed to rip away the rights of us citizens and steal their vote to keep themselves in power. the US is already broken.

and its debatable to say trump deserved those 2 justices, seeing that he lost the popular vote and has obvious foreign ties that helped him win the election. one alternative path is to impeach the 3 justices he appointed, and that'll gain steam when a legislature with actual will to investigate his crimes comes into power.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I made a poll

No you didnt
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Very disingenuous way of framing it. Republicans forced the Democrats hand by refusing to do anything but filibuster so that they could later fill the courts with conservative ideologues. And they succeeded. The judiciary should be relatively reflective of public opinion and not an ideological body that interferes with democracy.

Disingenuous is saying Democrats need to break the rules because Republicans changed the rules while pretending it wasn't in direct response to Democrats changing the rules in the first place, which is specifically why I responded to monkmith the way I did.

On paper I agree with you: the judiciary should be politically neutral. But you can't use "Republicans eliminated the filibuster" as justification for extreme action like court packing. He just needs to find a better argument.

---

Machete posted...

No you didnt

I literally did, lol.

It was called "New Supreme Court Justice"

Both justices should be appointed had the most votes with 27 and Yes to Obama's justice, No to Trump's had 24. Let the voters decide had 13 votes and No to Obama's justice, Yes to Trump's had 11 votes. Considering how anti-Trump this board is, the fact that this option still got 11 votes says something as well.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Disingenuous is saying Democrats need to break the rules

s0nicfan posted...

Disingenuous

s0nicfan posted...

break the rules

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I literally did, lol.

It was called "New Supreme Court Justice"

Both justices should be appointed had the most votes with 27 and Yes to Obama's justice, No to Trump's had 24. Let the voters decide had 13 votes and No to Obama's justice, Yes to Trump's had 11 votes. Considering how anti-Trump this board is, the fact that this option still got 11 votes says something as well.

No
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre smart enough to know exactly whats wrong with how youre trying to present this and its pathetic.

Let's take a step back, then. Monk says Dems should rewrite rules because repubs did it. Underscore disagrees and says that only leads to more changes. I posted evidence defending that position, specifically highlighting that the rule change letting them vote in nominees was in direct response to Dems doing it first. That's my position. What's yours?

Which of these disagreeing people do you agree with (or both/neither):
Damn_Underscore posted...

You can't combat the Republicans' BS with BS of your own. I know revenge sounds nice but this will just create even more chaos and destroy the United States government from within even faster.

monkmith posted...

you cant fix a broken system by rolling over and taking it. the republicans have literally rewritten rules to allow them to elect the last 3 justices, theres no incentive not to do the same when they've shown time and again they'll lie/cheat/steal to get their way.

---

Filibusters are stupid, they allow potentially good laws to be totally neutered (see Obamacare).

But you agree that the Republicans' actions after filibusters were eliminated is bad, right? Well that situation shows exactly why it would be a terrible idea for Biden to just pack the Supreme Court and why creating a bipartisan committee is the right move. Neither party wants the other party to arbitrarily pack the Supreme Court.

---

Machete posted...

No

ok

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Filibusters are stupid, they allow potentially good laws to be totally neutered (see Obamacare).

filibusters had jack shit to do with why aca is shit. ACA was passed when the dems had a super majority that was fillabuster proof. ACA is shit because it's goal is to make insurane companies money first and foremost.

---

I Like Toast posted...

filibusters had jack shit to do with why aca is shit. ACA was passed when the dems had a super majority that was fillabuster proof. ACA is shit because it's goal is to make insurane companies money first and foremost.

I remember it being a big deal that Republicans filibustered the public option out of it. But whatever, the point still stands.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I remember it being a big deal that Republicans filibustered the public option out of it.

instead of remembering, try googling.

The democrats try to blame it on Lieberman.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/senate-democrats-drop-public-option-woo-lieberman-and-liberals-howl

---

y u gotta be a dick about it, tho?

---

The democrats Don't have the guts to do it. They care too much about the system. The republicans are more likely do due it just to screw over the democrats at this point.

---

aint any other way to be

creativerealms posted...

The democrats Don't have the guts to do it.

they will, they're stupid, but not that stupid. Giving the supreme court a chance to appeal roe v wade or ACA would be a quick way for the DNC to be as fucked as the GOP is right now.

---

look, any arguments of precedent or who did what in response to this or that went out the window when the Senate refused to confirm Garland and is now confirming Barrett only because they had eye senate majority each time. The line is whether you agree that's wrong and a direct affront on our democracy. If you don't, as far as I'm concerned, you're on the other side of an ideological war and there's no use in pretending anyone should be preserving anything. The Republicans won't stop and will keep using every dirty trick to gain power. That should be clear by now. The Democrats have a responsibility to their voters to do the same and if that "collapses our system" then that is just what happens when a minority oligarchy representing half of our system (the Republican party) schemes and undermines democratic elections and processes at the highest level for decades.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah I'm sure discriminating against people that aren't straight, white, male Christians would fix all of our problems. Shut the fuck up.

Anyway, I thought liberals were pretending America is so bad? I thought this was the greatest country in the world?

Funny how you assume that Christians are all straight and white. Racist much? Also it's amazing how you managed to badly misrepresent both liberals and conservatives at the same time.

If Republicans steal a seat by refusing to give Obama's nominations a hearing for 10 months, don't be surprised if Democrats do the same and steal one back (or two or three).

---

Annihilated posted...

Funny how you assume that Christians are all straight and white

They didn't do that. Do you know how comma listing works?

Also the amount of non-straight Christians has to be very low.