Fresh Start Political Thread

[Chico23231]

What a hypocrite…silence when New York and others attempt and succeed expand to late term abortion which is murder…big mad when Texas restricts

No surprise

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Question, is court packing honestly the right thing to do?

It's not, but historically even presidents like GWB knew the importance of maintaining a fair balance on the court so that everyone knew the integrity of the court was above partisan politics.

Trump came along and convinced McConnell/etc. that winning at any cost is more important than maintaining the integrity of the court and now here we are. McConnell shits all over precedent when it comes to SCOTUS - won't even entertain a confirmation hearing for Garland with 8 months to go and then speeds through ACB when RBG dies within a month of the election. Now his super-majority has just shitted all over established precedent in saying the Texas abortion law that encourages private citizens to go prying into other people's lives doesn't damage Roe v Wade.

In our minds - your side is not playing fair. What do you when the other side is not playing fair? You escalate.

The integrity of SCOTUS is already lost imo. Used to be a time when they were above partisan politics - that time is gone.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Saying pack the court is the same as saying destroy the court - because packing the court would destroy it. It is so clear to see what would happen if that occurred. Dems add 4 justices - then reverse what was done in previous court session, Republicans then add 4 more to reverse what the previous court did and so on and so on. I mean how can't people who propose packing the court see that? The Government then becomes 2 branches with the President clearly stronger than the legislative - ie eventual end to our democracy.

Packing the court is the worst idea for government reform I've ever seen proposed.

The court is already destroyed in our minds. Even if Roberts swings liberal on occasion conservatives have enough votes to enact any policy they desire. Is that a fair representation to the people of America?

We're already looking at a kangaroo court whether you agree or disagree - packing it would only make it official.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

The court is already destroyed in our minds. Even if Roberts swings liberal on occasion conservatives have enough votes to enact any policy they desire. Is that a fair representation to the people of America?

We're already looking at a kangaroo court whether you agree or disagree - packing it would only make it official.

“When we had the majority on the court it was fair, now it’s not fair because we don’t”

Let’s change laws because we are authoritarian fascists

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

It's not, but historically even presidents like GWB knew the importance of maintaining a fair balance on the court so that everyone knew the integrity of the court was above partisan politics.

Trump came along and convinced McConnell/etc. that winning at any cost is more important than maintaining the integrity of the court and now here we are. McConnell shits all over precedent when it comes to SCOTUS - won't even entertain a confirmation hearing for Garland with 8 months to go and then speeds through ACB when RBG dies within a month of the election. Now his super-majority has just shitted all over established precedent in saying the Texas abortion law that encourages private citizens to go prying into other people's lives doesn't damage Roe v Wade.

In our minds - your side is not playing fair. What do you when the other side is not playing fair? You escalate.

The integrity of SCOTUS is already lost imo. Used to be a time when they were above partisan politics - that time is gone.

Glad we agree it’s not.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by MTK

The number of justices has changed several times throughout history but we've somehow survived.

Previous changes weren't normally done for political or policy reasons, this proposal specifically would be for political reasons. If you expand the court for an administrative reason (need to to handle a larger workload) that is one thing, if you expand the court in order to get your policies enacted that is a different animal entirely. These current proposals are for the later and would destroy the court.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

The court is already destroyed in our minds. Even if Roberts swings liberal on occasion conservatives have enough votes to enact any policy they desire. Is that a fair representation to the people of America?

We're already looking at a kangaroo court whether you agree or disagree - packing it would only make it official.

Was it a fair representation when there were more liberal judges than conservatives? Or did it just get destroyed in the past few years when Cavanaugh and Barrett got onto the bench?

[sdskinsfan2001]

As I previously stated, I disagree with McConnell and the republican party on how they handled the Garland nomination. That should have went thru the normal process and there was way more than enough time to get it done.

But they absolutely had the right to get Barrett onto the court. And to pretend like democrats wouldn't have done the exact same thing if they could is disingenuous at best.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

“When we had the majority on the court it was fair, now it’s not fair because we don’t”

Let’s change laws because we are authoritarian fascists

I'm not talking about the majority, I'm talking about 4 dems, 4 republicans, and 1 moderate - which in this case would be John Roberts. That was as fair as it gets. The highest court in this country is worthless if it's not fair.

Now it's 6-3 - unless you are saying there is twice as many conservatives in this country as liberals there is 0% chance any liberal policy that isn't established by precedent (and even that is not a sure thing anymore) will be entertained.

[Chico23231]

Going further in this thread out of respect, refer to McConnell as the Apex Predator because he sits on top, alone, of the food chain. There is none higher

[mooby]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Previous changes weren't normally done for political or policy reasons, this proposal specifically would be for political reasons. If you expand the court for an administrative reason (need to to handle a larger workload) that is one thing, if you expand the court in order to get your policies enacted that is a different animal entirely. These current proposals are for the later and would destroy the court.

ACB's nomination was purely political. Garland's denial was purely political. Not issuing an injunction on an obviously political law that will eventually get shot down was purely political.

When we used to play nice and fair - everything was fine. Now we don't. Your side has no respect for the institution anymore and then you ask us to play nice? You reap what you sow.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

The court is already destroyed in our minds. Even if Roberts swings liberal on occasion conservatives have enough votes to enact any policy they desire. Is that a fair representation to the people of America?

We're already looking at a kangaroo court whether you agree or disagree - packing it would only make it official.

Liberals controlled the Court from the 50s thru 70s - didn't see Conservatives demanding the destruction of the court.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

“When we had the majority on the court it was fair, now it’s not fair because we don’t”

......

Chico is spot on with this comment

[MTK]

All this hot air for something very unlikely to happen.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Liberals controlled the Court from the 50s thru 70s - didn't see Conservatives demanding the destruction of the court.

Remind me again what important decisions were handed down during that time that showed a clear and obvious contempt for established law and/or precedent?