• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chuck Schumer's words are PERFECT (regarding waiting to replace RBG's SC Seat)...

Gaius46 said:
That’s probably a good thing to get back to in any case. Just because one party is in the minority doesn’t mean they - and the tens of millions of people they represent - are disenfranchised. There should be no tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
I agree but once they let that genie out of the bottle its gonna be next to impossible to get him back in it.
 
lwf said:
In general? I don't think anyone can fix it. All we can really do as individuals is try to set a good example for others by going high when our opponents go low, and calling out those who don't. As for SCOTUS partisan issues in particular, what if we keep track of which party nominated which justice? For instance: If 5 current justices were nominated by the current or previous Democratic presidents, then maybe a Democratic president is no longer allowed to nominate a justice? Any vacancy nomination could then be decided by Congress alone without input from the Executive branch? Maybe let the House nominate and the Senate confirm in that case? Perhaps this would to some degree help dilute the power of the party holding the White House, while still allowing vacancies to be filled.
Click to expand...
Thats not a bad thought and alternate which party gets to nominate the chief justice. The justices would probably end up being extreme partisans but there would be balance
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
trouble13 said:
Thats not a bad thought and alternate which party gets to nominate the chief justice. The justices would probably end up being extreme partisans but there would be balance
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS tends to reflect the population that seats them. Americans have become extreme partisans.
 
lwf said:
The SCOTUS tends to reflect the population that seats them. Americans have become extreme partisans.
Click to expand...
Imo the source of it is all the one upmanship that both sides indulge in.
As an example democrats are now threatening to stack the supreme court to dilute the conservative vote on the court. What that means is that the republicans should not of waited for a seat yo open up when the power shifted to them. They should of simply added 2 new seats to the bench while RBG was still alive. Thats the new standard being proposed. Lawyers will start timing their challenges according to if the balance of the court favors their position. If it does not they will wait till it does.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Imo the source of it is all the one upmanship that both sides indulge in.
As an example democrats are now threatening to stack the supreme court to dilute the conservative vote on the court. What that means is that the republicans should not of waited for a seat yo open up when the power shifted to them. They should of simply added 2 new seats to the bench while RBG was still alive. Thats the new standard being proposed. Lawyers will start timing their challenges according to if the balance of the court favors their position. If it does not they will wait till it does.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's right. But one upmanship is hard to stop once started, and the side that most recently one-upped the other doesn't have the moral ground to demand it be stopped now. You can't throw out precedent to one up an opponent and then appeal to precedent and fair play to try avoid him one upping you in retaliation.

That said, it sounds like Joe Biden is wisely taking the high road here and encouraging Democrats not to respond in kind to partisan Republican SCOTUS manipulation. We'll see if Democrats are the ones who finally listen to a voice of reason from their own party, as there don't seem to be any on the Republican side anymore.
 
lwf said:
That's right. But one upmanship is hard to stop once started, and the side that most recently one-upped the other doesn't have the moral ground to demand it be stopped now. You can't throw out precedent to one up an opponent and then appeal to precedent and fair play to try avoid him one upping you in retaliation.

That said, it sounds like Joe Biden is wisely taking the high road here and encouraging Democrats not to respond in kind to partisan Republican SCOTUS manipulation. We'll see if Democrats are the ones who finally listen to a voice of reason from their own party, as there don't seem to be any on the Republican side anymore.
Click to expand...
Im not gonna get into tje blame game of who started the snowball rolling down the hill. It started long before any of us were born.
The dilemma is once it starts both sides are hostage to it. Neither side can afford not to strike back. The only way it ends is when it becomes in the best interests of both sides to stop.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im not gonna get into tje blame game of who started the snowball rolling down the hill. It started long before any of us were born.
The dilemma is once it starts both sides are hostage to it. Neither side can afford not to strike back. The only way it ends is when it becomes in the best interests of both sides to stop.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Or when one side wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom