• 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!

Court packing.

Bucky said:
To protect basic civil rights and liberties. Our country could be in a very dark place with these Trump judges.
Click to expand...
booo- boogey man .scarey. Corts been rw for a long time. I mean just look at l the darkness.
( LAFFR)
 
vegas giants said:
Awwwwww. You seem upset. Lol
Click to expand...
Upset? You mean the way you got upset when someone called you junior? 😂 No, Im not even a little bit. But as someone who never knows wtf he is talking about, you have stumbled your way into the right thread.
 
Fletch said:
Upset? You mean the way you got upset when someone called you junior? 😂 No, Im not even a little bit. But as someone who never knows wtf he is talking about, you have stumbled your way into the right thread.
Click to expand...
Awwwww. You seem upset again. Lol
 
Fletch said:
More anger, rage and fascidiocy.
Click to expand...

You don't support the mentally ill sociopath Trump who was recklessly spreading COVID-19 in the White House without a mask?

I'm embarrassed for you. No self-respect. No dignity.
 
Felis Leo said:
The distinction is salient. In the same way that ballot harvesting must be distinguished from ballot stuffing, so too should be Court packing be distinguished from partisan withholding of consent to fill seats with partisans. But I can tell you are unmoved because you feel your side has taken it lying down for too long, so you feel you need to say to justify naked partisan power grabs as a "balancing of the scales", NWRatCon. Just do not presume to claim your politicians are any better in principle. You may say your goals are more laudable, but the methods by which you would wish to achieve them are no less foul.
Click to expand...
I was going to like your post until I read all of it. My only disagreement at the outset was that you said "the distinction is salient". I maintain it is not. And, frankly, your analogy is not. Ballot harvesting is a process of moving valid votes to the polling location. The correct analogy would be voter suppression vs. ballot stuffing, which are both dishonest ways of manipulating the votes themselves. Now, I will concede that the Republican version of "harvesting" is to change the valid votes in an invalid way... ;)

And, as you know, I have complained about Democratic party mischief as well - e.g., gerrymandering. I'm against the practice, period, regardless of who uses it. That is not what is at issue here. As you also know, I have been a critic of the Supreme Court and certain forms of "judicial philosophistry" for some time. There is a parallel here - the ideologues' version of "originalism" distorts the actual judicial principle the same way that the Republicans have manipulated rules of procedure to abuse the process of decorum.

I also detest the lazy argument that "both sides do it". When one actor is 90% guilty and another 10% guilty, a rational person can easily distinguish the difference. One of my greatest disappointments as a prosecutor was actually a conviction - a Soldier who was an accomplice in a gang of thieves was the only one who was convicted, as the ringleader was discharged on an action approved by my superiors (with no conviction), and the more guilty lieutenant made a deal to testify for a discharge in lieu of Court Martial. That is the situation here. The misdemeanors of the Democrats are no comparison to the aggravated felonies of the Republican party. That's just reality. It's not partisanship.

I approve of neither stacking or packing, but I can absolutely recognize the motivation. What's more important to me, though, is the quality of the judiciary, and there is no question that the Republican party has put partisan advantage and ideological viewpoint ahead of judicial temperament and qualifications. The literature, and case reports, is full of that reality.
 
Glitch said:
ACA violates the Tenth Amendment. Which is why 18 States have taken the matter to the Supreme Court. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to involve itself in our healthcare. Only the States have that exclusive authority, and it cannot be lawfully usurped by the federal government.
Click to expand...

That is not the argument the states have made in court.
 
Greenbeard said:
That is not the argument the states have made in court.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken, that is precisely the argument 18 States have made from the very beginning in 2010.

Repealing Obamacare: Use 10th Amendment Rule of Construction for Ambiguities

Perhaps you are confusing the original lawsuit by 18 States with the more recent lawsuit by 20 States after Trump illegally eliminated the mandate in 2018.

20 states sue Trump administration to end Obamacare after mandate repeal

Now that Amy Coney Barrett is on the Supreme Court it definitely does not look good for the illegal ACA.
 
less right said:
Smart people can make the connection between refusing to fill vacancies and court packing.

If you insist that court packing requires adding judges, you have a point (stupid though it is).

If you understand that the "balance" of the courts can be gerrymandered by refusing to fill vacancies (the same goal as "packing"), then you recognize that what McConnel has been doing for years is the equivalent of packing the courts.
Click to expand...
Because I can't say it better, I'm just going to post some links:
The Reckless Race to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett Justifies Court Packing (Atlantic, Opinion)
Burn It All Down (NY Mag, Intelligencer)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom