Do you agree or disagree with RBG stance on “packing” Supreme Court?

[Fletch]

If Trump holds off until the election is over and he wins, I am for him picking a nominee and that nominee being fully vetted. I am not for it happening, when voting has already commenced. Especially, considering the position of Republicans just a few years ago. If he wins then move forward..and that goes even if the Senate flips Democrat and he wins the election. He would be forced to find a more moderate justice and everyone wins.

When justices have been pushed through in a hurried way it has given us decisions that were horrific to our history...Dred Scott, Jim Crow laws being among a few of those coming from justices rammed through for political purposes. We need to choose our justices carefully not in a hurried fashion. I am for requiring a 60 vote requirement to confirm a justice...if you cannot get that...too bad...oh and no filibuster to bring the nominee before the Senate for vote...it is 60 or more or the justice is not confirmed...that will force the hands of both sides and a sitting president to do what is right for the country and not their political affliliation.

There are two problems here. 1) there is no way either party would wait in this situation. SC picks are way too important. 2) you have to think through that 60 vote rule of yours. If you enact something like that, you may never see another appointee to the court. Lets say Biden wins and in year two he needs to fill a seat. What stops republicans from filibustering until after the next election? Nothing. Then a republican wins and tries to fill the seat and gets filibustered by the democrats.

 

[ClaraD]

There are two problems here. 1) there is no way either party would wait in this situation. SC picks are way too important. 2) you have to think through that 60 vote rule of yours. If you enact something like that, you may never see another appointee to the court. Lets say Biden wins and in year two he needs to fill a seat. What stops republicans from filibustering until after the next election? Nothing. Then a republican wins and tries to fill the seat and gets filibustered by the democrats.

oh we will, it will mean they return to negotiating...it isn't the first time we had a 60 vote rule.

 

[AmNat]

I agree, but it's better than nothing.

The alternative isn't nothing. Bureaucratic organizations always have a final arbiter. One that only acts after years of process, acts as narrowly as possible, and denies its own moral agency is pretty much the worst you can get.

Yes. Consider Trump's eviction ban. It's an egregious property rights violation which allows deadbeats to live in somebody else's property rent free. How the hell does a US president have the power to prevent a landlord from evicting a deadbeat tenant?

He doesn't. The ban was issued by the CDC, which had the power to issue it because virtually everyone in any position of influence in this country thinks protecting deadbeats is obviously right (most states already had eviction bans, as did all federally-subsidized apartments). Even if he had signed the order, he wouldn't be the source of its force any more than Elizabeth II is when she signs things. Trump has given plenty of orders that have either been struck down or not been executed, precisely because real power doesn't support them.

Even Lenin hated bureaucracy because he couldn't control it, and he was someone who could execute anyone on the spot. If he couldn't control it, nobody can. Bureaucracy is intrinsic to the state, and bureaucrats will act in a way which serves their own interests, which always means expanding the size and scope of their respective agencies.

Bureaucracy can never be completely tamed, though I suspect Lenin had far more control over it than any US President.

 

[Mr Person]

Funny how the OP frames it as you say you liked RBG, so aren't you bound by this stuff she said?.

Never a straight-forward argument for why GOP behavior is just. Always a hamfisted whattabout.

 

[Threegoofs]

Funny how the OP frames it as you say you liked RBG, so aren't you bound by this stuff she said?.

Never a straight-forward argument for why GOP behavior is just. Always a hamfisted whattabout.

Consider the poster.

[emoji849]

 

[Moi621]

“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Sadly she besmirched her record

by remaining on the court for the political purpose

that her replacement would be appointed by a Biden presidency.


Persons undergoing chemo or radiation therapy do
get cognitive dysfunction as a side effect.
Witness Senator John McCain's behavior near his end.


Moi

 

[Luce]

Yes, because I believe that even if the extremist Democrats who call for the expansion of Court and the admission of new states in the Union (Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., Guam, the Marshall Islands, etc.) in an effort to create a so-called "permanent majority" the opposing party will eventually take control again. Maybe not in four years. Maybe not in eight years. Maybe not even in sixteen years. But it will happen eventually as control stultifies and stagnates.

Second, as to which Supreme Court seat is "owed" to the Democrats, I do not see how anything is owed to them anymore than a Supreme Court seat is owed is "owed" to Republicans.

You are 100% correct on all counts. But I still want the dems to pack the court.

 

[Vadinho]

Yes, because I believe that even if the extremist Democrats who call for the expansion of Court and the admission of new states in the Union (Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., Guam, the Marshall Islands, etc.) in an effort to create a so-called "permanent majority" the opposing party will eventually take control again. Maybe not in four years. Maybe not in eight years. Maybe not even in sixteen years. But it will happen eventually as control stultifies and stagnates.

Second, as to which Supreme Court seat is "owed" to the Democrats, I do not see how anything is owed to them anymore than a Supreme Court seat is owed is "owed" to Republicans.

You seem to believe that the future Republican Party in 20 or 30 years is going to return to conservative ideas rather then become a center right party. Given the demographics, I cannot see young people ever embracing them again unless they give up on the religious dogma and join the mainstream of national and western thought. Trump will be the last hurrah for the white Christian power structure.

 

[Vadinho]

At this point, f*** the GOP.

They deserve all the fallout from this manipulation of SCOTUS judges.

This was the last straw for me. No need to worry about which candidates to vote for - I can go straight Democratic ticket with no second thoughts.

Ive never done that before, but I kinda wonder now if I'll ever vote for a Republican again- national, state or local.

Trump and the GOP have become such monsters that most of us don't even care about policy anymore, its about simple human decency, fairness and normalcy. We are fed up with them across the board. Every day is another outrage. Good people everywhere have had enough.

 

[Integrityrespec]

“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I like many Americans didn't always agree with RBG on every issue. In this case I can't see an attempt to "pack" the court by adding as many as 4-5 additional justices so democrats could appoint liberal judges to tilt the court as anything but an assault on our long standing rules governing the Supreme Court. I think it's shamefully partisan and would prove disturbing for the nation.

 

[Integrityrespec]

You seem to believe that the future Republican Party in 20 or 30 years is going to return to conservative ideas rather then become a center right party. Given the demographics, I cannot see young people ever embracing them again unless they give up on the religious dogma and join the mainstream of national and western thought. Trump will be the last hurrah for the white Christian power structure.

You seem to do what so many on the radical left do. Hate on the Christian religion. History has taught you nothing. It's those decades of Christian teachings, traditions and supporters that have allowed this country to promote freedom. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Christians have supported these goals for hundreds of years and it's the left that appears to want to do away with the exercise of those rights when they don't align with the left.

 

[Brutal]

You'd think that they'd learn the lesson after they implemented the nuclear option.

 

[Threegoofs]

Trump and the GOP have become such monsters that most of us don't even care about policy anymore, its about simple human decency, fairness and normalcy. We are fed up with them across the board. Every day is another outrage. Good people everywhere have had enough.

But it’s increasingly clear it’s not just Trump and a few sycophants.


It’s the entire party, down to the local ones.

It’s going to be a long time before I seriously will support one- and I’ve voted GOP for local elections (and for any non-Nazi candidate for US House) for years.

 

[Felis Leo]

You seem to believe that the future Republican Party in 20 or 30 years is going to return to conservative ideas rather then become a center right party. Given the demographics, I cannot see young people ever embracing them again unless they give up on the religious dogma and join the mainstream of national and western thought. Trump will be the last hurrah for the white Christian power structure.

I think that due to major sorting that has happened over the past few decades, the Republican Party (or whatever party replaces it) is going to remain a "conservative" party, however you choose to define it. Whether you simply define conservative as simply being "White Christians" or actually adhering to principles that transcend mere religious and ethnic identity, I leave that to you. Speaking as an atheist Iranian-American conservative, I see no reason why the Republican Party needs to write conservative Americans off in order to pursue milquetoast centrism, anymore than the Democratic Party needs to write off liberalism or progressivism in order to pursue moderate Americans who do not care for liberal or progressive policies. Especially when considerably more Americans still self-identify as conservatives than identify as liberals.

 

[Kreton]

“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I think that Republicans are stacking the court with questionable and hypocritical practices. And I personally think justices should be of non political affiliations. As such the justice means more to me than the party who appoints them. I more favor correcting the imbalance with impeaching Kavanaugh or forcing him to resign in disgrace. As long as he sits on the court I think the dems should do anything and everything they can to counter his vote and if that means stacking it with new SC justices then so be it. I will applaud it and of course support it.

 

[roguenuke]

You seem to do what so many on the radical left do. Hate on the Christian religion. History has taught you nothing. It's those decades of Christian teachings, traditions and supporters that have allowed this country to promote freedom. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Christians have supported these goals for hundreds of years and it's the left that appears to want to do away with the exercise of those rights when they don't align with the left.

Bullshit. Most religious oppression in this country has been perpetrated by Christians. And there are plenty of Christian groups calling for this country to go to a Christian based theocracy. I can think of at least 3 posters on this site.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Felis Leo]

Bullshit. Most religious oppression in this country has been perpetrated by Christians. And there are plenty of Christian groups calling for this country to go to a Christian based theocracy. I can think of at least 3 posters on this site.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Indeed. But the existence of one does not disprove the existence of the other, roguenuke. There are religious bigots who would love to impose a theocracy. And there are anti-religious bigots who would tear down churches, synagogues and mosques brick by brick if they could.

 

[roguenuke]

Indeed. But the existence of one does not disprove the existence of the other, roguenuke. There are religious bigots who would love to impose a theocracy. And there are anti-religious bigots who would tear down churches, synagogues and mosques brick by brick if they could.

There are very few atheists, agnostics, or deists who don't support true relogious freedom, you have your beliefs and practice how you want but keep it out of the public square or institutions if trying to spread it or make laws based on it.

Show anti religious bigots and their actual stand and how much of the population they makeup.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Vadinho]

I think that due to major sorting that has happened over the past few decades, the Republican Party (or whatever party replaces it) is going to remain a "conservative" party, however you choose to define it. Whether you simply define conservative as simply being "White Christians" or actually adhering to principles that transcend mere religious and ethnic identity, I leave that to you. Speaking as an atheist Iranian-American conservative, I see no reason why the Republican Party needs to write conservative Americans off in order to pursue milquetoast centrism, anymore than the Democratic Party needs to write off liberalism or progressivism in order to pursue moderate Americans who do not care for liberal or progressive policies. Especially when considerably more Americans still self-identify as conservatives than identify as liberals.

I agree that they will likely still call themselves conservatives because they are too afraid to let go of that mythology and many of them believe they are conservatives when in fact, it has become a label rather then an intellectual movement. I am old enough to remember Buckley's TV shows in the 60s and have followed it ever since. It was once an intellectual concept, now its simply tribal.

 

[Felis Leo]

There are very few atheists, agnostics, or deists who don't support true relogious freedom, you have your beliefs and practice how you want but keep it out of the public square or institutions if trying to spread it or make laws based on it.

Show anti religious bigots and their actual stand and how much of the population they makeup.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I would argue that Beto O'Rourke represented a clear form of anti-religious bigotry. That is, he is for stripping churches of their tax-exempt status if as a matter of their doctrine they disagreed with his political stances, most notably on the issue of gay marriage. Now, you may say such a stance of de facto state-approved churches and fining offensive churches out of existence is justified. I do not.

 

[Vadinho]

You seem to do what so many on the radical left do. Hate on the Christian religion. History has taught you nothing. It's those decades of Christian teachings, traditions and supporters that have allowed this country to promote freedom. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Christians have supported these goals for hundreds of years and it's the left that appears to want to do away with the exercise of those rights when they don't align with the left.

I realize that this is the story you have been force fed likely by Christian apologists but the truth is far different going back to Constantine and the beginnings of the Church. In reality, the enlightenment made religion a side show in human progress rather then the driver of progress. None of us want you to be persecuted for your religious beliefs. We simply want you to stop forcing them down our throats via the government, the law and political parties. Let the separation of church and state be your guide and all will be well. If we merge the two, the side that promotes religion in the public arena is going to lose power to the secularists.

 

[Vadinho]

I like many Americans didn't always agree with RBG on every issue. In this case I can't see an attempt to "pack" the court by adding as many as 4-5 additional justices so democrats could appoint liberal judges to tilt the court as anything but an assault on our long standing rules governing the Supreme Court. I think it's shamefully partisan and would prove disturbing for the nation.

Using tradition and rules as the appropriate way to govern was thrown out long ago by the Republican Party and its media empire. Sorry but you cannot put the tooth paste back in the tube now. Its now war by other means.

 

[lwf]

“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I don't think that they should. Since 2016, I no longer see why they wouldn't, however.

 

[roguenuke]

I would argue that Beto O'Rourke represented a clear form of anti-religious bigotry. That is, he is for stripping churches of their tax-exempt status if as a matter of their doctrine they disagreed with his political stances, most notably on the issue of gay marriage. Now, you may say such a stance of de facto state-approved churches and fining offensive churches out of existence is justified. I do not.

Taking away tax exempt status, particularly if churches or religious organizations are not fulfilling their side of that setup by staying out of politics, is not oppressing religion. They would still be free to believe what they want, preach as they would.

Fact check: O'Rourke said he would support removing tax-exemptions for religious institutions that oppose same sex marriage. Is that legal?

At CNN's Equality Town Hall focused on LGBTQ issues and co-hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke was asked by CNN's Don Lemon if he thought "religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if...

www.cnn.com

His campaign in fact explained it was specifically to those organizations that were discriminatory, not different than religious colleges that refused to allow mixed race married couples in/to live on campus the same as same race couples were allowed.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Vadinho]

I would argue that Beto O'Rourke represented a clear form of anti-religious bigotry. That is, he is for stripping churches of their tax-exempt status if as a matter of their doctrine they disagreed with his political stances, most notably on the issue of gay marriage. Now, you may say such a stance of de facto state-approved churches and fining offensive churches out of existence is justified. I do not.

At the core of the exemption is the desire to support charity not political parties or their surrogates on the pulpit. I would argue that all charities should prove they are actual charities before getting the tax breaks AND prove that they give away X% of their money to approved charitable activities. Giving Joel Osteen a million dollars every Sunday tax free is not what was intended by the tax exemption.