Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[GoSox05]

They will over turn it.  They will just sit back and wait for their test case to come across.  This is the end game for a very small extreme group of people in this country. 

[Y2HH]

9 minutes ago, daggins said:

Dude has said he doesn't consider Roe "settled law" but I guess we'll see when the inevitable challenge is heard in court.

I’m pretty sure he said the opposite, that it WAS settled law. Someone in the know should verify one way or another or we may as well delete this thread.

Edit: seems that in an old email he didn’t think it was, but has recently said it was.

Not sure I’m very worried about it, seems like people are just looking for things to worry about. But I suppose we shall see, since I think he’s getting confirmed at this point.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Y2HH

[GoSox05]

6 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

I’m pretty sure he said the opposite, that it WAS settled law. Someone in the know should verify one way or another or we may as well delete this thread.

He is also seems to lie a lot, so even if he did say that.  Would not surprise me if he was lying.

[Jenksismyhero]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

The rules of basketball have indeed changed since the 1780's. Many times, and in dramatic ways!

Political science and philosophy has changed substantially since then as well. No state supreme court follows the SCOTUS model, nor do any other democratic countries. Saying that our electoral and judicial systems need reform to be more democratic, more resilient, and more trustworthy shouldn't be a bad thing. Some states have even begun to experiment with things like ranked-choice voting rather than straight first-past-the-post. We could go with proportional representation rather than single-member districts, like many lower-level offices and how other countries fill parliaments. It would give us better representations of what people actually want, and it would allow for more than a binary political system.

The SCOTUS itself isn't even well defined. Does it actually have the power of judicial review? How many members should it have? These are not in the Constitution. Why should appointments be lifetime rather than term- or age-limited? Why have the whole lottery aspect where one ill-timed death or surprise election can swing our political and judicial system for a generation or more?

All suddenly problems that need to be fixed because your "side" doesn't benefit. 

[Jenksismyhero]

48 minutes ago, bmags said:

The rules were already changed.

Traditions weren't followed. Not sure there's a rule that was actually changed. 

[daggins]

Realistically, overturning Roe is unnecessary for the GOP, since its already virtually impossible to get an abortion in large swaths of the country. They'll just keep limiting people's access, since that is already more effective than a big political battle.

I don't want to sound like i'm minimizing the impact it would have to overturn Roe, it would certainly be another clear indicator that women's lives don't matter to those in power, but I also don't think it's even close to the worst thing coming down the pipe.

[Y2HH]

9 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

All suddenly problems that need to be fixed because your "side" doesn't benefit. 

Yea, and let’s “pack the court” because we don’t like the “illegal” tactics the right takes!

I just laugh at the willful ignorance here. It’s largely why I disappeared from here for so long.

Anyone that can’t see the flaws in suggesting something stupid, (yes, stupid), like “packing the court”, are the same exact people that were okay with the dems getting rid of the 60 vote majority to appoint, until it started backfiring ... like now.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

6 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

All suddenly problems that need to be fixed because your "side" doesn't benefit. 

All problems that you are okay with because your "side" does benefit.

SCOTUS could have easily gone the other way if 80k people voted differently in 2016, where a sudden and unexpected death swung the court to the left. How does that sort of system make any sense? Why shouldn't we learn from how 50 different states and numerous other countries have structured and reformed their courts over time?

[Y2HH]

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

All problems that you are okay with because your "side" does benefit.

SCOTUS could have easily gone the other way if 80k people voted differently in 2016, where a sudden and unexpected death swung the court to the left. How does that sort of system make any sense? Why shouldn't we learn from how 50 different states and numerous other countries have structured and reformed their courts over time?

And if that was the case I’m just guessing you wouldn’t be b****ing about the terrible system.

And I’d likely be right.

[StrangeSox]

2 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Yea, and let’s “pack the court” because we don’t like the “illegal” tactics the right takes!

I just laugh at the willful if ignorance here. It’s largely why I disappeared from here for so long.

Anyone that can’t see the flaws in suggesting something stupid, (yes, stupid), like “packing the court”, are the same exact people that were okay with the dems getting rid of the 60 vote majority to appoint, until it started backfiring ... like now.

The alternative is "hard right SCOTUS majority for decades to come." I'm not pretending it's not an extreme measure. The last time it was legitimately threatened, by FDR in the 30's, was also a time that called for extreme measures in response to a reactionary court.

I was fine with tanking the 60 vote majority to appoint because Republicans were refusing to let Obama appoint anyone to numerous open judicial spots and to various executive functions. I'm fine with it being removed by Republicans for SCOTUS. It hasn't "backfired," because the idea that Republicans would at some point have the Presidency and the WH wasn't some unforeseeable future. Democrats could have put up with two extra years of McConnell blocking nearly every appointment, and we'd still be exactly where we are at now. Republicans would have blown up the judicial fillibuster early on in Trump's Presidency, and there would be that many more spots open on the courts. So if anything, we'd actually be worse off.

McConnell raised the stakes significantly when he refused to even hold hearings on Obama's appointment. If one side is constantly trying to be the "reasonable" ones adhering to dead traditions, they're going to get stomped. Yes, it's possible that a future Republican majority/President would then escalate even farther, but the alternative is to lay down and do nothing and watch a SCOTUS gut much of 20th century progressive reforms and block all 21st century progressive reforms on a wide variety of issues.

What would you have the Democrats or progressives do instead if not work to reform anti-democratic (small-d there) institutions?

[Jenksismyhero]

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

All problems that you are okay with because your "side" does benefit.

SCOTUS could have easily gone the other way if 80k people voted differently in 2016, where a sudden and unexpected death swung the court to the left. How does that sort of system make any sense? Why shouldn't we learn from how 50 different states and numerous other countries have structured and reformed their courts over time?

Yeah but they didn't so...

If Derrick Rose didn't have glass for knees the Bulls may have gotten to a Finals. We don't call for massive change just because in the short term things may seem unfair. 

Our democracy lasts precisely because we don't make whole sale changes every time one side is unhappy. We stick to the system and ride the waves, good and bad.

[Y2HH]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

The alternative is "hard right SCOTUS majority for decades to come." I'm not pretending it's not an extreme measure. The last time it was legitimately threatened, by FDR in the 30's, was also a time that called for extreme measures in response to a reactionary court.

I was fine with tanking the 60 vote majority to appoint because Republicans were refusing to let Obama appoint anyone to numerous open judicial spots and to various executive functions. I'm fine with it being removed by Republicans for SCOTUS. It hasn't "backfired," because the idea that Republicans would at some point have the Presidency and the WH wasn't some unforeseeable future. Democrats could have put up with two extra years of McConnell blocking nearly every appointment, and we'd still be exactly where we are at now. Republicans would have blown up the judicial fillibuster early on in Trump's Presidency, and there would be that many more spots open on the courts. So if anything, we'd actually be worse off.

McConnell raised the stakes significantly when he refused to even hold hearings on Obama's appointment. If one side is constantly trying to be the "reasonable" ones adhering to dead traditions, they're going to get stomped. Yes, it's possible that a future Republican majority/President would then escalate even farther, but the alternative is to lay down and do nothing and watch a SCOTUS gut much of 20th century progressive reforms and block all 21st century progressive reforms on a wide variety of issues.

What would you have the Democrats or progressives do instead if not work to reform anti-democratic (small-d there) institutions?

At least we have some common ground here.

[StrangeSox]

2 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

And if that was the case I’m just guessing you wouldn’t be b****ing about the terrible system.

And I’d likely be right.

Possibly. But the "oh yeah well hypothetically your beliefs would be completely different!" is a pretty meaningless game to play because all it does it lets you avoid talking about the topic at hand.

I'd be interested in actually discussing hypothetical court and political structures, voting systems etc.

[StrangeSox]

1 minute ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Yeah but they didn't so...

If Derrick Rose didn't have glass for knees the Bulls may have gotten to a Finals. We don't call for massive change just because in the short term things may seem unfair. 

Our democracy lasts precisely because we don't make whole sale changes every time one side is unhappy. We stick to the system and ride the waves, good and bad.

Our democracy is under substantial threat, though. Our democracy is giving more and more power to a shrinking minority control. Our democracy has been dramatically reformed multiple times in the past.

It's not about making changes every time "one side is unhappy." It's about constantly striving for a more democratic system. I don't even think my personal left-wing politics would always win in that sort of system! But there is inherent unfairness in our current structure. Millions are given no voice at all. A few hundred thousand are given equal voice to tens of millions. The actual will of the people is constantly undermined by arcane systems giving power to minority government. We're stuck with a rigid two-party system that structurally crushes out any hope for multi-party politics that could better represent the wide range of opinions in this country.

This isn't just dumb partisan ranting. There's decades of political science behind better systems.

[Y2HH]

5 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Possibly. But the "oh yeah well hypothetically your beliefs would be completely different!" is a pretty meaningless game to play because all it does it lets you avoid talking about the topic at hand.

I'd be interested in actually discussing hypothetical court and political structures, voting systems etc.

Well, we both agree that conversation would be worth having.

Here is the thing, right now we have a tit for tat system. One party does X when in power, and when it happens their side is okay with it, but when the other party gains power and does the same thing, or escalates what was started, it’s suddenly no longer okay.

Also, I’m not so optimistic some of these justices are gonna live another 40 years.

I’m also not fond of a political Supreme Court on either side. I think it should all be people with proven non-partisan records.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Y2HH

[raBBit]

20 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

It's fine I don't take any of this personally.

I wouldn't have replied to people posts if I didn't want to know what they actually thought and engage in a honest discussion with them. I just wanted to be clear on what I said and meant at the time.

Anyways going to take a break from the board a bit. Sox season is over and there really isn't much to discuss I'll probably be back in Nov lol

Another poster come and gone due to filibuster. Shame. Hope to see you back again for what should be exciting offseason wrathofhahn!

 

[wrathofhahn]

3 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Well, we both agree that conversation would be worth having.

Here is the thing, right now we have a tit for tat system. One party does X when in power, and when it happens their side is okay with it, but when the other party gains power and does the same thing, or escalates what was started, it’s suddenly no longer okay.

Also, I’m not so optimistic some of these justices are gonna live another 40 years.

I’m also not fond of a political Supreme Court on either side. I think it should all be people with proven non-partisan records.

I think honestly we should be less focused on the supreme court and more focused on our senators. Laws are supposed to be enacted through congress not the SC.

If democrats want to modernize laws that is what congress if for. If they want to create new protections that is once again what congress if for. Stop trying to get your way via the courts and unelected judges a lot of this tension would die down. I don't want Kavanuagh to do anything other then interpret existing law as it is written. I suspect there will be times where that will be unpopular and I hope people will call up their congressman to fix those laws and fill in any gaps when they exist instead of blaming the SC.

 

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Well, we both agree that conversation would be worth having.

Here is the thing, right now we have a tit for tat system. One party does X when in power, and when it happens their side is okay with it, but when the other party gains power and does the same thing, or escalates what was started, it’s suddenly no longer okay.

Also, I’m not so optimistic some of these justices are gonna live another 40 years.

I’m also not fond of a political Supreme Court on either side. I think it should all be people with proven non-partisan records.

They need to completely revamp how SC are picked. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, its pretty crazy when you realize that most SC justices all went to the same few colleges. Harvard, Yale and Columbia right now.

I think that there should be some thought to Justices being picked regionally. So that each part of the country has a judge that represents them. 

[wrathofhahn]

7 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Another poster come and gone due to filibuster. Shame. Hope to see you back again for what should be exciting offseason wrathofhahn!

 

I'll here for a bit still but it's not them anyways. It's just I don't post much on politics unless something major happens.

[StrangeSox]

10 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

Yeah but they didn't so...

If Derrick Rose didn't have glass for knees the Bulls may have gotten to a Finals. We don't call for massive change just because in the short term things may seem unfair. 

Our democracy lasts precisely because we don't make whole sale changes every time one side is unhappy. We stick to the system and ride the waves, good and bad.

You know, if you want to go with the basketball analogy,  you'd be defending a league where one team got to play 8 men and could still win with fewer points if they had more assists. 

[Y2HH]

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

They need to completely revamp how SC are picked. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, its pretty crazy when you realize that most SC justices all went to the same few colleges. Harvard, Yale and Columbia right now.

I think that there should be some thought to Justices being picked regionally. So that each part of the country has a judge that represents them. 

I’m not a fan of the president picking them or the lifetime appointments, either.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, Y2HH said:

I’m not a fan of the president picking them or the lifetime appointments, either.

Yeah I was thinking of a model where it somehow is picked by the Circuit it represents. Im on the fence about lifetime appointments, but I do think that there should be some way to recall or change the dynamic if a judge goes off the rails.

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

I think honestly we should be less focused on the supreme court and more focused on our senators. Laws are supposed to be enacted through congress not the SC.

If democrats want to modernize laws that is what congress if for. If they want to create new protections that is once again what congress if for. Stop trying to get your way via the courts and unelected judges a lot of this tension would die down. I don't want Kavanuagh to do anything other then interpret existing law as it is written. I suspect there will be times where that will be unpopular and I hope people will call up their congressman to fix those laws and fill in any gaps when they exist instead of blaming the SC.

 

The scotus can undo what the Congress does, such as Roberts gutting voting rights and campaign finance

[bmags]

16 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Well, we both agree that conversation would be worth having.

Here is the thing, right now we have a tit for tat system. One party does X when in power, and when it happens their side is okay with it, but when the other party gains power and does the same thing, or escalates what was started, it’s suddenly no longer okay.

Also, I’m not so optimistic some of these justices are gonna live another 40 years.

I’m also not fond of a political Supreme Court on either side. I think it should all be people with proven non-partisan records.

I’m not sure your second paragraph sounds that bad, it’s the filibuster that obscures it.

if from here on, Congress was straight majority rule, that seems fine, and if a party gets majority in all three (exec, house, senate) they should be able to implement big or whatever changes.

The issue is institutional rules have been changed last decade. So a party 8 years with a president was allowed virtually no judges for 6 of them, then two years in the new party overturns all of those restrictions and puts in hundreds, that’s not something I just shrug at. I want to balance that, as aggressively.

 

But is Congress worse off without filibuster and without hastert rule applied by each speaker? I have hard time seeing that it is moving forward. Seems stronger.

edit: said three branches, meant house/sen/prez

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

The scotus can undo what the Congress does, such as Roberts gutting voting rights and campaign finance

Exactly, campaign finance reform, voting rights, parts of healthcare law: all prevented by scotus in last decade