2 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

Trump has been dreadful.  The only people who like him at this point is his base and they were never going to change no matter what.  You need to get those people who didn't vote off their rear ends and choose a side.

I hate doing it since I have obligations but sometimes you have to do things like canvass to try and change things. I hope his base shrinks significantly going forward, in particular the voters who aren’t the ones that attend his rallies.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by The Beast

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

How will Kavanaugh be the swing vote like Kennedy was? If you mean he is the ninth vote, okay, but if you mean he is a moderate like Kennedy was, I don’t see it.

Kennedy was the most moderate of the conservatives, but don't mistake him for a moderate.

Replacing Kennedy with a right wing partisan like Kavanaugh definitely shifts the court to the right, though. Roberts will now be the median vote.

 

Just now, StrangeSox said:

Kennedy was the most moderate of the conservatives, but don't mistake him for a moderate.

Replacing Kennedy with a right wing partisan like Kavanaugh definitely shifts the court to the right, though. Roberts will now be the median vote.

 

He at least was the wildcard. I don’t see Bart as the wildcard now, he’s reliably conservative. I’d love to see Roberts be the median vote but I will beliebe it when I see it.

Hopefully the democrats win the presidency in 2020 so they can let the older justices retire and get replaced with younger justices. I’m not counting on it though. And I don’t know that these lifetime appointments are fair, either.

The structure of the Supreme Court is terrible and should be completely overhauled. At a minimum, the Democrats should be strategizing on how to pack the courts after 2020 assuming they win Presidency and Senate to balance this out. Ideally, we'd see term limits for Justices, possibly giving each President a set number of appointments so it isn't such a lottery that can have an impact that lasts decades.

A court with Roberts as the median vote is a very conservative court. That just means he's in the middle, not that he's a moderate.

For someone who seems to be slamming the political process of this, Collins seems to be basking in her position as key vote. Most people send out a tweet or press release. She gives a long speech.

6 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

The structure of the Supreme Court is terrible and should be completely overhauled. At a minimum, the Democrats should be strategizing on how to pack the courts after 2020 assuming they win Presidency and Senate to balance this out. Ideally, we'd see term limits for Justices, possibly giving each President a set number of appointments so it isn't such a lottery that can have an impact that lasts decades.

A court with Roberts as the median vote is a very conservative court. That just means he's in the middle, not that he's a moderate.

It doesn't reflect the country either. A republican hasn't won the popular vote in a US presidential election in 30 years except for Bush in 2004.  Gore got screwed, that cost 2 seats. Merrick Garland is another seat. This should be a left leaning Court, just like the country.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Dick Allen

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It doesn't reflect the country either. A republican hasn't won the popular vote in a US presidential election in 30 years.  Gore got screwed, that cost 2 seats. Merrick Garland is another seat. This should be a left leaning Court, just like the country.

Oh for sure. It's not just Article 3 that's a hot mess when it comes to modern ideas of what a democracy is.

17 minutes ago, The Beast said:

How will Kavanaugh be the swing vote like Kennedy was? If you mean he is the ninth vote, okay, but if you mean he is a moderate like Kennedy was, I don’t see it.

I mean he is replacing the swing vote which is why there was always more pushback on him even before Ford then Gorsuch who was replacing Scalia.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by wrathofhahn

You guys make me laugh. "The Bulls suck....time to change the rules of basketball!"

10 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

The structure of the Supreme Court is terrible and should be completely overhauled. At a minimum, the Democrats should be strategizing on how to pack the courts after 2020 assuming they win Presidency and Senate to balance this out. Ideally, we'd see term limits for Justices, possibly giving each President a set number of appointments so it isn't such a lottery that can have an impact that lasts decades.

A court with Roberts as the median vote is a very conservative court. That just means he's in the middle, not that he's a moderate.

What is the likelihood that the changes you have suggested would occur? Would a constitutional amendment need to be voted on to change the lifelong sentences?

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

What is the likelihood that the changes you have suggested would occur? Would a constitutional amendment need to be voted on to change the lifelong sentences?

Somewhere near 0%, yes.

The thing is, when you push for extreme changes seriously (like the sitting president has no right to appoint a supreme court justice), you get some change closer to what you want.

8 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

You guys make me laugh. "The Bulls suck....time to change the rules of basketball!"

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?

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by StrangeSox

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

The thing is, when you push for extreme changes seriously (like the sitting president has no right to appoint a supreme court justice), you get some change closer to what you want.

McConnell’s action in 2016 is mostly was is upsetting to me about the whole thing, in addition to the limited FBI investigation. I do wish to know what the constitution actually says about the senate’s obligation to confirm Supreme Court Justices though. That has been hard for me to find online.

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

The thing is, when you push for extreme changes seriously (like the sitting president has no right to appoint a supreme court justice), you get some change closer to what you want.

Well part of the problem is it will be hard to apply the rule ex posto facto and I assume if it was tried it would be challenged under Section 1  Clause 3 article 9 of the constitution .

Basically it would be the current party super majority making a rule that future nominees (their own) would be subject to term limits. Which is why it won't happen

Just now, wrathofhahn said:

Well part of the problem is it will be hard to apply the rule ex posto facto and I assume if it was tried it would be challenged under Section 1  Clause 3 article 9 of the constitution .

Basically it would be the current party super majority making a rule that future nominees (their own) would be subject to term limits. Which is why it won't happen

It would amend the constitution, if they amend the constitution and it passes across states they could easily apply to existing judges. 

Essentially, the entire GOP + Joe Manchin has now adopted the Ed Whelan doppleganger theory, at least as a cover story

 

 

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

It would amend the constitution, if they amend the constitution and it passes across states they could easily apply to existing judges. 

They have to rewrite Section 9 as well.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed (by congress)"

 

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by wrathofhahn

love our good and healthy democracy

 

 

1 minute ago, wrathofhahn said:

They have to rewrite Section 9 as well.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed (by congress)"

 

It wouldn't be a law, it would be a Constitutional amendment.

You could also set it as an age cap instead of a term limit, as several states do. That wouldn't really be ex post facto, would it? Are judicial nominations entitled to that sort of protection?

25 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

You guys make me laugh. "The Bulls suck....time to change the rules of basketball!"

The rules were already changed.

26 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

It wouldn't be a law, it would be a Constitutional amendment.

You could also set it as an age cap instead of a term limit, as several states do. That wouldn't really be ex post facto, would it? Are judicial nominations entitled to that sort of protection?

I would think Article III says they can keep their post indefinitely as long as they remain in good standing. It would probably be challenged by whomever the minority party happens to be then decided by the supreme court.

There has also been some sort movement on what ex post facto means technically it means everything but the supreme court has limited it as to now for criminal cases. Regardless expecting the very people who you are trying to fire in 10 years to rule in your favor to me doesn't seem very likely but who knows.

It's also likely to be extremely complicated because it could easily end up in a situation where one party could be nominating 6 justices for 15-20 years on a 8 year term. I have zero confidence congress could figure out a way to make it work and for it to be bipartisan. They can barely even pass a budget at this point. I think the tendency is for some people to say well why don't we do this and why don't we do that we need to be very careful the framers were titans of their time literally the very best and brightest America had to offer. This bunch? Most of the time I'm happy they get through their term without breaking something. I wouldn't want them rewriting anything as serious as this in a million years.

When I reading through your quote I also read Hamiltons papers which he made clear a lifetime appointment was central to the SC independence from the Federal Government which brings up another point. What happens if someone whose on the way out decides they want another term? Can they be reappointed? Could they barter decisions during their term for that position? What about one of their friends? Could they potentially sell a decision knowing they'll be leaving shortly anyways? The more I think about it it's one of those ideas that sound good but it's implementation would be awful and not work at all.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by wrathofhahn

Seems like he’ll be a good Justice.  Law is law to this guy.  Doesn’t seem like the weak kind that will cave to social pressure.  Law is law.  As it should be.  Roe v wade is law, so everyone can fucking relax. It ain’t getting overturned. I’d bet my life on it

This thread is suddenly jumping the partisan shark. Not that it didn’t from the get go.

No longer worth discussing.

26 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Seems like he’ll be a good Justice.  Law is law to this guy.  Doesn’t seem like the weak kind that will cave to social pressure.  Law is law.  As it should be.  Roe v wade is law, so everyone can fucking relax. It ain’t getting overturned. I’d bet my life on it

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