|
|
Post by x on Sept 19, 2020 22:05:12 GMT -6
Well, the pointless debate on whether RBG should have retired earlier or not has begun. Despite their own hypocritical words about a SCOTUS nomination prior/during an election cycle, the GOP is likely going to get stronger. (IMO) *crossing fingers* things get a little more Blue in the Senate.
Also, it's nice of Cheeto finally send relief money to Puerto Rico. *rolls eyes*
2020 can eat a bag of d.icks.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on Sept 20, 2020 10:24:44 GMT -6
Just listened to a John Prine song.
F.uck 2020
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Sept 20, 2020 17:00:58 GMT -6
There is no debate. She should have retired a long time ago.
I think the court make up is largely overblown. It comes down to a few issues that the political-minded folks like to exploit to raise money. Take the biggest one, Abortion, for example. There is going to be a lot made of this because it raises copious amounts of money. But in reality, it is a non-issue.
The funny thing about this to me is the Republicans claim they would overturn Roe if they only had enough votes. They have always had enough votes. In fact, if you look at the two landmark decisions affirming Abortion as legal and reaffirming abortion as legal, you will find a very interesting bit of history. Roe was a 7-2 decision. Of the 7 in the majority, 5 of them were GOP appointed Justices (Ike 3, Nixon 2). In Casey vs Planned Parenthood, we had a 5-4 decision. Of the 5 in the majority, 4 of them were GOP appointed Justices (Reagan 2, Bush 1, Nixon 1).
And in the other lightning rod issues, there always seems to be that one GOP appointee that switches sides.
Most decisions are of the 9-0 and 7-2 variety. Justices, once appointed, usually stick to the law and disregard political pressures.
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Sept 20, 2020 21:50:46 GMT -6
That's some good insight/history lesson.
Don't let my compliment go to your giant head.
I think it's about time for me to stop looking at social media for a while. It's going to be a $%^storm.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Sept 21, 2020 8:00:13 GMT -6
If Trump wanted to unite the country and help his chances of re-election he should nominate Merrick Garland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Sept 21, 2020 10:16:24 GMT -6
If Conservatives were sincere about overturning all the things they hate, they would preemptively expand the court to 11 and confirm 3 new Justices forthwith. With an 8-3 majority they would have no excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on Sept 22, 2020 8:29:50 GMT -6
and they may.
|
|
|
|
Post by drlefty on Sept 22, 2020 9:01:20 GMT -6
So when does the civil war party start?
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Sept 22, 2020 9:28:13 GMT -6
Even the Trump appointees have already surprised the experts.
The things that make Garland a perfect pick (that will never, ever happen) are the same things that made him a perfect pick in 2016. He's a well respected jurist with a reputation for applying the law fairly. He was unanimously approved for his last lifetime appointment, he's viewed as a centrist and a non-ideologue that all moderates can get behind and all people on the edges can tolerate.
Plus this time he would represent a conciliatory gesture on the part of Trump that would exhibit the kind of leadership that unites a country and helps them rise up above the division that we have now. It would solidify trust in the judicial branch at a time when we cannot trust either the legislative or executive. And we are certainly going to need a balanced judicial branch after the executive and legislative get finished hacking this vote up beyond recognition.
That's also the reason that it will never, ever happen. Trump cannot unite, lead up, or make a conciliatory gesture. He probably wouldn't even recognize the fact that it may win him a whole lot of on-the-fence voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Sept 22, 2020 15:42:41 GMT -6
A real boss move would be to go ahead and expand the court to 15. A 12-3 majority might be necessary to get the votes they need to overturn Roe.
Jokes aside, SCOTUS probably needs 15 anyway so it wouldn't be a silly idea to expand it. There is a strong argument that 9 can't handle the caseload they currently have.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Sept 23, 2020 8:17:32 GMT -6
I'm not too worried about overturning roe v. wade but Obamacare is on the rocks.
I have never witnesses a party that was so hell-bent on destroying duly passed legislation and costing the citizens billions of dollars with attempt after attempt to make sure that the ACA failed.
I'm not sure what you'd call such a blatant effort to undermine the will of the people. Some would call it treason if it were Democrats trying to throw away such huge sums of taxpayer money.
When I hear Republican friends complain about their high premiums under Obamacare, I suggest that they do some research into why they are so high. If they really do it, they will find Republicans are the cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Sept 23, 2020 8:19:34 GMT -6
And now Pence says that Trumps plan (which is expected in of course, two weeks) will include protections for people with pre-existing conditions via Executive Orders.
I don't know if he can really do that, but I'll bet if he does, it will make things worse. He makes everything he touches worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Sept 23, 2020 17:43:59 GMT -6
So when does the civil war party start? I would say right around Christmas time. |
|
|
|
Post by x on Sept 23, 2020 18:44:35 GMT -6
Ha. Cheeto trolling about not conceding losing the election. Troll factor +1K
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Sept 24, 2020 8:35:36 GMT -6
Ha. Cheeto trolling about not conceding losing the election. Troll factor +1K It's a stupid question to ask in the first place. If he loses, who cares if he concedes? I wouldn't care if he hired a huge security detail and locked himself, a la Howard Hughes, in his Mar-a-Lago resort, in a special built bunker, wearing a tinfoil hat, communicating with his followers through Twitter. |
|
