Ted Cruz and the Incredibly Shrinking Supreme Court

[Adam Jensen]

There's no actual constitutional requirement for the make-up of the Court is his (correct) point. Controlling its size has been a political football throughout the country's history, one of the more famous instances was FDR trying to get Congress to expand it to 15 seats so he could pack it.

As of right now, the law states that there are to be 9 justices. If you want that changed, there are ways of changing laws. You don't just fucking ignore it because you don't like the guy with the Constitutional right to appoint justices.

[Sargerasraider]

As of right now, the law states that there are to be 9 justices. If you want that changed, there are ways of changing laws. You don't just fucking ignore it because you don't like the guy with the Constitutional right to appoint justices.

The Senate still has to consent to any nominees. If you don't like it, win elections. We can talk more on 11/9.

[Chrysia]

The Senate still has to consent to any nominees. If you don't like it, win elections. We can talk more on 11/9.

They have to advise and consent. They're skipping the "advise" part.

[satimy]

That was Greece, and it wasn't considered marriage in Greek culture.

It's not like we have widespread Roman marriage contracts. There's zero evidence Nero's marriage was considered uncouth in any way.

So it clearly wasn't in the definition of marriage back then

- - - Updated - - -

They have to advise and consent. They're skipping the "advise" part.

The senate can do whatever they want, they literally make their own rules

[Chrysia]

So it clearly wasn't in the definition of marriage back then

The senate can do whatever they want, they literally make their own rules

I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote. There are at least two documented fully legal marriages between consenting male adults in Roman records.

Except those parts of their rules outlined in the Constitution. They've refused to advise the president in regards to his appointments. They are literally violating Constitutional law.

[Sargerasraider]

They have to advise and consent. They're skipping the "advise" part.

The Senate advised that they wouldn't consent to anyone. I know you don't like it, but again, all your side needs to do is win an election.

[Stormdash]

It's not even about if marriage is a fundamental right, even though that was stated in Loving v. Virginia. It's about the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage, as it pertained to the United States government was undefined. Organized religion sought to place it into the government, so as to provide financial benefits for Christians. However, they never thought to specifically define what it meant in the eyes of the government. Since they were the strong majority, they must have assumed that it would always simply be what they wanted it to be. All that changed in the 1970's, and they had to react. They then pushed laws to ban gay marriage. In the end, you have one group of people whining because they are no longer allowed to oppress another group of people.

In the end, people will use any reason they want to justify their bigotry. And make no mistake, that is exactly what this is about. The end goal, is to get the government out of marriage entirely. The first step to getting there, is to make everyone equal under the laws you wish to eliminate. If wee are to say that laws banning gay marriage are justified, then we can just as easily say that laws banning athiests or Jews from being married are justified.

The case was decided on both the due process and EP issues. "Marriage" was recognized as a fundamental right vis a vis 14th Amendment due process, and the only reason it was is for reasons that you'd know doubt find loathesome -- because of the heteronormative monogamous family unit being a fundamental attribute of the society historically untrod upon by government. That established, it became the racial parameters that were the conspicuous and historically novel outlier that trod upon that right. If there was never that "it's just a man and a woman" baseline assumption about marriage, Loving would have been silent on marriage as a fundamental right, and if it were, the legal precedent wouldn't have existed for Obergefell to bootstrap itself too. Like I said, counter-intuitive maybe, but that's how it is.

- - - Updated - - -

The Senate still has to consent to any nominees. If you don't like it, win elections. We can talk more on 11/9.

A statute says there are 9 permanent seats; the Constitution is silent about the make-up. And the statute doesn't (and indeed couldn't, constitutionally) place an affirmative duty on the Senate or President to make sure those seats are all always filled within X months of an opening. To be absolutely clear, there are no legal consequences if the seat is never filled, only political ones (i.e. elections).

[Adam Jensen]

The Senate advised that they wouldn't consent to anyone. I know you don't like it, but again, all your side needs to do is win an election.

So you're all about obstructionist politics and not getting shit done? What Mitch McConnel is doing is unprecedented. Not in the history of the US Congress has the Senate refused to even see a nominee for as long as they've refused to see Merrrick Garland.

What's even stupider about this is the fact that Merrick Garland has always been a nominee that BOTH SIDES have liked. This is clearly the Republicans thumbing their noses at Obama and putting politics ahead of country.

[satimy]

I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote. There are at least two documented fully legal marriages between consenting male adults in Roman records.

Except those parts of their rules outlined in the Constitution. They've refused to advise the president in regards to his appointments. They are literally violating Constitutional law.

2 emperors when you had thousands of gay people that weren't emperors and never got married, it's almost like you're arguing for me.

And the senate can literally do whatever they want, they are accountable only to voters. They can remove the other 2 branches

[Cyberowl]

2 emperors when you had thousands of gay people that weren't emperors and never got married, it's almost like you're arguing for me.

And the senate can literally do whatever they want, they are accountable only to voters. They can remove the other 2 branches

I don't know why you guys are talking about Rome and Greece to begin with.

[Lenonis]

It's fascinating to me that people are supporting what can only be considered blatant unapologetic obstructionism. That is NOT how our government is supposed to work.

And geez get off the gay marriage debate already. In addition to being against the forum rules the anti-gay marriage side lost fair and square. Time to give it up.

[Chrysia]

2 emperors when you had thousands of gay people that weren't emperors and never got married, it's almost like you're arguing for me.

And the senate can literally do whatever they want, they are accountable only to voters. They can remove the other 2 branches

You can't say that thousands of other gay Romans never got married. It's not like we have every marriage contract of every Roman citizen. We do have documented evidence that Rome performed same-sex marriages prior to becoming Christian.

No, they literally cannot.

[Cyberowl]

It's fascinating to me that people are supporting what can only be considered blatant unapologetic obstructionism. That is NOT how our government is supposed to work.

And geez get off the gay marriage debate already. In addition to being against the forum rules the anti-gay marriage side lost fair and square. Time to give it up.

I don't think the gay marriage debate is off topic, when you have Trump, Cruz and plenty of other Republicans flat out admitting to various degrees that they want to appoint a conservative SCJ which would help to repeal it.

[satimy]

You can't say that thousands of other gay Romans never got married. It's not like we have every marriage contract of every Roman citizen. We do have documented evidence that Rome performed same-sex marriages prior to becoming Christian.

No, they literally cannot.

Royalty has always done crazy shot that nobody else is allowed to do. Not having evidence of marriages outside of 2 emperors does not qualify as proving that Rome had gay marriages.

- - - Updated - - -

It's fascinating to me that people are supporting what can only be considered blatant unapologetic obstructionism. That is NOT how our government is supposed to work.

And geez get off the gay marriage debate already. In addition to being against the forum rules the anti-gay marriage side lost fair and square. Time to give it up.

So you thinking winning some skirmish ends he war?

[Machismo]

The case was decided on both the due process and EP issues. "Marriage" was recognized as a fundamental right vis a vis 14th Amendment due process, and the only reason it was is for reasons that you'd know doubt find loathesome -- because of the heteronormative monogamous family unit being a fundamental attribute of the society historically untrod upon by government. That established, it became the racial parameters that were the conspicuous and historically novel outlier that trod upon that right. If there was never that "it's just a man and a woman" baseline assumption about marriage, Loving would have been silent on marriage as a fundamental right, and if it were, the legal precedent wouldn't have existed for Obergefell to bootstrap itself too. Like I said, counter-intuitive maybe, but that's how it is.

- - - Updated - - -



A statute says there are 9 permanent seats; the Constitution is silent about the make-up. And the statute doesn't (and indeed couldn't, constitutionally) place an affirmative duty on the Senate or President to make sure those seats are all always filled within X months of an opening. To be absolutely clear, there are no legal consequences if the seat is never filled, only political ones (i.e. elections).

But that is assuming that a gay marriage cannot also fall into that category. There's plenty of statistical evidence to back up the advantages of a nuclear family, that does not mean it should be mandated by law, and others restricted by it. If that were the case, then one would be wise to ban divorce and births outside of wedlock.

Not only did it (Loving v. Virginia) violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, but also the Equal Protection Clause guaranteed within. The Equal Protection Clause is the real focus for the ruling, which is exactly why the SCOTUS was justified in linking it to the bans on gay marriage decades later.

[Crissi]

yeah guys, Id avoid the gay marriage tangent since that flirts with getting into Forbidden Topics

[Morrigenn]

Good for the republicans. Hillary wants more Sotomayors on the Supreme Court. Which would awful for this country for generations even after Hillary is long gone.

I hope they do what they can to stop it from happening. Or at the very least force her to pick someone they both agree on.

They don't even have the BALLS to do a vote on the current nominee. Whatever happened to the idea of actually giving an up or down vote? We can talk about "picking someone they both agree on" when the fucking Congress does their duty to give a nominee (ANY nominee) an up or down vote. Come on folks, get the objections out in public... and go on record for what you "say" you stand for.

This blind obstruction of ANY nominee proposed by Obama (and the promise that any nominee proposed by Clinton) will not be considered is pure bullshit from the party that keeps talking how they LOOOOOVE the Constitution and rule of law and all that other wave-the-flag, Oh-we're-true-patriots-defending-the-country bullshit they keep spewing while ducking any accountability for a vote and being on record with their opinions.

Give the nominee an up or down vote on his qualifications. It's not really all that radical.

[Slybak]

Anyone with a shred of sense knew that the "We can't have hearings on a Supreme Court nominee during an election year!" rationale for not holding hearings on Garland was a bullshit lie from the get-go. They'll do their best to keep it at 8 until Ginsburg or Breyer leaves, at which point they'll be happy with seven and hope a Republican becomes President again so they can appoint two and still maintain a thin veneer of conformity with the statutory requirement.

Schumer has every reason to nuke the fuck out of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, which by every account he'll have the votes to do if he becomes majority leader. And you can fully expect these same shameless, degenerate nihilists to wail about Democrats destroying the "institutional comity" of the Senate when he does.

[D3thray]

The Senate still has to consent to any nominees. If you don't like it, win elections. We can talk more on 11/9.

The president doesn't need senate approval to put a justice on the bench. The whole confirmation process is more of a courtesy to the Senate. There's nothing enshrined in law or the constitution that says the senate must approve.

[Sargerasraider]

The president doesn't need senate approval to put a justice on the bench. The whole confirmation process is more of a courtesy to the Senate. There's nothing enshrined in law or the constitution that says the senate must approve.

This is why we need to actually teach civics in school again. Seriously.

Article II, section 2 (bolded mine):

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The confirmation process is a Constitutionally required necessity to seat a Supreme Court justice and is an obviously intended check on executive power.

So you're all about obstructionist politics and not getting shit done? What Mitch McConnel is doing is unprecedented. Not in the history of the US Congress has the Senate refused to even see a nominee for as long as they've refused to see Merrrick Garland.

What's even stupider about this is the fact that Merrick Garland has always been a nominee that BOTH SIDES have liked. This is clearly the Republicans thumbing their noses at Obama and putting politics ahead of country.

Again, all you need to do is win an election. The Republicans won a huge majority in the 2014 election basically on the platform of "obstruct Obama" (and before Espe and his ilk come in complaining of gerrymandering, you don't gerrymander Senate races, and the Republicans also won a large majority in the popular vote for the House). They are expressly acting in the wishes of the people who elected them.

If obstructionism is as politically damning as you all seem to thing it is -just win the election and this is moot-.