GOP Celebrates Court Packing

[Machismo]

Didn't do anything wrong? In that context then Republicans didn't do anything wrong, now if you point out they did it for the good of their party and not for the good of the country then yeah they both did things wrong.

So, you are saying that the GOP is roughly 6.4 times worse than the Democrats.

Good to know.

[zenkai]

After this is all said and done, if Trump ends up impeached, he needs to be investigated for his ties and if it can be proven that he did his tasks to harm the United States or aid a foreign power, the taints his every nomination and should be cause to have them all invalidated.

Kavanaugh can be removed with ease though as he already committed perjury on live TV which is punishable by 5 years in prison.

Do you honestly think anything will happen to Kavanaugh?

[Edge-]

So it's not OK if Republicans stonewall but it's OK of Democrats do it?

Where did I write that?

But that's off-topic to this thread. Which is about how Republicans are openly campaigning on court packing in a way that Democrats never have, and how that subverts the entire point of the judiciary by turning it into a partisan campaign issue.

[zenkai]

When did the Democrats campaign on court packing, again?

Why Democrats Packed the Court

[cubby]

Why Democrats Packed the Court

And that was campaigning how?

[Wyrt]

I see Zenkai is ignoring that Obama only "packed" the courts with 10 judges while Trump has 64 so far including 2 SCOTUS judges, but that's pretty typical of him.

[cubby]

I see Zenkai is ignoring that Obama only "packed" the courts with 10 judges while Trump has 64 so far including 2 SCOTUS judges, but that's pretty typical of him.

He's pretty well known for ignoring the issues and derailing. You see he avoided the question he quoted when replying regarding the campaigning on the court packing issue.

[Edge-]

Why Democrats Packed the Court

Got a non-paywalled link for that? Hard to respond to a piece I can't read.

But what does that have to do with campaigning on the issue?

[Fugus]

He's pretty well known for ignoring the issues and derailing. You see he avoided the question he quoted when replying regarding the campaigning on court packing issue.

Since he doesn't debate in good faith, I started having him on my ignore list to keep from feeding him.

[Teleros]

ITT: lefties complain about right-wingers suddenly playing by their rules instead of losing gracefully as they've done for the last 50 years.

It's amazing to me that the Judiciary is now a central campaign/electoral issue for Republicans.

It always was? Picking members of the kritarchy has been a major issue for decades now, or don't you remember all the fuss over who Dubya was choosing to appoint? Or hell, FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court with >9 members until they rubber stamped everything he wanted?

The branch of the government that's supposed to be above partisanship

Good job I wasn't drinking or eating when I read this. They're humans, they literally cannot be non-partisan. Frankly the sooner the USA dumps its "separation of powers" schtick, or at least puts the elected representatives above the judges, the better. The whole independent judiciary thing only got started because the Founding Fathers profoundly misunderstood how the British system worked in the first place.

[Edge-]

ITT: lefties complain about right-wingers suddenly playing by their rules instead of losing gracefully as they've done for the last 50 years.

Feel free to start linking all those times Democrats campaigned on openly court packing.

It always was? Picking members of the kritarchy has been a major issue for decades now, or don't you remember all the fuss over who Dubya was choosing to appoint? Or hell, FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court with >9 members until they rubber stamped everything he wanted?

Religious reference that's completely random and off-topic aside, it never has been. Certain aspects have been - like ensuring any judges conservatives nominate would strongly support Orignalist interpretations or that judges liberals nominate would uphold Roe, but it's never been a core campaign issue like it's become for Republicans.

FDR is a long time ago and I won't defend that behavior, things are much different politically now.

And what appointments from Dubya? Were they garbage? Were they middle of the road?

They're humans, they literally cannot be non-partisan.

They can. You can't remove bias, and I would never claim otherwise, but the courts have largely remained "above" politics, and that continues to be a big thing the SCOTUS pushes back on because they don't want to get involved in politics at all.

Frankly the sooner the USA dumps its "separation of powers" schtick, or at least puts the elected representatives above the judges, the better. The whole independent judiciary thing only got started because the Founding Fathers profoundly misunderstood how the British system worked in the first place.

The judicary acts as the non-partisan check for the Legislature and Executive, which are inherently more partisan. I like having that check. I think that's a good thing to have.

But apparently not everyone shares that view.

[Calfredd]

ITT: righties complain about left-wingers suddenly playing by their rules instead of losing gracefully as they've done for the last 50 years.

You misspelled a few things so I fixed it so you didn't come across as spreading falsehoods.

[Teleros]

Feel free to start linking all those times Democrats campaigned on openly court packing.

Not what I said.

Religious reference that's completely random and off-topic aside, it never has been.

"Rule by judges" isn't relevant to the USA today? Huh?

And what appointments from Dubya? Were they garbage? Were they middle of the road?

My point is just that it's been a big issue what kind of people the president nominates as a judge for a long time. Only difference now is that the GOP isn't cucking to the Dems & their MSM buddies.

They can. You can't remove bias, and I would never claim otherwise, but the courts have largely remained "above" politics

No, because bias is what causes the partisanship. If I believe life begins at conception or that you have a right to a living wage, those beliefs are going to colour my work as a judge, particularly when it comes to setting precedents and the like (it's obviously harder to be partisan when it's an open-and-shut case as far as what your job as judge is). Pick any major landmark case and this will apply, be it Roe v Wade, Dredd Scott v Sandford, or Obergefell v Hodges... the list goes on.

The judicary acts as the non-partisan check for the Legislature and Executive, which are inherently more partisan. I like having that check. I think that's a good thing to have.

But apparently not everyone shares that view.

Oh I can believe that those two branches are more partisan, but the judiciary has never been non-partisan.

You misspelled a few things so I fixed it so you didn't come across as spreading falsehoods.

If we'd been winning the last 50 years do you really think there'd be gay rights, abortion, or all that stuff?

[Themius]

Going through this thread, you'd swear those on the right just live in an alternate reality where everything they do doesn't happen and instead democrats did it.

[Xeones]

Do you honestly think anything will happen to Kavanaugh?

Different question than should.

In a sane world he never would have been approved with his lack of judicial temperament and just blatantly committing obvious perjury.

Democrats would have an easier time packing the court than they would impeaching him.

[Teleros]

Going through this thread, you'd swear those on the right just live in an alternate reality where everything they do doesn't happen and instead democrats did it.

Just different news stories & sources.

I'm solidly under the impression that, for example, (a) Trump will win bigly in 2020, (b) he's innocent WRT Russia, Ukraine etc, (c) Biden is not... and that's just the big goings-on in the USA right now. I'm guessing by your signature you consume different news sources & stories, and talk to different people, and so have a completely different viewpoint. Now, who's right? Well I think I am, and you think you are, and I bet we can go and find our preferred sources to "prove" to the other that they're wrong, but neither will convince the other. At least I'm self-aware enough to be able to recognise this though.

[Draco-Onis]

Going through this thread, you'd swear those on the right just live in an alternate reality where everything they do doesn't happen and instead democrats did it.

That reality is called right wing media, Hillary is running in 2020, a crime is not a crime if the president does it. The 31-35% Trump base that would defend him even if he was strangling babies on live TV.

[Wyrt]

That reality is called right wing media, Hillary is running in 2020, a crime is not a crime if the president does it. The 31-35% Trump base that would defend him even if he was strangling babies on live TV.

But those were liberal babies so it's ok.

[Themius]

Just different news stories & sources.

I'm solidly under the impression that, for example, (a) Trump will win bigly in 2020, (b) he's innocent WRT Russia, Ukraine etc, (c) Biden is not... and that's just the big goings-on in the USA right now. I'm guessing by your signature you consume different news sources & stories, and talk to different people, and so have a completely different viewpoint. Now, who's right? Well I think I am, and you think you are, and I bet we can go and find our preferred sources to "prove" to the other that they're wrong, but neither will convince the other. At least I'm self-aware enough to be able to recognise this though.

Trump asked for a quid pro quo, he then asked china to investigate biden ON LIVE TV WHICH WAS ILLEGAL AND CLARIFIED AS ILLEGAL BY THE FEC

You do not get the "debate" whether those things happened because he fucking said it, want a video?



Sondland has said there was a quid pro quo AND HE WAS THE ONE WHO DELIVERED IT

White house Chief already ADMITTED IT want a video?



Those things are ILLEGAL We have LAWS ON THE BOOKS

The FEC has already said twice now THAT IT IS ILLEGAL

You want to fucking debate facts and videos of TRUMP TALKING and the memo, and the interviews of everyone involved?

Then you simply don't give a flying fuck about facts and live in some alternate world where facts just don't really mean things to you.

[Wyrt]

Then you simply don't give a flying fuck about facts and live in some alternate world where facts just don't really mean things to you.

You're trying to argue with someone who thinks PragerU is a reasonable source of information.