Page 9 of 59 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
19
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    I read one strategy of 15 judges, where 9 get randomly picked to hear a case. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, it's just one thing I read. I can't find that article, but I found another one by Brookings filled with different proposals.

    https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...supreme-court/

    I do agree with term limits. 10 years. Then they're done. No more SCOTUS. Maybe go back to lower courts, but no longer eligible to serve on SCOTUS.

    It does need to change because Brookings is right. There shouldn't be an apocalyptic ideological fight every time a SCOTUS judge retires/dies.
    I'm not sure about the randomly picked judges to hear a case...but I like the 15 judge number. After reading the article offering proposals that reflect the growing population, a larger increase has been part of my ideal situation.

    Term limits would be interesting - it would certainly change the aptly named apocalyptic ideological fight that happens each time.

    Interestingly - increasing the size of SCOTUS just takes House/Senate majority vote and the President to sign. Changing judges to term limits takes a Constitutional Amendment.

    If the Democrats get the opportunity to increase SCOTUS, they could make it 15+, making the balance 11-6 slanting liberal. And choose those judges in the same age and ideology as Barrett/Kavanaugh, it would force the GOP to the table in negotiating that Amendment.

  2. #162
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    22,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    My impression of her is that she is both ambitious and slightly crazy. Showing up multiple times to be vetted by Trump in person at the WH days after RBG died, shows you how committed and motivated she is politically. Then you look at her endorsements and previous statements, and that's all you really need to understand her.

    But it's clearly and directly a pander to single issue religious voters, locking in a vote that might've started to loosen up a bit lately. It's another short-term political gain for Trump that might very well backfire, especially if Barrett lives up to her reputation and we basically have a Michelle Bachman on the court.
    There's no such thing as an unambitious judge. She is the embodiment of right-wing memes.

    Can someone explain to someone who isn't happy with either party why expanding the courts would be a good thing. Anyone who knows a thing or two about polisci and sociology knows it will only make judges more prone to partisanship, reducing the integrity of the court. It's one thing for a judge to lean to the left or the right, it's a whole different ball game when they become partisan. That's dangerous, see the mess we call Congress and how party is placed before country, even personal professional opinions.
    Last edited by PACOX; 2020-09-27 at 07:19 AM.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    but but they get to keep their gunz and get bigger gunz with more bigger loud noises....who needs all those other rights when you got big gunz!

    - - - Updated - - -

    sad part is Trump does not even support the anti-abortion stance.
    He most likley does not even give a shit one way or another since it has no personal impact on him.
    he just needs to say that to get elected.

    he also has enough money to send his daughter and granddaughter to another country to get an abortion if they need one. unlike most of the country who will have no choice.
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.

    Did you know Antonin Scalia was a roman catholic? A man of the faith. He was able to keep his personal faith separate from the bench, especially whenever there was a death penalty case in front of him. As you may or may not be aware, Catholics generally oppose the death penalty. https://www.usccb.org/resources/chur...nalty-position

  4. #164
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,363
    Quote Originally Posted by announced View Post
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.
    1. That depends on how they make their ruling. They could easily make a "fetus is people, so abortion is murder" ruling if they have enough wackadoodle judges to form a majority.

    2. You seem to have a completely inadequate knowledge of geography, state politics, and travel speeds. Additionally, it presumes that the woman in question owns a car and can also take the multiple days off that such a trip would require.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  5. #165
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,621
    Quote Originally Posted by announced View Post
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.
    Why can’t the same apply to gun sales, by that metric?

    Did you know Antonin Scalia was a roman catholic? A man of the faith. He was able to keep his personal faith separate from the bench, especially whenever there was a death penalty case in front of him. As you may or may not be aware, Catholics generally oppose the death penalty. https://www.usccb.org/resources/chur...nalty-position
    He was also a shitty justice that constantly invented principles to justify his biases, him being Catholic is not a defense of Justice Serena Joy.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Barrett is going to get confirmed. And she will be unremovable (fed judges must be impeached - i.e. 2/3's vote of Senate).
    She will wind back the law in almost every category of social justice, in some cases all the to the 1930's.

    Barrett is walking through almost every door Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opened, and when Barrett arrives at her final destination, she will close them all.

    If was are lucky enough to have a Biden administration with a Blue Senate, we must pack the court - significantly. 19-27 at least.
    Look, I get that this sucks, but imagine this country in 100 years if packing the court becomes the norm. Will we have a supreme court with 500 justices? Win elections, impeach judges. Stop changing the rules if you keep losing the game.

    By the way. RBG was a fantastic woman, and one of my role models. The world needs a million more women just like her. But she wasn't alone in opening doors. And, she wasn't the first. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman in the supreme court. A republican opened that door first. Although, O'Connor is nothing like Barrett. I only wish it was someone like O'Connor being nominated, and not a nutjob. I'm tired of these freedoms for me but not for thee politicians.
    Quote Originally Posted by blobbydan View Post
    We're all doomed. Let these retards shuffle the chairs on the titanic. They can die in a safe space if they want to... Whatever. What a miserable joke this life is. I can't wait until it's all finally over and I can return to the sweet oblivion of the void.

  7. #167
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    Look, I get that this sucks, but imagine this country in 100 years if packing the court becomes the norm. Will we have a supreme court with 500 justices? Win elections, impeach judges. Stop changing the rules if you keep losing the game.
    Man it's almost as if a system of government invented by white slaveowners more than two centuries ago might need revision.

    That's the point. If the judicial system as it stands cannot function equitably without ridiculous amounts of packing then that's a surefire sign said system is not a good one.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    There's no such thing as an unambitious judge. She is the embodiment of right-wing memes.

    Can someone explain to someone who isn't happy with either party why expanding the courts would be a good thing. Anyone who knows a thing or two about polisci and sociology knows it will only make judges more prone to partisanship, reducing the integrity of the court. It's one thing for a judge to lean to the left or the right, it's a whole different ball game when they become partisan. That's dangerous, see the mess we call Congress and how party is placed before country, even personal professional opinions.
    There have been some ideas floating around of expanding the court in order to depoliticize it. Buttigieg for example proposed to split the court into three parts: two partisan and one bipartisan. So by adding four bipartisan justices, you'd have 12. Ideas like these will become more attractive soon when the court is forced to rear its political head. Up until now it's mostly functioned on good faith and covert politics, but there is no escaping the apocalypse with Barrett on the court and the election ahead.

    Of course Trump and McConnell have now given Democrats free reign to expand their own power in response to the GOP's greed, instead of trying to depoliticize it, so for now the best thing that will come out of an expansion is liberal rulings, which are in most people's interests anyway. At least abortion rights will be secured, LGBT rights will be secured if not expanded, and likely some racial issues that make it up there will see liberal resolutions. It will also make it much easier for democrats to install some serious guardrails that prevent another populist fiasco like the one we are living in now.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    She is batshit insane, and NO ONE should pick this spot. Until after the inauguration of Biden or if Trump wins the election.
    She even said that herself during the Garland fiasco.

  10. #170
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    22,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    There have been some ideas floating around of expanding the court in order to depoliticize it. Buttigieg for example proposed to split the court into three parts: two partisan and one bipartisan. So by adding four bipartisan justices, you'd have 12. Ideas like these will become more attractive soon when the court is forced to rear its political head. Up until now it's mostly functioned on good faith and covert politics, but there is no escaping the apocalypse with Barrett on the court and the election ahead.

    Of course Trump and McConnell have now given Democrats free reign to expand their own power in response to the GOP's greed, instead of trying to depoliticize it, so for now the best thing that will come out of an expansion is liberal rulings, which are in most people's interests anyway. At least abortion rights will be secured, LGBT rights will be secured if not expanded, and likely some racial issues that make it up there will see liberal resolutions. It will also make it much easier for democrats to install some serious guardrails that prevent another populist fiasco like the one we are living in now.
    I might have to read that proposal.

    It seems like, I'm not killing the messenger, it makes the two parties more of an official part of the federal government than they already ought to be with two partisan benches. McConnell should be scaring people away from giving the parties more official duty that can't be easily taken away. It would be like turning SCOTUS into Congress but the with more powerful appointed officials. Also wouldn't it bust be added another level before the Supreme Court instead of 'fixing' it?

    Honestly I think the only way to really 'fix' the court is term limits. There's advantages to a judge sitting on a bench for a long time. They gain lot of expertise and wisdom. But with life long appointments it's easy to get wrapped up in one's own agenda, especially when there's no one above you. It's a 100% honor based system the leans on being appointed by with not much of it (honor). Also after 20 years or so the country has changed a lot meanwhile that judge might be stuck two generations back. You also avoid such situations like the current one where one president is able to shape the courts to their own will, leaving a mark significant like a monarch well after they've left office. Trump's judges are going to be on the bench for a LONG time. God forbid he wins reelection because he is looking at two more picks easily.

    I don't know. I'll read up more on the subject when I get time but I feel like it's reactionary and would only hand the court over to the parties (more, so than the last decade).

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by silveth View Post
    To many people seem to hear something and never find out the truth, that's my main issue. Picture of a kid in a cage, blame Trump even though it was from years ago under a different president. Splitting families, blame Trump even though it was a policy that Obama was forced to implement because of a court ruling.
    Obama NEVER had a policy of separating families--that was the Trump administration, with malice aforethought to use it as a deterrent as a matter of policy, and of course Trump knew. The Obama administration ran up against the Flores settlement for trying to keep detained families together, so rather than separate families they released them, and Trump knew that, too, because he derided it as "catch and release." The pictures you're referring to were cases of unaccompanied minors, kids they had reason to believe were unsafe or not with family, to be held for 72 hours before releasing them for placement. The irony of the bolded is next level.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch-Angel of Riots View Post
    Until then, I honestly don't care about anything else much. Until then it can all burn down to the ground for all I care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    Yeah, I think it's fair to conclude that "Fuck the poor" "Arch-angel of Riots" is just in it with the hope of inflicting maximum harm for maximum chaos, and since they've shown no particular attachment to any guiding moral, ideological, or political principle, it seems to be for the sake of maximum fun.

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by announced View Post
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.
    You are not being realistic all of the cases being bought to the courts involve personhood meaning that it would effectively make it illegal in all states and there's no exception for rape or incest. Let's say you are right and they split the difference and leave it to the states, that magical device you call a car isn't available to everyone especially the poor. If you don't understand how this is a problem look at red states where republicans have effectively made it so that there is only 1 or 2 abortion providers and it's effect on the poor.

    Roe V. Wade is just one big one but there's also the ACA, DACA, immigration rights, voting rights all these cases will be brought after the election and she is extreme right on all of them. This court will send the country back 100 years whether Trump wins or not there will be a reckoning for this even the right cannot escape Newton's law.

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Barrett is going to get confirmed. And she will be unremovable (fed judges must be impeached - i.e. 2/3's vote of Senate).
    She will wind back the law in almost every category of social justice, in some cases all the to the 1930's.

    Barrett is walking through almost every door Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opened, and when Barrett arrives at her final destination, she will close them all.

    If was are lucky enough to have a Biden administration with a Blue Senate, we must pack the court - significantly. 19-27 at least.
    I agree with this--she'll be confirmed and seated before the election. If Democrats can keep it together for the next 37 days, though, we have a strong shot at both the WH and the Senate, at which point we'll have options, assuming elected Democrats come to terms with the fact that they are dealing with a rogue minority unconstrained by any rule, norm, tradition, or law.

    Both parts being huge question marks, of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch-Angel of Riots View Post
    Until then, I honestly don't care about anything else much. Until then it can all burn down to the ground for all I care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    Yeah, I think it's fair to conclude that "Fuck the poor" "Arch-angel of Riots" is just in it with the hope of inflicting maximum harm for maximum chaos, and since they've shown no particular attachment to any guiding moral, ideological, or political principle, it seems to be for the sake of maximum fun.

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    She even said that herself during the Garland fiasco.
    If she said that, she should deny the nomination and tell them to wait. And if she doesn't, she is just another hypocritical Republican.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    If she said that, she should deny the nomination and tell them to wait. And if she doesn't, she is just another hypocritical Republican.
    https://twitter.com/DHStokyo/status/...526083585?s=20

    They don't care about hypocrisy, or character, or people--they only care about power and locking it in for their tyrannical minority.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch-Angel of Riots View Post
    Until then, I honestly don't care about anything else much. Until then it can all burn down to the ground for all I care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    Yeah, I think it's fair to conclude that "Fuck the poor" "Arch-angel of Riots" is just in it with the hope of inflicting maximum harm for maximum chaos, and since they've shown no particular attachment to any guiding moral, ideological, or political principle, it seems to be for the sake of maximum fun.

  16. #176
    The Lightbringer GreenGoldSharpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3,243
    Quote Originally Posted by announced View Post
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.
    This is, hands down, the most intellectually devoid and dishonest post in this thread. One of the hallmarks of ideologues -- and I mean actual ideologues, not the bullshit your side of the aisle simpers about on social media -- is the forced participation in their fuckery. This is what finally lit the spark of the Civil War. It was the forced participation of the abolitionist North through the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott decision that made slavery so intolerable that Lincoln began looking like a good idea.

    Likewise, this is already on the verge of happening. On November 4th SCOTUS hears Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which will almost certainly allow Christian adoption agencies to freeze out LGBTQ foster parents and adoptees while still forwarding LGBTQ tax dollars towards those agencies. This is forced participation in a denial of civil liberties, and if you don't think we'll hate you for it you're a fool.

    Abortion will be even worse. Like infinitely worse. The stuff that will hit the news first will be shit like some eleven year old white girl from Mississippi having to carry to term a child her piece of shit daddy put in her, and the country will roil with outrage. Then, as time goes on, and an activist court continues to litigate and anti-abortion states continue to pass more radical legislation there will be fights over extradition where, say, a Missouri woman has an abortion in Illinois and Missouri wants her back so they can stick a needle in her arm for murder. The end game would be forcing some eleven year old white girl from Seattle to have to carry her daddy's rape baby to term as well.

    This is all forced participation, and it will utterly destroy the fabric of trust that still remains.

    Did you know Antonin Scalia was a roman catholic? A man of the faith. He was able to keep his personal faith separate from the bench, especially whenever there was a death penalty case in front of him. As you may or may not be aware, Catholics generally oppose the death penalty. https://www.usccb.org/resources/chur...nalty-position
    Get out of here with this bullshit. This motherfucker wrote the dissent in Lawrence.

  17. #177
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    28,490
    Quote Originally Posted by announced View Post
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.
    It's been proven time and time again in red states that many women seeking abortions have financial hardships that make crossing state lines difficult (not having a car, not having time take off to travel such a distance, etc.)

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenGoldSharpie View Post
    This is, hands down, the most intellectually devoid and dishonest post in this thread.
    To be fair, it's announced. If you think that's the most dishonest post, just give him time to write his reply.

  19. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    It's been proven time and time again in red states that many women seeking abortions have financial hardships that make crossing state lines difficult (not having a car, not having time take off to travel such a distance, etc.)
    It’s a novel idea. Same principle should be applied to affordable healthcare. You want access? Just take a train or plane or ferry to Canada! If you need major surgery, just book a long term hotel!

  20. #180
    I've heard she's a hardcore catholic, and that she believes the constitution is not a living document to be interpreted, but set in stone (fundamentalist?).

    I saw a guy on the news here (Norway) who's supposedly an expert on US politics and law say that the Republicans had essentially been grooming future SCOTUSES that would more or less set party loyalty above country loyalty, because they were unhappy with picks by people like Eisenhower and Nixon, who turned out to be far more liberal than they had let on.

    What are her actual positions on concrete matters?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •