Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

Vox: Trump Losing the Popular Vote Means Dems Have the Right to Pack Court

Recommended Posts

Vox is a left wing joke of a site, but it does exhibit what kind of circus the Dems might go with to get power back. We're going to keep hearing about the popular vote as a justifiable reason to pack the court. A president that lost the popular vote confirmed 2 justices, and that makes them illegitimate, and the only way to rememdy this wrong is to pack the court with 3 or 4 left wingers to regain the majority.  That is the lamest excuse you can use.

The rules of the game state that you need 270 electoral votes. If it's the popular vote that wins the White House, it's a totally different campaign strategy.  Trump may have won the popular vote with a campaign that focused on population centers. But apparently many on the left think that a popular vote win is a type of win that grants them political capital. Sorry folks, it means exactly shit, and you don't make up the rules here. They're like little kids that live in the moment and have to change the rules to get their way without any concern of future unintended consequences. You'd think they'd have learned that lesson with the fillibuster.  

https://www.vox.com/21446198/democrats-ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump-supreme-court-packing

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Vox is a left wing joke of a site, but it does exhibit what kind of circus the Dems might go with to get power back. We're going to keep hearing about the popular vote as a justifiable reason to pack the court. A president that lost the popular vote confirmed 2 justices, and that makes them illegitimate, and the only way to rememdy this wrong is to pack the court with 3 or 4 left wingers to regain the majority.  That is the lamest excuse you can use.

The rules of the game state that you need 270 electoral votes. If it's the popular vote that wins the White House, it's a totally different campaign strategy.  Trump may have won the popular vote with a campaign that focused on population centers. But apparently many on the left think that a popular vote win is a type of win that grants them political capital. Sorry folks, it means exactly shit, and you don't make up the rules here. They're like little kids that live in the moment and have to change the rules to get their way without any concern of future unintended consequences. You'd think they'd have learned that lesson with the fillibuster.  

https://www.vox.com/21446198/democrats-ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump-supreme-court-packing

How much time do you spend surfing Lib web sites ?

You should stop. It just makes you angry and unreasonable. Unfortunately, the MWCBOARD has to suffer from your Lib DS

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AndroidAggie said:

Thread title and vox article do not agree

I can’t read it for you, so.....

 

“If Democrats control the White House and the Congress, in other words, they can pass a law adding seats to the Supreme Court. If Biden is president, he could then quickly fill those seats (with the consent of the Senate) and give the Court a Democratic majority.

It’s a risky play. At the height of his popularity, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the size of the Supreme Court to 15 in order to neutralize five reactionary justices who frequently undercut the New Deal. It did not end well for him. Many historians cite the court-packing plan as the event that shattered Roosevelt’s political coalition and left him unable to pass liberal bills through Congress.

But these are very different times. In 1937, when Roosevelt proposed packing the Court, every one of the Court’s nine justices could claim that they got there fair and square. No one was on the Supreme Court because one political party invented a fake rule, applied it harshly to a president they loathed, and then immediately scrapped that rule when it was inconvenient.

Trump’s two previous Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also share a dubious distinction. They are the only members of the Supreme Court in history to be nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country. If Trump fills the Ginsburg seat, fully one-third of the Court will be controlled by judges with no democratic legitimacy.“

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

I can’t read it for you, so.....

 

“If Democrats control the White House and the Congress, in other words, they can pass a law adding seats to the Supreme Court. If Biden is president, he could then quickly fill those seats (with the consent of the Senate) and give the Court a Democratic majority.

It’s a risky play. At the height of his popularity, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the size of the Supreme Court to 15 in order to neutralize five reactionary justices who frequently undercut the New Deal. It did not end well for him. Many historians cite the court-packing plan as the event that shattered Roosevelt’s political coalition and left him unable to pass liberal bills through Congress.

But these are very different times. In 1937, when Roosevelt proposed packing the Court, every one of the Court’s nine justices could claim that they got there fair and square. No one was on the Supreme Court because one political party invented a fake rule, applied it harshly to a president they loathed, and then immediately scrapped that rule when it was inconvenient.

Trump’s two previous Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also share a dubious distinction. They are the only members of the Supreme Court in history to be nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country. If Trump fills the Ginsburg seat, fully one-third of the Court will be controlled by judges with no democratic legitimacy.“

None of that means the Democrats have the right to pack the court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

None of that means the Democrats have the right to pack the court. 

I agree, but they sure are trying hard to rationalize it, and that’s my point. 

Even if Mitchy let Garland have a vote, Obama didn’t have the votes. He was never getting in. The GOP didn’t rip off anyone. Somewhere in these people’s minds they thought he would get confirmed if they voted. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

I agree, but they sure are trying hard to rationalize it, and that’s my point. 

Even if Mitchy let Garland have a vote, Obama didn’t have the votes. He was never getting in. The GOP didn’t rip off anyone. Somewhere in these people’s minds they thought he would get confirmed if they voted. 

your point was the thread title - "have the right"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Packing the court is about legislation. If they have congress and the presidency, they have a right to pack the court. The end.

If a lame duck president and lame duck congress put a conservative in to replace RBG, it's hard to argue against it.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Packing the court is about legislation. If they have congress and the presidency, they have a right to pack the court. The end.

If a lame duck president and lame duck congress put a conservative in to replace RBG, it's hard to argue against it.

Then the next Republican president will pack it back with 4 new justices, then the next Demi rays will pack it with 8 more, then the next Republican president will pack 16 more young conservatives in there. This is a game that cannot be won 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Packing the court is about legislation. If they have congress and the presidency, they have a right to pack the court. The end.

If a lame duck president and lame duck congress put a conservative in to replace RBG, it's hard to argue against it.

There was a good article posted yesterday.  When in an election year, the historical norm is that if a party controls the Presidency and Senate, they confirm.  When in an election year and the party that controls the Presidency does not control the Senate, the Senate does not confirm.  What happened with Garland is the historical norm.  Confirming RBG's replacement would also be the historical norm.  Packing the court would be outside of the norm.  The last to attempt to do so, FDR, committed political suicide.  It is not the norm.

Political norms should mean something, in this context of it being hard to argue against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Then the next Republican president will pack it back with 4 new justices, then the next Demi rays will pack it with 8 more, then the next Republican president will pack 16 more young conservatives in there. This is a game that cannot be won 

If the shoe fits. If you want to play dirty, don't complain when your opposition agrees to play dirty. 

This would be settled easily if everyone agrees to fill the seat after the election. Let the people decide.

I doubt that happens. So when the gop plays for keeps, a sweeping democrat election will mean those in power will play for keeps too. I personally am not happy about it, since neither party is embracing my ideological positions. But then again, people in power rarely do.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

If the shoe fits. If you want to play dirty, don't complain when your opposition agrees to play dirty. 

This would be settled easily if everyone agrees to fill the seat after the election. Let the people decide.

I doubt that happens. So when the gop plays for keeps, a sweeping democrat election will mean those in power will play for keeps too. I personally am not happy about it, since neither party is embracing my ideological positions. But then again, people in power rarely do.

That is ridiculous. Gives us what we want or we will make a mockery of the whole thing. Please ! There is no legal requirement to wait to fill the seat. Fill it by the end of next week is what I say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

There was a good article posted yesterday.  When in an election year, the historical norm is that if a party controls the Presidency and Senate, they confirm.  When in an election year and the party that controls the Presidency does not control the Senate, the Senate does not confirm.  What happened with Garland is the historical norm.  Confirming RBG's replacement would also be the historical norm.  Packing the court would be outside of the norm.  The last to attempt to do so, FDR, committed political suicide.  It is not the norm.

Political norms should mean something, in this context of it being hard to argue against.

I'd buy that if we had a GOP that cared about political norms. Putting a con in there flips the court, in a way that doesn't have recent precedent. So this is a little different.

As for FDR's political suicide, dude died in office after 12 years as president. New deal democrats were a big deal will into the 50s and 60s. So his political suicide wasn't very effective. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

That is ridiculous. Gives us what we want or we will make a mockery of the whole thing. Please ! There is no legal requirement to wait to fill the seat. Fill it by the end of next week is what I say. 

Make a mockery of what? What does the constitution say about the number of justices? Please drop some knowledge on me.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

I'd buy that if we had a GOP that cared about political norms. Putting a con in there flips the court, in a way that doesn't have recent precedent. So this is a little different.

As for FDR's political suicide, dude died in office after 12 years as president. New deal democrats were a big deal will into the 50s and 60s. So his political suicide wasn't very effective. 

Well, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill failed spectacularly and pissed off the overwhelming majority of congress.  You are not wrong that the GOP seems to care little for norms but that does not mean we should not when weighing these things in our neat little corner of the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Make a mockery of what? What does the constitution say about the number of justices? Please drop some knowledge on me.

The constitution also says nothing about waiting to appoint a justice in an election year so ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

The constitution also says nothing about waiting to appoint a justice in an election year so ....

Yes, you are correct. So if those are the rules of then game, then don't complain.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

Yes, you are correct. So if those are the rules of then game, then don't complain.

If those are the rules of the game then why are you bitching about the president not wanting to wait, and advocating if he doesn’t you blow the whole thing up by packing it. 
 

Appointing  a justice before the election is NOT playing dirty as you implied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...