Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    The makeup is 4-4 anyone would unbalance the Court.

    Garland, who was named by GOP Senators as a good candidate up until the rumor started he would be nominated by Obama, would have unbalanced the court liberal though...that is your contention? Besides guns how can you possibly justify that belief?

    I have a question for Rube if he reads this thread. Leaving aside the "two wrongs dont make a right" idea, if the Senate Dems decided to block the nomination (GOP style) and obstruct would you defend their right to do so? Obstructionism, as we have seen for the last 6 years is a perfectly legal method to gum up the works and make sure nothing gets done and even though it is annoying as hell.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Handyman View Post
      The makeup is 4-4 anyone would unbalance the Court.

      Garland, who was named by GOP Senators as a good candidate up until the rumor started he would be nominated by Obama, would have unbalanced the court liberal though...that is your contention? Besides guns how can you possibly justify that belief?

      I have a question for Rube if he reads this thread. Leaving aside the "two wrongs dont make a right" idea, if the Senate Dems decided to block the nomination (GOP style) and obstruct would you defend their right to do so? Obstructionism, as we have seen for the last 6 years is a perfectly legal method to gum up the works and make sure nothing gets done and even though it is annoying as hell.
      It's very borderline 4-4 though. It is by no means a given Kennedy will side with the conservatives, and Roberts can flip as well. The four liberal judges almost never flip.

      I believe there is nothing that says there needs to be nine justices. Trump could let it get down to five or nominate 10 new justices right now if he wanted to.
      Originally posted by BobbyBrady
      Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        And this is why elections matter and it's why the Republicans win. Trump has shat on the Statue and the Constitution all week but with this pick he is revered. Obama pleaded with the public on the campaign trail that his legacy was on the line and people didn't vote. They'll protest at Chuck Schumer's home, but they won't vote.
        **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

        Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
        Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

          Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
          I believe there is nothing that says there needs to be nine justices.
          Acts of Congress determine the maximum number of Justices.

          The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.
          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Gorsuch is one of those judges whose writing consistently sets limits on Executive Power, and restricts interpretation of vaguely-worded criminal statutes that might inadvertently trap innocent people.

            That seems like a good thing, no?

            if a judge's role is to interpret existing law, why would his personal politics matter at all?
            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
              Putting Garland's nomination aside, would anyone on here be very upset with the balance if Gorsuch is confirmed?
              "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

              Yes, in a normal political climate, Gorsuch should be confirmed 98-2 or thereabouts. But you can't ignore what the GOP did to get here.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                Originally posted by unofan View Post
                "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

                Yes, in a normal political climate, Gorsuch should be confirmed 98-2 or thereabouts. But you can't ignore what the GOP did to get here.
                They gambled and won. There is nothing the Democrats can do. They can't burn down a house they believe in like the Republicans can when they're the minority. He'll be confirmed. The Democrats only decision is whether they want the Republicans to go Nuclear or not.
                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                  They gambled and won. There is nothing the Democrats can do. They can't burn down a house they believe in like the Republicans can when they're the minority. He'll be confirmed. The Democrats only decision is whether they want the Republicans to go Nuclear or not.
                  I agree completely. Doesn't mean I have to like it, and my conscience is clear. I voted for Hillary.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                    Originally posted by unofan View Post
                    I agree completely. Doesn't mean I have to like it, and my conscience is clear. I voted for Hillary.
                    As is mine.
                    **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by unofan View Post
                      "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

                      Yes, in a normal political climate, Gorsuch should be confirmed 98-2 or thereabouts. But you can't ignore what the GOP did to get here.
                      The ends justify the means as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure Merrick Garland is a lovely bloke and feel bad for him, but him in place of Scalia would have completely upset the balance. If Trump tried to replace Ginsburg with the second coming of Clarence Thomas I would hope and expect democrats to do the same thing.
                      Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                      Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                        Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                        The ends justify the means as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure Merrick Garland is a lovely bloke and feel bad for him, but him in place of Scalia would have completely upset the balance. If Trump tried to replace Ginsburg with the second coming of Clarence Thomas I would hope and expect democrats to do the same thing.
                        What balance? It's been a conservative court for near 50 years. You have no right to talk about balance when the Conservatives have owned the Court for this long.
                        **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                        Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                        Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Originally posted by unofan View Post
                          "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

                          Yes, in a normal political climate, Gorsuch should be confirmed 98-2 or thereabouts. But you can't ignore what the GOP did to get here.
                          My wife has one terrible guy working in her office. From time to time she comes home storming about the latest atrocity and always finishes with "I just don't know what's wrong with him!"

                          He's a fink, that's what's wrong with him. He's going to behave like that.

                          The Congressional GOP caucus is a fink. We should just keep that in mind. If we're nice, they'll be a fink. If we're mean they'll be a fink. They're just going to behave like that. We can't influence them, we can only control how we react.

                          Confirm Gorsuch. To be honest in his one statement where he says we depend too much on the courts and not enough on convincing people, he's probably right. That doesn't mean people should be denied their rights, but it does mean that when cases are brought which have massive public approval, like gun control, Gorsuch may well throw it back to the leg and say "these things should be decided in the public political forum." He may not be a hypocrite.
                          Cornell University
                          National Champion 1967, 1970
                          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                            What balance? It's been a conservative court for near 50 years. You have no right to talk about balance when the Conservatives have owned the Court for this long.
                            You're really going to argue Kennedy is some sort of hard core conservative? Roberts is ultra conservative as well? I'll have what you're having.
                            Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                            Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              My wife has one terrible guy working in her office. From time to time she comes home storming about the latest atrocity and always finishes with "I just don't know what's wrong with him!"

                              He's a fink, that's what's wrong with him. He's going to behave like that.

                              The Congressional GOP caucus is a fink. We should just keep that in mind. If we're nice, they'll be a fink. If we're mean they'll be a fink. They're just going to behave like that. We can't influence them, we can only control how we react.

                              Confirm Gorsuch. To be honest in his one statement where he says we depend too much on the courts and not enough on convincing people, he's probably right. That doesn't mean people should be denied their rights, but it does mean that when cases are brought which have massive public approval, like gun control, Gorsuch may well throw it back to the leg and say "these things should be decided in the public political forum." He may not be a hypocrite.
                              The other thing to think about is this. At least as far as my memory goes, if a justice turns out to be not quite what we thought of him or her as a nominee, it is almost always because they are less conservative than thought/hoped. I'd have a hard time thinking of a justice who turned out to be more conservative than anticipated. We haven't seen Ginsberg or Breyer or Kagan, etc..., turn into Alito once they got on the bench. But we have see occasions where someone thought to be quite conservative actually became a pretty solid progressive voice on the Supremes.
                              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                                Trump could care less and it's not going to happen. He's pro abortion anyway. I don't want a one sided court, either way. If Garland replaced Scalia it would very much have been one sided.
                                This is actually not true at all. Somewhere back in the mists of time we discussed quantitative measures of the longterm trending of the Court. The Roberts and late Rehnquist courts were dramatically farther right that at any time since the Gilded Age. The current Court minus Scalia is to still the right of the historical mean. Even a wildly liberal justice would have pushed it just barely to the left side of the mean, whereas Gorsuch pushes it back well into the solid right.

                                We are emerging from a period of a radicalized right Court. We do not need to go back there.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X