What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
jerphisch said:
The D's just need to play it dirty like the R's would. Impeach Drunky McRapist and Oftrump for perjuring themselves to congress and fill the two vacancies. Problem solved. Surely the party of law and order can't complain about enforcing laws.
Click to expand...

Impeachment requires a supermajority to convict. Where are you getting the extra votes?
 
jerphisch said:
The D's just need to play it dirty like the R's would. Impeach Drunky McRapist and Oftrump for perjuring themselves to congress and fill the two vacancies. Problem solved. Surely the party of law and order can't complain about enforcing laws.
Click to expand...

Need 20 *more* Senators to convict from the current 45+2.
 
Hovey, you've never lived with the fear that someone will strip you of your rights. You, a white, cisgender hetero, will die knowing the courts and Congress will never take away your right to be legally wed or work without fear of being fired because you're a cishet.

Careful, Kep. If court packing preserves my right to marry my girlfriend (we're ridiculously cute together, even rent a home in the City of Holland, and become Amber Marie, LMSW, BCBA-D, and PhD, a top transgender mental health professional, then I'm all for it. However, I'm also of the belief you go with what you have, not what you wish you had. If a 9-6 liberal court doesn't happen, then I'm back to calculating next moves.
 
MissThundercat said:
Careful, Kep. If court packing preserves my right to marry my girlfriend (we're ridiculously cute together, even rent a home in the City of Holland, and become Amber Marie, LMSW, BCBA-D, and PhD, a top transgender mental health professional, then I'm all for it. However, I'm also of the belief you go with what you have, not what you wish you had. If a 9-6 liberal court doesn't happen, then I'm back to calculating next moves.
Click to expand...

Certainly, we do whatever we can. If Biden fails us and wusses out on expanding the Court (the "packing" part was already done by the GOP) that leaves, apparently, 9 other ways.

And in the end there's another other way, which Lincoln did during the Civil War. I don't recommend it but it's nice to have a Republican precedent.
 
Handyman said:
I did...and no offense but they suck. The 5-5-5 plan is completely unworkable. The "lottery" would have worked if we were starting from scratch but now you are still risking political motivations and huge swing based on them. (what if 7 of the winners are Trump or Bush appointees...so much for any liberal legislation passing) The supermajority idea in theory is ok but all that will do is make it even more important to fill seats on the court as soon as possible. You think ACB is being rammed through...

The idea of insulating certain legislation is ridiculous and will never happen.

These ideas are fun academic talking points, but onone of them could, would or really should be implemented in the current climate.
Click to expand...

I thought the 5-5-5 concept was not very good. My favorite was the lottery system, and I think it would be fairer than the 6-3 Court we have now. I don’t think the GOP could exploit that setup nearly as much once they retook power later on. From what I read, no more than 5 of the 9 judges could come from a president of the same political party, so fortunately, your 7-2 scenario wouldn’t come to pass. I’m not sure centrists/independents would like that radical change to the Court either, as it’s something Bernie Sanders endorses. So, we may lose their votes regardless. That said, I can see that setup holding up better when the GOP retakes power, rather than them naturally adding more seats, if that’s what we choose to do.
 
SJHovey said:
Jeez, you'd think you guys would get tired of getting used.

Every time we have some nominated to the Supreme Court, the same old boogeyman is trotted out and you guys fall in line. Now they even have you lobbying to pack the court. For years you were told the boogeyman would be targeting young women seeking abortion. Now it's the voting rights act and ACA.

Every new conservative justice nominee is the one. This is the one that's going to do it. This is the one that's going to put us over the edge, into some sort of Mad Max style dystopia. This is the one!

I'm going to give you a score. 16-4.

By my count, if ACB is confirmed, 16 of the last 20 additions to the U.S. Supreme Court were appointed by conservative, Republican presidents. But each one of those 16 was the one!

C'mon, at some point you have to take a step back from the carnival barker, take a pass, and put that quarter back in your pocket, don't you?
Click to expand...

Vote Republican or the Dems will pack the courts with activist judges who will come fer your gunz, legislate immorality from the bench, and persecute Christian beliefs!

Who's constantly falling for the carnival barker now? Oh that's right, you guys put one in the White House.
 
That is why I am sick of the media and even Liberals calling expanding the SC "packing". What is going on in the lower courts is packing.

The best part of the Cons turning on Roberts for daring to want votes counted was them wanting ACB there to help make these decisions. They never quite got why they got called out for "judicial activism" when they have been railing against that for years. I do love when hypocrites have that moment of realization. (even though most of these clowns are too stupid to realize they got got)
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
That is why I am sick of the media and even Liberals calling expanding the SC "packing". What is going on in the lower courts is packing.

The best part of the Cons turning on Roberts for daring to want votes counted was them watching ACB there to help make these decisions. They never quite got why they got called out for "judicial activism" when they have been railing against that for years. I do love when hypocrites have that moment of realization. (even though most of these clowns are too stupid to realize they got got)
Click to expand...

They never look in the mirror. It's always those pesky liberals who do all the bad things.
 
Handyman said:
That is why I am sick of the media and even Liberals calling expanding the SC "packing". What is going on in the lower courts is packing.

The best part of the Cons turning on Roberts for daring to want votes counted was them wanting ACB there to help make these decisions. They never quite got why they got called out for "judicial activism" when they have been railing against that for years. I do love when hypocrites have that moment of realization. (even though most of these clowns are too stupid to realize they got got)
Click to expand...

They want robot slave Amy to overrule state courts on state decisions involving ballots like three one in PA this week. Sounds like judicial activism to me. Again with cons, it’s always ok when it’s for them
 
Hey she is qualified...if being married to the General Counsel of Homeland Security qualifies you...

What do we need a competent judiciary system for anyways?
 
Ya know Rover liked to mock me for discussing the Law on here...apparently I am almost qualified for a Federal Judgeship ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top