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.
Handyman said:
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?
Click to expand...

We won't have one for 5 decades or more now. This is going to be bad. Really bad. Unless the Democrats find a way to fix it. I don't know how, or what, but there has to be something. Straight removal of some of the idiots would be warranted.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
If only there was some way to remove appointees who are clearly unfit for office, and it wasn't an overtly partisan process.
Click to expand...

Nixing ACB and Drunky McRapist is another way to go. Replace them and the Court goes from 3-6 to 5-4. While we would stop at impeaching unfit jurists the Right would just nuke everybody who didn't sign up to their Nazi ideology, but I've argued before fear of what the Nazis will do is no argument because THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY. Their only motivator is power -- they don't need an excuse or a precedent.

Gorsuch and Roberts are qualified. Thomas and Alito, though political moles, have been on the Court forever so by now you could argue that they are qualified -- they did their internship on the highest Court. Though for their job they require no legal knowledge or skill, just the ability to do the Federalist Society's bidding.

Still I want more justices on the Court -- 9 is too few because it puts too many eggs in one basket. I would also like a maximum term for service on the Court though obviously not on the federal bench. Let them have 18 years. That would also mean the arms race to nominate 10-year olds would stop. However, and this is important, put the term limits in place after we have expanded the Court. The Nazis will scream like stuck pigs no matter what so there is absolutely no reason to extend them the slightest procedural courtesy that is not strictly required by law.

Another way to do this is to expand the Court to say 15 (+6 again) and then say each term the President may replace exactly 2 justices, either by death or by seniority. If a third opening happens during a term welp that just remains a vacant seat.
 
Last edited:
OK, if this is the 9 alternatives article I will read it now. If it isn't, well... I am reading it now.

This is striking and horrifying to anyone not completely balls deep into the GOP idiocy swill:

The first Supreme Court justice in American 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 is Trump’s first appointee, Neil Gorsuch. The second is Trump’s second appointee, Brett Kavanaugh. And the third is likely to be Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SJHovey said:
I'm not in favor of appointing unqualified judges.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with the ABA about the dozen or so unqualified federal appointments Dump has made?

Also: did you agree with Mitch's flat refusal to confirm Obama's nominees, culminating in Garland? He did have that right... just as we now have the right to remedy it by expanding the courts.
 
OK, I read it.

I hate almost every proposal and think they are way, way worse than expanding the Court. 5-5-5 is stupid and terrible: it means even if and when the Nazis become a fractional minority party throughout the US they will still be able to deadlock the Court. The lottery is ridiculous and terrible: Court collegiality is the only force that enables the Court to be better than a representative legislative body. I know it's hard to picture that now with so many hatchetmen and morons packing the Court on the right but as an ideal the Court is fine. It's just tremendously out of whack historically because of the inherited (and deliberate) anti-democratic institutions which the slave owners held the formation of the country hostage to.

The short term solution is Court expansion. The long term is a democratic revolution to end the Plute forces that warp our country. That means the end of the EC and either the abolition of the Senate, a diminution of the Senate's authority (along the lines of the Court proposal in the article), its balancing more towards state populations, or the redrawing of state boundaries themselves by a non-partisan committee to bring all states roughly to the same population.

Of these my suggestion for the "simplest" way forward is:

(1) Amendment to move federal court confirmations to the House.
(2) Amendment to fix SCOTUS size at 15.

While in the meantime:

Add 6 justices immediately. As in, have them ready to be confirmed on Inauguration Day and seated in Court the next day.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
OK, I read it.

I hate almost every proposal and think they are way, way worse than expanding the Court. 5-5-5 is stupid and terrible: it means even if and when the Nazis become a minority party throughout the US they will still be able to deadlock the Court. The lottery is ridiculous and terrible: Court collegiality is the only force that enables the Court to be better than a representative legislative body. I know it's hard to picture that now with so many hatchetmen and morons packing the Court on the right but as an ideal the Court is fine. It's just tremendously out of whack historically because of the inherited (and deliberate) anti-democratic institutions which the slave owners held the formation of the country hostage to.

The short term solution is Court expansion. The long term is a democratic revolution to end the Plute forces that warp our country. That means the end of the EC and either the abolition of the Senate, its balancing more towards state populations, or the redrawing of state boundaries themselves by a non-partisan committee to bring all states roughly to the same population.
Click to expand...

The simple solution to the Senate is to give Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. Statehood which we should have done a long long time ago. Oh, and merge the Dakota's. I agree with Maher. Two Dakota's is stupid.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
The simple solution to the Senate is to give Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. Statehood which we should have done a long long time ago. Oh, and merge the Dakota's. I agree with Maher. Two Dakota's is stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we can't combine states. :-)

If we can, then combine all of these into one state. Call it Cornrubetopia. (Sorry CO. Sacrifice for the common good.)

r6map.jpg


Alternately, PR is 5 times the size of WY. Admit it as 5 states. 10 Latinx Senators. OMG, Lindsay's head just asploded.

Keep CA as a super state. I like having the biggest kid on the block -- biggest two after we take TX. And imagine how awesome TX will be when blue. Education, civil rights, and the capital of a US/Mexican entrepot to make the EU look like the Iron Curtain.

LOL. The cons are so f-cked. Enjoy your most dominant economy being a slowly submerging FL, as-sholes.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Do you agree with the ABA about the dozen or so unqualified federal appointments Dump has made?

Also: did you agree with Mitch's flat refusal to confirm Obama's nominees, culminating in Garland? He did have that right... just as we now have the right to remedy it by expanding the courts.
Click to expand...

My thoughts on the ABA opinions. First, I generally like the idea that they weigh in. I think over the years the ABA opinion issuing process, at least for Supreme Court justices, has become a slight bit politicized, but it's a lot better than nothing, and for the federal bench in general I think it's probably a pretty clean and worthwhile process.

I personally would like to see those opinions given substantial weight. I would if I were President. But I'm not.

As for whether the ABA's opinion as "unqualified" for the nominees you've referred to is justified, I have no personal information. I have no reason to think the opinions were flawed or corrupted in any way, so I'm going to guess those particular nominees probably had some weak qualifications.

As I posted earlier, I don't think it's optimal to appoint unqualified judges. I think it's one thing to say that a nominee is unqualified because they are young and have tried very few (or maybe no) cases, and a completely different thing to say that someone is unqualified because they were a C student and it took them three times to pass the bar exam. In the first instance my preference would be to find someone more experienced, but I can't say that the inexperienced person is ineligible for the job. They may turn out to be an excellent judge. They just wouldn't be my first choice. In my latter example, they obviously should never be appointed to the position.

With respect to the Senate's refusal to pass federal court nominees, it certainly is a political move the Senate had a right to do. If the Democrats take control and do the same thing, I will post the same response.

Do I think it's a good thing? No, not really. At any given point in time there may be a number of openings on the federal bench, and the system doesn't collapse because of it. But I don't think creating an artificial shortage of judges is ever good. In my opinion the Senate should act at least at a reasonable pace to vote up or down the nominees brought before them.

I am not in favor of politicizing the bench. I posted here back in 2016 I thought Garland should have been approved.
 
SJHovey said:
My thoughts on the ABA opinions. First, I generally like the idea that they weigh in. I think over the years the ABA opinion issuing process, at least for Supreme Court justices, has become a slight bit politicized, but it's a lot better than nothing, and for the federal bench in general I think it's probably a pretty clean and worthwhile process.

I personally would like to see those opinions given substantial weight. I would if I were President. But I'm not.

As for whether the ABA's opinion as "unqualified" for the nominees you've referred to is justified, I have no personal information. I have no reason to think the opinions were flawed or corrupted in any way, so I'm going to guess those particular nominees probably had some weak qualifications.

As I posted earlier, I don't think it's optimal to appoint unqualified judges. I think it's one thing to say that a nominee is unqualified because they are young and have tried very few (or maybe no) cases, and a completely different thing to say that someone is unqualified because they were a C student and it took them three times to pass the bar exam. In the first instance my preference would be to find someone more experienced, but I can't say that the inexperienced person is ineligible for the job. They may turn out to be an excellent judge. They just wouldn't be my first choice. In my latter example, they obviously should never be appointed to the position.

With respect to the Senate's refusal to pass federal court nominees, it certainly is a political move the Senate had a right to do. If the Democrats take control and do the same thing, I will post the same response.

Do I think it's a good thing? No, not really. At any given point in time there may be a number of openings on the federal bench, and the system doesn't collapse because of it. But I don't think creating an artificial shortage of judges is ever good. In my opinion the Senate should act at least at a reasonable pace to vote up or down the nominees brought before them.

I am not in favor of politicizing the bench. I posted here back in 2016 I thought Garland should have been approved.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the straight answers.
 
Nazis lose a round on the way to a final SCOTUS victory.

"The Republicans are working harder to keep you from voting than they are to keep you from getting COVID."

“County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” the justices wrote.

Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are locked in a battle to win Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes. With Democrats voting by mail at an almost 3-to-1 rate over Republicans, the prospect of disqualified ballots poses a greater threat to Biden’s candidacy.

In her court filing, Boockvar had said that any such rejections pose “a grave risk of disenfranchisement on an arbitrary and wholly subjective basis,” and without any opportunity for a voter to verify their signature before their ballot is disqualified.

Republican lawmakers and the Trump campaign had argued that the law is clear that election officials must compare the information on the mail-in ballot envelope, including a voter’s signature, to a voter’s information on file to determine a person’s qualifications to vote.

But the justices disagreed, as did a federal judge in a separate case brought earlier by Trump’s campaign. Both said that the law on mail-in ballots makes it clear only that the ballot envelope requires the voter’s signature, but not a matching signature.
Click to expand...
 
IL now has TV ads running to "Tell the Senate to confirm ACB"... The ad is ACB talking about her accomplishments and why she deserves to be a Justice. Obviously both Durbin and Duckworth are hard "NO!", so I don't get what the point of spending the money is...

I get that Curran needs any help he can get in the Chicago area, but this seems like an ass-backwards way to garner him support...
 
dxmnkd316 said:
It’s always about getting people fired up.

Are any local races close? Like within a point or two?
Click to expand...

For senate? No.

Durbin should be in the mid-40s with Willie Wilson and Mark Curran in the 20-25% range... We also have several "other" parties that will get a percent or two.

The AD is just showing how "good" ACB would be as a justice. No mention of anything else...

I'm just trying to figure out the marketing angle on this... I get that "Democrat" is a dirty word South of I-80. I just feel that this is a very round about way to get that point across.
 
RaceBoarder said:
IL now has TV ads running to "Tell the Senate to confirm ACB"... The ad is ACB talking about her accomplishments and why she deserves to be a Justice. Obviously both Durbin and Duckworth are hard "NO!", so I don't get what the point of spending the money is...

I get that Curran needs any help he can get in the Chicago area, but this seems like an ***-backwards way to garner him support...
Click to expand...

We're getting these in liberal, educated, blue NoVa. It's just a national campaign, it's not targeted anywhere.

The ads are pathetic. They could be for some jerkwater Congressperson. Purely political.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top