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.
unofan said:
But the Democrats will be the evil ones if they respond in any way but compete surrender.
Click to expand...

Outside of maybe Hovey, I’ve seen no one state on here that Democrats should do nothing. Bernie Sanders is against the particular Court expansion that almost everyone on here wants. Bernie Sanders isn’t advocating that nothing should be done. Is Sanders against it because he’s not far left enough and/or a cishet? I mean, I suppose both are possible. We’re not inside Bernie’s head. I’d say it’s more likely that Sanders is aware there are other options that accomplish the same goal of partisan expansion, without partisan expansion.
You’re currently disagreeing with Kepler that even with the confirmation of ACB, LGBTQIA rights are under attack. And, if they are, you’re telling the person to “move”, like that’s so easy for some people. I’ve seen another poster, Handy maybe?, arguing against certain voting rights being overturned, even with the current Court makeup. IF what y’all say is true, why the rush to make the court blatantly more partisan? Why further protect what is, in your own argument, already protected?
 
psych said:
Outside of maybe Hovey, I’ve seen no one state on here that Democrats should do nothing.
Click to expand...
This might seem picky, but I think a more accurate recount of my posts would be the Democrats will do nothing, at least with respect to "court packing."

First, even they understand it's a silly and futile gesture. As soon as the Republicans gain control, they'll just add more seats (if necessary). Lather, rinse, repeat.

Second, we're not that far removed from 2008, when a "blue wave" swept the Democrats into control of both the legislative and executive branch, only to see it pizzed away two years later after Obama and the Democrats burned every ounce of political capital they had to produce the Chrysler K car of health insurance.

Finally, the public doesn't care about the Supreme Court. If you walked down your main street today at noon and asked 10 random people to tell you what Hobby Lobby or Janus or Obergefell or any of those other cases not named Roe were about, I'd be shocked if you had one person who got one case right. Chuck and Nancy and Joe know that, and they aren't going to screw up whatever power they have to silence the shrieking of a few.
 
aparch said:
Came here to post this. I have the same feeling, they'll protect Trump and overturn this.
Click to expand...

This is not one that I see getting overturned.

First, if we assume Trump loses Tuesday, what will prevent the Justice Department from withdrawing their request to defend him?

Second, this is the type of case that could have wide, wide implications in terms of government employees getting defended by the Justice department arising out of their work activities. I can't imagine this Supreme Court deciding all public employees should get free counsel on cases including things like defamation.
 
They have to do something to show a spine, but I don't think packing SCOTUS is the practical answer and would definitely result in a 2022 Republican resurgence in Congress.
 
SJHovey said:
This might seem picky, but I think a more accurate recount of my posts would be the Democrats will do nothing, at least with respect to "court packing."

First, even they understand it's a silly and futile gesture. As soon as the Republicans gain control, they'll just add more seats (if necessary). Lather, rinse, repeat.

Second, we're not that far removed from 2008, when a "blue wave" swept the Democrats into control of both the legislative and executive branch, only to see it pizzed away two years later after Obama and the Democrats burned every ounce of political capital they had to produce the Chrysler K car of health insurance.

Finally, the public doesn't care about the Supreme Court. If you walked down your main street today at noon and asked 10 random people to tell you what Hobby Lobby or Janus or Obergefell or any of those other cases not named Roe were about, I'd be shocked if you had one person who got one case right. Chuck and Nancy and Joe know that, and they aren't going to screw up whatever power they have to silence the shrieking of a few.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I’m inclined to believe that Democrats like Pelosi and Biden believe that good quality legislation will win the day, and not invite retaliation from anyone, especially GOP leaders, like stocking the Court with 6 Democratic justices would.
Let me ask you this: Since you, and a few other people on here, may be correctly arguing that the general public doesn’t base any of their vote on the Supreme Court or its issues, does it matter what type of reform Democrats may decide to do, or will the backlash from the average voter be the same? Will the average voter be convinced that, say, a lottery system, or term limits, are just as pointless to the well-being of this country as stocking the court with Democrats might be? Like, instead of say, a coronavirus relief bill, they see Democratic plans to expand the Court and say “WTF, this isn’t what I’m voting for?” I think this is where the break is happening on this board. Some people on here are saying “The public will eventually forget Trump/2020, so they’ll eventually hate Democrats no matter what they do with the Court- so let’s expand it now and deal with the consequences later.”
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Disgusting

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrislhay...20876863442948
Click to expand...

I agree. It's disgusting. She's not a compassionate human being. She's a Lawful Evil Cleric if we're scoring at home.

Amy Coney Barrett's first decision as a justice was a wrong one
Barrett didn't have to participate in a prime-time political spectacle at the White House, just eight days before Election Day. But she did.
Click to expand...

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...5VLAFuqqVT1gQQQw0ywGJ91J9oKJm7p0IV8D2nkokNPPI

CNN's Jake Tapper heard from a Republican consultant last night who said in reference to the White House show, "If I'm [Amy Coney Barrett], I don't go to this." The consultant added that it "looks bad."

Her apparent indifference to the damage all of this does to her credibility and the legitimacy of her institution speaks volumes about Barrett and the indefensible process that concluded with such a brazenly political coda.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There probably won't even be enough Democrats to court pack unless the GOP senate races collapses and gives Dems 53-55+ seats. Sinema, Manchin, Kelly etc. might not go for 4-6 judges.
 
SJHovey said:
This is not one that I see getting overturned.

First, if we assume Trump loses Tuesday, what will prevent the Justice Department from withdrawing their request to defend him?

Second, this is the type of case that could have wide, wide implications in terms of government employees getting defended by the Justice department arising out of their work activities. I can't imagine this Supreme Court deciding all public employees should get free counsel on cases including things like defamation.
Click to expand...

Government employees *do* get protection from defamation cases, because they, generally, are seen as working within the scope of their employment, for the US Government. Congress has defined what a government employee is.

The DOJ, Barr's led DOJ, decided to step in and act as counsel to get the case thrown out because Trump was "defamed" while "an employee of the government." Congress had previously defined who an employee was, and this federal judge has agreed and ruled that Trump is NOT an employee as defined by Congress.

Why would the DOJ walk away from this case if Trump loses? You really think Barr is going to turn on Trump?
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
What makes anyone think any legislation matters anymore when republicans will just rush cases up to drooling puppets Brett and Amy to overturn everything?
Click to expand...

Because they won’t overturn everything? Bernie Sanders thinks your court expansion idea is awful. Said it’ll be the “death spiral” of the legitimacy of the Court. Probably realizes that it’ll be 12-9 GOP Court by 2024 or 2028, and everything the 9-6 Democratic Court “protected” will just be re-overturned again not even a decade from now. He might be too idealistic to think a lottery system wouldn’t inspire as much backlash (he’s pretty far left, after all, and a high information partisan who is hoping people think like he does) because it’s fairer, and it’s showing the general public that Democrats COULD have expanded the court with their newfound power, but chose not to.
 
unofan said:
No no, let Kepler show his work on this one. I'd love to see how he thinks a conservative court will strike down state anti discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

How won't they?

One of their groups will create a test case. One of their lower courts will use it to wipe out all state anti-discrimination laws for their jurisdiction. Their SCOTUS will grant cert and then rescope that ruling to the whole country.

I do not know why you object to this thesis. My assumption is that law is what the Court says it is, period. That means all the stuff we learned in school about law: that you need a reason, that you need jurisdiction, that you should follow precedent, are all norms which assume the good faith of the actors. But once you control the final court of appeal then you control meaning itself. The Nazis now control the Constitution: it is what they say it is.

I'm honestly confused that you are giving me a hard time about this. It seems obvious to me that at the bottom of all of our institutions is a fist, and in the case of law the fist is SCOTUS. They are all-powerful. We can ignore them, sure, but then we are the ones who are violating the Constitution.

Of course, +6 and it reverses overnight.
 
psych said:
Because they won’t overturn everything? Bernie Sanders thinks your court expansion idea is awful. Said it’ll be the “death spiral” of the legitimacy of the Court. Probably realizes that it’ll be 12-9 GOP Court by 2024 or 2028, and everything the 9-6 Democratic Court “protected” will just be re-overturned again not even a decade from now. He might be too idealistic to think a lottery system wouldn’t inspire as much backlash (he’s pretty far left, after all, and a high information partisan who is hoping people think like he does) because it’s fairer, and it’s showing the general public that Democrats COULD have expanded the court with their newfound power, but chose not to.
Click to expand...

It’s not my idea dude, calm down.

id say a lot of us already see the courts legitimacy as gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top