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:
Probably because he knows more about the subject than you do.
Click to expand...

He obviously knows far, far more about this than I do. My point is that all of that knowledge is based on a supposition: that the Court will operate as a traditional court, within the general bounds of stare decisis. That Nazi justices will be justices first and Nazis second.

My contention is this is not correct. They will be Nazis first. And given that then the Court gives them infinite power within the legal realm. If they say the moon is the sun then it is. And the Court's privileged position as arbitrar of the other branches, since Marbury, also gives them infinite veto power over the legislative and executive branch. They have no positive power: they cannot pass a law or appropriate funds. But they have limitless negative power: they can strike down any law, any executive action.

I am still not clear on why the Court cannot just prevent us from expanding it, but I am assured by every Constitutional scholar they literally can't it. So that is our only option, and we shouldn't waste time proving that it's our only option because that just runs clock. +6 on Day 1.
 
psych said:
Alright, I’ll take your word for it. I’ve seen you post that the only option is expanding the Court. I guess I misunderstood that that actually meant you were open to other options.
Click to expand...

I’d support it, would love to hear better solutions that actually work. I simply do not believe it’s ok to sit there and do nothing and let the other side continue to do what they’ve been doing
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
I’d support it, would love to hear better solutions that actually work. I simply do not believe it’s ok to sit there and do nothing and let the other side continue to do what they’ve been doing
Click to expand...
This. At some point Democrats need to wake up and realize they’re in a war. I’ve seen glimpses of it these last two years but at some point they need to strike and strike hard.
 
I'm curious as to what would have happened if RBG passed away after the election if Biden wins. Could Trump still have pushed through his nominee even if he was the lame(est) duck ever?
 
Slap Shot said:
Huh.
Click to expand...

Like I have said from the beginning...I am iffy on it and flip flop a lot. I get it, and wont protest against it or anything...but it just seems like the classic overextension and of all the problems that exist I think it is the one that can wait. I think if the SC is as bad as we all think it will be then popular support for the idea will come anyways. Right now though it only moves the needle the wrong way IMHO.

Plus right now we are framing the issue all wrong. (even calling it court packing proves most Dems have no clue how to make this a popular idea outside the Progressives) We are making it look like judicial activism when there are better ways to do this and make it a more palatable idea. Go with the Lincoln method (which obviously was fighting the same issues) and begin a campaign to talk about how we have way too few Justices for the amount of Federal Districts. (since there are now more than 9) That is much more of an agreeable argument than "We dont like that they went rogue so now we must go rogue ourselves!!!" to the average person.
 
Handyman said:
Like I have said from the beginning...I am iffy on it and flip flop a lot. I get it, and wont protest against it or anything...but it just seems like the classic overextension and of all the problems that exist I think it is the one that can wait. I think if the SC is as bad as we all think it will be then popular support for the idea will come anyways. Right now though it only moves the needle the wrong way IMHO.

Plus right now we are framing the issue all wrong. (even calling it court packing proves most Dems have no clue how to make this a popular idea outside the Progressives) We are making it look like judicial activism when there are better ways to do this and make it a more palatable idea. Go with the Lincoln method (which obviously was fighting the same issues) and begin a campaign to talk about how we have way too few Justices for the amount of Federal Districts. (since there are now more than 9) That is much more of an agreeable argument than "We dont like that they went rogue so now we must go rogue ourselves!!!" to the average person.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is fairly similar to my thoughts and perhaps I didn't frame it as succinctly.
 
psych said:
I agree, none of the plans are going to be implemented. Expansion of the Court likely won’t happen either. I agree with Hovey that the Democrats in charge will likely do nothing to the Court. They’ll pass liberal legislation, and bank on the fact most of it will survive court challenges, if it ever even sees the light of day in court. Of course, some stuff will get overturned. I’m not holding on for two GOP justices to do anything right, like you and unofan are on certain issues. I hope y’all are right about that. Me? I’m banking on the fact that Democrats are going to pass so much stuff, that IF some of it is even challenged, most of it will survive the 6-3 Court. That’s still progress. I’m thinking with changing demographics, etc., we’ll even manage to maintain power more often than not without having to stoop.
I don’t think the lottery system is a perfect setup. I agree it’d be hard to implement. I never said it would happen in a day. I said I think Democrats need to focus on other stuff- like legislating- before they ever even think about getting around to dealing with the Court. Saying that the lottery system wouldn’t work because the judges are still political appointees is silly and stupid though. Of course they’re political appointees- all of them are. No system we’re arguing is going to change that setup, especially the Court expansion you flip-flopped on supporting. The lottery system at least would make it 5-4, either Democrat or Republican, not 6-3 GOP. Certainly not ideal, but better than the obvious ***-for-tat continuous expansion, where the Court will be 144-141 by 2050, with probably even less progress made than with a 6-3 GOP Court.
Click to expand...

For the most part I agree. I think if the Dems play this right there is no way the SC will be able to stop most of what they accomplish which is why adding justices is like 6th (at best) on my list of things I want to say happened in 4 years. I think Big Business will do well under this SC but I dont see them sticking their neck out on most social issues outside of possibly Roe.

I am also a White Male though...so most likely nothing they do will hurt me anyways. My gf thinks different, MT obviously does too...and their worries are not misguided.

The problem is, ACB (and McRapey) are so far out of their element on the SC that we have no real clue what their barriers are. We can for the most part guess the rest but those two are friggin dangerous. Especially her, she doesnt have the acumen for the job. I am sure she is a fine teacher but Jesus I am almost as qualified as her. When inexperienced or underexperienced judges are involved in cases it can be a disaster...and their decisions wont be about some small time lawsuit or a criminal complaint these are decisions on what is and is not Constitutional for everyone. To people who feel their Rights are in jeopardy they have every right to be scared [bleep]less right now until proven otherwise.
 
psych said:
Geezus, I didn’t even see that post of his before I posted mine. Handy, I swear you wrote something about “so be it” for adding more justices last week. I’m glad to see that’s not actually your viewpoint, and that expanding the court is a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

The board is wonky right now. In the time I was gone 3 posts from BEFORE mine showed up out of nowhere.
 
MinnesotaNorthStar said:
I wonder what changed his mind?
Click to expand...

iStock-854848732.jpg
 
Handyman said:
Especially her, she doesnt have the acumen for the job. I am sure she is a fine teacher but Jesus I am almost as qualified as her. When inexperienced or underexperienced judges are involved in cases it can be a disaster...and their decisions wont be about some small time lawsuit or a criminal complaint these are decisions on what is and is not Constitutional for everyone. To people who feel their Rights are in jeopardy they have every right to be scared [bleep]less right now until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm kind of curious as to the basis for this opinion.

First, I think the ABA issued a "well qualified" opinion regarding her after she was nominated. That's not a be all, end all, as I posted a few days ago, but if people are going to argue that judges shouldn't be confirmed who receive a bad rating from the ABA then I don't think it's appropriate to ignore a well qualified rating for other judges.

Second, there was a letter to the editor in the StarTrib way back when she was first nominated. The letter was written by someone who had worked with her. This person was actually called by the Democrats to testify as to why Trump should be impeached in the hearings before Congress, so it's not like he was some sort of right wing guy. He wrote in the opinion column that ACB is extremely qualified and will make an excellent justice.

So, no disrespect intended, but I'm not certain you're almost as qualified as she is.
 
Handyman said:
For the most part I agree. I think if the Dems play this right there is no way the SC will be able to stop most of what they accomplish which is why adding justices is like 6th (at best) on my list of things I want to say happened in 4 years. I think Big Business will do well under this SC but I dont see them sticking their neck out on most social issues outside of possibly Roe.

I am also a White Male though...so most likely nothing they do will hurt me anyways. My gf thinks different, MT obviously does too...and their worries are not misguided.

The problem is, ACB (and McRapey) are so far out of their element on the SC that we have no real clue what their barriers are. We can for the most part guess the rest but those two are friggin dangerous. Especially her, she doesnt have the acumen for the job. I am sure she is a fine teacher but Jesus I am almost as qualified as her. When inexperienced or underexperienced judges are involved in cases it can be a disaster...and their decisions wont be about some small time lawsuit or a criminal complaint these are decisions on what is and is not Constitutional for everyone. To people who feel their Rights are in jeopardy they have every right to be scared [bleep]less right now until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is what I was driving at. Two justices have already hinted they want to overturn Obergefell. Several conservative pundits have said with ACB, LGBT rights will never see the light of day again. Every time those of us in the LGBT community hear something like this, we immediately go to worry. Last night, I was angry, sick, heartbroken, and terrified for what will happen next. I woke up this morning feeling the same way. And while this will be on the ballot for MI in 2022, I am hoping it will pass, and not only that, we get a liberal majority on our State Supreme Court so it won't be overturned. Remember, our current state SC thinks Whitmer's a poophead.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Careful, I've been told only Republicans are allowed to use such violent rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Which is how it works for a lot of things...

When does the ACA decision come out? I’m willing to bet plenty of folks will change their minds on the court when pre-existing condition protections are eliminated.
 
Jimjamesak said:
Which is how it works for a lot of things...

When does the ACA decision come out? I’m willing to bet plenty of folks will change their minds on the court when pre-existing condition protections are eliminated.
Click to expand...

The case won't even be argued until next month. I assume a decision will come in June.

I'm not going to pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of the ACA litigation, but iirc a lot of it is connected to the individual mandates question, and whether that is constitutional, and whether the law can stand if you remove the individual mandates requirement (which I think was effectively gutted anyway due to removing penalties).

If the ACA should fall due to defects in the individual mandates language, I don't know of any prohibition on Congress to pass legislation requiring insurers to offer coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top