How to Fix the Supreme Court

[durangodawood]

How do you balance a 9 member panel?

I'm not arguing for balance. I'm arguing the D's adopt the R goal of dominance.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

How do you balance a 9 member panel?

Pete Buttigieg’s plan was 5 picked by Democrats, 5 picked by Republicans, and 5 picked by the 10 picked by Democrats and Republicans.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

0

I'm not arguing for balance. I'm arguing the D's adopt the R goal of dominance.

What on earth? The R's are just beginning to grow a spine under Trump. Let em have a little time as the dominators for once.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Unless there is a 9-0 decision, what is constitutional is a matter of opinion.

When the Court becomes imbalanced through chicanery and dishonesty, maybe the dissenters are right.

And there we see it again. You're not even hiding it. There is no being faithful to the constitution in your view of civics. It's all just a matter of personal political opinion. "Being faithful to the constitution" doesn't even register with you guys. It's just duckspeak. Like if I told you that my beer tastes pickup truck because the noise in the room is hamburger.

 

[durangodawood]

What on earth? The R's are just beginning to grow a spine under Trump. Let em have a little time as the dominators for once.

Sounds like youre arguing for some form of "fairness". Thats funny!

 

[KarateCowboy]

I'm not arguing for balance. I'm arguing the D's adopt the R goal of dominance.

The whole reason they're freaking out is because they value dominance so much. The whole progressive worldview is all about power and dominance. That's why with black supremacist BLM they don't see Ferguson as "officer defends his life against obvious attempted murder" and instead just see "white man kills black man". It's all about power and dominance.

 

[durangodawood]

The whole reason they're freaking out is because they value dominance so much. The whole progressive worldview is all about power and dominance. That's why with black supremacist BLM that don't see Ferguson as "officer defends his life against obvious attempted murder" and instead just see "white man kills black man". It's all about power and dominance.

You think its about worldviews?

Thats quaint. Its about parties and interests. And the R's got their act together about 20 years ago when they decided to focus on state houses so they could control gerrymandering. Time the D's caught up.

 

[KarateCowboy]

You think its about worldviews?

Thats quaint. Its about parties and interests. And the R's got their act together about 20 years ago when they decided to focus on state houses so they could control gerrymandering. Time the D's caught up.

You're right. It's not about worldviews. It's about groups and their interests. Which form and operate around shared worldviews.

 

[durangodawood]

The Senate can also refuse to consider a nominee....

Yes but thats not what they did.

They didnt refuse Garland per se. As stated, they decided upfront that no nominee would be considered during a stretch of the presidents term. That is literally declining their constitutionally mandated role, and deny the president his.

The responsibilities assigned to each branch have certain durations specified in the constitution. You cant just turn off and on those duties at will. It would be like the president saying "I decline commander in chief duties for the last year of my term.... because I say so".

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yes but thats not what they did.

They didnt refuse Garland per se. As stated, they decided upfront that no nominee would be considered during a stretch of the presidents term. That is literally declining their constitutionally mandated role, and deny the president his.

The responsibilities assigned to each branch have certain durations specified in the constitution. You cant just turn off and on those duties at will. It would be like the president saying "I decline commander in chief duties for the last year of my term.... because I say so".

Where are these durations stipulated?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Yes but thats not what they did.

They didnt refuse Garland per se. As stated, they decided upfront that no nominee would be considered during a stretch of the presidents term. That is literally declining their constitutionally mandated role, and deny the president his.

The responsibilities assigned to each branch have certain durations specified in the constitution. You cant just turn off and on those duties at will. It would be like the president saying "I decline commander in chief duties for the last year of my term.... because I say so".

What they did to Garland was terrible and he probably should be on the court today. That's no reason to shaft Barrett, though.

 

[wing2000]

This has to be the most obscene and orwellian example of projection I've seen in years. Adding Barrett to the court increases it's respectability. Esp. when she replaced a vile woman who wasted her dying breath attempting, one last time, to elevate her own politics above explicit Constitutional writ.

Your own words betray you...."vile woman".

• morally bad; wicked.
  "as vile a rogue as ever lived"
• ARCHAIC
  of little worth or value.
  "all the feasts that thou hast shared erewhile, to mine shall be but vile"

Anthony Scalia would certainly reject such a characterization.

 

[durangodawood]

Where are these durations stipulated?

In the US Const. 4 full year term for the pres. Ongoing term for the senate. Obviously they can recess. But they cant just decline various mandated duties in a duration when they are in session. "Hey president, we decline to review all your United States officer nominees for the next four years because <rationalization pulled out our ***>." No. The constitution assigns various duties. The various parts of govt have to do them.

Also, the senate cannot decide there's some problem with a president's last year in office that diminishes his responsibilities. Thats exactly what they did. It wasnt about Garland. It was about some b s flaw in the president's last year that nullifies his prerogative to propose any nominee. McC said that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

In the US Const. 4 full year term for the pres. Ongoing term for the senate. Obviously they can recess. But they cant just decline various mandated duties in a duration when they are in session. "Hey president, we decline to review all your United States officer nominees for the next four years because <rationalization pulled out our ***>." No. The constitution assigns various duties. The various parts of govt have to do them.

Also, the senate cannot decide there's some problem with a president's last year in office that diminishes his responsibilities. Thats exactly what they did. It wasnt about Garland. It was about some b s flaw in the president's last year that nullifies his prerogative to propose any nominee. McC said that.

The constitution says that the president gets to nominate certain positions with the consent of the senate.

The senate declines to consent.

Where's the constitutional problem?

 

[durangodawood]

The constitution says that the president gets to nominate certain positions with the consent of the senate.

The senate declines to consent.

Where's the constitutional problem?

Jeez I just told you. They didnt even get to the question of consent. They up front declined to consider any nominee going forward, on the basis that final year nominees are not legit in principle - which is constitutionally false.

They could have easily declined consent for Garland specifically, and provided the required advice to go with it.

 

[jayem]

No need to "fix" what ain't broken either.

Imagine this: A town of 2700 people has a 9 man police force. One officer per 300 citizens is a pretty good ratio. The town grows 8 times to a population of 21,600. But still has a 9 man police dept. It manages because the police can decide what calls they’ll answer. All others are refused. That’s broken. The town needs to hire more cops.

SCOTUS keeps its docket manageable because it can refuse to hear cases. Which means that lower court decisions become sort of de facto precedents. Definitive answers to some important Constitutional questions get deferred, or are never clearly resolved. Because our highest court doesn’t have the will, or the manpower. To me, that’s a broken system. We deserve better than that.

 

[stevil]

Actual creating a Constitutional non partisan court does sound like an excellent idea. Fact is, the best courts are non-partisan who study the Law based on the Law alone! Sadly when politics get in we often risk unbalancing the court as now. Staking it too far to the right or left is not good. The best courts have equal of both parties and a moderate in the middle.

As well as the need to get at least some people from both sides to agree on nominees.

The Republican party have been shamelessly upfront in their desire to politicise the USA courts. They have been bragging about getting young Conservatives into the courts. They have even been shamelessly nominating people who are blatantly unqualified for the positions.
The blocking of a court nomination from Obama for over 8 months - to the detriment of the whole country was just filthy politics.
The removal of the 2/3rds rule for confirmation was to the detriment of the whole country.
Exciting for some of their partisan base, but dangerous for the unity of the country and trust and faith in the legal system in your country.

At the moment it appears Trump and his allies are hoping they can "win" the upcoming election with the support of partisan judges. Supporting their attempt to minimise the amount of votes in the upcoming election, by slowing down the postal service, reducing the numbers of drop boxes, ensuring that votes that have not been received by the election deadline (but post stamped prior) are not to be counted.

The government are supposed to be the custodians of the democratic process, are supposed to be encouraging all the people to vote, are supposed to be making sure that all votes can be processed and will be counted and put measures towards helping that (rather than hindering) given that the country is in the midst of a highly contagious deadly pandemic.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Jeez I just told you. They didnt even get to the question of consent. They up front declined to consider any nominee going forward, on the basis that final year nominees are not legit in principle - which is constitutionally false.

They could have easily declined consent for Garland specifically, and provided the required advice to go with it.

Refusing the stage a hearing is a denial of consent.

Whether your date sends you home after she's invited you up to her apartment or before she's gone on the date in the first place, she's still refused to consent to sleep with you.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Your own words betray you...."vile woman".

• morally bad; wicked.
  "as vile a rogue as ever lived"
• ARCHAIC
  of little worth or value.
  "all the feasts that thou hast shared erewhile, to mine shall be but vile"

Anthony Scalia would certainly reject such a characterization.

Nothing to betray. Maybe he could compartmentalize her wickedness. I cannot

 

[KarateCowboy]

Imagine this: A town of 2700 people has a 9 man police force. One officer per 300 citizens is a pretty good ratio. The town grows 8 times to a population of 21,600. But still has a 9 man police dept. It manages because the police can decide what calls they’ll answer. All others are refused. That’s broken. The town needs to hire more cops.

SCOTUS keeps its docket manageable because it can refuse to hear cases. Which means that lower court decisions become sort of de facto precedents. Definitive answers to some important Constitutional questions get deferred, or are never clearly resolved. Because our highest court doesn’t have the will, or the manpower. To me, that’s a broken system. We deserve better than that.

That's a broken analogy because it presumes everything should be seen by the SCOTUS. A better analogy is where the lower courts are deputies and have authority to police, but their decisions can be overruled by the actual officers if necessary.

So no, not broken.

Just confess: you want to Democrats to be able to legislate from the bench. All this other stuff is a fig leaf.