Author Topic: How to save the country  (Read 10413 times)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
How to save the country
« on: October 15, 2020, 11:27:15 PM »
The whole SCOTUS debacle is seemingly intractable: Republicans have the opportunity to engineer a court favourable to the party's strongly held convictions on what is the right way for the constitution and laws to be interpreted; Democrats, feeling that the ACB confirmation process is the last straw in Republican's misuse of procedures to stack federal courts from top to bottom, may soon have the opportunity to seek retribution if they can control the levers of government, and may use that control to ignore any remaining vestiges of collegiality.

But might this be avoided?  Can the country step away from the brink?

I've seen several different options that show there are still people looking for compromise.  Here are a couple

1. A compact in the Senate, prior to the election: in this scenario, 6-10 Senators from each party, in "safe" seats, would agree that the SCOTUS confirmation be put on hold until after the election.  Should Trump win, the confirmation process would go ahead, but if Biden wins, the Republicans would agree not to confirm ACB.  In return for the Republicans agreeing to this, the Democrats would agree to preserve the filibuster if they win the Senate.

2. If such an agreement could not be made prior to the election, if ACB was confirmed either before the election or during the lame duck session, and if the Democrats win the Presidency and the Senate (which looks likely at this point): the Democrats would need to show unilateral restraint... but they could do this by "packing" the courts - or rather, expanding them.  The basic suggestion addresses the immediate cause of friction at the level of SCOTUS (the court's imbalance), but also addresses a fundamental flaw of the nominations process - that the (currently) 9 most powerful jurists in the world, and the structure of their court, can be thrown randomly into chaos as a result of an untimely death.

This proposal is to expand the court not to just 13 jurists, but rather to 25 or 30, thus making each nomination, and the position of each judge,  far less important.  And in good faith, the president should nominate a list of jurists from all parts of the political spectrum, with an eye to balancing the court.  Once inlace, there would simply be little benefit in choosing a hyper partisan judge, nor of filibustering the Senate and bringing the work of the legislature to a halt, just for 1 position out of 30.  Marry that with term limits for all federal judges and the efforts to pack the courts with hyper-partisan judges becomes less effective, too.

What other cooperative ideas do people have to climb down from the precipice?

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2020, 12:00:08 AM »
Pete Buttigeig had a plan whereby each President would get to name two nominees per Presidential term, and a Supreme Court Justice would have a term of 18 years. Seems a bit more orderly for a 21st century country.

Arguably, if Biden were to win, you would introduce this fair scheme after corrective actions for the refusal of Republicans to consider Gorsuch (which means adding two Democratically appointed Justices to counter the Republicans lying/cheating their way to steal an appointment from Obama and the Democrats)

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2020, 03:36:14 AM »
The idea that packing the court is a de-escalation is very confused.  Packing the court is beyond nuclear.  If one were writing a book on how to destroy the structures of government, that would be one of the key steps.

The idea that the court has some natural "balance" that must be maintained like an ecosystem is similarly absurd. The legislation should be balanced and a reflection of the people's will. The court should be a court.

The fight over the court stems from judicial activism, which stems from the left and the bad ideas of a Living Constitution. When you insist on the court being nine un-elected super-legislators-for-life, of course it's going to be a zoo every time one of them dies.

Judges shouldn't be creating laws out of thin air. Judges should be narrowly interpreting the text in the context of a case. When there is an ambiguity in a text, the judge should do his best to interpret it, and then legislation should address it to clarify as soon as possible. 

The constitution is a limited document. It doesn't solve every problem the world might have. It doesn't guarantee every citizen every single thing you think they might be entitled to.  It doesn't guarantee a right to privacy or to murder your unborn child. Rowe v. Wade is a terribly reasoned ruling -- it's not reasoned at all -- and should be removed as quickly as possible so this difficult question can be returned to the legislation, which is where it belongs in a democratic-republic.

The left wing of the court has spent at least sixty years attempting to circumvent and absorb the proper legislation power because these Good and Wise Justices thought they knew best. Now we're living with the consequences of that: a highly politicized court and a government that is growing more and more frail each day.

"But the Right does it too", they say.  No, not in this case.  If every judge, liberal or conservative, returned to an originalist or textualist approach to constitutional interpretation, we wouldn't have this problem. The court would be less powerful, the legislation would regain some of its proper authority, and court appointments wouldn't matter quite so much. And if you wanted to legalize or ban abortion, you could have a public debate and a public vote, and we could continue to live in a democracy.

As it stands, we have an anemic legislature. The court has stolen some of its power with its ideas of a living constitution, the Executive has stolen some with executive orders, and the ever-growing bureaucracy and agency system has taken almost all the rest.  The legislation is dying a slow death in America, and you keep slamming the gas pedal to accelerate the process.

Your (extremely convoluted and ill-conceived) plan to pack the court to dozens of members turns it into a new super-legislation. It would become just another political body, with the added danger of being able to disregard the constitution at whim, when it disagreed with their legislative goals. In your system, we elect people who elect the super-senators who rule for 18 years. The irony of it would be funny if it weren't so deeply sad.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 03:43:53 AM by JoshuaD »

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2020, 03:39:08 AM »
Donald,

“... the Democrats would need to show unilateral restraint... but they could do this by "packing" the courts - or rather, expanding them... This proposal is to expand the court not to just 13 jurists, but rather to 25 or 30, thus making each nomination, and the position of each judge,  far less important.”

This is the style of “restraint“ that lost Merrick Garland a seat on the Supreme Court.

The left’s lock on the Court has only persisted to this point through the collegiality of Republicans going back to Eisenhower who gave you; Warren, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Brennan, Breyer, White, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor based upon judicial competence, not political reliability. What you are really proposing is transformation of the third branch of government into a mini-senate with life terms, which would only enlarge the scope of judicial “packing”. Why stop at “30”? Once the “nuclear option“ was deployed, escalation was made acceptable political recourse. How about 100 Supreme Court justices, or 200?

The road taken by Dirty Harry leads nowhere good. A most promising way to reestablish functional government, is to behave reasonably. Sometimes that means knowing how to accept short-term defeat in exchange for long-term stability, but that requires a level of self-restraint not yet displayed by the Democratic Party which felt the appellate court appointments of three such judicial luminaries as; ... what are their names again?... was worth this race to the bottom.

Even Harry knows the idea is bad, suggesting as a nod to traditional restraint that the Senate be “packed” instead by admitting Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia as states. :

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/25/917014345/former-senate-majority-leader-on-filibuster-and-supreme-court-vacancy
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 03:41:57 AM by noel c. »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2020, 06:45:14 AM »
Joshua, I think you're missing the point - if the democrats take both the Senate and the presidency, the current rules would allow them to actually pack the courts if they so choose (not what was described in the 2 options mentioned).  That would continue the path of self destruction that the country currently finds itself on.

The majority of the country disagrees with you on a number of points - strongly.  It doesn't mean they're correct; but it does mean there is a real risk that they will want to get their way, and will have the means to do so in such a way as to burn whatever bridges remain.

As to shortsighted near term gain, that accusation can be spread widely; it was short term gain that led to filibustering hundreds a judicial appointments, as was removing the filibuster for non-SCOTUS confirmations, as was refusing to confirm all Obama judicial appointments, as was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations, as was refusing to consider Garland whatsoever, as was how the investigation of Kavanaugh went down, as is the current rushed confirmation  of Barrett.  Each of those followed the rules, and each was an escalation.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2020, 08:05:29 AM »
Donald,

“... it was short term gain that led to filibustering hundreds a judicial appointments, as was removing the filibuster for non-SCOTUS confirmations”

Within the 2/3 majority closure rule, correct. This was the original purpose of the filibuster, and it worked as designed.

“... as was refusing to confirm all Obama judicial appointments...”

Nope, we are talking about three appointments to the most important appellate court in the United States.

“... as was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations... “

No again, Harry was given fair warning. It is not the Republicans job to politely bend-over to accommodate Democratic expediency.

“... as was refusing to consider Garland whatsoever... “

All within the new Harry paradigm.

“... as was how the investigation of Kavanaugh went down”

Yes, to the shame of Democrats.

“... as is the current rushed confirmation  of Barrett.”

Per RGB’s prescription for presidential prerogative, and with the approval of a significant majority of voters.

“Each of those followed the rules, and each was an escalation.”

There was only one first use of the “nuclear option”, and your team set the new standard for judicial appointments.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2020, 10:34:41 AM »
Just to clarify some incorrect conceptions that keep popping up in these discussion wherein “hundreds“, or “all” of Barry’s nominations were blocked by Senate republicans, actual facts are as follows. :

“U.S. President Barack Obama nominated over four hundred individuals for federal judgeships during his presidency. Of these nominations, Congress confirmed 329 judgeships, 173 during the 111th & 112th Congresses[1] and 156 during the 113th and 114th Congresses.[2]

The most potent filibustering of Obama's nominees occurred in the Republican controlled 114th Congress. Obama nominated 69 people for 104 different federal appellate judgeships during this Congress, and although some nominees were processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, many of them stalled on the floor of the Senate. With the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, in the beginning of a presidential election year, the Republican majority in the Senate made it their stated policy to refuse to consider any nominee to the Supreme Court put forward by Obama”

Barry’s Sonya Sotamayor nomination had 40 Republican confirmation votes in August 2009, Elena Kagen was confirmed in May 2010 with four votes by Republican Senators.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2020, 11:20:00 AM »
JoshuaD, are you saying there isn't a right to privacy? Because if a right exists, the Constitution guarantees it.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2020, 11:22:36 AM »
I hope the democrats pass a constitutional amendment that puts 18 year term limits on SC justices. We could see if it could pass in republican controlled states given they have the current edge in the court. But it would make each nomination less important. Barrett could conceivably be on the court for 40 years. As life spans lengthen and presidents keep trying to find younger people to nominate this only gets worse.

I think the 18 year term is a middle road, it isn't another nuclear option of adding justices to the court. But it does remove the worst aspects of SC nominations as they currently stand.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2020, 11:47:09 AM »
I hope the democrats pass a constitutional amendment that puts 18 year term limits on SC justices. We could see if it could pass in republican controlled states given they have the current edge in the court. But it would make each nomination less important. Barrett could conceivably be on the court for 40 years. As life spans lengthen and presidents keep trying to find younger people to nominate this only gets worse.

I think the 18 year term is a middle road, it isn't another nuclear option of adding justices to the court. But it does remove the worst aspects of SC nominations as they currently stand.

This is there the law of unintended consequences comes into play: barring unscheduled resignations, on a nine-justice court and an 18 year term, a two-term president would get to nominate 44% of the SCOTUS justices.  Follow that by an additional term where the successor is of the same party, and there will be an uncontested supermajority on SCOTUS named by just 2 presidents from the same party.

This would actually make politicization of the courts worse, more than likely.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2020, 11:50:09 AM »
But when was the last time a party got three terms in a row? Roosevelt? And he actually ran for three terms which is no longer an option.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2020, 11:53:03 AM »
I hope the democrats pass a constitutional amendment that puts 18 year term limits on SC justices. We could see if it could pass in republican controlled states given they have the current edge in the court. But it would make each nomination less important. Barrett could conceivably be on the court for 40 years. As life spans lengthen and presidents keep trying to find younger people to nominate this only gets worse.

I think the 18 year term is a middle road, it isn't another nuclear option of adding justices to the court. But it does remove the worst aspects of SC nominations as they currently stand.

This is there the law of unintended consequences comes into play: barring unscheduled resignations, on a nine-justice court and an 18 year term, a two-term president would get to nominate 44% of the SCOTUS justices.  Follow that by an additional term where the successor is of the same party, and there will be an uncontested supermajority on SCOTUS named by just 2 presidents from the same party.

This would actually make politicization of the courts worse, more than likely.

Maybe, but it would be in line with the will of the people. If one party is holding the presidency for 12+ years then at least the court is in line with what people were voting for. And it could reverse quickly if the next president was of the other party.

At any rate I consider it better than a 1 term president getting to fill 1/3 of the court for 30+ years.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2020, 11:53:30 AM »
But when was the last time a party got three terms in a row? Roosevelt? And he actually ran for three terms which is no longer an option.

Reagan - Bush 1.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2020, 12:13:54 PM »
Noel, your Wikipedia quote glosses over how few judicial nominations were processed in the last two years of Obama's presidency.

Per this Brookings Institute article, 53 Court of Appeals nominations were approved in Obama's first 6 years in office.  In his last two year, 2 nominations were approved.  And those two names had been submitted in November 2014, only being approved in January of 2018.

250 district court nominations were approved in the first 6 year.  In the last two year, 18 were approved.

Perhaps "hundreds" of nominations is a bit of an exaggeration.  But one can certainly say that almost all of Obama's nominations were blocked in the last two years of his presidency.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2020, 12:30:15 PM »
Maybe it's just me but it seems like the only time it's convenient to talk about making big changes like packing the court, getting rid of the electoral college, adding new states, instituting term limits for the Supreme Court, and so on is when the left has lost some of their power. If Hillary had won would we be having these conversations?

Maybe the thing to do is to live with it.

If Democrats want to try to go nuclear again I suppose that's their prerogative, but it didn't work out so well the last time.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2020, 12:40:39 PM »
Live with it. Use it for fundraising and to gain control of House, Senate, and the WH. Then do the same thing right back. That's the solution, not upending institutions or trying to make deals with untrustworthy people.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2020, 12:54:17 PM »
Y-22,

“I hope the democrats pass a constitutional amendment that puts 18 year term limits on SC justices.”

The Democrats cannot pass a constitutional amendment. That could only happen with Republican complicity, and 75% of State legislatures.

“We could see if it could pass in republican controlled states given they have the current edge in the court.“

Not a chance, why should republicans agree to something like that?

“But it would make each nomination less important.”

Yes, but would you have wanted liberal justices over the last sixty years to have been “less important”?

“Barrett could conceivably be on the court for 40 years. As life spans lengthen and presidents keep trying to find younger people to nominate this only gets worse.”

Yes, she could. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the most stable branch of government by design. Have you considered that it might be a better idea to just start electing the presidents who you want to nominate federal judges?

WS,

“Noel, your Wikipedia quote glosses over how few judicial nominations were processed in the last two years of Obama's presidency.“

If you closely examine Republican collegiality over the period of Barry’s presidency, specifically as it relates to judicial nominations, you will discover an environment that a contemporary Republican President could only dream of.

So, what do you think caused the judicial log jam? Twenty-two years ago Robert Bork was stonewalled. In 2009, only eleven years ago, a far left judge like Sotomayor could still glean forty Republican confirmation votes, while one year later Elena Kagan could muster no more than four.

Possibly republicans became impatient with Barry’s injunction that we “need to move to the back of the bus...” because “elections have consequences”.

Drake,

“Live with it. Use it for fundraising and to gain control of House, Senate, and the WH. Then do the same thing right back. That's the solution, not upending institutions or trying to make deals with untrustworthy people.”

Bingo!
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 01:02:14 PM by noel c. »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2020, 12:59:21 PM »
I tend to agree with the notion that judicial activism is a large part of the root of this current crisis. Partisan personal beliefs among justices might seem like it's less than idea, but it wouldn't matter so much if the judges were disciplined to put their personal beliefs aside in favor of interpreting the law impartially. For instance a pro-life justice should not automatically be feared as someone who will overturn Roe because they are pro-life. But as JoshuaD mentioned above, if indeed that ruling was illegitimate based on it being itself a case of activism, it would be better to undo and desist in legislation from the bench in favor of moving these matters over to the legislative branch. There is literally zero reason why half of America should be terrified that by Barret being nominated abortion will be banned. It makes no sense and defies the purpose of a court. It should be the Congress that controls such things and therefore a question of people going out and voting their conscience in order to affect policy. I agree with JoshuaD, and others like Seriati, who in the past have railed against the idea of unelected kings determining matters affecting some of the most important areas of life.

Here's a side question: in the system of checks and balances, what is the appropriate and designated check against the judiciary making rulings that are outside of their purview? When the legislative and executive branches initiate actions it's often the SC that weighs in on their legitimacy; so conversely who is supposed to weigh in on the legitimacy of the SC's decisions? What we wouldn't want is the SC swinging from side to side depending on who's sitting on it, where two new conservative justices will undo Roe, then in 10 years two new left-leaning justices will help bring it back; etc etc. Why can't such decisions be taken away from them altogether to avoid this nonsense? The sentiment of the voters can change how the executive and legislative bodies govern from term to term, but this shouldn't be the case for the court system, nor should unexpected deaths have any impact on the actual laws of the land.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2020, 01:05:29 PM »
“Here's a side question: in the system of checks and balances, what is the appropriate and designated check against the judiciary making rulings that are outside of their purview?”

Judicial review, and correction.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2020, 01:25:28 PM »
Judicial review, and correction.

Who conducts this judicial review?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2020, 01:27:41 PM »
JoshuaD, are you saying there isn't a right to privacy? Because if a right exists, the Constitution guarantees it.

The Right to Privacy never appears in the Constitution. It is a derived privilege that came form the footnotes of an opinion on a case, and was never enshrined in Stare Decisis.

For example, the idea that a sexual predator can be safe by only raping children in the bedroom does not fly. The legislature has written a few laws that provide cover for those citing Privacy protections. What is more applicable is that a person needs to stand behind what they say and do.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #21 on: October 16, 2020, 01:41:05 PM »
Can anyone argue now that the stage has not been set? Democrats and the GOP have simultaneous town halls, yet one has an attack-dog moderator and the one for Biden is all soft balls, with zero questions about the corruption allegations. At the same time, the Billionaire Social Media magnates deny the public from seeing official and legal documents during an election. The Democrats have prepared for and called for Civil War if Trump is re-elected, yet they say that is what the GOP and Trump may do. Projection.

The Democrats have never been a majority party - but a plurality party, with discordant sectors with opposing views voting together to hold power. With the Harry Reid cloture rule change, the gerrymandering, court-packing, and making territories into states to get extra Senate seats, they are looking for an unassailable rule. The stage is set, and the GOP cannot vote with comity any longer. No more votes for a SCOTUS who is merely sufficient and accepted because it is the POTUS choice. Every vote is now for total win or lose.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2020, 01:53:36 PM »
Can anyone argue now that the stage has not been set? Democrats and the GOP have simultaneous town halls, yet one has an attack-dog moderator and the one for Biden is all soft balls, with zero questions about the corruption allegations. At the same time, the Billionaire Social Media magnates deny the public from seeing official and legal documents during an election. The Democrats have prepared for and called for Civil War if Trump is re-elected, yet they say that is what the GOP and Trump may do. Projection.

The Democrats have never been a majority party - but a plurality party, with discordant sectors with opposing views voting together to hold power. With the Harry Reid cloture rule change, the gerrymandering, court-packing, and making territories into states to get extra Senate seats, they are looking for an unassailable rule. The stage is set, and the GOP cannot vote with comity any longer. No more votes for a SCOTUS who is merely sufficient and accepted because it is the POTUS choice. Every vote is now for total win or lose.

You live in a reality of your own shadow creation
Have you ever wondered if its Trumps combative pre - counter punch communication style that creates the attack-dog moderator reaction?

Your a very dangerous avatar. Note when it comes to talk of Civil War its comes from you.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2020, 01:54:26 PM »
Quote
The Right to Privacy never appears in the Constitution
My search function is acting up - so excuse the paraphrase, but the Constitution has a line in the part separating states rights and personal rights saying 'the fact that a right is not explicitly written here doesn't mean it doesn't exist'

The right to be free always belonged to black people, and any laws to the contrary were unconstitutional.  We didn't need laws freeing the slaves.  They were always free, and having their rights suppressed. If a law was necessary to spell it out, then it wasn't - and still isn't - inherent. There is no other way to read it.

We have always had the right to privacy, but past generations refused to acknowledge it.

Of course, this assumes you believe that rights are unalienable, gifted to us from our Creator.


ETA
and yes, that means the parts of the constitution dealing with slavery were unconstitutional.  paradox.  One part of the document spoke of 'all people' and another part said 'but not these people'.  It was written by humans, and is a flawed document.  You can't even go by what the founders and drafters meant because they certainly put slavery in there deliberately.  We have to look at what they thought they meant.  Or should have meant, based on other things they said.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 02:01:35 PM by oldbrian »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2020, 02:07:19 PM »
The Democrats have never been a majority party - but a plurality party, with discordant sectors with opposing views voting together to hold power.

Same could be said of the republicans. Democrats have won the plurality of the popular vote for the president 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.  Also in the last several house elections they have won a significant majority of the votes.

Quote
With the Harry Reid cloture rule change, the gerrymandering, court-packing, and making territories into states to get extra Senate seats, they are looking for an unassailable rule.

Same could be said of McConnel and Republicans. As to gerrymandering Republicans have benefited much more from gerrymandering since the last census. Since the democrats haven't done any of those things its a little early to say they are going for unassailable rule. Also allowing PR to become a state, if they so choose, should be their option. DC is more complicated but has a larger population that a few states without having voting representation in congress. Honestly the better option for DC is to cede almost all the land outside of the capital and WH to the surrounding states so that DC has no population. Virginia quits being a swing state at that point and maybe picks up a seat in the house but no changes to the senate.

Quote
The stage is set, and the GOP cannot vote with comity any longer. No more votes for a SCOTUS who is merely sufficient and accepted because it is the POTUS choice. Every vote is now for total win or lose.

I see Trump as a threat to democracy itself. I don't view McConnel or any of the other republican voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering schemes the same way. Even with the SC antics McConnel pulled, the country will survive. If Trump had a second term I don't trust Republicans to force him not to get a third.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2020, 02:09:02 PM »
...Have you ever wondered if its Trumps combative pre - counter punch communication style that creates the attack-dog moderator reaction?

Your a very dangerous avatar. Note when it comes to talk of Civil War its comes from you.

The Straw man you created is the combative one. In reality, Trump responds in kind after he is first attacked. If you recorded the Trump Town Hall, play it back and look at the moderator. Savannah Guthrie started by ignoring years of Trump never supporting White Supremacists by asking if he would finally answer the charge. Asked and answered did not shut her up. She reveled in the adversarial role that she chose. Hers was not the reaction - it was the operating plan going in.

Talk of civil war comes from the Democrats. have you not heard the AntiFa military wing of the Democrat Party? The GOP never told people to corner their adversary in restaurants with their families and intimidate them and make their lives miserable. That is entirely on your side. All the evil comes from the Left - and they only project it onto the GOP and Trump.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2020, 02:11:33 PM »
Talk of civil war comes from the Democrats. have you not heard the AntiFa military wing of the Democrat Party? The GOP never told people to corner their adversary in restaurants with their families and intimidate them and make their lives miserable. That is entirely on your side. All the evil comes from the Left - and they only project it onto the GOP and Trump.

Who were those guys arrested for plotting to kidnap and execute democratic governors?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2020, 02:22:00 PM »
...Same could be said of the republicans. Democrats have won the plurality of the popular vote for the president 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.  Also in the last several house elections they have won a significant majority of the votes.

You miss the point. The Democrats are held together by the need for power. The other side holds together on issues they agree upon. The margin of votes the Left pushed through in vote-scam blue areas barely overcame the huge victories elsewhere. Many proclaim that margin less than the margin of error.

People cannot put political signs on their property for fear of vandalism and threats from Democrats, so polling does not work any more. What is noteworthy is that there are so many Trump signs going up bravely everywhere. The lack of Biden support has diminished the Democrat threats and bullying, and people are reacting.

The predictions known for accuracy based on algorithms that have been successful say Trump will win is a 91% certainty. This makes the Left frantic, hence the threats of Civil War.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2020, 02:24:44 PM »
...Who were those guys arrested for plotting to kidnap and execute democratic governors?

You mean the Anarchists? Anti-government lunatics? They videoed themselves in front of the symbol that AntiFa put on their shirts. It was Trump's Justice Department that caught them.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2020, 02:25:13 PM »
In my area it has been Biden signs that have been vandalized?  Or is that a George Soros funded false flag operation meant to make Republicans look bad?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2020, 02:26:26 PM »
...Same could be said of the republicans. Democrats have won the plurality of the popular vote for the president 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.  Also in the last several house elections they have won a significant majority of the votes.

You miss the point. The Democrats are held together by the need for power. The other side holds together on issues they agree upon. The margin of votes the Left pushed through in vote-scam blue areas barely overcame the huge victories elsewhere. Many proclaim that margin less than the margin of error.

People cannot put political signs on their property for fear of vandalism and threats from Democrats, so polling does not work any more. What is noteworthy is that there are so many Trump signs going up bravely everywhere. The lack of Biden support has diminished the Democrat threats and bullying, and people are reacting.

The predictions known for accuracy based on algorithms that have been successful say Trump will win is a 91% certainty. This makes the Left frantic, hence the threats of Civil War.

OMG
I'm pretty sure your a troll or in need of help

RightLeft22: please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 02:59:53 PM by OrneryMod »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2020, 02:35:32 PM »
People cannot put up signs yet so many signs are bravely being put up  ;D ;D ;D

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2020, 04:58:10 PM »
Quote
The predictions known for accuracy based on algorithms that have been successful say Trump will win is a 91% certainty.

This I gotta see.  Please provide a link, Lambert.  ;D

Oh, yes, and how did that algorithm do in the last Presidential election? ;)

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2020, 05:18:30 PM »
Fenring,

“Who conducts this judicial review?”

Obviously the appellate court system, and it will look upon the issues of our day as trite, barbaric, and uninformed by a vastly superior modern perspective.

In truth, the virtue of this future Court will be no more charactered than the personal challenges that their society compels them to confront. On our present trajectory, I do not have high expectations of their wisdom.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 05:22:08 PM by noel c. »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2020, 05:43:13 PM »
...This I gotta see.  Please provide a link, Lambert.

Oh, yes, and how did that algorithm do in the last Presidential election? ;)

It is the Helnut Norpoth Model which has been accurate in almost all the Presidential elections in the last century.

It is explained here: https://news.stonybrook.edu/facultystaff/maverick-modeller-helmut-norpoth-predicts-another-win-for-trump/

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2020, 05:52:13 PM »
That article is 2 months old.  Has he updated it since then?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2020, 06:30:07 PM »
...This I gotta see.  Please provide a link, Lambert.

Oh, yes, and how did that algorithm do in the last Presidential election? ;)

It is the Helnut Norpoth Model which has been accurate in almost all the Presidential elections in the last century.

It is explained here: https://news.stonybrook.edu/facultystaff/maverick-modeller-helmut-norpoth-predicts-another-win-for-trump/

I wonder about his methodology.

Quote
“It’s all about primary elections, which are real electoral contests and the votes are counted and tabulated,” he said. “I also use real numbers, such as the results of previous elections, which indicate whether the pendulum is swinging away from or toward the White House party. This is something that also relies on real election results and not any kind of an opinion poll.”

As I recall, some of the states cancelled their primaries on the grounds that Trump would win, anyway, which would take away data points from his algorithm and weaken it.

I also doubt any algorithm that simplifies elections that much.  The opinions of large groups of people vary too wildly to be predictable from any single source.

But one can't argue with a person's faith.  If you believe this is an indisputable source, so be it.  You've been wrong before, and this time I think you'll be wrong again.  But we'll see. :)

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2020, 10:03:34 PM »
Fenring,

“I tend to agree with the notion that judicial activism is a large part of the root of this current crisis. Partisan personal beliefs among justices might seem like it's less than idea, but it wouldn't matter so much if the judges were disciplined to put their personal beliefs aside in favor of interpreting the law impartially.”

I would take this line of thinking a step further. The larger problem is the leftist expectation that politically animated, outcome oriented, Judges ought to be available as resources to legislate otherwise unobtainable social results. Look at the title of this thread. What kind of mentality would presume to “save the country” by proffering multiple unconstitutional assaults upon an effective, and independent, judiciary?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 10:17:03 PM by noel c. »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2020, 10:28:32 PM »
I would take this line of thinking a step further. The larger problem is the leftist expectation that politically animated, outcome oriented, Judges ought to be available as resources to legislate otherwise unobtainable social results. Look at the title of this thread. What kind of mentality would presume to “save the country” by proffering multiple unconstitutional assaults upon an effective, and independent, judiciary?

The thread title seems to be about how both parties might cooperate to salvage the current situation. I don't see anything in it inherently about unconstitutional assaults. What is unconstitutional about adjusting the size of the SC, or parties agrees on how to manage nominations? The question is not whether these ideas are an assault, but simply about whether they would work and still keep the spirit of the separation of powers. Since DonaldD's idea was ostensibly about avoid partisan political deadlocks I'd say it's in the correct spirit.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2020, 10:45:39 PM »
Fenring,

“Should Trump win, the confirmation process would go ahead, but if Biden wins, the Republicans would agree not to confirm ACB.  In return for the Republicans agreeing to this, the Democrats would agree to preserve the filibuster if they win the Senate.”

Omitting additional comment on the long-overdue acknowledgement that Harry Reid’s destruction of the judicial filibuster started this fur-ball of a fight; so long as Donald’s scenario remains wistful, there is no breach of constitutional protocol. Given that Amy Barrett has completed the extra-constitutional confirmation hearings, and has a clear path to her seat on the SCOTUS, in what world does derailing this nomination accord with constitutional process, or convey the “correct spirit”?

What, precisely, is being “salvaged”?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 10:49:18 PM by noel c. »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2020, 09:32:42 AM »
Live with it. Use it for fundraising and to gain control of House, Senate, and the WH. Then do the same thing right back. That's the solution, not upending institutions or trying to make deals with untrustworthy people.
Unfortunately "doing the same thing right back" just feeds into the disfunction.

Packing the courts with 'progressive' judges by ignoring a president's nominations for 2 years would be just as bad as what the Federalist society has done to the Republican party.

Of course, if the Democrats find themselves with control of the legislative and executive levers of government come January 20, they could choose the high road and simply accept the Republicans having stacked the courts; and it is possible that those courts will not overturn precedent in privacy rights, the ACA, and wouldn't override a new voting rights act among other things.  But if the courts do legislate from the bench as is feared, that would have direct and significant effects on real people's health and lives - and there should be a responsibility on the part of those governing to protect the rights, lives and freedoms of those governed.  It will be very difficult not to proactively protect those people in the short term, if for no other reason than not protecting them will mean an almost immediate backlash and loss of support from the people who will consider themselves as having been betrayed.

Doing nothing also has consequences.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2020, 10:01:23 AM »
Donald,

“Unfortunately ‘doing the same thing right back’ just feeds into the disfunction.”

Is this your official rejection of Harry’s “legislative urgency“ rationalization underpinning the destruction of the judicial appointment debate cloture rule?

But if the courts do legislate from the bench as is feared, that would have direct and significant effects on real people's health and lives... “

If you have adopted textualism in statutory interpretation, and originalism in constitutional interpretation, how could you possibly be threatened by Amy Barrett’s appointment to the Court?
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 10:07:10 AM by noel c. »

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2020, 10:51:39 AM »
Donald,

Never mind, I was reading you in an overly optimistic manner.

“Republicans having stacked the courts; and it is possible that those courts will not overturn precedent in privacy rights, the ACA... “

By “stacked”, you mean Trump successfully seating textualist/originalists into appellate court vacancies per Federalist Society recommendations.

By “legislating from the bench”, you do not mean following the intent, and wording of the law, but upholding “progressive” overlays upon the intent, and wording, of the law; ie. “legislating from the bench”. You are a stare decisis kind of guy, but only if the preserved “precedent” is judge-made law... specifically “progressive judges”. I cannot see how that approach could possibly “feed into the dysfunction“.

By “privacy rights”, and the “ACA“, you mean sustaining specific instances of judicial overreach in finding phantom constitutionality in patently unconstitutional results.

I stand corrected. You are right to fear ACB’s appointment.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2020, 10:52:16 AM »
Scalia's greatest success was in convincing conservatives - and maybe even himself - that he was consistent in his commitment to originalism and textualism, whereas he was simply not immune to ignoring his own philosophy when it was convenient to justify conservative results.  I doubt Barrett will be either.  She is also human, after all.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2020, 11:06:52 AM »
Donald,

“... whereas he (Scalia) was simply not immune to ignoring his own philosophy when it was convenient to justify conservative results.“

I realize that this may lead to a discursive tangent, but would you deign to cite any specifics regarding Scalia’s violation of principled jurisprudence?

I am also having difficulty with you basic argument. Are you now endorsing, or condemning, the more creative law-making philosophies of the left? It appears as though you are an enthusiast, unless, as you allege, the right adopts it.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2020, 11:24:53 AM »
Feel free to use Google and search for articles, reviews and opinions that you disagree with.  Then read them with the assumption (and this is the hard part) that your previous understanding was incorrect.

You don't need to actually change your mind, but you do need to park your previous assumptions at the door while trying to understand a foreign point of view.  There are many observations of where Scalia's ruling are inconsistent with his philosophy - whether that's a good or bad thing is irrelevant, whether they can be excused or rationalized away is another topic, but the observations of his inconsistencies are well documented.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2020, 11:51:43 AM »
I'm pretty sure we've discussed one such case here before. Possibly something to do with the Commerce Clause?

Here's a good question for prospective Supreme Court Justices: should we apply the Commerce Clause as written or as intended?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2020, 11:57:56 AM »
I realize that this may lead to a discursive tangent, but would you deign to cite any specifics regarding Scalia’s violation of principled jurisprudence?

One thing I remember, without having studied Scalia at length:

He claimed interracial marriages were protected by the "Equal Protection Clause", but he somehow failed to see that the exact same protections apply to same-sex marriages. By his support of DOMA, if he were to be consistent, he should have also conceded that Congress can indeed pass laws that refuse to recognize interracial marriage, or which give to the states the power to refuse to recognize such marriages from other states. He didn't have the balls to do that, of course.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2020, 12:00:34 PM »
Donald,

“Feel free to use Google and search for articles, reviews and opinions that you disagree with. Then read them with the assumption (and this is the hard part) that your previous understanding was incorrect.“

Do you really believe that I can do a better job of making you case than you can? Feel free to begin with the commerce clause.

“You don't need to actually change your mind, but you do need to park your previous assumptions at the door while trying to understand a foreign point of view.”

As a general principle of negotiating, that is excellent advice, but it is entirely unresponsive my critique of your position.

“There are many observations of where Scalia's ruling are inconsistent with his philosophy - whether that's a good or bad thing is irrelevant... “

If so, you should have no difficulty citing an example that you are willing to defend. More broadly, I disagree with your quip that “goodness or badness is irrelevant”, and so should you if your priority is that judges can, or should “not legislate from the bench”.

“... whether they can be excused or rationalized away is another topic, but the observations of his inconsistencies are well documented.“

Yes, so you have implied, however; you have neither supported your assertion’s factuality, nor it’s “excusability“. Beyond that, I have not heard your position regarding the ethical implications of leftist “outcome oriented” jurisprudence. Is it okay with you if conservative jurists employ a liberal judicial philosophy?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2020, 12:35:06 PM »
Talk of civil war comes from the Democrats. have you not heard the AntiFa military wing of the Democrat Party? The GOP never told people to corner their adversary in restaurants with their families and intimidate them and make their lives miserable. That is entirely on your side. All the evil comes from the Left - and they only project it onto the GOP and Trump.

Who were those guys arrested for plotting to kidnap and execute democratic governors?

BLM supporters and anarchists among a few other things.