- This topic has 34 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The trump supporters are enraged that the democrats will use court packing to get the SC back to an even left wing/right wing number of justices by adding 2 more if Biden wins.
The republicans have used tricks to get the court to be biased to the right wing (6 to 3) by withholding a nomination from Obama and Trump nominating a SC justice during a pandemic and after a million Americans have already voted for President.
They didn’t even follow their own rule of not nominating a SC justice during an election year.Their indignation is the height of hypocrisy.
America benefits when the SC is not biased to one side and both sides can get a fair treatment.
Remember the President and the majority in the Senate are the same party. It is not the height of hypocrisy. Even if millions have voted early, it is still not election day.
Packing the Supreme Court will never happen. It’s literally Fox News propaganda from the Trumpkopf to deflect from the real issues that the American people face due to this current administration’s failures.
While I do not like the current administration’s Supreme Court pic, the president has the obligation to nominate someone and the senate should confirm or deny that candidate. What the GOP did in 2016 is morally reprehensible with Obama’s nominee.
I hope many wake up and realize that the GOP does not care about anyone except for the mega corporations, and vote this people out of office. I doubt that few ever reach the level of being a macher where the policies that the GOP puts forward really matter.
“Their indignation is the height of hypocrisy….”
I am constantly amazed at those who express surprise at politicians acting politically versus taking principled, consistent positions rooted in what is best for the public interest. Its just that the spineless Repubicans under Trump who have lost any iota of principle seem to now do it so frequently and flagrantly, it no longer seems to register on the hypocrisy meter. Romney tried today to summon his “inner Republican” voice but couldn’t go that far and seemed to say “a plague on both your houses” (although he seem to wish a bigger magafah on his Republican colleagues who he claimed were the worst offenders on his political toxicity meter.It’s not hypocrisy when everyone knows you’re exercising raw political power with a flimsy excuse. It’s disingenuous, but not really hypocritical. If Democrats controlled the senate right now, does anyone really think they would hold hearings, regardless of what happened in 2016. If Republicans had said then that they are not holding hearings on garland because they didn’t have to, and said now they were confirming Barrett because they could, they wouldn’t be hypocritical, they’d just be more honest.
As an aside, I seriously wonder if republicans will be happy with Barrett in 10 yrs, or even 6 weeks.
I am told by a Buddhist friend that Judge Barrett is really David Souter reincarnated, so I will withhold judgement.
>As an aside, I seriously wonder if republicans will be happy with Barrett in 10 yrs, or even 6 weeks.
Sure, she believes in notzri narishkeit and has no problem eliminating the barrier between church and state. The GOP loves that! Remember when they were all too happy to bring the notzri “rabbi” infront of the world as an example of Jews love of yoshke (ימח שמו) and they pretended that there was nothing wrong with using such a “rabbi” after the Pittsburgh shooting to honor the dead?
Any of you came from an accountant on Mayflower? If not, we should appreciate that we all were allowed into a country that stays a democracy for 200+ years with just a minor civil war in between, and gave us more rights and opportunities than other places where we came from. I don’t think it is fair to blame “sneaky Esav” for luring us into assimilation with freedom and acceptance – we need to figure out that challenge ourselves.
So, if this country stumbles it’s way through crazy politicians and theatrical selection of justices, let it be. Don’t argue with success. If you can contribute to make the country better – gezunte heig (after thinking it over first), but don’t get despaired. We, as a nation, have more historical insights than anyone else in this country, so stop being outraged at the sight of a politician doing something inappropriate.
re: The trump supporters are enraged that the democrats will use court packing to get the SC back.
I do find disturbing that Mr. Biden responds that he is not going to say what his position is. And Ms. Harris even said to Pence that she is going to answer the question and then continued to not answer.
In a healthier debate, they should have been asked the question multiple times after that so that voters have either an answer or it will become well known that they refuse to answer.
T1 -“Packing the Supreme Court will never happen. It’s literally Fox News propaganda from the Trumpkopf to deflect from the real issues that the American people face due to this current administration’s failures.”
Of Course they will! They said they would – AOC, Shumer, Pelosi, etc.
AOC is another Bernie Sanders’ Commy!
I wonder which country will be Judged Unfavorably More – Stalin Russia or the USA 2021 (if the DemonCrats win 2 out of 3 Branches)?!?It seems hat many here are missing the obvious. We once had government, and opposing political parties vying for the positions to control and bring their policies to fruition. Politics was the means to a goal – government. That has shifted. We now have politics as the ultimate goal, and the means to promote that is via government. In this new world, you do things because you can, not because they are correct, honest, moral, or for the public good. The impeachment folly and the Russia hoax happened because it began in the House with a Democrat majority. It was incorrect, dishonest, immoral, and diverted hundreds of hours of legislators’ time to the foolish escapade.
In reality, so much of Trump’s potential accomplishments were blocked by House Dems. Not because they were right, but because they could. Just look at anything Trump does or says. Never a supportive word, just consistent trashing. It’s not about governing. It’s about politics. And bipartisan promises have been wholly unfulfilled, with the bulk of resistance coming from the Dems.
Let’s not be blind to the role of party politics here. Far more important that doing one’s job.
Jackk –
1. The DemonCrats would have MILLIONS Dead!
2. Every Administration before Trump has Left a deficit.
3. Trump restored our Military, while Obama Depleted it!
I could go on & on, but I’m sick of All the Liberal Lies.I’d like to clear up some misconceptions.
A. Filling open seats is not court packing
B. This year is not unique. Vacancies have occurred 27 times
in an election year. 14 were confirmed, primarily when the
President and the Senate were in the same party
C. What goes around comes around. Senator Schumer told
President Bush ( when the Demicrats controlled the Senate)
not to bother submitting an applicant in Bush’s last year.
Bush’s father was told the same thing
D. Senator McConnel has LEGALLY facilitated the confirmation
of over 200 Federal judges , without any tricks but with the
help of a rule change implemented by his Democratic
predecessor Harry Reid that allowed confirmation
by a simple majority. Reid apparently never thought
that it could backfire if the Republicans retook the
Senate.McConnell warned Reid that
he was making a big mistake but Reid did it anyway and
made it possible for Trump to appoint so many judges.
E. Textual, conservative judges are biased but not liberal
judges?Trump with Dr. Atlas is advocating herd immunity where millions can die.
@RebEliezer, you are not being fair. Trump is advocating for trying anything possible while dealing with nameless civil servants that want to follow established rules. Half of the things that Trump proposed end up being useful. This is good risk taking statistically, but maybe not politically, where he can be easily blamed for everything. Mike-Kamala debate had a revealing example of such risk-taking that become easy political target: Pence reminded of foreign policy achievements – ISIS, embassy, Suleimani, that everyone said will lead to grave consequences. Kamala replied that Iranian “retaliated” by shooting missiles near US soldiers and Trump panned resulting health effects as “headache”.
Republicans didn’t use tricks. They didn’t confirm the communist judge that Obama appointed and voted in 2 Trump appointees, soon to be 3. This is called having a majority and running the government. Same trick that Biden used to block Bork.
1
“They didn’t confirm the communist judge that Obama appointed ”Except that isnt what happened.
Republicans didnt hold any hearings because they said “no nominations in an election year”
Now they changed their mind, because, by definition, Republicans are liars .
If they held a hearing and didn’t confirm him because he “was a communist judge” THAT would not be inconsistent (unless today they did confirm a “communist judge” )
but that isn’t what happened. Stop lying, you sound like a republican chas veshalom
1: That “communist” judge (Merit Garland) is about as consdervative as you are intelligent. He is universally respected across the political spectrum. Even the few Republicans who voted against his nomination to the D.C> Circuit claimed at the time they thought the D.C. Circuit had too many judges relative to its caseload and were not voting against him based on any concern over his qualifications.
Would you occasionally post something substantive rather than relying upon your limited Trumpian thesaurus..GH, you seem to suffer from a short memory span. What the Republicans are doing is what any party in power would do. Remember, Schumer didn’t care who Bush would have nominated had there been an opening, the Democrats were not going to have any hearings.
@ubiquitin >> Republicans didnt hold any hearings because they said “no nominations in an election year”
Dec 2016 letter from 11 Senators (R) to the Majority leader says simply that Constitution gives Senate their powers of consent and does not require them to schedule a vote. Thta is, Consitution let’s them do that and they will use their powers. They do say that such nomination before election did not happen from 1930s and did not happen with divided government from 1880s.So, this position is NOT inconsistent with voting when they want to. This is also NOT inconsistent with Ds planning to increase number of Justices. At the same time, declining to answer what they want do and declining to explain who will pay for several hundred Justices that we will have after a couple of rounds, is not smart strategy and may be the factor that costs Dems an election. They way cloth-wiped servers were to Hillary.
always
this wasn’t ancient history
So did they consent? We will never know because the issue never came up. Mcconell chose to ignore it. Never bringing the nominee to the senate for its “advice and consent”
please don’t rewrite history
Mcconell and Grasley wrote an oped explaining their position “McConnell and Grassley: Democrats shouldn’t rob voters of chance to replace Scalia”
At no point in their op ed did they mention this distinction they said simply
“Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. ”now they changed their mind
ubiquitin, thanks for the reference. I looked up that OpEd of Feb 18, 2016. Mcconell and Grasley make several arguments. First, legal argument that Art 2 Sec 2 grants the Senate power to provide or withhold consent.
Then, they give a political argument why they should wait, and a significant part of that argument is that Pres Obama’s being a lame duck whose policies were already rejected by voters in 2014. Wiki on 2014 elections uses the word “largest” 4 times for R- gains …. Part of that rejection means – in plain language – Senate is in R- hands and they have power to withhold consent. Then, they go with arguments similar to yours, quoting D-s, including Obama, Biden, Hillary, saying the opposite to what they say now – ein ledavar sof, of course.
I think their argument is not inconsistent with what they have now – R-s had losses in the House, but not in the Senate and, in practical terms, kept ability to grant their consent. And Trump is at the end of his first term, so even the “lame duck” part of the political argument does not apply.
I don’t see that this rises above general self-serving arguments in Congress on both sides. I think the future court packing part of the argument is more interesting.
“Part of that rejection means – in plain language – Senate is in R- hands and they have power to withhold consent”
Again, that’s not what happened. Mcconell didn’t even hold hearings. He didnt allow the senate to consent or reject. Mcconell isnt “the senate” he is but one of 100.
“. I think the future court packing part of the argument is more interesting”
Its not. It is 100% justifiable based on Republicans actions.
Simple question what is the republican view on holding confirmation hearings in an election year?
A. Hold them
B. Dont hold them
C. Do what you can changing the rules as you go.Right now Republicans opted for c. You should expect the dems to follow suit doing what they can to get ahead
@ubiquitin. >> Mcconell didn’t even hold hearings. He didnt allow the senate to consent or reject. Mcconell isnt “the senate” he is but one of 100.
We are not talking hasidut, just plain din: Senate has it’s own rules that conform to Constitution, and they followed those rules. Voters elect Senators, Senators make rules, they select Majority Leader according to the rules, and he acts within the rules. If you think, this was not consent, write to your Senator and suggest him to challenge.
re: packing. It is justifiable, it just carries much heavier political price than what R-s did, and it is also has unclear ending. If each party starts adding Justices, ein ledavar sof…
politically curious is that Biden can’t say what he plans to do. Today, he got so relaxed after ducking softballs, that he admitted that voters deserve to know his plans and he is going to announce it some time between confirmation and election. Maybe he is tricking voters to watch him talking.
Recap for those who did not watch: Biden plans to save “barrels of energy”, which was followed by admitting that Trump achieved peace between [pause] Israel [could not name the second party to peace] and a reference to recent event with “a guy with the knife” or something like that. I don’t think he wants to court the pack.
Always
Simple question what is the republican view on holding confirmation hearings in an election year?
A. Hold them
B. Dont hold them
C. Do what you can changing the rules as you go.“We are not talking hasidut, just plain din: …”
I’m not saying what Mcconell did was illegal. but again it cant’ work both ways. If all that matters is “din” then there is no reason not to pack the court . Which you grant “re: packing. It is justifiable,”
as to whther it carries a heavier political price. you are probably right, time will tell (though obviously thats why he is not giving a straight answer)I understand their position – Senate can hold hearings if they want to. I think this is your (C).
As they did not vote before 2016, the voters were free to object to that and elect (even) more Democrats. This is what Senate 6 year terms are for – they are subject to pressure, but not fully so.what is your view on the updated Biden’s position on packing – he will tell us some time before election. That is, he can’t say he will not to lose one group of voters, he cannot tell us he won’t not to lose another group and, well, he apparently cannot say nothing as he is losing a third group …
maybe we can find his positions on Hunter’s Mac?Jack, they did not want to change the number of justices, just delay an appointment a bit. On the other hand, the Democrats said that Obama, who was a lame duck, should be allowed to appoint someone and are now saying the opposite about Trump, who might just be re-elected.
always
what is your view on the updated Biden’s position on packing – he will tell us some time before election. That is, he can’t say he will not to lose one group of voters, he cannot tell us he won’t not to lose another group and, well, he apparently cannot say nothing as he is losing a third group …
maybe we can find his positions on Hunter’s Mac?Love his position.
I personally hope we will pack the court. However as it would scare some people away, I dont want him to lose votes over it. And I dont feel strongly enough about it that his not willing to pack the court would make me vote against him (hard to imagine any such person)
So not saying anything is the perfect strategy.Avi
No the democrats are being (more) consistent. Their position is simply: follow precedent
in 2016 the precedent was to nominate and hold hearings even in an election year.
Then it changed that we no longer do that.
So Democrats say ok, fine follow the new precedentRepublican’s are now saying No we changed outr minds again, “Do what you can changing the rules as you go.”( my choice C above, As always grants) Democrats will know once again follow this precedent Ok do what yu want to get ahead, this includes court packing.
>> I personally hope we will pack the court. However as it would scare some people away, I dont want him to lose votes over it.
So, you are not above manipulating voters if needed, and you are not really outraged by R- senate, you just using it as a good talking point. I don’t think this is a great place to get extra votes for your candidate, I would prefer an intellectual discussion instead. So, to turn there, here are some thoughts. Not knowing much about the topic, I would appreciate corrections:
what is it about R- and D- judges? beyond political preferences, this seems to be an argument between “originalists” and “live constitution”. We have, l’havdil, similar attitudes. One seems to be, ironically, between teacher and student: R’ Eliezer saying that he only taught what he heard from his teachers, and R’ Akiva – the only one who ask R “Eliezer everything about magical cucumbers – who claimed that if he were in the time of death penalty, he found find all kind of excuses to exempt everyone.
Of course, this connection is not a proof of anything, as it matters what you are interpreting. Discussing why we should or should not expand on Hashem’s work is different from reasons to update a document written by a committee.
Back to the US. Originalists are treated currently as stubborn outliers who try to reach out back to outdated time, but of course they were there first, before the mahloket started. It seems that “living” idea corresponds to progressive era when it looked like new scientific methods can drastically improve society, even before population realizes “what is good for them”. This looks like a milder version of socialism that took over Eurasia. There is here somewhat primitive (from current point of view) idea that founders knew static science, like mechanics, and now we (progressives) learned wonderful new things like biology, evolution, etc and this analogy can be applied to social sphere.
I think Jews would more naturally agree with strict contractual view (we do often even interpret Brit with Hashem as a binding contract) – Constitution is a binding document that states signed, and you are welcome to update it via amendment process, allowing original signers, states, to exercise their rights as originally agreed upon. you are also welcome to change the whole process, again, via a new Constitution. With this line of thinking, it is unclear why we need “living” constitution. I am not treating fairly here (1) how expansive to treat certain terms and (2) what to do when there seems to be an intolerable injustice. Both of these issues need to be addressed, but I think they are overshadowed by liberal overreach, trying to pass anything they can through the courts when Courts were liberal.
There are several tricks – appointment of biased judges and court packing – to affect Supreme Court decisions. There is one democratic method method – amend the constitution as authorized by its terms. Right wing unhappiness with the Supreme Court goes back to the school desegregation decision of 1954, and continued with the decisions upholding rights of criminals, prohibiting the death penalty, recognizing a right to birth control, and rights against gender discrimination.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I would hope that supporters of abortion rights seek to amend the constitution. It takes a long time, takes super-majorities, and lots of money to drive the campaign for the amendment, but I think it could be done. Messing with the court itself, using political tricks, hurts the court and hurts democracy.
huju >> Right wing unhappiness with the Supreme Court goes back to the school desegregation decision of 1954,
Maybe to at least, FDR’s bending Supreme Court to his will in 1930s? Probably even earlier in progressive era.
Always
“So, you are not above manipulating voters if needed, ”
You mean like encouraging chants of “lock her up” or “MExico will pay for that wall” when obviously neither will happen?
I’ve learned to live with it. thats politics today. So be it, you want Democrats to be the better ones and stop? pass.
And nobody is being manipulated. If having a candidate who promises he wont pack the court is important to you. Then don’t vote biden. thats fine.
“and you are not really outraged by R- senate,”
I am, but outrage doesnt mean, I dont want the democrats to respond in kind. Im am outraged that Republ;icans are changing their tune to “steal” a seat. BUT once it happens it is fine for the other team to do the sam.
Say we play a gam, you get caught cheating, I say “hey dotn cheat, that isnt fair” and you cheat anyway. Then next time I cheat, it is silly for you to say “Ha you dont mind cheating” I do! but if you cheat I will do the same
” I don’t think this is a great place to get extra votes for your candidate,”
not looking to.
“what is it about R- and D- judges? beyond political preferences, this seems to be an argument between “originalists” and “live constitution”.”
THIS is an empty talking point. (Not blaming it on you, people have been saying it for years) For example Obviously “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” did not include the internet. Yet nobody (to the best of my knowledge) argues it should be interpreted as originally intended and doesn’t imply to typed speech online. The only question is how broadly to interpret the constitution. does freedom of speech/the press apply to internet speech? Does it apply to campaign finance? NOBODY says it ONLY applies to spoken word and literal press.
So in reality originalists ARE a bit “stubborn outliers who try to reach out back to outdated time” whol like liberal justices are motivated by their biases. They DO expand the constitution when it suits them. Perhaps a better example is bush V Gore when the Equal protection clause was expanded to suit the “originalists” desire. and so much for States rights…
As for the Torah.
Lehavdil elef alfei havdolos. Torah lechol hadeos is “living” As even Justice Scalia noted “A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” 8 e Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22, pp. 76-77 (I. Epstein ed. 1935). (footnote omitted). Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not.” (Capperton V A.T. Massey)ubiquitin.
So, we agree that politicians are playing their games to convince voters. It is part of the price we are paying for giving everyone a right to vote. There is certain wisdom in the community, but to a limit.As to “live” constitution, I like the “contract” argument. I do not see your reply to that. If we have a doubt, we can always go to voters and to the States and let them clarify. This may be a hard path during social emergencies – civil war, KKK, etc but it is a feasible process. US even has two amendments on drinking.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.