Eventually they will and can increase the SC to 11, 13 or whatever needed.Yeap. A man who executed the filibuster of 79 court nominees by a single president, more than the whole in the history of the republic combined, and led an unprecedented obstruction to appointing a new SC judge for nearly 15 months, that guy.
I do hope when the Dems get the House, Senate and presidency back, they will pack the court with 3-4 new liberal justices vetted by TYT for shits and giggles.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Crap.
She's only just recovered from the robbery.I've just realised that Gorsuch looks like Happy Monday's Bez lived a life without narcotics.
Yeap. A man who executed the filibuster of 79 court nominees by a single president, more than the whole in the history of the republic combined, and led an unprecedented obstruction to appointing a new SC judge for nearly 15 months, that guy
I do hope when the Dems get the House, Senate and presidency back, they will pack the court with 3-4 new liberal justices vetted by TYT for shits and giggles.
A fairly one-sided view to just blame one party for all of that. The episode about Gorsuch was retaliation for blocking Garland. Garland was to some extend retaliation for democrats suspending the filibuster on lower-court nomination in 2013, while they blocked several of Bush’s candidates prviously. That was a reaction to how Bush was elected. You can probably trace this back even further.
The main issue is something entirely different so.
The writers of the US (and other) constitutions never envisioned the current role for this institution. We’d have to go at least 80-90 years back to see how we got here. In short: their role evolved quite a bit over time and nowadays they are central players in the political process. The highest court morphed effectively into a hybrid between judiciary and second legislator and gained influence. The whole process of nomination/mandate/term limit/check-balances is completely inappropriate given the vast powers of this institution.
The evolution of the SC follows the demand for technocratic governance/decision-making/arbitration in modern states. To be a bit dramatic: They are the philosopher kings of our time.
All the end-time talk about the republicans killing a politician norm is primarily political partisan anger that ignores this evolution.
The pretense that the Supreme Court is “neutral” and not political to its core is just false. We all understand how and why the ideology (and not the expertise) of the judges is so important: They don’t just “apply” laws, but interpret the law in ever changing ways. Their very subjective understanding of laws and regulations, which is deeply rooted in their ideological outlook, is more important than the written letter. Consequently, political shenanigans, games and power struggle are becoming key features in the process – especially in a polarizing political environment. If you have a problem with that, you’d need to reduce the legislative role of the SC. If you accept that part (and almost nobody would be willing to challenge that; certainly no democrats), you also have to accept that both parties will fight tooth and nail about getting “their guy” on the court. It is difficult to blame them for that, given that the balance of the SC can have a much bigger long-term impact than almost any individual law. They are essentially a super-legislator with minimal checks, that are elected for life.
We are where we are, but the outrage of the democratic leadership is deliberately missing the point.
^^^Not to mention the Constitution was not written with an openly hostile 2 party system in mind...
FFS, he looks horrible in that image, almost like a Mission Impossible inspired mask. Perhaps there are lizard humanoids on the planet.
Nailed it.
Jared 2 - 0 Bannon
I'm pretty sure George Washington himself was very wary of a party political system.
They didn't even want parties to exist, I think it was actually a pejorative at the time in fact. One reason of many as to why complete deification of the document (and originalism) are bizarre.
Bothsideism doesn't work here, because the one breaking norms are Republicans. You said we can trace it back further, yes, the conservative movement to ideologize the SC start as a backlash against the Warren Court for their progressive rulings, that court itself mostly appointed by a Republican president (although Eisenhower would most likely be a D/I in the present political climate)
There's no outrage here. If you follow this and the previous convo about pros and cons of filibusting Gorsuch, I was simply making the point that relying on the like of McConnell to suddenly abide by norms, hoping that they'd moderate their action is deluding yourself, and so did @Ubik.
Which isn't to say that what you said about the function of the SC and the need to limit their legislative power isn't correct, but an acknowledgment of the fact that there's no mythical land where judicial neutrality exists and both parties can work together to appoint fair minded justice. As such, Democrats will simply have to do what's logical for them if they want to exert any influence over the direction of the country, court packing if needed.
Last edited:
It works very well, because democrats literately changed a similar norm before, but it wasn't even my point. Both parties ideologized the court because they had to given the evolution of its role in the political system. Consequently political fights happen. Nobody - probably not the most deluded republicans - think that McConnell's action are anything but a political power-play. The GOP did what they did, because it benefited their side. Not because of any other motive. It was all about getting their guy approved. Thats pretty much what both parties did at least for the last 30 years. I don't see how suspending the filibuster is any significant change in the dynamic. It was the logical next step given the political dynamic of the process.
Oooooh my god, I've just seen the stuff about the Wendy's chicken nuggets guy being a Russian plant 
I'll simply have to disagree on this, because while it certainly applies to the present climate, the ideologisation of the court began with conservative activists pushing for conservative judges in an attempt to repeal Brown v. board of education, Roe v. Wade etc... Before that, the strife was between the court itself and the presidency or congress, such as FDR attempt to pack the court for his New Deal.
Would the court of the present day be less partisan if that conservative movement didn't originate? We can only speculate. But there's a parallel universe somewhere where the SC still largely spend its time restraining the constitutional power of the executive/legislative branch rather than being see-saw by two political parties to advance their agenda.
Who knows, maybe Gorsuch will be the next Souter.
All I know is that both sides have their own narrative and point to the other-side when it comes to who started the whole process of politicising the court in this way. I don't have the expertise or interest to decide who is right. My hunch is that the changing quality/quantity of laws and regulations in modern states are actually the driving factor for that, but that could be utter bollocks. I don't think that it really matters anyway, because both parties embraced this dynamic; they had incredible strong incentives to do so.
STINK FROM THE HEAD
The Trouble With Trump’s White House Is Donald Trump
If Bannon is cut loose, the old Washington adage of ‘better to have your enemy inside the tent pissing out’ will come into play.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...with-trump-s-white-house-is-donald-trump.html
I'm pretty certain someone had predicted this in the election thread.
This wasnt on the Generals front page, feck sake. TRUMPOUT!!
I didn't read it, but does it mention the nuclear bunker under that course Trump is so fond of?
http://www.thejournal.ie/donald-trump-appoints-neil-gorsuch-as-supreme-court-judge-3334106-Apr2017/
"Serve under our laws - not over them"
"Serve under our laws - not over them"
Jared 2 - 0 Bannon
Jared sounds a very powerful man. I read yesterday he has basically become "shadow Secretary of state".
He is insane. He really is. There is no way this idiot will remain in office - he will be gone by Xmas is my prediction.
Have you seen the tweet he retweeted just before making that one? Someone please post it. Narcissism at it's finest!
Feck me, what's tens of millions of dead Koreans (on both sides of the DMZ), possibly more in Japan and maybe even the West Coast of the US. He might be more unstable then any of the North Korean royalty.
"North Korea has said it will defend itself "by powerful force of arms" in response to the US deployment of a Navy strike group to the Korean peninsula."
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
Good morning to you too Donnie.
How do I embed tweets?
Trump re-tweeted this...
Trump re-tweeted this...
I used to laugh at jokes about him starting a war cause I thought they were was far-fetched.
I didn't take that tweet any more literally than I do his tweets about SNL, the failing NY Times, or Obama wiretapping him. They're all just a device to seize the narrative.
Surely he has people around him who realise (and are telling him) how ridiculous it is to openly discuss things like this over social media?
I feel like we're headed towards war on a global scale with him in charge.
I'm used to authors on Twitter retweeting praise as a (justifiable) form of promotion for their books...but not Presidents doing the same for f*cking airstrikes.
- Status