The Republican Primary is going to be insane.

[Plasmodium]

33 minutes ago, mspart said:

No, I don't think that is illegal.   According to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1.  The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  I think it is unnecessary and not fruitful to increase the number.   What's to stop it from becoming a 50 justice panel, or 1000 justice panel when certain political parties feel put upon?   It loses credibility as an institution at that point.  I'm sure you think it already has but adding justices is not the answer to that issue. 

Somehow you guys think that a liberal court is just great.   You've always had one so you don't know any different.  But you think a conservative court is and should be illegal.  You are the guys that are unreasonable here.   Conservatives have been waiting for decades for the opportunity now present and you guys figured it would never happen.   Now you are panicking.   Classic case of giving crap and telling the recipient to be grateful, but not taking it.  

mspart

I don't care how big the court is. What is the difference?

I haven't seen anybody label packing as illegal.  I sure haven't.  Let's not mince words, it is party over country.  Those are the rules McConnell personally defined.  You can't honestly expect only one side to act properly and put country before party 

[mspart]

16 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Wait for a favorable president.

 

On 3/21/2023 at 1:38 PM, Plasmodium said:

Don't forget to pack the court and reverse some decisions.

So you are not arguing to increase the number of justices like the Senate has been doing?

https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-democrats-plan-to-pack-the-supreme-court

Last week, Democrats in the Senate and House introduced legislation to pack the Supreme Court by adding four new justices. This marks a dramatic change.

I find this very difficult to believe your first statement quoted above.   Your post on 3/21 does not indicate a willingness to wait.   Unfortunately, Congress per the Constitution would have to make this happen.   House is in R territory.   Not happening for another 2 years at least.   You are backtracking now.   Perhaps not, but it is very hard to reconcile the above two statements of yours.  

mspart

[Plasmodium]

Just now, mspart said:

 

So you are not arguing to increase the number of justices like the Senate has been doing?

https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-democrats-plan-to-pack-the-supreme-court

Last week, Democrats in the Senate and House introduced legislation to pack the Supreme Court by adding four new justices. This marks a dramatic change.

I find this very difficult to believe your first statement quoted above.   Your post on 3/21 does not indicate a willingness to wait.   Unfortunately, Congress per the Constitution would have to make this happen.   House is in R territory.   Not happening for another 2 years at least.   You are backtracking now.   Perhaps not, but it is very hard to reconcile the above two statements of yours.  

mspart

Who said I'm not?  That is exactly what I'm arguing.  I'm not arguing they are able or willing to do so.

[mspart]

6 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I don't care how big the court is. What is the difference?

I haven't seen anybody label packing as illegal.  I sure haven't.  Let's not mince words, it is party over country.  Those are the rules McConnell personally defined.  You can't honestly expect only one side to act properly and put country before party 

I think you know the difference Plasi.  

Who here anywhere said that packing was illegal?   No one that I know of.   That is a spin argument you guys are putting out there to get away from the actual topic. 

As to your last statement, I wish both sides would play by the same rules.   But it is apparent that this is not the case for a majority of Ds.   D's want all the advantages of power even when they are not in power.  

mspart

[mspart]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Who said I'm not?  That is exactly what I'm arguing.  I'm not arguing they are able or willing to do so.

You have tried to say that packing the court does not mean increasing the number.   But now you admit that is exactly what you want to do.   Dishonesty in argument is not a good look. 

mspart

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

You have tried to say that packing the court does not mean increasing the number.   But now you admit that is exactly what you want to do.   Dishonesty in argument is not a good look. 

mspart

Nothing to admit.  

I said McConnell packed the court.  He did so without confirming additional justices.  I also said I want democrats to pack the court. That means they need to add justices.  There are no inconsistencies.

[Plasmodium]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

I think you know the difference Plasi.  

Who here anywhere said that packing was illegal?   No one that I know of.   That is a spin argument you guys are putting out there to get away from the actual topic. 

As to your last statement, I wish both sides would play by the same rules.   But it is apparent that this is not the case for a majority of Ds.   D's want all the advantages of power even when they are not in power.  

mspart

Packing is packing.  No difference.  Which rules do you want to play by?

[Mike Parrish]

43 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Nothing to admit.  

I said McConnell packed the court.  He did so without confirming additional justices.  I also said I want democrats to pack the court. That means they need to add justices.  There are no inconsistencies.

Keep in mind that Thomas and Alito are unlikely to last through Biden's second term.

[Mike Parrish]

Trump goes on the attack
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110069073612714535
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110069072553902451
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110069067679243105
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110069066809654519
 

Looks like the gloves are off.

[Plasmodium]

13 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Keep in mind that Thomas and Alito are unlikely to last through Biden's second term.

I am unable to imagine a scenario in which the contemporary GOP wouldn't pack the court at first opportunity.  Therefore, the Democrats are obligated to pack the court if and when the opportunity presents itself.

[VakAttack]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

No, I don't think that is illegal.   According to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1.  The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  I think it is unnecessary and not fruitful to increase the number.   What's to stop it from becoming a 50 justice panel, or 1000 justice panel when certain political parties feel put upon?   It loses credibility as an institution at that point.  I'm sure you think it already has but adding justices is not the answer to that issue. 

Somehow you guys think that a liberal court is just great.   You've always had one so you don't know any different.  But you think a conservative court is and should be illegal.  You are the guys that are unreasonable here.   Conservatives have been waiting for decades for the opportunity now present and you guys figured it would never happen.   Now you are panicking.   Classic case of giving crap and telling the recipient to be grateful, but not taking it.  

mspart

Spoiler alert,  dude, SCOTUS has not always been 9 justices, and in fact that's not even the highest number is ever been.

 

You're talking about this line it's s strategy game that the Republicans won, and not team people's lives. But in that vein, expanding the Court is also a possible move within the political "game" you're venerating.  Just like Democrats aren't "entitled" to a majority, Republicans aren't entitled to have the Court only be 9.

McConnell gamed the system, you're happy about it, and are simulatenously sputtering that some are encouraging Democrats to game the system as well.  Classic hypocrisy. 

[Bigbrog]

10 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Spoiler alert,  dude, SCOTUS has not always been 9 justices, and in fact that's not even the highest number is ever been.

 

You're talking about this line it's s strategy game that the Republicans won, and not team people's lives. But in that vein, expanding the Court is also a possible move within the political "game" you're venerating.  Just like Democrats aren't "entitled" to a majority, Republicans aren't entitled to have the Court only be 9.

McConnell gamed the system, you're happy about it, and are simulatenously sputtering that some are encouraging Democrats to game the system as well.  Classic hypocrisy. 

  You just used your own hypocrisy to try and show that someone else is being a hypocrite??  Wow...can't make this stuff up.

[VakAttack]

15 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

  You just used your own hypocrisy to try and show that someone else is being a hypocrite??  Wow...can't make this stuff up.

No.  I'm saying if one team is not to going to "play" (again, a "game" in name only, since this is actual human lives being affected here) then you either get swamped or you play by the new rules.  if you let your opponent dictate the rule changes, they will always win.  Nobody is advocating doing anything illegal, just "changing accepted norms", right?  It's great to be all "high minded", meanwhile, the minority party in this country is getting to rule with impunity with minoirty positions.

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

No.  I'm saying if one team is not to going to "play" (again, a "game" in name only, since this is actual human lives being affected here) then you either get swamped or you play by the new rules.  if you let your opponent dictate the rule changes, they will always win.  Nobody is advocating doing anything illegal, just "changing accepted norms", right?  It's great to be all "high minded", meanwhile, the minority party in this country is getting to rule with impunity with minoirty positions.

Agree with your last statement about the minority ruling the majority in this country.  But about court packing, I guess I don't see any sort of comparison in what the "R's" did in terms of the SCOTUS, they filled empty seats...did they maybe not follow "norms" of doing so with an outgoing president...sure...have no problem for them being critiqued or criticized for that, but it wasn't "against the rules"...it was part of the "game".  Creating more seats so that one party can have the majority is a totally different thing.  I guess me personally, one is way worse than the other.

[VakAttack]

40 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Agree with your last statement about the minority ruling the majority in this country.  But about court packing, I guess I don't see any sort of comparison in what the "R's" did in terms of the SCOTUS, they filled empty seats...did they maybe not follow "norms" of doing so with an outgoing president...sure...have no problem for them being critiqued or criticized for that, but it wasn't "against the rules"...it was part of the "game".  Creating more seats so that one party can have the majority is a totally different thing.  I guess me personally, one is way worse than the other.

Why is it different?

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Why is it different?

First way to understand that the two are different is to remove one's bipartisan glasses.  Second, there is a big difference replacing justices than creating seats to gain the majority.  The first is "normal" in the process of things and is just unfortunate timing for the other party (to me this is like the person who does a lay-up at the end of a basketball game when the game is already won instead of just running out the clock)...the other is one party purposely creating a majority (changing the rules of the basketball game until you win the game).  By the way, I don't think court packing will happen any time soon anyway so sort of a moot point.   

[VakAttack]

14 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

First way to understand that the two are different is to remove one's bipartisan glasses.  Second, there is a big difference replacing justices than creating seats to gain the majority.  The first is "normal" in the process of things and is just unfortunate timing for the other party (to me this is like the person who does a lay-up at the end of a basketball game when the game is already won instead of just running out the clock)...the other is one party purposely creating a majority (changing the rules of the basketball game until you win the game).  By the way, I don't think court packing will happen any time soon anyway so sort of a moot point.   

You're not really explaining WHY it's different.  You're telling me you just feel it's different.  The number of justices on the Supreme Court has has changed multiple times in it's history, going as high as ten.  So again, WHY is it different to exploit this rule vs. McConnell's exploiting of another rule?

[mspart]

32 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

You're not really explaining WHY it's different.  You're telling me you just feel it's different.  The number of justices on the Supreme Court has has changed multiple times in it's history, going as high as ten.  So again, WHY is it different to exploit this rule vs. McConnell's exploiting of another rule?

I'm not following your argument here.   Your last statement states "exploit this rule".   What do you mean by "this rule"?

Also, your last statement says, "McConnell's exploiting of another rule?"   What do you mean by "another rule"?

If you could respond to these questions, that would be great.

In addition, you are saying the court has been has high as 10 justices.   So that is precedent to go to 13 justices per the Senate Ds stated goal as noted earlier?   You know, they should not pussy foot around and just go straight for 21 - Get 'er done!!

mspart

[VakAttack]

12 minutes ago, mspart said:

I'm not following your argument here.   Your last statement states "exploit this rule".   What do you mean by "this rule"?

Also, your last statement says, "McConnell's exploiting of another rule?"   What do you mean by "another rule"?

If you could respond to these questions, that would be great.

In addition, you are saying the court has been has high as 10 justices.   So that is precedent to go to 13 justices per the Senate Ds stated goal as noted earlier?   You know, they should not pussy foot around and just go straight for 21 - Get 'er done!!

mspart

First rule:  It is perfectly allowable for the Ds to expand the court, there is no law stopping it.  It is only inertia that keeps the court at 9 Justices now, there is no law proscribing that, no evidence that 9 is some magical number.

Second rule: McConnell refusing to vote on Obama's nomination for a SCOTUS seat under made up logic about it being an election year, then fasttracking a Trump nomination in the very next election year, changing his logic.  Perfectly legal, ethically dubious.

Precedent just means something was established.  Technically, there's indications historically that SCOTUS Justice count should go along with the number of Circuit Courts at the federal level (which in this case would actually be 13), but that is, again, not proscribed anywhere by law.

[Bigbrog]

13 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

First rule:  It is perfectly allowable for the Ds to expand the court, there is no law stopping it.  It is only inertia that keeps the court at 9 Justices now, there is no law proscribing that, no evidence that 9 is some magical number.

Second rule: McConnell refusing to vote on Obama's nomination for a SCOTUS seat under made up logic about it being an election year, then fasttracking a Trump nomination in the very next election year, changing his logic.  Perfectly legal, ethically dubious.

Precedent just means something was established.  Technically, there's indications historically that SCOTUS Justice count should go along with the number of Circuit Courts at the federal level (which in this case would actually be 13), but that is, again, not proscribed anywhere by law.

AKA...whatever the D's do = Good!  Whatever the R's do = Bad!  Got it!

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

AKA...whatever the D's do = Good!  Whatever the R's do = Bad!  Got it!

You can keep trying to change what I'm saying all you want, that's fine.  I never said any of that.

Lets just put it here:  if the Republicans just confirm Merrick garland, the very milquetoast centrist judge who was also highly qualified, we're not here.  They didn't.  Legal, but shitty.  It's a gaming of the system.  If one side is going to game the system, you're foolish to try to play by rules the other side is refusing to follow.  That doesn't mean I think the expansion of the court is not shitty.

[Bigbrog]

6 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

You can keep trying to change what I'm saying all you want, that's fine.  I never said any of that.

Lets just put it here:  if the Republicans just confirm Merrick garland, the very milquetoast centrist judge who was also highly qualified, we're not here.  They didn't.  Legal, but shitty.  It's a gaming of the system.  If one side is going to game the system, you're foolish to try to play by rules the other side is refusing to follow.  That doesn't mean I think the expansion of the court is not shitty.

The issue here is that both sides do the same stuff...sometimes I think what the D's do is "worse" and sometimes I think what the R's do is "worse"...in this case I think what the D's want to do is "worse", that's my opinion and I gave my reasons why...my mistake for thinking you were saying what the R's did was bad and what the D's want to do is okay.

[VakAttack]

11 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

The issue here is that both sides do the same stuff...sometimes I think what the D's do is "worse" and sometimes I think what the R's do is "worse"...in this case I think what the D's want to do is "worse", that's my opinion and I gave my reasons why...my mistake for thinking you were saying what the R's did was bad and what the D's want to do is okay.

Here's why I disagree:  under the normal course of business, we would have had one Democrat nominated justice (Garland) and two Republican nominated justice (I would guess it would have been Gorsuch and Coney Barrett).  Instead, the Republicans "stole" one.  Expansion of the court is the Democrats only move to take that power back.  In a governmental apparatuses that used to be held to "norms", that's no longer the case, and if one side isn't going to abide by norms, the other side shouldn't be abiding by those norms that the first side is flouting, otherwise the second side will jsut get trampled.

It's made worse by the fact that Republicans are, as of now, a minority party within the population, and they're governing w/ significant minority policies, like their stances on abortion, etc.  These are policies that don't even have full-throated support WITHIN their party, let alone throughout the country.  Another example:  registration for gun owners.  The most hardcore Republican I know, one of my best friends, is adamant that people should have to register their guns and that it should be treated similar to cars and driver's licenses.  I'm talking a guy at the shooting range every couple of weeks.  He swears his range buddies all feel the same way.  I can't speak for them, I'm only at the range occasionally.  I know the cops I deal with in my job (I'm a Public Defender) all feel that way, too.  And yet, right now, the governor of my state is pushing to remove requirements for even carrying a concealed firearm, let alone firearm ownership at all.  The Republicans, of whom I was until very recently a registered member (although, to be fair, that was more from laziness, I was the definition of a RINO for the last several years and am now NPA) seem to be controlled by a very loud minority within their own party.

[Bigbrog]

I see your point, but the SCOTUS isn't governing the country being that R's are the minority in the congress.  Here goes a can of worms but you are the one using it to try and make a point...which is incorrect in its intent...first, the SCOTUS abortion ruling isn't a ruling on legality of abortion.  It was a ruling on legality of who makes the laws around abortion...ie., that the decision should be made at the state level.  Hence, each state may have R's as the minority, or D's as the minority, and vice versa...those states are the ones governing abortion.  It is factual wrong to say the SCOTUS banned abortion, or made them illegal...I'd figure you would have known that being a lawyer and all.  And the fraction between the R's on the supreme court on abortion is probably based on their personal believes about abortion, but had to make the correct constitutional decision in regards to the legality of Roe v Wade.  Just like guns I personally think there needs to be some regulations on abortion, but not blanketly illegal, nor blanketly legal.  Just my opinion.

Anyway, agree to disagree on the topic of court packing...everyone has their reasons of why they think what the R's did was bad, or what the D's want to do is bad.  I apologize for putting you in the bucket of blind partisan people like a few on here.

Sorry...I re-read what you wrote...if you weren't saying that the SCOTUS was governing my apologies.  Hard to multitask while at work...ha  But I don't think overall the R's are a minority in this country...quite the opposite at the state level. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Bigbrog

[mspart]

3 hours ago, VakAttack said:

First rule:  It is perfectly allowable for the Ds to expand the court, there is no law stopping it.  It is only inertia that keeps the court at 9 Justices now, there is no law proscribing that, no evidence that 9 is some magical number.

Second rule: McConnell refusing to vote on Obama's nomination for a SCOTUS seat under made up logic about it being an election year, then fasttracking a Trump nomination in the very next election year, changing his logic.  Perfectly legal, ethically dubious.

Precedent just means something was established.  Technically, there's indications historically that SCOTUS Justice count should go along with the number of Circuit Courts at the federal level (which in this case would actually be 13), but that is, again, not proscribed anywhere by law.

OK, thank you for the explanation.  

1.  It is perfectly allowable for Ds to expand the court if they can get that done.   But it is not good optics.   It is necessarily an admission that your point of view is not as mainstream as  you thought so you will rig the game to get your way.   That's how I see it.   Like the kid that doesn't get his way and takes his ball home.  Same juvenile reasoning. 

2.  The Constitution says the President has the power to nominate justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate.   That does not mean that the Senate is bound to consent to the choice.   Ds made that quite clear with Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh.  Successful and declining the first, not on the other two though they tried mightily.  The majority Senate, by remaining silent, did their Constitutional duty of providing advise and consent.   In the latter case, the hearings were rapid I agree, but were just. 

Again, you want it both ways.   You don't get that in life or in politics.   But people still expect it.   Regardless, McConnell played the hand dealt to him.   It doesn't matter if you like or don't like Schumer, he would have done the same thing.   AND, you would not complain about it, far from it.   You would applaud.   Thus showing that you are not idealistic in this matter, but boldly and partisanly political.  To put it plainly, McConnell's move was wrong.  Schumer, if he did the same, would be valiantly and vociferously validated.  For you, it is not that it was done that is the problem, but who did it.  That is not a very objective way to look at this. 

mspart