• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

Conservative

Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
134,496
Reaction score
14,621
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The court wouldn't be the way it is today if Mitch McConnell did not hold a seat hostage to give it to a conservative judge that was not appointed by Obama.
So, you know what, you can take your "radical liberalism gone crazy" and be off with your bad self.
 
Pound4abrown said:
The court wouldn't be the way it is today if Mitch McConnell did not hold a seat hostage to give it to a conservative judge that was not appointed by Obama.
So, you know what, you can take your "radical liberalism gone crazy" and be off with your bad self.
Click to expand...

Give me a fricken break, that is nothing more than a bull**** argument that doesn't address the real issue of Democrats wanted judicial activists on the Court. The 9 Justices worked quite well the decades when the Democrats controlled the House and the Congress. When are you going to realize that liberalism is a disease and not the foundation upon which this country was built?
 
Reminds me of FDR's threats to pack the court in order to prevent them from striking down parts of his fascist new deal. It's the same with all this talk about abolishing the electoral college. When the left can't win by the rules the solution is always to change the rules rather than concede that their ideas are just terrible.
 
Conservative said:
When are you going to realize that liberalism is a disease and not the foundation upon which this country was built?
Click to expand...



cheermale8.jpg




When someone is that partisan, it's a cover for something.
 
Pound4abrown said:
The court wouldn't be the way it is today if Mitch McConnell did not hold a seat hostage to give it to a conservative judge that was not appointed by Obama.
So, you know what, you can take your "radical liberalism gone crazy" and be off with your bad self.
Click to expand...

No judge Obama wanted would have passed through the senate, even you should have known that. The fact that McConnell would not even bring it
up in the senate merely saved a good deal of wasted time.
 
If the court is just going to be used as an arm of the GOP, a tool to keep power because they cannot win majorities anymore, then it will need reform. It must reflect the spirit of the constitution and one would hope the values of the majority, not the vote-suppressing, power-grabbing influence of old, rich, white oligarchs.
 
Or one could just download and read the actual BRIEF and dispense with Fox News' coverage.

PDF link

The rationale for this long-settled principle issimple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v.Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J.,dissenting).
“It can be tempting for judges to confuse[their] own preferences with the requirements of thelaw,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomesfrom the bench.
But a judge “is not a knight-errant,roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beautyor of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature ofthe Judicial Process 141 (Yale Univ. Press 1921).Accordingly, justiciability doctrines, such as standingand mootness, have evolved to serve as an “apoliticallimitation on judicial power,” confining the courts totheir constitutionally prescribed lane.
John G.Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing,42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993).
In short, courts donot undertake political “projects.” Or at least theyshould not.
Click to expand...
 
uptower said:
If the court is just going to be used as an arm of the GOP, a tool to keep power because they cannot win majorities anymore, then it will need reform. It must reflect the spirit of the constitution and one would hope the values of the majority, not the vote-suppressing, power-grabbing influence of old, rich, white oligarchs.
Click to expand...

So was the Court the arm of the Democratic Party when it was predominately run by Democrat appointed Justices?
 
uptower said:
If the court is just going to be used as an arm of the GOP, a tool to keep power because they cannot win majorities anymore, then it will need reform. It must reflect the spirit of the constitution and one would hope the values of the majority, not the vote-suppressing, power-grabbing influence of old, rich, white oligarchs.
Click to expand...

Upholding The Constitution is the court's soul purpose. It doesn't exist to do as the majority wishes.
 
uptower said:
If the court is just going to be used as an arm of the GOP, a tool to keep power because they cannot win majorities anymore, then it will need reform. It must reflect the spirit of the constitution and one would hope the values of the majority, not the vote-suppressing, power-grabbing influence of old, rich, white oligarchs.
Click to expand...

Is your argument that our Constitution was composed and ratified to always represent the will of the majority, uptower? Because by every indication, historical, legal and practical, it seems that it was made to safeguard against the will of the majority. Only broad consensus can overcome its many checks and balances, not simple majority.
 
Conservative said:
So was the Court the arm of the Democratic Party when it was predominately run by Democrat appointed Justices?
Click to expand...

Not unless it sought to strip the voting rights of opponents and protect power of the incumbents. Has it done that since the Voting Rights Act?
 
Well it is failing at that by allowing voter suppression and gerrymandering for a start
 
uptower said:
because they cannot win majorities anymore, then it will need reform. It must reflect the spirit of the constitution and one would hope the values of the majority,
Click to expand...

Majority rule, aka democracy, is not mentioned once in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
 
Felis Leo said:
Is your argument that our Constitution was composed and ratified to always represent the will of the majority, uptower? Because by every indication, historical, legal and practical, it seems that it was made to safeguard against the will of the majority. Only broad consensus can overcome its many checks and balances, not simple majority.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are correct that 'majority' is not the word. Broad consensus is more apt.

In its interpretation of the constitution SCOTUS must also consider a broad consensus, particularly where the people want more freedom for everyone not less.

It is not doing that in some of its current decisions, particularly where it allows states to undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That is purely to protect white rule in those states.
 
Last edited:
"The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
Click to expand...
Would it be fair of me to point out that what these Democrats are saying with this action is that politics should not influence the court but Democratic politicians can?
 
aociswundumho said:
Majority rule, aka democracy, is not mentioned once in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

Good, all hail King Donald I then ;)

Actually in its spirit and many judicial interpretations since it does consider a broad consensus, which Leo pointed out is a much better word to describe what I'm getting at than a simple majority.
 
uptower said:
Well it is failing at that by allowing voter suppression and gerrymandering for a start
Click to expand...


There is no voter suppression and gerrymandering has benefited both parties at various times for god knows how many years now.
The dems are only whining because they can't rig all the gerrymandering in their favour.
 
Barnacle said:
There is no voter suppression and gerrymandering has benefited both parties at various times for god knows how many years now.
The dems are only whining because they can't rig all the gerrymandering in their favour.
Click to expand...

Admittedly yes the GOP is better at gerrymandering. And through unnecessary roll purges, new ID requirements, closing poling station, challenging votes, and restricting voting for convicted felons and hanging around polling stations in Multicam with AR-15s, yes the GOP and their right-wing surrogates are suppressing the vote.
 
uptower said:
Not unless it sought to strip the voting rights of opponents and protect power of the incumbents. Has it done that since the Voting Rights Act?
Click to expand...

Got it, whatever your political view is determines the accuracy of court decisions. So why don't you tell us what court decisions that this court has made that really bothers you? It seems to be the Democrats that focus on R or D and not the Constitution
 
uptower said:
Admittedly yes the GOP is better at gerrymandering. And through unnecessary roll purges, new ID requirements, closing poling station, challenging votes, and restricting voting for convicted felons and hanging around polling stations in Multicam with AR-15s, yes the GOP and their right-wing surrogates are suppressing the vote.
Click to expand...

Why it is always someone else's fault or some "illegal" activity causing Democrats to lose elections and never the issues?
 
uptower said:
Admittedly yes the GOP is better at gerrymandering. And through unnecessary roll purges, new ID requirements, closing poling station, challenging votes, and restricting voting for convicted felons and hanging around polling stations in Multicam with AR-15s, yes the GOP and their right-wing surrogates are suppressing the vote.
Click to expand...


Good Lord, what a load of bull. :roll:
 
uptower said:
Well it is failing at that by allowing voter suppression and gerrymandering for a start
Click to expand...

Hell gutting the voting rights act was based on “oh trust me the south is no longer controlled by brutal white supremacy anymore! States rights and all that jazz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom