Packing the Supreme Court

Kal'Stang · Jul 15, 2018

MrWonka said:
First, it's not progressive law. It's THE law. Donald Trump is a criminal. He is already guilty of ten times what Richard Nixon was. It is absolutely unconscionable that he be allowed to name a judge to the supreme court when he clearly has no respect whatsoever for the law. Personally, I would prefer a constitutional amendment that would allow for the impeachment of any judge nominated by a president who has himself been impeached. As well as a retroactive reversal of any decisions in which judges nominated by that president tipped the balance of the court.

Barring that, however, yes packing the court with 2-3 new judges would absolutely be fair game given the actions of the Republican party in recent history. Not only in the way in which they blocked Obama's choice but the way in which they blocked any judicial nominee whatsoever for a good chunk of Obama's presidency. It's no different than the unwritten rules of baseball. I don't like them, but the reality is McConnell intentionally threw at our guy so he can expect to get beaned the next time he's up to bat as well.

My ****ing GOD! Do you not see what it is that you're suggesting? Let's say you get your amendment. What is to prevent politicians from trying to, and possibly succeeding the moment their party comes into power from impeaching a president and using that as an excuse to change the court in their favor just because SCOTUS ruled in a way that they didn't like? Like so many idiots say now a days, the senate can impeach the President for any reason that they want. So, what's to stop this from happening? And don't give me any crap about "it won't happen because yadda yadda yadda". If anything about Trumps election and what's happened since should have taught you is that there are unscrupulous people out there willing to do what ever it takes to get their way? We have all got to start coming to our senses and thinking with our brains for crying out loud.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
My ****ing GOD! Do you not see what it is that you're suggesting? Let's say you get your amendment. What is to prevent politicians from trying to, and possibly succeeding the moment their party comes into power from impeaching a president and using that as an excuse to change the court in their favor just because SCOTUS ruled in a way that they didn't like? Like so many idiots say now a days, the senate can impeach the President for any reason that they want. So, what's to stop this from happening? And don't give me any crap about "it won't happen because yadda yadda yadda". If anything about Trumps election and what's happened since should have taught you is that there are unscrupulous people out there willing to do what ever it takes to get their way? We have all got to start coming to our senses and thinking with our brains for crying out loud.

Regardless if we like it or not, the events you suspect could happen most likely will happen. Our partisan wars have gone over the edge and before too long our national politics will become what has happened in North Carolina.

If people are not aware, the Republicans in North Carolina have done everything they can to radically change the rules and laws to benefit their own party even when they lose elections. They have attempted to change the rules of the game so they can maintain power or at least hamstring Democrats who take over the governorship. And NC is a fairly split state between Dems and the GOP. It is ugly there and our national politics will soon mirror that.

this is an excellent article for those who may not be aware of the NC slide into political madness

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/magazine/is-north-carolina-the-future-of-american-politics.html

We took steps towards that with the partisan Clinton impeachment, Citizens United and the stolen Garland SC seat. A possible Trump impeachment will accelerate that development and will only engender more anger and partisan hatred. And yes, that is exactly what it is - outright hatred. Its only going to get worse once the new conservative SC okays extreme gerrymandering and all manner of voter suppression laws in the coming years.

So what you fear could happen, most likely will happen and that path has already been charted out for us.

Like it or not - that is our future.

Kal'Stang · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
Regardless if we like it or not, the events you suspect could happen most likely will happen. Our partisan wars have gone over the edge and before too long our national politics will become what has happened in North Carolina.

If people are not aware, the Republicans in North Carolina have done everything they can to radically change the rules and laws to benefit their own party even when they lose elections. They have attempted to change the rules of the game so they can maintain power or at least hamstring Democrats who take over the governorship. And NC is a fairly split state between Dems and the GOP. It is ugly there and our national politics will soon mirror that.

this is an excellent article for those who may not be aware of the NC slide into political madness

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/magazine/is-north-carolina-the-future-of-american-politics.html

We took steps towards that with the partisan Clinton impeachment, Citizens United and the stolen Garland SC seat. A possible Trump impeachment will accelerate that development and will only engender more anger and partisan hatred. And yes, that is exactly what it is - outright hatred. Its only going to get worse once the new conservative SC okays extreme gerrymandering and all manner of voter suppression laws in the coming years.

So what you fear could happen, most likely will happen and that path has already been charted out for us.

Like it or not - that is our future.

If it is our future your post shows exactly why it is our future. Do you honestly believe that Republicans are the only ones to blame here? That the Democrats are innocent? Or "less guilty" than the Republicans? Your post shows why it is in our future because it is partisan. You blame the Republicans completely without a single mention of Democrats and what they have done.

It takes two to tango Haymarket. Both sides are just as guilty as the other whether you wish to believe it or not. The partisan bickering. The partisan hate. Neither side is listening anymore. Both sides are securing ways to make sure that they either gain power, or lose as little of it as possible.

There is a way out of it. Our fate is not sealed just yet. All it takes to avoid it is to start listening to each other and acceptance of both sides ideas that are good. And yes...there are good ideas from the Republicans. And good ideas from the Democrats. That is why I am an Independent. Because I see the good, and the bad, in both sides. Without one, you will not have the other. Opposite sides of the same coin means more than just bad or good. More than just heads or tails. It is a combination of both to make one whole coin. That is the way it has always been, and it is the way it will always be.

People need to start realizing this.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
If it is our future your post shows exactly why it is our future. Do you honestly believe that Republicans are the only ones to blame here? That the Democrats are innocent? Or "less guilty" than the Republicans? Your post shows why it is in our future because it is partisan. You blame the Republicans completely without a single mention of Democrats and what they have done.

It takes two to tango Haymarket. Both sides are just as guilty as the other whether you wish to believe it or not. The partisan bickering. The partisan hate. Neither side is listening anymore. Both sides are securing ways to make sure that they either gain power, or lose as little of it as possible.

There is a way out of it. Our fate is not sealed just yet. All it takes to avoid it is to start listening to each other and acceptance of both sides ideas that are good. And yes...there are good ideas from the Republicans. And good ideas from the Democrats. That is why I am an Independent. Because I see the good, and the bad, in both sides. Without one, you will not have the other. Opposite sides of the same coin means more than just bad or good. More than just heads or tails. It is a combination of both to make one whole coin. That is the way it has always been, and it is the way it will always be.

People need to start realizing this.

I would strongly urge you to read the excellent book HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE by two Harvard political scientists Levitsky & Ziblatt. The scenario is not originally mine and they lay it out rather clearly and starkly.

I mentioned the partisan impeachment of Bill Clinton, the partisan Citizens United decision, the stealing of the Garland SC seat and all the antics of Trump as dividing the nation into camps of hate. If you think it takes two to tango as you said, could you make that case with specific examples of comparable and equal Democratic party actions?

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
I would strongly urge you to read the excellent book HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE by two Harvard political scientists Levitsky & Ziblatt. The scenario is not originally mine and they lay it out rather clearly and starkly.

I mentioned the partisan impeachment of Bill Clinton, the partisan Citizens United decision, the stealing of the Garland SC seat and all the antics of Trump as dividing the nation into camps of hate. If you think it takes two to tango as you said, could you make that case with specific examples of comparable and equal Democratic party actions?

The nature of democracies and human nature are the causes of why democracies die. That is why the Founders despised democracies and why the US is not a democracy.

Clinton's impeachment is the product of democracy.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
The nature of democracies and human nature are the causes of why democracies die. That is why the Founders despised democracies and why the US is not a democracy.

Clinton's impeachment is the product of democracy.

I see the old LEAVE IT TO BEAVER tv series:

Beaver: Gee whiz Wally, don't those two Harvard Political Science Professors know that the US is not a democracy?
Wally: Sure the do Beav, they also know that because of lots of changes over the last two centuries we are a Democratic Republic - and everybody knows that is what they mean.
Beaver: So why do some people pretend otherwise Wally... you know .. that the professors are stupid or something?
Wally: Its a right wing cause celebre Beav - they think they are making a point when they really are just being pedantic.
Beaver: Whats pedantic Wally?
Wally: Its a fancy word for being dishonest.
Beaver: Like Eddie Haskel is with Mom and Dad?
Wally: You got it Beav - just like Eddie.

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
I see the old LEAVE IT TO BEAVER tv series:

Beaver: Gee whiz Wally, don't those two Harvard Political Science Professors know that the US is not a democracy?
Wally: Sure the do Beav, they also know that because of lots of changes over the last two centuries we are a Democratic Republic - and everybody knows that is what they mean.
Beaver: So why do some people pretend otherwise Wally... you know .. that the professors are stupid or something?
Wally: Its a right wing cause celebre Beav - they think they are making a point when they really are just being pedantic.
Beaver: Whats pedantic Wally?
Wally: Its a fancy word for being dishonest.
Beaver: Like Eddie Haskel is with Mom and Dad?
Wally: You got it Beav - just like Eddie.

The nature of democracies and human nature are the causes of why democracies die. That is why the Founders despised democracies and why the US is not a democracy.

Clinton's impeachment is the product of democracy.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
The nature of democracies and human nature are the causes of why democracies die. That is why the Founders despised democracies and why the US is not a democracy.

Clinton's impeachment is the product of democracy.

You cannot have a democracy in a nation of millions of people. So you can let that go and try to move on. We have a democratic republic with a constitution. The Founders gave us that and we have expanded upon it keeping within the Constitutional mandate of a republican form of government.

What exactly about human nature are you referring to?

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
You cannot have a democracy in a nation of millions of people. So you can let that go and try to move on. We have a democratic republic with a constitution. The Founders gave us that and we have expanded upon it keeping within the Constitutional mandate of a republican form of government.

What exactly about human nature are you referring to?

You cannot have a Republican form of government with millions of people unless federalism is adhered.

The Founders did not give us a democratic republic with a constitution. Those words and concept were never part of the equation nor were they ever said.

The same human nature that lead to the downfall of empires and nature: power, control over other sovereigns and cultures, and decisiveness.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
You cannot have a Republican form of government with millions of people unless federalism is adhered.

We currently have a republican form of government with more than 300 million people.

The Founders did not give us a democratic republic with a constitution. Those words and concept were never part of the equation nor were they ever said.

The Founders gave us a framework and over the past 200 plus years we have worked with that framework and we now have a democratic republic. It matters not if those words ever appear in the original Constitution or not.

The same human nature that lead to the downfall of empires and nature: power, control over other sovereigns and cultures, and decisiveness

So democracies have no special weakness as it seems your indictment could apply to any form of government run by humans.

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
We currently have a republican form of government with more than 300 million people.

The Founders gave us a framework and over the past 200 plus years we have worked with that framework and we now have a democratic republic. It matters not if those words ever appear in the original Constitution or not.

So democracies have no special weakness as it seems your indictment could apply to any form of government run by humans.

We currently have a republican form of government with more than 300 million people.

And with the erosion of federalism, the country is coming apart at the seams and will not last.

The Founders gave us a framework and over the past 200 plus years we have worked with that framework and we now have a democratic republic. It matters not if those words ever appear in the original Constitution or not.

And with the erosion of federalism, the country is coming apart at the seams and will not last.

So democracies have no special weakness as it seems your indictment could apply to any form of government run by humans.

Democracies have the same weakness as the erosion of federalism: mob rule.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
And with the erosion of federalism, the country is coming apart at the seams and will not last.

And with the erosion of federalism, the country is coming apart at the seams and will not last.

Democracies have the same weakness as the erosion of federalism: mob rule.

We still have federalism. We have three branches of government and three levels of government and each of those respective levels has also three branches.

Do you even know what MOB RULE is? Because in the context you are using it it is really badly butchered. Or course, many on the right make that intentional mistake of calling a democratically based system of lawful government MOB RULE for pure hyperbolic use.

A nation of 300 million people cannot have democracy because of very practical reasons. Of course we have a democratic republic and we still have federalism all under a Constitution.

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
We still have federalism. We have three branches of government and three levels of government and each of those respective levels has also three branches.

Do you even know what MOB RULE is? Because in the context you are using it it is really badly butchered. Or course, many on the right make that intentional mistake of calling a democratically based system of lawful government MOB RULE for pure hyperbolic use.

A nation of 300 million people cannot have democracy because of very practical reasons. Of course we have a democratic republic and we still have federalism all under a Constitution.

I never stated that we did not have federalism. I stated that we have "erosion of federalism." The three branches of government are irrelevant to federalism. Our constitutional federalism is the explicit demarcation of federal and state power.

Democracy is mob rule.

We have very little federalism left. If federalism had not been, and continuing to be, usurped by the Supreme Court, which lacks the jurisdiction, the USA would not be divided today.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
I never stated that we did not have federalism. I stated that we have "erosion of federalism." The three branches of government are irrelevant to federalism. Our constitutional federalism is the explicit demarcation of federal and state power.

Democracy is mob rule.

We have very little federalism left. If federalism had not been, and continuing to be, usurped by the Supreme Court, which lacks the jurisdiction, the USA would not be divided today.

Democracy is NOT mob rule.

google DEFINE MOB RULE and you get this

mob rule
ˌmäb ˈro͞ol/
noun
control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about and badly misusing the term if you are talking about a form or style of government that you simply do not like because of your own ideology. That is NOT mob rule.

What evidence do you have that federalism is now working in the USA today?

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
Democracy is NOT mob rule.

google DEFINE MOB RULE and you get this

You clearly do not know what you are talking about and badly misusing the term if you are talking about a form or style of government that you simply do not like because of your own ideology. That is NOT mob rule.

What evidence do you have that federalism is now working in the USA today?

Democracy is ochlocratical; ochlocracy is mob rule; ochlocracy is antithetical to the rule of law under the Constitution.

Pick any five issues that are dividing the country and I will demonstrate why federalism would eliminate the problems, and why the breakdown of federalism caused them.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
Democracy is ochlocratical; ochlocracy is mob rule; ochlocracy is antithetical to the rule of law under the Constitution.

Pick any five issues that are dividing the country and I will demonstrate why federalism would eliminate the problems.

I gave you the definition of mob rule. It clearly is NOT what you are rambling about . Putting a fancy Latin name on it changes nothing.

Why are you dishonestly calling something a lie? A rightful government of the people by the people and for the people according to a Constitution and fair election is NOT mob rule no matter how many foreign titles you put on it.

I asked you for evidence that federalism is not working in the USA today. Do you have any?

You want me to pick five issues dividing people. Why put the onus on me when you are trying to dodge the issue of presenting your own evidence.

Tell you what- I will pick one that was before the Court recently and is being argued in states around the nation; gerrymandering of legislative districts to give advantage to a particular party to be able to negate the will of the people.

So take that and tell me what your idea of federalism does with that?

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
I gave you the definition of mob rule. It clearly is NOT what you are rambling about .

Why are you dishonestly calling something a lie?

You gave me a definition you found that agreed with your worldview.

Democracy, mob rule, ochlocracy, and tyranny of the majority are interchangeable and date to Classical and Hellenistic Greece. It was studied and rejected as a cancerious form of government by the Founders bevsude it is a failure. Edmund Burke summed democracy and mob rule succinctly: "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny."

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
I gave you the definition of mob rule. It clearly is NOT what you are rambling about . Putting a fancy Latin name on it changes nothing.

Why are you dishonestly calling something a lie? A rightful government of the people by the people and for the people according to a Constitution and fair election is NOT mob rule no matter how many foreign titles you put on it.

I asked you for evidence that federalism is not working in the USA today. Do you have any?

You want me to pick five issues dividing people. Why put the onus on me when you are trying to dodge the issue of presenting your own evidence.

Tell you what- I will pick one that was before the Court recently and is being argued in states around the nation; gerrymandering of legislative districts to give advantage to a particular party to be able to negate the will of the people.

So take that and tell me what your idea of federalism does with that?

Gerrymandering is a state's power and right. It is only divisive because of the breakdown of federalism. It is no one's business how districts are carved out in a state. It is not a national issue nor is it a federal issue. That is why the cases lost at the Supreme Court.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
You gave me a definition you found that agreed with your worldview."

I googled MOB RULE DEFINITION and gave you the first thing that came up.

Feel free to provide one from a normal source.

Democracy, mob rule, ochlocracy, and tyranny of the majority are interchangeable and date to Classical and Hellenistic Greece. It was studied and rejected as a cancerious form of government by the Founders bevsude it is a failure. Edmund Burke summed democracy and mob rule succinctly: "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny."

Not to Americans in the year 2018 who respect the principle of government of the people , by the people and for the people - they are not interchangeable and are a gross insult.

All you are doing is the usual right wing elitist nonsense of trying to justify a government of the few over the many. That is the tyranny of the minority.

Edmund Burke gave his elitist opinion based on a world that existed in the 1700's and served the ruling class. That world no longer exists - thankfully. His opinion is not worth the value of common crap which at least can has some utilitarian value as fertilizer.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
Gerrymandering is a state's power and right. It is only divisive because of the breakdown of federalism. It is no one's business how districts are carved out in a state. It is not a national issue nor is it a federal issue. That is why the cases lost at the Supreme Court.

So you have no problem with a political party creating districts in a state to intentionally and purposely produce election districts that run contrary to the normal vote in that state?

For example, if 55% of the people vote for a Democrat as their representative in the state House but the Republicans have set up districts so that 55% of the districts are reliably Republican - that is okay with you?

You don't see that as a problem?

How does your precious idea of federalism solve this problem as you claimed it would?

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
I googled MOB RULE DEFINITION and gave you the first thing that came up.

Feel free to provide one from a normal source.

Not to Americans in the year 2018 who respect the principle of government of the people , by the people and for the people - they are not interchangeable and are a gross insult.

All you are doing is the usual right wing elitist nonsense of trying to justify a government of the few over the many. That is the tyranny of the minority.

I gave you the historical definition and in the context of its rejection circa 1787. I have no interest in what you found in Google.

A government by the people ragarded the states, not your mob rule democracy.

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
So you have no problem with a political party creating districts in a state to intentionally and purposely produce election districts that run contrary to the normal vote in that state?

For example, if 55% of the people vote for a Democrat as their representative in the state House but the Republicans have set up districts so that 55% of the districts are reliably Republican - that is okay with you?

You don't see that as a problem?

How does your precious idea of federalism solve this problem as you claimed it would?

Do you have a problem with how Canada's elections and districts are run?

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
I gave you the historical definition and in the context of its rejection circa 1787. I have no interest in what you found in Google.

A government by the people ragarded the states, not your mob rule democracy.

I gave you a definition from people who write definitions as their living. Please do the same.

There are no such things as STATES without the people who comprise them.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2018

Tennyson said:
Do you have a problem with how Canada's elections and districts are run?

We are talking about the USA. Try to stay focused please.

Tennyson · Jul 15, 2018

haymarket said:
I gave you a definition from people who write definitions as their living. Please do the same.

There are no such things as STATES without the people who comprise them.

How about I take you back a couple of thousand years regarding your brand of government since you are avoiding my post:

Plato: Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule.