RIP Ruth

[LWYRUP]

@former player, I think we should judge individual cases on their merits.  I don't have enough information to speak knowledgeably about Clarence Thomas.

I think Kavanaugh's demeanor is what I would expect from someone who was blindsided by unethical political opponents.  However, there is no excuse going forward for anyone to act like that anymore, especially since the playbook is now well known and nobody should be surprised. 

More broadly speaking, usually in these sort of cases, either what happens is there is a flood people that say, "yeah, that powerful guy was a huge jerk and he also did x, y and z" and they are disgraced.  Or everyone who personally knows them, male and female alike, says "wait, wtf, that doesn't make any sense."  Now, people can have skeletons in their closet, or be one way behind closed doors and another in public, or may have acted one way in the past and one way in the future.  It's possible, and if the evidence provided was more clear I would have been more likely to draw that conclusion.  But usually people either act a certain way in their life or they don't, and over time it adds up.  So at least for me, the fact that Kavanaugh had dozens of female clerks that all vouched for him, and a completely unblemished record until the moment before his Supreme Court confirmation, are facts on the ground that I considered in making up my mind. 

I know you disagree, and I probably won't convince you otherwise, but at least consider that if the standard is "believe every allegation" that it is at least theoretically possible that some people who have strong political beliefs such that they think the ends are so important that they justify the means will weaponize that principle for their own purposes.  "What's a pesky allegation against some guy that's probably a just some preppy douche with a big ego anyways if it helps protect women's bodily autonomy" is how the thinking would go.  I'm guessing at least some of this thread might secretly agree. 

 

[Davnasty]

That personal view doesn't explain why Republicans obstructed all investigation into the matter though.  If it was purely political circus, it would have made a lot more sense for them to hold a very thorough investigation that completely debunked the 'false' claims.  Would have been a resounding victory and proof of horrible partisanship on the side of Democrats.

I didn't think Kavanaugh was worth the baggage.  I thought his performance in the Senate was disqualifying and I wanted Barrett to take his place as the nominee.  The reason the Republicans didn't go full scale into an investigation was because they didn't really believe there was anything to investigate.  The FBI conducted background checks as part of his nomination to the Court of Appeals and as part of the vetting process.  Keep in mind the Blasey-Ford allegations were denied by all people who were supposed to be witnesses and that it occurred when Kavanaugh was in high school.  Ms. Blasey-Ford was a good witness and I believe public sentiment was on her side.  If it had just been the Blasey-Ford allegation, I think more people would have been on board with an investigation.  But Democrats tend to overplay their hand (as I think they are about to do now).  Michael Avenatti became a left-wing media darling and floated an easily refutable allegation against Kavanaugh. A later allegation surfaced about an incident at a party when Kavanaugh was at Yale.  That allegation seemed to have more credibility, but no witnesses came forward.  After the Avenatti stunt, public opinion quickly turned.   Allegations started coming out of the woodwork against Kavanaugh (there was something about a boat incident in Rhode Island that was quickly debunked).  It became a lot easier for the Republicans to just shut the whole thing down.  To the right, it had the familiar feeling of a last-minute hit job from the left. 

On a serious note, you really don't want to start the precedent that a last minute allegation will lead to an FBI investigation.  I don't know what the proper procedure should be, but I know it shouldn't be that.

Failure to corroborate is not the same as denying the allegations. It's the difference between "I don't remember" and "It didn't happen" yet I consistently saw it presented this way by conservative media which is very misleading.

Ultimately though, I agree with your first two lines here. When I first heard of the allegations against Kavanaugh my thoughts were "that was so long ago" and "there's no way to prove anything". I honestly thought it should be ignored unless further evidence came forward. But then the response from Kavanaugh and some Republicans along with the hearing, I felt they needed to move on to the next nominee. It would have been better for the country and possibly even for the Republican party.

[bacchi]

Ultimately though, I agree with your first two lines here. When I first heard of the allegations against Kavanaugh my thoughts were "that was so long ago" and "there's no way to prove anything". I honestly thought it should be ignored unless further evidence came forward. But then the response from Kavanaugh and some Republicans along with the hearing, I felt they needed to move on to the next nominee. It would have been better for the country and possibly even for the Republican party.

I'm getting the feeling that it's always the Democrat's responsibility to be the adult in the room. The Democrats should've backed down with Kavanaugh, the Democrats shouldn't have complained about Garland, they shouldn't complain about RBG's rushed replacement, and they should never -- Never! -- threaten to pack the court. Because it'd "destroy the credibility" of the SC!

Any attempt to increase the number of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States or ‘pack the court’ would undermine our democratic institutions and destroy the credibility of our nation’s highest court.

[GuitarStv]

On a serious note, you really don't want to start the precedent that a last minute allegation will lead to an FBI investigation.  I don't know what the proper procedure should be, but I know it shouldn't be that. 

The precedent exists now.  Republicans did have an FBI investigation based upon the last minute allegation.  It was a crippled investigation where the FBI was not free to follow the evidence available, but it was held.

I know you disagree, and I probably won't convince you otherwise, but at least consider that if the standard is "believe every allegation" that it is at least theoretically possible that some people who have strong political beliefs such that they think the ends are so important that they justify the means will weaponize that principle for their own purposes.

Absolutely.  'Believe every allegation' is a terrible thing to advocate for.  But since historically we've been finding out that an uncomfortable number of claims about sexual assault against women have been proven true . . . maybe we could 'believe every allegation enough to thoroughly investigate it'.  Hiding and covering up is bad for the accused because it makes them look guilty if they're innocent.  Hiding and covering up is bad for the accuser because it ignores their claims rather than addresses them.  Exposing the truth is the best way forward for everyone.

[redbirdfan]

I'm getting the feeling that it's always the Democrat's responsibility to be the adult in the room. The Democrats should've backed down with Kavanaugh, the Democrats shouldn't have complained about Garland, they shouldn't complain about RBG's rushed replacement, and they should never -- Never! -- threaten to pack the court. Because it'd "destroy the credibility" of the SC!

No one has said the Democrats should not have complained about the Garland situation.  They should have.  They were just not in a position to do anything about it.  No one has said the Democrats shouldn't complain about RBG's rushed replacement.  They should.  Public sentiment is on their side.  The Kavanaugh situation should have been handled behind the scenes.  I believe you would have had buy in if it didn't feel like a public hit job.  I don't think the Democrats did Blasey-Ford any favors in the way it was handled, and it just served to further polarize the nation.  It also went a long way in costing the Democrats the Senate (granted it would have been an uphill battle). 

Any talk of packing the court is premature.  Win the presidency and Senate first.  The election is Nov. 3rd.  Inauguration isn't until the end of January.  There are two months to determine which strategies are realistically in play after you know the results.  Why alienate potential voters with radical ideas you may not even be in a position to enact?  There is no upside to it - especially when many independents and Republicans are not sure they can rely on Joe Biden's history as a more moderate voice. 

Chris Wallace: VP Biden, can you go on the record with the American public right now and commit to not packing the Court?
Biden: ----

There isn't a good response.  Should he say yes, should he say no, should he refuse to answer?  You're just creating an issue that he doesn't need.  The election will be close.  Don't alienate voters on the eve of the election.  It's as simple as that. 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Just say, we are only concerned that our opinions are the ones that are in power.

I don't think this is true, and know that it's not true for a great many people.

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

That's fine, and it may be true for some people. It still ties into my thoughts, though, that it's more about the actual make up of the court than the fact that the Republicans were hypocritical about it. I also, think it's a very small minority that would truly be concerned for the SC being more their way of thinking than the country, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Just say, we are only concerned that our opinions are the ones that are in power.

I don't think this is true, and know that it's not true for a great many people.

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

That is NOT the only problem!!

Re: Garland appointment
"No, the Democrats were actually mad because the Republicans didn't approve him, not because they didn't hold a hearing for him."

This is putting thoughts in people's heads where none may have existed and no indication/proof exists for it. It's similar to gaslighting - just with an aim to confuse people (and not drive them mad).

If republicans held the hearing and then voted to reject Garland, then they would have gone on record with their yes/no. Republican's in moderate states (yes there were many, e.g. Susan Collins today) would have been unmasked sooner!!

Voting to reject Garland would have driven some partisan liberals mad, but McConnel's hypocritical gambit was universally seen as breaking democratic norms by everyone following logic 101.

That is just one example. The entire post builds up from the flawed premises of biased "both sides" framing, and hence not salvageable.

Yes there was speculation involved of what people are thinking. It's not baseless speciulation. I base it on my observations of each side not being willing to do something...until they are but then it's because the other side did something blah blah blah. I'm not framing a "both sides" situation. They do it for me lol! They complain about something and then not just do it themselves but one up it for something else. See the initial removal Chris22 noted of the rules so it only requires a majority for judges. It's about power and always has been. At this point in our conversations, I'm used to the condescension you lay upon anybody that disagrees with you, so I'm not concerned that you think my post is unsalvagable. Have at your opinions, sir. I see no point in discussions with you.

[bacchi]

Chris Wallace: VP Biden, can you go on the record with the American public right now and commit to not packing the Court?
Biden: ----

There isn't a good response.  Should he say yes, should he say no, should he refuse to answer?  You're just creating an issue that he doesn't need.  The election will be close.  Don't alienate voters on the eve of the election.  It's as simple as that.

Eh, Biden can safely deflect. No radical super-progressive is going to not vote for Biden because he doesn't admit to wanting to pack the court or truly defund the police.

Biden is a moderate. Any progressive knows this and they're still going to vote for him.

[LWYRUP]

'Believe every allegation' is a terrible thing to advocate for.  But since historically we've been finding out that an uncomfortable number of claims about sexual assault against women have been proven true . . . maybe we could 'believe every allegation enough to thoroughly investigate it'.  Hiding and covering up is bad for the accused because it makes them look guilty if they're innocent.  Hiding and covering up is bad for the accuser because it ignores their claims rather than addresses them.  Exposing the truth is the best way forward for everyone.

That sounds fair to me.  I agree with the general principle.

I think in this case, a number of previously moderate Senators (I'm thinking Lindsay Graham in particular) got frustrated with what they believed to the political gamesmanship behind the incident (and I am guessing, fundamentally thought that Feinstein or her staff purposefully held onto the letter and then purposefully leaked it at the right time) and gave up and rammed it through to prove a point.   

"Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant" is a good general principle.  Maybe each party needs to prepare a roster of potential nominees, and they can be vetted by a third party in advance, and so if those sorts of accusations come up, they can be dealt with outside of the political process?  Then when it is time to replace a justice, we can do it in 1-2 days like people did in the old days and skip the theater. 

[Chris22]

Chris Wallace: VP Biden, can you go on the record with the American public right now and commit to not packing the Court?
Biden: ----

There isn't a good response.  Should he say yes, should he say no, should he refuse to answer?  You're just creating an issue that he doesn't need.  The election will be close.  Don't alienate voters on the eve of the election.  It's as simple as that.

Eh, Biden can safely deflect. No radical super-progressive is going to not vote for Biden because he doesn't admit to wanting to pack the court or truly defund the police.

Biden is a moderate. Any progressive knows this and they're still going to vote for him.

Isn’t saying “let the electorate decide” and then not releasing a list of candidates or a strategy (pack the court or not) sort of the equivalent of saying “we have to pass it to see what’s in it?”

edit: fixed HTML tags

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

That's not a whole lot different from what I'm seeing from liberals now. They are focusing almost all of what they're arguing about on how the Republicans aren't being consistent. Well, shoot, they're not being consistent either. Democrats said no one should refuse to vote on a nomination if the president put it out there. Do your job they said. Etc. etc. If that was truly the principle, then they woudl stay consistent on it (at least for the leadership, not saying all liberals said this). Liberals now act like it's the inconsistency that's the real issue. This is what it's all about. Hold the Republicans accountable. Etc. etc. That's not the real reason, and it's no more hypocritical of the Republicans to act like they're not voting because it's the end of Obama's term than it is for liberals to act like the big issue is consistency.

This completely ignores the concept of precedent. Asking for consistency when the other side changed the rules seems like some sort of twisted joke.

Interesting that no one taking the "Democrats are hypocrites too" stance responded to the Scrabble analogy. Probably because calling the player who asked for consistent (even if incorrect) rules a hypocrite would be laughable.

I knew there was an issue with your statement here and the Scrabble analogy, but it took me a second to think through what the issue was. I've found it though :-)! Here is the problem with your scrabble analogy and with your comment to me.

There's actually really a couple of issues with the analogy. I'll deal with the simplest first. Your analogy talks about using Greek letters instead of English as the rule change. This was certainly more intense than what actually happened. The Republicans had the votes to vote against Garland. Your analogy is flawed because it acts like the extreme nature of what they did to change the game was much more than what actually happened. Republicans and Democrats have both done more extreme changes than what the Republicans did, in my opinion. A better analalogy would be a rule change that happened after you already had victory in hand but wanted to look better while getting the victory.

Secondly, the crux of your argument is the person using the rule change but calling the other person a hypocrite. I'm not upset at the Democrats for calling the Republicans hypocrites. I do think that it invalidates at least some of their argument when they argued so vigorously that what the Republicans were doing was wrong plain and simple and now are using it. Not completely, but a little. They can certainly call them hypocrites for violating the words that they said (no actual rule change was made, it was words spoken). However, to continue your analogy, what I'm getting at is the Democrats aren't just sitting back in the certainty of calling the Republicans hypocrites. They're talking about taking what, again, was a fairly small "rule change" and talking about totally changing things by adding multiple justices to the court. This is more in line with you changed the rules to add Greek letters. I'm flipping the board over and keeping the letters that stay up for each person (probably a bad analogy in its own right, lol, but an order of magnitude more than what the Republicans did that instance, imo).

I'm not mad at the Democrats or Republicans. Everyone really is doing it. I expect nothing less. I'm afraid of where it will go, and I would much rather the Democrats and Republicans at least be honest about it and both say, all we care about is power.

[FIPurpose]

That's not a whole lot different from what I'm seeing from liberals now. They are focusing almost all of what they're arguing about on how the Republicans aren't being consistent. Well, shoot, they're not being consistent either. Democrats said no one should refuse to vote on a nomination if the president put it out there. Do your job they said. Etc. etc. If that was truly the principle, then they woudl stay consistent on it (at least for the leadership, not saying all liberals said this). Liberals now act like it's the inconsistency that's the real issue. This is what it's all about. Hold the Republicans accountable. Etc. etc. That's not the real reason, and it's no more hypocritical of the Republicans to act like they're not voting because it's the end of Obama's term than it is for liberals to act like the big issue is consistency.

This completely ignores the concept of precedent. Asking for consistency when the other side changed the rules seems like some sort of twisted joke.

Interesting that no one taking the "Democrats are hypocrites too" stance responded to the Scrabble analogy. Probably because calling the player who asked for consistent (even if incorrect) rules a hypocrite would be laughable.

I knew there was an issue with your statement here and the Scrabble analogy, but it took me a second to think through what the issue was. I've found it though :-)! Here is the problem with your scrabble analogy and with your comment to me.

There's actually really a couple of issues with the analogy. I'll deal with the simplest first. Your analogy talks about using Greek letters instead of English as the rule change. This was certainly more intense than what actually happened. The Republicans had the votes to vote against Garland. Your analogy is flawed because it acts like the extreme nature of what they did to change the game was much more than what actually happened. Republicans and Democrats have both done more extreme changes than what the Republicans did, in my opinion. A better analalogy would be a rule change that happened after you already had victory in hand but wanted to look better while getting the victory.

Secondly, the crux of your argument is the person using the rule change but calling the other person a hypocrite. I'm not upset at the Democrats for calling the Republicans hypocrites. I do think that it invalidates at least some of their argument when they argued so vigorously that what the Republicans were doing was wrong plain and simple and now are using it. Not completely, but a little. They can certainly call them hypocrites for violating the words that they said (no actual rule change was made, it was words spoken). However, to continue your analogy, what I'm getting at is the Democrats aren't just sitting back in the certainty of calling the Republicans hypocrites. They're talking about taking what, again, was a fairly small "rule change" and talking about totally changing things by adding multiple justices to the court. This is more in line with you changed the rules to add Greek letters. I'm flipping the board over and keeping the letters that stay up for each person (probably a bad analogy in its own right, lol, but an order of magnitude more than what the Republicans did that instance, imo).

I'm not mad at the Democrats or Republicans. Everyone really is doing it. I expect nothing less. I'm afraid of where it will go, and I would much rather the Democrats and Republicans at least be honest about it and both say, all we care about is power.

You continue to say that what both parties only really care about is power. I don't think you've provided solid evidence to prove that claim, but even if that is true then maybe a different analogy is in order.

When playing a game of Tennis, both players are expected to call when the opponent has hit the ball past the line. Now, anyone who has played tennis has probably fudged a bit to pad their score. But let's say that now you're playing an opponent who you think is starting to call pretty obvious 'outs' that are not 'out'. You complain and say "hey, are you sure that was out? You need to call it accurately." They go "yep, the rules of Tennis are that I get to call whether it was out or not". Then they call one out that you are 100% certain was in.

You're about to completely lose the game. You realize that the only way to make the game fair again is to start using the same rules as your opponent. You start calling 'outs' when they're close calls. Technically, this is all allowed in the rules of tennis. But standard decorum would say that this is being a bad sport.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Or just someone who realized that the other player is a cheat, and the only way to even the game was to start playing by the same rules your opponent adopted?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

That's not a whole lot different from what I'm seeing from liberals now. They are focusing almost all of what they're arguing about on how the Republicans aren't being consistent. Well, shoot, they're not being consistent either. Democrats said no one should refuse to vote on a nomination if the president put it out there. Do your job they said. Etc. etc. If that was truly the principle, then they woudl stay consistent on it (at least for the leadership, not saying all liberals said this). Liberals now act like it's the inconsistency that's the real issue. This is what it's all about. Hold the Republicans accountable. Etc. etc. That's not the real reason, and it's no more hypocritical of the Republicans to act like they're not voting because it's the end of Obama's term than it is for liberals to act like the big issue is consistency.

This completely ignores the concept of precedent. Asking for consistency when the other side changed the rules seems like some sort of twisted joke.

Interesting that no one taking the "Democrats are hypocrites too" stance responded to the Scrabble analogy. Probably because calling the player who asked for consistent (even if incorrect) rules a hypocrite would be laughable.

I knew there was an issue with your statement here and the Scrabble analogy, but it took me a second to think through what the issue was. I've found it though :-)! Here is the problem with your scrabble analogy and with your comment to me.

There's actually really a couple of issues with the analogy. I'll deal with the simplest first. Your analogy talks about using Greek letters instead of English as the rule change. This was certainly more intense than what actually happened. The Republicans had the votes to vote against Garland. Your analogy is flawed because it acts like the extreme nature of what they did to change the game was much more than what actually happened. Republicans and Democrats have both done more extreme changes than what the Republicans did, in my opinion. A better analalogy would be a rule change that happened after you already had victory in hand but wanted to look better while getting the victory.

Secondly, the crux of your argument is the person using the rule change but calling the other person a hypocrite. I'm not upset at the Democrats for calling the Republicans hypocrites. I do think that it invalidates at least some of their argument when they argued so vigorously that what the Republicans were doing was wrong plain and simple and now are using it. Not completely, but a little. They can certainly call them hypocrites for violating the words that they said (no actual rule change was made, it was words spoken). However, to continue your analogy, what I'm getting at is the Democrats aren't just sitting back in the certainty of calling the Republicans hypocrites. They're talking about taking what, again, was a fairly small "rule change" and talking about totally changing things by adding multiple justices to the court. This is more in line with you changed the rules to add Greek letters. I'm flipping the board over and keeping the letters that stay up for each person (probably a bad analogy in its own right, lol, but an order of magnitude more than what the Republicans did that instance, imo).

I'm not mad at the Democrats or Republicans. Everyone really is doing it. I expect nothing less. I'm afraid of where it will go, and I would much rather the Democrats and Republicans at least be honest about it and both say, all we care about is power.

You continue to say that what both parties only really care about is power. I don't think you've provided solid evidence to prove that claim, but even if that is true then maybe a different analogy is in order.

When playing a game of Tennis, both players are expected to call when the opponent has hit the ball past the line. Now, anyone who has played tennis has probably fudged a bit to pad their score. But let's say that now you're playing an opponent who you think is starting to call pretty obvious 'outs' that are not 'out'. You complain and say "hey, are you sure that was out? You need to call it accurately." They go "yep, the rules of Tennis are that I get to call whether it was out or not". Then they call one out that you are 100% certain was in.

You're about to completely lose the game. You realize that the only way to make the game fair again is to start using the same rules as your opponent. You start calling 'outs' when they're close calls. Technically, this is all allowed in the rules of tennis. But standard decorum would say that this is being a bad sport.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Or just someone who realized that the other player is a cheat, and the only way to even the game was to start playing by the same rules your opponent adopted?

The Democrats ended the filibuster for non Supreme Court nominees as a power play. The Democrats fillibustered Gorusch who was a conservative replacing a conservative, not even tipping the balance of power in the court with nothing crazy about him (if they had saved their fillibuster and used it with Kavanaugh, at least they would have had a leg to stand on). In fact, if I remember correctly, some liberal pundits even called out how they should have waited to have more definsibilty other than trying to assert power since there wasn't really anything wrong with Gorusch. Yes, they are grabbing on to power as the Republicans are.

I do like your analogy better, and yes, I will definitively answer that question. The person who ends up cheating to keep from losing is still a hypocrite (if they criticize the other player for cheating and do it themselves), is a liar, and is, of course a cheat.

[redbirdfan]

You're about to completely lose the game. You realize that the only way to make the game fair again is to start using the same rules as your opponent. You start calling 'outs' when they're close calls. Technically, this is all allowed in the rules of tennis. But standard decorum would say that this is being a bad sport.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Or just someone who realized that the other player is a cheat, and the only way to even the game was to start playing by the same rules your opponent adopted?

You are dismissing what the Democrats did to Bork, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and focusing only on what Republicans said about nominating justices in an election year.  The attacks on Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh were PERSONAL.  They lost endorsements and jobs.  They were hit jobs, even if you believe some of the claims had an air of credibility.  The Democrats knew they couldn't be proved when they started the attacks.  The Democrats knew that Bork wasn't racist or sexist.  RBG was actually a friend of his.  She attended his funeral.  Those attacks seriously altered their lives.  The Republicans never attacked Garland.  They went out of their way not to.  Don't sugarcoat what the Democrats did to those men.

One side used their power to either vote or not vote to make sure they could fill a seat.  The other side uses its power (when it knows the seat is gone) to seriously slander the nominees.  That's not nothing. 

[redbirdfan]

*And threatens to add states and pack the court to make sure it can get its way in the future

[ctuser1]

Just say, we are only concerned that our opinions are the ones that are in power.

I don't think this is true, and know that it's not true for a great many people.

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

That is NOT the only problem!!

Re: Garland appointment
"No, the Democrats were actually mad because the Republicans didn't approve him, not because they didn't hold a hearing for him."

This is putting thoughts in people's heads where none may have existed and no indication/proof exists for it. It's similar to gaslighting - just with an aim to confuse people (and not drive them mad).

If republicans held the hearing and then voted to reject Garland, then they would have gone on record with their yes/no. Republican's in moderate states (yes there were many, e.g. Susan Collins today) would have been unmasked sooner!!

Voting to reject Garland would have driven some partisan liberals mad, but McConnel's hypocritical gambit was universally seen as breaking democratic norms by everyone following logic 101.

That is just one example. The entire post builds up from the flawed premises of biased "both sides" framing, and hence not salvageable.

At this point in our conversations, I'm used to the condescension you lay upon anybody that disagrees with you, so I'm not concerned that you think my post is unsalvagable.

Sorry that your delicate feelings got hurt.

Seriously though, I wasn't responding to "your" post. I was just explaining to another poster that his assumption of "good faith" on yet another "both sides bot" may not be productive. And yes - here I am using the the existentialist definition of bad faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)) and not the regular Webster dictionary one.

Have at your opinions, sir. I see no point in discussions with you.

I reciprocate your feelings. I'm responding to this one post since it was a direct quote. I'll henceforth refrain from directly engaging you after this one post.

Yes there was speculation involved of what people are thinking. It's not baseless speciulation. I base it on my observations of each side not being willing to do something...

My personal observation based on knowing many liberals was contrary.

Generally it may be useful to focus on the actions first because anecdotal evidence can be unreliable, and when we are dealing with politics even stated positions of career politicians is often misleading, and I generally include "both sides" in this, i.e. Schumer is just as likely to act in an opportunistic manner as McConnel is. What I find disturbing with the "both sides" gambit is the liberal polity (as against politicians) is, in general NOT as hypocritical as the conservative polity. Schumer may be just as much a bastard as McConnel in personal life (and I have it on personal knowledge that he is a foul-mouthed opportunistic politician who can be just as crude as Trump), his actions will be restrained by the polity backing him.

This is where the typical both sides trope falls flat. The democratic polity is generally principled, not as much snowflake'ish and wimp'ish as I find conservatives (i.e. they can take criticism constructively), and are willing and even usually eager to play by the rules that are designed (via gerrymandering and voter suppression) to disenfranchise them.

Although I personally don't find the last part very "principled". At some point of time you need to respond!!

They complain about something and then not just do it themselves but one up it for something else.  See the initial removal Chris22 noted of the rules so it only requires a majority for judges. It's about power and always has been.

Sure thing. Politics is about winning power. That isn't objectionable in itself.

The objectionable part is throwing all principles to the wind for the sake of power. When McConnel obstructs - it is perfectly reasonable (see my comment about responding) and commensurate to change Senate rules so that only majority is sufficient. It would have been hypocritical if Democrats changed it once, and then changed it back again based on their convenience. As far as I can see, they changed the rules and lived with it - convenient or no!!

When you consider the polity (and not the politicians), the both sides argument is laughable and is made in bad faith most of the time.

[FIPurpose]

That's not a whole lot different from what I'm seeing from liberals now. They are focusing almost all of what they're arguing about on how the Republicans aren't being consistent. Well, shoot, they're not being consistent either. Democrats said no one should refuse to vote on a nomination if the president put it out there. Do your job they said. Etc. etc. If that was truly the principle, then they woudl stay consistent on it (at least for the leadership, not saying all liberals said this). Liberals now act like it's the inconsistency that's the real issue. This is what it's all about. Hold the Republicans accountable. Etc. etc. That's not the real reason, and it's no more hypocritical of the Republicans to act like they're not voting because it's the end of Obama's term than it is for liberals to act like the big issue is consistency.

This completely ignores the concept of precedent. Asking for consistency when the other side changed the rules seems like some sort of twisted joke.

Interesting that no one taking the "Democrats are hypocrites too" stance responded to the Scrabble analogy. Probably because calling the player who asked for consistent (even if incorrect) rules a hypocrite would be laughable.

I knew there was an issue with your statement here and the Scrabble analogy, but it took me a second to think through what the issue was. I've found it though :-)! Here is the problem with your scrabble analogy and with your comment to me.

There's actually really a couple of issues with the analogy. I'll deal with the simplest first. Your analogy talks about using Greek letters instead of English as the rule change. This was certainly more intense than what actually happened. The Republicans had the votes to vote against Garland. Your analogy is flawed because it acts like the extreme nature of what they did to change the game was much more than what actually happened. Republicans and Democrats have both done more extreme changes than what the Republicans did, in my opinion. A better analalogy would be a rule change that happened after you already had victory in hand but wanted to look better while getting the victory.

Secondly, the crux of your argument is the person using the rule change but calling the other person a hypocrite. I'm not upset at the Democrats for calling the Republicans hypocrites. I do think that it invalidates at least some of their argument when they argued so vigorously that what the Republicans were doing was wrong plain and simple and now are using it. Not completely, but a little. They can certainly call them hypocrites for violating the words that they said (no actual rule change was made, it was words spoken). However, to continue your analogy, what I'm getting at is the Democrats aren't just sitting back in the certainty of calling the Republicans hypocrites. They're talking about taking what, again, was a fairly small "rule change" and talking about totally changing things by adding multiple justices to the court. This is more in line with you changed the rules to add Greek letters. I'm flipping the board over and keeping the letters that stay up for each person (probably a bad analogy in its own right, lol, but an order of magnitude more than what the Republicans did that instance, imo).

I'm not mad at the Democrats or Republicans. Everyone really is doing it. I expect nothing less. I'm afraid of where it will go, and I would much rather the Democrats and Republicans at least be honest about it and both say, all we care about is power.

You continue to say that what both parties only really care about is power. I don't think you've provided solid evidence to prove that claim, but even if that is true then maybe a different analogy is in order.

When playing a game of Tennis, both players are expected to call when the opponent has hit the ball past the line. Now, anyone who has played tennis has probably fudged a bit to pad their score. But let's say that now you're playing an opponent who you think is starting to call pretty obvious 'outs' that are not 'out'. You complain and say "hey, are you sure that was out? You need to call it accurately." They go "yep, the rules of Tennis are that I get to call whether it was out or not". Then they call one out that you are 100% certain was in.

You're about to completely lose the game. You realize that the only way to make the game fair again is to start using the same rules as your opponent. You start calling 'outs' when they're close calls. Technically, this is all allowed in the rules of tennis. But standard decorum would say that this is being a bad sport.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Or just someone who realized that the other player is a cheat, and the only way to even the game was to start playing by the same rules your opponent adopted?

The Democrats ended the filibuster for non Supreme Court nominees as a power play. The Democrats fillibustered Gorusch who was a conservative replacing a conservative, not even tipping the balance of power in the court with nothing crazy about him (if they had saved their fillibuster and used it with Kavanaugh, at least they would have had a leg to stand on). In fact, if I remember correctly, some liberal pundits even called out how they should have waited to have more definsibilty other than trying to assert power since there wasn't really anything wrong with Gorusch. Yes, they are grabbing on to power as the Republicans are.

I do like your analogy better, and yes, I will definitively answer that question. The person who ends up cheating to keep from losing is still a hypocrite (if they criticize the other player for cheating and do it themselves), is a liar, and is, of course a cheat.

Grabbing power? Please tell me what power did the Dems end up with? Cause as I see it. There's a lot of "both sides" going on, but only 1 side seems to win and with a minority electorate at that. Somehow the conservative talking heads do a great job at pointing the finger and saying "look at those dirty power grabbers" all the while the one ones actually getting any power without a democratic mandate are the GOP.

Saying that both sides only care about power is like saying that the players in a tennis match only care about winning. Obviously the goal of the game is to win. But what I assume you really intend something a bit more sinister than just politicians playing a game to win. The difference here and now in this election and in what the GOP's power grab actually means. When the Dems are playing a "power grab", it strangely lines up with more access to voting, less gerrymandering, and higher turnout rates. When the GOP power grabs, it usually requires more gerrymandering (Wisconsin and NC state houses), restricting votes (closing polling stations in black and urban areas, and lower turn out rates (Trump won with fewer votes than Romney lost by).

Saying that both parties "only care about power" doesn't really mean much by itself.

[Montecarlo]

Some people on here on “both sides” are misremembering the Masterpiece Cake ruling.  The court avoided a ruling that would set a precedent and simply overturned the Human Rights Commission based on evidence of bias in the original hearings. 

They didn’t say the decision itself was wrong, only that the hearing was biased.

So they effectively punted.

[FIPurpose]

You're about to completely lose the game. You realize that the only way to make the game fair again is to start using the same rules as your opponent. You start calling 'outs' when they're close calls. Technically, this is all allowed in the rules of tennis. But standard decorum would say that this is being a bad sport.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Or just someone who realized that the other player is a cheat, and the only way to even the game was to start playing by the same rules your opponent adopted?

You are dismissing what the Democrats did to Bork, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and focusing only on what Republicans said about nominating justices in an election year.  The attacks on Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh were PERSONAL.  They lost endorsements and jobs.  They were hit jobs, even if you believe some of the claims had an air of credibility.  The Democrats knew they couldn't be proved when they started the attacks.  The Democrats knew that Bork wasn't racist or sexist.  RBG was actually a friend of his.  She attended his funeral.  Those attacks seriously altered their lives.  The Republicans never attacked Garland.  They went out of their way not to.  Don't sugarcoat what the Democrats did to those men.

One side used their power to either vote or not vote to make sure they could fill a seat.  The other side uses its power (when it knows the seat is gone) to seriously slander the nominees.  That's not nothing.

Yeah look at all that power Democrats got from those. They ended up with 4 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Oh wait... no they didn't.

All those judges lost their jobs... wait. No they didn't.

Yeah, the GOP not talking about and interviewing Garland is the entire complaint. That was the entire problem: they never interviewed him.

Perhaps the GOP should stop nominating people people with shady pasts. Gorsuch is at least a decent fellow, but was unfortunately the nominee of a stolen seat. I don't recall anyone smearing Gorsuch. (Not anymore than Kagan or Sotomayor)

[FIPurpose]

But let's finish out this analogy. We say both players in this tennis match are now playing with "cheater" rules. Except at some point Player B (the original cheater) hits a ball out. Player A calls 'out' under the 'new rules'. Then Player B says "no it wasn't, that was in. I declare the point for me!"

"What? No you said the rules are that we call each other's 'outs'."

"Well new rules, I call all outs."

And because Player B has the power to make all decisions in this game, he declares himself the winner.

So now you can call Player A a cheater because he dared try and play by Player's B rules. But it's quite pointless and incorrect to pretend that somehow they are equally reprehensible for their parts. Player A is losing no matter what choice he makes, and even worse when Player B's followers start rationalizing "well they technically both cheated, so they're basically the same."

All this. A decade of proof of the kind of man McConnell is and a person like Joe Biden still desperately believes that the "GOP fever will break" when he becomes president. Biden is still calling for the GOP to start playing by the rules again despite everything they've done, and would probably be willing to still hand the GOP way more power in crafting legislation than they deserve.

[redbirdfan]

Yeah look at all that power Democrats got from those. They ended up with 4 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Oh wait... no they didn't.

I was referencing the "rules" not the results.  Is your argument that the Democrats were justified in whatever they did because they didn't gain a seat from their shenanigans?  I think that makes it worse. 

All those judges lost their jobs... wait. No they didn't.

Bork wasn't confirmed - he lost a seat on the SC.  Thomas and Kavanaugh lost teaching gigs and speaking gigs due to the unproved allegations.

Yeah, the GOP not talking about and interviewing Garland is the entire complaint. That was the entire problem: they never interviewed him.

Not a break in the rules, but outside of the norms.  I still argue that they were never going to confirm him. They at least didn't attack Garland himself. 

Perhaps the GOP should stop nominating people people with shady pasts.

There was no indication that Bork, Thomas or Kavanaugh had shady pasts until they were nominated.  The accusations that were hurled never came up during prior confirmations or background checks.  I'll give Blasey-Ford the benefit of the doubt, but at its core she admitted that she never told anyone about Kavanaugh by name until he was on the short list of potential SC justices.  It sounds like Kavanaugh spent much of his time in a drunken haze in high school.  I wouldn't be surprised if he actually doesn't remember it (if it did happen).  At any rate, you can be accused without actually having a shady past. 

The problem with your analogy is that the Republicans didn't create any new rules (unless you are referring to changing the required vote to a simple majority).  If you are, then that rule was first changed by the Democrats (albeit not for the Supreme Court).  The Republicans simply brazenly exercised the power they had to get the result they wanted.  It worked and that upset the Democrats.  Understandably so.  They are now brazenly exercising the power they have to get the result they want. 

Your grievances date back to 2016 and you're wiling to pack the court and add new states.  Republican SC grievances go back to 1987 and you're mad that they refused to vote on a liberal justice to replace their most beloved jurist.  I'm simply explaining why many Republicans have 0 fux left to give when it comes to Democrats and the Supreme Court. 

[FIPurpose]

Yeah look at all that power Democrats got from those. They ended up with 4 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Oh wait... no they didn't.

I was referencing the "rules" not the results.  Is your argument that the Democrats were justified in whatever they did because they didn't gain a seat from their shenanigans?  I think that makes it worse. 

All those judges lost their jobs... wait. No they didn't.

Bork wasn't confirmed - he lost a seat on the SC.  Thomas and Kavanaugh lost teaching gigs and speaking gigs due to the unproved allegations.

Yeah, the GOP not talking about and interviewing Garland is the entire complaint. That was the entire problem: they never interviewed him.

Not a break in the rules, but outside of the norms.  I still argue that they were never going to confirm him. They at least didn't attack Garland himself. 

Perhaps the GOP should stop nominating people people with shady pasts.

There was no indication that Bork, Thomas or Kavanaugh had shady pasts until they were nominated.  The accusations that were hurled never came up during prior confirmations or background checks.  I'll give Blasey-Ford the benefit of the doubt, but at its core she admitted that she never told anyone about Kavanaugh by name until he was on the short list of potential SC justices.  It sounds like Kavanaugh spent much of his time in a drunken haze in high school.  I wouldn't be surprised if he actually doesn't remember it (if it did happen).  At any rate, you can be accused without actually having a shady past. 

The problem with your analogy is that the Republicans didn't create any new rules (unless you are referring to changing the required vote to a simple majority).  If you are, then that rule was first changed by the Democrats (albeit not for the Supreme Court).  The Republicans simply brazenly exercised the power they had to get the result they wanted.  It worked and that upset the Democrats.  Understandably so.  They are now brazenly exercising the power they have to get the result they want. 

Your grievances date back to 2016 and you're wiling to pack the court and add new states.  Republican SC grievances go back to 1987 and you're mad that they refused to vote on a liberal justice to replace their most beloved jurist.  I'm simply explaining why many Republicans have 0 fux left to give when it comes to Democrats and the Supreme Court.

McConnell is breaking political norms because Bork got voted down during his first term as a senator? Uhh ok.

Bork was a strong ideologue when Regan had a 54-46 Senate led by Dems. It was a foolish nomination.

[dividendman]

*And threatens to add states and pack the court to make sure it can get its way in the future

Packing the courts and adding states is also not breaking the "rules" you seem so fond of.

Also note that adding states out of territories (which have more population than several states) actually allows better representation of the people rather than worse (you know, actually giving citizens a vote for their own government).

I agree with you though that Democrats are dumb and they should have done it when Obama first got in, then all this wouldn't be happening in the first place.

[dividendman]

Note I think packing the Supreme court is too moderate a step. That's why I say courts, plural. They should pack the Supreme Court and all the appellate courts, by at least doubling the members. They should also add a bunch more district courts.

Adding DC and Puerto Rico, splitting California into North and South (and maybe North, Middle, South if that gerrymanders the state lines enough to make them all democratic still).

Maybe split up a couple of other states where Democrats control the state legislatures and the governorships too, ideally enough so that you have a good shot at getting 2/3rd of Senators (but that's tough), so then you can pass constitutional amendments and get things functioning again.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Just say, we are only concerned that our opinions are the ones that are in power.

I don't think this is true, and know that it's not true for a great many people.

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

That is NOT the only problem!!

Re: Garland appointment
"No, the Democrats were actually mad because the Republicans didn't approve him, not because they didn't hold a hearing for him."

This is putting thoughts in people's heads where none may have existed and no indication/proof exists for it. It's similar to gaslighting - just with an aim to confuse people (and not drive them mad).

If republicans held the hearing and then voted to reject Garland, then they would have gone on record with their yes/no. Republican's in moderate states (yes there were many, e.g. Susan Collins today) would have been unmasked sooner!!

Voting to reject Garland would have driven some partisan liberals mad, but McConnel's hypocritical gambit was universally seen as breaking democratic norms by everyone following logic 101.

That is just one example. The entire post builds up from the flawed premises of biased "both sides" framing, and hence not salvageable.

At this point in our conversations, I'm used to the condescension you lay upon anybody that disagrees with you, so I'm not concerned that you think my post is unsalvagable.

Sorry that your delicate feelings got hurt.

Seriously though, I wasn't responding to "your" post. I was just explaining to another poster that his assumption of "good faith" on yet another "both sides bot" may not be productive. And yes - here I am using the the existentialist definition of bad faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)) and not the regular Webster dictionary one.

Have at your opinions, sir. I see no point in discussions with you.

I reciprocate your feelings. I'm responding to this one post since it was a direct quote. I'll henceforth refrain from directly engaging you after this one post.

Yes there was speculation involved of what people are thinking. It's not baseless speciulation. I base it on my observations of each side not being willing to do something...

My personal observation based on knowing many liberals was contrary.

Generally it may be useful to focus on the actions first because anecdotal evidence can be unreliable, and when we are dealing with politics even stated positions of career politicians is often misleading, and I generally include "both sides" in this, i.e. Schumer is just as likely to act in an opportunistic manner as McConnel is. What I find disturbing with the "both sides" gambit is the liberal polity (as against politicians) is, in general NOT as hypocritical as the conservative polity. Schumer may be just as much a bastard as McConnel in personal life (and I have it on personal knowledge that he is a foul-mouthed opportunistic politician who can be just as crude as Trump), his actions will be restrained by the polity backing him.

This is where the typical both sides trope falls flat. The democratic polity is generally principled, not as much snowflake'ish and wimp'ish as I find conservatives (i.e. they can take criticism constructively), and are willing and even usually eager to play by the rules that are designed (via gerrymandering and voter suppression) to disenfranchise them.

Although I personally don't find the last part very "principled". At some point of time you need to respond!!

They complain about something and then not just do it themselves but one up it for something else.  See the initial removal Chris22 noted of the rules so it only requires a majority for judges. It's about power and always has been.

Sure thing. Politics is about winning power. That isn't objectionable in itself.

The objectionable part is throwing all principles to the wind for the sake of power. When McConnel obstructs - it is perfectly reasonable (see my comment about responding) and commensurate to change Senate rules so that only majority is sufficient. It would have been hypocritical if Democrats changed it once, and then changed it back again based on their convenience. As far as I can see, they changed the rules and lived with it - convenient or no!!

When you consider the polity (and not the politicians), the both sides argument is laughable and is made in bad faith most of the time.

Lol, glad you're worried about my "delicate feelings." Your posts are always contrived and insulting. You lump people and ideas into groups created in your mind and then argue against what you think they think, throwing in insults for the win! You declare you're not just responding to the one post and yet the climax of your response was that my post was unsalvagable. It's not about my feelings. It's about simple recognition of how people argue in bad faith and with insults and choosing not to respond to them. As you can tell, I'm not the best at it because I'm still responding to you on this one, but I think I'm done :-).

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Grabbing power? Please tell me what power did the Dems end up with? Cause as I see it. There's a lot of "both sides" going on, but only 1 side seems to win and with a minority electorate at that. Somehow the conservative talking heads do a great job at pointing the finger and saying "look at those dirty power grabbers" all the while the one ones actually getting any power without a democratic mandate are the GOP.

Saying that both sides only care about power is like saying that the players in a tennis match only care about winning. Obviously the goal of the game is to win. But what I assume you really intend something a bit more sinister than just politicians playing a game to win. The difference here and now in this election and in what the GOP's power grab actually means. When the Dems are playing a "power grab", it strangely lines up with more access to voting, less gerrymandering, and higher turnout rates. When the GOP power grabs, it usually requires more gerrymandering (Wisconsin and NC state houses), restricting votes (closing polling stations in black and urban areas, and lower turn out rates (Trump won with fewer votes than Romney lost by).

Saying that both parties "only care about power" doesn't really mean much by itself.

Again, there are some good points in your post. My point is this. You are absolutely right that the Republicans are winning the power grabs. Through both timing like if RBG had somehow survived for another 6 months to simply being better at cheating the game than the Democrats are right now. But going back to your tennis analogy, just because one person happens to get more close calls to call out when they're cheating and the other person isn't as quick to make calls that cheat to win, it doesn't make one or the other more scrupulous.

For the second part, I'm not trying to extend things beyond the Supreme Court nominee. There are certainly policies of the GOP that are aimed to reduce voter turnout and policies of the Democrats that are designed to increase voter turnout. The Republicans are gerrymandering and that's bad. I would say that the Democrats wouldn't be nearly as heavily pushing those policies if the voters that are losing their votes were overwhelmingly going to vote Republicans, but even I know that's speculation with no way to prove. I just see this as unprovable that it's this great positive thing for the Democrats. It would be like the CEO of a compnay that produces green energy lobbying hard for the government to give them a grant to help with climate change. Objectively could it be a good thing (if their company was legit)? Sure. Would I put the CEO up for a medal for doing it? Nah, it's a good thing but also self-benefiting.

All that to say, I don't see the Republicans being better at it and some of the Democratic policies that are to improve voter turnout as being any proof that the Democrats aren't just as power hungry as the Republicans.

[GuitarStv]

Note I think packing the Supreme court is too moderate a step. That's why I say courts, plural. They should pack the Supreme Court and all the appellate courts, by at least doubling the members. They should also add a bunch more district courts.

Adding DC and Puerto Rico, splitting California into North and South (and maybe North, Middle, South if that gerrymanders the state lines enough to make them all democratic still).

Maybe split up a couple of other states where Democrats control the state legislatures and the governorships too, ideally enough so that you have a good shot at getting 2/3rd of Senators (but that's tough), so then you can pass constitutional amendments and get things functioning again.

There's a very good case to be made for adding representation of DC and Puerto Rico.  It's unfair that they do not currently have representation.  I am extremely opposed to the idea of gerrymandering to support either political party.  Gerrymandering is always anti-democratic and wrong.  Even if the gerrymandering helps people you currently agree with.

[sherr]

Isn’t saying “let the electorate decide” and then not releasing a list of candidates or a strategy (pack the court or not) sort of the equivalent of saying “we have to pass it to see what’s in it?”

You realize that it's not normal for presidential candidates to release a list of "who I might nominate for the SC if you elect me" right? That's not a thing. Trump only did it in 2016 because conservatives were (rightfully) unconvinced about his commitment to conservative values.

Normally presidents evaluate SC nominations on a case-by-case basis and nominate whomever they think to be the best candidate at the time, not swear to adhere to a list of pre-approved nominees from a conservative think-tank.

[ministashy]

I find it amusing (in a very dark and ironic way) the number of conservative types who seem to both subscribe to McConnell's 'might makes right' and 'if you're the majority, you can do what you want' attitude to politics, and in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all!

As far as I'm concerned this is a natural progression, when one side decides compromise is a dirty word and plays a zero-sum game for power.  Now we'll just see whether Democrats have the backbone to take the game to its natural conclusion.

[bacchi]

I find it amusing (in a very dark and ironic way) the number of conservative types who seem to both subscribe to McConnell's 'might makes right' and 'if you're the majority, you can do what you want' attitude to politics, and in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all!

As far as I'm concerned this is a natural progression, when one side decides compromise is a dirty word and plays a zero-sum game for power.  Now we'll just see whether Democrats have the backbone to take the game to its natural conclusion.

Right. Adding Justices and adding states is in the Constitution. It's historically been done to gain power for a party/position.

[Kris]

I find it amusing (in a very dark and ironic way) the number of conservative types who seem to both subscribe to McConnell's 'might makes right' and 'if you're the majority, you can do what you want' attitude to politics, and in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all!

As far as I'm concerned this is a natural progression, when one side decides compromise is a dirty word and plays a zero-sum game for power.  Now we'll just see whether Democrats have the backbone to take the game to its natural conclusion.

My prediction: not a chance.

[Chris22]

Isn’t saying “let the electorate decide” and then not releasing a list of candidates or a strategy (pack the court or not) sort of the equivalent of saying “we have to pass it to see what’s in it?”

You realize that it's not normal for presidential candidates to release a list of "who I might nominate for the SC if you elect me" right? That's not a thing. Trump only did it in 2016 because conservatives were (rightfully) unconvinced about his commitment to conservative values.

Normally presidents evaluate SC nominations on a case-by-case basis and nominate whomever they think to be the best candidate at the time, not swear to adhere to a list of pre-approved nominees from a conservative think-tank.

Sure, but if your position is “let the voters decide” shouldn’t they be allowed to know what they are choosing?  Also, this isn’t a hypothetical, it’s a real situation. There is a vacancy, “who would you fill it with” is a valid question.

[dividendman]

Isn’t saying “let the electorate decide” and then not releasing a list of candidates or a strategy (pack the court or not) sort of the equivalent of saying “we have to pass it to see what’s in it?”

You realize that it's not normal for presidential candidates to release a list of "who I might nominate for the SC if you elect me" right? That's not a thing. Trump only did it in 2016 because conservatives were (rightfully) unconvinced about his commitment to conservative values.

Normally presidents evaluate SC nominations on a case-by-case basis and nominate whomever they think to be the best candidate at the time, not swear to adhere to a list of pre-approved nominees from a conservative think-tank.

Sure, but if your position is “let the voters decide” shouldn’t they be allowed to know what they are choosing?  Also, this isn’t a hypothetical, it’s a real situation. There is a vacancy, “who would you fill it with” is a valid question.

If Biden had a brain he'd say "Obama" whether Obama agrees or not, just for the votes.

[LWYRUP]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

These are all different issues:

1.  New states:  Do the people of Puerto Rico want to be a state?  If so, they should.  There are referendums on this, and on independence, and the usual answer is "keep the status quo," primarily because territories are taxed differently.  Anyways, this one is up to the citizens of Puerto Rico, not you or me.   Personally, as a mainlander I think eventually they should "shit or get off the pot" and either become a state or declare independence, but most people there seem to prefer keeping things as they are, and until recently there was no political will from elsewhere to change that.  DC is trickier since it was set up to be a certain way, and people moved in knowing the rules.  My preferred solution would be to keep a small federal district and give most of the residential land back to MD.  I would be concerned given the current climate whether free speech rights could be guaranteed to all citizens without federal oversight, so I think the federal government does need control over the mall, the land with the major institutions of government, as well as some nearby military bases.  We simply cannot have a long-term Portland type situation, where people worry about being attacked if they peacefully support one political position instead of another, in our nation's capital.  If DC becomes a state and the federal and state government are able to sort this out, though, I won't lose sleep over it.  (If DC becomes a state though, expect a big push by Republicans to start distributing different agencies across the country.) 

2.   SCOTUS term limits:  Who considers this controversial?  Typically, term limits are a right wing populist idea. 

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

4.  Gerrymandering:  I'm told Republicans do this more, but my blue state is gerrymandered and there have been prominent court cases about this.  Gerrymandering is bad.  We should all oppose it everywhere.  Nobody wins but political insiders. 

5.  Voter suppression / voter fraud:  This one is weird because the norms are so clear but the details are a mess.  Voter suppression is bad and every citizen that wants to vote should be able to.  (Including former felons but excluding current felons.  Also excluding non-citizens.)  We should affirmatively encourage getting people to the polls.  However, the idea that "there is no voter fraud" is a political one.  There's lots of individual examples of it (I know people who have personally done it, unfortunately), but there's really not been many systematic studies of it, and that's constantly touted as "proof" that it doesn't really exist.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.  Let's go commission an extensive study on this, well funded with non-partisan actors.  Let's figure it out.  Anyways, note that lots of countries way poorer than us have figured out how to have biometric voter IDs so there is no reason we could not do it here and just be certain everything was done fairly.  I would support affirmatively funding programs to make it accessible as possible to obtain a biometric voter ID, and phase it in over time.  In fact, you could make it mandatory that people get their biometric voter ID in order to get benefits (food stamps, driver's licenses, etc.) -- that would do a LOT to make sure we got as close to 100% as possible.  If you care about democracy, you want to make sure people trust that the elections are fair.  Right now, neither side does, and that's problematic. 

I know someone is going to link to a Bloomberg article or something explaining exactly how THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD EVER, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT (despite personal experience with it), and to cut it short all I can say is that I really wish that I could trust that it was an accurate reflection of reality and not actually propaganda from partisan media.  It might actually be reality.  I just can't / don't trust it.  I'd need to understand that non-partisan people I actually trust were given time and money and dug into it and concluded that the safeguards in place are sufficient -- what I've read to date sounds a lot to me like "well we haven't really looked but you know see no evil, hear no evil it's OK so any concerns about this at all are just secret voter suppression efforts." 

[dividendman]

Note I think packing the Supreme court is too moderate a step. That's why I say courts, plural. They should pack the Supreme Court and all the appellate courts, by at least doubling the members. They should also add a bunch more district courts.

Adding DC and Puerto Rico, splitting California into North and South (and maybe North, Middle, South if that gerrymanders the state lines enough to make them all democratic still).

Maybe split up a couple of other states where Democrats control the state legislatures and the governorships too, ideally enough so that you have a good shot at getting 2/3rd of Senators (but that's tough), so then you can pass constitutional amendments and get things functioning again.

There's a very good case to be made for adding representation of DC and Puerto Rico.  It's unfair that they do not currently have representation.  I am extremely opposed to the idea of gerrymandering to support either political party.  Gerrymandering is always anti-democratic and wrong.  Even if the gerrymandering helps people you currently agree with.

I think it's context dependent, if you're getting an underrepresented group (in this case democrats), closer to an actual equitable distribution, then the gerrymander is fine.

Note that even if you split California into 3 (roughly equal by population) states its Senators/population is still way below the median.

Simply having more house districts and more senators/states makes it more representative and harder to gerrymander (even if the creation was gerrymandered in the first place).

[sherr]

5.  Voter suppression / voter fraud:  This one is weird because the norms are so clear but the details are a mess.  Voter suppression is bad and every citizen that wants to vote should be able to.  (Including former felons but excluding current felons.  Also excluding non-citizens.)  We should affirmatively encourage getting people to the polls.  However, the idea that "there is no voter fraud" is a political one.  There's lots of individual examples of it (I know people who have personally done it, unfortunately), but there's really not been many systematic studies of it, and that's constantly touted as "proof" that it doesn't really exist.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.  Let's go commission an extensive study on this, well funded with non-partisan actors.

I mean, Trump already had a voter fraud commission, chaired by Pence himself, which quietly disbanded in 2018 after not really finding much. Trump was highly motivated to find "voter fraud", you would think that if it were a widespread problem like conservatives claim that they would have been able to find some evidence of it, right?

You can't prove a negative. If you go looking for something and can't find it, that's the best "proof that it doesn't exist" that you can possibly have.

[LWYRUP]

5.  Voter suppression / voter fraud:  This one is weird because the norms are so clear but the details are a mess.  Voter suppression is bad and every citizen that wants to vote should be able to.  (Including former felons but excluding current felons.  Also excluding non-citizens.)  We should affirmatively encourage getting people to the polls.  However, the idea that "there is no voter fraud" is a political one.  There's lots of individual examples of it (I know people who have personally done it, unfortunately), but there's really not been many systematic studies of it, and that's constantly touted as "proof" that it doesn't really exist.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.  Let's go commission an extensive study on this, well funded with non-partisan actors.

I mean, Trump already had a voter fraud commission, chaired by Pence himself, which quietly disbanded in 2018 after not really finding much. Trump was highly motivated to find "voter fraud", you would think that if it were a widespread problem like conservatives claim that they would have been able to find some evidence of it, right?

You can't prove a negative. If you go looking for something and can't find it, that's the best "proof that it doesn't exist" that you can possibly have.

Seems to me from your wikipedia link like the commission devolved into a shitshow of lawsuits and accusations and did no work.  Sounds about par for the course for DC. 

I'm a pretty introverted person and usually don't talk about politics much in real life, so it's odd that in my small circle of family and friends I know two people who have personal knowledge of voter fraud.  Both times brought up by them and not me.  Of a sample size of like 20 people I am close enough with that they would share that.  It's possible I know particularly unethical people though.  : (

[GuitarStv]

Do the people of Puerto Rico want to be a state?  If so, they should.

97% of them do according to the last referendum on the matter - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum[/quote]

Note I think packing the Supreme court is too moderate a step. That's why I say courts, plural. They should pack the Supreme Court and all the appellate courts, by at least doubling the members. They should also add a bunch more district courts.

Adding DC and Puerto Rico, splitting California into North and South (and maybe North, Middle, South if that gerrymanders the state lines enough to make them all democratic still).

Maybe split up a couple of other states where Democrats control the state legislatures and the governorships too, ideally enough so that you have a good shot at getting 2/3rd of Senators (but that's tough), so then you can pass constitutional amendments and get things functioning again.

There's a very good case to be made for adding representation of DC and Puerto Rico.  It's unfair that they do not currently have representation.  I am extremely opposed to the idea of gerrymandering to support either political party.  Gerrymandering is always anti-democratic and wrong.  Even if the gerrymandering helps people you currently agree with.

I think it's context dependent, if you're getting an underrepresented group (in this case democrats), closer to an actual equitable distribution, then the gerrymander is fine.

Note that even if you split California into 3 (roughly equal by population) states its Senators/population is still way below the median.

Simply having more house districts and more senators/states makes it more representative and harder to gerrymander (even if the creation was gerrymandered in the first place).

I'm going to argue with you on gerrymandering.  It's far too easily abused to make special cases for when you like it being done.

More districts are a much safer way to increase representation.

[LWYRUP]

Do the people of Puerto Rico want to be a state?  If so, they should.

97% of them do according to the last referendum on the matter - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum

Ha!  So the last time I apparently looked into this was before 2012 and it looks like my information is dated. 

I wonder what the shift is for?

Anyways, yes, then if that's the case I officially support statehood for Puerto Rico. 

[EDIT:  Ok, wikipedia says the reason for the low turnout was that one of the political parties boycotted the referendum.  So the massive change to 97% is almost certainly inaccurate, which makes sense.  I don't think you can really get 97% of people to agree on anything.  But it looks like there is a new referendum in November 2020 and that this one is also expected to be pro-statehood, in part because of experiences with the hurricane and Covid.  So, looks like there's been a shift in the last 20 years on this issue.  So, qualified support depending on outcome of this referendum.] 

[bacchi]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

We can use history as a guide.

The last flurry of packing was done when Honest Abe added a Justice because he was pissed about the Dred Scott decision. Importantly, he justified it because California was added as a free state and had grown.

After Lincoln was assassinated, abolitionist Senators (Republicans) were worried about Andrew Johnson's preference for Jim Crow laws. They decreased the court size so that Andrew couldn't replace Justices with slave owners. It was increased again when the one district-one Judge precedent was removed.

The Supreme Court didn't become a "new House of Lords" (seriously?). It's not "anti-democratic" (seriously?) because the Court size isn't mentioned the Constitution. It's left to...Congress.


tl;dr Been there, done that. The US survived.

[FIPurpose]

Grabbing power? Please tell me what power did the Dems end up with? Cause as I see it. There's a lot of "both sides" going on, but only 1 side seems to win and with a minority electorate at that. Somehow the conservative talking heads do a great job at pointing the finger and saying "look at those dirty power grabbers" all the while the one ones actually getting any power without a democratic mandate are the GOP.

Saying that both sides only care about power is like saying that the players in a tennis match only care about winning. Obviously the goal of the game is to win. But what I assume you really intend something a bit more sinister than just politicians playing a game to win. The difference here and now in this election and in what the GOP's power grab actually means. When the Dems are playing a "power grab", it strangely lines up with more access to voting, less gerrymandering, and higher turnout rates. When the GOP power grabs, it usually requires more gerrymandering (Wisconsin and NC state houses), restricting votes (closing polling stations in black and urban areas, and lower turn out rates (Trump won with fewer votes than Romney lost by).

Saying that both parties "only care about power" doesn't really mean much by itself.

Again, there are some good points in your post. My point is this. You are absolutely right that the Republicans are winning the power grabs. Through both timing like if RBG had somehow survived for another 6 months to simply being better at cheating the game than the Democrats are right now. But going back to your tennis analogy, just because one person happens to get more close calls to call out when they're cheating and the other person isn't as quick to make calls that cheat to win, it doesn't make one or the other more scrupulous.

For the second part, I'm not trying to extend things beyond the Supreme Court nominee. There are certainly policies of the GOP that are aimed to reduce voter turnout and policies of the Democrats that are designed to increase voter turnout. The Republicans are gerrymandering and that's bad. I would say that the Democrats wouldn't be nearly as heavily pushing those policies if the voters that are losing their votes were overwhelmingly going to vote Republicans, but even I know that's speculation with no way to prove. I just see this as unprovable that it's this great positive thing for the Democrats. It would be like the CEO of a compnay that produces green energy lobbying hard for the government to give them a grant to help with climate change. Objectively could it be a good thing (if their company was legit)? Sure. Would I put the CEO up for a medal for doing it? Nah, it's a good thing but also self-benefiting.

All that to say, I don't see the Republicans being better at it and some of the Democratic policies that are to improve voter turnout as being any proof that the Democrats aren't just as power hungry as the Republicans.

I think I can mostly agree with your thoughts here. In the same way that any corporation or political party has it's own motivations and goals. The people who purchase their products (or vote for them), should only do so if their interests align. R's and D's are simply tools nothing more. So understanding that political parties are vehicles to power and corporations are vehicles for profit, the people voting for them should only do so as long as they continue to serve the interests and needs of their customers (electorate).

Unfortunately, people have a tendency to becoming brand loyal. And the GOP has built an extremely strong brand over the past 40 years and have been slowly spending down their social capital for bigger tax breaks and lower voter turnout. We all know where this ends up. Eventually the current party leadership will be powerless until they decide to actually realign with the people again. I believe the 50-60's were seen as a golden era partly because both sides played politics on a even playing field. They both saw they route to power through convincing a majority of the country that their ideas were better. Again, unfortunately, I believe that currently we only have 1 party that has an interest in seeking a majority mandate. So as long as Dems continue to align with that strategy, that's where my vote will go. Should that change 10-20 years in the future, I'll reconsider that vote again towards the party that maintains and enables greater democracy.

[LWYRUP]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

We can use history as a guide.

The last flurry of packing was done when Honest Abe added a Justice because he was pissed about the Dred Scott decision. Importantly, he justified it because California was added as a free state and had grown.

After Lincoln was assassinated, abolitionist Senators (Republicans) were worried about Andrew Johnson's preference for Jim Crow laws. They decreased the court size so that Andrew couldn't replace Justices with slave owners. It was increased again when the one district-one Judge precedent was removed.

The Supreme Court didn't become a "new House of Lords" (seriously?). It's not "anti-democratic" (seriously?) because the Court size isn't mentioned the Constitution. It's left to...Congress.


tl;dr Been there, done that. The US survived.

If Democrats pump up the court to 15, expect Republicans to then pump it up to like 25.  If I am their strategist, you pack it MORE than the last team.  So I'm just mapping how this plays out.  Abe adding one justice in the middle of a Civil War is apples and oranges. 

[FIPurpose]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

We can use history as a guide.

The last flurry of packing was done when Honest Abe added a Justice because he was pissed about the Dred Scott decision. Importantly, he justified it because California was added as a free state and had grown.

After Lincoln was assassinated, abolitionist Senators (Republicans) were worried about Andrew Johnson's preference for Jim Crow laws. They decreased the court size so that Andrew couldn't replace Justices with slave owners. It was increased again when the one district-one Judge precedent was removed.

The Supreme Court didn't become a "new House of Lords" (seriously?). It's not "anti-democratic" (seriously?) because the Court size isn't mentioned the Constitution. It's left to...Congress.


tl;dr Been there, done that. The US survived.

If the president had complete unanimous control over the Supreme Court and filled it with Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Gates, then we could say that it's like the House of Lords.

At least that way we'd all agree that it was a complete sham lol.

[bacchi]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

We can use history as a guide.

The last flurry of packing was done when Honest Abe added a Justice because he was pissed about the Dred Scott decision. Importantly, he justified it because California was added as a free state and had grown.

After Lincoln was assassinated, abolitionist Senators (Republicans) were worried about Andrew Johnson's preference for Jim Crow laws. They decreased the court size so that Andrew couldn't replace Justices with slave owners. It was increased again when the one district-one Judge precedent was removed.

The Supreme Court didn't become a "new House of Lords" (seriously?). It's not "anti-democratic" (seriously?) because the Court size isn't mentioned the Constitution. It's left to...Congress.


tl;dr Been there, done that. The US survived.

If Democrats pump up the court to 15, expect Republicans to then pump it up to like 25.  If I am their strategist, you pack it MORE than the last team.  So I'm just mapping how this plays out.  Abe adding one justice in the middle of a Civil War is apples and oranges.

I hope this isn't a serious concern of the "but both sides" proponents.

Plus, worrying about the (final) straw that broke the camel's back is silly when ignoring the other 500 pounds of bale on the camel.

[LWYRUP]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

We can use history as a guide.

The last flurry of packing was done when Honest Abe added a Justice because he was pissed about the Dred Scott decision. Importantly, he justified it because California was added as a free state and had grown.

After Lincoln was assassinated, abolitionist Senators (Republicans) were worried about Andrew Johnson's preference for Jim Crow laws. They decreased the court size so that Andrew couldn't replace Justices with slave owners. It was increased again when the one district-one Judge precedent was removed.

The Supreme Court didn't become a "new House of Lords" (seriously?). It's not "anti-democratic" (seriously?) because the Court size isn't mentioned the Constitution. It's left to...Congress.


tl;dr Been there, done that. The US survived.

If Democrats pump up the court to 15, expect Republicans to then pump it up to like 25.  If I am their strategist, you pack it MORE than the last team.  So I'm just mapping how this plays out.  Abe adding one justice in the middle of a Civil War is apples and oranges.

I hope this isn't a serious concern of the "but both sides" proponents.

Plus, worrying about the (final) straw that broke the camel's back is silly when ignoring the other 500 pounds of bale on the camel.

Personally, I think if the court is packed to 15 then project USA is effectively finished, whether at that time or later as part of a tit-for-tat retribution.  I know the other idea is a new constitutional convention, but honestly I think a number of states would just take their ball and go home.  Trying to tack on a few Senate seats with Puerto Rico and DC seems like a more logical way to shift the balance of power without unduly disrupting the apple cart.  But none of this will be my call so it is what it is. 

Sometimes, I think a peaceful dissolution into 50 individual states would probably be the best outcome, but it would really damage my home price near the beltway, so I'm all for coming up with ideas so that doesn't happen (at least until I can get my kids through school and plan an exit). 

[FIPurpose]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

We can use history as a guide.

The last flurry of packing was done when Honest Abe added a Justice because he was pissed about the Dred Scott decision. Importantly, he justified it because California was added as a free state and had grown.

After Lincoln was assassinated, abolitionist Senators (Republicans) were worried about Andrew Johnson's preference for Jim Crow laws. They decreased the court size so that Andrew couldn't replace Justices with slave owners. It was increased again when the one district-one Judge precedent was removed.

The Supreme Court didn't become a "new House of Lords" (seriously?). It's not "anti-democratic" (seriously?) because the Court size isn't mentioned the Constitution. It's left to...Congress.


tl;dr Been there, done that. The US survived.

If Democrats pump up the court to 15, expect Republicans to then pump it up to like 25.  If I am their strategist, you pack it MORE than the last team.  So I'm just mapping how this plays out.  Abe adding one justice in the middle of a Civil War is apples and oranges.

I hope this isn't a serious concern of the "but both sides" proponents.

Plus, worrying about the (final) straw that broke the camel's back is silly when ignoring the other 500 pounds of bale on the camel.

Personally, I think if the court is packed to 15 then project USA is effectively finished, whether at that time or later as part of a tit-for-tat retribution.  I know the other idea is a new constitutional convention, but honestly I think a number of states would just take their ball and go home.  Trying to tack on a few Senate seats with Puerto Rico and DC seems like a more logical way to shift the balance of power without unduly disrupting the apple cart.  But none of this will be my call so it is what it is. 

Sometimes, I think a peaceful dissolution into 50 individual states would probably be the best outcome, but it would really damage my home price near the beltway, so I'm all for coming up with ideas so that doesn't happen (at least until I can get my kids through school and plan an exit).

The red states are usually the ones that call for a constitutional convention, but they are the most disadvantaged, they receive the most federal funding, and would be left with a huge loss. Think about Wyoming who is already dealing with massive Oil Revenue loss, would then be land locked, and would no longer receive massive subsidies for the amount of infrastructure that goes into maintaining Yellowstone, its roads, healthcare, etc.

Small red states picking up their ball and going home would only hurt themselves and as soon as anyone ran an analysis on the numbers for independence, they would have to immediately start back tracking.

[LWYRUP]

in the very next breath scream about how adding supreme court justices or limiting terms or adding states is absolutely not a thing anyone should ever due because precedent!  Norms!  The unthinkableness of it all

3.  Court packing:  This would be a new level of norm breaking -- not done in almost two hundred years (back when the Republic was just coalescing as a nation).  Expect if you do this, that the court will be packed again by the other side later, and so on.  (The idea that one party is just going to perpetually have power from now on is ludicrous -- the overreach / pushback cycle is common in American politics, and SCOTUS stacking would seem to me like it would trigger that.)  So eventually the Court becomes more like a shadow legislature -- a new House of Lords so to speak.  Not sure this is really the outcome you are intending.  It's anti-democratic, but honestly democracy is currently on the ropes and authoritarian governments (China, Russia) are rising.  So maybe you think democracy is failing and we do need to make our system less democratic and more aristocratic?  Seems like an odd move for the progressive left but these are odd times. 

We can use history as a guide.

The last flurry of packing was done when Honest Abe added a Justice because he was pissed about the Dred Scott decision. Importantly, he justified it because California was added as a free state and had grown.

After Lincoln was assassinated, abolitionist Senators (Republicans) were worried about Andrew Johnson's preference for Jim Crow laws. They decreased the court size so that Andrew couldn't replace Justices with slave owners. It was increased again when the one district-one Judge precedent was removed.

The Supreme Court didn't become a "new House of Lords" (seriously?). It's not "anti-democratic" (seriously?) because the Court size isn't mentioned the Constitution. It's left to...Congress.


tl;dr Been there, done that. The US survived.

If Democrats pump up the court to 15, expect Republicans to then pump it up to like 25.  If I am their strategist, you pack it MORE than the last team.  So I'm just mapping how this plays out.  Abe adding one justice in the middle of a Civil War is apples and oranges.

I hope this isn't a serious concern of the "but both sides" proponents.

Plus, worrying about the (final) straw that broke the camel's back is silly when ignoring the other 500 pounds of bale on the camel.

Personally, I think if the court is packed to 15 then project USA is effectively finished, whether at that time or later as part of a tit-for-tat retribution.  I know the other idea is a new constitutional convention, but honestly I think a number of states would just take their ball and go home.  Trying to tack on a few Senate seats with Puerto Rico and DC seems like a more logical way to shift the balance of power without unduly disrupting the apple cart.  But none of this will be my call so it is what it is. 

Sometimes, I think a peaceful dissolution into 50 individual states would probably be the best outcome, but it would really damage my home price near the beltway, so I'm all for coming up with ideas so that doesn't happen (at least until I can get my kids through school and plan an exit).

The red states are usually the ones that call for a constitutional convention, but they are the most disadvantaged, they receive the most federal funding, and would be left with a huge loss. Think about Wyoming who is already dealing with massive Oil Revenue loss, would then be land locked, and would no longer receive massive subsidies for the amount of infrastructure that goes into maintaining Yellowstone, its roads, healthcare, etc.

Small red states picking up their ball and going home would only hurt themselves and as soon as anyone ran an analysis on the numbers for independence, they would have to immediately start back tracking.

The way it breaks down I think is not like the government of Wyoming decides to create the country of Wyoming.  It probably happens due to this sanctuary type stuff.

So liberal places create sanctuaries where immigration law is overlooked, or federal marijuana laws are overlooked.  Then there are now "gun sanctuaries."  Next it will be something else -- abortion sanctuaries?  Peaceful right wing protests are currently basically not allowed in places like Portland.  Somewhat understandably, because they would be attacked so I get it, but there's nothing being done effectively to stop that dynamic.  So now you add to that a packed SCOTUS and then it implements some far reaching decisions and people just start to ignore them. 

We really need to do a better job of sorting out what is federal law -- and enforce it -- and what is state law.  The current system isn't really working well. 

[bacchi]

Personally, I think if the court is packed to 15 then project USA is effectively finished, whether at that time or later as part of a tit-for-tat retribution.  I know the other idea is a new constitutional convention, but honestly I think a number of states would just take their ball and go home.  Trying to tack on a few Senate seats with Puerto Rico and DC seems like a more logical way to shift the balance of power without unduly disrupting the apple cart.  But none of this will be my call so it is what it is. 

Sometimes, I think a peaceful dissolution into 50 individual states would probably be the best outcome, but it would really damage my home price near the beltway, so I'm all for coming up with ideas so that doesn't happen (at least until I can get my kids through school and plan an exit).

Using history as a guide, the court would be expanded and then reduced. It went from 9 to 10 to 7 to 9 in a period of about 10 years in the 1860s. It wouldn't keep growing to 15 and then 25 and then 75. Besides, where would we put everybody? We'd have to build a new building for all of those Justices.

If you're worried about the US as a viable country, there are more imminent threats, like a sitting President who has "joked" multiple times about not leaving office if he loses.

[FIPurpose]

The way it breaks down I think is not like the government of Wyoming decides to create the country of Wyoming.  It probably happens due to this sanctuary type stuff.

So liberal places create sanctuaries where immigration law is overlooked, or federal marijuana laws are overlooked.  Then there are now "gun sanctuaries."  Next it will be something else -- abortion sanctuaries?  Peaceful right wing protests are currently basically not allowed in places like Portland.  Somewhat understandably, because they would be attacked so I get it, but there's nothing being done effectively to stop that dynamic.  So now you add to that a packed SCOTUS and then it implements some far reaching decisions and people just start to ignore them. 

We really need to do a better job of sorting out what is federal law -- and enforce it -- and what is state law.  The current system isn't really working well.

Seeing as you're bringing up the closest large city I live to. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[LWYRUP]

If you're worried about the US as a viable country, there are more imminent threats, like a sitting President who has "joked" multiple times about not leaving office if he loses.

I offer no defense of the orange idiot.  I don't think he's actually the next Hitler or anything like some do, but he can carry his own water -- I'm not going to. 

I assume this is some sort of strategy to leave as much room open to challenge the election in court?  I don't know.  If we have a contested election, I assume that it will eventually go up to SCOTUS, and the military will follow the SCOTUS decision.  Personally, I'll just see how the process plays out.  I think we do still have enough responsible actors left that we'll get through it, but then again my family fled Europe due to political repression and that's why I'm here so who knows?  Maybe we'll need to flee again.