Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 681611 times)

nessness

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5000 on: October 27, 2020, 08:38:22 AM »
Was talking to a friend. Is all this far right GOP BS a reaction to a falling population of supporters? What is their strategy as American becomes a little more liberal each election cycle?

Eventually, once they've caused all manner of stress for the US, will they suddenly relent and b/c more moderate to woo back voters?
I read an article recently saying that the GOP has shifted strategies from trying to attract a majority of voters to trying to preserve power with a minority of voters. It definitely tracks with all the voter suppression, ramming through ACB's confirmation, etc.

This strategy won't work forever though, at least without collapsing into full-on authoritarianism. If they get hammered this election cycle, I think we might start to see a swing back to the middle. I think they're probably more likely to try to woo hispanic voters than black voters.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5001 on: October 27, 2020, 08:39:45 AM »
I think that a big problem establishment republicans had (and why they lost control of the party) is that they severely underestimated how much the people they support want to own the libs, ignore science, force their religious views on others, and be openly racist.  Trump didn't re-make the party . . . as much as he gave Republicans voters what they overwhelmingly wanted.

Voters didn't want to moderate or make deals.  Voters didn't want to be fiscally conservative.  Voters didn't want to make a more inclusive party.  They got exactly what they wanted in Trump . . . that's why they're such huge fans of him.

It's definitely a little of column A and a little of column B. The fact that Trump was the most representative of what the voters wanted is the reason they nominated him in the first place. But he has also definitely remade the party into his own image. Like you said, Trump approval amongst Republicans is high-90s today, but he definitely didn't get 90% of the vote in the first primary. He did get 90% of the vote in his second primary though.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5002 on: October 27, 2020, 09:18:18 AM »
So Amy Comey Barrett is confirmed by the Senate (first justice since 1870 to receive 0 votes from the minority party), and this is the same day that the eight legacy Justices vote 5-3 to block voting accommodations to Wisconsin.

Every state  legislature ought to have language in their relevant election statute such  as: "In the event of an exigency an extension of the period for the counting of votes is permissible."

Despite her lifetime appointment, Barrett allows Trump to immediately use her as a campaign prop (a "pawn" if you will) from the WH balcony.

Kavanaugh--in a footnote--acknowledges Rehnquist's reasoning from Bush v. Gore. It seems that Republicans are excited to use their shiny new Supreme Court Justice to decide a Presidential election if they really need to.

In her  fiery dissent in Bush v. Gore  RBG criticized the majority for lending  "credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land."

I imagine that C.J. Roberts' concern for the *Court's institutional  reputation is already causing him nightmares about Bush v. Gore redux.

*Avoidance of the taint of a politicized Court was among the reasons Roberts delivered the opinion that upheld the ACA.


Counterpoint: Roberts has been desperate to preserve the legitimacy of the Court to prepare for this moment. He may well have lost control of the conservative bloc, but they wouldn't have gotten to here without Roberts' caution up until now.

But how exactly could Roberts believe a SCOTUS that has Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett is a bad thing?

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5003 on: October 27, 2020, 09:55:11 AM »
So Amy Comey Barrett is confirmed by the Senate (first justice since 1870 to receive 0 votes from the minority party), and this is the same day that the eight legacy Justices vote 5-3 to block voting accommodations to Wisconsin.

Every state  legislature ought to have language in their relevant election statute such  as: "In the event of an exigency an extension of the period for the counting of votes is permissible."

Despite her lifetime appointment, Barrett allows Trump to immediately use her as a campaign prop (a "pawn" if you will) from the WH balcony.

Kavanaugh--in a footnote--acknowledges Rehnquist's reasoning from Bush v. Gore. It seems that Republicans are excited to use their shiny new Supreme Court Justice to decide a Presidential election if they really need to.

In her  fiery dissent in Bush v. Gore  RBG criticized the majority for lending  "credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land."

I imagine that C.J. Roberts' concern for the *Court's institutional  reputation is already causing him nightmares about Bush v. Gore redux.

*Avoidance of the taint of a politicized Court was among the reasons Roberts delivered the opinion that upheld the ACA.


Counterpoint: Roberts has been desperate to preserve the legitimacy of the Court to prepare for this moment. He may well have lost control of the conservative bloc, but they wouldn't have gotten to here without Roberts' caution up until now.

But how exactly could Roberts believe a SCOTUS that has Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett is a bad thing?

If Roberts' worry  about politicization of the Court is not a feint, I  think now he may  be thinking: "New Justice Barrett may join with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas  in an opinion that has the appearance of a politicized Court and  there's nothing I can do about it."

Here are the nubs of the opposing arguments as to the issue of the Wisconsin ballot-deadline extension:

“On the scales of both constitutional justice and electoral accuracy, protecting the right to vote in a health crisis outweighs conforming to a deadline created in safer days.” Justice Elena Kagan

 A “green light to federal courts to rewrite dozens of state election laws around the country over the next two weeks seems to be rooted in a belief that federal judges know better than state legislators about how to run elections during a pandemic.” Justice Kavanaugh

I agree with Kavanaugh.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 09:58:10 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5004 on: October 27, 2020, 10:11:21 AM »
A “green light to federal courts to rewrite dozens of state election laws around the country over the next two weeks seems to be rooted in a belief that federal judges know better than state legislators about how to run elections during a pandemic.” Justice Kavanaugh

I agree with Kavanaugh.

But do you also agree with Kavanaugh that the deadline extension in Pennsylvania should be halted/struck down? Because that seems to be permissible under the Pennsylvania law, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees, and any Supreme Court interference in that decision would seem to be the exact opposite: Republican federal judges declaring that they know better than state legislators / state supreme courts about managing their own elections.

It seems like the consistent thread here is a Republican desire to prevent any voter accommodations during the pandemic, not some principled adherence to federalism or the separation of the judiciary / legislature.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 10:17:43 AM by sherr »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5005 on: October 27, 2020, 10:48:04 AM »
A “green light to federal courts to rewrite dozens of state election laws around the country over the next two weeks seems to be rooted in a belief that federal judges know better than state legislators about how to run elections during a pandemic.” Justice Kavanaugh

I agree with Kavanaugh.

But do you also agree with Kavanaugh that the deadline extension in Pennsylvania should be halted/struck down? Because that seems to be permissible under the Pennsylvania law, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees, and any Supreme Court interference in that decision would seem to be the exact opposite: Republican federal judges declaring that they know better than state legislators / state supreme courts about managing their own elections.

It seems like the consistent thread here is a Republican desire to prevent any voter accommodations during the pandemic, not some principled adherence to federalism or the separation of the judiciary / legislature.



If before the pandemic Pennsylvania's election law provided  for a deadline extension, or provides for a change of the deadline extension during an exigency,  no federalist would countenance a federal court ruling against these provisions. 

Under the principle of federalism, every state has legitimate power to legislate its own, unique election laws.

Of this power there is no question.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5006 on: October 27, 2020, 11:14:45 AM »
If before the pandemic Pennsylvania's election law provided  for a deadline extension, or provides for a change of the deadline extension during an exigency,  no federalist would countenance a federal court ruling against these provisions.

Since you're staking your argument on federalism, when exactly the law was modified, and whether "deadline extension during an exigency" is an explicit call-out or merely the result of two conflicting laws (which it is in this case, the law that established no-cause mail in voting vs the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Claus) is completely irrelevant. Virtually all decisions that come before judges are holding two opposing laws / legal principles in tension, if things were spelled out crystal-clear and unarguably in the law then we wouldn't need judges.

Under the principle of federalism, every state has legitimate power to legislate its own, unique election laws.

Of this power there is no question.

Okay, let's see if that's what your "Federalist/Textualist/Originalist" 6-3 majority Supreme Court does then. Here we clearly have a case of a state deciding how to handle its own election. Let's see if the "Federalist" Supreme Court decides to overrule them.

Here is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision on the matter. Feel free to read it and let us know where a "Federalist" Supreme Court would disagree with Pennsylvania's decisions on how to handle their elections.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 11:48:37 AM by sherr »

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5007 on: October 27, 2020, 12:11:15 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-says-biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-air-conditioning-for-american-seniors/ar-BB1aliSX

President Donald Trump said during a campaign event at retirement community The Villages in Florida on Friday that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's energy plans would take away air conditioning from senior citizens.

At Friday's afternoon campaign event, Trump said Biden's proposed move away from fossil fuels "would mean America's seniors have no air conditioning during the summer, no heat during the winter and no electricity during peak hours. It's true."

This guy is unreal with his lies! Do people actually believe this crap?

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5008 on: October 27, 2020, 12:17:46 PM »
This guy is unreal with his lies! Do people actually believe this crap?

Yes, to three different definitions and groups of people.

First of all, yes, there are definitely people out there who have drunk the koolaid so thoroughly that they actually believe him, and will continue to do so even after he is proven wrong (on this or any other topic). I don't think that's a huge group, maybe 10% of the population, but they exist.

I think there's a much larger group of people who don't actually believe him, but are delighted with the venom with which he attacks the people they hate, and therefore will act for all intents and purposes like they believe him and delightedly repeat everything he says.

And then finally there's the "take him seriously but not literally" people, who excuse away every one of his obvious lies with "well that was just a metaphor, he's just saying that we still need coal energy" or something. They believe he's telling the truth even in the process of telling obvious lies, and there is nothing anyone can say to convince them otherwise.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 12:19:48 PM by sherr »

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5009 on: October 27, 2020, 12:25:28 PM »

I think that a big problem establishment republicans had (and why they lost control of the party) is that they severely underestimated how much the people they support want to own the libs, ignore science, force their religious views on others, and be openly racist.  Trump didn't re-make the party . . . as much as he gave Republicans voters what they overwhelmingly wanted.


As one of those people I believe it is the typically media garbage of what happened because they ignore the fact that most of the party is turned off by this crap.

A highly vocal minority of the party came out supporting a terrible human being in 2016 and swung the election by taking 78,000 votes in three states while a quiet majority bought into the con that he would become presidential and as the main bonus give them policies they wanted.

The Republican party lost me and any other standard Republican I personally know because of these tactics because we are none of those awful things.  We are simply conservative.  While Christian, I push my views on no one and think legislating them is wrong.  While I disagree with some of the Democratic policies I am willing to talk about them and realize the waste of effort in getting actual work done that "owning the libs" creates and am fed up with the inability to speak as adults.  The conversations in many Republican circles are where do we go?  The Republican party is no longer viable because of this shift for anyone other than far-right believers.  Those in the middle and beyond are no longer welcome and that is a large, large group.  So we are open to being courted by reasonable adults and Joe Biden did a great job this cycle and I think that will be borne out on November 3rd. 
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 12:32:07 PM by caracarn »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6145
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5010 on: October 27, 2020, 12:33:50 PM »
Okay, let's see if that's what your "Federalist/Textualist/Originalist" 6-3 majority Supreme Court does then. Here we clearly have a case of a state deciding how to handle its own election. Let's see if the "Federalist" Supreme Court decides to overrule them.

The request for a stay of the PA Court order was already denied, 4-4. Barrett is profoundly conservative. With some stretched opinion, it'll be 5-4 in favor of the feds deciding how Pennsylvania manages its elections.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101920zr1_ebfi.pdf

A real test will be Fulton v Philly, where Barrett has to face a majority decision written by her mentor, Scalia. We'll definitely see how partisan she is then.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5011 on: October 27, 2020, 12:40:43 PM »
If before the pandemic Pennsylvania's election law provided  for a deadline extension, or provides for a change of the deadline extension during an exigency,  no federalist would countenance a federal court ruling against these provisions.

Since you're staking your argument on federalism, when exactly the law was modified, and whether "deadline extension during an exigency" is an explicit call-out or merely the result of two conflicting laws (which it is in this case, the law that established no-cause mail in voting vs the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Claus) is completely irrelevant. Virtually all decisions that come before judges are holding two opposing laws / legal principles in tension, if things were spelled out crystal-clear and unarguably in the law then we wouldn't need judges.

Under the principle of federalism, every state has legitimate power to legislate its own, unique election laws.

Of this power there is no question.

Okay, let's see if that's what your "Federalist/Textualist/Originalist" 6-3 majority Supreme Court does then. Here we clearly have a case of a state deciding how to handle it's own election. Let's see if the "Federalist" Supreme Court decides to overrule them.

Here is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision on the matter. Feel free to read it and let us know where a "Ferderalist" Supreme Court would disagree with Pennsylvania's decisions on how to handle their elections.

"Republican legislators and the Pennsylvania Republican Party...argued that the portion of the ruling allowing unclear postmarks would result in the counting of some ballots that are actually sent after Election Day, thereby violating federal election law and the U.S. Constitution." SCOTUSblog

The unquestionable power of the states under federalism to legislate their own election laws is subject to compliance with federal election law   and the  Constitution.

The Supreme Court's exercise of its power of judicial review is apposite when  credible violations of federal election law and the Constitution are at issue.

 The Court's hearing of such issues is not judicial  overreach or encroachment of a state's power under federalism to establish its election laws.


If you are interested in further discussion of constitutional  issues I'd appreciate if you frame them in your own words in a short paragraph.

Quoting  the essence of arguments/positions is a quick and easy way to do it.





sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5012 on: October 27, 2020, 12:42:21 PM »
Okay, let's see if that's what your "Federalist/Textualist/Originalist" 6-3 majority Supreme Court does then. Here we clearly have a case of a state deciding how to handle its own election. Let's see if the "Federalist" Supreme Court decides to overrule them.

The request for a stay of the PA Court order was already denied, 4-4. Barrett is profoundly conservative. With some stretched opinion, it'll be 5-4 in favor of the feds deciding how Pennsylvania manages its elections.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101920zr1_ebfi.pdf

A real test will be Fulton v Philly, where Barrett has to face a majority decision written by her mentor, Scalia. We'll definitely see how partisan she is then.

The request for a stay (to hold off for now) was denied, yes, but the Pennsylvania GOP has gone back and is now asking that the Supreme Court rule on the merits of their case. I agree with you, I think we'll see this Supreme Court interfere with Pennsylvania's constitutional right to manage their own elections 5-4, and it will immediately put to rest all this "federalist" nonsense.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5013 on: October 27, 2020, 12:46:08 PM »

I think that a big problem establishment republicans had (and why they lost control of the party) is that they severely underestimated how much the people they support want to own the libs, ignore science, force their religious views on others, and be openly racist.  Trump didn't re-make the party . . . as much as he gave Republicans voters what they overwhelmingly wanted.


As one of those people I believe it is the typically media garbage of what happened because they ignore the fact that most of the party is turned off by this crap.

A highly vocal minority of the party came out supporting a terrible human being in 2016 and swung the election by taking 78,000 votes in three states while a quiet majority bought into the con that he would become presidential and as the main bonus give them policies they wanted.

The Republican party lost me and any other standard Republican I personally know because of these tactics because we are none of those awful things.  We are simply conservative.  While Christian, I push my views on no one and think legislating them is wrong.  While I disagree with some of the Democratic policies I am willing to talk about them and realize the waste of effort in getting actual work done that "owning the libs" creates and am fed up with the inability to speak as adults.  The conversations in many Republican circles are where do we go?  The Republican party is no longer viable because of this shift for anyone other than far-right believers.  Those in the middle and beyond are no longer welcome and that is a large, large group.  So we are open to being courted by reasonable adults and Joe Biden did a great job this cycle and I think that will be borne out on November 3rd.

I'm guessing you're one of the whopping 6% of Republicans who do not approve of Donald Trump's job as president as of Sep30 - Oct15, 2020.  I have no issue with you.  But 94% of Republicans are saying Donald Trump is doing a job that they approve of.  That doesn't really sound like most of the party is turned off by this crap.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5014 on: October 27, 2020, 12:50:53 PM »
"Republican legislators and the Pennsylvania Republican Party...argued that the portion of the ruling allowing unclear postmarks would result in the counting of some ballots that are actually sent after Election Day, thereby violating federal election law and the U.S. Constitution." SCOTUSblog

The unquestionable power of the states under federalism to legislate their own election laws is subject to compliance with federal election law   and the  Constitution.

The Supreme Court's exercise of its power of judicial review is apposite when  credible violations of federal election law and the Constitution are at issue.

 The Court's hearing of such issues is not judicial  overreach or encroachment of a state's power under federalism to establish its election laws.

The Penn SC allows for ballots received after election day to be counted if (paraphrasing):
a) they are postmarked by election day
b) if the postmark is missing or unreadable (which should be a tiny fraction of votes, yes?) then assume they were mailed by election day unless there's some reason to think otherwise.

That seems eminently reasonable to me.

If the SC solely and only strikes down (b) and says that, no, ballots with missing or unreadable postmarks that are received after election day can't be counted because they might have been mailed later, then fine, whatever. I disagree that that's reasonable or that there's a "credible violation of federal election law", but that's also not the end of the world.

If they instead strike down the whole thing and decide that no ballot received later can be counted then you know that that's not the real reason they're doing it, and there is no way to frame this as a "federalist decision that's just trying to enforce federal election law". Agreed?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 12:54:23 PM by sherr »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5015 on: October 27, 2020, 01:05:50 PM »

A real test will be Fulton v Philly, where Barrett has to face a majority decision written by her mentor, Scalia. We'll definitely see how partisan she is then.

Fulton will be  argued November 4th.

As a First Amendment absolutist it's a case that interests me.

It is a case about the liberty of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Though Philadelphia is not a federal entity I think the  issue in Fulton is the  sort of religious-liberty issue Justice Gorsuch was thinking of in Bostock when he referred to the RFRA  "as a kind of super statute" and "future cases too."


Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases.

 But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 06:23:48 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6145
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5016 on: October 27, 2020, 01:26:26 PM »

A real test will be Fulton v Philly, where Barrett has to face a majority decision written by her mentor, Scalia. We'll definitely see how partisan she is then.

Fulton will be  argued November 4th.

As a First Amendment absolutist it's a case that interests me.

It is a case about the liberty of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

The issue in Fulton is the  sort of religious-liberty issue Justice Gorsuch was thinking of in Bostock when he referred to the RFRA  "as a kind of super statute" and "future cases too."


Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases.

 But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too.

Didn't Reynolds v. US (1878) address this?

Quote
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

And Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which references Reynolds:

Quote
What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

When a religious exemption has another right attached to it, such as sex, then an exemption is applicable. When it's done simply because it's religious, then every citizen becomes a law unto himself.

The 3rd Circuit was unanimous.

I predict this case will go...5-4 or 6-3 in favor of Philadelphia. We both know how Alito and Thomas will rule and Barrett will likely join them.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5017 on: October 27, 2020, 01:37:28 PM »
"Republican legislators and the Pennsylvania Republican Party...argued that the portion of the ruling allowing unclear postmarks would result in the counting of some ballots that are actually sent after Election Day, thereby violating federal election law and the U.S. Constitution." SCOTUSblog

The unquestionable power of the states under federalism to legislate their own election laws is subject to compliance with federal election law   and the  Constitution.

The Supreme Court's exercise of its power of judicial review is apposite when  credible violations of federal election law and the Constitution are at issue.

 The Court's hearing of such issues is not judicial  overreach or encroachment of a state's power under federalism to establish its election laws.

The Penn SC allows for ballots received after election day to be counted if (paraphrasing):
a) they are postmarked by election day
b) if the postmark is missing or unreadable (which should be a tiny fraction of votes, yes?) then assume they were mailed by election day unless there's some reason to think otherwise.

That seems eminently reasonable to me.

If the SC solely and only strikes down (b) and says that, no, ballots with missing or unreadable postmarks that are received after election day can't be counted because they might have been mailed later, then fine, whatever. I disagree that that's reasonable or that there's a "credible violation of federal election law", but that's also not the end of the world.

If they instead strike down the whole thing and decide that no ballot received later can be counted then you know that that's not the real reason they're doing it, and there is no way to frame this as a "federalist decision that's just trying to enforce federal election law". Agreed?



I will never refrain from roundly criticizing  transparently juridical somersaults aimed at a result steeped  in a justice's  personal policy preference.


sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5018 on: October 27, 2020, 01:39:08 PM »
If they instead strike down the whole thing and decide that no ballot received later can be counted then you know that that's not the real reason they're doing it, and there is no way to frame this as a "federalist decision that's just trying to enforce federal election law". Agreed?

I will never refrain from roundly criticizing  transparently juridical somersaults aimed at a result steeped  in a justice's  personal policy preference.

Okay, like I said, let's see what they do then.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5019 on: October 28, 2020, 07:30:21 AM »
"Republican legislators and the Pennsylvania Republican Party...argued that the portion of the ruling allowing unclear postmarks would result in the counting of some ballots that are actually sent after Election Day, thereby violating federal election law and the U.S. Constitution." SCOTUSblog

The unquestionable power of the states under federalism to legislate their own election laws is subject to compliance with federal election law   and the  Constitution.

The Supreme Court's exercise of its power of judicial review is apposite when  credible violations of federal election law and the Constitution are at issue.

 The Court's hearing of such issues is not judicial  overreach or encroachment of a state's power under federalism to establish its election laws.

The Penn SC allows for ballots received after election day to be counted if (paraphrasing):
a) they are postmarked by election day
b) if the postmark is missing or unreadable (which should be a tiny fraction of votes, yes?) then assume they were mailed by election day unless there's some reason to think otherwise.

That seems eminently reasonable to me.

If the SC solely and only strikes down (b) and says that, no, ballots with missing or unreadable postmarks that are received after election day can't be counted because they might have been mailed later, then fine, whatever. I disagree that that's reasonable or that there's a "credible violation of federal election law", but that's also not the end of the world.

If they instead strike down the whole thing and decide that no ballot received later can be counted then you know that that's not the real reason they're doing it, and there is no way to frame this as a "federalist decision that's just trying to enforce federal election law". Agreed?


ARTICLE 1.

SECTION 4.


The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Sherr, I think it is highly likely that  the constitutional issue the Pensylvania Republicans raised  is that under ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4,  only  State legislatures, and not State or federal judges  have power to change election laws.


The Framers' overarching purpose was to draft a founding document that limited power by dispersing it. Any concentrations of power were anathema.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4 is a  limitation of power. Under it, only  State legislatures have power to prescribe the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" which means that some of the present-day  interventions of  state and  federal judges in election law matters  are unconstitutional.


Below, Justice Gorsuch relates  ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4's limitation of power  to the  Wisconsin election law case decided by himself, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh.



"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules."


"No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges. But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted."



Gorsuch cautioned of  a "Babel of decrees" and that "Last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk other problems too, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes."
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 07:39:57 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5020 on: October 28, 2020, 08:04:08 AM »
Does the Pennsylvania Constitution not count as "being passed by the state legislature"?

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules."

Gorsuch himself even says "primary" responsibility, not "sole" responsibility. Judges interpret the law. That is what they do, in this and every other instance. The law is written by the legislature, the courts interpret it, and if the legislature is not happy with that interpretation they pass another law to change it. In this and every other instance. There's no nefarious usurping of power going on if the Penn SC deciding that the Penn Constitution Free and Equal Elections Clause requires ballots to be counted if received later to be counted due to the ongoing pandemic and, you know, the fact that the Post Office has said that they might not be able to deliver the ballots on time.

Gorsuch cautioned of  a "Babel of decrees" and that "Last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk other problems too, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes."

Riiight. And so Gorsuch is going to enact his own "last-minute changes to election rules, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes"? Chaos like, you know, not counting ballots where people did what they were told they were allowed to do? Or where the ballot arrived late due to no fault of their own because it got lost in the Post Office for a few days? And Pennsylvania has been operating under these rules the entire time that early voting was allowed, so this can't possibly be construed as a "last-minute change". If the Republican SC wants to decide after the election that next time this is not allowable, then that's one thing. But to change the rules with less than a week to go on the election, or even potentially afterwards? Come on. No one believes that that's not a nakedly partisan attempt to steal the election for Trump.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 08:19:12 AM by sherr »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5021 on: October 28, 2020, 09:39:26 AM »
Yep, the SC can read the tea leaves like anyone else. If Biden wins, the conservative's on the court opinions become worthless if Dems increase the size of the court to 13. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and now Barrett all understand this. So electing Trump is the preservation of their own relevance.

The SC is quickly becoming an irrelevant institution and requires legislative reform. I'd want to see the lifetime appointments to all of the current SC members removed and put on a strict 26 year term-limit, mandated Senate voting within x days, and a 2/3 approval requirement. The only way the SC can be returned to a normal institution is to remove it from partisan political battles. Take off the table the ability for flipping 2-3 Senate seats radically reshaping the judiciary.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5022 on: October 28, 2020, 09:50:00 AM »
Yep, the SC can read the tea leaves like anyone else. If Biden wins, the conservative's on the court opinions become worthless if Dems increase the size of the court to 13. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and now Barrett all understand this. So electing Trump is the preservation of their own relevance.

Now this I disagree with also. The Democrats will not pack the court. Remove the filibuster in the Senate so that they can actually pass legislation over top of the Republican universal-obstruction efforts, sure. Admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, maybe. Pack the court no. Even if they should, they will not do it unless the SC forces their hand. The threat exists to try to prevent the SC from doing something so outrageously partisan that they're forced to.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 09:52:45 AM by sherr »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5023 on: October 28, 2020, 09:59:35 AM »
Does the Pennsylvania Constitution not count as "being passed by the state legislature"?

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules."

Gorsuch himself even says "primary" responsibility, not "sole" responsibility. Judges interpret the law. That is what they do, in this and every other instance. The law is written by the legislature, the courts interpret it, and if the legislature is not happy with that interpretation they pass another law to change it. In this and every other instance. There's no nefarious usurping of power going on if the Penn SC deciding that the Penn Constitution Free and Equal Elections Clause requires ballots to be counted if received later to be counted due to the ongoing pandemic and, you know, the fact that the Post Office has said that they might not be able to deliver the ballots on time.

Gorsuch cautioned of  a "Babel of decrees" and that "Last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk other problems too, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes."

Riiight. And so Gorsuch is going to enact his own "last-minute changes to election rules, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes"? Chaos like, you know, not counting ballots where people did what they were told they were allowed to do? Or where the ballot arrived late due to no fault of their own because it got lost in the Post Office for a few days? And Pennsylvania has been operating under these rules the entire time that early voting was allowed, so this can't possibly be construed as a "last-minute change". If the Republican SC wants to decide after the election that next time this is not allowable, then that's one thing. But to change the rules with less than a week to go on the election, or even potentially afterwards? Come on. No one believes that that's not a nakedly partisan attempt to steal the election for Trump.

Here's more of Gorsuch's reasoning that I find persuasive:


Of course, democratic processes can prove frustrating. Because they cannot easily act without a broad social consensus, legislatures are often slow to respond and tepid when they do.

The clamor for judges to sweep in and address emergent problems, and the temptation for individual judges to fill the void of perceived inaction, can be great.

But what sometimes seems like a fault in the constitutional design was a feature to the framers, a means of ensuring that any changes to the status quo will not be made hastily,without careful deliberation, extensive consultation, and social consensus.

Nor may we undo this arrangement just because we might be frustrated. Our oath to uphold the Constitution is tested by hard times, not easy ones. And succumbing to the temptation to sidestep the usual constitutional rules is never costless.

It does damage to faith in the written Constitution as law, to the power of the people to oversee their own government, and to the authority of legislatures, for
the more we  assume their duties the less incentive they have to discharge them.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 10:21:18 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5024 on: October 28, 2020, 10:07:19 AM »
Yep, the SC can read the tea leaves like anyone else. If Biden wins, the conservative's on the court opinions become worthless if Dems increase the size of the court to 13. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and now Barrett all understand this. So electing Trump is the preservation of their own relevance.

Now this I disagree with also. The Democrats will not pack the court. Remove the filibuster in the Senate so that they can actually pass legislation over top of the Republican universal-obstruction efforts, sure. Admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, maybe. Pack the court no. Even if they should, they will not do it unless the SC forces their hand. The threat exists to try to prevent the SC from doing something so outrageously partisan that they're forced to.


Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."


Judicial Reorganization Plan


Senate Judiciary Committee Adverse Report  June 7, 1937

[The Judicial Reorganization Plan] would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.

It contains the germ of a system of centralized administration of law that would enable an executive so minded to send his judges into every judicial district in the land to sit in judgment on controversies between the government and the citizen.

It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and established the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law.

It stands now before the country, acknowledged by its proponents as a plan to force judicial interpretation of the Constitution, a proposal that violates every sacred tradition of American democracy.

Under the form of the Constitution it seeks to do that which is unconstitutional.

Its ultimate operation would be to make this government one of men rather than one of law, and its practical operation would be to make the Constitution what the executive or legislative branches of the government choose to say it is -- an interpretation to be changed with each change of administration.

It is a measure, which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 10:11:23 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5025 on: October 28, 2020, 10:17:01 AM »
Does the Pennsylvania Constitution not count as "being passed by the state legislature"?

"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules."

Gorsuch himself even says "primary" responsibility, not "sole" responsibility. Judges interpret the law. That is what they do, in this and every other instance. The law is written by the legislature, the courts interpret it, and if the legislature is not happy with that interpretation they pass another law to change it. In this and every other instance. There's no nefarious usurping of power going on if the Penn SC deciding that the Penn Constitution Free and Equal Elections Clause requires ballots to be counted if received later to be counted due to the ongoing pandemic and, you know, the fact that the Post Office has said that they might not be able to deliver the ballots on time.

Gorsuch cautioned of  a "Babel of decrees" and that "Last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk other problems too, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes."

Riiight. And so Gorsuch is going to enact his own "last-minute changes to election rules, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes"? Chaos like, you know, not counting ballots where people did what they were told they were allowed to do? Or where the ballot arrived late due to no fault of their own because it got lost in the Post Office for a few days? And Pennsylvania has been operating under these rules the entire time that early voting was allowed, so this can't possibly be construed as a "last-minute change". If the Republican SC wants to decide after the election that next time this is not allowable, then that's one thing. But to change the rules with less than a week to go on the election, or even potentially afterwards? Come on. No one believes that that's not a nakedly partisan attempt to steal the election for Trump.

Here's more of Gorsuch's reasoning that I find persuasive:


Of course, democratic processes can prove frustrating. Because they cannot easily act without a broad social consensus, legislatures are often slow to respond and tepid when they do.

The clamor for judges to sweep in and address emergent problems, and the temptation for individualjudges to fill the void of perceived inaction, can be great.

But what sometimes seems like a fault in the constitutional design was a feature to the framers, a means of ensuring that any changes to the status quo will not be made hastily,without careful deliberation, extensive consultation, and
social consensus.

Nor may we undo this arrangement just becaue we might be frustrated. Our oath to uphold the Constitution is tested by hard times, not easy ones. And succumbing to the temptation to sidestep the usual constitutional rules is never costless.

 It does damage to faith in the written Constitution as law, to the power of the people to oversee their own government, and to the authority of legislatures, for
the more we assume their duties the less incentive they have to discharge them
The problem here is that the "emergent problem" which needed to be solved is the very deliberate and very corrupt effing up of the post office by Trump in order to delay posted ballots.  Gorsuch is then choosing to enable Trump's interference with the proper running of the election by preventing the measures taken to counter that corrupt interference.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5026 on: October 28, 2020, 10:26:47 AM »
Yep, the SC can read the tea leaves like anyone else. If Biden wins, the conservative's on the court opinions become worthless if Dems increase the size of the court to 13. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and now Barrett all understand this. So electing Trump is the preservation of their own relevance.

Now this I disagree with also. The Democrats will not pack the court. Remove the filibuster in the Senate so that they can actually pass legislation over top of the Republican universal-obstruction efforts, sure. Admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, maybe. Pack the court no. Even if they should, they will not do it unless the SC forces their hand. The threat exists to try to prevent the SC from doing something so outrageously partisan that they're forced to.

It's not just Republican-obstructionism. It's also the GOP's rank power grab. McConnell said it himself at the ACB vote "Permanency depends on the next election. So that’s the way legislation goes... But in judicial appointments you can have a longer-lasting positive impact."

The GOP and McConnell have basically flat out stated that they no longer believe in the legislative process. They are looking to undermine it and put all their future hopes on using the judiciary to deny all future legislation. They know that they have waning democratic power, so they look towards an even more undemocratic body than the Senate to maintain power.

There really is no other recourse than to reform the judiciary to kill this line of thinking. The only way to return power back to the legislative body is through reducing the power of both the executive and the judiciary. Whereas Roberts may have the foresight to understand this, I really don't think he'll be enough to stop the poor decisions of the other conservative justices.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5027 on: October 28, 2020, 10:28:39 AM »
Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6145
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5028 on: October 28, 2020, 10:39:45 AM »
Trump is cracking and starting to lament his choices.

Quote from: trump
I may never have to come back here again if I don't get Iowa. I'll never be back.

Quote from: cnn
"By the way, nice trucks," he said to no one in particular on yet another airport tarmac. "You think I could hop into one of them and drive it away?"
"I'd love to just drive the hell out of here. Just get the hell out of this," he went on. "I had such a good life. My life was great."

His "getting your husbands back to work" comments are tone deaf, too, considering his suburban audience and how women are more impacted by covid than men.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3256
  • Age: 92
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5029 on: October 28, 2020, 10:44:27 AM »
I hope, should the election prove to be a landslide, that the NYPost uses the opportunity to run a front page headline of "You're Fired!" They revel in the snark, and it is more or less a hometown paper for Trump.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5030 on: October 28, 2020, 11:00:00 AM »
Oh look, the NC GOP is petitioning the Supreme Court to kill our mail ballot extension too. Even though the NC Legislature empowered the bipartisan Board of Elections to make decisions such as these. And the bipartisan Board of Elections voted for these COVID-related rule changes unanimously. And the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found for the Board of Elections 12-3. And the fact that the BoE often changes ballot deadlines (like in response to hurricanes), and it's never been a constitutional crisis of "the non-legislature usurping power" before.

What do you want to bet that the SC will change the rules days before or even after the election, both here and in Pennsylvania? That they will choose to ignore thousands of legally-cast votes in states with close elections?

Naked, blatant, obvious, uber-partisain attempts to steal the election for Trump in battleground states. You can dress it up in any fancy language you want but everyone can see it for what it is. Republicans see it as an attempt to steal the election for Trump and applaud it, Democrats see it as an attempt to steal the election for Trump and decry it, but everyone sees it. The unelected Supreme Court should not change the rules of the election last-minute in order to give their party the edge. It's not even in their power to do so, States are empowered to oversee their own elections. It should be going to the NC Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But Republicans got a taste of stealing elections by overriding the State Supreme Courts in 2000, and so here we are. Republicans even openly stated that this was the reason they had to confirm Barrett before the election: "I think it’s better if you go before the election, because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court."

"Republicans / conservative judges are federalist and believe in letting the states decide for themselves" -> Republican SC overruling state decisions.
"Only the states have the authority to make election law" -> Republican SC changing election law.
"Oh they're just worried about the possibility of ballots mailed after the election, which would be against federal law" -> Republican SC changing rules that have nothing to do with that one provision in Pennsylvania.
"Don't change the rules last-minute right before an election or it will invite chaos and undermine the reliability in the election" -> Republican SC changing the rules right before the election, inviting chaos and undermining the reliability of the election.
Et cetera ad infinitum.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 11:21:17 AM by sherr »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5031 on: October 28, 2020, 11:02:16 AM »
Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

I give the greatest  weight to  the constitutional erudition  and considered opinions of the senators who drafted the Adverse Report. I cannot be persuaded that its conclusions are wrong or cautioning overstated.


The threat  to pack the Court is fueled by a  zealous  desire for a change on the high bench that will result in the overturn of precedents such as Citizen's United.

This threat is  antithetical to constitutional constancy for the Constitution is only as enduring as the fixity of its guarantees, the durability of its precedents.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2750
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5032 on: October 28, 2020, 11:11:53 AM »
Trump is cracking and starting to lament his choices.

Quote from: trump
I may never have to come back here again if I don't get Iowa. I'll never be back.

Quote from: cnn
"By the way, nice trucks," he said to no one in particular on yet another airport tarmac. "You think I could hop into one of them and drive it away?"
"I'd love to just drive the hell out of here. Just get the hell out of this," he went on. "I had such a good life. My life was great."

His "getting your husbands back to work" comments are tone deaf, too, considering his suburban audience and how women are more impacted by covid than men.
But women should not be working at all, it's their fault if they do it!

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5242
  • Age: 126
  • Location: In the middle somewhere....
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5033 on: October 28, 2020, 11:18:09 AM »
Not votes from me for the GOP until they move away from bully tactics. That seems to be how they try to make change lately.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5034 on: October 28, 2020, 11:31:05 AM »
Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

I give the greatest  weight to  the constitutional erudition  and considered opinions of the senators who drafted the Adverse Report. I cannot be persuaded that its conclusions are wrong or cautioning overstated.


The threat  to pack the Court is fueled by a  zealous  desire for a change on the high bench that will result in the overturn of precedents such as Citizen's United.

This threat is  antithetical to constitutional constancy for the Constitution is only as enduring as the fixity of its guarantees, the durability of its precedents.

Seems rather disingenuous.

The constitution isn't at question here in any way.  The constitution does not elaborate the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court or the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole.  As in the past, changing the number of Supreme Court justices would therefore not change 'constitutional constancy'.  This is an illogical argument.

You dismissed out of hand many concerns that the current packing of the court with conservative justices would impact abortion rights predominantly by arguing that conservative justices would use stare decisis to preserve decisions previously made.  Why do you believe that the same would not be used by liberal leaning judges to protect the Citizens United decision that you are so attached to?  Fundamentally, your argument remains unchanged - that liberal judges are less trustworthy than conservative ones.  This is evidence of strong personal bias.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5035 on: October 28, 2020, 11:37:28 AM »
Trump is cracking and starting to lament his choices.

Quote from: trump
I may never have to come back here again if I don't get Iowa. I'll never be back.

Quote from: cnn
"By the way, nice trucks," he said to no one in particular on yet another airport tarmac. "You think I could hop into one of them and drive it away?"
"I'd love to just drive the hell out of here. Just get the hell out of this," he went on. "I had such a good life. My life was great."

His "getting your husbands back to work" comments are tone deaf, too, considering his suburban audience and how women are more impacted by covid than men.

Agreed. This downturn has been very hard on women, who are more likely to work in hospitality and service industries, and who often are the marginal earner in the household because of parenting responsibilities. Promising to "put husbands back to work" won't help those women.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5036 on: October 28, 2020, 11:39:20 AM »
I hope, should the election prove to be a landslide, that the NYPost uses the opportunity to run a front page headline of "You're Fired!" They revel in the snark, and it is more or less a hometown paper for Trump.


Ha ha!

"You're Fired" would be a  perfect fit.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5037 on: October 28, 2020, 01:12:54 PM »
Hahaha, YOU'RE FIRED!

But the NY Post? They endorsed him!

Would be good if all the newspapers in the country used the same line on the front page!

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3224
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5038 on: October 28, 2020, 01:29:13 PM »
As someone who trained as a scientist and is married to a scientist, I simply cannot overstate how bad a precedent this sets.

https://www.breakingnewstime.com/trump-administration-fires-top-noaa-scientist/

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5039 on: October 28, 2020, 01:40:01 PM »
I actually wonder if the flurry of activity:

  • Executive order that reclassifies a lot of civil service
  • Opening of Alaskan wilderness to new road development
  • Barrett
  • This NOAA scientist thing
  • Limiting of foreign journalists to 200 days, down from five years

Isn't the sign of a group of people recognizing that they will lose power soon and trying to very quickly achieve some things on the way out the door.

Too bad they cannot be motivated to act quickly for the benefit of the American people.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5040 on: October 28, 2020, 01:40:39 PM »
As someone who trained as a scientist and is married to a scientist, I simply cannot overstate how bad a precedent this sets.

https://www.breakingnewstime.com/trump-administration-fires-top-noaa-scientist/

I have never encountered a time when our federal science agencies were as politicized as they are now.  It's horrible, and I can't help but conclude that this is intentional to reduce their standing so that they are easier to eliminate or gut in the future.  Why else would you put Scott Pruit and then Anthony Wheeler at the helm of the EPA (both of whom previously argued that the EPA "should not exist")?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5041 on: October 28, 2020, 01:55:20 PM »
Too bad they cannot be motivated to act quickly for the benefit of the American people.

They didn't try for the past 4 years, it would be a little out of character for them to start now.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5242
  • Age: 126
  • Location: In the middle somewhere....
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5042 on: October 28, 2020, 02:29:26 PM »
I actually wonder if the flurry of activity:

  • Executive order that reclassifies a lot of civil service
  • Opening of Alaskan wilderness to new road development
  • Barrett
  • This NOAA scientist thing
  • Limiting of foreign journalists to 200 days, down from five years

Isn't the sign of a group of people recognizing that they will lose power soon and trying to very quickly achieve some things on the way out the door.

Too bad they cannot be motivated to act quickly for the benefit of the American people.

So how much of Trump's last minute executive orders can be undone by the next president immediately?

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3902
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5043 on: October 28, 2020, 03:14:55 PM »
Just reading through this thread these last few days, I can scarcely imagine what another 4 years of Trump will bring!  We have put up with him like marathon runners envisioning the finish line just ahead...  If he truly wins four more years and cannot be impeached, the US will look very different in 2024.  He's done quite an amazing (if not simplistic) job of firing people he does not want around and getting the underpinnings of the country to his liking.  The cabinet was easy enough, but now the virus has spread deeply to the Judicial branch and threatens the legislative branch - if not in a majority, it has turned over to be more loyalists in those that remain.

Like an alcoholic, I just take all of this one day at a time.  This is not the future I have hoped for nor get excited to see, but maybe there is something better beyond - after a second Trump term ends.  But, of course, my big hope is that Trump is a one term President.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5044 on: October 28, 2020, 03:45:21 PM »
I've been surprised by how long it's taken him to purge disloyal management.    In a big corporate shuffle things happen much more quickly.    Out with the old management, in with the new management in just a few months.   4 years is outrageously inefficient.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6145
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5045 on: October 28, 2020, 04:34:52 PM »
Oh look, the NC GOP is petitioning the Supreme Court to kill our mail ballot extension too. Even though the NC Legislature empowered the bipartisan Board of Elections to make decisions such as these. And the bipartisan Board of Elections voted for these COVID-related rule changes unanimously. And the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found for the Board of Elections 12-3. And the fact that the BoE often changes ballot deadlines (like in response to hurricanes), and it's never been a constitutional crisis of "the non-legislature usurping power" before.

What do you want to bet that the SC will change the rules days before or even after the election, both here and in Pennsylvania? That they will choose to ignore thousands of legally-cast votes in states with close elections?

Naked, blatant, obvious, uber-partisain attempts to steal the election for Trump in battleground states. You can dress it up in any fancy language you want but everyone can see it for what it is. Republicans see it as an attempt to steal the election for Trump and applaud it, Democrats see it as an attempt to steal the election for Trump and decry it, but everyone sees it. The unelected Supreme Court should not change the rules of the election last-minute in order to give their party the edge. It's not even in their power to do so, States are empowered to oversee their own elections. It should be going to the NC Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But Republicans got a taste of stealing elections by overriding the State Supreme Courts in 2000, and so here we are. Republicans even openly stated that this was the reason they had to confirm Barrett before the election: "I think it’s better if you go before the election, because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court."

"Republicans / conservative judges are federalist and believe in letting the states decide for themselves" -> Republican SC overruling state decisions.
"Only the states have the authority to make election law" -> Republican SC changing election law.
"Oh they're just worried about the possibility of ballots mailed after the election, which would be against federal law" -> Republican SC changing rules that have nothing to do with that one provision in Pennsylvania.
"Don't change the rules last-minute right before an election or it will invite chaos and undermine the reliability in the election" -> Republican SC changing the rules right before the election, inviting chaos and undermining the reliability of the election.
Et cetera ad infinitum.

The SC has decided not to expedite the PA case.

There's a possibility that the Court will still hear the case before the 3rd. There's also a distinct possibility that the Court will decide after the election, invalidating any ballots received after the 3rd.

The SC has turned into a festival of partisanship. Pack it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5046 on: October 28, 2020, 05:17:25 PM »
I've been surprised by how long it's taken him to purge disloyal management.    In a big corporate shuffle things happen much more quickly.    Out with the old management, in with the new management in just a few months.   4 years is outrageously inefficient.

I think this is a testament to how large the executive branch truly is, and how few people there are who are willing to work for this administration, as well as how hard it is to get rid of career, unionized civil servants without cause.  A few positions serve “at the whim of the President” but most other management positions can’t be dismissed quite so easily.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3256
  • Age: 92
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5047 on: October 28, 2020, 06:34:05 PM »
Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

I give the greatest  weight to  the constitutional erudition  and considered opinions of the senators who drafted the Adverse Report. I cannot be persuaded that its conclusions are wrong or cautioning overstated.


The threat  to pack the Court is fueled by a  zealous  desire for a change on the high bench that will result in the overturn of precedents such as Citizen's United.

This threat is  antithetical to constitutional constancy for the Constitution is only as enduring as the fixity of its guarantees, the durability of its precedents.

There is also a question of legitimacy. The mechanisms by which McConnell (and McGahn, more broadly speaking) got the current judicial makeup was by outright refusing to move forward nominations by others and then expediting those of the GOP. McConnell has not been coy about this and it adds a stain of partisanship to the court. Given that one of ACB's primary qualifications was a dislike of Roe v Wade, which is clearly precedent at this point, an argument for maintaining the current politically-manuevered court makeup on the basis of maintaining precedent feels weak. I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but an evenly balanced court is more likely to work to rule narrowly in order to find consensus and maintain stability. I see a lopsided court - in any political direction - as problematic for rule of law. Democracy is messy and full of contradictions. It is my belief that it comes to the best (imperfect) outcomes through balanced representation. SCOTUS is hardly the only example of this in American gov't at this point.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5048 on: October 28, 2020, 06:54:43 PM »
Oh look, the NC GOP is petitioning the Supreme Court to kill our mail ballot extension too. Even though the NC Legislature empowered the bipartisan Board of Elections to make decisions such as these. And the bipartisan Board of Elections voted for these COVID-related rule changes unanimously. And the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found for the Board of Elections 12-3. And the fact that the BoE often changes ballot deadlines (like in response to hurricanes), and it's never been a constitutional crisis of "the non-legislature usurping power" before.

The SC has decided not to expedite the PA case.

There's a possibility that the Court will still hear the case before the 3rd. There's also a distinct possibility that the Court will decide after the election, invalidating any ballots received after the 3rd.

The SC has turned into a festival of partisanship. Pack it.

Looks like they declined to take the NC case too, at least the one about the ballot deadline extension. I'm actually very surprised, I was fully expecting them to take it and strike down the deadline extension. Although Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have taken it, and Barrett abstained.

And Gorsuch did repeat his "SuCh LaSt-MiNuTe ChAnGeS bY lArGeLy UnAcCoUnTaBlE bOdIeS, iNvItE cOnFuSiOn, RiSk AlTeRiNg ElEcTiOn OuTcOmEs, AnD iN tHe PrOcEsS tHrEaTeN vOtEr CoNfIdEnCe In ThE rEsUlTs" "logic".

Imagine thinking that "altering election outcomes" by COUNTING ALL THE BALLOTS is a bad thing.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2020, 07:06:10 PM by sherr »

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2750
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #5049 on: October 29, 2020, 04:18:26 AM »
As someone who trained as a scientist and is married to a scientist, I simply cannot overstate how bad a precedent this sets.

https://www.breakingnewstime.com/trump-administration-fires-top-noaa-scientist/
One from the CATO institute is the new chief scientist! LOL
I am not even surprised.

Quote
If he truly wins four more years and cannot be impeached,
Trump is impeached.
 
Quote
I've been surprised by how long it's taken him to purge disloyal management.    In a big corporate shuffle things happen much more quickly.    Out with the old management, in with the new management in just a few months.   4 years is outrageously inefficient.
In such a shuffle you generally don't fire all 123 country managers and their assistants to put in people outside the company.
Also those shuffles are fast because the incumbent has only a few month to grip the power. A US president has 4.