Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[hobbes2702 13,351]

The GOP proves everyday that the rules don’t matter so fuck em. Let’s play by our own.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,586]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's a lesson in power. Mitch McConnell knows how to use it. I sincerely hope the Democrats respond in kind when they have it.

I have my doubts, though.

The issue is even if the Dems get power and respond in kind you will have the Right Wing media (FOX News, OAN, Rush (until that fucker takes his last cancer ridden breath), etc...) all out there really driving up the people of this country about all the horrors the Democrats are doing to the United States.  Unfortunately, it will play to an extent with a lot of people and lead to a Republican resurgence in voting during the next election.  The Right has better PR than the Left.  Fixing that would go a long way to getting the morons to vote for what is best for our country.  Also, since I have GR Horn on ignore can someone Neg him for me for being a cunt.  Thanks.

[wildcat09 29,558]

The right wing media should be the least of our concerns. All we need to do is actually respond to them. Call them liars and traitors and explain how they’re liars and traitors, because it’s the fucking truth and easy to sell. There’s more of us than them. Their positions beyond racism are not remotely popular. It’s time to stop being pussies and start playing to our strengths. 

[Horn Dog 10,156]

7 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

The issue is even if the Dems get power and respond in kind you will have the Right Wing media (FOX News, OAN, Rush (until that fucker takes his last cancer ridden breath), etc...) all out there really driving up the people of this country about all the horrors the Democrats are doing to the United States.  Unfortunately, it will play to an extent with a lot of people and lead to a Republican resurgence in voting during the next election.  The Right has better PR than the Left.  Fixing that would go a long way to getting the morons to vote for what is best for our country.  Also, since I have GR Horn on ignore can someone Neg him for me for being a cunt.  Thanks.

Unfortunately this is correct. This is why it has to be done fast and complete.  No half measures....all of it, and before the subsequent election.   Let FOX and Rush howl and scream, but cut their balls off so that all the howling does nothing. 

[Grade of D as in David 13,255]

21 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Imagine Chuck f'n Schumer and the rest of the old guard feeble Dems attempting to make a sales pitch to the American people for an expanded liberal court and adding two states, thus adding two stars to the flag, changing the map, all the history books, etc. I have a beach front property in Corsicana to sell you if you think there's even a remote chance of these cowards taking on this fight let alone winning it.   😂😂😂😂

Omg not the flag!

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let's be clear:  the travesty is not that Trump and McConnell are trying to push this nomination through in record time.  The travesty is that Merrick Garland never got his fair shot.

The irony is that Obama selected Garland specifically because he had broad appeal on both sides of the aisle.  History may eventually show that McConnell made a grave tactical error.

This. I'm an Article One guy. I don't think the court should be packed, but I do think that control of the Senate is crucial and that McConnell is betting this helps him keep it. I know why he thinks that, but I think he is wrong. 
Democrats talking about packing the court could help him keep it, though. 
 

BTW this is a very good, smart answer by Biden:
 

Quote

Brittany’s Question: If Trump’s supreme court pick goes through but you win the election, democrats take over Senate and maintain the House, would you consider adding more supreme court justices to the bench?

Joe Biden’s Answer: “It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going answer that question. Because it will shift the focus, that’s what he wants, he never wants to talk about the issue at hand and he always tries to change the subject. Let’s say I answer that question, then the whole debates gonna be about what Biden said or didn’t say, Biden said he would or wouldn’t. The discussion should be about why he is moving in a direction that’s totally inconsistent with what founders wanted. The Constitution says voters get to pick a president who gets to make the pick and the senate gets to decide. We’re in the middle of the election right now, you know people are voting now. By the time this supreme court hearing would be held, if they hold one, it’s estimated 30 to 40% of American people already have voted. It is a fundamental breach of constitutional principle. It must stay on that and it shouldn’t happen.”

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[workswithseed 2,201]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

This. I'm an Article One guy. I don't think the court should be packed, but I do think that control of the Senate is crucial and that McConnell is betting this helps him keep it. 
 

BTW this is a very good, smart answer by Biden:

 

 

If Biden wins, and change in Senate, there are two judges who are most likely gonna leave the bench. A lot of people here are going overboard on this.

[lemonlime 5,503]

18 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

The issue is even if the Dems get power and respond in kind you will have the Right Wing media (FOX News, OAN, Rush (until that fucker takes his last cancer ridden breath), etc...) all out there really driving up the people of this country about all the horrors the Democrats are doing to the United States.  Unfortunately, it will play to an extent with a lot of people and lead to a Republican resurgence in voting during the next election.  The Right has better PR than the Left.  Fixing that would go a long way to getting the morons to vote for what is best for our country.  Also, since I have GR Horn on ignore can someone Neg him for me for being a cunt.  Thanks.

This is correct.  Except the right wing media will do this no matter what.  Eg. "Obama was the most divisive president ever" or "Biden is a communist who wants to destroy the suburbs."  Nothing the dems do, no matter how reasonable or moderate matters.  So might as well grab onto power.

[BradInATX 9,208]

We should make Greenland a state too

[hobbes2702 13,351]

19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The right wing media should be the least of our concerns. All we need to do is actually respond to them. Call them liars and traitors and explain how they’re liars and traitors, because it’s the fucking truth and easy to sell. There’s more of us than them. Their positions beyond racism are not remotely popular. It’s time to stop being pussies and start playing to our strengths. 

This is the important part

[jimmyjazz 46,976]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If Biden wins, and change in Senate, there are two judges who are most likely gonna leave the bench. A lot of people here are going overboard on this.

Wut?  Are you saying Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be impeached?  I think that's a huge stretch, particularly for Gorsuch.

[jimmyjazz 46,976]

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

BTW this is a very good, smart answer by Biden:
 

. . . The Constitution says voters get to pick a president who gets to make the pick and the senate gets to decide. We’re in the middle of the election right now, you know people are voting now. By the time this supreme court hearing would be held, if they hold one, it’s estimated 30 to 40% of American people already have voted. It is a fundamental breach of constitutional principle. It must stay on that and it shouldn’t happen.”

I think that's a terrible answer.  Trump is right -- the "voters" chose him to pick SC justices between 1/20/17 and 1/19/21.  If the founding fathers had wanted to mute that privilege once voting had started in a general election, they should have done so.

("Voters" in quotes, because Russia.)

Furthermore, it makes Biden look almost as hypocritical as Trump.  Given the certainty that this vote will go through, what Biden SHOULD say is "whether or not McConnell and the boys are giant hypocrites, they are operating within the law.  I can accept that.  I do promise that they will not enjoy what happens should I win the election.  That's a threat."

Edited September 22, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,586]

Could we ask California to split into No-Cal and So-Cal and then give them 4 senators?  The south and north hate each other anyway, see Dodgers versus Giants?  

[Chooky 13,337]

39 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Imagine Chuck f'n Schumer and the rest of the old guard feeble Dems attempting to make a sales pitch to the American people for an expanded liberal court and adding two states, thus adding two stars to the flag, changing the map, all the history books, etc. I have a beach front property in Corsicana to sell you if you think there's even a remote chance of these cowards taking on this fight let alone winning it.   😂😂😂😂

"Lulz at attempts of expansion beyond the thirteen colonies and tax representation.  Good luck even finding a flag to fit all of this shit!  Hahahaha!"

[Nivek 17,330]

I propose we raise taxes on all GOP supporters. Anyone or company which donates or votes to this group needs to pay off the debt they caused.

[Gap03 3,374]

16 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Omg not the flag!

Top and bottom rows have different # of stars.

2/10 WNB

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

4 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Top and bottom rows have different # of stars.

2/10 WNB

just give one star to AL/MS and one to AR/OK.  Are they really different states anyway?

[Pescado_Rojo 19,558]

16 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Could we ask California to split into No-Cal and So-Cal and then give them 4 senators?  The south and north hate each other anyway, see Dodgers versus Giants?  

Not sure you'd get the result you're hoping for if you did this. 

[tantric superman 4,668]

58 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Why is it nonsense? It’s completely within the rules.

Norms no longer matter. If something is constitutional or within the rules and it benefits your side, fucking do it. 

Because it's not a good idea politically.  "Norms should matter and we will make them matter again is a good political approach."

Demographic trends seem to favor Dems gaining power and yet the hysterics want to change the rules and makeup -- to blow up the norms, just when those trends would favor the election of people who would enforce appropriate norms. 

[wildcat09 29,558]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Because it's not a good idea politically.  "Norms should matter and we will make them matter again is a good political approach."

Demographic trends seem to favor Dems gaining power and yet the hysterics want to change the rules and makeup -- to blow up the norms, just when those trends would favor the election of people who would enforce appropriate norms. 

There's no reason to re-establish any norms until we've restored an actual functioning democracy. "Hey we should make it possible for black people to vote" shouldn't be held up out of a desire to be seen as moderate.

[tantric superman 4,668]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think that's a terrible answer.  Trump is right -- the "voters" chose him to pick SC justices between 1/20/17 and 1/19/21.  If the founding fathers had wanted to mute that privilege once voting had started in a general election, they should have done so.

("Voters" in quotes, because Russia.)

Furthermore, it makes Biden look almost as hypocritical as Trump.  Given the certainty that this vote will go through, what Biden SHOULD say is "whether or not McConnell and the boys are giant hypocrites, they are operating within the law.  I can accept that.  I do promise that they will not enjoy what happens should I win the election.  That's a threat."

Agreed.  There is one good argument.  And that is, you took away the right of the last Dem to appoint one Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency and now, in fairness, you need to give up one of yours.  And if not you are a bunch of assholes.

Any reference to the Constitution is a shitty argument.  

[Guest]

so the risk is being called an asshole?

LOLz.  In today's social/ political climate that means diddly shit.

[tantric superman 4,668]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

There's no reason to re-establish any norms until we've restored an actual functioning democracy. "Hey we should make it possible for black people to vote" shouldn't be held up out of a desire to be seen as moderate.

Yeah, blacks on the whole have no right to vote.   We need to pass some kind of amendment.

 

 

[tantric superman 4,668]

Just now, slorch said:

so the risk is being called an asshole?

LOLz.  In today's social/ political climate that means diddly shit.

Well, for you, I doubt the social/political climate or era means anything in terms of you being taken for an asshole.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,586]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Because it's not a good idea politically.  "Norms should matter and we will make them matter again is a good political approach."

Demographic trends seem to favor Dems gaining power and yet the hysterics want to change the rules and makeup -- to blow up the norms, just when those trends would favor the election of people who would enforce appropriate norms. 

That's assuming that the election will be fair.  That's assuming that the Republicans won't figure out new ways to keep control that tend to be hypocritical/unethical/immoral.  I think a lot of people are done assuming the Republicans will play by the rules in the future and go away quietly.  Maybe they try to pass a law saying anyone who became a US citizen in the last 20 years doesn't have the right to vote for a federal position until they have been a citizen for 30 years.  Yeah, it's crazy to think something like what I wrote would even be considered but would it honestly shock anyone if they did that?  You can't play fair against a team that cheats.  The cheaters will win most of the time.  Might as well cheat also but just do it better.  Then again, I am a Patriots fan.

[wildcat09 29,558]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Yeah, blacks on the whole have no right to vote.   We need to pass some kind of amendment.

 

 

There was a hundred years where that amendment didn't matter in huge swaths of the country. Words written on paper don't matter if people don't fight to give them power.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Well, for you, I doubt the social/political climate or era means anything in terms of you being taken for an asshole.

ohhh.  You hurt my heart so badly.   LOlz.

 

If the left can finagle anything to stop the appointment, it will.  Rest assured.

Edited September 22, 2020 by slorch

[Reynolds Woodcock 5,064]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Because it's not a good idea politically.  "Norms should matter and we will make them matter again is a good political approach."

Demographic trends seem to favor Dems gaining power and yet the hysterics want to change the rules and makeup -- to blow up the norms, just when those trends would favor the election of people who would enforce appropriate norms. 

I don't know whether it's good politics or not.  I do know that it is bad governance if a system inherently favor disproportionate representation for a minority of the electorate, which is indisputably true under our current construct. Those errors can be fixed within the confines of the law if the Democrats win the house, senate and presidency, and they should do so regardless of whether it is good politics.

[atomheartbevo 90,548]

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

McConnell would be a fool not to try to get this through. And he's not a fool. He's a piece of shit as a human being, but he's not a fool.

Is it worth nudging a few close Senate races over into D wins?

Does Mitch care more about this one SC seat, than trying to maintain his majority, or at least having the Senate split, or close to it, going forward?

Is that one SC seat worth more to Mitch than losing control of both chambers of Congress and the White House?

Because if he pisses the Senate away, the Dems could undo a fuckload of things that he and Trump pushed through.

[landman 564]

11 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

That's assuming that the election will be fair.  That's assuming that the Republicans won't figure out new ways to keep control that tend to be hypocritical/unethical/immoral.  I think a lot of people are done assuming the Republicans will play by the rules in the future and go away quietly.  Maybe they try to pass a law saying anyone who became a US citizen in the last 20 years doesn't have the right to vote for a federal position until they have been a citizen for 30 years.  Yeah, it's crazy to think something like what I wrote would even be considered but would it honestly shock anyone if they did that?  You can't play fair against a team that cheats.  The cheaters will win most of the time.  Might as well cheat also but just do it better.  Then again, I am a Patriots fan.

Play by the rules?  The democrats are saying they'll reinvent the Supreme Court and stack it if Trump follows the Constitution and appoints a new justice.  They love to make up new rules. 

[tantric superman 4,668]

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

ohhh.  You hurt my heart so badly.   LOlz.

 

 

Actually thought you'd take it as the joke it was.

 

[atomheartbevo 90,548]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, a Biden presidency with a GOP senate will be a disaster. The GOP wouldn’t confirm a single cabinet member, much less any judges.

And then the Ds run a train on them at the midterms.

A part of me thinks Mitch and Co. are thinking about 2024.  They will have to play along a bit, in order not to get buried at the midterm.

If Mitch is not careful, a bunch of Dems come in, pass a bunch of stuff, and then guess what, the Dems will run on a platform "if you don't get out and vote for us, the Republicans will take everything away we just gave you!"

 

[wildcat09 29,558]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Is it worth nudging a few close Senate races over into D wins?

Does Mitch care more about this one SC seat, than trying to maintain his majority, or at least having the Senate split, or close to it, going forward?

Is that one SC seat worth more to Mitch than losing control of both chambers of Congress and the White House?

Because if he pisses the Senate away, the Dems could undo a fuckload of things that he and Trump pushed through.

Mitch will bet a Senate majority for a chance to win a 6-3 SCOTUS majority and never think twice about it.

[Rougarou 594]

2 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

I don't know whether it's good politics or not.  I do know that it is bad governance if a system inherently favor disproportionate representation for a minority of the electorate, which is indisputably true under our current construct. Those errors can be fixed within the confines of the law if the Democrats win the house, senate and presidency, and they should do so regardless of whether it is good politics.

I agree with you here. I also would take it further and say it's bad (though not worse) governance for a simple majority as well (e.g. 51% pressing an agenda that 49% doesn't agree with/want, 55%v45%, etc.) 

This is inherently the problem with the 2-party system and it's coming home to roost. We need to be able to govern with coalitions and committees of smaller parties that band together, if we are serious about really trying to rule in the honest interest of a very disparate population, in terms of value and belief systems.

America is too big, too populous and too diverse and the toothpaste is out of the tube on fixing that with our fat-finger approach to democracy, IMO.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Actually thought you'd take it as the joke it was.

 

and I replied with one.  "We're all assholes here"  was kind of the point.

[atomheartbevo 90,548]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Mitch will bet a Senate majority for a chance to win a 6-3 SCOTUS majority and never think twice about it.

He won't have much say on budgets, a President Biden could undo a shitload of executive orders, many of which Mitch had some kind of say in, and a whole lot of new legislation could be pushed through that Mitch would not like.  And the Dems could pass through a lot of stuff that could strengthen or change up how we vote, and how redistricting works.

A 6-3 SCOTUS sounds sexy to Mitch until you realize the Dems will be doing a shitload of stuff that the SCOTUS will never touch.

[SimonBolivar 11,032]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

He won't have much say on budgets, a President Biden could undo a shitload of executive orders, many of which Mitch had some kind of say in, and a whole lot of new legislation could be pushed through that Mitch would not like.  And the Dems could pass through a lot of stuff that could strengthen or change up how we vote, and how redistricting works.

A 6-3 SCOTUS sounds sexy to Mitch until you realize the Dems will be doing a shitload of stuff that the SCOTUS will never touch.

Maybe they know they're likely to lose the senate anyway, so they might as well push it through? I'd think the numbers have to look pretty bleak to do it before the election.

[wildcat09 29,558]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

And then the Ds run a train on them at the midterms.

A part of me thinks Mitch and Co. are thinking about 2024.  They will have to play along a bit, in order not to get buried at the midterm.

If Mitch is not careful, a bunch of Dems come in, pass a bunch of stuff, and then guess what, the Dems will run on a platform "if you don't get out and vote for us, the Republicans will take everything away we just gave you!"

 

With rampant voter suppression still in place and aided by Russian hacking in the midst of an economic catastrophe they'll engineer through their obstruction and blame on Biden?

Goddamnit what is it with all you fucking optimists? It's like every day you have to be reminded of all of the built-in advantages they already have and their willingness to cheat. We have this one fucking chance to take it all back. If we don't, American democracy is dead. There won't be anything resembling free and fair elections in the future if we fail. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Mitch will bet a Senate majority for a chance to win a 6-3 SCOTUS majority and never think twice about it.

it would be a much bigger mistake to concede the opportunity to act on the court's vacancy in some hope of conciliatory interaction between the political factions down the road.

That just isn't going to fucking happen, and the notion that it might is a pipedream.

[yoladu 4,187]

19 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Because it's not a good idea politically.  "Norms should matter and we will make them matter again is a good political approach."

Demographic trends seem to favor Dems gaining power and yet the hysterics want to change the rules and makeup -- to blow up the norms, just when those trends would favor the election of people who would enforce appropriate norms. 

How soon is now?

Look what trends have got us -  

- GOP has not won the popular vote, but once, in the last 7 Presidential Elections.

- Senate Republicans do not represent a majority of Americans. GOP senators represent 153 million Americans. Dem Senators represent 168 million Americans.

 

(yes, a Smiths reference)

[atomheartbevo 90,548]

1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

Imagine Chuck f'n Schumer and the rest of the old guard feeble Dems attempting to make a sales pitch to the American people for an expanded liberal court and adding two states, thus adding two stars to the flag, changing the map, all the history books, etc. I have a beach front property in Corsicana to sell you if you think there's even a remote chance of these cowards taking on this fight let alone winning it.   😂😂😂😂

You don't think much like a capitalist.

Two more stars, updated textbooks and history books.  That's a shit-ton of money to made as everybody has to replace a shitload of stuff, and many of those flags and textbooks will be sold to government entities, either local, state, or federal, that pay well.

 

[yoladu 4,187]

26 minutes ago, slorch said:

so the risk is being called an asshole?

LOLz.  In today's social/ political climate that means diddly shit.

Some assholes are bigger than others.

 

(whoa, another Smiths reference (sort of)

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

there will never be a solution where the senate being pro-rural is fixed.  the only thing that can happen is fight rural/urban polarization.  imo, the only way that can happen is if you arm your citizenry from the outset to reject that sort of dichotomy, which means civics ingrained from the jump.  they'll be counterprogramed to be skeptical of the fox news propaganda.  fix education, it fixes the problem.  so in other words, its too late for us, but not for the next generation.

[HornPhD 1,386]

4 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

I was initially onboard with 2 new seats, but the more I think about it, I’m coming around to 4.

Wanting to add 2 seats is industry standard. I’m hearing a lot of people saying 4. I think 6 would be kind of money. 

[Brisketexan 106,627]

 

22 minutes ago, landman said:

Play by the rules?  The democrats are saying they'll reinvent the Supreme Court and stack it if Trump follows the Constitution and appoints a new justice.  They love to make up new rules. 

Yes.....which is entirely within the rules, no new rules need to be made.  Congress and the POTUS have the full constitutional and legal authority to change the number of SCOTUS justices.  The problem with engaging in shitbaggery with a defense of "hey, what we're doing is allowed by the rules" is that you open yourself up to reciprocal shitbaggery that is also "allowed by the rules."

Admitting a new state (DC), changing the number of reps in the House, changing the number of justices on the SCOTUS.....all COMPLETELY allowed by the rules.  No new rules necessary to do all of those things.

26 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

I don't know whether it's good politics or not.  I do know that it is bad governance if a system inherently favor disproportionate representation for a minority of the electorate, which is indisputably true under our current construct. Those errors can be fixed within the confines of the law if the Democrats win the house, senate and presidency, and they should do so regardless of whether it is good politics.

And this is the real rub here.

Is it, at least objectively, a good idea that gives the minority voice/party some power?  I expect that most people would say "yes.'

Is it a problem when the political minority (seriously, more voters on the Federal level voted for the opposition (majority) party in 2016, and that skewed even MORE towards the majority party in 2018) doesn't just assert some power, but exercises it with arrogance and contempt for the opposition -- the MAJORITY opposition?  Fuck yeah, it's a problem.  It's how you break a country.

The GOP is the minority political party -- it's not even close in terms of votes on a national level.

Human beings have a pretty strong innate sense of fairness.  And that sense of fairness means that by and large, they expect the will of the majority to govern.  These days, not only does the will of the majority not govern, the will of the majority is being shat upon with complete arrogance and contempt by the minority party.  That helps create an angry and energized majority party.  That's not a good or healthy outcome.

A minority party that happens to find itself in power should, if wise, exercise its power judiciously and with some measure of moderation.  I mean, not only do they NOT have a popular mandate, they actually have a mandate AGAINST them, they are just in power by quirk of some elements of the system that were intended to protect the minority -- not to make the minority an all-powerful god.  There is no greater recipe for "dividing a country" than a minority party/group arrogantly lording power over the majority.  Shit like that, at its extreme, looks like apartheid.  It looks like Rwanda when the elite (but minority) tutsis lost power, and the shat-upon majority hutus decided to get some.  Human nature tells us that a minority group in power that abuses its power and shows contempt for the majority will set up a major reckoning.  The GOP gives zero shits about that.

 

EDIT:

By way of illustration....62% of the people believe that the next election winner should fill the seat.  62-38, in political terms, is a "landslide."  A minority party that submits brazen F U after brazen F U to the will of the people is poisoning the system.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Brisketexan

[yoladu 4,187]

15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

And then the Ds run a train on them at the midterms.

they might, but the Senate may still hold GOP if enough rural states dont give a fuck whether Biden's cabinet members are confirmed or not.

Edited September 22, 2020 by yoladu

[workswithseed 2,201]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wut?  Are you saying Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be impeached?  I think that's a huge stretch, particularly for Gorsuch.

Unless Breuer and Thomas wants to pull a RGB, they'll most likely will be gone next term.

[SimonBolivar 11,032]

1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

Imagine Chuck f'n Schumer and the rest of the old guard feeble Dems attempting to make a sales pitch to the American people for an expanded liberal court and adding two states, thus adding two stars to the flag, changing the map, all the history books, etc. I have a beach front property in Corsicana to sell you if you think there's even a remote chance of these cowards taking on this fight let alone winning it.   😂😂😂😂

If they have the presidency and both chambers plus a couple of territories that want to be states then why would they need to make a sales pitch to the people? Especially with the new states being D leaning.

[SimonBolivar 11,032]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Unless Breuer and Thomas wants to pull a RGB, they'll most likely will be gone next term.

Why would Thomas retire before 76 with the opposing party in power? He isn't RBG or Breyer's age and replacing Breyer does nothing for liberals.

Edited September 22, 2020 by SimonBolivar

[wildcat09 29,558]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He won't have much say on budgets, a President Biden could undo a shitload of executive orders, many of which Mitch had some kind of say in, and a whole lot of new legislation could be pushed through that Mitch would not like.  And the Dems could pass through a lot of stuff that could strengthen or change up how we vote, and how redistricting works.

A 6-3 SCOTUS sounds sexy to Mitch until you realize the Dems will be doing a shitload of stuff that the SCOTUS will never touch.

I am absolutely fucking begging you to give up this fiction because it will quite literally get a ton of us killed.  Neil Gorsuch will be the swing vote. The fucking swing vote on the Court will think that the entire administrative state is unconstitutional. The old SCOTUS already struck down the Voting Rights Act based as unconstitutional without ever stating what part of the Constitution it violated. There isn't a single Republican on the Court now that thinks Congress should have the power to do anything about climate change. They're already preparing to throw out the ACA based on a legal argument that every single conservative and libertarian legal commentator of any renown considered frivolous when first made. They don't care what the Constitution says. They don't care what statutes say. They don't care what the people want. They have their view of what the law should be and will make it so.