Court Expansion / Adding PR and DC as States

[DanRydell 799]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

I’ve been warming to the idea of judicial term limits for the SC. Make them ex officio after 18 years.  Thomas has been on the Court for 3 decades. He rotates off first in June of 2021.  The lower courts need a dramatic expansion just to handle caseload anyway. 

 

also: you bring DC in because we all know McConnell would have made it a state 5 minutes after Trump was sworn in if it voted 80% GOP.  

I'm open to 18 year term limits with appointments in odd-numbered years except that you'd need some sort of protection to prevent the Senate from just running out of the clock. If you don't think McConnell would have refused to confirm anyone Obama nominated in 2017, you're fucking nuts. Maybe change the confirmation power to a veto power so the Senate still has a role but can't just do nothing.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

55 minutes ago, softlynow said:

You need to pack the court to ensure you can expand the union. The court as currently comprised may well invalidate anything that swings the balance of power towards the Dems. 

What would the justification be?  To stop PR at a minimum from coming in. That’s pretty settled law as we’ve expanded the country plenty of times. 

[Horn Dog 9672]

I posted this in the RBG thread but since it got no response will post here.  Any Surly lawyer types want to comment?  This article basically says that congress can change what the jurisdiction of cases that SC can review by simply passing a law since the constitution only gives SC original jurisdiction in very select circumstances.  If this is true, then limiting the effect ability of the SC to overturn lots of different types of cases doesn't require more than simply passing a law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/23/unmaking-supreme-court/

 

Spoiler

The notion that Republicans will “win” and capture the Supreme Court for a generation by jamming through a highly partisan justice during an election on a strictly partisan vote is preposterous. It will simply be the starting gun in a race to dismantle the Supreme Court as we know it.

 

Remember that the agenda for the right on the Supreme Court is to subvert overwhelmingly popular policies, such as access to legalized abortion. As soon as the Supreme Court strikes it down, Congress could pass a bill enshrining it in law, albeit after unrooting the filibuster.

As for the court itself, the uneasy balance that has existed for decades — that each president gets a pick or two and that the Senate only occasionally blocks a nomination (Robert Bork being the sole example of a judge voted down in recent memory) — rests on restraint and comity that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) destroyed in denying President Barack Obama his pick and then jamming through President Trump’s. If, as seems very possible, Democrats capture the White House and the Senate, there will be a radical remaking of the Supreme Court and its role in our system.

 

 

Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

Live updates on the Supreme Court vacancy

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.

That is only one change that a new Congress might enact. The Post’s Editorial Board and many others have suggested limiting the term of Supreme Court justices. Back in 2014, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote:

With a Court that is increasingly active in overturning laws passed by Congress and checking presidential authority when there is a president of the opposite party, that means nominations both to appeals courts and to the Supreme Court have become increasingly divisive and polarized, for both parties. And the policy future of the country depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society. …

For more than a decade, I have strongly advocated moving toward term limits for appellate judges and Supreme Court justices. I would like to have single, 18-year terms, staggered so that each president in a term would have two vacancies to fill. Doing so would open opportunities for men and women in their 60s, given modern life expectancies, and not just those in their 40s. It would to some degree lower the temperature on confirmation battles by making the stakes a bit lower. And it would mean a Court that more accurately reflects the changes and judgments of the society.

The Supreme Court could also be expanded by two or even four justices. The number of justices is a matter of statute, subject to the will of Congress. Since the Merrick Garland stunt, former attorney general Eric Holder has supported this approach. “If, in fact, they are successful in placing a justice on the court,” Holder said recently, “we need to think about court reform. And at a minimum, as part of that reform package, I think additional justices need to be placed on the Supreme Court."

To achieve some or all of these reforms, Democrats will probably need to do away with the Senate filibuster unless their wins in November are enormous and a few Republicans can be persuaded to strike a deal. Having destroyed even the patina of independence and of fair play, Republicans would be in a poor position to scream foul. And even if they do, I am certain a substantial majority of Democrats in the House and Senate will shrug, smile and proceed ahead. (Without the filibuster, a whole list of other measures can be passed, including a statute ensuring abortion rights and funding without the Hyde Amendment restrictions under any government health-care program, securing voting rights, admission of new states, etc.)

The mistake that Republicans make is thinking there is some permanent victory they can obtain in defiance of popular will that is increasingly hostile to their agenda. As undemocratic as our system has become, a substantial majority of voters can ultimately work their will by electing a president and congressional majority of their liking.

If McConnell is not able to jam through a confirmation before the election, all of these reforms and more will be on the table in the lame duck session. A president-elect Biden, armed with an incoming Senate majority, would be in a strong position to lay out the future of a diminished and defanged Supreme Court should Republicans jam through a nominee after a sizable election loss.

“The GOP is in the process of landing a devastating one-two punch on the credibility of the Supreme Court,” says Norman Eisen, former counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment process. By refusing to consider the nomination of Garland in 2016 and now flip-flopping to force through another nominee in an election year, Eisen argues, Republicans would have “tainted” two of the nine seats and therefore the court itself. He adds: “The Democratic leadership of the House and the Senate have made clear that any and all remedies should be on the table if this proceeds, and that is right. Adding additional seats, re-examining the scope of the court’s jurisdiction (to the extent constitutionally permitted), imposing stringent ethics requirements like the ones that apply to all other judges nationally, enhancing Court transparency and much more should be carefully evaluated if this appointment goes forward.”

The permutations and possible outcomes are endless, but two things are not up for debate. First, Democrats will need a convincing win to achieve any of these measures, not to mention the rest of their agenda. An army of Ruth Bader Ginsburg admirers marching to the polls can increase their chances of a convincing victory.

Second, let’s stop the silly moaning that “Republicans cannot be stopped” or that “the right will own the Supreme Court for decades.” Nonsense. Ultimately, the people decide — and there is every reason to believe that the people have no stomach for a Republican world in which millions lose health-care coverage, abortion is criminalized in many states, LGBTQ rights are undone, states can eviscerate voting rights and the executive branch gets a free pass to do whatever it pleases. November will become a referendum not only on all these issues, but on the Republican effort to impose minority rule of overwhelmingly White conservative states on the rest of the country.

 

 

 

 

[wildcat09 29243]

20 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

What would the justification be?  To stop PR at a minimum from coming in. That’s pretty settled law as we’ve expanded the country plenty of times. 

6-3 would be the justification. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

I posted this in the RBG thread but since it got no response will post here.  Any Surly lawyer types want to comment?  This article basically says that congress can change what the jurisdiction of cases that SC can review by simply passing a law since the constitution only gives SC original jurisdiction in very select circumstances.  If this is true, then limiting the effect ability of the SC to overturn lots of different types of cases doesn't require more than simply passing a law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/23/unmaking-supreme-court/

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The notion that Republicans will “win” and capture the Supreme Court for a generation by jamming through a highly partisan justice during an election on a strictly partisan vote is preposterous. It will simply be the starting gun in a race to dismantle the Supreme Court as we know it.

 

Remember that the agenda for the right on the Supreme Court is to subvert overwhelmingly popular policies, such as access to legalized abortion. As soon as the Supreme Court strikes it down, Congress could pass a bill enshrining it in law, albeit after unrooting the filibuster.

As for the court itself, the uneasy balance that has existed for decades — that each president gets a pick or two and that the Senate only occasionally blocks a nomination (Robert Bork being the sole example of a judge voted down in recent memory) — rests on restraint and comity that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) destroyed in denying President Barack Obama his pick and then jamming through President Trump’s. If, as seems very possible, Democrats capture the White House and the Senate, there will be a radical remaking of the Supreme Court and its role in our system.

 

 

Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

Live updates on the Supreme Court vacancy

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.

That is only one change that a new Congress might enact. The Post’s Editorial Board and many others have suggested limiting the term of Supreme Court justices. Back in 2014, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote:

With a Court that is increasingly active in overturning laws passed by Congress and checking presidential authority when there is a president of the opposite party, that means nominations both to appeals courts and to the Supreme Court have become increasingly divisive and polarized, for both parties. And the policy future of the country depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society. …

For more than a decade, I have strongly advocated moving toward term limits for appellate judges and Supreme Court justices. I would like to have single, 18-year terms, staggered so that each president in a term would have two vacancies to fill. Doing so would open opportunities for men and women in their 60s, given modern life expectancies, and not just those in their 40s. It would to some degree lower the temperature on confirmation battles by making the stakes a bit lower. And it would mean a Court that more accurately reflects the changes and judgments of the society.

The Supreme Court could also be expanded by two or even four justices. The number of justices is a matter of statute, subject to the will of Congress. Since the Merrick Garland stunt, former attorney general Eric Holder has supported this approach. “If, in fact, they are successful in placing a justice on the court,” Holder said recently, “we need to think about court reform. And at a minimum, as part of that reform package, I think additional justices need to be placed on the Supreme Court."

To achieve some or all of these reforms, Democrats will probably need to do away with the Senate filibuster unless their wins in November are enormous and a few Republicans can be persuaded to strike a deal. Having destroyed even the patina of independence and of fair play, Republicans would be in a poor position to scream foul. And even if they do, I am certain a substantial majority of Democrats in the House and Senate will shrug, smile and proceed ahead. (Without the filibuster, a whole list of other measures can be passed, including a statute ensuring abortion rights and funding without the Hyde Amendment restrictions under any government health-care program, securing voting rights, admission of new states, etc.)

The mistake that Republicans make is thinking there is some permanent victory they can obtain in defiance of popular will that is increasingly hostile to their agenda. As undemocratic as our system has become, a substantial majority of voters can ultimately work their will by electing a president and congressional majority of their liking.

If McConnell is not able to jam through a confirmation before the election, all of these reforms and more will be on the table in the lame duck session. A president-elect Biden, armed with an incoming Senate majority, would be in a strong position to lay out the future of a diminished and defanged Supreme Court should Republicans jam through a nominee after a sizable election loss.

“The GOP is in the process of landing a devastating one-two punch on the credibility of the Supreme Court,” says Norman Eisen, former counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment process. By refusing to consider the nomination of Garland in 2016 and now flip-flopping to force through another nominee in an election year, Eisen argues, Republicans would have “tainted” two of the nine seats and therefore the court itself. He adds: “The Democratic leadership of the House and the Senate have made clear that any and all remedies should be on the table if this proceeds, and that is right. Adding additional seats, re-examining the scope of the court’s jurisdiction (to the extent constitutionally permitted), imposing stringent ethics requirements like the ones that apply to all other judges nationally, enhancing Court transparency and much more should be carefully evaluated if this appointment goes forward.”

The permutations and possible outcomes are endless, but two things are not up for debate. First, Democrats will need a convincing win to achieve any of these measures, not to mention the rest of their agenda. An army of Ruth Bader Ginsburg admirers marching to the polls can increase their chances of a convincing victory.

Second, let’s stop the silly moaning that “Republicans cannot be stopped” or that “the right will own the Supreme Court for decades.” Nonsense. Ultimately, the people decide — and there is every reason to believe that the people have no stomach for a Republican world in which millions lose health-care coverage, abortion is criminalized in many states, LGBTQ rights are undone, states can eviscerate voting rights and the executive branch gets a free pass to do whatever it pleases. November will become a referendum not only on all these issues, but on the Republican effort to impose minority rule of overwhelmingly White conservative states on the rest of the country.

 

 

 

 

It’s a good article and makes sense but discusses half measures that won’t work in my opinion and are too much trouble anyway. The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison said it has been given the implied power to strike down a law that violated the constitution. For centuries everyone has accepted that.

 If Congress were to pass a law saying that case no longer matters for example, what then?  Does the new law now violate the constitution and who gets to decide if it does? 

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 hours ago, StruggleBus said:

Looking forward to our supreme court in 20 years with 12,987 justices.

Any politician running on 12,987 or 20 Supreme Court justices will not get elected. 

13 - the number of federal circuit courts of appeal - is logical (one justice per circuit) and reflective of a much larger nation than we were in 1789 when we had SIX supreme court justices. 

Again - 9 justices is not a magic formula.

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

The other solutions: Jurisdiction stripping and/or requiring 6 of 9 justices to overturn specific legislation as designated by Congress.

Congress makes laws. They have ceded their power to the President, the administrative state, and the courts. That's is not how the system was designed to work. When Congress screws up, we can vote the house members out every two years and senators every 6 years. We have less democracy when the unelected make law - as is the current situation we find ourselves in. 

The nation is listing badly and in danger of capsizing without bold and immediate action. The world is watching and is torn between pity and elation as we are founder. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The other solutions: Jurisdiction stripping and/or requiring 6 of 9 justices to overturn specific legislation as designated by Congress.

Congress makes laws. They have ceded their power to the President, the administrative state, and the courts. That's is not how the system was designed to work. When Congress screws up, we can vote the house members out every two years and senators every 6 years. We have less democracy when the unelected make law - as is the current situation we find ourselves in. 

The nation is listing badly and in danger of capsizing without bold and immediate action. The world is watching and is torn between pity and elation as we are founder. 

Repped for the second paragraph. So much truth here. 
Presidency has become imperial and the courts (and regulatory agencies) are usurping congresses rightful role. That’s on Congress. Congress should legislate. They are the most responsive to their friends and neighbors and pressure from the citizenry. 

[softlynow 1783]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

What would the justification be?  To stop PR at a minimum from coming in. That’s pretty settled law as we’ve expanded the country plenty of times. 

Plenty of norms are falling by the wayside. A Court with Roberts as the swing vote wouldn’t be that worrisome. A Court where Roberts is a dirty liberal is something any centrist or liberal should always worry will take up for their team. The justification doesn’t matter when even Thomas is a dispensable vote.

Now might they choose to assert their independence from the political sphere and follow reason and precedent? Sure. Is that a good bet for Dems? Of course not.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

7 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Plenty of norms are falling by the wayside. A Court with Roberts as the swing vote wouldn’t be that worrisome. A Court where Roberts is a dirty liberal is something any centrist or liberal should always worry will take up for their team. The justification doesn’t matter when even Thomas is a dispensable vote.

Now might they choose to assert their independence from the political sphere and follow reason and precedent? Sure. Is that a good bet for Dems? Of course not.

One of the big misnomers people have about the court is that it's super ideological and stuck at some sort of permanent 5-4 voting bloc split.  We hear a lot about the 5-4 decisions but the fact of the matter is that many many more decisions are 9-0, 7-2 and stuff like that. I think I read, once upon a time (and don't flame me if I'm wrong please b/c this is an old pull) that Scalia and Ginsburg voted together something like 80% of the time, and at that time I think they were considered the ideological poles of the supreme court. There's much more comity than people think- and using those two as an example I know they were personal friends that had nothing but respect for each other.  I would think that if something went to the court about PR being made a state (again, presupposing actionable demonstration that people of PR wanted this) that this would be such a decision that was 9-0 or something like that, as it's established for a long time in the American story that we can add new states, and there's a roadmap to doing so (what the roadmap is I don't know as I've never taken the opportunity to look at it- as it's so well established I've never been interested in the idea).  Maybe I'm naive, but this is my thought and hope as to how that would go down.

[washparkhorn 9935]

28 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

One of the big misnomers people have about the court is that it's super ideological and stuck at some sort of permanent 5-4 voting bloc split.  We hear a lot about the 5-4 decisions but the fact of the matter is that many many more decisions are 9-0, 7-2 and stuff like that.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/5-4-cases-7.20.20.pdf

Quote

I think I read, once upon a time (and don't flame me if I'm wrong please b/c this is an old pull) that Scalia and Ginsburg voted together something like 80% of the time, and at that time I think they were considered the ideological poles of the supreme court.

From the 2019-2020 term - RGB voted 49% of the time with Thomas and 51% of the time with Alito.  

[elfenix 34171]

59 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

regulatory agencies) are usurping congresses rightful role

congress has better uses of its time than deciding how many cherries are allowed in a fruit cocktail. 

[wildcat09 29243]

One of the most insane things to me about American politics-knowers is how many people sincerely believe there shouldn’t be an administrative state and how Congress needs to be doing all of that stuff.

[washparkhorn 9935]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

One of the most insane things to me about American politics-knowers is how many people sincerely believe there shouldn’t be an administrative state and how Congress needs to be doing all of that stuff.

The Constitution requires the Congress to pass laws. Under the Chevron doctrine, Congress has passed that responsibility to the Administrative State and the Courts. Chevron was a horrible decision by the Court. 

The administrative state is there to administer laws, not craft them. 

Other than that, I agree with you. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

26 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/5-4-cases-7.20.20.pdf

From the 2019-2020 term - RGB voted 49% of the time with Thomas and 51% of the time with Alito.  

Yeah, this is lower than I had read- but it's obviously for one term, from a different term than I was talking about.  Point certainly shows that it's not as much of an ideological divide as people generally tend to think.  

Pulled this from 2014- over the previous 4 terms (2010-2014) Scalia and Ginsburg voted together 70% of the time.  more than half the cases were decided 9-0 unanimously.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

congress has better uses of its time than deciding how many cherries are allowed in a fruit cocktail. 

There's waaaaaaay more than how many cherries on a fruit cocktail.  CFPB as but one example is delegating a ton of regulatory authority that probably belongs within the purview of the legislature. A bunch of EPA stuff.  A bunch of labor issues.  Title IX stuff.  Regulatory agencies have a ton of real actual power in the day to day workings of this country.  And tons of what they are doing in rule making is akin to actual law making. But, you know, without elected officials being accountable.  This is an anti-democratic set up in a lot of ways.  

Edited September 28, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The Constitution requires the Congress to pass laws. Under the Chevron doctrine, Congress has passed that responsibility to the Administrative States and the Courts. 

The administrative state is there to administer laws, not craft them. 

Other than that, I agree with you. 

Yessir.  Spot on. 

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

22 hours ago, Xian said:

A repeat of first trumps first two years.  A racist authoritarian comes to power and their party controls Congress.   Giving them the ability to truly pack the courts is a scary thought. 
 

I would rather not open that possible Pandora’s box 

 

That box is open. The only thing preventing court packing now is the fact that Congress is split between two powers. The only thing preventing it when the Dems control all three is "decorum".

Decorum is dead. McConnell out front should have told you. In Jan, I want to see the "Gorsuch payback bill on court packing" introduced in Congress. Anybody that doesn't like it can take it up with McConnell. I want at minimum 4 more justices appointed by Biden: 1 for Gorsuch, 1 for Coney, 1 for not removing the orange dOTarD when they had the chance, and finally 1 for punitive damages as a fuck you McConnell.

Everytime McConnell opens his wattle and whines about "decorum" or "court packing", I want another justice added.

Dems need to go to war. Scorched Earth on their asses. After the GOP is dead and discredited, and McConnell is headless in a pauper's grave, then we can start talking about "decorum" again.

 

[elfenix 34171]

23 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

. A bunch of EPA stuff.

what's funny about this in particular is that congress specified PPM in the clean air act and everyone hated it so they went to the more normal thing of congress setting the destination and letting the executive drive the bus. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

what's funny about this in particular is that congress specified PPM in the clean air act and everyone hated it so they went to the more normal thing of congress setting the destination and letting the executive drive the bus. 

Sure. But when Congress does something and everyone hates it the public can bring pressure to them (ha- when I write public you know I mean interested groups), when the agency does it, crickets. 

It's a question of whether you prefer government by the people or government by the technocrats. I prefer people, though I do, of course, acknowledge that there are benefits to agencies doing their thing especially as it relates to specific knowledge on a particular topic. 

[wildcat09 29243]

16 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

That box is open. The only thing preventing court packing now is the fact that Congress is split between two powers. The only thing preventing it when the Dems control all three is "decorum".

Decorum is dead. McConnell out front should have told you. In Jan, I want to see the "Gorsuch payback bill on court packing" introduced in Congress. Anybody that doesn't like it can take it up with McConnell. I want at minimum 4 more justices appointed by Biden: 1 for Gorsuch, 1 for Coney, 1 for not removing the orange dOTarD when they had the chance, and finally 1 for punitive damages as a fuck you McConnell.

Everytime McConnell opens his wattle and whines about "decorum" or "court packing", I want another justice added.

Dems need to go to war. Scorched Earth on their asses. After the GOP is dead and discredited, and McConnell is headless in a pauper's grave, then we can start talking about "decorum" again.

 

This. The only thing that will prevent the GOP from exercising every power they can get their grubby hands on to the absolute max and then somewhere beyond the max is keeping them away from the levers of power. That means fixing our fucking democracy and ensuring that every citizen of voting age can actually vote without having a million hurdles thrown in their way. That means eliminating their ability to racially gerrymander their districts. Those will require retaking control of the Court. There is a 0% chance a 6-3 SCOTUS led by John Roberts allows anything that will guarantee black people the actual ability to vote.  This shit isn't complicated and people worried about how the GOP will respond aren't worried enough about what they've already done (and are already doing).  Either we take total control in November and move immediately to safeguard our democracy, or it will be lost for a generation at least. At best we'll be Putin's Russia. Anyone too timid to act needs to sit down and shut up.

[elfenix 34171]

7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

when the agency does it, crickets. 

yeah that's not the case.

[wildcat09 29243]

6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure. But when Congress does something and everyone hates it the public can bring pressure to them (ha- when I write public you know I mean interested groups), when the agency does it, crickets. 

It's a question of whether you prefer government by the people or government by the technocrats. I prefer people, though I do, of course, acknowledge that there are benefits to agencies doing their thing especially as it relates to specific knowledge on a particular topic. 

But on a practical level how do you envision it working? If the EPA goes, are Nancy Pelosi and AOC going to be determining emissions requirements? Or will something that looks just like the EPA be set up but we'll call it a Congressional agency instead of an executive agency?

[washparkhorn 9935]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But on a practical level how do you envision it working? If the EPA goes, are Nancy Pelosi and AOC going to be determining emissions requirements? Or will something that looks just like the EPA be set up but we'll call it a Congressional agency instead of an executive agency?

• Determine the science,
• Congress passes the law, and
• EPA administers.
• If Congress screws up, vote them out and elect legislators who will get it done properly.

voila - democracy in a representative republic. 

[elfenix 34171]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But on a practical level how do you envision it working? If the EPA goes, are Nancy Pelosi and AOC going to be determining emissions requirements? Or will something that looks just like the EPA be set up but we'll call it a Congressional agency instead of an executive agency?

take all the regs written the past quarter to congress for an up/down vote and the president's sig that everyone understands is very rubber stampy.  sure you'll probably get some gohmert pyle asshole who votes no on everything just to grandstand but hey we've fixed that whole administrative state "problem."

of course it'd probably end up with the same bullshit as the debt ceiling

Edited September 28, 2020 by elfenix

[elfenix 34171]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

• Determine the science,
• Congress passes the law, and
• EPA administers.
• If Congress screws up, vote them out and elect legislators who will get it done properly.

voila - democracy in a representative republic. 

or that whole call your congresscritter and get them to do constituent services like they currently do.  except ted, because ted doesn't do shit other than clean trump's asshole. 

[wildcat09 29243]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

• Determine the science,
• Congress passes the law, and
• EPA administers.
• If Congress screws up, vote them out and elect legislators who will get it done properly.

voila - democracy in a representative republic. 

This is not an answer on a practical level.

ETA: My questions revolve around who determines the science and how, and what goes into the laws introduced and passed by Congress? I'd rather have scientists figuring that shit out than Louis Gohmert. If they're employed by Congress as some sort of select delegated subcommittee or however you want to characterize it, great. If actual Congressional representatives are responsible for figuring out the details, we'll reach the heat death of the universe before that happens.

Edited September 28, 2020 by wildcat09

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

This is not an answer on a practical level.

Serious question - why? It worked before Chevron. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

35 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

That box is open. The only thing preventing court packing now is the fact that Congress is split between two powers. The only thing preventing it when the Dems control all three is "decorum".

Decorum is dead. McConnell out front should have told you. In Jan, I want to see the "Gorsuch payback bill on court packing" introduced in Congress. Anybody that doesn't like it can take it up with McConnell. I want at minimum 4 more justices appointed by Biden: 1 for Gorsuch, 1 for Coney, 1 for not removing the orange dOTarD when they had the chance, and finally 1 for punitive damages as a fuck you McConnell.

Everytime McConnell opens his wattle and whines about "decorum" or "court packing", I want another justice added.

Dems need to go to war. Scorched Earth on their asses. After the GOP is dead and discredited, and McConnell is headless in a pauper's grave, then we can start talking about "decorum" again.

 

And what happens when the pendulum swings the other way and they pack the courts?   Sorry, but I’m not willing to blow this entire country up just now. Even with all its faults, we have a lot of things still going well.  Hell Donald Trump was fucking president for four years and we are still standing. Nothing he has done so far can’t be reversed in the first year of a Biden administration (assuming we control congress). 
the system seems to have survived the stress test. Why fuck it up? 

[washparkhorn 9935]

Just now, Xian said:

And what happens when the pendulum swings the other way and they pack the courts?  

When the pendulum swings the other way - they will pack the Court. Might as well fix it now. 

 

2 minutes ago, Xian said:

Nothing he has done so far can’t be reversed in the first year of a Biden administration

How do we reverse the coming 6-3 split in the Court in one year?

[ndawg 1242]

3 minutes ago, Xian said:

And what happens when the pendulum swings the other way and they pack the courts?   Sorry, but I’m not willing to blow this entire country up just now. Even with all its faults, we have a lot of things still going well.  Hell Donald Trump was fucking president for four years and we are still standing. Nothing he has done so far can’t be reversed in the first year of a Biden administration (assuming we control congress). 
the system seems to have survived the stress test. Why fuck it up? 

What would happen is that the GOP behavior would not noticeably change. The are already willing to do anything in the name of power.

[wildcat09 29243]

6 minutes ago, Xian said:

And what happens when the pendulum swings the other way and they pack the courts?   Sorry, but I’m not willing to blow this entire country up just now. Even with all its faults, we have a lot of things still going well.  Hell Donald Trump was fucking president for four years and we are still standing. Nothing he has done so far can’t be reversed in the first year of a Biden administration (assuming we control congress). 
the system seems to have survived the stress test. Why fuck it up? 

They already DID pack the courts.

[washparkhorn 9935]

Amy Coney Barrett deferring to DHS' latest interpretations of the law under the Chevron Doctrine (as a dissent, which will soon be a majority position on the Supreme Court).

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-3169/19-3169-2020-06-10.pdf

Sick and undemocratic method of governance. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

16 minutes ago, ndawg said:

The are already willing to do anything in the name of power.

 

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They already DID pack the courts.

Correct. 

[TwiceHorn 31273]

10 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Amy Coney Barrett deferring to DHS' latest interpretations of the law under the Chevron Doctrine (as a dissent, which will soon be a majority position on the Supreme Court).

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-3169/19-3169-2020-06-10.pdf

Sick and undemocratic method of governance. 

Im pretty sure Neil Gorsuch hates the fuck out of that dissent.  Certainly to the extent it relies on Chevron deference.

The Immigration Act is so full of holes, nooks, and crannies, though, that it kind of invites Trump's/Miller's shenanigans.

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Orale 1087]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 

Correct. 

Not only did they pack the court, they reduced it to 8 justices for nearly a year. If they can reduce the number of justices for political purposes, Democrats can and should expand the number. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

maryland doesn't want it.

What makes you say that?  Pretty strong statement. Can you share a link?

[elfenix 34171]

2 minutes ago, Xian said:

What makes you say that?  Pretty strong statement. Can you share a link?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/marylanders-narrowly-favor-dc-statehood-unlike-americans-overall-according-to-post-u-md-poll/2019/10/20/8b5f3e4e-f11f-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/marylanders-narrowly-favor-dc-statehood-unlike-americans-overall-according-to-post-u-md-poll/2019/10/20/8b5f3e4e-f11f-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

Oh a poll?  You made it seem like the states government made an official statement.    Also interesting to see so few in Maryland want dc to be its own state. Figured the numbers would be higher 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Xian

[elfenix 34171]

 

23 minutes ago, Xian said:

Oh a poll?  You made it seem like the states government made an official statement.    Also interesting to see so few in Maryland want dc to be its own state. Figured the numbers would be higher 

Quote

"No way," said state Sen. Jean Roesser, a Montgomry Republican. "We have the tremendous problems of one big city, Baltimore, and I think we need to tend to them before we bring in D.C."

...

Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Maryland 2nd District Republican, doesn't think so. He cited the district's financial problems in a letter to constituents last year that outlined his opposition to a congressional bill to cede the district to Maryland. "Years of fiscal management and failed social policy have exacted a heavy toll on the district. .... Pushing it onto the taxpayers of Maryland is short-sighted and unfair," Ehrlich wrote.

...

That seems just fine with Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening, who says retrocession "doesn't make any sense at all."

"What they're really trying to do is try to pass off their financial obligations" for the district, he said. "If they wanted to solve the representation question they could very easily give the congresswoman from D.C. the right to vote."

...

While he also opposes retrocession, Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, a 3rd District Democrat, favors a constitutional amendment that would let district residents elect their own senators and congressional representatives without becoming a state.

...

"It would further complicate things for the citizens of the Eastern Shore," he said. "All that it would do is lessen our representation in Annapolis, and there would be even greater tyranny because we would really be ruled in the legislature by [the Baltimore-Washington D.C. corridor]."

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-03-24-1998083134-story.html

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

But on a practical level how do you envision it working? If the EPA goes, are Nancy Pelosi and AOC going to be determining emissions requirements? Or will something that looks just like the EPA be set up but we'll call it a Congressional agency instead of an executive agency?

Honestly? I have zero idea. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

9 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-03-24-1998083134-story.html

So the governor in 1998 was against it?  Got it. 

[elfenix 34171]

15 minutes ago, Xian said:

So the governor in 1998 was against it?  Got it. 

statehood bill:

Quote

Norton’s legislation has 220 co-sponsors — more than half the House. They include every Maryland congressman except Rep. Andy Harris, the delegation’s only Republican.

"I have said around the country that one of the greatest blots on our democracy is having 700,000 of our citizens unable to be fully represented in the Congress of the United States,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the Southern Maryland Democrat, said in a statement submitted at the hearing.

In the Senate — where the Republican leadership is unlikely to consider Norton’s bill — Democratic Maryland Sens. Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen are co-sponsors of the statehood bill.

retrocession not-a-bill:

Quote

In fact, no lawmaker has come out publicly for Krucoff’s plan, which would require approval in Congress and in Maryland. Based on precedent, Krucoff believes his proposal would need the approval of the General Assembly and of Maryland voters in a statewide referendum.

...

Krucoff said he advised Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan of his plan at a reception during a 2018 convention, saying: “I’d like you think about creating Douglass County, Maryland.” The governor smiled and nodded, Krucoff said. Hogan’s office had no comment on the meeting, a spokesman said last week.

retrocession has very little support from folks in the area.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-dc-part-of-maryland-20190923-kghzoivjjvenzhg3fyanghct5u-story.html

[Ghost of LL 15492]

I favor statehood for DC and PR.  However, as I have said on another thread, if you're in it solely for partisan gain then you might want to be real careful about Puerto Rico.  It's not at all clear that Puerto Rico would consistently elect Democrats (or even that it wouldn't consistently elect Republicans).

If you're interested in (1) fairness and (2) partisan gain, then the Democrats need to use the full extent of Congress's powers under the Fifteenth Amendment.  Pass a new Voting Rights Act that:

1) Requires same-day voter registration;

2) Establishes Election Day as a national holiday;

3) Establishes minimum requirements for the number of polling locations and polls per capita in each precinct; 

4) Re-establishes the pre-clearance requirements of the VRA in states that Congress finds to have engaged in voter suppression; 

5) Mandates the re-enfranchisement of persons convicted of crimes (without the need to pay a poll tax);

6) Imposes criminal penalties on persons who engage in voter suppression;

7) Creates a private right of action and waives Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits against a state that engages in voter suppression, including the recovery of punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

In short--create a scenario in which everybody who wants to vote legitimately can.  If you do that, you don't need to worry about the Republicans winning anything--even the Senate.  They're fucked.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I favor statehood for DC and PR.  However, as I have said on another thread, if you're in it solely for partisan gain then you might want to be real careful about Puerto Rico.  It's not at all clear that Puerto Rico would consistently elect Democrats (or even that it wouldn't consistently elect Republicans).

If you're interested in (1) fairness and (2) partisan gain, then the Democrats need to use the full extent of Congress's powers under the Fifteenth Amendment.  Pass a new Voting Rights Act that:

1) Requires same-day voter registration;

2) Establishes Election Day as a national holiday;

3) Establishes minimum requirements for the number of polling locations and polls per capita in each precinct; 

4) Re-establishes the pre-clearance requirements of the VRA in states that Congress finds to have engaged in voter suppression; 

5) Mandates the re-enfranchisement of persons convicted of crimes (without the need to pay a poll tax);

6) Imposes criminal penalties on persons who engage in voter suppression;

7) Creates a private right of action and waives Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits against a state that engages in voter suppression, including the recovery of punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

In short--create a scenario in which everybody who wants to vote legitimately can.  If you do that, you don't need to worry about the Republicans winning anything--even the Senate.  They're fucked.

I think you’d be surprised at how many people who are culturally conservative don’t vote. It might not be as much of a slam dunk as you think that this would help Democrats, and honestly if you don’t want to vote or don’t really have much of an opinion I think a good argument could be made that the body politic is better off through you not participating. 
I’m not saying this in an argument to suppress anyone who shows up votes, I’m saying this as someone who recognizes many of his fellow citizens are mouth breathing morons and is fine with them not participating in the system. 
It’s not like the educated and intelligent amongst us gave us Trump. 
all that said- sure- that seems like a fair and reasonable plan. 

[Ghost of LL 15492]

16 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think you’d be surprised at how many people who are culturally conservative don’t vote. It might not be as much of a slam dunk as you think that this would help Democrats, and honestly if you don’t want to vote or don’t really have much of an opinion I think a good argument could be made that the body politic is better off through you not participating. 
I’m not saying this in an argument to suppress anyone who shows up votes, I’m saying this as someone who recognizes many of his fellow citizens are mouth breathing morons and is fine with them not participating in the system. 
It’s not like the educated and intelligent amongst us gave us Trump. 
all that said- sure- that seems like a fair and reasonable plan. 

People who are disengaged aren't going to vote no matter how easy you make it.  And none of those reforms would change that.

But what about the people who stood in line for 9 hours to vote at Texas Southern University?  Or the people who were purged from Georgia's voter rolls?  Or the people who can't vote in Florida because they were convicted of a crime 10 years ago and the state won't tell them how much they owe in order to get their right to vote back?

Those people want to vote.  And they're being prevented from doing so by Republicans who know that if more people vote, they lose elections.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

42 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

People who are disengaged aren't going to vote no matter how easy you make it.  And none of those reforms would change that.

But what about the people who stood in line for 9 hours to vote at Texas Southern University?  Or the people who were purged from Georgia's voter rolls?  Or the people who can't vote in Florida because they were convicted of a crime 10 years ago and the state won't tell them how much they owe in order to get their right to vote back?

Those people want to vote.  And they're being prevented from doing so by Republicans who know that if more people vote, they lose elections.

That’s why I said I agree with all your reforms. But if you make it really easy to vote then you can bus people in from the trailer parks and make that a thing. 
by culturally conservative I don’t mean socon, I’m talking about the idiots rolling around with confederate flags on the. Act of their trucks btw. 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

5 hours ago, elfenix said:

statehood bill:

retrocession not-a-bill:

retrocession has very little support from folks in the area.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-dc-part-of-maryland-20190923-kghzoivjjvenzhg3fyanghct5u-story.html

Thanks. These are interesting 

[JBJ 3649]

 

17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Im pretty sure Neil Gorsuch hates the fuck out of that dissent.  Certainly to the extent it relies on Chevron deference.

Trump's entire list is anti-Chevron.  It was a silly post.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

On 9/26/2020 at 4:38 PM, Born to Run said:

These types of discussions will allow Trump to win. Take office and then start unfucking the worst fuckery first. When you've done that, you can start correcting further. Without power it's pointless.

My boy Beto can say "Hell yeah I'm gonna take your guns". He's chillin in El Paso and isn't doing shit. But he rallied the gun nuts.

There are plenty of issues to run on that a huge majority of the country are motivated to vote for in This cycle without pushing and creating more wedge issues.

By the way, I don't agree with this.  People aren't going to vote against Biden because of talk about DC/PR statehood or expanding the number of justices.

I think it is important to talk about these things, however, for two reasons:

1) It is important to shift the Overton window to put these issues within the realm of reasonable debate.  We can't treat them as radical or outrageous ideas that shouldn't be debated.  Because they're not radical.  They're not outrageous.  DC and PR are full of American citizens and they should be states.  And the Republicans stole a SCOTUS seat, and that needs to be remedied.  These are things that should be discussed.

2) If you want to do them once you have power--and I think Democrats should--then you need to talk about them during the campaign.  Only if they were discussed during the campaign can you claim to have an electoral mandate to carry out those reforms once you gain power.