Next move by Republicans: Pack the courts by adding 50% new positions, eliminating others

[imported_tajmahal]

I have zero doubt that you understand the difference between judges making rulings you disagree with and attempting to pack the courts in this way. It’s shameful that you would even attempt to defend this sort of thing. This is a good test of who is interested in a functioning government vs. who is rooting for their political football team though. Color me totally unsurprised which side you fall on.

Sure you are, you're just pissed that your side, which already said they were going to do the same, got beat to the punch.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Trump must be channeling FDR, in the spirit of history never repeating, but often rhyming. I hope he fails at it just as FDR did.

"Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453896/donald-trump-separation-powers-solid-job

Is President Trump restoring separation of Powers?

 

[Indus]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453896/donald-trump-separation-powers-solid-job

Is President Trump restoring separation of Powers?

LOL and

 

[fskimospy]

Sure you are, you're just pissed that your side, which already said they were going to do the same, got beat to the punch.

By all means point to where the Democrats said they were going to do this.

 

[Maxima1]

Oh, please. This is entirely different. Reid never suggested changing the structure of the federal judiciary or adding a single member.

The outcome can be the same. It's a lifetime appointment after all. The party who gets rid of the filibuster on SC first can get a massive advantage. In the case of Republicans, they can put some young Federalist Society hack in that will be a right-wing ideologue for decades. If Kennedy retires, that's another extremist right-wing hack in without a filibuster, so the court will be very right-wing for decades.

 

[zinfamous]

Republicans are the greatest threat to humanity. Greater than radical Islamic terrorism, that's for fucking sure. The party of proud know-nothingism laughs itself all the way to the end of functional society.

 

[Jhhnn]

The outcome can be the same. It's a lifetime appointment after all. The party who gets rid of the filibuster on SC first can get a massive advantage. In the case of Republicans, they can put some young Federalist Society hack in that will be a right-wing ideologue for decades. If Kennedy retires, that's another extremist right-wing hack in without a filibuster, so the court will be very right-wing for decades.

Read the link in the OP.

Almost overnight, the judicial branch would come to consist of almost equal parts judges picked by nine presidents combined — Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama — and judges picked by one: Donald J. Trump.

Beyond settling disputes & administering Justice the lower courts effectively filter & advocate for cases that reach the SCOTUS.

What Calabrisi proposes is a naked power grab of the Judiciary.

 

[zinfamous]

As if liberal activist judges haven't been working overtime to delegitimize the system for decades, suddenly now it becomes a problem.

when and where? please show me.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

when and where? please show me.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/451795/liberal-judicial-activism

I'm happy to post more links and facts if you'd like.

 

[brycejones]

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/451795/liberal-judicial-activism

I'm happy to post more links and facts if you'd like.

An opinion piece about a state court decision. Do you even bother to read what you post?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

An opinion piece about a state court decision. Do you even bother to read what you post?

No shit Sherlock and yes i do. What the fuck else would it be dumbshit? More for you to look through.
http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples

 

[senseamp]

The outcome can be the same. It's a lifetime appointment after all. The party who gets rid of the filibuster on SC first can get a massive advantage. In the case of Republicans, they can put some young Federalist Society hack in that will be a right-wing ideologue for decades. If Kennedy retires, that's another extremist right-wing hack in without a filibuster, so the court will be very right-wing for decades.

Democrats should pack the SCOTUS. And it's nice of Republicans to pave the way by breaching the subject first. Now Democrats will be able to point to it as a Republican idea. I personally think that short of Gorshuch resignation, which is not going to happen, Democrats are not just going to let this stolen majority slide.

 

[ivwshane]

No shit Sherlock and yes i do. What the fuck else would it be dumbshit? More for you to look through.
http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples

Based on your articles definition of "activist judges", would you then agree that the 2008 Heller decision, which went against 150 years of judicial precedent, was an example of judicial activism?

 

[brycejones]

No shit Sherlock and yes i do. What the fuck else would it be dumbshit? More for you to look through.
http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples

Look troll boy it isn't my fault you posted an opinion piece about a state court decision in a thread about federal judges. Maybe you should try sticking to the thread subject.

Are there any competent developers available to look at tajbot's code? Because the fucker maintaining it currently sucks.

 

[Jhhnn]

An opinion piece about a state court decision. Do you even bother to read what you post?

A minority dissent from 27 years ago that changed nothing. Pure desperation.

 

[brycejones]

What's sad is when FDR tried this in the 30's his own party had enough sense of responsibility to shoot it down. What has happened to that same sense of responsibility to institutional norms with today's congressional leaders?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What's sad is when FDR tried this in the 30's his own party had enough sense of responsibility to shoot it down. What has happened to that same sense of responsibility to institutional norms with today's congressional leaders?

No, FDR wanted to do it with the Supreme Court.

 

[ivwshane]

No, FDR wanted to do it with the Supreme Court.

I think both are equally bad, don't you?

 

[zinfamous]

No shit Sherlock and yes i do. What the fuck else would it be dumbshit? More for you to look through.
http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples

Activist conservative judges have reshaped gun laws, voting against a century and more of SCOTUS precedent and constitutional law. Activist conservative judges (7, 8 of them?) voted in favor of Roe V Wade. Oh the humanity! Activist liberal judges voted to end segregation. Activist conservative judges voted to turn political elections into corporate money fairs.

You really fucking suck at this. Like, it's sad that you are so endlessly stupid.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

All of these are just the cost of being on the winning team. Easy to stomach when all you care about is whether your team wins or not.

So much winning.

Are democrats any different in that regard. Most people don't want to be neutral and nuanced. At least not in Murica.

 

[senseamp]

What's sad is when FDR tried this in the 30's his own party had enough sense of responsibility to shoot it down. What has happened to that same sense of responsibility to institutional norms with today's congressional leaders?

That was before Gorshuch. Now it's no holds barred.

 

[x26]

It appears that while conservatives haven't much bothered to come up with plans to fix America's infrastructure, health care or drug crises, they have put a lot of thought into ensuring they keep the upper hand in politics for decades to come by any means necessary. The latest means is by enlarging the judicial branch enormously and electing young, safely conservative new judges while also eliminating some existing roles to again replace those folks with young conservatives. Another new low for democracy in the United States.

The Washington Post - Conservatives have a breathtaking plan for Trump to pack the courts

Conservatives have a new court-packing plan, and in the spirit of the holiday, it’s a turducken of a scheme: a regulatory rollback hidden inside a civil rights reversal stuffed into a Trumpification of the courts. If conservatives get their way, President Trump will add twice as many lifetime members to the federal judiciary in the next 12 months (650) as Barack Obama named in eight years (325). American law will never be the same.

...

Trump is wasting no time in filling the 103 judicial vacancies he inherited. In the first nine months of Obama’s tenure, he nominated 20 judges to the federal trial and appellate courts; in Trump’s first nine months, he named 58. Senate Republicans are racing these nominees through confirmation; last week, breaking a 100-year-old tradition, they eliminated the “blue slip” rule that allowed home-state senators to object to particularly problematic nominees. The rush to Trumpify the judiciary includesnominees rated unqualified by the American Bar Association, nominees with outrageously conservative views and nominees significantly younger (and, therefore, likely to serve longer) than those of previous presidents. As a result, by sometime next year, 1 in 8 cases filed in federal court will be heard by a judge picked by Trump. Many of these judges will likely still be serving in 2050.

But even this plan — to fill approximately 150 judicial vacancies before the 2018 elections — is not enough for conservatives.

Enter the next element of the court-packing turducken: a new plan written by the crafty co-founder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. In a paper that deserves credit for its transparency (it features a section titled “Undoing President Barack Obama’s Judicial Legacy”), Calabresi proposes to pack the federal courts with a “minimum” of 260 — and possibly as many as 447 — newly created judicial positions. Under this plan, the 228-year-old federal judiciary would increase — in a single year — by 30 to 50 percent.

...

Almost overnight, the judicial branch would come to consist of almost equal parts judges picked by nine presidents combined — Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama — and judges picked by one: Donald J. Trump. The effect on our civil rights and liberties would be astounding. And a continuation of the pattern of Trump’s nominees to date — more white and more male than any president’s in nearly 30 years — would roll back decades of progress in judicial diversity.

But even that isn’t enough for the Turducken Court Packers. They have jammed one more “treat” inside this turkey.

Calabresi has also proposed that Congress abolish 158 administrative law judgeships in federal regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission, and replace these impartial fact-finders with a new corps of 158 Trump-selected judges who — unlike current administrative law judges — would serve for life.

These new Trump administrative law judges would have vast power over environmental, health and safety, fair competition, communications, labor, financial and consumer regulation for decades. Unlike the existing administrative law judges, selected as nonpartisan members of the civil service, Calabresi’s replacement corps would all be picked in a single year, by a single man: Donald J. Trump.

And if this breathtaking transformation of our federal judicial system isn’t jarring enough, Calabresi has one final treat: a proposal that Congress do all of this in the tax-cut bill that Congress is trying to pass before it leaves for the holidays.​

MAGA!!!

 

[darkswordsman17]

The only people who would be in support of this are ones so concerned with winning that they don’t care if the trophy they get is on fire. People usually vastly overuse the threat of violence or revolution or whatever but if conservatives try to push minority power so far that the courts are turned into partisan actors like this they will not like the results of delegitimizing the system they rely on for that minority power.

Kansas Republicans have been trying to do this after the state Supreme Court started pushing back against their failed economic policy, namely saying that it directly harmed the people and therefore they had to actually do something about it (the case was specifically about the failed tax policy leading Republicans to try to cut everything they could from the budget, including education cuts that were ruled to be unconstitutional - based on the State Constitution).

The Republicans are trying to get ahead of the curve as they have to know that there's going to be a reckoning over their failed policies at the Federal level (they've already seen it actually, but I really think those were things they fully expected to get shot down, but wanted to appeal to the base and try to get an idea of the lay of the land).

Republicans are the greatest threat to humanity. Greater than radical Islamic terrorism, that's for fucking sure. The party of proud know-nothingism laughs itself all the way to the end of functional society.

Well duh. They have all the negatives of Islamic extremists, but they're enabled by the most powerful nation in the world. A nation that has repeatedly chosen to be willfully ignorant until it no longer could. We were warned. And the people chose to be stupid instead.

 

[brycejones]

No, FDR wanted to do it with the Supreme Court.

Court packing is court packing, and he was opposed by legislators of his own party who thought it was a bad idea then.

 

[brycejones]

I think both are equally bad, don't you?

The thinking function was never enabled by tajbot's developer.