• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Desperation move by the GOP. They see the demographics, and they know they've lost young voters, and their voters are finally going to assume room temperature. So they are pulling out all the stops to try to lock in their temporary advantage for when their voters are gone. So we are seeing gerrymandering, SCOTUS packing, voter suppression, and this stunt.
Republicans think they will be able to govern this country through the courts when the voters throw them out of Congress. Good luck with that. Democrats can always add even more seats to each and every one of these courts, and GOP even bringing this up opens up SCOTUS to Democrat packing. And that would be the best case scenario for the GOP. There are other scenarios, maybe they should ask Manafort about his former clients.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
What's not to like? You act as if the Democrats weren't at fault for the filibuster nuke that Harry Reid tossed or they hadn't planned on the same thing for the SC .
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

You're all just angry it isn't your side that's doing it.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. This is entirely different. Reid never suggested changing the structure of the federal judiciary or adding a single member.
 
Jhhnn said:
Oh, please. This is entirely different. Reid never suggested changing the structure of the federal judiciary or adding a single member.
Click to expand...
No, that's left to Senseamp and other Democrats. But they were certainly looking forward to the change in the filibuster of the SC though, weren't they?
 
imported_tajmahal said:
No, that's left to Senseamp and other Democrats. But they were certainly looking forward to the change in the filibuster of the SC though, weren't they?
Click to expand...

And Duh-flect, obviously. Senseamp isn't the co-founder of the Federalist Society, an umbrella organization for the right wing of America.
 
glenn1 said:
Why not, FDR already threatened it to get his way with the New Deal until SCOTUS backed down. Why not go ahead and actually do it next go around.
Click to expand...

You mean if the Trumpublicans don't do it first? The proposal at hand is every bit as radical as packing the SCOTUS if not more so.
 
Republicans undermine the judiciary at their peril. Liberal acceptance of legitimacy of the courts is first and foremost in Republican interest as we head into demographic changes where the Republican base relocates to the cemetery. They are going to be the minority party, especially in urban centers of political power. A discredited judiciary supplanted by mob rule is not in their interest.
 
senseamp said:
Republicans undermine the judiciary at their peril. Liberal acceptance of legitimacy of the courts is first and foremost in Republican interest as we head into demographic changes where the Republican base relocates to the cemetery. They are going to be the minority party, especially in urban centers of political power. A discredited judiciary supplanted by mob rule is not in their interest.
Click to expand...

It is if the mob dances to their tune.
 
senseamp said:
Republicans undermine the judiciary at their peril. Liberal acceptance of legitimacy of the courts is first and foremost in Republican interest as we head into demographic changes where the Republican base relocates to the cemetery. They are going to be the minority party, especially in urban centers of political power. A discredited judiciary supplanted by mob rule is not in their interest.
Click to expand...
Except we've been hearing the minority party since Reagan was first elected, it hasn't happened so far. A discredited Judiciary is being supplanted by conservatives even as you type it.
 
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.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
As if liberal activist judges haven't been working overtime to delegitimize the system for decades, suddenly now it becomes a problem.
Click to expand...

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

Go ahead and give me examples and explain why the particular examples are "activist judges" and how they have been trying delegitimize the system.

I'll start: 2008 heller decision went against the precedent of 150 years of supreme court rulings.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
As if liberal activist judges haven't been working overtime to delegitimize the system for decades, suddenly now it becomes a problem.
Click to expand...
Shh shhh.
It’s ok. There really aren’t liberal activists under your bed waiting for you to close an eye.

Try to picture yourself like Superman but dual wielding two AR15s. Nothing can harm you. Do you have that picture in your head?

Ok? Now do you think it’s a good idea for either party to pack the courts with incompetent partisan judges or should we the people demand a competent judiciary that impartially interprets the law protecting all US citizens?
 
Paratus said:
Shh shhh.
It’s ok. There really aren’t liberal activists under your bed waiting for you to close an eye.

Try to picture yourself like Superman but dual wielding two AR15s. Nothing can harm you. Do you have that picture in your head?

Ok? Now do you think it’s a good idea for either party to pack the courts with incompetent partisan judges or should we the people demand a competent judiciary that impartially interprets the law protecting all US citizens?
Click to expand...


I'm watching you...
 
Paratus said:
Shh shhh.
It’s ok. There really aren’t liberal activists under your bed waiting for you to close an eye.

Try to picture yourself like Superman but dual wielding two AR15s. Nothing can harm you. Do you have that picture in your head?

Ok? Now do you think it’s a good idea for either party to pack the courts with incompetent partisan judges or should we the people demand a competent judiciary that impartially interprets the law protecting all US citizens?
Click to expand...

Neither. He's of the opinion that it should be stacked with Conservatives and completely devoid of Liberals. Always.
 
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"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top