Remember when people said Democrats should have let the court battle play out?

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,443
16,191
136
Well, for the Mueller grand jury testimony they tried that route. Democrats subpoenaed this in June 2019, meaning that it will be somewhere around two years before the case is decided, and long after Trump's electoral fate is decided. Even worse, if Trump wins re-election and the Republicans take the House they can cancel the subpoenas and make the case moot, meaning in the future the whole process would need to be restarted from scratch.

Have people who said Democrats should have gone the court route changed their mind in light of this?


Our court system is entirely unprepared to handle an administration acting in bad faith employing legal delaying tactics. The courts and/or Congress must enact policies that force courts to engage in a hyper-accelerated time frame so that such delay tactics are no longer viable. Say, two months from start to finish, maximum.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
23,478
8,150
136
Well, for the Mueller grand jury testimony they tried that route. Democrats subpoenaed this in June 2019, meaning that it will be somewhere around two years before the case is decided, and long after Trump's electoral fate is decided. Even worse, if Trump wins re-election and the Republicans take the House they can cancel the subpoenas and make the case moot, meaning in the future the whole process would need to be restarted from scratch.

Have people who said Democrats should have gone the court route changed their mind in light of this?


Our court system is entirely unprepared to handle an administration acting in bad faith employing legal delaying tactics. The courts and/or Congress must enact policies that force courts to engage in a hyper-accelerated time frame so that such delay tactics are no longer viable. Say, two months from start to finish, maximum.
This is why when Dems take WH and Senate they need to increase the number of judges and then cap that number by law

Two reasons, to dilute the Trump effect. Also with the increased numbers when an inter branch dispute develops pull a judge off their normal case load and have them adjudicate that case. These disputes will be resolved in months instead of years.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,708
2,168
126
This is why when Dems take WH and Senate they need to increase the number of judges and then cap that number by law
There is no real way to cap it by law. Any law they pass could just be undone as soon as the other side had a majority again.

Also with the increased numbers when an inter branch dispute develops pull a judge off their normal case load and have them adjudicate that case. These disputes will be resolved in months instead of years.
The problem is not really the number of judges, it is all the procedurally delays that is allowed.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
10,912
5,080
136
This is why when Dems take WH and Senate they need to increase the number of judges and then cap that number by law

Two reasons, to dilute the Trump effect. Also with the increased numbers when an inter branch dispute develops pull a judge off their normal case load and have them adjudicate that case. These disputes will be resolved in months instead of years.
Regardless of whether we pack the courts or not, we need new laws which put hard deadlines on the time taken to resolve cases like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
Feb 4, 2009
25,884
6,548
136
Well, for the Mueller grand jury testimony they tried that route. Democrats subpoenaed this in June 2019, meaning that it will be somewhere around two years before the case is decided, and long after Trump's electoral fate is decided. Even worse, if Trump wins re-election and the Republicans take the House they can cancel the subpoenas and make the case moot, meaning in the future the whole process would need to be restarted from scratch.

Have people who said Democrats should have gone the court route changed their mind in light of this?


Our court system is entirely unprepared to handle an administration acting in bad faith employing legal delaying tactics. The courts and/or Congress must enact policies that force courts to engage in a hyper-accelerated time frame so that such delay tactics are no longer viable. Say, two months from start to finish, maximum.
remember yesterday when the guy said Democrats shouldn’t play any games and (basically) accept losing well....everything.....
I’m starting to think his concern was motivated by something else.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
23,478
8,150
136
There is no real way to cap it by law. Any law they pass could just be undone as soon as the other side had a majority again.


The problem is not really the number of judges, it is all the procedurally delays that is allowed.
I could work in Dems got a filibuster proof majority.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
68,443
16,191
136
remember yesterday when the guy said Democrats shouldn’t play any games and (basically) accept losing well....everything.....
I’m starting to think his concern was motivated by something else.
Who could have guessed that Starbuck’s concern for the conduct of the Democratic Party was not genuine?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Vic

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,062
2,363
136
There is no real way to cap it by law. Any law they pass could just be undone as soon as the other side had a majority again.
One clear mistake by the founding fathers in the constitution.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY