SCOTUS

[jesmu84]

Legitimate, non snarky question...

What do you like about the US and why do you stay?  You're in the medical profession if I'm not mistaken, which is well in demand everywhere.  I assume its some combination of "family" and "im from here"

Cause it feels like 90% of your posts in the Superbar are complaining about capitalism, business, the government, the US in some way shape or form.  It seems like short of the US becoming Denmark or Norway, you'll be perpetually unhappy.

Job, family, friends...this is where my entire life is.

Having said that, I think it's okay to want to change/improve where I live.

I do complain here. Because "here" there's no genuine discussion going on. There's no changing minds. And there's certainly not going to be any real effect/change regardless of what I say here, positive or negative.

I do have alternative plans or hopes or improvements or whatever. But discussing them here isn't going to get anything done.

Edit: thank you for the level-headed, genuine, question/inquiry

[jesmu84]

https://twitter.com/5thCircAppeals/status/1542522257511026689?t=82IsKDmnu3qRJqB4xxnEdA&s=19

[Dickthedribbler]

Don't get me started.  We hold our constitution in far too much reverence.  It was meant to be a living document that changed with the times and adapted to societal norms.

TRANSLATION:  if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.

Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.

[jesmu84]

TRANSLATION:  if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.

Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.

Is it possible that the court/justices are now operating in a different manner than those appointed in 1992, regardless of political affiliation?

[muwarrior69]

I do not think expanding the court is the solution. That could just lead to one party having an even greater majority. Plus it does not have enough support.

I believe these things are cyclical and the worm will turn, eventually. My biggest concern is the ramifications of what McConnell did to Merrick Garland's nomination, and McConnell's more recent statements that make it sound like he would NEVER allow a vote on a Democratic president's nominee if the Senate is in GOP control. That is a terrible abrogation of civic responsibility and historical norms. While it may be legal, it is very, very dangerous.

My other concern is the relatively young age of the more recent nominees. That makes me think there should be an experience standard or minimum age of at least 50 for nominees going forward.

It was legal and the odds on favorite to win the presidency was Hillary Clinton. So Mitch played the long shot and won. If you really think about it, RBG screwed the liberals by not resigning when Obama was President. I agree with your concern if the GOP does win a majority in the Senate they essentially will have veto rights over any political appointees made by Biden, but it was the Democrats that got rid of the filibuster which in my view was a big mistake. It at least forced the executive to appoint more moderate appointees especially if his party had a majority in the Senate. Do you think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barett would have been confirmed if the filibuster was in place? Do you really think the Democrats would approve political appointees of a Republican President if they had a majority in the Senate? Unfortunately partisan politics
will keep Washington totally dysfunctional as there are no moderates in either party.

[Hards Alumni]

TRANSLATION:  if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.

Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.

No, that's you projecting.  As brew mentioned, many first world countries entirely rewrite their constitutions every couple of decades.

Imagine worshiping an entirely flawed document with the belief that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, and then considering yourself a serious person.

[Hards Alumni]

It was legal and the odds on favorite to win the presidency was Hillary Clinton. So Mitch played the long shot and won. If you really think about it, RBG screwed the liberals by not resigning when Obama was President. I agree with your concern if the GOP does win a majority in the Senate they essentially will have veto rights over any political appointees made by Biden, but it was the Democrats that got rid of the filibuster which in my view was a big mistake. It at least forced the executive to appoint more moderate appointees especially if his party had a majority in the Senate. Do you think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barett would have been confirmed if the filibuster was in place? Do you really think the Democrats would approve political appointees of a Republican President if they had a majority in the Senate? Unfortunately partisan politics
will keep Washington totally dysfunctional as there are no moderates in either party.

Imagine living in this completely alternative history fantasy world.  Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus.

[JWags85]

No, that's you projecting.  As brew mentioned, many first world countries entirely rewrite their constitutions every couple of decades.

Imagine worshiping an entirely flawed document with the belief that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, and then considering yourself a serious person.

I think people have a fear of a constitution that is too fluid and "living" that it caters/molds to/accommodates whatever sentiment or cause du jour.  Which would, in theory, lead to a mess.  However, while that might be well meaning in its intention or ideation, its based on a flawed understanding of the legislative process.  That leads to treating the Constitution as sacrosanct and borderline untouchable...which is obviously a problem.

I think reverence to a constitution and "what America means/stands for" is another one of those uniquely American complications.  Same as guns.  Most other 1st world countries weren't solely created out of armed rebellion that a right to bear arms against the government was fundamental and tied to identity (right or wrong, obviously much to the latter these days).  But also, those countries by and large didn't have a complete founding tied to that constitution.  They had a country and identity via monarchy, or outcome of war, or other form of government.  The constitution that made them a democracy or republic or whatnot was just another evolution, so changing it repeatedly is whatever.  The US doesn't share that.

Its not excusing any of the BS, just highlighting how some problems and convoluted BS are tied to stuff which makes it hard to go like for like with other G8 nations for example.

[Uncle Rico]

TRANSLATION:  if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.

Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.

The court wasn’t packed with Christofascists that put religious beliefs ahead of the law.

The constitution was not based on Christianity but on secularism.  When justices are openly praying with a group that wants to inject Christianity into everyday life of all Americans, they have opened the discussion wide

[Uncle Rico]

I think people have a fear of a constitution that is too fluid and "living" that it caters/molds to/accommodates whatever sentiment or cause du jour.  Which would, in theory, lead to a mess.  However, while that might be well meaning in its intention or ideation, its based on a flawed understanding of the legislative process.  That leads to treating the Constitution as sacrosanct and borderline untouchable...which is obviously a problem.

I think reverence to a constitution and "what America means/stands for" is another one of those uniquely American complications.  Same as guns.  Most other 1st world countries weren't solely created out of armed rebellion that a right to bear arms against the government was fundamental and tied to identity (right or wrong, obviously much to the latter these days).  But also, those countries by and large didn't have a complete founding tied to that constitution.  They had a country and identity via monarchy, or outcome of war, or other form of government.  The constitution that made them a democracy or republic or whatnot was just another evolution, so changing it repeatedly is whatever.  The US doesn't share that.

Its not excusing any of the BS, just highlighting how some problems and convoluted BS are tied to stuff which makes it hard to go like for like with other G8 nations for example.

American exceptionalism is sometimes the same thing as American chauvinism.  It’s inconceivable to many we can somehow be better and admit we aren’t perfect

[Dickthedribbler]

No, that's you projecting.  As brew mentioned, many first world countries entirely rewrite their constitutions every couple of decades.

Imagine worshiping an entirely flawed document with the belief that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, and then considering yourself a serious person.

Okay, let's rewrite the Constitution. And by the way, who's going to do that-------me, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alioto, et al???? Or you, Brew and your friends???

The U.S. Constitution has served us pretty well for almost 250 years. I'd leave it alone.

[lawdog77]

Okay, let's rewrite the Constitution. And by the way, who's going to do that-------me, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alioto, et al???? Or you, Brew and your friends???

The U.S. Constitution has served us pretty well for almost 250 years. I'd leave it alone.

Yeah, rewriting the constitution sounds like the beginning of the end. We do have a thing called amendments.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

TRANSLATION:  if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.

Curious. I don't recall hearing anything about term limits or packing the Court or changing the way Justices are selected during the 16 years Clinton and Obama were making appointments to the Court. Funny how that works.

If you don’t think people were saying those thing back then, you weren’t paying attention. Which is not surprising.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yeah, rewriting the constitution sounds like the beginning of the end. We do have a thing called amendments.

Not to mention that there is also a mechanism beyond amending it. Let’s get a Constitutional convention together!

[Uncle Rico]

Not to mention that there is also a mechanism beyond amending it. Let’s get a Constitutional convention together!

That would be fascinating. 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

TRANSLATION:  if the current version or subsequent versions of SCOTUS don't interpret the Constitution in conformity with my political beliefs or world vision, then I am all for changing the rules and rigging the game.

The current SCOTUS is the first one in modern history where their interpretation of the Constitution always varies, but amazingly always in ways that match their personal beliefs. Thomas wants to reexamine contraceptives, gay marriage, etc., but NOT interracial marriage. Wow, what luck for him!

Just like the people that tell you want god wants, and-- SURPRISE!-- it matches exactly what they personally want the Christofascist 6 are going to interpret the Constitution as exactly in line with their own extremist personal beliefs.

[Lennys Tap]

If you don’t think people were saying those thing back then, you weren’t paying attention. Which is not surprising.

One side or the other is always unhappy with the Supreme Court. I know FDR tried (and failed) court packing way back when but I don’t recall any serious discussion of it in my lifetime until the last 18 months.

[Uncle Rico]

One side or the other is always unhappy with the Supreme Court. I know FDR tried (and failed) court packing way back when but I don’t recall any serious discussion of it in my lifetime until the last 18 months.

It didn’t happen until recently because of Moscow Mitch’s shenanigans

[Scoop Snoop]

https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Rights-Secure-Americas-Liberties/dp/1476743800

I recently read this book that offers an unconventional and absolutely fascinating explanation as to what Madison's push for the Bill of Rights was about. My brief summary:

There were fierce opponents to the Federal government's primacy and, although in the minority in the first congress, they hoped to eventually become the majority in the next election and effectively shred the new government's authority over the states either via a massive number (over 100) amendments that would de facto revive the Articles of Confederation or by calling for another constitutional convention that would achieve the same goal. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry serves as a very good example of the attitude of the constitution's opponents. When he referred to "our country", he meant Virginia.

James Madison, an ardent Federalist at the time, pushed hard for a Bill of Rights, suspecting that the anti-Federalists were planning on eventually using one in the near future to embarrass the Federalists and turn voters against them. In other words, Madison wanted to beat them at their own game. The Federalists kept brushing off Madison, as two issues were front and center in the first congress- taxation and establishing the Federal judiciary. Taxation was crucial as the US was functionally bankrupt. The Federalists treated Madison as a pest but eventually he got a Bill of Rights passed- just not exactly the one he wanted.

As one poster stated, our beginning was very different from that of other countries. It was a massive undertaking to get 11 former colonies to sign on. North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the following year to make it 13 and sent representatives to the second Congress. Just as there was a tremendous amount of tension then as now (and the new government's future was far from certain), the country not only survived but thrived.

Take a deep breath!

 

[jesmu84]

One side or the other is always unhappy with the Supreme Court. I know FDR tried (and failed) court packing way back when but I don’t recall any serious discussion of it in my lifetime until the last 18 months.

As I understand it, FDR threatened packing, so the court backed down from some of their positions. Therefore FDR didn't need to follow through.

[Scoop Snoop]

As I understand it, FDR threatened packing, so the court backed down from some of their positions. Therefore FDR didn't need to follow through.
[/quote

He received unexpected criticism and resistance from members of his own party regarding his plan to pack the court. Many historians note that the court did back down on some of their positions, but we will never know if FDR would have had the votes he needed to pack the court despite the Democrats' having a solid majority.

[jesmu84]

He received unexpected criticism and resistance from members of his own party regarding his plan to pack the court. Many historians note that the court did back down on some of their positions, but we will never know if FDR would have had the votes he needed to pack the court despite the Democrats' having a solid majority.

Appreciate the clarification

[muwarrior69]

The court wasn’t packed with Christofascists that put religious beliefs ahead of the law.

The constitution was not based on Christianity but on secularism.  When justices are openly praying with a group that wants to inject Christianity into everyday life of all Americans, they have opened the discussion wide

Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...

bless·ing

noun
plural noun: blessings
God's favor and protection.

Not quite secular. Our freedoms are favors from God that protect us from a tyrannical state and one of our first freedoms is religious freedom or freedom not to believe.

The Dobbs decision in no way is forcing religion on anybody. It just returned to the states their ability to regulate abortion just as they regulate guns according to the will of the people through their elected representatives. Why such animus towards Christians?

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

It was legal and the odds on favorite to win the presidency was Hillary Clinton. So Mitch played the long shot and won. If you really think about it, RBG screwed the liberals by not resigning when Obama was President. I agree with your concern if the GOP does win a majority in the Senate they essentially will have veto rights over any political appointees made by Biden, but it was the Democrats that got rid of the filibuster which in my view was a big mistake. It at least forced the executive to appoint more moderate appointees especially if his party had a majority in the Senate. Do you think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barett would have been confirmed if the filibuster was in place? Do you really think the Democrats would approve political appointees of a Republican President if they had a majority in the Senate? Unfortunately partisan politics
will keep Washington totally dysfunctional as there are no moderates in either party.

My understanding is the Dems did not "get rid" of the filibuster but were the first to state it did not apply to approving District Court appointees. Since then, both parties have had a hand in weakening it further.

Forcing the executive to appoint a more moderate jurist is exactly what happened when Obama selected Garland. McConnell laughed in his face and pushed the country closer to the partisanship you reference.

As to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett - we'll never know. I believe that some Dems would have crossed over to support them.

As to whether the Dems would approve a Supreme Court nominee (you use the term "political appointee" but I assume you mean a SCOTUS appointee) of a GOP president, I believe they would have had McConnell not pulled his Garland stunt.

[forgetful]

My understanding is the Dems did not "get rid" of the filibuster but were the first to state it did not apply to approving District Court appointees. Since then, both parties have had a hand in weakening it further.

Forcing the executive to appoint a more moderate jurist is exactly what happened when Obama selected Garland. McConnell laughed in his face and pushed the country closer to the partisanship you reference.

As to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett - we'll never know. I believe that some Dems would have crossed over to support them.

As to whether the Dems would approve a Supreme Court nominee (you use the term "political appointee" but I assume you mean a SCOTUS appointee) of a GOP president, I believe they would have had McConnell not pulled his Garland stunt.

Gorsuch probably. Kavanaugh would have gotten no support. Barrett, possibly, but very unlikely.