I'll just wrap this conversation up because I have a headache and probably won't respond anymore anyway.

You aren't arguing constitutionality, or boundaries, or laws. You are arguing norms. Well, guess what else was overstepping their bounds by that definition. Not voting on Obama's nomination for a year. Ignoring red-cards from the nominee's state senator. Ignoring objections from the other party. Ramming through a justice two weeks before a presidential election.

You are arguing from a position of norms and you can go fuck yourself. You burned that bridge long ago. You supported every one of those norm breaking behaviors, so if you want to tell the other side to stop get bent.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 9 2021 05:20pm

^ nice ragequit. make sure to pm him your feels later on when you’ve got your hormone levels back to regular

on the topic of the harris/biden administration and ‘no border crisis’. harris refuses to go to the border and now this

https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/biden-border-czar-roberta-jacobson-stepping-down-amid-crisis/

Republicans changed the balance of power by denying Obama his Supreme Court pick and forcing through ACB while millions of Americans had already voted in the 2020 election.

Outrage over norms is like outrage over deficits... it's simply rhetoric, selectively deployed in this game of power politics. If you don't care when Republicans violate them, there's no reason to take you seriously when Democrats violate them.

Qft

Interesting.

When Harry Reid went nuclear what slight was he responding to from the republicans that resulted in this norm being broken? Because as I remember that was the initial elevation.

Republicans not wanting to confirm one specific judge at the end of Obama's term and democrats not caring that much because they were all but certain that hilldog will get to nominate someone anyways is not the same as changing the composition of the court.

There are tit-for-tat political moves that are proportional which we can agree are part of politics. This is not. No reason to take you seriously when you pretend like all escalations are basically the same. It's like someone shoving you at a bar and you going to get your shotgun and blasting them and then pretending like it was a justified and proportional response.

Let's say the Democrats pack the court. What's to stop the Republicans from doing exactly the same when they get in power? It basically destroys the whole point of the institution if it can just be diluted at convenience.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 9 2021 07:17pm

Obama replacing Scalia with Garland would have swung the balance of power on the SCOTUS to the left. Trump replacing Scalia with Gorsuch did not, it retained the status quo. Rushing through ACB was of course hypocrisy from McConnell, but like I have to keep repeating: this situation would not have existed without RBG's hybris. She is the one to blame for the opening that McConnell took advantage of. Why the fuck did an 81 year old two-time cancer survivor with a cardiac condition not retire while she still had the chance?


The alleged evil power grabs by Republicans that you use as a justification for your stance that a power grab by Democrats is justified consist of 1. using the mandate of the American people (a GOP senate majority) to preserve the existing power balance on the court and 2. exploiting an unforced error by liberals which handed them an opportunity on a silver platter. Compared to these actions by Republicans, creating a blatant partisan power play out of thin air (court packing) and ramming it through on a 50/50 split Senate would indeed constitute an escalation of the norm-breaking.


The reality of the situation is that Democrats got outplayed in the battle for control over the Supreme Court, and now they're pissed off and want to change the rules of the game to undo their loss. On a deeper level, their problem is that the Constitution gives the power of judicial nominations to the Senate, the chamber where they are at a significant structural disadvantage. Long-term, Democrats will thus be at a structural disadvantage when it comes to federal judicial nominations, including the SCOTUS. Court packing is basically an ad hoc fix for this problem since fixing the underlying issue (equal suffrage in the Senate & Senate being the chamber that confirms judges) would require changing the Constitution.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 9 2021 07:37pm

The Republicans blocked a record amount of Obama's appointees. Trump had only 1 less circuit judge appointed than Obama did. If Reid didn't do what he did, I imagine Trump would have WAY more judges period. Ultimately, the American people don't really care too much about this area so the GOP was able to get away with it. Why wouldn't you play hardball if there are no consequences?

Know what the right thing is to do?
Fire ANYONE with ANY partisan leanings in the supreme court.
The highest court of the land should not have political bias period.

That's impossible. Everyone has political leanings.

538 puts Alito and Gorsuch to the left of Kavanaugh.

The Federalist Society has done a good job convincing people that their judicial philosophy is stronger than what the left has put out. They've convinced the Republican party, which actively campaigns on their behalf. I don't see that as a controversial thing. Liberal justices simply lack the requisite intellectual foundation with which to argue their opinions.