People who have taken a public hard line rarely change their minds. I'm not begrudging anyone their honestly held views, and if he would rather sit this one out, not my place to denounce it.
I would have thought that the point of my question was obvious. If the Dems try to pack the court for political purposes that's BAD. When the GOP erases the separation between politics and the Supreme Court by eliminating the judicial filibuster that's GOOD. If you want to preserve the value of the court then you don't play political games with its makeup whether it benefits you or not. It's called principle in contrast to partisanship. Now, can you answer my question?
No. We should leave the SC as it is though it will take a long time to re-establish its credibility. But, let's reinstate the filibuster for all federal judicial nominations.
The Court's credibility took a hit when Roberts bent the knee to Obama to rescue ObamaCare. But, it's done pretty well since then. Most of its rulings in the past few years have been rock-solid.
Now, the Left claims the Court has lost credibility, because of some ginned up nonsense regarding Thomas or Kavanaugh or whatever. Don't fall for their BS, the Court is working better by far than the other branches of government.
Here and on FB, you show a reflexive contrarianism that often elides the point being made in favor of a point you want to make. And, here, you offered no response to my point, which is that one party and its candidate have made it abundantly clear that they want to neuter the court. Even in this response, you are "whatabouting," bringing up a subject that is at BEST tangential to the critical matter of court packing.
But, yeah, I'll play anyway, this time. Reid was warned what would happen if he started blowing up the system. He did it anyway. As an object lesson as to the perils, I didn't mind McConnell's maneuver so much. Reid opened the door, McConnell walked through. The Dems got their just deserts. Did the Dems learn that lesson? Do they realize that, if they eliminate the filibuster, when the pendulum swings the other way, it'll work against them?
Oh, no, not in the slightest. It's all about "me me me, now now now."
I completely agree with this take. Some of you may not remember, but the idea of dropping the filibuster for judicial nominations was broached when the Democrats were holding up W.'s appellate nominations. Bill Frist threatened to drop the filibuster then, with predictable attacks on his integrity from progressives, but he didn't follow through, because an agreement was reached to move some nominations. The same situation occurred at the start of Obama's second term, and the same voices that were blasting Frist for threatening to drop the filibuster in 2005 were urging Harry Reid to go ahead and do it then . . . and he did, except that he kept it for SCOTUS nominees.
How do you go backward from that? If you respect the judicial filibuster for SCOTUS, you have no reason to expect that it will be respected the next time that it encumbers the Democrats, because they already wiped out the filibuster for all other judicial nominees because it encumbered them.
Stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The first time this came up, Republicans kept the filibuster, only to have Democrats dump it. Apparently there are fools out there who think that Mitch McConnell should have followed Frist's lead and expected a different result.
Simply put, anyone who believes that is, by definition, stupid.
How do you go backwards? You start by putting the judicial filibuster back in place. The Dems got burned badly by junking it. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice. Without the filibuster, the court becomes the plaything of whoever has 51 votes in the Senate and the White House. If we continue down this road, it will destroy the Supreme Court and perhaps take the republic with it. Perhaps, we need to be stupid because being smarties has sure turned out badly.
I'm pleased to see your post, because you're admitting that you don't have any interest in this fight except as a matter of "gotcha". It must be nice to be so far above us mere mortals that you get to look down on Heaven.
If you ever wanted to come down off your high horse, you might look up a federal judge (now a senior federal judge) on the 6th Circuit named Helene White. She was appointed by W., but even when appointed she was a progressive who basically ignored the law and ruled based on politics. So why did Bush appoint her? He needed to make a trade to break a filibuster logjam, and she was the sister-in-law of Carl and Sander Levin, who were a Michigan senator and senior rep, respectively.
When the same situation arose in Obama's second term, and the Senate was prepared to seat two of Obama's nominations to the DC Circuit but reject the third, Harry Reid and the Democrats were determined that they weren't going to make the same kind of concession. That specific issue is why Reid and the entire Democratic caucus voted to nuke the filibuster for judicial nominees.
But you, in your witlessness, think that's OK. And you're permitted to think that -- because freedom includes the freedom to be stupid and be played for a sap. But you shouldn't expect us to treat such stupidity as if it were some form of moral superiority instead of a form of intellectual inferiority.
The Dems don't want to neuter the court at all. They want a court which will give them the rulings they want just like the GOP did in getting rid of the judicial filibuster for the SC. McConnell should have reinstated the filibuster for all federal judicial nominees but being just as partisan as Reid he decided to take advantage of the situation and managed to whack the credibility of the court for decades to come and turned it into a creature of politics. No wonder the Dems now feel no need to hide their plans to stack the court.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them. Harris has openly voiced a desire to end the filibuster, and the Dems want to pack the court so they get their way with it. But, just as with Reid, they don't look down the road, and recognize that when they open that door, the other team will walk through it as well.
It's interesting to watch you contort away from the most obvious act: Reject Harris and the Democrats, here and now.
You can fantasize about getting the judicial filibuster back, but if the Dems win, there is *zero* chance of that happening, and if the Repubs win, they'd be morons to reinstate it when we know the Dems will just remove it again when they take office.
The Dems have demonstrated and told us that they don't care one whit for the institutions and principles that have been in place. They deserve a righteous gob-smacking. If your response to that is "but... GOP!," then, yes, you are whataboutting so that you can avoid that obvious conclusion.
If Trump wins and the GOP takes Congress then I expect that the legislative filibuster will be eliminated by his willing minions. Trump wants things done and a supine GOP will do his bidding. If you are truly concerned about the Republic then Harris is a far better choice because she's not going to have the same kind of power Trump would over Congress even if the Dems somehow take the House and hold the Senate.
I think the best we can hope for is for neither party to control both the Senate and House and hope we can muddle through the next four years until 2028.
I'm not a big Thomas fan, but I've long admitted that my vote for Trump in 2016 was motivated by a desire to save the federal courts (including SCOTUS) from being packed by the progressives under Hillary. (I honestly expected that the ultra-far-left 9th Circuit judge Michelle Friedland, who was then in her 40s, would end up on SCOTUS under Hillary.)
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and the most disappointing thing about his administration was the number of progressives that he placed on the federal bench . . . although there were also a few moderates. Obama ditched the moderates, and I expected no less from Hillary.
And there is no reason to expect anything different from Harris, especially after she already endorsed packing the Court.
Peter, I sure hope GF6 reads this!
People who have taken a public hard line rarely change their minds. I'm not begrudging anyone their honestly held views, and if he would rather sit this one out, not my place to denounce it.
I'll take it.
Were you opposed to Reid and McConnell getting rid of the filibuster for federa judicial nominees?
Could you discuss your opinion as to my points here, instead of playing gotcha or "whataboutism" games?
Do that and I'll answer your question.
I would have thought that the point of my question was obvious. If the Dems try to pack the court for political purposes that's BAD. When the GOP erases the separation between politics and the Supreme Court by eliminating the judicial filibuster that's GOOD. If you want to preserve the value of the court then you don't play political games with its makeup whether it benefits you or not. It's called principle in contrast to partisanship. Now, can you answer my question?
I am curious, are you in favor of packing the court?
No. We should leave the SC as it is though it will take a long time to re-establish its credibility. But, let's reinstate the filibuster for all federal judicial nominations.
The Court's credibility took a hit when Roberts bent the knee to Obama to rescue ObamaCare. But, it's done pretty well since then. Most of its rulings in the past few years have been rock-solid.
Now, the Left claims the Court has lost credibility, because of some ginned up nonsense regarding Thomas or Kavanaugh or whatever. Don't fall for their BS, the Court is working better by far than the other branches of government.
What’s wrong with its credibility?
The shenanigans pulled by McConnell to get enough justices to overturn Roe made it obvious that politics not principle was the guiding principle. https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx
Here and on FB, you show a reflexive contrarianism that often elides the point being made in favor of a point you want to make. And, here, you offered no response to my point, which is that one party and its candidate have made it abundantly clear that they want to neuter the court. Even in this response, you are "whatabouting," bringing up a subject that is at BEST tangential to the critical matter of court packing.
But, yeah, I'll play anyway, this time. Reid was warned what would happen if he started blowing up the system. He did it anyway. As an object lesson as to the perils, I didn't mind McConnell's maneuver so much. Reid opened the door, McConnell walked through. The Dems got their just deserts. Did the Dems learn that lesson? Do they realize that, if they eliminate the filibuster, when the pendulum swings the other way, it'll work against them?
Oh, no, not in the slightest. It's all about "me me me, now now now."
I completely agree with this take. Some of you may not remember, but the idea of dropping the filibuster for judicial nominations was broached when the Democrats were holding up W.'s appellate nominations. Bill Frist threatened to drop the filibuster then, with predictable attacks on his integrity from progressives, but he didn't follow through, because an agreement was reached to move some nominations. The same situation occurred at the start of Obama's second term, and the same voices that were blasting Frist for threatening to drop the filibuster in 2005 were urging Harry Reid to go ahead and do it then . . . and he did, except that he kept it for SCOTUS nominees.
How do you go backward from that? If you respect the judicial filibuster for SCOTUS, you have no reason to expect that it will be respected the next time that it encumbers the Democrats, because they already wiped out the filibuster for all other judicial nominees because it encumbered them.
Stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The first time this came up, Republicans kept the filibuster, only to have Democrats dump it. Apparently there are fools out there who think that Mitch McConnell should have followed Frist's lead and expected a different result.
Simply put, anyone who believes that is, by definition, stupid.
How do you go backwards? You start by putting the judicial filibuster back in place. The Dems got burned badly by junking it. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice. Without the filibuster, the court becomes the plaything of whoever has 51 votes in the Senate and the White House. If we continue down this road, it will destroy the Supreme Court and perhaps take the republic with it. Perhaps, we need to be stupid because being smarties has sure turned out badly.
I'm pleased to see your post, because you're admitting that you don't have any interest in this fight except as a matter of "gotcha". It must be nice to be so far above us mere mortals that you get to look down on Heaven.
If you ever wanted to come down off your high horse, you might look up a federal judge (now a senior federal judge) on the 6th Circuit named Helene White. She was appointed by W., but even when appointed she was a progressive who basically ignored the law and ruled based on politics. So why did Bush appoint her? He needed to make a trade to break a filibuster logjam, and she was the sister-in-law of Carl and Sander Levin, who were a Michigan senator and senior rep, respectively.
When the same situation arose in Obama's second term, and the Senate was prepared to seat two of Obama's nominations to the DC Circuit but reject the third, Harry Reid and the Democrats were determined that they weren't going to make the same kind of concession. That specific issue is why Reid and the entire Democratic caucus voted to nuke the filibuster for judicial nominees.
But you, in your witlessness, think that's OK. And you're permitted to think that -- because freedom includes the freedom to be stupid and be played for a sap. But you shouldn't expect us to treat such stupidity as if it were some form of moral superiority instead of a form of intellectual inferiority.
The Dems don't want to neuter the court at all. They want a court which will give them the rulings they want just like the GOP did in getting rid of the judicial filibuster for the SC. McConnell should have reinstated the filibuster for all federal judicial nominees but being just as partisan as Reid he decided to take advantage of the situation and managed to whack the credibility of the court for decades to come and turned it into a creature of politics. No wonder the Dems now feel no need to hide their plans to stack the court.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them. Harris has openly voiced a desire to end the filibuster, and the Dems want to pack the court so they get their way with it. But, just as with Reid, they don't look down the road, and recognize that when they open that door, the other team will walk through it as well.
It's interesting to watch you contort away from the most obvious act: Reject Harris and the Democrats, here and now.
You can fantasize about getting the judicial filibuster back, but if the Dems win, there is *zero* chance of that happening, and if the Repubs win, they'd be morons to reinstate it when we know the Dems will just remove it again when they take office.
The Dems have demonstrated and told us that they don't care one whit for the institutions and principles that have been in place. They deserve a righteous gob-smacking. If your response to that is "but... GOP!," then, yes, you are whataboutting so that you can avoid that obvious conclusion.
As an aside, we should take seriously what Harris says but not apply the same standard to Trump? https://www.thebulwark.com/p/lets-be-honest-trumps-running-as?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
If Trump wins and the GOP takes Congress then I expect that the legislative filibuster will be eliminated by his willing minions. Trump wants things done and a supine GOP will do his bidding. If you are truly concerned about the Republic then Harris is a far better choice because she's not going to have the same kind of power Trump would over Congress even if the Dems somehow take the House and hold the Senate.
I think the best we can hope for is for neither party to control both the Senate and House and hope we can muddle through the next four years until 2028.
It astounds me that there is no way to protect the Court from this.
The Constitution is only as good as the people who we elect to enforce it. With one party basically saying ..!.. to all that... you get the idea.
Of course there is a way to protect SCOTUS from this: a constitutional amendment. I would think that should be a priority in a second Trump term.
I'm not a big Thomas fan, but I've long admitted that my vote for Trump in 2016 was motivated by a desire to save the federal courts (including SCOTUS) from being packed by the progressives under Hillary. (I honestly expected that the ultra-far-left 9th Circuit judge Michelle Friedland, who was then in her 40s, would end up on SCOTUS under Hillary.)
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and the most disappointing thing about his administration was the number of progressives that he placed on the federal bench . . . although there were also a few moderates. Obama ditched the moderates, and I expected no less from Hillary.
And there is no reason to expect anything different from Harris, especially after she already endorsed packing the Court.