Jump to content
Motor City Sonics

The Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

I mentioned this in another thread, but I've heard the Dems in Michigan are touting Granholm for Supreme Court, not AG. FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so the potrayal of the Chicago PD in The Fugitive was accurate?

They can be really bad. There are a few big name cases right now of units of cops who were running around torturing people for years to get false confessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton on there would present a problem to me.

Yeah lying in a federal court has to be grounds for dismissal to the Supreme Court. That would look very bad for an Obama presidency if he nominated Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what we need on the Supreme Court: a "charismatic personality".

Yay.

Scoop: Trump to meet with Supreme Court candidate Barbara Lagoa on Friday

 

What we're hearing: Sources who know both Trump and Lagoa say they still expect the president to pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but they view the Lagoa meeting as a wild card because of her charismatic personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is going to pack the court.    Then he's going to lose the popular and electoral vote, then he's going to sue and the Supreme Court will side with him and he'll stay in office and that is the end of the American experiment right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Trump is going to pack the court.    Then he's going to lose the popular and electoral vote, then he's going to sue and the Supreme Court will side with him and he'll stay in office and that is the end of the American experiment right there. 

Do you mean by rushing through a justice before the inauguration? Or do you also mean by expanding the court to 15 justices or something like that? Because I can definitely see once the Republicans get the executive and legislative branches back, they will do that. Heck, some people are even calling for the Democrats to do that next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chasfh said:

Do you mean by rushing through a justice before the inauguration? Or do you also mean by expanding the court to 15 justices or something like that? Because I can definitely see once the Republicans get the executive and legislative branches back, they will do that. Heck, some people are even calling for the Democrats to do that next year.

they've had the senate and presidency for four years and didnt expand the court.

they would definitely do it if the democrats did it after this election, but i dont see why they'd do it now considering they control the court for the forseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Buddha said:

they've had the senate and presidency for four years and didnt expand the court.

they would definitely do it if the democrats did it after this election, but i dont see why they'd do it now considering they control the court for the forseeable future.

I can see them doing it simply because they can, as a bald expression of vulgar power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I can see them doing it simply because they can, as a bald expression of vulgar power.

but they can do it right now and have not.  doesnt make any sense for them to do it in four years time.

they only ways i can see them do that would be if the democrats did it in the next two years, or if something happens like thomas/roberts/alito dying when biden is president.

in other words, if they lose control of the court by conventional means, i can see them doing it.  but simply because "they can"?  no.  or else they would have done it already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Buddha said:

but they can do it right now and have not.  doesnt make any sense for them to do it in four years time.

they only ways i can see them do that would be if the democrats did it in the next two years, or if something happens like thomas/roberts/alito dying when biden is president.

in other words, if they lose control of the court by conventional means, i can see them doing it.  but simply because "they can"?  no.  or else they would have done it already.

I don't think they can do it right now because they need Congress to do it, do they not? Trump can't just snap his fingers and make it so, can he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't think they can do it right now because they need Congress to do it, do they not? Trump can't just snap his fingers and make it so, can he?

yes, pretty sure the size of the Supreme court is a matter of federal statute law and so needs both Houses of Congress to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

The Democrats have to pack the court with 13 Justices total if they win all three branches of government, yes?

I think FDR wanted 15 at one time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think FDR wanted 15 at one time.

It was a new justice for every justice on the court over a certain age (and such judges just so happened to be the ones against him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the democrats will not try to "pack the court" and neither will republicans.  if democrats grab control of the senate, they will pass through as many judges as they can, just as republicans have done.

and thats what they should do.  the flibuster that was uses by both parties to prevent judges from being confirmed was ridiculous and very anti-democratic.  if the democrats have the senate and house and presidency it is because a majority of the country has voted for them and they should be able to enact their legislative agenda as they see fit.  and that includes judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trump supposed to announce amy barrett whenever his lazy, disorganized *** gets around to it.

she'll be a very good judge and a good addition to the court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buddha said:

the democrats will not try to "pack the court" and neither will republicans.  if democrats grab control of the senate, they will pass through as many judges as they can, just as republicans have done.

and thats what they should do.  the flibuster that was uses by both parties to prevent judges from being confirmed was ridiculous and very anti-democratic.  if the democrats have the senate and house and presidency it is because a majority of the country has voted for them and they should be able to enact their legislative agenda as they see fit.  and that includes judges.

A majority of the country did not vote for this senate. This senate represents only 46% of the population and Democrats got 18 million more votes, not to mention the president lost the popular vote by 3 million. This is a minority government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

A majority of the country did not vote for this senate. This senate represents only 46% of the population and Democrats got 18 million more votes, not to mention the president lost the popular vote by 3 million. This is a minority government. 

I agree, and that is a problem.

But you have a federalist system of government that decentralizes power by devolving it to the states.  So that is the government we live in and have always lived in.

It also was not so long ago that the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate.  It's not impossible to assume that could and will happen again.  

My point is that they should get rid of the filibuster and let the party that has to most senators/congressman pass legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Buddha said:

But you have a federalist system of government that decentralizes power by devolving it to the states.  So that is the government we live in and have always lived in.

However a multi-level system with authorities pushed down to appropriate level does necessarily imply mal-distribution of representation at the top level. You can have a federal system that does not create non-democratic representation. That error is a peculiarity of the US  that has nothing to do with 'Federalism' per se. I've heard a lot people defend the current system in the name of Federalism in the past, but it's not a valid argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t care what it’s called. It’s the system we have and the senate wasn’t meant to be democratic.  It represents the states.  It’s the upper chamber. If you want to change all of that good luck getting the smaller states to agree to give up power.  The easier solution is statehood for PR and SC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

I've heard a lot people defend the current system in the name of Federalism in the past, but it's not a valid argument. 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Buddha said:

Why?

Because it is not Federalism itself that creates the non democratic aspects. It’s only the peculiar implementation in the US. As Rob notes, we are captive to the memory of a time when States were  conceived as sovereign entities, but that has been fiction for more than half of our history now. 
 

It has becomes another American myth that we have a well constructed  democracy. We do not. We have a system that has been getting increasingly  creaky. And again, as Rob notes there are no easy solutions at this point, but there are absolutely no answers until we face down the myth of constitutional perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Because it is not Federalism itself that creates the non democratic aspects. It’s only the peculiar implementation in the US. As Rob notes, we are captive to the memory of a time when States were  conceived as sovereign entities, but that has been fiction for more than half of our history now. 
 

It has becomes another American myth that we have a well constructed  democracy. We do not. We have a system that has been getting increasingly  creaky. And again, as Rob notes there are no easy solutions at this point, but there are absolutely no answers until we face down the myth of constitutional perfection.

plenty of other countries have states - or provinces or cantons - modelled on the old european way of governance before the rise of the modern nation state.  like switzerland or germany are now.

the us is just so much bigger than those countries it makes is harder to govern from one centralized location.  it was certainly that way in the past.

again, us federalism is never the issue when you live in a state that is governed by your party of choice, its only an issue when its not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...