SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) III: Abandoning 90 Years of Precedent

[Gredival]

Possible, but it is also possible that if the Dem's stopped acting like pussies and fought back like that, more people would vote for them instead of thinking voting is pointless.

Or people will say "What's the point" like what's happening after Biden's attempts to fight for student debt failed.

The Dems don't get the credit they should and get more blame than they should. That's why we can't get voters to the polls even though an overwhelming amount of disenfranchised would align with us.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

you are all so dumb excepting Gred

[Andalusian girls]

lmao jk can you imagine

but no the issue isn't upsetting the Republican Party or some such silliness, the issue is that without exception when Dems have violated historical norms the Republicans have reacted by violating them in an even more egregious and amoral manner. and one can pretend like the Republicans would have anyway, but the truth is they didn't. they didn't reduce the judicial / secretarial appointment approval bar from 60 to 51 until Democrats did, and they have never packed the Supreme Court even when it legalized abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are a low and self-serving party but the extant traditionalism in their conservatism does, in certain avenues, prevent them from violating normative form.

the issue is one of utilitarian good. given the destructiveness of the present SCOTUS i'm not sure expanding the Court is inherently a worse option at this point, but if undertaken we at the least have to be honest with ourselves and understand Republicans will expand it in a more avaricious and ambitious manner the second they are able. the reaction will be unequal but opposite, and the size of SCOTUS will become another partisan battleground oscillating with party control. it is not a good option. but it may possibly be a less bad option than what we currently have with one of the worst SCOTII in history.

[Krandor]

The Dems don't get the credit they should and get more blame than they should. That's why we can't get voters to the polls even though an overwhelming amount of disenfranchised would align with us.

Well most voters can't see past who the current president is, and with Biden in power we've seen Roe v Wade go down, everything else this week with the supreme court, getting lied to about how many stimulus bucks they were gonna get, or him publicly giving up on COVID with the "there is no federal solution" line.

So it's easy to see why a lot of people don't see Democrats as very effective. It's not hard to look past that stuff and see what was/is actually the reason, but that's a big ask for a good number of voters.

[Yuri-G]

so apparently the person identified as requesting a gay wedding website from Lorie Smith for the recent Supreme Court case actually is a straight man who has been married for over a decade and didn't know until yesterday that he was even in the papers for the case at all.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...966078eddb66da

I had typed up some thoughts but honestly just no fucking comment at this point

[Meresgi]

The Dems don't get the credit they should and get more blame than they should.

LOL what fucking credit should they get?

[NynJa]

Credit for not being republican lol

[Meresgi]

"We did the bare minimum guys, and barely even that....WHY DOESN"T ANYONE PRAISE US?!"

[Xno Kappa]

The PACT act was pretty praiseworthy but okay.

[Xno Kappa]

I can list a few more off the top of my head but that doesn’t fit the narrative here.

[Salodin]

You're right AG, republicans refusing to even meet Garland was norms as usual and not an escalation to grab power where they technically could, even if ethically ambiguous.

Yes, republicans would expand the court but they don't need to escalate cause they're already succeeding in that same branch with other norm breaking procedures. Conservative judges are literally taking bribes from people with business before the court; why wouldn't the other main political party look at perfectly legal and ethical options to remedy the problems being created by the 3rd branch? They have more justification to do so and say, increase the bench to 13, then Thomas has justification to take free gifts from friends with business before the court.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

i'm not sure i have enough crayons for this conversation but perhaps reread my initial post, with less emotion

[Andalusian girls]

The PACT act was pretty praiseworthy but okay.

i dunno i'm not seeing a lot of difference between giving disabled veterans access to healthcare and not giving them access to healthcare

[Salodin]

i'm not sure i have enough crayons for this conversation but perhaps reread my initial post, with less emotion

I just want you to remember we were justified tho

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Krandor]

I don't think you actually read what ag said if that's your big takeaway

[Salodin]

I don't think you actually care

But yeah clearly I thought I read something else

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

I'm for Court expansion on purely utilitarian grounds, you should have one Justice at the head of each federal circuit. I guess 13 makes sense if you consider the Chief Justice their own entity belonging only to SCOTUS but I would be fine with 12. If a decision deadlocks, all Justices are immediately executed and 12 new ones are brought in.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

I would be fine with 12. If a decision deadlocks, all Justices are immediately executed and 12 new ones are brought in.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Yuri-G]

everyone one is overlooking the most important point which is that AG said SCOTII

[Andalusian girls]

pardon me, SCOTOPODES