Runa216 said:
it's the bed of nails principle. He's so bad, so consistently, that no one thing really seems to matter anymore. Any one of these things, done by a democrat, would be horrendously attacked for weeks-months on end by Fox News and Breitbart and the entire republican party. but Trump? Naw, he's doing his own thing, we should...
...Fuck I can't even say it as a dismissive joke. I seriously do not understand how anyone with two eyes and as many brain cells to rub together thinks Trump is fit for any position of power.
|
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l6i-gYRAwM0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This was once viewed as so unpresidential that it doomed a campaign.
EnricoPallazzo said:
sundin13 said:
The Supreme Court and our Federal courts should both be apolitical bodies. I don't think that anyone at this moment in time thinks they are fulfilling that function. Pence in the middle of the debate bragged about how Conservative they have made our Federal courts. Packing the courts isn't a response to "losing", it is a response to a system that simply isn't working properly.
Unfortunately, I believe the remedy for this issue is virtually impossible as I believe we should be taking the power to nominate justices away from the President. This would require a Constitutional amendment to the Appointments Clause, which won't happen. As such, the short term fixes are basically limited to expanding the number of seats the courts in order to reset the balance. "Packing" is a bit of a political phrase, but the goal of this change should be equalization. We need a balanced court system, not the political tool it is becoming. I would like this to be done in tandem with setting term limits for justices. While this does open the court to some pretty wild swings, it keeps a balance which is more reflective of the American people today, rather than the American people thirty years ago.
The courts are broken. Changing the rules isn't playing dirty, it is looking to fix these deeply rooted issues that are weighing on this country.
|
I believe a case can be made about changing the nomination power from the president to maybe the senate or whatever, but I really can't defend packing the court and I believe this is very anti democracy and a change of rules because you do not agree with the current outcome. Also opens the door for future presidents to do the same. It baffles me a democracy like US would be considering it. The concept of if the house is left leaning or right leaning is subjective, for a radical even a center judge would be considered as being "on the other side" of the table. Also some might think that in the last few years it was pending left, so now it is pending right you should change the rules? Who defines that the system isn't working properly?
This kind of stuff is scary and opens the door for worse things in the future and I am really surprised, this is something I would imagine see in Venezuela or Brazil. Bolsonaro mentioned that a few times but decided to make a deal with the current judges instead of packing the house.
I believe the best system is a nomination that needs to be a approved by a vast majority on the senate because that forces you to sit down, talk and compromise, which avoids having radicals in the court. But once you have a simple majority as the only requirement, if you have the senate you can approve whoever you want which is really, really bad.
|
I think the vast majority is way too much. That only works if both sides are willing to give nominations a fair shake and vote based on their qualifications... but whichever side you want to blame, that's not the case.
I think 60 is a better number, although that still requires both sides be willing to play ball. I don't think that's the case.
Ideally I think a compromise in the current situation would be for Republicans to agree not to push forward with a nomination. The process is reverted to what it was, requiring 60 votes to force a vote on a nominee, and both sides agree not to raise it. Even then though, there has to be something in place to prevent indefinite stalling. Perhaps something along the lines of if the Senate is unable to appoint a nominee in a particular length of time, the House (much less likely to be deadlocked) can vote on a nominee. Although, that raises some constitutional questions re: the appointments clause.
sundin13 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:
I really hope he doesnt do it once he is in office. Changing rules because you are losing or got the wrong strategy regarding judges retirement is terrible. That would open the door for republicans to do the same once they are back in power (which will probably take a loooong time to happen).
Just look at the fact that due to rule changes trump will be able to nominate a judge with a single majority in the senate which opens the doors to have radicals on the left and right on the supreme court.
|
The Supreme Court and our Federal courts should both be apolitical bodies. I don't think that anyone at this moment in time thinks they are fulfilling that function. Pence in the middle of the debate bragged about how Conservative they have made our Federal courts. Packing the courts isn't a response to "losing", it is a response to a system that simply isn't working properly.
Unfortunately, I believe the remedy for this issue is virtually impossible as I believe we should be taking the power to nominate justices away from the President. This would require a Constitutional amendment to the Appointments Clause, which won't happen. As such, the short term fixes are basically limited to expanding the number of seats the courts in order to reset the balance. "Packing" is a bit of a political phrase, but the goal of this change should be equalization. We need a balanced court system, not the political tool it is becoming. I would like this to be done in tandem with setting term limits for justices. While this does open the court to some pretty wild swings, it keeps a balance which is more reflective of the American people today, rather than the American people thirty years ago.
The courts are broken. Changing the rules isn't playing dirty, it is looking to fix these deeply rooted issues that are weighing on this country.
|
I don't necessarily agree that they should... or could... be apolitical bodies.
Law isn't mechanical and no matter how much someone says they're a textualist or whatever, their biases obviously influence their decisions. The best judges temper it, but I don't think anyone is really immune. The human brain just isn't capable of such robotic thinking.
And in the constitution, the Senate is given the responsibility of court appointments. So, while it isn't designed to be a purely populist process (otherwise the house would do it) the people's representatives are meant to have a say.