By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

gergroy said:
JWeinCom said:
Gotta criticize Biden for his refusal to answer the court packing question. His response that it would dominate the headlines is kind of BS. Cause... I mean, it might, but that's an important issue that people have a right to know before voting.

Yes, well deserved criticism, but his refusal is basically an answer.  He obviously absolutely would support it, which the left wing would love.  The problem is Biden doesn’t want to anger the middle, which is why he isn’t confirming that he would.  The left will hold their nose and vote for Biden anyways because of trump, he needs the middle to vote for him.

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.



Around the Network

Here's my prediction map:



This will happen, trust me:

https://www.270towin.com/maps/3WBBN



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

@PAOerfulone
@Bofferbrauer2
@Mnementh

I feel like I can understand believing that Biden could win in Ohio or even conceivably Georgia or even the slim possibility that Trump could win Arizona or North Carolina, but how on Earth are none of you calling Nebraska solidly for Trump? That's not a tough call. Neither is Maine tough to call for Biden. Nebraska and Maine are NOT swing states in presidential elections.



Jaicee said:

@PAOerfulone
@Bofferbrauer2
@Mnementh

I feel like I can understand believing that Biden could win in Ohio or even conceivably Georgia or even the slim possibility that Trump could win Arizona or North Carolina, but how on Earth are none of you calling Nebraska solidly for Trump? That's not a tough call. Neither is Maine tough to call for Biden. Nebraska and Maine are NOT swing states in presidential elections.

Don't forget neither are winner-takes-all, and some of their districts are going against the general population of the state at large.

In Nebraska's second district, Biden is consistently polling over 50%, so I really doubt Trump will get that one.

As for Maine, it's second district is very competitive. While Biden wins most polls from there, Trump wins some, and he wins bigger in general, balancing the results out. So Maine's second district could go either way. And I gave Biden the entire state btw.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Jaicee said:

@PAOerfulone
@Bofferbrauer2
@Mnementh

I feel like I can understand believing that Biden could win in Ohio or even conceivably Georgia or even the slim possibility that Trump could win Arizona or North Carolina, but how on Earth are none of you calling Nebraska solidly for Trump? That's not a tough call. Neither is Maine tough to call for Biden. Nebraska and Maine are NOT swing states in presidential elections.

Don't forget neither are winner-takes-all, and some of their districts are going against the general population of the state at large.

In Nebraska's second district, Biden is consistently polling over 50%, so I really doubt Trump will get that one.

As for Maine, it's second district is very competitive. While Biden wins most polls from there, Trump wins some, and he wins bigger in general, balancing the results out. So Maine's second district could go either way. And I gave Biden the entire state btw.

That bolded point is fascinating! I've never seen Nebraska's second district vote differently from the state more largely before.



EnricoPallazzo said:
gergroy said:

Yes, well deserved criticism, but his refusal is basically an answer.  He obviously absolutely would support it, which the left wing would love.  The problem is Biden doesn’t want to anger the middle, which is why he isn’t confirming that he would.  The left will hold their nose and vote for Biden anyways because of trump, he needs the middle to vote for him.

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. 



Jaicee said:

72 hours in Donald Trump's America after his return from the hospital:

Trump pulls out of coronavirus relief negotiations
Trump pulls out of future debates
Trump calls for his Justice Department to hand down criminal indictment of Biden, Obama, and Hillary Clinton
Trump, having learned nothing from hospitalization, plans to resume large rallies beginning on Saturday
Trump advisers consult with proponents of covid herd immunity (i.e. pro-mass infection) strategy
13 right wing militia members (men) charged with attempt to kidnap and "try" Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for mask mandate, other covid measures

...*sighs*

Do you feel my exhaustion? And this is barely even an abnormal news cycle anymore.

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. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

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 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.



Runa216 said:
Jaicee said:

72 hours in Donald Trump's America after his return from the hospital:

Trump pulls out of coronavirus relief negotiations
Trump pulls out of future debates
Trump calls for his Justice Department to hand down criminal indictment of Biden, Obama, and Hillary Clinton
Trump, having learned nothing from hospitalization, plans to resume large rallies beginning on Saturday
Trump advisers consult with proponents of covid herd immunity (i.e. pro-mass infection) strategy
13 right wing militia members (men) charged with attempt to kidnap and "try" Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for mask mandate, other covid measures

...*sighs*

Do you feel my exhaustion? And this is barely even an abnormal news cycle anymore.

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.