I am looking a the current justices to see who would overturn bush v gore to throw the election to trump and AFAICT, none of them would.
Breyer is the only one that had previously voted against Bush v Gore and Thomas is the only one that had voted in favor of it. I would be interested to see those two talk their way out of the corners they put themselves in.
I don’t think Kagan and Sotomayor would use this opportunity to stand on some principle to give the election to trump. I don’t think Roberts, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh do either. So i think you probably have a 6-2 majority in favor of upholding Bush v Gore even if the new appointee decides she owes her vote to trump (which I doubt, the political loyalty of judges seem to disappear as soon as they are sworn in, their ideology usually remains intact).
The Smitsonian article was from William Edward Leuchtenburg. He is the William Rand Kenan Jr. professor emeritus of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a leading scholar of the life and career of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
As I said, your reply that pressure from the people and a new administration and different congress has over an out of tune Supreme court as not being a significant one, was not a good reply.
And then your reply about the FDR example “as an exception that proves the general rule” is just about the perfect ignorant reply one can expect coming from one that completely ignores history.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana
The 18% of states are california, new york, georgria, texas, florida, ohio, pennsylvania, illinois, north carolina. What you meant to say was that the 82% are mostly delusional.
Right now the republicans enjoy a 7% advantage in gaining a senate majority.
I think you are making a ridiculously retarded argument. When you stake out a partisan position and complain about how our democracy is not fair to the party you support, it is absolutely appropriate to point out why that party is losing elections. Presumably you believe what you are writing. Just because you don’t personally control the national electoral policy of the party you support does not mean that I cannot criticize that policy in response to your complaint. If your comment is meant to say that I should say “the democratic party should…” instead of “you should…” then i think your comment is stupid, irrelevant and adds nothing to the debate.
Where did I carp on about people personalizing my beliefs? I am happy to stand behind almost everything i say and if people point out why they think my complaints are stupid, I generally either explain why they are not stupid or I shut up and stop complaining about that.thing.
No it’s not. The far left is by definition extreme. If it wasn’t it would be called the center left.
Pretty sure I’m the original poster here. See you later, please come back when you aren’t so bothered by criticisms of the far left.
My point was that it took a confluence of events as extreme as the events surrounding the fdr court packing scheme to arguably affect the court.
You can’t point to one extreme example and say “see, the court is subject to political influence”
I certainly don’t think you can point to the fdr situation as proof that the court is significantly influenced by the other two branches beyond their constitutional duty to defer to them. It is in fact widely recognized as an exception to the independence of the court, therefore it is the exception that proves the rule.
Threats to pack the court are extraordinary. Perhaps your point is that Biden can use threats to pack the court to get his way without actually packing the court? I don’t know that this will work absent the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the fdr situation. Biden doesn’t have anything near the support that fdr had. Like i said, it is a corner case.
If there was a significant affect you probably wouldn’t have the heller gun case or the crawford voter id case, both in 2008.
What exactly do you consider pandering to the fringe? Caring about climate change? Wanting a living wage? What exact policies do you think the Dems are pandering to the fringe about?
Aren’t we talking about 18% of the population having a majority in the Senate? Specifically the lowest population 26 states having 18% of the population? (Which aren’t all red states, of course).
I don’t see how roberts and kavanaugh would permit the federal government to interfere with the states to on mail in votes. I would bet more money than I could afford on it. I would bet a lot of money on gorsuch as well but i dobn’t know him as well as the other two.
I think alito and thomas might be convinced to vote for partisan reasons if they thought it would make a difference in the result but they would vote with the majority otherwise. I do not see thomas or alito writing a dissent to argue that mail in ballots should not be counted because of federal concerns about voter fraud.
What I know about Barrett tells me she wouldn’t support trump’s position either.
My guess is when he loses that lawsuit, he will turn on them like he turns on everyone and just lump them in with college professors and scientists.
I think the smallest 26 states have closer 17% of the population
ALSO the most populous 18% of states (9 states) have the majority of the population.
But you could round up 17.4 to 18 in this situation.
But in light of the comment
“It also isn’t a zero sum game, unless you think that by helping the 18% you couldn’t ALSO help the 82% (I’m just going with your numbers) States have equal representation, like it or not.”
I think he is talking about the 18% of states having the majority of the population.
Read it again, you are spectacularly missing that I said so too based on the article from the historian, the influence comes from the court doing serious missteps first. Can you read it please?
It will be only if it becomes clear for the majority in the USA that the near future court decisions are politically based. A response in kind will take place from the opposition consisting of the new administration, new congress and people’s disgust. A very significant threat then will come. And I expect the conservative court to yield before any packing takes place.
Uh yeah? I didn’t think i was thinking to myself that he had control of much of anything except himself. He asked what the Dems should do, I responded in kind …(to what the Dems should do)
“One thing to take into account is that the hostility the court showed early against FDR’s progressive policies did go away in part because of the talk about packing the court. Once some justices began to notice how out of tune they were, they switched to be in favor of Roosevelt’s new policies, and so the need to pack the court was gone. FDR lost that battle, but he won the war.”
I’m sorry, I confused lobohan with hms irruncible. Lobohan did not make the ridiculous argument that using the word “you” when responding to these sort of questions “personalized” things. My apologies to lobohan.
It’s all in the grey areas.
Gun Control: How much from none to full out bans
Abortion: Where is the line
Climate Change: Sensible (to me) vs impractical
Almost every issue that the Dems put forth, I willingly agree with, it is usually on the extents of the issue that I find myself disagreeing Personal Responsibility is a biggie.
Here is how I see the Dems: They want to do good, but they don’t care the cost
So I find myself struggling between the fringe elements who are very vocal (even here on this very board) vs the sensible ones whom I find myself agreeing with (Quicksilver (leans left), Bone (leaned right) , and lately Damuriajashi also.
I find a lot of this board to be pretty far left and others to be way way out there on the left.
That was based on what the historian reported, how many times you want to go in circles?
I will go ahead and just assume that my point and what history tell us stands, what will happens in the near future, regarding packing the court or not, will depend on what a future conservative court will do with a lot of progressive laws.
And here I can only defer to the obvious expert on that subject.
I don’t care what you write or what you don’t write. If you write in the personalized sense “you should have done X”, then expect a personalized response. I don’t know how else to respond to a criticism leveled in the second person. I’m certainly not going to do your work for you and infer some substantive meaning when there’s obviously none there.
The “far left” is not an objective term. It’s little more than a term of derision leveled at everybody to the left of Reagan. Reagan himself would be excoriated as a leftist today. So it’s kind of a joke to use that term unironically as a descriptor, and then you take it to the next level of absurdity with the fantasy that they’re sitting around “woe is me, why don’t we win elections.” Quite simply that’s just dorm-room pettifoggery and it’s hilarious that you’re deploying it with no sense of irony whatsoever.
But sure, everybody who disagrees with you is Antifa, got it.
I guess my point is that the situations are not really comparable. Forget progressive laws, lets say that the court overturns roe v wade and throws abortion back to the states. What do you think happens?
So is “far right” also merely a term of derision?
Most people who disagree with me in real life are conservatives. There aren’t enough antifa to constitute most of anything. It is only on boards like this that I am mistaken for a hard right conservative. Are you under the impression that this board is centrist?
I am by almost all measures fairly liberal. There are really only 2 areas where I am not in synch with liberal orthodoxy. The 2nd amendment and affirmative action as it is practiced today. Maybe there is something else but those are the two big ones.
What is happening here is that you are not reading what I and others reply.
What I said already is that, sure, very bad court decisions can be expected early, and then what will follow will be bad news for the Republicans, then as noted the pressure will come to the courts to not stop new abortion laws, there will be pressure from Republicans too that will finally notice that what the court would do will do more harm to them.
Their goal of Roe v. Wade reversal in sight, many Republicans have private second thoughts
By Jonathan Turley.
“I’m like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn’t know what to do if I caught one.” That famous line from the Joker in “The Dark Knight” could well be delivered by dozens of Republican senators this month. For decades, Republican politicians have run on pro-life platforms and promises to reverse Roe v. Wade with a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. That mantra was picked up most recently by President Donald Trump, who pledged to supporters that overturning Roe v. Wade “will happen, automatically” because he would appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.
The problem for the Republican Party is that Trump could actually succeed with the nominee he announces Monday to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Many Republicans say privately it is the last thing they want to happen, given the potential for backlash in House and Senate elections that could turn on thin margins. Polls put public support for Roe v. Wade as high as 70 percent, with a majority opposing a nominee who wants to reverse it.
That includes many of those suburban moms critical to the Republican majority. Roe is approaching 50 years, but it is still driving our political debate. It is one thing to chase a court and another thing to catch one.
If Trump were to deliver on reversing Roe, he would have accomplished something that five Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, could not achieve for decades. In other words, Trump might just mean it, and that is precisely the problem for many senators.
Republican senators such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski support abortion rights, and Collins has said that a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade would “not be acceptable.” The question is whether such members are as serious in guaranteeing the continuation of Roe as Trump has been in pursuing its end.
That was from Jonathan Turley, he is a professor at the George Washington University Law School.