And I never said nor implied otherwise.
Because it’s not necessary to arbitrarily forbid such “blanket statements” in order to have a meaningful discussion about constitutionality.
When somebody says “such-and-such action IS unconstitutional”, they mean that that’s the position they’re arguing for. When they want to state a fact about how the Court ruled on the constitutionality of such-and-such action in the case Plaintiff v. Defendant yadda yadda yadda, they state it.
This isn’t really that hard to understand, and I’m a bit puzzled why you’re making such heavy weather of it.
Sure, but that’s a separate issue. Of course somebody who’s arguing that such-and-such action is unconstitutional should explain why they think so; otherwise they’re not contributing very much to the debate.
But that’s not a valid reason to decree that they can’t make statements like “such-and-such action is unconstitutional” in the first place, just because a Supreme Court ruling on its constitutionality has found otherwise.
“Making such heavy weather of it”? Sorry, not familiar with that turn of phrase.
I guess it’s my problem that I don’t understand why posters aren’t more clear in their posts around “is” vs. “should be”. It’s almost as if some posters (not you) don’t know the difference!
The United States will no longer be a democracy by 2030.
You’re being generous. I have 2028 in the pool.
2024 will be the eulogy.
With Republicans well positioned to take back the Senate in the fall, Democrats are running out of time to fill outstanding judicial vacancies. There are currently 120 district and circuit court vacancies — but only 34 have nominees. While Biden has set a good pace on judicial appointments, getting every opening filled is critical since McConnel will undoubtedly try to run out the clock on as many nominees as he can just like he did in the last years of the Obama Administration.
Just wait until the SCOTUS rules that Republican state legislatures can just hand the state’s electoral votes to the Republican candidate and disregard the popular vote, or simply not hold a popular vote at all, and places like North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida just automatically go Republican because they stop holding presidential elections.
That ruling is going to take place before the 2024 election, by the way.
Next SCOTUS session, isn’t it? They just agreed to take that North Carolina case last week or so. So they can reverse the ruling they just made recently re how the states alone can be left to determine how to count votes.
No other reason to take the case, so far as I can tell.
That decision pretty much ends fair elections for President. GOP states are heavily gerrymandered; it means every election will automatically go to the Republican and there’s nothing that can change it.
I know. It’s terrifying.
I want there to be an alternative to court packing but it seems like the possibilities are dwindling.
So if a Democratic administration packs the court, what’s to prevent a future Republican administration from doing the same thing?
Nothing. We’re unfortunately reaching the point where we are dealing with things more important than court integrity.
The courts are basically irrelevant once democracy becomes irrelevant, which is the path we’re headed on with this current court. All court packing really would do is delay an authoritarian takeover by the GOP, but I’m struggling to see a better option than delay and hope something changes in the intervening years.
There’s basically no point trying at the moment because it will fail, but I don’t see what else can be done. I still believe VRA restoration should be a priority but I’m losing optimism there is a VRA restoration option that would survive a court challenge.
A future Republican administration would do the same thing regardless of whether or not a Democratic administration does it first. As we learned from McConnell in the Garland issue, and the hypocrisy of the Republicans to pretty much anything, they don’t need “Democrats did it first” to do what will keep them in power.
That said, court packing is a horrible idea.
Are there any other medical procedures which SCOTUS should allow the states to regulate?
I thought about bringing this up too.
Especially with where abortion rights are at now. If the Democrats get lucky and manage to flip two SCOTUS seats in the next 10 years, the new SCOTUS is just going to have to flip precedent on Roe again, and I think the GOP is just going to interpret that as a court takeover and pack the courts themselves.
First they came for a woman’s right to choose, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a woman.
Then they came for LGBTQ people, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not queer.
Then they came for contraception, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a contraception user.
Then they came for interracial marriage — and there was no one left to speak for me–
Except my wife, Ginny, and by then she had already been written off as batshit crazy.
– Justice Clarence Thomas
/s
Nothing, and more than that, if there became a Democratic appointed majority on the court, there’s nothing stopping a future Republican administration from packing the court even without the Democrats “doing it first.”