DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The campaign to stack the Supreme Court has begun

Reading some of the posts above proved to me that our education system has failed.

Nope, not Obama, Mitch McConnell left many seats unfilled during the Obama administration including a SCOTUS pick. Screw republicans, they are insurrectionists and liars among other really bad things. And to hell with this kumbaya crap too, GOPers always cry when they are out of power wanting to play nice, then they smack you in the head when they get power and say screw dems. So they can pound salt for all I care.

We get it, you learned a new word, more than four letters... you want a cookie or something?

He thinks it upsets me

I understand the knee jerk reaction to pack the court in retaliation for McConnell blocking the last Obama nominee. However, it is important that we make every attempt to keep the Supreme Court independent of the Legislature. Additionally, it is not hard to see that this is a slippery slope. If the Democrats pack the court now, then the Republicans are going to do the same thing when they get the chance. The Constitution allows for the adding of Justices but not the taking away, so there is no limit to how large the Supreme Court can get, but clearly, it does not serve the people for it to grow too large.

I would like to see them reach a compromise on this one. Maybe Breyer and Thomas, being the oldest justices, would announce planned retirements prior to the end of this term, giving Biden two appointees. I believe that would work better for the people and it is what I am hoping for.

20 year terms instead of life appointments.
Yeah- 20 seems good to me.*

20 years is plenty long enough to rule on landmark case law, influence constitutional interpretation and leave a mark on society. Life expectancy for white males in 1809 was 44.7 years. A Justice whose appointment began in his 20's had roughly 20 years to make policy and have an impact. At present, we have people who have sat on the bench for as long as those original justices lived an entire life.

20 year limits.

1. When your term is up, the sitting POTUS nominates, no matter his/her political proclivity (this only works if Mitch McConnell is dead, and no others follow in his footsteps).
2. Expiration dates are set from date of appointment, so there is zero ambiguity regarding the 'when and how' of personnel change.
3. This setup also randomizes the weight of political lean in appointees, because the presiding admin is elected by the people (who have been quite fickle, of late: 44/45/46). Appointees will represent the prevailing will of the time, but will also be replaced down the road- perhaps by noobs of like philosophy, perhaps not. The lottery lies the timing and who's in charge. It imposes a random element into the scenario that makes it harder for either "team" to game the system. ALL appointees, regardless of lean will come- and eventually go.


It's rational, it's dispassionate, it's fair to all who serve, and all who are served by their decisions.

Rescind the lifetime appointment. It's stupid, outdated, and antithetical to a responsive judiciary.

20 years for Federal benches.
20 years for SCOTUS.



*the actual length of term is less important than the existence of limits themselves. That was the point. Longer/shorter than 20? I'm ok with having that discussion, so long as term limits are adopted.

Yes, there's a commission looking into this and other things SC. The commission isn't going to actually do anything, though.

When someone went to move on this, it was immediately snuffed out.


Is there a cute little translation for someone that just sees things as they are and doesn't get their pants in a twist over every single fake crisis?

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before".

Rahm Emanuel


Never trust a 'prog'...

And the counters to the counters, to the counters will continue.

Earth to Pit...the Civil War as already begun. Sides have been chosen. We are United States only in name, and the communists are excited about that.

I see you're standing by for your Fox News/Breitbart talking points. When do those come in?

The communists are winning or they have won. By your definition at least.

I don't want either, but if I were forced to choose between living in a communist USA vs. a fascist USA, I would take communism all day long.

ON TOPIC: So the dreaded and feared by the right speaker of the house, along with other house dem leaders, killed this bill to add justices to the SCOTUS on arrival in the house.

I could see this commission and the murmurs and rumors that come out of it (like DOA bills to stack the Court), to be used as a sort of bargaining tool. Make the other side think you're going for some crazy overhaul and then bring something much more sensible to the table. Bring your actual changes to the table while also giving them something to say no to.

Sure ... but just like everything the Trump of Cult will LIE and SPIN and try to use it to put FEAR into their base. It'll be just like the LIE that Democrats want open borders. The LIE that Dems want big Govt and GOP has small Govt. The LIE that the GOP are the party of law and order. The LIE that the Democrats are advocating policies that are communist.

But apparently peen still thinks she's a communist LOL

I don't think yet. You are assuming I think everybody on the left is a communist. I don't think that....maybe 30% or so.

I don't think Pelosi is a communist. I have never said that.

I can't say I like her, but no, she isn't a communist.

What is that based on?

Not reality that's for sure.

That's exactly how I see it unfolding and I'm not a fan of it. Nor was I a fan of when Mitch McConnell used other methods to accomplish the same goal. I guess at that point the question became do you simply let Mitch get away with it or do you take countermeasures?

And while I don't like it I'm fully aware it was the Republicans who launched the opening salvo. Then might have been a good time for you to have spoken out about it. What you're seeing now is the first counter you mentioned, not the beginning.



I'm not so sure about that. Just last year places like Nevada and Georgia switched sides.

Yours is the type of thought process that will insure we stay that way. If it comes to that I'm paying very careful attention to what's going on because as of yet I haven't chosen a side. Maybe that's because I'm an American who doesn't believe a second civil war is here. But at some point you will be right. at that point I will have to pick a side. I'm going to try and find the side that isn't crazy. And right now it's a pretty close tie.

Since to you it seems a communist is anyone and everyone who wants to help out the working people and the poor I'm quite sure our definition of communist is very different. You're an educated man and surely you must realize you're just using the buzz word of communism to describe what's actually a social democracy. All of Europe is not communist. England, Ireland, Spain, Greece, France. They're not all a bunch of communist countries.

You're either using the word communism to rile people up or have been brainwashed into believing it. either way that's not a good thing.

so the left can keep doing what they have been doing.. play dirty while claiming to occupy some moral high ground.

It's wrong but it's become common practice on the right for quite some time now. The Dems have never tried to wear the moniker "party of family values", "the moral majority", "The Christian right". Not only do Republicans lead the way in this, they openly claim to hold the moral high ground in every category. Are some of those "older sayings"? Yes they are. It only goes to show they've been playing the game you're speaking of for decades now.

It's sort of like how unions started. Corporations were hiring agencies like the Pinkertons to suppress, maim and sometimes kill those trying to form unions. So the unions got the mob involved to even things up.

Does that make it right? No it doesn't. But desperate times call for desperate measures.

I do think a lot on the left disingenuously play the moral high ground card. Pelosi being the most abhorrent that I can think of (who is still in office).

However, I don't think they've gotten to the point of playing as dirty as the Republicans have. I hope that doesn't come to pass, either. However, at some point, the Democratic leadership may give in to the notion that they look weak comparatively to their counterparts, unless Republicans start "playing by the rules" again. With guys like McConnell, Hawley, Cruz, etc. in office, I don't see that happening anytime soon, either.

No. They need to play dirty like the Republicans do. Not just a little dirty and doing it badly like the Dems have done forever ... they need to go full on Republican, lie cheat steal, lie some more, and then spin some plausible deniability BS.

Just like you have done - if they are going to get tarred and feathered for being 'just like' the Republicans, then they may as well go all in and be like them 100%.

DC's post and your post prove my point. Republicans already pretend to claim moral equivalence between how the two parties - so the Dems need to embrace it. Lie cheat and steal and screw what's best for the country - just like Trump and his still so many supporters. Facts don't matter - clearly - so they may as well embrace it and take the country as far down the toilet as it can go.

j/c

Let me ask people, would you play a game of chess where your opponent could move any piece he had on the board to any other space he wanted to, while you were constricted to playing by the rules?

I certainly wouldn't. Rules or the lack there of are only fair if both sides are playing by the same set. Nobody would enter a duel where one person had a 45 caliber semi automatic pistol and the other person had a two and a half inch penknife from twenty paces.

While I understand exactly what you're saying, you can't rig a game to totally favor one side.

That's not an end state I advocate. DC and I are similar in our disillusionment with Republicans, as both he and I ideologically lean toward conservativism, which has now been bastardized, beaten up and corrupted by Republicans.

Rather than a "down-the-toilet" end state, I'd prefer to combat against the sensationalism I see, which currently is much worse on the right, and hopefully work toward a grassroots re-examination of what conservativism actually is, and either eliminate, or nullify the idiocy that has run rampant. When I see guys like Kinzinger, Sasse, etc. still in office, I think it's plausible to shift things back to a decorum that somewhat resembles functionality. I know it sounds like a pipe dream, but I prefer working toward that end more than advocating for mutually assured destruction.

The most universally revered people throughout history are those who set aside their vengeance, while the most universally vile people throughout history are those who act upon it.

You are correct that the right has led the way in this and that the right has openly proclaimed it and that the right has fallen far short of being what they claim to be. You are wrong though in that the left has also tried to claim it, just without naming it.

So the Dems are using Jedi mind tricks?

It's funny really, you say some in the Democratic party are communists.. But you know what you didn't see in the last 4 years? No Dem cuddling up to Putin,, The King of Communism.

Funny how you and others forget who Putins buddy was.. The Useful Idiot, TRUMP and his Minions.

Didn't see Peen calling Greene's new America First Caucus out for being fascist, did you?

Classic example - facts don't matter. GOP = fear mongering and emotions. Short on substance.

I just made reply. Sorry man, I don't sit around monitoring the Dawg Talkers political forum waiting to reply to the threads you want.

Get a life is my suggestion. But hey, it's good to know I live in your head.

You can't afford to live in my head.

Yes the heating bills must be astronomical as drafty as it is in there