Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
22-09-2020, 18:13   #3841
Sean.3516
Registered User
 
Sean.3516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by eire4 View Post
All you say there is factually correct and true. The caveat I would put forward though is that at this point the Supreme Court which should be an independent arbiter of the law has been holed below the water line.
Exactly. And one political party started using the court to shoe horn their political priorities into law without to need actually legislate. That would be the Democrats.

The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.
Sean.3516 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
22-09-2020, 18:20   #3842
Igotadose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,032
DoD funnelling $$ to their budwans under the pretext of Covid relief. Where's William Proxmire when you need him?
"A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...unds-pentagon/
Igotadose is offline  
Thanks from:
22-09-2020, 18:24   #3843
eire4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post
Exactly. And one political party started using the court to shoe horn their political priorities into law without to need actually legislate. That would be the Democrats.

The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.
The claim you make about the Republicans is risible. They are just as guilty of what your saying the Democrats are. For example they have made it a mission to overturn abortion rights in the US and that is exactly what the president said he was and would do with any nominees he put forward. Making sure their nominees do the bidding of big business has also been important in recent and previous Republican appointees.

The dangerous reality is that the supreme court as a legitimate independent arbiter of the law has as I said before been holed below the water line and the Republicans have been front and centre in that coming to pass as well.

Last edited by eire4; 22-09-2020 at 18:30.
eire4 is offline  
Thanks from:
22-09-2020, 18:25   #3844
Igotadose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post
1.) Our job is to advise and consent and only confirm Justices we believe will interpret the Constitution correctly and we have no obligation to confirm a nominee who we believe doesn't share those principles. We don't trust this President to nominate someone who fits that description so we're not holding hearings.
Funnily, the Constitution just states that Advise and Consent is what's needed. It doesn't say how the Senate provides it, which is the ticket. Otherwise, Justices might never be confirmed. So, even though Garland was proposed far in advance of the election, throw principle out the window (which is, when the President proposes someone, the Senate through it's process advises and consents, or not, which has been known to happen as well cf. Robert Bork for example).

Basically, what you're doing to rubberstamp this behavior is, "Whoever gets the Majority in the Senate gets to choose the SC judges." Sad place you're striving for, and has been readily stated, a minority of the population is dictating who is on the SCOTUS, since a minority population state like, say, Wyoming, has as much impact as say, Florida or California.

I don't think that's what the Founders intended.
Igotadose is offline  
Thanks from:
22-09-2020, 18:51   #3845
Sean.3516
Registered User
 
Sean.3516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by eire4 View Post
The claim you make about the Republicans is risible. They are just as guilty of what your saying the Democrats are. For example they have made it a mission to overturn abortion rights in the US and that is exactly what the president said he was and would do with any nominees he put forward.
Did it ever cross your mind that Roe V Wade could have been wrongly decided?

Also none of Trump's Supreme Court Justices so far would ever vote to overturn Roe. None. They maybe textualists but their squishy when it comes to bad precedents and have shown they won't overturn established precedents. There's only one Justice currently on the Court who would definitely overturn Roe and that's Clarence Thomas.

Even if Roe was overturned (which it won't be any time in the near future) all that means is that States would have the chance to decide for themselves if the want abortion or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eire4 View Post
Making sure their nominees do the bidding of big business has also been important in recent and previous Republican appointees.
What does "doing the bidding of big business mean? Any examples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eire4 View Post
The dangerous reality is that the supreme court as a legitimate independent arbiter of the law has as I said before been holed below the water line and the Republicans have been front and centre in that coming to pass as well.
It's more the case that interpreting the Constitution as it was written leads to outcomes that certain people don't like. Rather than putting those questions directly to the people by actually legislating, they've decided to appoint Justices who misinterpret the Constitution in aid of causes they agree with.
Sean.3516 is offline  
Advertisement
22-09-2020, 19:11   #3846
Igotadose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,032
You just have to wonder, what motivates someone working for the NIH for years, to have been the leading anti-masker at "Redstate." Prior to that he criticized the Ebola response.

Fair play to the Daily Beast in finding this guy out, he was being actively destructive in his writings. Seems like he's 'retiring' from his government job, I hope his pension goes away.

Some people are just filled with hate, I guess.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/redsta...-anthony-fauci

"The managing editor of the prominent conservative website RedState has spent months trashing U.S. officials tasked with combating COVID-19, dubbing White House coronavirus task force member Dr. Anthony Fauci a “mask nazi,” and intimating that government officials responsible for the pandemic response should be executed.

But that writer, who goes by the pseudonym “streiff,” isn’t just another political blogger. The Daily Beast has discovered that he actually works in the public affairs shop of the very agency that Fauci leads.

William B. Crews is, by day, a public affairs specialist for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases."
Igotadose is offline  
22-09-2020, 19:11   #3847
banie01
Registered User
 
banie01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,183
Florida just got even more interesting!

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-they-can-vote

Quote:
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has reportedly raised more than $16 million in an effort to help convicted felons in Florida register to vote.

The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimated Bloomberg's fundraising push has already paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons, Axios reported.

"The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and no American should be denied that right," a Bloomberg spokesperson told the news outlet. "Working together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, we are determined to end disenfranchisement and the discrimination that has always driven it.
Probably snag far more Dem voters for the $16m this has cost, than the Dems would if they threw 3 times the money at advertising.
banie01 is offline  
22-09-2020, 19:15   #3848
Sean.3516
Registered User
 
Sean.3516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igotadose View Post
Funnily, the Constitution just states that Advise and Consent is what's needed. It doesn't say how the Senate provides it, which is the ticket.
They provide it by having a vote. How else would they provide it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igotadose View Post
Otherwise, Justices might never be confirmed. So, even though Garland was proposed far in advance of the election, throw principle out the window (which is, when the President proposes someone, the Senate through it's process advises and consents, or not, which has been known to happen as well cf. Robert Bork for example).
How is that throwing out the principle? You just said yourself the Senate has the right to withhold its consent from the President's nomination.

That's exactly what happened with Merrick Garland.

The fact that they didn't have hearings was irrelevant. They have no obligation to hold hearings.

"[The President] with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court"

All that means is that the President needs the Senate to sign off on his appointments. The "process" by which that happens is entirely up to the Senate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igotadose View Post
Basically, what you're doing to rubberstamp this behavior is, "Whoever gets the Majority in the Senate gets to choose the SC judges."
Yep. That's literally what "advice and consent" means.

As long as the parties disagree on how to govern there will always be partisanship in this process.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Igotadose View Post
Sad place you're striving for, and has been readily stated, a minority of the population is dictating who is on the SCOTUS, since a minority population state like, say, Wyoming, has as much impact as say, Florida or California.

I don't think that's what the Founders intended.
Emm, that's exactly what they intended.

Why you think they gave the States equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Reps?

The basic principle is that if you want to get something important done, simple majorities shouldn't be enough.

The Founders thought the only way you should get something big like a Supreme Court nomination done is either through consensus or compromise. In other words it shouldn't be as simple as 51% of the population dictating to the other 49%.

If the Senate was made proportional and every issue was being decided by the States with the biggest populations. California, New York etc. Smaller states in the middle of the country would break away in rapid fashion.
Sean.3516 is offline  
22-09-2020, 19:42   #3849
Detritus70
Registered User
 
Detritus70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post

Not only that, they're threatening to flip the system if they don't get their way. Packing the court, eliminating the filibuster entirely, packing the Senate etc.
.
It's all legal and correct. Republicans throwing a tantrum over it won't change that
Detritus70 is online now  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
22-09-2020, 19:55   #3850
eire4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post
Did it ever cross your mind that Roe V Wade could have been wrongly decided?

Also none of Trump's Supreme Court Justices so far would ever vote to overturn Roe. None. They maybe textualists but their squishy when it comes to bad precedents and have shown they won't overturn established precedents. There's only one Justice currently on the Court who would definitely overturn Roe and that's Clarence Thomas.

Even if Roe was overturned (which it won't be any time in the near future) all that means is that States would have the chance to decide for themselves if the want abortion or not.


What does "doing the bidding of big business mean? Any examples?


It's more the case that interpreting the Constitution as it was written leads to outcomes that certain people don't like. Rather than putting those questions directly to the people by actually legislating, they've decided to appoint Justices who misinterpret the Constitution in aid of causes they agree with.

It is utterly risible your claim that Republicans have not been front and centre alongside Democrats in destroying the supreme courts legitimacy as an independent arbiter of the law.

Your either being disingenuous or wilfully ignorant to claim that the presidents appointees would "never" vote to overturn abortion rights. They both would and whoever the next nominee will have that as one of their litmus tests as well to be nominated. Amy Barrett if nominated has made it clear she is anti-abortion rights. Both Kavanagh and Gorsuch will given the opportunity vote to overturn abortion rights. Kavanagh in his nomination process was evasive and would not say he would not overturn Roe v Wade and in the recent abortion rights case in Louisiana both Gorsuch and Kavanagh showed why they received such strong support from anti abortion activists during their nomination process by voting against.

The 5-4 decision in citizens united v fec lead by the Republicans was an example of Republican judges doing the bidding of big business. In this case and a series of other ones before hand such as Buckley and First National Bank of Boston they used the pretext of free speech to allow big corporations and wealthy individuals to buy politicians with impunity. The more recent McCutcheon case continued this trend.

Now we have the current situation and we will see who the nominee is. But the front runner Amy Barrett is anti- abortion right out of the gate. She of course is only a recent presidential appointee to the federal courts but has 2 abortion rights cases and has ruled against abortion rights both times plus has stated a clear personal anti abortion stance.

Last edited by eire4; 22-09-2020 at 19:59.
eire4 is offline  
Thanks from:
22-09-2020, 19:58   #3851
eire4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detritus70 View Post
It's all legal and correct. Republicans throwing a tantrum over it won't change that
Funny how when it comes to Republicans and their apologists it is so often do as I say not as I do.
eire4 is offline  
Thanks from:
22-09-2020, 20:16   #3852
Igotadose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post

All that means is that the President needs the Senate to sign off on his appointments. The "process" by which that happens is entirely up to the Senate.


Yep. That's literally what "advice and consent" means.

As long as the parties disagree on how to govern there will always be partisanship in this process.

And, what's wrong in today's Senate, is the outsized influence of political parties, which aren't provided for at all in the Constitution. They're, well, a convenience mechanism for the voters. I don't think the Founders envisioned them, or professional full time politicians for that mater.
Quote:
The Founders thought the only way you should get something big like a Supreme Court nomination done is either through consensus or compromise. In other words it shouldn't be as simple as 51% of the population dictating to the other 49%.

If the Senate was made proportional and every issue was being decided by the States with the biggest populations. California, New York etc. Smaller states in the middle of the country would break away in rapid fashion.
On that last point I think we'll have to disagree. No State in the modern world would break away; sit back and watch what happens post-Brexit day for a reasonable example. What's missing in today's Senate and hyper-polarized US politics is compromise, so I guess to the victors belong the spoils.

I think the Founders, through the Electoral College and the Senate, wanted to build trust with the smaller states that they wouldn't be buffaloed. THe trouble is, the pendulums swung till the larger states and hence majority of the public are disenfranchised. This is why you see things like 'Montana votes are worth 16x those of California' or whatever it is, and higher still for Senate seats. Ireland-style PRV might work. Then you might actually get some compromise.
Igotadose is offline  
22-09-2020, 21:45   #3853
Brussels Sprout
Registered User
 
Brussels Sprout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post
The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post
The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post
Not only that, they're threatening to flip the system if they don't get their way. Packing the court, eliminating the filibuster entirely, packing the Senate etc.
Ok so you're going down the textualist route and letting McConnell off the hook on the basis that there's nothing stopping him as set out by the constitution from behaving the way that he did. So the precedent set by previous Senates where they at least met nominees and held hearings rather than rejecting the notion out of hand before a nominee was even picked. Ok.

If that is your firmly held belief then it's a bit odd to complain about the Democrats potentially deciding to throw precedence out the window by adding additional supreme court justices via eliminating the filibuster rule. Neither the supreme court size nor the filibuster are in the constitution after all.

The way that you say it, If the Democrats cry foul about McConnell's actions in jettisoning precedence then they're "throwing a tantrum". However if they decide to embrace this philosophy themselves, reject precedence and push the constitution to its edges then they get called out regardless.

Let's be frank. You're tying yourself up in knots here trying to create a coherent and consistent message which, through sheer coincidence I'm sure, just seems to be all about bashing the Democrats, supporting McConnell's actions and generally defending the indefensible.
Brussels Sprout is offline  
22-09-2020, 22:08   #3854
Water John
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 16,243
Amazingly, Trump is not tweeting about the news of the day, 200,000 dead.
Water John is offline  
22-09-2020, 22:34   #3855
Itssoeasy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 30,447
Just to say something about the Supreme Court. I think I’ve said it before that while the US constitution is a revered document by Americans and by non Americans, for such a foundational document it’s very vague at times. All it says about the Supreme Court is that one shall exist and the number of justices was set by congress not the constitution. There’s no direction as to numbers. It’s the same with the impeachment and the Chief Justice. All it says is the Chief Justice shall preside over an impeachment.
Itssoeasy is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet