Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 70

Thread: A Reason Why a Democrat Presidency in 2020 is an Extremely Bad Idea

  1. #1
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,122
    Amen (Given)
    7862
    Amen (Received)
    5225

    A Reason Why a Democrat Presidency in 2020 is an Extremely Bad Idea

    Source: Fox News

    Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

    The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Source

    It's rules for me but not for thee. This would be funny if it weren't so insane - and these guys weren't so completely hypocritically serious. Virtually every accomplishment that the Democrats can actually point to in the last forty years have been won in the Court - but when the inevitable change to a conservative court comes, well, NOW legislating from the bench is a bad thing!

    And there's the issue of senators - of the MINORITY PARTY - threatening a completely separate branch of government. My guess is McConnell won't want to seek censure - but that's exactly what should happen. They are WAY over the line.

    Reality, these guys aren't Roosevelt. Roberts might be influenced, however - which is why they did it. Being Chief Justice isn't a cake walk - and sometimes it's difficult to tell if you are extending a hand or bending over backwards - but he's been just wishy washy enough that these guys think they can get to him. If they succeed - well, 2020 isn't likely to go to the Democrats (it's kinda like betting on Secretariat - but way too early to know if he's gonna have colic and get scratched) and Ginsburg isn't going to get younger in the next five years. If all three of the eldest justices left for whatever reason... oooohhh.... two of those are liberal...

    By 2024 would there be the public sentiment to allow a court packing scheme or something similar? Dubious. So even if the 2024 president were Democrat he'd be up against a conservative court that would be in the process of dismantling 60 years of judicial crap.

    Which is part of why the Democrats are so desperate - desperate enough for minority senators to pull a crap move like this. Obamacare, gay marriage, abortion, - heck, do they even HAVE an accomplishment in the last two decades that WASN'T granted by the Court? The whole thing is a house of cards - a LOT of it hanging off the unconstitutional 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rest off of some seriously flawed legal decisions.

    So, 2020 is looking more do or die for the Democrats - a second Trump term could be disastrous for their entire agenda over the last six decades. With a 2020 Democrat, they can pack the Court - maybe. At the very least they have a shot at forestalling a much greater conservative majority - and if they get very lucky, gaining a liberal majority (really unlikely, but Ginsburg could work until she's 100 and Thomas could decide golf is a better use of his time - yeah, really unlikely, unfortunately in both cases).

    They literally threatened a co-equal branch of government when they aren't even the majority party and don't have the presidency - these guys are dangerously nuts!
    Last edited by Teallaura; 08-13-2019 at 02:44 PM.

  2. Amen Cow Poke, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,643
    Amen (Given)
    11670
    Amen (Received)
    24899
    wow
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  4. #3
    42nd Mojave Year DesertBerean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Barstow, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    6,385
    Amen (Given)
    5389
    Amen (Received)
    2119
    What he said.

  5. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  6. #4
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,729
    Amen (Given)
    217
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Which is part of why the Democrats are so desperate - desperate enough for minority senators to pull a crap move like this. Obamacare, gay marriage, abortion, - heck, do they even HAVE an accomplishment in the last two decades that WASN'T granted by the Court? The whole thing is a house of cards - a LOT of it hanging off the unconstitutional 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rest off of some seriously flawed legal decisions.
    To claim "Obamacare" was granted by the court seems dubious. The Court wasn't the one to put it into effect; all they did was say it was constitutional. The accomplishment is very much on the Democrats for passing it. I suppose it was "granted" by the Court insofar as they let it stand, but to me it's very different to let a law stand compared to actually forcibly enacting policy by striking down laws as was the case with gay marriage and abortion--those are cases where a goal was actually "granted" by the court because they enacted the policy and needed no direct help from Democrats to accomplish that. (though abortion also wasn't within the last 20 years)

    Though I suppose the Democrats do get some degree of accomplishment on gay marriage insofar as they had gotten it legalized in a lot of states. The Supreme Court may have settled it nationally, but even if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled the way it did, we can be nearly sure that between then and now more states would have legalized it.

    I also disagree with the assertion the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional... though I'm also not really sure what it has to do with anything. Though the Civil Rights Act wasn't really a Democratic thing... the split was North/South, not by party. Northern Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly favored it, whereas Southern Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against.

    The real problem here is, and has long been, Roe v. Wade. Setting aside any moral questions about abortion, and even setting aside the fact the decision was so poorly reasoned that the pro-choice John Hart Ely wrote an article ("The Wages of Crying Wolf") eviscerating it, it's been absolutely disastrous for politics. By taking such a controversial issue and removing it from legislatures, the only way to really effect change is to get the court to overrule it. It wasn't until after Roe v. Wade that control of the Supreme Court became such a major thing--which also involved the polarization of politics, another major problem.

    I could be wrong, but I think the only time this sort of control was a major issue was when FDR tried to pack the court, which was because they kept striking down New Deal legislation during the so-called Lochner era when the Court got into its head that there was some kind of unenumerated "freedom of contract" that prevented the government from enacting minimum wage laws. FDR turned away from his plan because the Court finally figured out its error, but unfortunately that still hasn't happened with Roe v. Wade. Interestingly, the legal criticism of Roe v. Wade has long been to compare it with Lochner v. New York (again, see John Hart Ely's article), giving us another parallel...

    Oh, there were factors other than Roe v. Wade, of course, in regards to the polarization of the country and the struggle over the Supreme Court. And it took a while to really get to where we are now--consider the fact Ginsburg and Scalia had unanimous and nearly unanimous confirmations--but a whole lot of the problems in politics go back to that case and the unfortunate decision not to overturn it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, at which point it had become obvious that Roe v. Wade had not only not ended the political issue, but had if anything made it far worse. And it's only gotten even worse since then. But Roe v. Wade was still a big factor.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 08-13-2019 at 05:45 PM.

  7. #5
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,122
    Amen (Given)
    7862
    Amen (Received)
    5225
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    To claim "Obamacare" was granted by the court seems dubious. The Court wasn't the one to put it into effect; all they did was say it was constitutional. The accomplishment is very much on the Democrats for passing it. I suppose it was "granted" by the Court insofar as they let it stand, but to me it's very different to let a law stand compared to actually forcibly enacting policy by striking down laws as was the case with gay marriage and abortion--those are cases where a goal was actually "granted" by the court because they enacted the policy and needed no direct help from Democrats to accomplish that. (though abortion also wasn't within the last 20 years)
    Normally I'd agree - but the entirety of Obamacare hinges on the penalty/tax distinction.

    Though I suppose the Democrats do get some degree of accomplishment on gay marriage insofar as they had gotten it legalized in a lot of states. The Supreme Court may have settled it nationally, but even if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled the way it did, we can be nearly sure that between then and now more states would have legalized it.
    Which wouldn't obligate the states that had banned it.

    I also disagree with the assertion the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional... though I'm also not really sure what it has to do with anything. Though the Civil Rights Act wasn't really a Democratic thing... the split was North/South, not by party. Northern Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly favored it, whereas Southern Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against.
    You are disagreeing with literally every Supreme Court case ruling on it then. The Court has always held that the CRA was unconstitutional - violates the First Amendment but big time. The Court has allowed it to right the social wrongs of slavery and segregation.

    Last case I happened to read that concerned it Sandra Day O'Connor was projecting its hopeful termination in twenty-five years - that would be 2021, if memory serves.

    As I stated, a tremendous amount of their social agenda rides on the CRA - when it goes, so does most of that.

    The real problem here is, and has long been, Roe v. Wade. Setting aside any moral questions about abortion, and even setting aside the fact the decision was so poorly reasoned that the pro-choice John Hart Ely wrote an article ("The Wages of Crying Wolf") eviscerating it, it's been absolutely disastrous for politics. By taking such a controversial issue and removing it from legislatures, the only way to really effect change is to get the court to overrule it. It wasn't until after Roe v. Wade that control of the Supreme Court became such a major thing--which also involved the polarization of politics, another major problem.
    Yup - and worse. It's freaking dangerous for the future - granted the far future but there are aspects of that thing that could be disastrous in a different political climate.

    I could be wrong, but I think the only time this sort of control was a major issue was when FDR tried to pack the court, which was because they kept striking down New Deal legislation during the so-called Lochner era when the Court got into its head that there was some kind of unenumerated "freedom of contract" that prevented the government from enacting minimum wage laws. FDR turned away from his plan because the Court finally figured out its error, but unfortunately that still hasn't happened with Roe v. Wade. Interestingly, the legal criticism of Roe v. Wade has long been to compare it with Lochner v. New York (again, see John Hart Ely's article), giving us another parallel...
    I don't know of another.

    Oh, there were factors other than Roe v. Wade, of course, in regards to the polarization of the country and the struggle over the Supreme Court. And it took a while to really get to where we are now--consider the fact Ginsburg and Scalia had unanimous and nearly unanimous confirmations--but a whole lot of the problems in politics go back to that case and the unfortunate decision not to overturn it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, at which point it had become obvious that Roe v. Wade had not only not ended the political issue, but had if anything made it far worse. And it's only gotten even worse since then. But Roe v. Wade was still a big factor.
    Yeppers.

  8. #6
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,729
    Amen (Given)
    217
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    You are disagreeing with literally every Supreme Court case ruling on it then. The Court has always held that the CRA was unconstitutional - violates the First Amendment but big time. The Court has allowed it to right the social wrongs of slavery and segregation.

    Last case I happened to read that concerned it Sandra Day O'Connor was projecting its hopeful termination in twenty-five years - that would be 2021, if memory serves.

    As I stated, a tremendous amount of their social agenda rides on the CRA - when it goes, so does most of that.
    I'm confused as to what you're talking about. The Supreme Court has never held the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional. The only case, as far as I can tell, that concerned its constitutionality was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States... in which the Supreme Court upheld it. All the other cases involving the Civil Rights Act were not about its constitutionality, but its interpretation (with its constitutionality assumed).

    As for Sandra Day O'Connor's mention of 25 years, that appears to have been from Grutter v. Bollinger. But that case barely involved the Civil Rights Act (it's only mentioned briefly in passing, the primary focus was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) and at any rate O'Connor's mention of 25 years had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act, but affirmative action.

    I don't know of another.
    The first parallel was that the court striking down laws in the Lochner era so frustrated Roosevelt that he embarked on his plan to pack the court. The "other parallel" was that the standard legal attack on Roe v. Wade is that it commits the same error as the Lochner era, which. To quite briefly from John Hart Ely's article:

    "From its 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York into the 1930's the Court, frequently though not always under the rubric of "liberty of contract," employed the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to invalidate a good deal of legislation. According to the dissenters at the time and virtually all the commentators since, the Court had simply manufactured a constitutional right out of whole cloth and used it to superimpose its own view of wise social policy on those of the legislatures."

    and later:

    "It may be, however--at least it is not the sort of claim one can disprove--that the "right to an abortion," or noneconomic rights generally, accord more closely with "this generation's idealization of America" than the "rights" asserted in either Lochner or Dandridge. But that attitude, of course, is precisely the point of the Lochner philosophy, which would grant unusual protection to those "rights" that somehow seem most pressing, regardless of whether the Constitution suggests any special solicitude for them. The Constitution has little to say about contract, less about abortion, and those who would speculate about which the framers would have been more likely to protect may not be pleased with the answer. The Court continues to disavow the philosophy of Lochner. Yet as Justice Stewart's concurrence [in Roe v. Wade] admits, it is impossible candidly to regard Roe as the product of anything else. That alone should be enough to damn it."

    Technically, his description of it starting with Lochner v. New York is a bit oversimplified, as it predated that... but Lochner v. New York became the emblem of it later on because of Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous dissenting opinion. But otherwise it holds quite true.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 08-13-2019 at 10:16 PM.

  9. #7
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,122
    Amen (Given)
    7862
    Amen (Received)
    5225
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    I'm confused as to what you're talking about. The Supreme Court has never held the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional. The only case, as far as I can tell, that concerned its constitutionality was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States... in which the Supreme Court upheld it. All the other cases involving the Civil Rights Act were not about its constitutionality, but its interpretation (with its constitutionality assumed).

    As for Sandra Day O'Connor's mention of 25 years, that appears to have been from Grutter v. Bollinger. But that case barely involved the Civil Rights Act (it's only mentioned briefly in passing, the primary focus was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) and at any rate O'Connor's mention of 25 years had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act, but affirmative action.

    The first parallel was that the court striking down laws in the Lochner era so frustrated Roosevelt that he embarked on his plan to pack the court. The "other parallel" was that the standard legal attack on Roe v. Wade is that it commits the same error as the Lochner era, which. To quite briefly from John Hart Ely's article:

    "From its 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York into the 1930's the Court, frequently though not always under the rubric of "liberty of contract," employed the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to invalidate a good deal of legislation. According to the dissenters at the time and virtually all the commentators since, the Court had simply manufactured a constitutional right out of whole cloth and used it to superimpose its own view of wise social policy on those of the legislatures."

    and later:

    "It may be, however--at least it is not the sort of claim one can disprove--that the "right to an abortion," or noneconomic rights generally, accord more closely with "this generation's idealization of America" than the "rights" asserted in either Lochner or Dandridge. But that attitude, of course, is precisely the point of the Lochner philosophy, which would grant unusual protection to those "rights" that somehow seem most pressing, regardless of whether the Constitution suggests any special solicitude for them. The Constitution has little to say about contract, less about abortion, and those who would speculate about which the framers would have been more likely to protect may not be pleased with the answer. The Court continues to disavow the philosophy of Lochner. Yet as Justice Stewart's concurrence [in Roe v. Wade] admits, it is impossible candidly to regard Roe as the product of anything else. That alone should be enough to damn it."

    Technically, his description of it starting with Lochner v. New York is a bit oversimplified, as it predated that... but Lochner v. New York became the emblem of it later on because of Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous dissenting opinion. But otherwise it holds quite true.
    I think Heart of Atlanta is correct - read it. The reason it was upheld isn't its innate constitutionality. They uphold despite its unconstitutionality.

  10. #8
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,122
    Amen (Given)
    7862
    Amen (Received)
    5225
    And the fallout begins:

    Source: Fox News

    Judiciary Committee members Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., wrote in a brief filed Monday that the "Supreme Court is not well.” They suggested the court “heal itself” or face public pressure to be “restructured.”

    Graham said this was a clear reference to expanding the number of justices on the court to make it more liberal

    “When you hear Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme Court….....they are talking about making the Court more liberal,” Graham said in a Wednesday tweet that linked to a Fox News article about the brief. “This has been a Dream of the Left for decades. I will do everything in my power to ensure that dream is NEVER fulfilled!”

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


  11. #9
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,159
    Amen (Given)
    4891
    Amen (Received)
    21793
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    And the fallout begins:

    Source: Fox News

    Judiciary Committee members Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., wrote in a brief filed Monday that the "Supreme Court is not well.” They suggested the court “heal itself” or face public pressure to be “restructured.”

    Graham said this was a clear reference to expanding the number of justices on the court to make it more liberal

    “When you hear Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme Court….....they are talking about making the Court more liberal,” Graham said in a Wednesday tweet that linked to a Fox News article about the brief. “This has been a Dream of the Left for decades. I will do everything in my power to ensure that dream is NEVER fulfilled!”

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source

    Why can't the democrats every just play by the existing rules? Rather than winning within the bounds of the law, they decide to change the rules. They want to eliminate the electoral college because they lost the election, now they want to restructure the supreme court because Trump got some conservatives in.

    It's sad.

  12. Amen RumTumTugger, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  13. #10
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    50,832
    Amen (Given)
    1080
    Amen (Received)
    18469
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Why can't the democrats every just play by the existing rules? Rather than winning within the bounds of the law, they decide to change the rules. They want to eliminate the electoral college because they lost the election, now they want to restructure the supreme court because Trump got some conservatives in.

    It's sad.
    Often when one of them gets caught breaking this or that law they immediately start declaring that we need a new law. If you didn't obey the old law why in the world should anyone believe you'd obey any new ones?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  14. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •