Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The democrats "unpacking" plan for the court shows their actions are all about Power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The democrats "unpacking" plan for the court shows their actions are all about Power

    Obviously, this is an older article, but I want to use it to highlight for oxmixmudd that the reason many don't trust democrats isn't love of trump, it's distrust of democrats.

    (And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that the democrats failure to eliminate the filibuster renders their attempts to pack the court moot)


    Source: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987723528/democrats-unveil-long-shot-plan-to-expand-size-of-supreme-court-from-9-to-13

    Liberal congressional Democrats unveiled a proposal Thursday to expand the number of seats on the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to 13 — a move Republicans have blasted as "court packing" and which has almost no chance of being voted on after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."

    The measure, the Judiciary Act of 2021, is being co-sponsored by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee; Hank Johnson of Georgia; Mondaire Jones of New York; and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

    "We are not packing the Supreme Court, we are unpacking it," Nadler said at a news conference in front of the Supreme Court.

    In a statement, Nadler, a congressman from New York, said the bill would "restore balance to the nation's highest court after four years of norm-breaking actions by Republicans led to its current composition."

    © Copyright Original Source



    Let's initially take them at their word, that this is merely to "re-balance" the court, and not to pack it, and a reaction to the norm breaking actions by republicans.

    Trump appointed 3 SCOTUS justices.

    1. Gorusch. He was the replacement for Scalia, and after the senate pocket vetoed Garland.
    2. Kavanaugh. He was the replacement for Kennedy.
    3. Barrett. She was the replacement for Ginsburg after her death before the 2020 election.

    Currently, we have a 6-3 conservative balance on the court. Prior to these 3 picks, we had a 5-4 conservative balance. (To keep this simple, I'm going to list balances as Conservative - Liberal).

    After Scalia passed, Obama was set to appoint Garland, which democrats were ecstatic about because it would lead to a 4-5 balance on the court, which they haven't had for a long time. Republicans refused to hold a hearing on him, citing the "Biden rule" that the president should not appoint a SCOTUS justice until after November elections. After Trump was elected, the balance remained 5-4.

    Summary: 4-5 if Obama got to pick, reality remained 5-4.

    Kavanaugh's replacement of Kennedy is simple. Kennedy was the swing seat, but importantly was part of the 5-4 majority. Kavanaugh's replacement left the court 5-4. More importantly, even if the smear against Kavanaugh had worked, the next replacement would have still been conservative, and the court would remain unchanged.

    Summary: The court balance remained unchanged.

    Finally, we come to Justice Barrett. Barret replaced Ginsburg, and would create a shift in the political balance of the court. Ginsburg died in September 2020, and the president wasted no time in nominating her replacement. Republicans approved Barrett with less than a month before the November election. Democrats howled about the hypocrisy after what had happened to Garland, and republicans narrowed their ruling on precedent to make it seem like they were not being hypocrites.

    Summary: Court shifted 1 seat to the conservatives. Reality: 6-3, If Obama Nominated Garland: 5-4, If GOP held to it's original rule: 5-4.

    So Now we get to the crux of the issue. The hypocrisy of the Republicans. There's really no denying that the republicans (and democrats) were horribly hypocritical when the nomination of Barrett came up. This is not a surprise, Politics is about power, and hypocrisy has never stood in the way of power. But, let's look at the trail that got us here. If Republicans were not hypocrites, the balance of the court is 5-4. If everything followed the normal course of events (Obama got to pick Garland, Trump got Kavanaugh and Barrett) the balance of the court is 5-4. In either scenario, the court remains 5-4.

    What did the democrats want to do with "unpacking the court"?

    They wanted to add 4 more seats to the court, for Biden to add 4 more liberal justices. This would shift the court from 6-3 to 6-7.

    In essence their claim of re-balancing the court would have been, not to undo the effect of republican hard-ball, but to shift the balance in favor of themselves. If they were serious about "re-balancing" the court, they would have added 2 justices. This would have brought the court to 6-5, which in balance terms would be where the court would have landed (+1 conservative) in 2 out of the 3 scenarios presented above.


    The thing is though, that democrats are claiming that not one, but two of the justices are illegitimate. Both Gorusch and Barrett are illegitimate. The problem with this argument is that it requires Democrats to hold two conflicting positions at the same time. Essentially, if the democrats demand Gorusch is illegitimate because Garland should have gone through, then they have to admit that Barrett's appointment was legitimate for the same reason. On the other hand, if they claim Barrett's appointment was illegitimate because of it's timing, then they have to admit that Garland's failure to be appointed was legitimate for the same reason. The only thing they have to hang their hat's on is that Republicans were hypocrites. But hypocrisy doesn't make them both illegitimate.

    (Note: In all cases, I am assuming that the senate approves the nomination, so this is somewhat over-simplified).

    At the end of the day though, Democrats would have ended up 5-4, and attempts to claim they are un-packing the court fall flat when they are trying to create 6-7.
    Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 01-24-2022, 05:40 AM.

  • #2
    After observing his performance as AG (siccing the FBI on parents at school board meetings), the nation dodged a bullet when Garland didn't get put on the Supreme Court. Say what you want about "Moscow Mitch" but he saved the country from a lot of grief.

    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)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      After observing his performance as AG (siccing the FBI on parents at school board meetings), the nation dodged a bullet when Garland didn't get put on the Supreme Court. Say what you want about "Moscow Mitch" but he saved the country from a lot of grief.
      From what I've seen this was possibly a coordinated attack, with the initial letter being sent AFTER the Department of Education asked that the letter be drafted by the NSAB.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        From what I've seen this was possibly a coordinated attack, with the initial letter being sent AFTER the Department of Education asked that the letter be drafted by the NSAB.

        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)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          After observing his performance as AG (siccing the FBI on parents at school board meetings), the nation dodged a bullet when Garland didn't get put on the Supreme Court. Say what you want about "Moscow Mitch" but he saved the country from a lot of grief.
          "Moscow Mitch," that slur is almost amusing. He's an entrenched deep-state official, sure, but affiliated with "Moscow"?

          I don't know if you read Newsmax or OAN articles online, but they are both relentlessly badgered by Leftist trolls in their comments section (of course, Leftist rags have mostly removed comments - too much free speech). But these trolls are like little brainwashed morons, calling Biden a hero and everyone else a Russian mole. And, or course, everything ties back into Trump somehow. With everything we now know about Trump's sanctions of Putin, about Biden's removal of Trump sanctions, of how Putin behaved when Trump was in office, and on and on, the trolls still insist that everything is the exact opposite of reality. Is it a disease?

          ETA - sorry, not my intention to derail. Just an observation
          "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
          "
          Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ronson View Post

            "Moscow Mitch," that slur is almost amusing. He's an entrenched deep-state official, sure, but affiliated with "Moscow"?

            I don't know if you read Newsmax or OAN articles online, but they are both relentlessly badgered by Leftist trolls in their comments section (of course, Leftist rags have mostly removed comments - too much free speech). But these trolls are like little brainwashed morons, calling Biden a hero and everyone else a Russian mole. And, or course, everything ties back into Trump somehow. With everything we now know about Trump's sanctions of Putin, about Biden's removal of Trump sanctions, of how Putin behaved when Trump was in office, and on and on, the trolls still insist that everything is the exact opposite of reality. Is it a disease?

            ETA - sorry, not my intention to derail. Just an observation
            It's ok. I get the feeling that the usual posters (and the tagged one) are avoiding it like the plague, as it doesn't have rhetoric they can argue over and instead have to deal with facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
              Obviously, this is an older article, but I want to use it to highlight for oxmixmudd that the reason many don't trust democrats isn't love of trump, it's distrust of democrats.

              (And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that the democrats failure to eliminate the filibuster renders their attempts to pack the court moot)


              Source: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987723528/democrats-unveil-long-shot-plan-to-expand-size-of-supreme-court-from-9-to-13

              Liberal congressional Democrats unveiled a proposal Thursday to expand the number of seats on the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to 13 — a move Republicans have blasted as "court packing" and which has almost no chance of being voted on after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."

              The measure, the Judiciary Act of 2021, is being co-sponsored by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee; Hank Johnson of Georgia; Mondaire Jones of New York; and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

              "We are not packing the Supreme Court, we are unpacking it," Nadler said at a news conference in front of the Supreme Court.

              In a statement, Nadler, a congressman from New York, said the bill would "restore balance to the nation's highest court after four years of norm-breaking actions by Republicans led to its current composition."

              © Copyright Original Source



              Let's initially take them at their word, that this is merely to "re-balance" the court, and not to pack it, and a reaction to the norm breaking actions by republicans.

              Trump appointed 3 SCOTUS justices.

              1. Gorusch. He was the replacement for Scalia, and after the senate pocket vetoed Garland.
              2. Kavanaugh. He was the replacement for Kennedy.
              3. Barrett. She was the replacement for Ginsburg after her death before the 2020 election.

              Currently, we have a 6-3 conservative balance on the court. Prior to these 3 picks, we had a 5-4 conservative balance. (To keep this simple, I'm going to list balances as Conservative - Liberal).

              After Scalia passed, Obama was set to appoint Garland, which democrats were ecstatic about because it would lead to a 4-5 balance on the court, which they haven't had for a long time. Republicans refused to hold a hearing on him, citing the "Biden rule" that the president should not appoint a SCOTUS justice until after November elections. After Trump was elected, the balance remained 5-4.

              Summary: 4-5 if Obama got to pick, reality remained 5-4.

              Kavanaugh's replacement of Kennedy is simple. Kennedy was the swing seat, but importantly was part of the 5-4 majority. Kavanaugh's replacement left the court 5-4. More importantly, even if the smear against Kavanaugh had worked, the next replacement would have still been conservative, and the court would remain unchanged.

              Summary: The court balance remained unchanged.

              Finally, we come to Justice Barrett. Barret replaced Ginsburg, and would create a shift in the political balance of the court. Ginsburg died in September 2020, and the president wasted no time in nominating her replacement. Republicans approved Barrett with less than a month before the November election. Democrats howled about the hypocrisy after what had happened to Garland, and republicans narrowed their ruling on precedent to make it seem like they were not being hypocrites.

              Summary: Court shifted 1 seat to the conservatives. Reality: 6-3, If Obama Nominated Garland: 5-4, If GOP held to it's original rule: 5-4.

              So Now we get to the crux of the issue. The hypocrisy of the Republicans. There's really no denying that the republicans (and democrats) were horribly hypocritical when the nomination of Barrett came up. This is not a surprise, Politics is about power, and hypocrisy has never stood in the way of power. But, let's look at the trail that got us here. If Republicans were not hypocrites, the balance of the court is 5-4. If everything followed the normal course of events (Obama got to pick Garland, Trump got Kavanaugh and Barrett) the balance of the court is 5-4. In either scenario, the court remains 5-4.

              What did the democrats want to do with "unpacking the court"?

              They wanted to add 4 more seats to the court, for Biden to add 4 more liberal justices. This would shift the court from 6-3 to 6-7.

              In essence their claim of re-balancing the court would have been, not to undo the effect of republican hard-ball, but to shift the balance in favor of themselves. If they were serious about "re-balancing" the court, they would have added 2 justices. This would have brought the court to 6-5, which in balance terms would be where the court would have landed (+1 conservative) in 2 out of the 3 scenarios presented above.


              The thing is though, that democrats are claiming that not one, but two of the justices are illegitimate. Both Gorusch and Barrett are illegitimate. The problem with this argument is that it requires Democrats to hold two conflicting positions at the same time. Essentially, if the democrats demand Gorusch is illegitimate because Garland should have gone through, then they have to admit that Barrett's appointment was legitimate for the same reason. On the other hand, if they claim Barrett's appointment was illegitimate because of it's timing, then they have to admit that Garland's failure to be appointed was legitimate for the same reason. The only thing they have to hang their hat's on is that Republicans were hypocrites. But hypocrisy doesn't make them both illegitimate.

              (Note: In all cases, I am assuming that the senate approves the nomination, so this is somewhat over-simplified).

              At the end of the day though, Democrats would have ended up 5-4, and attempts to claim they are un-packing the court fall flat when they are trying to create 6-7.
              oxmixmudd? Starlight? @Hypatia_Alexandria?

              Anyone one care to dispute the argument put forth here?

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 05:57 PM
              2 responses
              33 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Ronson
              by Ronson
               
              Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:31 AM
              8 responses
              106 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Stoic
              by Stoic
               
              Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 06:35 AM
              15 responses
              94 views
              1 like
              Last Post Bill the Cat  
              Started by seer, 05-19-2022, 10:59 AM
              90 responses
              501 views
              0 likes
              Last Post rogue06
              by rogue06
               
              Started by rogue06, 05-18-2022, 07:43 AM
              3 responses
              33 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Ronson
              by Ronson
               
              Working...
              X