you say this as some sort of an attempt at a gotcha, but Trump 100% believes he's smarter and better than both of them for obvious reasons.

The executive branch and the legislative branch have a term measured in years. The American people aren't going to have a hard time understanding the judicial branch going to a term measured in years instead of lifetime appointments.

I forget the math, but I saw something where say there are like 15 supreme court justices with a term measured in years and every president on inaugural day gets to replace x number of justices whose term has ended.

Maybe it was something like an 18 year term limit as a supreme court justice (which is still very long). And the president in every odd year gets to nominate a justice, thereby getting to put two justices on the bench in a president's four years.

The disingenuous bullcrap going on now must end. Burn it to the ground. If the Democrats control the WH, Senate and HR, then there are bills that could be passed with a simple majority that don't need constitutional amendment.

Not unless the House and Senate both pass a bill to expand the court.

the republicans in government don't actually want to overturn roe v wade. they get WAY too much fundraising power and wield way too much influence over whackjobs like lagtight with roe left hanging.

if they got rid of it completely they lose half their funding and zealots overnight.

lol this is the most shitlib thing I have ever read.

Ok. Thanks.

This is a potential problem. But I don't think it would arise that often, and I don't think it is main problem with what I proposed.

The main problem with my proposal is that, if my proposed system were allowed to run for thirty or forty years, and if appointments by a 2/3 majority proved to be rare (and thus lifetime appointments were rare), then we very easily could end up with a situation where the newly elected president has the opportunity early in his or her term to replace almost the entire court with partisan hacks who will support the presidential agenda.

That would turn the SCOTUS into something close to a de facto branch of the executive department.

I agree with this. Actually overturning Roe would be a tactical error for Republicans. Incremental erosion of the right is much better politics.

I call BULLCRAP.

You are saying the Republicans won the WH & Senate and exercised their power, BUT somehow you think if the Democrats win the WH, Senate & HR they shouldn't exercise their power and pass laws to pack the courts.

Power should only be exercised as you see fit. You are a hypocritical troll.

What he actually is saying is that (i) he doesn't think Republicans should have blocked Garland or rammed ACB through; and (ii) he doesn't think Democrats should pack the court.

That's internally consistent, or at least arguably so. But he is lying about (i). That's the real issue.

Interesting - hadn't thought of it that way, good point.

I don't know how you can conclude that. The only arguments I've made in regards to Garland was it was within R's right to do it, and it's not abnormal for judges to be filibustered, that it happens to be a SCOTUS judge this time is only a relevant distinction to Democrats.


1917 rule change, W. Wilson, Democrat, to try and preempt the filibuster by introducing cloture. Who ended the filibuster? Harry Reid, Democrat. Both sides have used the filibuster routinely. Guess who changed the rule in 1975? You guess it, a Democrat controlled Senate.

Guess who started the filibuster with judges:

You can go up 200 years if you want to try to prove your point as well ......
That is how weak it is .

Not even 5 years ago the R senate totally prevent obama to Govern for years like a supreme justice nominee and they use opposite arguments (lying) to impose their agenda on American people’s .

The arguments that democrat are the same as republicans and would act the same way is precisely where your totally crazy !
Tho it Will come to that after trump era ....
If it’s good for 1 side it’s good for the other , pretty clear now that’s how republicans think and the democrats shall as well from now on .

This is a lie.

Admittedly I am speculating. What do you believe Republicans should have done w/r/t Garland and w/r/t filling RBG's seat?


This both sides eroded the process in equal measure bullshit doesn't really hold water. As I explained previously in this thread, since WWII, there have been fifteen instances in which a Republican president nominated someone to the SCOTUS during a period when Democrats controlled the Senate. Twelve of the fifteen nominees--including Anthony Kennedy, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas-- were approved.

Since WWII, there has only been one instance in which a Democratic president nominated someone during a time when Republicans controlled the Senate. And we all know what happened.

Ummmm, little too late there, chief

Lol, yeah, "a handful of appointments" is so ****ing out of whack with reality

HIV doing his typical verbal diarrhea explosion all over the thread. Reminder that in previous incarnations of this diarrhea explosion, he argued in a manic all-night posting bender that it's Obama's fault Garland's seat wasn't filled because Obama could have just nominated a Federalist Society ghoul to get it filled if he wanted (nevermind McConnell & co. had already said, no hearings for any Obama nominee, period), and he literally did not understand that it wasn't normal for parties to hold vacancies open to be filled by the next president.

If you notice that this bears a lot in common with his stimulus arguments - it's all 100% Democrats' (and the White House's, I guess?) fault for not presenting a bill McConnell will agree to, no blame on McConnell whatsoever, while not understanding any of the underlying facts - you would be correct!

I actually support the Republican argument, somewhat. When it's close to an election, it should be up to the new POTUS. Garland was nominated, I think, 9 months before the election which is still within the general timeframe a POTUS can reasonably govern. I'd say within three to six months to an election, they become a lame duck POTUS and that type of decision should fall to the new POTUS. However, there is the issue of having a short-handed bench during an election.




Again, you just want to focus on SCOTUS judges, but Federal Judges are just as important. And the first part was the filibuster in general. The second part is who broke the norm of not filibustering judges...the Democrats.

Right, the Senate exercised it's consent power, and Obama could have appointed a judge the Senate would approve, which likely would be a conservative judge. Obviously Obama passed at that opportunity and put his faith in HC to win.

In my opinion, Garland was entitled to a proper Senate hearing.

Also, in my opinion, Barrett was also entitled to a proper Senate hearing.

Actually they didn't - it's "advice and consent" and that would involve holding hearings.

As we've been over, this is just an assertion you've invented because you're very low-information and refuse to ever read a ****ing book.

There should be a rule. If a nomination is made more than X number of days before an election, then the nominee must be put to a vote. And if a nomination cannot be made more than X days before the election, then the seat must remain open until after the election.

The rule that you're proposing is just trying to paper over a system that was poorly designed. The advice and consent rule was made with the assumption that seats would be filled in a consistent rhyme. With the hardened polarization the system breaks down, the result being that the judiciary positions remain empty until a party holds both the Senate and the Presidency and then they all get filled. The end result being a dysfunctional judiciary while seats are whittled down and caseloads get loaded onto the remainder, and then a violent swing in the judiciary when one party gets to appoint a ton of judges en mass. It defeats the supposed purpose of a judiciary (and the law in general) of being a reliable set of rules that changes slowly.