TBBills Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Big Blitz said: I can't respond to someone that doesn't know what "court packing" is. You shouldn't respond to anything so this is good.
Doc Brown Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 3 hours ago, WideNine said: The rest of this rant is kind of hard to follow, but I think you are saying Trump is a good President because he had a rubber-stamp Senate and could pack the Supreme Court as soon as there was vacancies? That's certainly nothing any old criminal serving as President could do, that took phenomenal leadership. Packing the court is adding judges to a judicial body like the Supreme Court. Trump didn't do that as are still nine Supreme Court Justices. He simply filled in the vacancies.
snafu Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 Back to the thread subject... Yes Biden is a lame duck. Harris will likely run in 2024. The House’s super slim margin will paralyze Pelosi until 2022 at best. So that’s a check on Biden The Court is 5-3-1 (Roberts) so that’s also a check against him. Senate remains to be seen. Let’s see how many anti-Trump voters show up in January once everyone knows Trump isn’t coming back. The only thing he’s going to accomplish is not acting like Trump, which is to say very little. Everyone likes to to focus on domestic policy but the real problem is going to come from China (trade, technology, Taiwan, South China Sea, East China Sea, NKorea, India). What, if anything, Biden does to contain China’s attempts at expansion will be a big deal. I hear a lot about how the US needs to re-set it’s pimary position internationally. China will test that.
T master Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 (edited) On 11/23/2020 at 1:08 PM, Tiberius said: 78 years old. Will he run again? I don't believe he will he will be to old and know he's to soft ! Just a relic of the swamp in D.C. which they like to keep around should have retired years ago ... How i pray for term limits !! But to answer you question . Yes !!! Edited November 25, 2020 by T master 1
WideNine Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 11 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Packing the court is adding judges to a judicial body like the Supreme Court. Trump didn't do that as are still nine Supreme Court Justices. He simply filled in the vacancies. A argument of semantics. Rosevelt bypassed established norms and sought to obtain a majority amount of judges on the Supreme Court for his New Deal that kept getting struck down by adding seats to the existing court that did not have vacancies. This was referred to as "stacking" and later "packing" the court (to obtain a policy-backing majority). GOP leadership and Trump bypassed the very norms McConnel leveraged to justify the GOP Senate blocking Obama nominations for empty seats (proximity to presidential elections) to fast-track their nomination into vacancies to obtain a super majority just weeks prior to the election. Roberts a conservative was proving to be a less predictable moderate swing vote prior. Regardless of the exact mechanism they both bypass established norms to fill Supreme Court seats to obtain a majority to further party policy. Either way lauding that as a major Presidential accomplishment when the party has control of the Senate was the fallacy I was pointing out. It was nothing any other President couldn't do with empty seats and a willing Senate. 1
Doc Brown Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, WideNine said: A argument of semantics. Rosevelt bypassed established norms and sought to obtain a majority amount of judges on the Supreme Court for his New Deal that kept getting struck down by adding seats to the existing court that did not have vacancies. This was referred to as "stacking" and later "packing" the court (to obtain a policy-backing majority). GOP leadership and Trump bypassed the very norms McConnel leveraged to justify the GOP Senate blocking Obama nominations for empty seats (proximity to presidential elections) to fast-track their nomination into vacancies to obtain a super majority just weeks prior to the election. Roberts a conservative was proving to be a less predictable moderate swing vote prior. Regardless of the exact mechanism they both bypass established norms to fill Supreme Court seats to obtain a majority to further party policy. Either way lauding that as a major Presidential accomplishment when the party has control of the Senate was the fallacy I was pointing out. It was nothing any other President couldn't do with empty seats and a willing Senate. That hypocrisy is why I have no sympathy for Republicans if Dems ever do decide to pack the Supreme Court. 1
Doc Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 14 minutes ago, WideNine said: A argument of semantics. Rosevelt bypassed established norms and sought to obtain a majority amount of judges on the Supreme Court for his New Deal that kept getting struck down by adding seats to the existing court that did not have vacancies. This was referred to as "stacking" and later "packing" the court (to obtain a policy-backing majority). GOP leadership and Trump bypassed the very norms McConnel leveraged to justify the GOP Senate blocking Obama nominations for empty seats (proximity to presidential elections) to fast-track their nomination into vacancies to obtain a super majority just weeks prior to the election. Roberts a conservative was proving to be a less predictable moderate swing vote prior. Regardless of the exact mechanism they both bypass established norms to fill Supreme Court seats to obtain a majority to further party policy. Either way lauding that as a major Presidential accomplishment when the party has control of the Senate was the fallacy I was pointing out. It was nothing any other President couldn't do with empty seats and a willing Senate. Yup. Just like Obama and Reid back in 2013.
WideNine Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Doc said: Yup. Just like Obama and Reid back in 2013. True, and I would not ascribe any greatness to that feat.
WideNine Posted November 25, 2020 Posted November 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: That hypocrisy is why I have no sympathy for Republicans if Dems ever do decide to pack the Supreme Court. Hate to see it, but agree with you. This is why partisan politics seems to be a pendulum that swings more and more to polar extremes. The oneupmanship each party takes to undermine the other keeps moving the established lines of precedent and norms further away from any middle ground. 1
Doc Brown Posted November 26, 2020 Posted November 26, 2020 2 hours ago, WideNine said: Hate to see it, but agree with you. This is why partisan politics seems to be a pendulum that swings more and more to polar extremes. The oneupmanship each party takes to undermine the other keeps moving the established lines of precedent and norms further away from any middle ground. The best SCOTUS proposal I've heard is 18 year term limits with a new nominee every two years starting in 2023. Thomas would retire in 2023, Breyer in 2025, etc... 3
WideNine Posted November 26, 2020 Posted November 26, 2020 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: The best SCOTUS proposal I've heard is 18 year term limits with a new nominee every two years starting in 2023. Thomas would retire in 2023, Breyer in 2025, etc... I honestly have to think about that a bit... I do like the stability of longer terms, but life terms does seem excessive. Really feel our House and Senate needs shorter terms and caps on successive terms if folks really want to drain the swamp of DC institutional swamp creatures. States tried to enact this individually, but in 95 the Supreme Court ruled such limits unconstitutional leaving a constitutional ammendment the only avenue open to citizens who widely support it. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, writing for the five member majority, affirmed the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court and held that: 1) The power granted to each House of Congress to judge the ``Qualifications of its own Members,'' art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 1, does not include the power to alter or add to the qualifications set forth in the Constitution's text; 2) the 10th amendment to the Constitution does not authorize States to add to the qualifications listed in the Constitution; 3) denying access to the ballot does not constitute a permissible exercise of State power under the elections clause of art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1, to regulate the ``Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections;'' and 4) term limits for congressional service ``must come through a constitutional amendment properly passed under the procedures set forth in Article V.'' The dissent, written by Justice Thomas and joined by Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia, argued that nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State the power to proscribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is silent on this issue, and where it is silent, the 10th amendment reserves the power to the States or to the people. The Court's unequivocal finding that term limits may only be imposed through a constitutional amendment effectively renders unconstitutional the statutes of the 23 States that passed congressional term limits. The only avenue left by the Court is for term limit supporters to pursue passage of a constitutional amendment... Edited November 26, 2020 by WideNine 2
Doc Brown Posted November 26, 2020 Posted November 26, 2020 1 hour ago, WideNine said: I honestly have to think about that a bit... I do like the stability of longer terms, but life terms does seem excessive. Really feel our House and Senate needs shorter terms and caps on successive terms if folks really want to drain the swamp of DC institutional swamp creatures. I'm in the minority on that but if you implemented congressional term limits it would actually add to the swamp. Lobbying firms would be eager to gulp up effective lawmakers whose term is about to end. If somebody is good at their job it seems counterproductive to put a cap on the number of years they can serve. Unlike Supreme Court Justices you can always vote them out of office either through a primary or a general election.
WideNine Posted November 26, 2020 Posted November 26, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I'm in the minority on that but if you implemented congressional term limits it would actually add to the swamp. Lobbying firms would be eager to gulp up effective lawmakers whose term is about to end. If somebody is good at their job it seems counterproductive to put a cap on the number of years they can serve. Unlike Supreme Court Justices you can always vote them out of office either through a primary or a general election. We can agree to disagree. I find in practice it is more an established norm that the incumbent for the major two parties defends their seat and is not removed from the ballot via primaries. McConnell - Elected to the Senate in 1984. Has never left. Pelosi - Elected to the House in 1987. Pelosi has been reelected 16 times with no real opposition, much like McConnell. If these two do not merit consideration for the idea of draining Washington of its partisan swamp I am not sure who does. And yes, I agree that there are lucrative careers after politics so no worries they will not be able to support themselves Edited November 26, 2020 by WideNine 1 1
TBBills Posted November 26, 2020 Posted November 26, 2020 (edited) I am done with politicians over the age of 70+ they are outdated in the way they do things and it hurts this country. The old ways of doing things are dead, the slow ways of doing things are dead. We need to get younger b.c these elderly only care about an ego they can take to the grave. Edited November 26, 2020 by TBBills 1
RiotAct Posted November 29, 2020 Posted November 29, 2020 On 11/25/2020 at 9:05 AM, snafu said: Back to the thread subject... Yes Biden is a lame duck. Harris will likely run in 2024. The House’s super slim margin will paralyze Pelosi until 2022 at best. So that’s a check on Biden The Court is 5-3-1 (Roberts) so that’s also a check against him. Senate remains to be seen. Let’s see how many anti-Trump voters show up in January once everyone knows Trump isn’t coming back. The only thing he’s going to accomplish is not acting like Trump, which is to say very little. That’s the Democrats’ entire platform, sadly. “I’m not that guy over there, vote for me!!!” Oh, and ignoring science and logic with regards to the mass lockdowns.
Doc Posted November 29, 2020 Posted November 29, 2020 28 minutes ago, RiotAct said: That’s the Democrats’ entire platform, sadly. “I’m not that guy over there, vote for me!!!” Oh, and ignoring science and logic with regards to the mass lockdowns. And then holding their own super-spreader events to celebrate Senile Joe's election. 1
Tiberius Posted March 29, 2021 Author Posted March 29, 2021 He said he is running again in 2024 at his press conference 1
Doc Posted March 29, 2021 Posted March 29, 2021 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: He said he is running again in 2024 at his press conference And you believe him? 1
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 29, 2021 Posted March 29, 2021 On 11/26/2020 at 8:54 AM, TBBills said: I am done with politicians over the age of 70+ they are outdated in the way they do things and it hurts this country. The old ways of doing things are dead, the slow ways of doing things are dead. We need to get younger b.c these elderly only care about an ego they can take to the grave. Clinton and W are younger than Biden. It’s crazy to think about how long ago they served their terms and how much they’ve declined. There should be a maximum just like there is a minimum. 65 at time of election seems like a good place to start.
Wacka Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 Didn't want to slog through 5 pages so sorry if already posted. Change the thread title to Biden is Lame.
Recommended Posts