Pack the Courts?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Some of the stuff Trump has either done or his people have said he can do..... are really out there and my first reaction often hasn't been that Trump is horrible for doing it (that's expected), so much as being shocked it is legal to do it. I mean things like firing the investigator who is investigating you, pardoning yourself for crimes, not considering a superme court justice and just stonewalling, etc. Why are Democrats not proposing actual laws to stop such things and using any Republican resistance to such laws as political talking points for elections? Make the Democrats into the anti-corruption party. It would go a long way towards making them win.

 

[Trausti]

Some of the stuff Trump has either done or his people have said he can do..... are really out there and my first reaction often hasn't been that Trump is horrible for doing it (that's expected), so much as being shocked it is legal to do it. I mean things like firing the investigator who is investigating you

He hasn't done that.

pardoning yourself for crimes

He hasn't done that, either.

not considering a superme court justice and just stonewalling, etc.

Well, that's the Biden Rule.

Make the Democrats into the anti-corruption party.

Hah!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

He hasn't done that.

He fired Comey explicitly for that reason, so he said himself.

He hasn't done that, either.

Juliani said he could pardon himself and was immune from the law while president. I was surprised that didn't trigger Democrats to make laws against such, even though Trump hasn't actually done it... yet.

Make the Democrats into the anti-corruption party.

Hah!

Hah indeed. That's the Democrats' problem. They need to be able to do this plausibly and the corprorate democrat model makes that impossible.

Unilaterally imposing Tariffs for fake national security reasons is another thing Democrats squak about but don't seem to be rushing to make harder for future presidents to do.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I was surprised that didn't trigger Democrats to make laws against such, even though Trump hasn't actually done it... yet.

Why blame the Democrats? They cannot make a law to get it passed by a Republican Congress and President or even get cloture in the Senate with their low count of Senators, but moreover, the whole idea is already unconstitutional, no new law is needed BECAUSE such violation of law would lead to impeachment hearings and a President is not immune from impeachment, i.e. cannot pardon himself from impeachment. But impeachment wouldn't happen either because of Republicans. Basically, Republicans control the vertical. They control the horizontal. And, for now, Trump controls them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I was surprised that didn't trigger Democrats to make laws against such, even though Trump hasn't actually done it... yet.

Why blame the Democrats?

Because they are failing to capitalize on a golden political opportunity. Propose laws curbing these things, see the Republicans oppose such laws, and hold that up against them at the next election showing their corruption.

They cannot make a law to get it passed by a Republican Congress and President or even get cloture in the Senate with their low count of Senators, but moreover, the whole idea is already unconstitutional, no new law is needed BECAUSE such violation of law would lead to impeachment hearings and a President is not immune from impeachment, i.e. cannot pardon himself from impeachment. But impeachment wouldn't happen either because of Republicans. Basically, Republicans control the vertical. They control the horizontal. And, for now, Trump controls them.

There is another thing the Democrats should be seeking to change. Partisanship should not enable a President to commit criminal acts without being impeached and arrested.

 

[dismal]

This thread is a great example of why our Democracy is more at risk from Democrats suffering Trump derangement than Trump.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Partisanship should not enable a President to commit criminal acts without being impeached and arrested.

Of course it shouldn't, but Republicans partisanly defend him. In order to impeach, they need numbers in the House which they sorely, sorely, sorely lack. We also probably need more info from Mueller and more specifics once that case is done to make a concrete case for obstruction.

 

[laughing dog]

This thread is a great example of why our Democracy is more at risk from Democrats shithead Trumpsuckers suffering Trump derangement than Trump.

FIFY

 

[Copernicus]

I think that our Supreme Court should have more justices than nine. It would likely make it harder for the kind of partisan voting blocks to develop that have so politicized the Roberts Court.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Partisanship should not enable a President to commit criminal acts without being impeached and arrested.

Of course it shouldn't, but Republicans partisanly defend him. In order to impeach, they need numbers in the House which they sorely, sorely, sorely lack.

So change that, and not only the numbers in the house, but the fact that you need them to indict on a criminal act of your leader. I am not saying Trump has done anything criminal. That remains to be seen. But if he has, why should you need the majority of the house to take him down for it? You don't need the majority of the house to take down other criminals. Instead of changing this, the Democrats only focus on the numbers, so they too could have a criminal president and house protecting him/her. It isn't an anti-corruption position.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should presidents even be who nominate Supreme Court Justices? If a president doesn't nominate somebody then they can't become a Supreme Court Justice?

Seriously, your president has so many powers that border on being a King.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Partisanship should not enable a President to commit criminal acts without being impeached and arrested.

Of course it shouldn't, but Republicans partisanly defend him. In order to impeach, they need numbers in the House which they sorely, sorely, sorely lack.

So change that, and not only the numbers in the house, but the fact that you need them to indict on a criminal act of your leader. I am not saying Trump has done anything criminal. That remains to be seen. But if he has, why should you need the majority of the house to take him down for it? You don't need the majority of the house to take down other criminals. Instead of changing this, the Democrats only focus on the numbers, so they too could have a criminal president and house protecting him/her. It isn't an anti-corruption position.

I do not have a magic wand. I can only respond to your allegations that this is somehow on Democrats which realistically it isn't. They do not have the majority of the House to impeach. It's a fact. Look up the numbers of partisan membership in the House. Again, I cannot change that and you asked about something in the past like 'why haven't the democrats just done this?' I am explaining to you why it is logically impossible. Republicans will not impeach the President. Blame them, not Democrats. Stop trying to place yourself in the middle of something when one side is wrong. You can't blame the wrong side for fascism. It's the fascists. Use logic. Please.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why should presidents even be who nominate Supreme Court Justices? If a president doesn't nominate somebody then they can't become a Supreme Court Justice?

Seriously, your president has so many powers that border on being a King.

You are 100% right. And when one party is the President, majority of Congress and highest Court, we have One Party Rule and given how autocratic Trump is, he's the head of the Party. We now have a virtual budding dictatorship.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why should presidents even be who nominate Supreme Court Justices? If a president doesn't nominate somebody then they can't become a Supreme Court Justice?

Seriously, your president has so many powers that border on being a King.

A large part of our government is basically a fanfiction version of the king they rebelled from. A king, but with certain reins on his power, and at least nominally responsible to the people. The king we SHOULD have had...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I do not have a magic wand. I can only respond to your allegations that this is somehow on Democrats which realistically it isn't.

I didn't say this itself is the Democrats fault. I said the Democrats are failing to push to change it, and failing to seize a political opportunity and shape their party as anti-corruption to contrast against the Republicans. That is the Democrats' fault and they will lose more elections for it, until they return to Hope, Change, and Anti-Corruption.

Again, I cannot change that and you asked about something in the past like 'why haven't the democrats just done this?' I am explaining to you why it is logically impossible.

It is entirely possible. They need to start by pushing for it despite not having the numbers to get such through. That will win them the numbers, and then they can get it through. If they instead go low as the OP advises, they will lose in a race to the bottom, rather than win in a race to the top.

Republicans will not impeach the President. Blame them, not Democrats.

I do blame the Republicans. Its why I've never endorsed voting Republican. But that doesn't mean I can't blame the current Democrats for failing to counter them. I can blame the fire department for failing to do their job well without calling them the fire or the arsonists.

Stop trying to place yourself in the middle of something when one side is wrong.

Both "sides" are wrong, and this OP seeks to make them more wrong.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should presidents even be who nominate Supreme Court Justices? If a president doesn't nominate somebody then they can't become a Supreme Court Justice?

Seriously, your president has so many powers that border on being a King.

A large part of our government is basically a fanfiction version of the king they rebelled from. A king, but with certain reins on his power, and at least nominally responsible to the people. The king we SHOULD have had...

Yes, I see that. And I think post-Trump there is a golden political opportunity to change that, be it from the left or from the right. Regardless of liberal/conservative politics, I think a candidate who advocates changing the system for better democracy could have a winning platform. There is a lot that should change. It is possible to make it happen. Yes, You Can. And a push to get money out of politics can go right along with that. The problem is that whoever does it, is making the case to restrict their own power as president and most politicians are power-hungry.

 

[James Madison]

I think that our Supreme Court should have more justices than nine. It would likely make it harder for the kind of partisan voting blocks to develop that have so politicized the Roberts Court.

I doubt it. The result is likely partisan voting blocks with a few additional swing vote justices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Copernicus]

I think that our Supreme Court should have more justices than nine. It would likely make it harder for the kind of partisan voting blocks to develop that have so politicized the Roberts Court.

I doubt it. The result is likely partisan voting blocks with a few additional swing vote justices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My thought is that more justices will build a larger cushion of moderates in the middle, requiring ideologues to have a more uphill battle.

 

[laughing dog]

I think that our Supreme Court should have more justices than nine. It would likely make it harder for the kind of partisan voting blocks to develop that have so politicized the Roberts Court.

I doubt it. The result is likely partisan voting blocks with a few additional swing vote justices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My thought is that more justices will build a larger cushion of moderates in the middle, requiring ideologues to have a more uphill battle.

Given the current climate and supply of ideologues, I'd estimate a SCOTUS of 35 + to make your plan viable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The republicans have an incredible knack for securing incredible power despise being a minority party. They control every single branch of the US government (Presidency, senate, house, supreme court, most state legislatures, most state houses, most state governships). But there are far fewer republicans than democrats. Democrats always try to play fair and nice. Republicans are vicious and cunning. The republicans stole the currently vacant supreme court seat. If Merrick Garland had been seated during Obama's term, The SC would have been mostly right of center, but left of right wing. But the republicans stole the pick. Obama's worst decision was to not recess appoint Merrick. The republicans would have for sure. If the dems don't start to play dirty, we're going to lose our country for generations.

Here's an idea, if the dems win in 2020 (huge assumption on my part), I think the dems should pack the court. If the dems control the presidency and the senate after 2020, let's nominate a 10th SC justice. If we continue to play nice, we're not going to have another chance of nominating a justice for a generation. All the republicans are young, conservative, and right wing activist. Adding a 10th juror will block some of their agenda.

What say you?

I say that's exactly what I've been thinking. The fastest way out of the abyss into which Trump is sending us, would be for the Dems to take over Congress at the midterms, then appoint not only a 10th but also an 11th SCOTUS justice, giving them a majority. Then overturn Citizens United and un-do everything Cheato has done. Maybe impeach some his incompetent appointees...

But it all depends on record turnout in November. The Trussian cabal will be hard at work suppressing the vote and spreading lies about every single Dem candidate, so it's a tall order.

I disagree on overturning Citizens United. The court made the right decision in that case.

The problem is people were trying to use the courts to do the legislature's job.