Pack the Courts?

[Elixir]

I disagree on overturning Citizens United.

I'm interested in why you would oppose overturning CU. You are usually often sometimes reasonable so this puzzles me.
What "good" outcome is realized by letting money rule over people? I mean, if you're into oligarchy or some kind of aristocracy, that would make sense.
Personally I'd like to see publicly funded elections with strict spending caps.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree on overturning Citizens United.

I'm interested in why you would oppose overturning CU. You are usually often sometimes reasonable so this puzzles me.
What "good" outcome is realized by letting money rule over people? I mean, if you're into oligarchy or some kind of aristocracy, that would make sense.
Personally I'd like to see publicly funded elections with strict spending caps.

The problem here is that you are looking at good vs bad rather than constitutional vs unconstitutional.

I agree that the Citizens United decision was bad for America but the court made the right choice anyway.

 

[Underseer]

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 think that the only way to convince Republican voters that they are wrong is to let them have everything and let them control every part of the government for the decade or two it will take for them to drive the entire nation into the gutter such that we can never return to our previous position of world prominence.

Yes, America will be much diminished by then, but we simply can't survive as a democracy if half of the population believes in nonsense and refuses to consider facts when making decisions in the voting booth.

We can't move forward until we convince them that they're wrong, and the only way we can do that is to let them drive America so deep into the ditch that we never make it back out of the ditch. Once we're all living in squalor and answering to a dictator, we can at least console ourselves that we served a useful service to the world by being an example to other nations of what not to do.

 

[Trausti]

The Democrats’ first mistake was to launch unprecedented filibusters against President George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, starting with his 2001 nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, having produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Estrada was a supremely qualified nominee who had the support of a clear majority in the Senate. His confirmation should have been easy.

But Democrats killed his nomination. Why? According to internal strategy memos obtained by the Wall Street Journal, they blocked Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” Democrats did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Instead, two years after his nomination, they made Estrada the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. It was an extraordinary breach of precedent.

Democrats have only themselves to blame for their judicial predicament

Karma is a bitch.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am still stunned that your judges are appointed in such political ways.

 

[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

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

The days of moderate appointments hastily receded when the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations was rescinded. It’s unclear more moderates will be appointed if the number of available seats on the Court is increased. Seems much more likely more conservative or liberal appointments will be selected to fill the additional seats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

I am still stunned that your judges are appointed in such political ways.

What do you mean?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

I am still stunned that your judges are appointed in such political ways.

What do you mean?

You may not know it, but in the civilised world, judicial appointments are merit based and almost completely apolitical.

Judges are typically appointed by their peers on the basis of qualifications and experience, perhaps with a veto power given to the elected executive - The PM or President can say 'go back and try again', but cannot tell the judiciary who they should appoint; only who they may not.

We also have independent and apolitical commissions to set electoral boundaries and to run elections. And merit based employment of petty officials. The election of such people on a public popularity basis as is common in the USA is considered by the civilised world to be either hilarious or catastrophic, depending on the individual observer's degree of shadenfreude.

The American obsession with democracy to the point of absurdity is not shared by civilised nations, who recognise that it actually diminishes freedom to have more elected positions than is necessary to represent the people.

 

[Elixir]

... the Citizens United decision was bad for America but the court made the right choice anyway.

I guess I was laboring under the delusion that SCOTUS' mandate was to make decisions that were good for the country. I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government. OTOH, perhaps that was the intent of the founders, since they were all rich white guys...

 

[James Madison]

... the Citizens United decision was bad for America but the court made the right choice anyway.

I guess I was laboring under the delusion that SCOTUS' mandate was to make decisions that were good for the country. I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government. OTOH, perhaps that was the intent of the founders, since they were all rich white guys...

What is the source for the mandate?

SCOTUS wasn’t conceived as a branch of philosopher kings, in which they institute by judicial decree their own judgments of what is “good for the country.”

The Constitution creates the judicial branch and the role of the judicial branch, as expressed in Article III, does not include a philosophical quest for the best outcome of the country.

Hence, while it may have been best for the country if Nazi Skinheads couldn’t march through a Jewish neighborhood, the Supreme Court rightly said their conduct was speech under the 1st Amendment. Skokie v Illinois.

It’s likely good for the country to prohibit advocacy for the overthrow of the government but the Court held in Brandenburg v Ohio the speech is protected under the 1st Amendment.

And the test of “good for the country” can be entirely subjective, more appropriate to be determined through the political process of democratically elected legislature. “Good for the country” isn’t how the text of the Constitution should be construed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Underseer]

... the Citizens United decision was bad for America but the court made the right choice anyway.

I guess I was laboring under the delusion that SCOTUS' mandate was to make decisions that were good for the country. I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government. OTOH, perhaps that was the intent of the founders, since they were all rich white guys...

Sure.

How can we establish a new aristocracy unless the economic elites can make unlimited bribes?

Never mind all the warnings the founding fathers made about banks, we must keep unlimited bribes legal because that reflects the intent of the founding fathers. Having escaped the outsized influence the wealthy had on the British government, their first order of business was to set up a new nation that could easily be ruled by very wealthy people. The founding fathers would have been the equivalent of our upper middle class, and they knew they were unfit to lead this new nation and that they had to pave the way for those who are wealthy enough to be worthy of rule.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... the Citizens United decision was bad for America but the court made the right choice anyway.

I guess I was laboring under the delusion that SCOTUS' mandate was to make decisions that were good for the country. I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government. OTOH, perhaps that was the intent of the founders, since they were all rich white guys...

What is the source for the mandate?

SCOTUS wasn’t conceived as a branch of philosopher kings, in which they institute by judicial decree their own judgments of what is “good for the country.”

The Constitution creates the judicial branch and the role of the judicial branch, as expressed in Article III, does not include a philosophical quest for the best outcome of the country.

Hence, while it may have been best for the country if Nazi Skinheads couldn’t march through a Jewish neighborhood, the Supreme Court rightly said their conduct was speech under the 1st Amendment. Skokie v Illinois.

It’s likely good for the country to prohibit advocacy for the overthrow of the government but the Court held in Brandenburg v Ohio the speech is protected under the 1st Amendment.

And the test of “good for the country” can be entirely subjective, more appropriate to be determined through the political process of democratically elected legislature. “Good for the country” isn’t how the text of the Constitution should be construed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Good for the country" is to follow the Constitution and have separate branches of government but also to implement "of, for, and by the people," which money doesn't do since each person ought not be represented in government according to how many dollars they have. Though an individual has money and can express their desires or speech with money--it's true--that weight of money is not equivalent to speech or political argument. Representation of positions by dollars is undemocratic. If MLK Jr said to judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then, well, I'd say also that democratic society is intended to have political positions decided upon by the content of the positions not how much it is dressed up in money. To add--in Ancient Greece, if you took the floor in political speech but were bribed by money, they'd run you out of town and that is the system the founders deliberately inherited. Finally, your fixation on the phrase "good for the country" is out of place since following the founders' thoughts on the matter is good for the country and they did have a problem with "monied interests," just as Elixir points out: "...I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government..." Jefferson is quoted much on money in politics, for example: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." And Madison himself wrote "The growing wealth aquired by them [corporations] never fails to be a source of abuses." Now while the idea of moneyed corporations may not be quite the same as Citizens United, the actual idea of unlimited money in politics through secret super PACs etc actually maps to the same persons using the same UNDUE influence on the government through the same money. But you left that out. Perhaps, at this time you ought to change your username from James Madison to Citizens United or maybe Scalia. That would be more fitting of your positions.

 

[James Madison]

What is the source for the mandate?

SCOTUS wasn’t conceived as a branch of philosopher kings, in which they institute by judicial decree their own judgments of what is “good for the country.”

The Constitution creates the judicial branch and the role of the judicial branch, as expressed in Article III, does not include a philosophical quest for the best outcome of the country.

Hence, while it may have been best for the country if Nazi Skinheads couldn’t march through a Jewish neighborhood, the Supreme Court rightly said their conduct was speech under the 1st Amendment. Skokie v Illinois.

It’s likely good for the country to prohibit advocacy for the overthrow of the government but the Court held in Brandenburg v Ohio the speech is protected under the 1st Amendment.

And the test of “good for the country” can be entirely subjective, more appropriate to be determined through the political process of democratically elected legislature. “Good for the country” isn’t how the text of the Constitution should be construed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Good for the country" is to follow the Constitution and have separate branches of government but also to implement "of, for, and by the people," which money doesn't do since each person ought not be represented in government according to how many dollars they have. Though an individual has money and can express their desires or speech with money--it's true--that weight of money is not equivalent to speech or political argument. Representation of positions by dollars is undemocratic. If MLK Jr said to judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then, well, I'd say also that democratic society is intended to have political positions decided upon by the content of the positions not how much it is dressed up in money. To add--in Ancient Greece, if you took the floor in political speech but were bribed by money, they'd run you out of town and that is the system the founders deliberately inherited. Finally, your fixation on the phrase "good for the country" is out of place since following the founders' thoughts on the matter is good for the country and they did have a problem with "monied interests," just as Elixir points out: "...I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government..." Jefferson is quoted much on money in politics, for example: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." And Madison himself wrote "The growing wealth aquired by them [corporations] never fails to be a source of abuses." Now while the idea of moneyed corporations may not be quite the same as Citizens United, the actual idea of unlimited money in politics through secret super PACs etc actually maps to the same persons using the same UNDUE influence on the government through the same money. But you left that out. Perhaps, at this time you ought to change your username from James Madison to Citizens United or maybe Scalia. That would be more fitting of your positions.

Thanks for the irrelevant word vomit. And I’ll change my name to your suggestion as soon as you change your name to irrelevant word vomit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What is the source for the mandate?

SCOTUS wasn’t conceived as a branch of philosopher kings, in which they institute by judicial decree their own judgments of what is “good for the country.”

The Constitution creates the judicial branch and the role of the judicial branch, as expressed in Article III, does not include a philosophical quest for the best outcome of the country.

Hence, while it may have been best for the country if Nazi Skinheads couldn’t march through a Jewish neighborhood, the Supreme Court rightly said their conduct was speech under the 1st Amendment. Skokie v Illinois.

It’s likely good for the country to prohibit advocacy for the overthrow of the government but the Court held in Brandenburg v Ohio the speech is protected under the 1st Amendment.

And the test of “good for the country” can be entirely subjective, more appropriate to be determined through the political process of democratically elected legislature. “Good for the country” isn’t how the text of the Constitution should be construed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Good for the country" is to follow the Constitution and have separate branches of government but also to implement "of, for, and by the people," which money doesn't do since each person ought not be represented in government according to how many dollars they have. Though an individual has money and can express their desires or speech with money--it's true--that weight of money is not equivalent to speech or political argument. Representation of positions by dollars is undemocratic. If MLK Jr said to judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then, well, I'd say also that democratic society is intended to have political positions decided upon by the content of the positions not how much it is dressed up in money. To add--in Ancient Greece, if you took the floor in political speech but were bribed by money, they'd run you out of town and that is the system the founders deliberately inherited. Finally, your fixation on the phrase "good for the country" is out of place since following the founders' thoughts on the matter is good for the country and they did have a problem with "monied interests," just as Elixir points out: "...I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government..." Jefferson is quoted much on money in politics, for example: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." And Madison himself wrote "The growing wealth aquired by them [corporations] never fails to be a source of abuses." Now while the idea of moneyed corporations may not be quite the same as Citizens United, the actual idea of unlimited money in politics through secret super PACs etc actually maps to the same persons using the same UNDUE influence on the government through the same money. But you left that out. Perhaps, at this time you ought to change your username from James Madison to Citizens United or maybe Scalia. That would be more fitting of your positions.

Thanks for the irrelevant word vomit. And I’ll change my name to your suggestion as soon as you change your name to irrelevant word vomit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was actually your post that was "irrelevant word vomit." Nowhere did you address Elixir's sentence "I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government."

 

[James Madison]

Thanks for the irrelevant word vomit. And I’ll change my name to your suggestion as soon as you change your name to irrelevant word vomit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was actually your post that was "irrelevant word vomit." Nowhere did you address Elixir's sentence "I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government."

A few points.

First, I did address Elixir’s point. You missed it.

So, I’ll paraphrase for my point to Elixir you. If that fails, I’ll try coloring in my next post, and if that fails, I’ll try to be creative and make a post with pop-ups.

My reply to Elixir is when SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, such as the free speech clause, the “good of the country” rule isn’t the best or proper approach. Hence, my use of prior free speech cases in which, arguably, what would’ve been “good for the country” is a ruling prohibiting the speech. But the Court, correctly, ruled the speech was protected.

Similarly, in determining whether Citizens United v Clinton was properly decided under the free speech clause, the “good of the country” test shouldn’t be the guiding beacon of light. Such a beacon would leave speech in a very precarious and vulnerable position, just as it would have resulted in censorship in those two cases I cited. When interpreting the Bill of Rights, and the rights of the people, the “good of the country” shouldn’t and isn’t the standard.

Indeed, the Bill of Rights exist as a check on the “good of the country,” as the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the minority from a majority, and from infringement on the basis of what’s best for the country.

You replied with some BS about ancient Greece, we aren’t ancient Greece, bribes, we aren’t discussing bribery, and quotes from Madison and Jefferson.

Madison and Jefferson vociferously argued the free speech clause exists to protect political speech and political speech is indispensable in a republic and democracy. See Virginia and Kentucky Compact Resolutions. Giving money to a candidate, candidates, or political parties, is political speech, which Madison and Jefferson both argued political speech was vital.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You took Elixir out of context and failed to address the crux of the post. Elixir did not argue for judicial activists but instead that calling money speech to the extent of what has happened in this country is extra-constitutional, i.e. where does it say it in the Constitution was the point. Therefore, that makes those fellows in the high court the judicial activists doing what they think is "good for the country," not Elixir's viewpoint at all. Do continue with taking out of context and failing to address the salient point though.

 

[James Madison]

You took Elixir out of context and failed to address the crux of the post. Elixir did not argue for judicial activists but instead that calling money speech to the extent of what has happened in this country is extra-constitutional, i.e. where does it say it in the Constitution was the point. Therefore, that makes those fellows in the high court the judicial activists doing what they think is "good for the country," not Elixir's viewpoint at all. Do continue with taking out of context and failing to address the salient point though.

I didn’t say anything about “judicial activists.” Thanks again for this irrelevant word vomit.

I addressed his view of justices deciding free speech issues from the perspective of “good of the country.” A “crux of his post” was justices deciding the free speech issues on the basis of what’s “good for the country,” and I addressed this point. He’s inferring Citizens United speech issues should’ve been resolved on the basis of what’s good for the country. It’s not a good idea.

The “good of the country” principle is an unwise approach to interpreting the free speech clause and doesn’t properly inform as to whether some conduct or message is speech. I explained why in prior posts. So, I addressed a point he had made.

You missed it. Shocker!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn’t say anything about “judicial activists.”

I did not write you wrote the exact words "judicial activists" but the meaning is clear that is what you were talking about. Right here:

SCOTUS wasn’t conceived as a branch of philosopher kings, in which they institute by judicial decree their own judgments of what is “good for the country.”

What is good for the country is to follow the Constitution--one is a subset of the other and so when one acts like a judicial activist by pretending money is speech where it does not say that in the Constitution, one violates the good of the country by virtue of being unconstitutional. Please do keep failing to address the point though.

 

[James Madison]

I didn’t say anything about “judicial activists.”

I did not write you wrote the exact words "judicial activists" but the meaning is clear that is what you were talking about. Right here:

SCOTUS wasn’t conceived as a branch of philosopher kings, in which they institute by judicial decree their own judgments of what is “good for the country.”

What is good for the country is to follow the Constitution--one is a subset of the other and so when one acts like a judicial activists by pretending money is speech where it does not say that in the Constitution, one violates the good of the country by virtue of being unconstitutional. Please do keep failing to address the point though.

I’m not discussing whether someone is a judicial activist, espousing a view of judicial activism, or some view is judicial activism. Thanks for the Strawman.

Second, the Court never said money was speech. The fact you insist I address your stupid idea that the Court said money is speech is ridiculous.

Third, the free speech clause doesn’t have an enumerated list of what is or isn’t speech, so dispense your untenable proposition it is not in the free speech clause therefore it’s not speech in the Constitution. Pornography, pole dancing, and speech advocating to blow up the government isn’t mentioned in the Constitution but this doesn’t mean they aren’t speech under the free speech clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elixir]

... the Citizens United decision was bad for America but the court made the right choice anyway.

I guess I was laboring under the delusion that SCOTUS' mandate was to make decisions that were good for the country. I don't know where the constitution dictates that money should control the government. OTOH, perhaps that was the intent of the founders, since they were all rich white guys...

What is the source for the mandate?

I think it is constitutional, and even pre-constitutional. The Founders wrote the Constitution for the good of the country's citizens, at least nominally. Some shit about forming a more perfect union or something ... you might be able to look it up.

SCOTUS wasn’t conceived as a branch of philosopher kings, in which they institute by judicial decree their own judgments of what is “good for the country.”

Bullshit. Scotus was conceived as the final interpreters of both the letter and the intent of the Constitution. To the extent that the Constitution was intended to benefit the citizenry, "the good of the country" is their mandate. All your literalist bullshit sounds more like pedantic trolling than enlightened information. SCOTUS was never intended to produce robotic recitations of the Founders' Holy Writ. A precocious four year old could fulfill THAT function.

The test of “good for the country” can be entirely subjective

No shit, sherlock. It always was and always will be. That's why the Founders, with good of the country in mind, had the foresight to provide a Supreme Court that could interpret their original writ in ways that benefit the country as it is, rather than as it was in 1776. Even in their day, there were pedants.