Ginsberg dies

[Alastor]

Just let the Republicans have the nomination. Hell let them vote the justice in. Democrats just need to use the real nuclear option assuming they win the Senate and Biden wins.

You mean expand the court? You really think going nuclear is a good idea? For me it's not a path that responsible politicians should follow. What happens if next time they lose big and the republicans do the same? A nuclear tit for tat is not good news for the US political system.

[Lord Thesaurian]

We’ve been down this road before and it will get worse before it gets better.

[Heathen Hammer]

You mean the last elections in 2018 where Democrats took the House from the Republicans? Cause it certainly worked out well for the Democrats.

Dems just need to grow a pair and pack the court.

Opposition party usually gets the House in midterm elections. We are talking about presidential elections. I don't really see Biden winning presidential elections, so Democrats "packing the court" is nothing but delusional a fantasy. I hope Trump appoints a free speech /gun rights hardliner.

[Vanoi]

You mean expand the court? You really think going nuclear is a good idea? For me it's not a path that responsible politicians should follow. What happens if next time they lose big and the republicans do the same? A nuclear tit for tat is not good news for the US political system.

The number of justices on the Supreme Court has changed throughout history. This is nothing new. Republicans don't play fair or nice so why should the Democrats?

And the US political system? I don't care one bit for it like most Americans don't.

Opposition party usually gets the House in midterm elections.We are talking about presidential elections. I don't really see Biden winning presidential elections, so Democrats "packing the court" is nothing but delusional a fantasy. I hope Trump appoints a free speech /gun rights hardliner.

I see Biden definitely being able to win and the Democrats are most likely take the Senate so definitely not impossible.

[Alastor]

The number of justices on the Supreme Court has changed throughout history. This is nothing new. Republicans don't play fair or nice so why should the Democrats?

And the US political system? I don't care one bit for it like most Americans don't.

The last time the size of the court was altered was 150 years ago. FDR tried to alter it but failed. So yes if they do go ahead with that plan, it will be quite new.

I don't understand what you mean you don't care, or that most Americans also don't care. What do they care for when it comes to politics then? Just one-upping one another?

[Vanoi]

The last time the size of the court was altered was 150 years ago. FDR tried to alter it but failed. So yes if they do go ahead with that plan, it will be quite new.

New in the fact it hasn't happened in a while. Its still happened before multiple times.

I don't understand what you mean you don't care, or that most Americans also don't care. What do they care for when it comes to politics then? Just one-upping one another?

You are the one who brought up the US political system. A system thats been horribly broken for a while. Its why the US is stuck with just two parties to choose from. Its why Congress is in constant deadlock over getting anything done.

I wanna rock the boat. Perfect way to do it is to pack the courts.

[Heathen Hammer]

I see Biden definitely being able to win and the Democrats are most likely take the Senate so definitely not impossible.

I guess you can calm yourself with that fantasy until November, after reality happens and Trump is re-elected you can go back to talking about how Putin stole the election from your dear senile leader.
But seriously, Democrats aren't stacking the court anytime soon, and it is their own fault. Shouldn't have removed the majority requirement when Obama was there.

[Alastor]

You are the one who brought up the US political system. A system thats been horribly broken for a while. Its why the US is stuck with just two parties to choose from. Its why Congress is in constant deadlock over getting anything done.

I wanna rock the boat. Perfect way to do it is to pack the courts.

I brought it up because its stability will be affected by such a move. Something you also acknowledge. But it is not an answer to my bewilderment with your indifference. It's not that I don't believe the system is malfunctioning, it is. I'm just not sure if trying to destabilize it further is the way to fix it. Afterall, it is the same mentality that put Trump in the White house. I remember hearing people saying "that will show'em".

[Vanoi]

I guess you can calm yourself with that fantasy until November, after reality happens and Trump is re-elected you can go back to talking about how Putin stole the election from your dear senile leader.
But seriously, Democrats aren't stacking the court anytime soon, and it is their own fault. Shouldn't have removed the majority requirement when Obama was there.

Whatever helps you sleep HH. Trump calling dead soldiers losers and admitting he downplayed a virus that has killed almost 200,000 people isn't going to help him election time. But hey i am sure you think he's gonna win just like the Dems were oh so sure Hillary would win in 2016.

I brought it up because its stability will be affected by such a move. Something you also acknowledge.

I actually said the system was broken which means its not stable by definition.

But it is not an answer to my bewilderment with your indifference. It's not that I don't believe the system is malfunctioning, it is. I'm just not sure if trying to destabilize it further is the way to fix it. Afterall, it is the same mentality that put Trump in the White house. I remember hearing people saying "that will show'em".

Either the system reforms or it fails. This is America, change won't occur until it is absolutely and utterly necessary to do so. Usually to prevent something worse from happening.

[Heathen Hammer]

Taking what Trump said out of context didn't win Democrats election in 2016, it won't win them 2020 either. In any case, Democrats are the ones who got themselves into this mess. Obama removed the senate majority requirement(probably assuming he'd get a chance to ram in some liberal there), now Trump can stuck the court with conservat5ive judges. Scattering some unconstitutional laws like Californian gun control has been long overdue.

[Vanoi]

Taking what Trump said out of context didn't win Democrats election in 2016, it won't win them 2020 either.

Downplaying a virus and pissing on the memories of dead soldiers is still just that. This isn't 2016. 4 years of ups and scandals follow Trump this time around.

In any case, Democrats are the ones who got themselves into this mess. Obama removed the senate majority requirement(probably assuming he'd get a chance to ram in some liberal there), now Trump can stuck the court with conservat5ive judges. Scattering some unconstitutional laws like Californian gun control has been long overdue.

What current unconstitutional gun laws does California have?

[Lord Thesaurian]

If the two party system is what “broke” the system, it’s been “broken” for decades and centuries. In my view, a good way to “rock the boat” would be to repeal the 17th amendment (the direct and explicit product of political lobbying for political ends) so the Senate can function the way it was supposed to but, that’s another thing that’s never gonna happen. Fairly straightforward commentaries on the subject have come to similar conclusions, or at least acknowledged the problem.


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...en-institution

https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/t...on-of-senators

Here’s a dissenting conservative voice:


https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...res-why-theyre

Given that the state election results for president and Senators tend to politically correlate anyway, I don’t see major downsides to allowing the Senate to serve its original purpose. Whatever original complaints about the need to avert collusion of party politics may have been, popular election hasn’t resolved it, and if anything, has created incentives to work every issue (like SCOTUS nominations) toward popular appeals and messaging that can be turned to whipped votes and thus popular electoral advantage as Senators leverage high profile and deliberately provocative positions. Whatever the case, changing rules for short sighted reasons like ing over political opponents hasn’t gotten us to a good place now, and I see no reason to think it will going forward.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...dential-votes/

[Heathen Hammer]

Downplaying a virus and pissing on the memories of dead soldiers is still just that. This isn't 2016. 4 years of ups and scandals follow Trump this time around.

I remember how Democrat cultists said that "grab them" would get him to lose, yet here we are. Moderates don't buy obvious propaganda anymore. They have Internet and can easily fact check that what you said isn't true.
In any case, take "orange man bad" content to elections thread, this one is about RBG's death and replacement.

What current unconstitutional gun laws does California have?

That stupid grip law comes to mind, I think they also have magazine capacity regulations too.
Hopefully, more gun control will be interpreted as unconstitutional. Also I'm looking forward to seeing Syllicon Valley CEOs losing ability to censor Internet. Hopes of anti-gun and anti-free-speech people died with RBG, and its a good thing.

[Vanoi]

If the two party system is what “broke” the system, it’s been “broken” for decades and centuries. In my view, a good way to “rock the boat” would be to repeal the 17th amendment (the direct and explicit product of political lobbying for political ends) so the Senate can function the way it was supposed to but, that’s another thing that’s never gonna happen. Fairly straightforward commentaries on the subject have come to similar conclusions, or at least acknowledged the problem.


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...en-institution

https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/t...on-of-senators

Here’s a dissenting conservative voice:


https://www.heritage.org/the-constit...res-why-theyre

Given that the state election results for president and Senators tend to politically correlate anyway, I don’t see major downsides to allowing the Senate to serve its original purpose. Whatever original complaints about the need to avert collusion of party politics may have been, popular election hasn’t resolved it, and if anything, has created incentives to work every issue (like SCOTUS nominations) toward popular appeals and messaging that can be turned to whipped votes and thus popular electoral advantage as Senators leverage high profile and deliberately provocative positions. Whatever the case, changing rules for short sighted reasons like ing over political opponents hasn’t gotten us to a good place now, and I see no reason to think it will going forward.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...dential-votes/

Putting the elections in the hands of state legislatures that can be as partisan as Congress isn't going to rock the boat. The Senate isn't going to suddenly be more productive and less partisan because they directly elected anymore.

Like i said the Dems would pack the court if they are smart. No reason to fight the Republicans with one hand behind your back.

[Alastor]

I actually said the system was broken which means its not stable by definition.

It also doesn't mean it can't be destabilized further, which would affect its stability and is a synonym for rocking the boat. Let's not get entangled in wordplay even when we agree on sth.

Either the system reforms or it fails. This is America, change won't occur until it is absolutely and utterly necessary to do so. Usually to prevent something worse from happening.

I wonder if you and the rest of all those like-minded Americans are actually prepared for when the system does fail. Because the move you advocated for is not a step towards reform, but towards failure. There is much more meaningful reform to be had than petty party politicking at the expense of the supreme court. Such as limiting lobbying. The supreme court itself does need reform, but that reform should be meaningful, not just to pack it with the yes-men of whoever happens to control Congress/White-House at the time. Because that would simply diminish its ability to perform its function, aka check the other branches of government. Reforms like changing the length of service, or instituting mandatory retirement for justices after a certain age would be steps in the right direction I think. Arbitrarily changing the size of the court whenever convenient is not.

[Cope]

I guess you can calm yourself with that fantasy until November, after reality happens and Trump is re-elected you can go back to talking about how Putin stole the election from your dear senile leader.
But seriously, Democrats aren't stacking the court anytime soon, and it is their own fault. Shouldn't have removed the majority requirement when Obama was there.

You should pay attention to the the data; Biden is the strong favourite.

[Vanoi]

It also doesn't mean it can't be destabilized further, which would affect its stability and is a synonym for rocking the boat. Let's not get entangled in wordplay even when we agree on sth.

We don't agree though. You are worried about stability that doesn't exist.

I wonder if you and the rest of all those like-minded Americans are actually prepared for when the system does fail. Because the move you advocated for is not a step towards reform, but towards failure.

Reform often comes from failure.

There is much more meaningful reform to be had than petty party politicking at the expense of the supreme court. Such as limiting lobbying.

Lobbying is only part of the problem. Slapping on band aids is not the answer.

The supreme court itself does need reform, but that reform should be meaningful, not just to pack it with the yes-men of whoever happens to control Congress/White-House at the time.

Nominees are picked now based on who controls Congress and the White House. Very much based on how they think they'll vote.

Because that would simply diminish its ability to perform its function, aka check the other branches of government.

Putting more members on the court doesn't change how it functions.

Reforms like changing the length of service, or instituting mandatory retirement for justices after a certain age would be steps in the right direction I think. Arbitrarily changing the size of the court whenever convenient is not.

I don't actually think SCOTUS needs term limits. Nor mandatory retirement.

[Alastor]

Lobbying is only part of the problem. Slapping on band aids is not the answer.

Well, even if what I suggest is a band-aid. What you suggest is going nuclear on it. Which won't do much to help anything heal.

Nominees are picked now based on who controls Congress and the White House. Very much based on how they think they'll vote.

Putting more members on the court doesn't change how it functions.

It's not the same thing putting 2-3 justices in when you control the White-House/Congress, which if you get lucky means you can tilt the court and having the ability to tilt it anyway. Which would be the outcome of what you suggest.

I don't actually think SCOTUS needs term limits. Nor mandatory retirement.

I guess you mean as long as they are on your side?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Political polarization is a transcendent problem and hardly a mark against the repeal of the 17th amendment, which has arguably become vestigial in the best case. Whether such a repeal would ultimately be for the best is a matter of speculation, but I don’t see a reason why 50 legislatures jockeying over issues to elect senators is worse than the current jockeying that takes place in one chamber before a national audience to confirm SCOTUS justices like Ginsburg’s replacement.

The more substantive complaint was that old system resulted in state elections being dominated by national party politics. Voters who favored the Democrats nationally, and wanted a Democratic senator, would vote for Democratic state legislators even if they favored Republican positions on state policy.
This was basically correct. State and even local elections were becoming increasingly nationalized, but the popular election of senators did little to stop that trend. That’s because the ultimate cause was the rise of an integrated economy, mass media and the tendency for tribal allegiances to form around the biggest and most salient national news of the day.

Indeed, this very trend has turned the Senate from a body of elder statesmen and women into 100 mini-presidents vying for national attention. It is the worst of both worlds. Any individual senator’s vote has only a small chance of changing the actual outcome of legislation — but a senator’s perceived stance on the most contentious national issues is crucial to her political survival.

As a result, senators in solid red or blue states are locked in a permanent presidential primary in which their survival depends on appealing to the base. Senators in purple states, by contrast, are fearful of taking any controversial votes at all. Moreover, because the defeat of even few senators can lead to lasting swings in the balance of power, Senate leaders are disinclined to make vulnerable members go on the record.

Add it all up, and the result is a legislative body that is fearful and reactionary rather than august and careful. One way to change this would be to return the election of the senators to state legislatures, perhaps with the additional provision that senatorial selection happen in odd years, when fewer legislatures host elections.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...en-institution

For what it’s worth, Congressmen acknowledge polarization as the salient issue facing Congress as well as state legislatures, and suggest the latter may be less susceptible to this in practice:

Most of the members of Congress said they believe that their state legislature performs better than Congress. But not all. One member of Congress who had been in the minority in her state legislature but in the majority in Congress thought that Congress worked better. The same was true of a member from a state that had experienced significant stalemates and one who had had to deal with ideological, uncompromising governors. Several of them pointed out that most bills in Congress pass with overwhelming support, just as state legislators reported.

When asked to compare their state legislative and congressional experiences, a few themes emerged from their comments. Compared to Congress, state legislatures or their members:

* Operate on a substantially smaller scale and with a more homogeneous polity. “There are 201 legislators in Minnesota compared to 535 in Congress; 5 million people compare to 300 million,” said one. “There’s a whole difference in magnitude between Virginia General Assembly and Congress,” said another.
* Are more collegial and less partisan. Members of Congress who had served both in the minority and majority in their state legislatures said that minority members were more effective there than in Congress. “In Tennessee I was friends with members from both parties. It’s hard to make friends across parties in Congress except when we go on international trips together,” was one of several comments about how “congressional delegations” (also known as CODELS) are one of the only ways to get to know members of Congress from the other party. Members also said that the leaders in their state legislatures were more collegial across party and chamber than congressional leaders.
* Have more genuine debate on the floor and in committee. “The art of debate mattered in my Legislature,” said a former Maine leader. Speaking of his experience in Colorado, another member of Congress commented, “We were on the floor together and had real debates, not one-minute speeches.” A Virginian said, “Our debates in Congress are not real. It’s a loss.”.
* Have governors who are more involved in the state legislative process than the president is in Congress.
* Use earmarks as a tool to get compromise and bridge gaps on the budget.
* Are lower profile and face fewer demands, especially for campaign fundraising. “There’s much more demand for my time and attention in Congress,” said a freshman member from Washington. “I didn’t have to sit on the phone all the time to raise money in St. Paul,” said a congressional veteran.

We also asked the members of Congress what practices from their state legislative experience they would like to see adopted by Congress. Following are some noteworthy responses:

* One member of Congress said that he would like to see Congress give every bill a hearing and a vote. Another version of this from a different representative was to give every member the right to get a vote on a bill without having a formal requirement of a vote.
* A former state house majority leader said he thought that Congress should act promptly, both in committee and on the floor, on bills before them. He added that members of Congress should be expected to stay on the floor until their business is done. “Forcing members to stay in session is a better way of controlling amendments than having the rules committee block them,” he said.
* Several said that Congress should conduct open debates on issues. “What would be the harm?” asked a former state senate majority leader.
* A Republican House member said that she thought there would be greater trust in Congress if it devoted institutional resources to building personal relationships across parties. A freshman representative said that his class has held periodic bipartisan meetings and that this practice needs to be adopted and expanded by other subgroups in the Congress.
* Regarding budgets and appropriations, almost all members of Congress suggested reinstating earmarks as a tool of negotiation and compromise. Republican members, though not Democrats, said that they thought a federal balanced budget requirement would force Congress to act in a more timely and effective manner on the budget. One member also suggested that Congress get rid of its separate budget and appropriations processes.

Our small sample size of 12 members of Congress did not allow us to draw hard conclusions about practices that might help that institution improve policymaking in the face of polarization. However, the comments offered by congressmen who have served in state legislatures suggested that they are a rich source of ideas for strengthening the institution. Their perspectives also reinforce key themes we gleaned from our ten case study states.

https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/HTML_...isanship_1.htm

[Vanoi]

Well, even if what I suggest is a band-aid. What you suggest is going nuclear on it. Which won't do much to help anything heal.

Nothing will heal until things actually change. With the way the system works you have to rely on the very people causing the broken system to fix it. Changes that will nit benefit them.

It's not the same thing putting 2-3 justices in when you control the White-House/Congress, which if you get lucky means you can tilt the court and having the ability to tilt it anyway. Which would be the outcome of what you suggest.

The only difference is the amount. And yes it could obviously tip the court towards one side. But it would also cause an uproar and make people lose more faith in the political system.

I guess you mean as long as they are on your side?

Their legal knowledge regarding the Constitution from their experience on cases is invaluable. Term limits just makes it more likely for politics to seep onto the court since they now be obliged to rule certain ways on as many cases as possible before their term is up.

Mandatory retirement could work but i'd only support it if the retirement age was set pretty high.