Discussion: The Supreme Court II

[DKDetective]

There's nothing wrong with being conservative. But those things that you believe in is not the GOP party anymore. Hasn't been since 2010. Trump was the final realization of them absorbing the Tea Party. And there is plenty to criticize the Democratic party in regards to race and racism. No doubt.

But the other side is itching to kill people of color.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think that most conservative philosophy is based on greedy, selfish concerns, that focuses on one's own material advancement at the expense of others. Furthermore, I find such traditional conservative ideology to be distinctly un-Christian in its lack of compassion for others... Christianity is all about treating your neighbour like yourself, accepting the fact that everyone is imperfect and therefore we cannot pretend we are superior to anyone else, and therefore should forgive and accept others' failings. Last, most social science evidence is that in application, conservative economic and social policy does not work, whereas "liberal" and social democratic ideas and policies do. Conservative political ideology in its refusal to accept demonstrably proof is such foolish anti-intellectualism, that I feel that such ignorance can only be based in selfishness and is in itself immoral.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

To follow up on my previous post on demographics, here's a detailed breakdown for the current Congress:

Membership in the 116th Congress (incl. delegates from Puerto Rico, etc.)
Female Representatives (Democrats): 90
Female Representatives (Republicans): 15
Female Senators (Democrats): 17
Female Senators (Republicans): 9
Congress Totals: 107D 24R (4.5:1 ratio)

Membership in the 116th Congress (incl. delegates from Puerto Rico, etc.)
Black Representatives (Democrats): 52
Black Representatives (Republicans): 1
Black Senators (Democrats): 2
Black Senators (Republicans): 1
Hispanic/Latino Representatives (Democrats): 37
Hispanic/Latino Representatives (Republicans): 9
Hispanic/Latino Senators (Democrats): 2
Hispanic/Latino Senators (Republicans): 3
Asian/Pacific Islander Representatives (Democrats): 16
Asian/Pacific Islander Representatives (Republicans): 1
Asian/Pacific Islander Senators (Democrats): 3
Asian/Pacific Islander Senators (Republicans): 0
Native American Representatives (Democrats): 2
Native American Representatives (Republicans): 2
Native American Senators (Democrats): 0
Native American Senators (Republicans): 0
Congress Totals: 114D 17R (6.7:1 ratio)

data source: Congressional Research Service - Membership of the 116th Congress: A Profile

how voters voted (demographics):
female voters (2018): 59% Democratic, 40% Republican (1.5:1 ratio)
female voters (2016): 54% H. Clinton (D), 41% Trump (R) (1.3:1 ratio)
non-white voters (2018): 76% Democratic, 22% Republican (3.5:1 ratio)
non-white voters (2016): 74% Clinton (D), 21% Trump (R) (3.5:1 ratio)

data sources: CNN - 2018 midterms: EXIT POLLING
CNN - 2016 election results: Exit polls

So Republicans are far more relying upon their white and male voters and politicians. And unfortunately like I said before, won't find too many civil rights supporters there - not just themselves - but who they choose to align themselves with, and their leadership in the Republican Party in the Congress, Presidency, and Courts.

Pew Research Center - How Trump compares with other recent presidents in appointing federal judges (July 15, 2020)

1. Trump has now appointed almost a quarter of all active federal judges in the United States.

2. Trump has appointed more federal appeals court judges to date than any recent president at the same point in their presidency.

3. Trump has appointed a larger share of female judges than other recent Republican presidents but a smaller share than recent Democratic presidents.

4. So far, Trump has been more likely than other recent presidents to appoint judges who are white.

NBC News - Biden pledged to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. Here's what he might have to do. (May 6, 2020)

Associated Press - Biden picks Kamala Harris as running mate, first Black [and Asian] woman (August 11, 2020)

 

[Marvolo]

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think that most conservative philosophy is based on greedy, selfish concerns, that focuses on one's own material advancement at the expense of others. Furthermore, I find such traditional conservative ideology to be distinctly un-Christian in its lack of compassion for others... Christianity is all about treating your neighbour like yourself, accepting the fact that everyone is imperfect and therefore we cannot pretend we are superior to anyone else, and therefore should forgive and accept others' failings. Last, most social science evidence is that in application, conservative economic and social policy does not work, whereas "liberal" and social democratic ideas and policies do. Conservative political ideology in its refusal to accept demonstrably proof is such foolish anti-intellectualism, that I feel that such ignorance can only be based in selfishness and is in itself immoral.

I have to agree. One need only look in the gospels and Acts to see that Jesus and the disciples cared little about money and economy. The early church pooled its money for the community. They would absolutely give every last penny to help people. Whereas America and its elite horde money. Conservatives harp on about frugality and cutting spending, but to me thats not Christian. We are the richest nation in the world. We have so much wealth and vast resources to use. Hording it isnt a virrue. We should be using as much as possible for the betterment of the people.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

 

[mclay18]

Of course not, he's dumb as a box of hair.

 

[Teelie]

And thinning hair at that.

 

[mclay18]

Opinion: The unmaking of the Supreme Court

This is a really good op-ed, especially after Rubin points out if the 6-3 conservative SC strikes down a settled law like "Roe": "As soon as the Supreme Court strikes it down, Congress could pass a bill enshrining it in law, albeit after unrooting the filibuster."

That could really ruin Moscow Mitch's post-election tenure as Senate Minority leader.

 

[DKDetective]

Opinion: The unmaking of the Supreme Court

This is a really good op-ed, especially after Rubin points out if the 6-3 conservative SC strikes down a settled law like "Roe": "As soon as the Supreme Court strikes it down, Congress could pass a bill enshrining it in law, albeit after unrooting the filibuster."

That could really ruin Moscow Mitch's post-election tenure as Senate Minority leader.

I only skimmed it, but I really don't agree with the author's analysis. She seems to suggest that Congress can shield abortion laws by reducing the jurisdiction of the court to not cover the constitutionality of legislation. Yes, a lot of the court's jurisdiction is set by Congress, but constitutionality questions is part of the Court's original jurisdiction in my opinion. The Constitutions says that the Court's original jurisdiction includes matters in which a "State" is a party. All you need is for some Republican state government to challenge a federal law saying that the states cannot restrict access to abortion and the case is before the Supreme Court. And that is a purely textualist interpretation. A living constitution interpretation would easily conclude that it is the Court's necessary role to adjudicate between the states and federal government what their respective powers and jurisdictions are under the Constitution. That role is at the core of a supreme court's function in any federal system of government where powers are divided between a federal/national government and states/provinces.

 

[InCali]

For people who are saying "The Dems are as bad as the Repubs", please note there are a couple of differences. First off, Scalia passed long before the election. Secondly, and more importantly, the Republican senate set the precedent and got their nominee approved. Now, they want to change the rules to their own political benefit. On the democratic side, they are basically just saying "Hey, follow your own rules and not just when it benefits you." Had the republican senate taken up the Garland vote, the democrats would have much less of a basis to complain. As it stands now, they certainly do. There is NOTHING wrong with insisting on consistency; especially when it comes to SCOTUS appointments.

So stop with that "both sides are bad" BS. EDIT: "Bull S***" sounds more appropriate when I read it.

Woooooooooo.......WOOOOOOOOOOO.....

IMMA ghost.....

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[mclay18]

I despise Ted Cruz.

I really hope he loses in 2022, since he barely won in 2016.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

 

[Marvolo]

And the only catholic president we've had was democrat.

 

[mclay18]

And the only catholic president we've had was democrat.

Hopefully Biden will be the second one.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I despise Ted Cruz.

I really hope he loses in 2022, since he barely won in 2016.

He's not up again until 2024. But if trends in Texas continue, he'll be toast then.

I 100% believe a significant portion of the desperation seen in the GOP today is trying to set as much in motion as possible to protect their interests once Texas turns Blue. Because the party of today is over once that happens.

 

[InCali]

He's not up again until 2024. But if trends in Texas continue, he'll be toast then.

I 100% believe a significant portion of the desperation seen in the GOP today is trying to set as much in motion as possible to protect their interests once Texas turns Blue. Because the party of today is over once that happens.

Puerto Rico, Washington DC, and Virgin Islands.....end the filibuster.

 

[Sithborg]

He's not up again until 2024. But if trends in Texas continue, he'll be toast then.

I 100% believe a significant portion of the desperation seen in the GOP today is trying to set as much in motion as possible to protect their interests once Texas turns Blue. Because the party of today is over once that happens.

Why do you think Texas is thinking of creating an electoral college for statewide races?

I also have to laugh at some republicans talking about splitting Texas or Florida to balance out adding DC and Puerto Rico as states. Short of some insane gerrymandering of state lines, I don't think it will work out as well as they think it will.

 

[DKDetective]

He's not up again until 2024. But if trends in Texas continue, he'll be toast then.

I 100% believe a significant portion of the desperation seen in the GOP today is trying to set as much in motion as possible to protect their interests once Texas turns Blue. Because the party of today is over once that happens.

The last time Texas was a blue leaning state, the Dems won 7 out of 10 presidential elections in a 30 year period.

 

[InCali]

Why do you think Texas is thinking of creating an electoral college for statewide races?

I also have to laugh at some republicans talking about splitting Texas or Florida to balance out adding DC and Puerto Rico as states. Short of some insane gerrymandering of state lines, I don't think it will work out as well as they think it will.

I could gerrymander the hell out of California. Six senators.

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Reuters - Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years

 

[Sithborg]

Things can always be worse.

 

[Schlosser85]

Reuters - Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years

I've thought for a while now that Supreme Court Justices having a lifetime appointment is kind of BS.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I've thought for a while now that Supreme Court Justices having a lifetime appointment is kind of BS.

People typically live way longer now than they did in 1789 too.

 

[DKDetective]

Reuters - Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years

I've thought for a while now that Supreme Court Justices having a lifetime appointment is kind of BS.

I'm not sure if I agree with the analysis in that article that fixed terms will somehow cool partisanship over appointment to the court. Fixed terms lengths would make each and every appointment court a known election issue as everyone would know exactly when a judge's term is up. I'm worried it will just further politicize the court. I think a better alternative is a lifetime appointment subject to a maximum retirement age. It is what most mature liberal democracies do.