Ok boys - we’ve hit the “ur dumb” stage…gotta go prepare a pork butt for tomorrow. Adios! Until next time
Here are two things people talked about one time but didn’t actually do anything on and it’s totally the same as 6-8 real life examples of actual policies
Are you thick? The left not succeeding in the attempts of those things doesn’t make it count? I know I said I would go, but you are one of the worst among them
How an I worse? I'm not even calling names. You've presented nothing. What do you think the idea of court packing came from? What was it in response to? Did it actually happen?
what specific set of circumstances led to leftists suggesting the Supreme Court should be expanded? Which president had more judges appointed to the circuit courts of appeals, Obama or Trump?
Just so we're clear trying to install yourself as a dictator through a violent coup is the same as trying to even the numbers in the judiciary to more closely reflect the electorate
These aren’t democratic things that happened. The Democrats had a majority and did not get rid of the filibuster. Also, the filibuster is not a “democratic norm” it is transparently anti-democratic and in direct opposition to the intent of the framers. Also, it was the Republican Party that packed the courts. Not the Democrats.
The filibuster is anti-democratic. So you saying that “the left” want to get rid of it is actually saying that they support democracy and it’s republicans that actively oppose democracy. It’s your own example, my guy.
Absolutely disagree with Whammy on this point. Sorry bud. Republicans been batshit and have grown exponentially so in recent years.
Do you feel the Republicans using their numerical advantage in the Senate is the same thing as increasing the seats on the Supreme Court to offset that advantage?
You're a drooling moron. You're better off not joining in political discussions here. Do yourself a favor and fade back into the woodwork.
I don't want to speak for Whammy but this post seems to sum up his main argument. The Republicans have always been a lost cause when it comes to good faith arguments. In the last decade the Democrats have made that same shift.
no, the first act as between those two is always more harmful to democracy got any more brainbusters?
I don't think a lot of the left identify necessarily as Democrats. I mean you can call me one I guess because there's no way in hell I'd vote for a Republican but seeing everything through this lens is kind of why you guys miss the forest for the trees.
The idea there is no dissent allowed on here just shows that you don't engage in political discussions of substance basically ever It's very sad that main veining crypto talking headed someone
Likewise, I would argue you're missing the forest for the trees with this argument. Last presidential election, more than 98% of the votes were Democrat or Republican. You're one or the other in this country. There is no other option. Wasting time trying to make an abstract distinction like that just prevents you from ever getting to the substantive argument.
So basically Whammy is saying positions that the left takes that the Dem establishment rejects can be held up as examples of extremism, but positions the right takes that are rejected by mainstream Republicans cannot. Like that's literally what he's arguing
Yes again you're way oversimplifying everything. It's why so many of these takes are way off. But continue on I guess!
If your politics just involve maintaining the status quo without even attempting to consider whether the status quo is just or democratic or good, you're probably just a privileged NIMBY and you can get fucked
We don't even have to consider the extremes in question to poke holes in his dumb argument. You can't cite the insurrection as an example of conservative extremism because McConnell said some shit rejecting it. However, Court packing and the filibuster are examples of extremism from the left. It's nonsensical and disingenuous.
It settled that number after political fighting about the size of the court. It's remained that number since the mid 1800s I believe. Do we want to move forward with just adding/subtracting members every time a new party gets in control of Congress? If that's the case, at least in my personal opinion, it takes away the value of the court.
Were you upset when the Republicans arbitrarily shrunk the Court to 8 members for a year or was that all good
Senate Republicans literally eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees explicitly for the purpose of packing the court.
I have a hard time reconciling that an enumerated power in the Constitution is the same thing as court packing.
You’re assigning a value to the court that doesn’t really exist. It’s partisanship has been obvious to earlier politicians which explains the changing size of the court over the earlier years. Keeping it static has allowed the myth of non-partisanship to persist. And that’s bad for America. Also, the number 9 was there because there were 9 circuit courts over which the justices presided. There are now 13 districts but we’re still at 9 justices. Why should we stay at that imbalance? It’s arbitrary and of no particular merit.
Supreme Court should be some arbitrarily high number (call it 15 or 17) with tenures for judges and each president getting to appoint 2. Each case can be decided by 9 chosen at random by a lottery system. /half-thought out thoughts
How did the Senate execute their duty to advise on the nomination when they didn’t even hold hearings?
I believe the legislation that set the court at 9 also created 9 circuit courts. There were only 6 or so circuit courts before that. They needed 9 because each Supreme Court judge would hear cases in those circuits. I may be wrong, but I don't think current Supreme Court justices hear cases at the district level anymore so you don't need the numbers to match anymore.
That's a valid critique. Definitely fair to criticize the procedural process. Not sure it would have made a substantive difference though. I'm not an attorney so you're getting outside of my comfort zone on how courts work. My understanding is that just means they just get the requests from those districts and decide whether or not to submit them to the other justices to vote on whether to hear the case. Which is a lot different than what happened in the early early to mid 1800s. But I could be wrong on that matter.
I think he's already explained that he's not real clear on what the facts are, but it doesn't affect his ability to form a strong opinion on the matter.