To court packing supporters on atlas.

[Calthrina950]

Not only should Democrats pack the court, but they should also impeach, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavaunaugh. That 15-0 Progressive Court needs to be a campaign platform promise.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

[Calthrina950]

Not only should Democrats pack the court, but they should also impeach, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavaunaugh. That 15-0 Progressive Court needs to be a campaign platform promise.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let Republicans have this one?

They could have let Obama fill Scalia's seat and we would not raise hell about Trump filling Ginsberg's. Or since they changed the rules and fill Scalia's seat, they should let whoever wins in November fill Ginsberg's. But if they want to play hardball and fill both, we shouldn't and can't feel bad about playing hardball back. We didn't want to go there, but what choice do we have now?

A grand compromise could still fix this. Allow the winner to appoint the next justice, respect the McConnell Rule, and we can all move on. In fact, pair it with a new compromise that puts appointments on a schedule. But if Republicans aren't willing to do that, our only choices are to meekly surrender or fight back.

I'm going to repost what I posted earlier on RRH Elections, and you'll see where I stand on this issue:

I’m for Supreme Court nominations being considered, regardless of which year it is or what time of year. Every President-whether it’s Obama, or Trump, or Bill Clinton, or (potentially) Joe Biden, should be accorded the opportunity to nominate whichever candidates they deem fit for a vacancy, and to have such nomination to be at least considered by the Senate. However, that does not mean-and let me make this clear-does not mean that such nomination needs to be approved. The Senate has the power to confirm or reject nominees as it pleases. I don’t think Mitch McConnell should have denied Merrick Garland the dignity of a hearing. It was completely within McConnell’s rights, to object to his confirmation, but he should have allowed such rejection to come in the form of an up or down vote.

Consequently, I think that Democratic calls for not giving a Trump nominee a hearing now, while they do have some moral legitimacy, rest on shaky ground, and a Trump nominee should be given a hearing and an up or down vote, before or after the election, whenever the Senate places it on the agenda. In light of what Republicans did to Garland, I would prefer that they not make such a move, though it would be within their rights, as members of a co-equal branch of government, to do so. And I am absolutely and utterly opposed to Democratic court-packing schemes, which observers-such as Chief Justice Roberts himself-have recognized would be an even greater threat to the independence and stability of the federal judiciary, to the principles underlying separation of powers, and the principles underlying federalism, then what Mitch McConnell did to Merrick Garland.

[Calthrina950]

Not only should Democrats pack the court, but they should also impeach, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavaunaugh. That 15-0 Progressive Court needs to be a campaign platform promise.

This is insanity! Do you not think Republicans would try to impeach Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, if such a course of action as you propose were pursued? It would be an absolutely foolish move, and would truly demonstrate that there is no longer a balance of power between the branches. Many of the things I've read today on this forum from Atlas Democrats are deeply disturbing to me, and a reaction that is unwarranted, with proposals that will be consequential and will backfire on your cause.

A nakedly political impeachment isnnever on the table as Republicans will never habe a 2/3 majority.

Democrats will never have a 2/3rds majority, either. Regardless of whether it's Alito and Roberts being impeached, or Sotomayor and Kagan being impeached, there is absolutely no justification for such a move. Justices ought to only be subjected to such punishment if they commit clearly criminal and unethical behavior while they are in office, and handing down opinions that are unfavorable to one party or the other-such as in Bush vs. Gore, doesn't qualify for such punishment. None of the Justices-and this includes Thomas and Kavanaugh, in the time since they were confirmed to the Court-have engaged in behavior akin to that of Trump and Bill Clinton while in office.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

Objectively Republicans started this by announcing that Obama could not fill a seat in an election year period. Anyone saying otherwise has been brainwashed by FoxNews or other worse trash sources.

You tell that to the people here: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/20/rbg-scotus-discussion-thread-2/. Like it or not, these people are the counterparts to yourself and the other Atlas Democrats are here. I'm not falling for the extremes that either the people here or there are pushing.

[Calthrina950]

This thread has been a microcosm of America, demonstrating why this country is so polarized.

Yes, it is... Republicans not getting what the big deal is about breaking our national institutions for short-term gain, Democrats getting furious, and Republicans not understanding why that is.

The vast majority of people in this thread who are taking issue with this idea are not Republicans.

It cuts both ways. I've also been arguing with conservative Republicans over at RRH Elections who believe that it is Democrats who are destroying America's institutions; that they have been unfair; and that Republicans are trying to right their wrongs, and correct the damage which they have inflicted. As an independent, I've found myself hitting a brick wall when talking with partisan Democrats here and partisan Republicans there. Each side is blaming the other, without acknowledging the role that both political parties have played in this process. Yes, I'm using the "both sideism" argument which is despised by the ideologues here and there, but there's no other way to describe the situation.

Objectively Republicans started this by announcing that Obama could not fill a seat in an election year period. Anyone saying otherwise has been brainwashed by FoxNews or other worse trash sources.

You tell that to the people here: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/09/20/rbg-scotus-discussion-thread-2/. Like it or not, these people are the counterparts to yourself and the other Atlas Democrats are here. I'm not falling for the extremes that either the people here or there are pushing.

I mean, just because they're insisting one thing and we're insisting another doesn't mean that we're both partially right or that the truth lies in the middle. It is an objective, undeniable fact that McConnell would not let Obama have a justice no matter what in an election year, citing a fake, made-up "rule" and is now canceling the rule when it will help his party.

There's no spin. I would respect Republicans a lot more if they just came right out and said, "Politics is a game and we're playing to win. We can do this, so we will." Basically, as repugnant of Del Tachi's rhetoric here often is, it's at least honest, unlike most Republicans who believe the same thing but try to wrap it up in fake moral high ground.

Again, if you look at my posts there and here, you'll see that I'm not defending what McConnell or Republicans did here. I have said before that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and I believe that he should have received a fair confirmation hearing, along with an up or down vote. For me, it doesn't matter what year it is or what time of year; all presidential nominees, for all vacancies, should receive a vote in the Senate, and should be confirmed or rejected by that body in due order. Adhering to that rule, that would mean that a Trump nominee at this juncture ought to be given the same procedures and the same kind of fairness. However, I don't think it's morally just for a nominee to be considered now, given what happened to Garland, and if I were a Senator, I would adopt the position of Murkowski and Collins: that a nominee should not be considered ahead of the election.

But unfortunately, our political system doesn't work so smoothly. Democrats such as yourself say that if there is any vote on a Ginsburg successor whatsoever before January 20, 2021 (or more appropriately, January 3, 2021), you shall pack the Courts, and let Republicans reap the consequences of their actions. Republicans, such as those at RRH Elections, say that unless if they move forward now to confirm a Trump nominee, they will lose whatever advantage they have, and it's worth pushing forward their ideology, even if it runs the risk of court-packing (an outcome which they deem inevitable, in any case). Both Democrats and Republicans see this as war, refuse to compromise, and will not desist until their objectives have been accomplished.

I speak as someone who opposes both court-packing and unfair nomination standards, whether you term it the "Biden Rule", or the "Garland Rule", or "McConnell's lies", or whatever you want to call it. My overriding preference is for there to be adherence to the Constitution, because that document is more important than all of this; it rises above political considerations, and ought to be deferred to.