One (establishment) vote for Garland
What Trump did to the Presidency, we can do to the SC. norms. She can read her opinions in a ing bikini and livestream it on IGDefinitely don't want Garland, but you don't need someone like AOC on the court. AOC is better served as a politician. You more or less muzzle her as a SCOTUS judge.
He knows the law at a granular level so yes, if it comes to someone with zero knowledge to someone who actually does, the answer is obvious.
Fair or not, this approach doesn't work for Democrats the way it works for Republicans. It's a choice between feeling good and winning.
If we're going to norms I would rather just increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices.
2016 thinking/#stillwithher
It's not about norms, I agree about saying norms, it's about deploying resources where they have the largest impact. AOC doesn't have any impact as a SCOTUS justice, she's just another RBG or Elena Kagan. Much more influential as popular congresswoman who's keeping Pelosi honest or at least trying to.
Regarding what medieval we should do the court, I'm not sure what requires a simple majority vs. what requires a cons utional amendment, but they should pack the courts as much as possible. Once McConnell blocked Garland all norms went out the window and he invited the Dems to play dirty. I just don't think nominating AOC is a productive way to play dirty. Replacing RBG with AOC doesn't accomplish anything. Adding 2 more SCOTUS judges on the other hand does.
I'm not sure that's possible with a simple majority. But thanks to Turtle you can ram through SC justices with 50+vp
Yes it does. It triggers them for 40 years and reminds them she's Trump's child. Without him, she wouldn't be there. So like, uh, don't elect another Trump.
This is your white flag.
You appear to have no real reasoning behind your asinine take besides LET'S OWN THE LIBS....UMM I MEAN REPUBLICANS.
Just doesn't have the same ring to it. Sorry.
Once again, what does the bolded mean to you?
You know that I know the game you are trying to play here.
Its not gonna work. Just like I have called you out on your foreign affair lies.
I wouldn't expect an establishment DNC donor to understand.
I'm a little bit out of my league here but I'm not sure more than a simple majority is required based on this article.
https://cons utioncenter.org/amp/b...ourt-explainedThe answer is that under the Cons ution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Article III, Section 1, starts with a broad direction to Congress to establish the court system: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
I don't think you need a cons utional amendment to pack the courts, which is why it's the better solution. FDR almost did. It would require blowing up the filibuster so it has no shot at happening, but a much better way to penalize Republicans for Trump would be to pack SCOTUS with more judges and to also admit more Democratic states into the union. I don't see Schumer having the balls to do it but if they have a senate majority they should grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. Heck, just break DC into two states so it gets 4 senators. Breaking DC into two states isn't any more arbitrary than the border creating two "Dakotas."
Trump still accomplished the GOP objective by moving the swing vote further to the right, replacing RBG with AOC doesn't change who the swing vote is.
It doesn't have to be either or, do all of it.
saying you dont want AOC as a supreme court justice is a vote for Garland? weird. i figured there would be more candidates, where the only alternative to Garland wouldn't be taking somebody with no legal training or experience and making her a ing supreme court justice.
Honestly that, make it 13.
impeach K for lying to the Senate for his earlier judgeship,
for having an emotional breakdown and political attacks in his job interview
totally unsuitable for SCOTUS judge for ing life
then nominate BHO as his replacement, and let Notorious RBG retire.
"some say" turning up SCOTUS to eleven would not be acceptable,
but why is Repug stealing Obama's SCOTUS judge "acceptable",
why is McConnell blocking ALL of Obama's Federal judges for years acceptable?
As always, Repugs play hardball, smash mouth, while softball Dems don't even get in the game.
Agreed, I'm just saying that if you're going to trigger conservatives, make it count. Replacing RBG with AOC doesn't make it count.
I'm not saying don't replace RBG with a liberal, just find one who's more credentialed. Find a bleeding heart 9th circuit judge who's a female minority and thinks illegals should get free healthcare and that women who are 8 months pregnant should be able to get abortions. Conservatives will be equally pissed, and that way you don't lose the progressive movement that AOC helps drive. I'm against AOC being on SCOTUS because she's one of the few progressives out there with widespread appeal and name recognition.
The one glimmer of optimism I have that the senate might get medieval is if the Dems get a majority it won't be as reliant on red state Democrats as previous Dem senate majorities were. Outside of Tester, Manchin and Brown (who's fine with being progressive since Ohio loves him), all of the other senators will be from states that are either blue or bluish purple.
Joe winning the election has substantially better odds than that happening, tbh... Ironically, that’s largely thanks to Trump.
We are also assuming most of the democrats will vote to confirm her. I dont think Warren would vote to confirm let alone Bernie.
Neither of these guys would consciously put someone as nakedly inexperienced as AOC for a life appointment. All things being equal, they always talk about Trump's ty candidates being ill fitted for whatever role he wants them to be in. Split's dream is already dashed even before it starts to formulate.
Where does one go where you get this idea from?
And make sure all nominees are 55 or younger. If Republicans are allowed to ignore norms and pick underqualified judges like Uncle Thomas just because they're young and will be alive for 40 more years once they're on the court, the Dems should do it too.
I'm not as convinced as you AOC is some political savant with an endless future, she's a primary/mistake/smear away from being a speck of dust
Norms were already ed when McConnell decided to make the Supreme Court 8 justices. Democrats should absolutely stack the courts should they win the presidency and senate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
