urbanSTL

Constitution established the SC with 6 justices but it never placed a limit on how many, it’s been at 10 before and also 7 before settling at 9.  

It hasn’t been changed because until the last 15 or so years it took support of 60 senators to get a federal judge confirmed so there was always bi-partisan support to get a judge on the bench. Harry Reid changed that


There are other options that Dems can and probably should take like adding DC and PR as states and adding those 4 senate seats
Beyond adding Supreme Court seats they can also add 70-100 appeals court seats
It’s about time for Democrats to stop playing nice and start hammering. After this SC appointment, 5 of the 6 GOP SC judges will have been appointed by presidents who didn’t win the popular vote

framer wrote: ↑

Sep 19, 2020

I never knew that more judges could be added to the Supreme Court. Very interesting. I wonder why this hasn't happened yet? 

BTW, I've always hated the idea of lifetime appointments.  

It has happened... just not in any of our lifetimes. Or in the lifetimes of any other living person on earth. We began with 6 justices in 1789, and periodically added justices until we peaked at 10 in the mid-1860s, and then the number was reduced to 9 in 1869, where it has stayed ever since. FDR attempted to pack the court in 1937. but his plan ultimately failed when one of the court's conservative jurists swung unexpectedly to uphold a minimum wage law. The judicial decision was seen by many as conservative members of the court signaling that they were willing to temper their anti-New Deal stances to kill efforts to pack the court.

There was even a phrase coined for Justice Owen Roberts unexpected ruling in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish: "The switch in time that saved nine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switc ... saved_nine

There is some belief that Chief Justice John Roberts recent choice to vote with the liberal wing in a Louisiana abortion case (June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo) was him signaling that he was open to being a swing vote in an attempt to avert potential court-packing. Roberts' ruling with the liberal wing was somewhat unexpected, given that he had voted with the conservatives on a nearly identical case 4 years ago in Texas: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

Anyway, the play is pretty simple for Democrats right now - hammer the message that the seat should not be filled until after the election, and it should only be filled by the winner of the election. If Trump and McConnell cannot abide by this fundamentally fair position, Schumer and the Democrats are prepared to rectify the matter by adding justices to the court when the next congress convenes. If Joe Biden wins in November, he will be making at least one appointment to SCOTUS in 2021 no matter what Republicans do, regardless of whether or not another one of the current seats becomes vacant. That appointment can be to fill RBG's seat, or it can be to fill the 2-6 new seats that will be created if McConnell and Graham renege on their own previously stated positions on election-year appointments. Republicans can either keep the 5-4 conservative majority they have right now, or they can put themselves in a position to potentially have a 7-6 liberal SCOTUS majority in 2021.

This Meidas Touch ad needs to be blasted constantly for the next 6 weeks:

YouGov did a poll this morning on the issue.  It basically lines up with the biden/Trump head to head. 51% to 42 want Trump to wait til after election.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ferzh3qp90/ ... plines.pdf

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Sep 19, 2020

YouGov did a poll this morning on the issue.  It basically lines up with the biden/Trump head to head. 51% to 42 want Trump to wait til after election.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ferzh3qp90/ ... plines.pdf

Just to clarify, the poll said after the inauguration, not after the election. If Trump gets defeated and jams through a nominee during his lame duck period, a solid majority of Americans will be fully supportive of court-packing in response. Because an appointment made by a president who was just unambiguously rejected by the electorate will be widely perceived as theft of the seat.

Senator Ed Markey has fired the warning shot, and hopefully more Democrats in Congress get on board in the coming weeks: either let the American people decide who gets to fill that seat, or watch us rectify your selfish impulsiveness by balancing the scales of justice through legislation.

I trust this woman about as far as I can throw her, but she's on the record now: the seat should be filled by the winner of the election.

So both she and Senator Murkowski have stated that they wouldn't vote to confirm prior to the election.  (Murkowski said she wouldn't vote in an interview prior to RBG's passing... so I guess her stance could change?) Either way, assuming both Independents join all Democrats in voting against any nominee, Republicans could only lose 2 more votes. So this could shake up to be a similar situation to the ACA Repeal where the outcome hinges on a single vote during the vote itself.

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Sep 19, 2020

So both she and Senator Murkowski have stated that they wouldn't vote to confirm prior to the election.  (Murkowski said she wouldn't vote in an interview prior to RBG's passing... so I guess her stance could change?) Either way, assuming both Independents join all Democrats in voting against any nominee, Republicans could only lose 2 more votes. So this could shake up to be a similar situation to the ACA Repeal where the outcome hinges on a single vote during the vote itself.

I'm cynical enough to believe that Collins put this out to get her request for a golden ticket in before anyone else. The ideal situation for her is to be able to cast a meaningless "no" vote - she gets to pretend to be a moderate while not actually throwing a monkey wrench in Trump and McConnell's plans to jam through a nominee. McConnell can allow up to three members to vote no and still get a confirmation through - he probably gave Collins permission to take this position, since her seat is extremely vulnerable.

The one thing that is assured is that Collins cannot now vote to confirm a nominee before the election and keep her seat. She'll be signing her own political death sentence if she reneges on this. But... if her defeat looks inevitable regardless, she might break her own promise just to secure a good lobbying position in wingnut world after her involuntary senate retirement.

Murkowski's position seems to be more genuinely principled, since she's not up for re-election this year and doesn't really need to worry about suffering any personal consequences for voting for a potential nominee.

This election is over. Trump knows he cannot win and is now engaging in a full out war to steal the election. I don’t say that lightly nor the fact that by end of November if those around him haven’t talked sense into him and abandoned his effort to steal the election we will have a civil war and hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans will die. Chance of that happening? 3-5%. And that aint exactly small

I do fully expect republicans in government to totally abandon him on nov 4th but they’ve surprised me before

Both sides think they are going to win in a "landslide". I've never seen anything like it.

Nobody is winning this in a landslide, that’s 10+ points in politics but Biden is going to win it between 6-8 points or by about 6-8m votes.  Every gop political operative acknowledges that



Issues for Trump are is that most people don’t like him.  
2nd is let’s look at Iowa for example- poll this morning that the sample was +3 GOP and the people in the sample that vote in 2016 are +8 Trump and the poll still shows him -3 to Biden in Iowa (Trump 42-45 Biden).  
3rd issue is all those millions of 3rd party 2016 votes are now backing Biden 65-20% and new voters that didn’t vote in 2016 because of age or weren’t citizens yet are also backing Biden by 25 points.  So if Trump keeps his entire 2016 vote he still loses by like 6 million votes.   This is what happens when you spend 4 years not expanding your coalition.

One more local example. Missouri House District 02 (west stl county, st.Charles, Jefferson) Trump +11 in 2016 and 2 recent polls show Biden +2 and +3.
I don’t pay too much attention to national polls, mostly house polls that also poll the horse race, and all over the country you see a 8-12pt swing to Biden

I think the only hail mary he has left at this point is holding onto his Supreme Court nomination until after the election to help bring back some of the GOP voters who would otherwise hold their nose & vote for Joe.  

^ I think Mitch and other gop senators are going to push this thru before nov3 because they realize they’re about to get rolled and it’s going to be very hard to confirm someone in a lame duck when you just lost the presidency, the senate and the house without the Dems going nuclear in Jan and adding SC court seats and new states

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Sep 24, 2020

^ I think Mitch and other gop senators are going to push this thru before nov3 because they realize they’re about to get rolled and it’s going to be very hard to confirm someone in a lame duck when you just lost the presidency, the senate and the house without the Dems going nuclear in Jan and adding SC court seats and new states

But fartface doesn't give a crap about other people.  He'll badmouth any senator going against his wishes & try to derail their own reelection chances.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Sep 24, 2020

^ I think Mitch and other gop senators are going to push this thru before nov3 because they realize they’re about to get rolled and it’s going to be very hard to confirm someone in a lame duck when you just lost the presidency, the senate and the house without the Dems going nuclear in Jan and adding SC court seats and new states

If Trump's nominee gets confirmed, the Democrats need to expand the courts regardless of when the confirmation occurs. There is simply no way any Democratic president or Democratic legislature will be able to functionally govern if there is a far-right Supreme Court of unaccountable lifetime justices who have no compunction about striking down literally any progressive legislation that gets passed for the next 20 years. Roe is overturned, the ACA is gone, the EPA is obliterated, labor rights laws are zapped, voting rights laws are stripped bare, campaign finance restrictions are wiped out so any billionaire can give any amount of money directly to any candidate they want.

The country cannot survive for long when all it will take is 5 extremely conservative judges - that wouldn't even need to include John Roberts - to effectively rewrite the laws as they see fit. This was always the longterm game plan for Leonard Leo - they know that the Republican party platform does not have majoritarian support, and the party's ability to win majorities in elections shrinks every year. So what do you do when you can no longer be assured of keeping a congressional majority for any real length of time? Create an ultra-powerful conservative activist judiciary that can neutralize any Democratic trifecta in the presidency and both chambers of Congress.

There's something deeply wrong with any system in which the death of a frail 87 year old cancer patient can strip so many Americans of their fundamental rights.

Assuming Trump loses the popular vote in November (a near certainty), Republican presidents will have received the support of a plurality of Americans in only one out of the last 8 elections. The United States senate majority that will have confirmed all three of Trump's SCOTUS picks will have done so while representing less than 50% of the American population.

Legitimacy is dead.

To me it looks a lot like 2016. An uninspiring candidate and Harris doesn't really help based on the final Democratic Primary in which she polled at 2%. I think Trump will get the largest percentage of black and Hispanic vote than any Republican in our lifetime (sorry Asians we just don't talk about you enough apparently you're doing fine). I heard there was a coalition of black barbers pushing for Trump and the barbershop ain't no joke.

leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑

Sep 24, 2020

To me it looks a lot like 2016. 

Among the litany of dumb things you've posted, this might be in the top 5.  

I'm going to be eaten up for this, but I don't know y'all. I see some echos to 2016 here.

• Polls show Trump down by double digits in many places and even in the national vote.
• Some key state races are tight for both candidates (most notably Florida, North Carolina, and Texas).
• Democrats are confident Biden will win (same was said for Hillary at this point in 2016 and even before this point).
• Republicans are confident they'll win due to a "silent majority" in key states.
• Both parties are saying that the debates will reveal faults in either candidates and make them fall. (Personally, Biden and Trump are two old men with declining mental alertness. The Harris vs Pence debate is the one to watch as those two will be pulling the strings depending on who the winner is. I personally expect the debates to be a dumpster fire festival between the two main candidates, meaning that there will be yelling, things said for advertisements and more. Just grandstanding more than anything).
• We're just as polarized now as we were then.
• I've seen people talk about the enthusiasm between the two parties and it shows Democrats are less enthusiastic about voting for Biden/Harris whereas Republicans are enthusiastic about voting for Trump/Pence. It's a figure that doesn't really matter I guess, but some people are pushing that out there.
• The Supreme Court vacancy. 

Then you have some new issues that are different from 2016 and even 2018.

• Coronavirus.
• Protests/riots in the cities.
• Further division from the BLM and Cop movements.
• Threats of violence by anarchist groups, and people believing it.
• The "abolish the suburbs" BS being pushed by both parties.

So what I am saying here is that I won't be surprised if this election somehow ends up being an "upset" like 2016. In our elections, polls can be wrong, and that's fine. The poll that matters the most is November 3rd, and literally everyone knows it. Polls taken by all the pollsters have such small sample sizes, that it can be hard to gauge the true situation, as we all learned in 2016. While some polls are more accurate than others, we can't be so sure. This election will be close. I don't foresee either candidate getting over 300 electoral votes, but I could be wrong. It's just so hard to gauge based on the polls. What I can say though is that Biden will get the popular vote regardless if he wins In the Electoral College or not. The popular vote win will come from the large population centers of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other cities. The same thing happened in 2016, so don't be surprised if it were to happen again. 

I must also say that I have quite a few conservative/republican friends and family members. The one's who get calls from pollsters have told me that every single one has told them that they're voting for Biden just to skew the numbers some. I'm sure we all know this is happening. It's petty but it's whatever.

Now, I do not see Trump pulling a power grab here. To me, this talking point is one Democrats are pushing to scare people. On the Republican side, this false fantasy of mail in voting being a big fraud in a bid to steal the election is another way to scare voters. If Trump wins, Democrats will be pissed and be pushing all sorts of things to get him out. If Biden wins, Republicans will be doing the same thing. No one has civility to just shut up, accept the results of the election, congratulate the winner, and move on.

As for packing the Supreme Court and other Courts, I see this as all talk. It's just a way to fire up a voting base when in fact, I doubt it will ever happen. Politicians are politicians. They talk to appeal to voters but rarely, if ever, get anything done like they promised. I personally do not see the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the ACA and other landmark decisions. Even with a conservative majority, I highly doubt that. The Justices know better than to bring activism into the mix.

Finally on the Civil War thing, I honestly thought a Civil War would happen over the Black Lives Matter movement and the Police Lives Matter group. Never would I expect it to be over politics. Instead, I assumed it would be over race. I'm not too concerned about a Civil War though. I just don't think Americans want to go out there and start killing one another. Maybe a few do, but like over 99% of us do not want to go out and kill people because "they have a different viewpoint than me".

Chris. Listen if the polls are showing a tight race is Texas, Trump has lost by 10,000,000 votes.    Biden doesn’t need Texas or North Caroline or Florida.    He’s got more than a 55-60 chance of winning NC and Florida which would pad the lead but he is running this campaign thru the upper Midwest; Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin.    Those are the states with a lot of Obama-Trump voters and they’re coming back to the dem side.    


There is nothing in this race that resembles 2016, this is a 2012 race all the way



And finally I tell pollsters I’m voting Trump all the time.  It doesn’t work, it moves polls maybe .2% of a point.  There is no such thing as a shy Trump voter.  You can easily make a case about a shy Biden voter.  It’s a she, she is watching tv with her MAGA husband when the pollster calls and she tells the pollster she is voting Trump but she is pro choice, supports Obamacare and doesn’t like tax cuts to the rich. She’s voting for Biden

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Sep 24, 2020

Chris. Listen if the polls are showing a right race is Texas, Trump has lost by 10,000,000 votes.    Biden doesn’t need Texas or North Caroline or Florida.    He’s got more than a 55-60 chance of winning NC and Florida which would pad the lead but he is running this campaign thru the upper Midwest; Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin.    Those are the states with a lot of Obama-Trump voters and they’re coming back to the dem side.    


There is nothing in this race that resembles 2016, this is a 2012 race all the way

We shall see what happens. I'll wait until the results come in of an election I'm not voting in..