Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Apparently the problem wasn't Googling, it was reading (or comprehension) or something:

So eliminating it for all but S Ct. was not a thing? Not the thing that kicked it off?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I am really pissed about these Midnight Judges and Adams' change to the size of the Supreme Court. We need to get even with all the Federalists for that, including Barr and his cronies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Apparently the problem wasn't Googling, it was reading (or comprehension) or something:

Republicans are never responsible for what they do. They are forced to do it by Democrats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So eliminating it for all but S Ct. was not a thing? Not the thing that kicked it off?

Kick it off? Conservatives have been working to change the Court for decades now. Have you heard of the Federalist Society?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So eliminating it for all but S Ct. was not a thing? Not the thing that kicked it off?

The thing that kicked it off was the GOP using blanket filibusters against Obama nominees.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The thing that kicked it off was the GOP using blanket filibusters against Obama nominees.

Conservatives will say that the thing that kicked it off was that Democrats objected to Reagan trying to put an extremist like Bork on the Court.

The politicization of the Court mirrors the polarization of the parties. The GOP unified around the idea of remaking the Court with conservatives in the 80's, and it has been one of the most important issues for movement conservatives since then. (McConnell's blocking of Merrick Garland shows that he thought it would motivate conservatives more than liberals in the 2016 election, and I think he was right. Conservatives care more about the Court than liberals.) Conservatives care about the Court because it is an anti-democratic block on legislative change. They fear that democratic majorities will adopt laws that they don't like, and they want to stop that with the Court.

There's no way this ends well anytime soon. Conservatives have politicized the Court, to the point that Garland was denied even a hearing in 2016 because he was a Democrat, and Republicans have been declaring their support for Trump's nominee this week before he has announced who it is. We can all be nostalgic for a Court that was less politicized, but that isn't the Court we have anymore. The politicization wrecks the Court's legitimacy, which is too bad. Democrats who want to pretend otherwise are engaged in denial.

The Constitution doesn't solve this problem, because it doesn't cap the the number of justices. The Republicans have been packing the Court for years. The Democrats should do it too. Maybe someday we'll get some agreement about how to depoliticize the institution, but there aren't any Republican politicians who can even have that conversation now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Conservatives will say that the thing that kicked it off was that Democrats objected to Reagan trying to put an extremist like Bork on the Court.

The politicization of the Court mirrors the polarization of the parties. The GOP unified around the idea of remaking the Court with conservatives in the 80's, and it has been one of the most important issues for movement conservatives since then. (McConnell's blocking of Merrick Garland shows that he thought it would motivate conservatives more than liberals in the 2016 election, and I think he was right. Conservatives care more about the Court than liberals.) Conservatives care about the Court because it is an anti-democratic block on legislative change. They fear that democratic majorities will adopt laws that they don't like, and they want to stop that with the Court.

There's no way this ends well anytime soon. Conservatives have politicized the Court, to the point that Garland was denied even a hearing in 2016 because he was a Democrat, and Republicans have been declaring their support for Trump's nominee this week before he has announced who it is. We can all be nostalgic for a Court that was less politicized, but that isn't the Court we have anymore. The politicization wrecks the Court's legitimacy, which is too bad. Democrats who want to pretend otherwise are engaged in denial.

The Constitution doesn't solve this problem, because it doesn't cap the the number of justices. The Republicans have been packing the Court for years. The Democrats should do it too. Maybe someday we'll get some agreement about how to depoliticize the institution, but there aren't any Republican politicians who can even have that conversation now.

FDR was a Republican?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

FDR was a Republican?

Do you act like this at The Moth after other people finish their stories?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you act like this at The Moth after other people finish their stories?

Moth stories are true, so really there aren’t parallels to your posts{sad face}

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Moth stories are true, so really there aren’t parallels to your posts{sad face}

The Court has been political before. Before the Civil War, and as you pointed out, during FDR's earlier terms. Those times, it got better because the two parties were not polarized in the same way, so each side could live with the other side's Presidents' picks, more or less. After the Civil War, this was because the South lost, and slavery stopped being an issue. After the New Deal, it was because Republicans and Democrats had a lot of overlap in the middle, so Republican appointees like Earl Warren and David Souter were fine by Democrats. The parties have polarized around different views, so we are back to where we were before the Civil War, divided into two factions with strongly opposing views that are hard to reconcile. Hopefully there is less trench warfare this time around, but I don't really see how it ends.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Adder

Apparently the problem wasn't Googling, it was reading (or comprehension) or something:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can’t help myself. I like to argue.

What you think of me? Let’s assume one of two things occur:

1. You die;
2. You announce you hit the lottery

My response would be different because I’d feel a need to say something different in each circumstance. But internally, neither would cause me to rethink my appetizer.

Ha! Wow. You are legit cray cray. I’m not sure I’ve ever met someone so proud of being incapable of basic human emotions. If I ever own a cocktail bar, I will make sure there is always a gin drink on the menu called “The Unashamed Sociopath.”

But I do really enjoy the idea of someone rethinking their appetizer decision because of my death.

“Should we get the beef carpaccio?”

“No. Not tonight. Flower died.”

“I didn’t know. Moules-frites?”

“Yes.”

For what it’s worth, I would be genuinely sad to learn of your passing. And I would go out to dinner, figure out what appetizer I would have otherwise gotten, and then I would rethink that and order something else.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The Court has been political before. Before the Civil War, and as you pointed out, during FDR's earlier terms. Those times, it got better because the two parties were not polarized in the same way, so each side could live with the other side's Presidents' picks, more or less. After the Civil War, this was because the South lost, and slavery stopped being an issue. After the New Deal, it was because Republicans and Democrats had a lot of overlap in the middle, so Republican appointees like Earl Warren and David Souter were fine by Democrats. The parties have polarized around different views, so we are back to where we were before the Civil War, divided into two factions with strongly opposing views that are hard to reconcile. Hopefully there is less trench warfare this time around, but I don't really see how it ends.

Those of us who are Americans instead of dem or rep just want you both to stand down.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Those of us who are Americans instead of dem or rep just want you both to stand down.

No Republican is interested in standing down, or haven't you been paying attention? If you insist on pretending that both sides are the same, it makes things worse. They're going to keep on keeping on until they can't.

eta

Also, I think you're wrong. One of the issues fueling this is abortion rights, which most of the country supports. Conservatives who don't are trying to pack the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Most of the country is perfectly fine with Roe v. Wade and does not want it overturned.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

It was financialization... http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com...s-leaving.html

This guy's quirky and overly dramatic, but he's on to something there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Those of us who are Americans instead of dem or rep just want you both to stand down.

What's the difference with an 11 member court? 5 conservatives, plus Roberts who occasionally surprises, and 5 liberals. That'd just be restoring things to a one judge conservative advantage, as it is today.