Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2020 Election early voting and eventually results
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 71 of 200 (882993)
10-30-2020 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
10-30-2020 1:58 PM


There's been dubious dealings since the Republic was founded (and even before, just look at its ancestors in the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster). Stuffing ballots (or trashing opponents ballots) or "walking around money" is as American as Tammany Hall or JFK buying the West Virginia primary out from under LBJ.
The opinion polls give Mr. Biden a huge lead. Are you just setting yourself up so you can say you were cheated if the pollsters prove wrong like they did in 2016?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 1:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 3:24 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 74 of 200 (882997)
10-30-2020 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
10-30-2020 3:24 PM


Interesting!
Which courts? State? Federal? Supreme? Which judges or justices?
If they do so, would you support plans to pack the courts with people who are more pliable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 3:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 3:47 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 77 of 200 (883000)
10-30-2020 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
10-30-2020 3:47 PM


But then, of course, they can't "look at" anything until someone brings a suit. And then they pretty much have to decide (or decide not to take the case, which is also a decision). So what you're saying is you think they'll decide these cases "wrongly", isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 3:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 4:09 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 80 of 200 (883004)
10-30-2020 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
10-30-2020 4:09 PM


People scream blue murder when the courts rule against them, as they always do when there are two opposed parties to a suit. Southern Democrats promised "massive resistance" to Brown vs. Board of Education (even Joe Biden fought against busing for integration a half-century ago when he was a young - well, middle aged - Senator). Right-to-Lifers went so far as to shoot doctors and bomb clinics after Roe vs. Wade. Andrew Jackson simply ignored Worcester vs. Georgia. Liberals are cobbling together plans to pack the Supreme Court (There Is Only One Solution to the Amy Coney Barrett Debacle | The Nation) in the ultimate victor's justice should Mr. Biden win, as seems ever more likely. However the courts rule they will offend some people.
Personally, I think the courts should be more inclined to rule on the laws rather then use their decisions to "write" new laws of their own, but our modern culture of "making a federal case out of everything" and legislatures legislating sloppily (will they ever pass laws making a uniform, easy-to-read ballot and a better functioning voting system?), hoping the judiciary will edit the output of their word processors has dumped way too much power into the hands of the unelected judges and justices (and don't get me started on the ones from states where judges are ELECTED!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 4:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 5:01 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 82 of 200 (883006)
10-30-2020 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
10-30-2020 5:01 PM


Innuendo? Hardly. I claimed that people will scream when rulings go against them and I gave examples of some screaming.
As for court packing, sure, there's nothing illegal about it, go ahead, add a few pliable justices to the Supreme Court. You might not even need to go that far. Just the threat of enlargement was what (some say) cowed the Court back in the 1930s into a less assertive stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 5:42 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 84 of 200 (883008)
10-30-2020 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
10-30-2020 5:42 PM


I'm sorry if stating facts that you agree with is taken by you as "innuendo"....
But anyway . . . .
Why have a judiciary at all?
If n is the number of Supreme Court justices, then all you need is a President and half the Senate (VP casting the tie vote) to add another n+1 justices and suddenly every law that President signs will automatically be constitutional!
On the other hand, though, you can't always expect your poodles to refrain from biting you. Remember, in U.S. vs. Nixon the President didn't get votes from any of the justices he himself appointed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2020 5:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AZPaul3, posted 10-30-2020 10:10 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2020 2:47 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 90 of 200 (883021)
10-31-2020 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AZPaul3
10-30-2020 10:10 PM


Exactly, as I said, "...sure, there's nothing illegal about it, go ahead, add a few pliable justices to the Supreme Court. You might not even need to go that far. Just the threat of enlargement was what (some say) cowed the Court back in the 1930s into a less assertive stance."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AZPaul3, posted 10-30-2020 10:10 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 91 of 200 (883022)
10-31-2020 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
10-31-2020 2:47 AM


Why so touchy? I'm not saying anything you disagree with, either by "innuendo" or outright!
I haven't said anything at all against packing the court.
But . . .
1. Are you sure all the new justices that will benefit from the scheme will be chosen for their merit rather than their political views?
2. How sure are you that these justices, however meritorious, will remain loyal poodles? Remember, in United States vs. Nixon the justices appointed by the President ruled against him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2020 2:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2020 7:56 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2020 1:10 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 100 of 200 (883051)
11-02-2020 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by AZPaul3
10-31-2020 7:56 PM


True.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AZPaul3, posted 10-31-2020 7:56 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 101 of 200 (883052)
11-02-2020 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
11-01-2020 1:10 AM


decaf!
.
.
.
Always a "political element" is there. LBJ appointed Abe Fortas, Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia.
Sometimes, ability is sacrificed to that "political element".
But if these poodles aren't meant to remain loyal...
How can your "balance" be achieved if your chosen justices have independent minds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2020 1:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2020 4:03 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


(1)
Message 103 of 200 (883054)
11-02-2020 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
11-02-2020 4:03 PM


So you want to have justices who disagree with the people you disagree with (for "balance"), but you aren't concerned that they follow your party line? You want to have justices that are opposed to the "Republican" (or at least Republican-nominated) justices, but it's "not about partisanship"?
Look, I get it, you want the Supreme Court to decide in certain ways. Let's face it, so do I: I think if Roe vs. Wade is overturned it'll be a serious problem (which can be fixed by legislation, of course, as it was in some states even before 1973) and hope for future justices to be nominated who agree with me.
But I'm not going to say that, just for the sake of equity and fairness, the Court should be "balanced" by putting in justices that disagree with my views on Roe vs. Wade! I find it hard to believe that in the mid-20th century you would have read about the decisions of the Warren Court and said, "There should be some justices nominated that disagree with Brown vs. Board of Education to provide balance"?
Anyway, I really think the legislature should step up and pass laws, rather than hoping for a President to nominate and a Senate to confirm justices that will do the legislating for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2020 4:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2020 12:57 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 187 of 200 (883762)
01-10-2021 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
11-03-2020 12:57 AM


But your political position is what determines where you think the "balance point" should be!
Or . . . wait a minute . . . are you talking about the distribution of political opinion in the electorate? Justices should be about half-and-half Republican and Democrat?
So that if, say, one ninth of the population believed in white supremacy you'd support the nomination of one justice (out of nine) who is an avowed white supremacist? How about the people who believe religion should be taught in public schools? How about the global warming "deniers"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2020 12:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by vimesey, posted 01-10-2021 9:27 AM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2021 10:52 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 190 of 200 (883806)
01-12-2021 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by vimesey
01-10-2021 9:27 AM


But what does apolitical mean? They surely will have views on the important issues of the day. Presumably you mean they shouldn't be campaigning to have their views put into law, or (even worse) allow their views to affect their rulings.
That I do agree with. The last thing we need is a judiciary saying, "I know the law says X but my ruling is that, instead, it means Y."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by vimesey, posted 01-10-2021 9:27 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 191 of 200 (883807)
01-12-2021 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by PaulK
01-10-2021 10:52 AM


Most people, in my experience, like to think of themselves as centrists ("Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, ...")
But anyway, the idea of trying to fix a political makeup of the court falls apart when you realize that justices aren't supposed to rule on the basis of their political views, as you've conceded by ridiculing the idea that a white supremacist or global warming denier justice would be justified by public opinion.
Justices have enough trouble just reading the laws, reconciling the contradictions, cutting through the confusion of poorly written legislation and trying to apply laws to new situations as they come up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2021 10:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2021 9:31 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2021 9:38 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 193 of 200 (883865)
01-16-2021 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by AZPaul3
01-12-2021 9:31 PM


Ideological leanings, unfortunately, are the problem here. When courts decide to be legislators, as they did in Dred Scott, Korematsu, Kelo vs. City of New London, Roe vs. Wade and others it negatively affects how society will conduct itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2021 9:31 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by AZPaul3, posted 01-16-2021 1:03 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024