Potential SCOTUS Nomimee

[VikingsGuy]

I agree, but it happens now anyway, so any argument that is based on it happening the same or more falls a little flat. I don’t think you can tell people where they can or can’t work after leaving public office. That’s a slippery slope. You need to take the money out of politics to get rid of lobbists (and not sure that will do it). How about government funded elections. Each candidate gets a set amount. Make PACs illegal. More debates on material issues and less USPS mailings and yard signs.

I was meaning something a little different. For me the extra influence I am referring to as it specifically relates to term limits to is not about the money or the revolving door - it is about institutional power/memory. How to get laws made, how to understand the budgeting processes, how to understand the agencies and how to keep them accountable and bounded is extremely complex. A congress member is essentially just along for the ride for the first 5-8 years on the hill. They rely almost entirely on professional staffers, agency liaisons and lobbyists for almost all of their understanding. But with time they learn enough that they can begin to exert power over the processes and agencies, even in spite of the "handlers" steering them. To say 3 terms in Congress is max, just means the permanent professional staff in DC will have near-absolute control of the government. The point I was raising is different from the concerns you raised in your reply and is not intended to address those good points (although for another day, I do disagree that campaign funding or revolving door lobbying is the real problem in DC).

 

[VikingsGuy]

For some. But we shouldn’t define ambiguous phrases by the fringes of the group. When police received surplus military equipment years ago there was a big debate about it making the police more like the military and less connected with those in the societies they worked. I guess that debate is settled.

I would not call the Mayor of Minneapolis a fringe person to be simply dismissed. Many "mainstream" users of the term really do think "zero police" is somehow workable. So when I talk about police reform, I try to avoid the term "defund" and instead raise specifics, such as your point around demilitarization or not having cops respond to non-violent 911 calls or vagrancy calls, etc. As for the militarization of the police - we are fully aligned - during the BLM thread I shared my strong dislike with that approach.

 

[Randi]

Question

The speaker of the house said she would even consider impeachment if necessary to keep the president from naming a replacement to RBG

I researched this today and can find nothing, that says a president can be impeached for naming a replacement to fill an opening on the Supreme court in his last year of office. It looks like he could even do it after the election in Nov and even if he loses that election. I can find nothing stopping the Senate from moving forward either ?

I also could find nothing that would keep a President from naming a replacement during an impeachment investigation/hearing/trial ?

Was this just Bolster on her part or did I miss something in my research ?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Question

The speaker of the house said she would even consider impeachment if necessary to keep the president from naming a replacement to RBG

I researched this today and can find nothing, that says a president can be impeached for naming a replacement to fill an opening on the Supreme court in his last year of office. It looks like he could even do it after the election in Nov and even if he loses that election. I can find nothing stopping the Senate from moving forward either ?

I also could find nothing that would keep a President from naming a replacement during an impeachment investigation/hearing/trial ?

Was this just Bolster on her part or did I miss something in my research ?

She is just preaching to her choir. Nothing would stop her from impeaching, but the senate won’t convict so it would have zero legal effect.

Nothing limits the lame duck Congress or president between the election and January seating except tradition, humility and good judgement (traits that seem lacking these days).

 

[Drewd]

The Dems would not wait if it was the other way around. Most all of the national politicians are lawyers! No wonder it's so nasty all the time!

 

[noharleyyet]

Amy 'Honey' Barrett. yea yea #me too.....come on down, and steel yourself.

BTW, Tradition has been nuked.

 

[SAJ-99]

I would not call the Mayor of Minneapolis a fringe person to be simply dismissed. Many "mainstream" users of the term really do think "zero police" is somehow workable. So when I talk about police reform, I try to avoid the term "defund" and instead raise specifics, such as your point around demilitarization or not having cops respond to non-violent 911 calls or vagrancy calls, etc. As for the militarization of the police - we are fully aligned - during the BLM thread I shared my strong dislike with that approach.

Like the old political saying, define yourself or your opponent will. Here are various city police budgets.

 

[44hunter45]

I think it has always been the case. I believe that Dred Scott v Stanford was in part decided in fear that to rule in favor of Scott would fan the flames of southern succession. The SCOTUS 180 degree reversals on the commerce clause cases in the face of FDR's threat of court-packing are another example of a context-aware and politically affected court. The reversal of Plessy (Brown v Board of Education) absolutely correlated with a more generalized sentiment in favor of the emerging civil rights movement - there had been earlier chances to fix Plessy that were passed over. I think same-sex marriage cases followed a similar path - ruling after societal writing was on the wall.

And in a democracy, it is a good thing (to a point) that our least democratic (and slowest changing) branch of government displays some awareness and humility towards public sentiment.

In contrast, even some supporters of Roe agree that it was a ruling that got ahead of social acceptance, and we have seen the decades-long battleground it created. If the court had waited 10 years it may be water long under the bridge. (and remember 20 mostly high population states already had legalized abortion in some form at the state legislature level at the time of Roe)

This is a great practical description of Activist vs Conservation jurist though. Activist justices are comfortable pushing a social agenda far ahead of the mean of public opinion, with the idea that the nation as a whole needs to be engineered to a targeted change.
Conservative justices, in contrast, avoid social engineering, looking to the present or the past as the ideal of our cultural mores.

Social progress is important, yet unbridled social change has risk. Having both conservative and activist justices is important. These things protect us from the "Cult of Personality" in the other branches of our Government.

 

[44hunter45]

The outrage of his Supreme Court choices are a bit beyond the pale IMHO.

@Randi
The fact that you can use the phrase, "beyond the pale" in a sentence proves that you not the average millennial. You give me hope for our future.

 

[Randi]

@Randi
The fact that you can use the phrase, "beyond the pale" in a sentence proves that you not the average millennial. You give me hope for our future.

thank you---but--credit, where credit is due!

My grandparents, parents and some here on this forum have all shared with me. Some of my friends have asked me "what does that mean? " when I say something I heard from one of the elders in my life. "WE" youngsters can text in code but do not understand basic life sometimes". I did recently have someone from this forum send me a birth control method I had not heard of before, but sure enough when I ask my grandmother about it, she laughed and ask where I had heard that

Some say that defund the police does not mean defund the police it simply means re-routing the money ear marked for the police in a given town. Some say the police need more mental help and/or outlets ( like hunting and fishing ) to relax them as the stress of the job could create a situation that would cause them to make a mistake.

I understand this and I am not talking about any of the current situations ( like currently in Kentucky ) But, who here on the forum would not shoot at someone coming at them with a gun or knife. I dont care if the person is white, black, brown, yellow, or pink. I dont think the color of the person would be my concern if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun. We discussed this as well and surprisingly unlike the other topics we discussed --everyone agreed on this one.

So, where and how does the money earmarked "for the police" go or get rerouted to who or what. We thought MORE money to the police, allowing them more time off to unwind, i.e.. pay them for a week but they only work 4 days and rest ( or hunt and fish ) the other three . Too simplistic --Maybe .

Vikingguy and Saj-99 posted about this today is why I ask on this thread,

But staying on this thread title: I think what Maher said on his show gives us some idea of the discourse we are about to see. To be fair, I did not see his show but some sent me clips and I thought he was pretty rough on the lady. It looks like her Religion and because of her Religion, birth control will be how they will attempt to discredit her.

 

[antlerradar]

Question

The speaker of the house said she would even consider impeachment if necessary to keep the president from naming a replacement to RBG

I researched this today and can find nothing, that says a president can be impeached for naming a replacement to fill an opening on the Supreme court in his last year of office. It looks like he could even do it after the election in Nov and even if he loses that election. I can find nothing stopping the Senate from moving forward either ?

I also could find nothing that would keep a President from naming a replacement during an impeachment investigation/hearing/trial ?

Was this just Bolster on her part or did I miss something in my research ?

The bar that you need to jump is a lot lower today than it was in the past.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I understand this and I am not talking about any of the current situations ( like currently in Kentucky ) But, who here on the forum would not shoot at someone coming at them with a gun or knife. I dont care if the person is white, black, brown, yellow, or pink. I dont think the color of the person would be my concern if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun. We discussed this as well and surprisingly unlike the other topics we discussed --everyone agreed on this one.

We as a society have confused the issue to some degree. Keep in mind I am not justifying nor condoning excessive force in a situation. But, who does not cheer during a movie where the bad ass cop gets rid of the bad guys? We inherently want the police, judges and the criminal system to be hard on crime and criminals. We as a civilized society have passed laws and want to live without fear that we will be the victim of a crime. But some don't live within those laws.

What is happening now is a down play on "what is crime". A redefining if you will. What is considered "bad enough" to punish. We are normalizing crime and criminals to some degree. You can't stop it so accept it philosophy. Now, there is no doubt that racism is occurring. But as you say, the race don't matter when it comes to our or our families safety.

Many police officers are doing a great job. The plain truth and an over simplification is that the police would not have a job or a need if crime did not exist...

 

[44hunter45]

Googling Amy Coney Barrett this morning, it seems the mud slingers are lining up. Al Franken, the ever moderate voice of reason from the great state of @VikingsGuy , is making outrageous claims.
They are going to have a hard time finding anyone who attended a wild greek party with young Amy, so they are going to have to resort personal attacks.

The left is circling the wagons with fear speech about how her being on the bench will end decades of progress, etc.

Sit down, strap in, and hold on tight.

 

[Trial153]

Well in fairness, Barrett wasn't sure as hell wasn't picked to appeal the moderates and centrists amongst us. If Trump and Company wanted to build bridges on commonality we'd be viewing a Garland nomination.....and we seen how far that went.

 

[VikingsGuy]

But, who here on the forum would not shoot at someone coming at them with a gun or knife. I dont care if the person is white, black, brown, yellow, or pink. I dont think the color of the person would be my concern if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun. We discussed this as well and surprisingly unlike the other topics we discussed --everyone agreed on this one.

A couple of things. First, I do not know that rational people are truly stating that if someone clearly has a gun or a knife and they are about to use it to harm an average citizen, that that citizen shouldn't defend themselves. But here are the nuances some are asking us to ponder. What if the person being threatened is a cop? Shouldn't they have the training to de-escalate if possible? What if it is not clear that the offender has a knife or a weapon, but due to some people's assumptions about the "more violent nature" of certain skin colors that cops shoot people of color more often than white people in similar ambiguous situations? Or what if the way the police have treated the people in a particular community results in more aggressive behavior towards police that then culminates in the deadly situation? Or what if cops are color blind at the time of shootings and it is just a matter of percentages - the more your neighborhood involves the police the more likely you are to be shot by an officer, but due to poverty and excessive policing of minor drug possession and vagrancy that you do have police contact far more often thereby making a person of color more likely to be shot? No easy answers, but they are questions worth considering.

So, where and how does the money earmarked "for the police" go or get rerouted to who or what.

The working hypothosis is that police are being used for too many non-police activities. Police are dealing with the homeless, minor neighborhood squabbles, non-violent domestic disputes, vagrancy, every medical or fire 911 call, etc, In theory you would take these tasks off the plate of the police - therefore you would need fewer police to provide the same level of service for true police calls and the money saved from the fewer police would be used to hire folks better suited/trained to deal with those lesser issues. It is no different than trying to run a hospital only with doctors - they are the most trained and most expensive, it is better to have nurses and the like do things that don't really require a doctor. This reduces costs and improves the job satisfaction of the doctors as they do not have to do as much "routine" work. The is thought is a similar approach could help in de-escalating our current policing culture and provide better suited resources to the community.

But staying on this thread title: I think what Maher said on his show gives us some idea of the discourse we are about to see. To be fair, I did not see his show but some sent me clips and I thought he was pretty rough on the lady. It looks like her Religion and because of her Religion, birth control will be how they will attempt to discredit her.

It's all about Roe. The DEM view is that conservative Catholics are generally anti-Roe. So their balancing act is to "discredit her" without alienating key blue-collar catholic voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. This will be interesting to watch - if they get it wrong they could hand Trump the White House and still not have the votes to block her.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well in fairness, Barrett wasn't sure as hell wasn't picked to appeal the moderates and centrists amongst us. If Trump and Company wanted to build bridges on commonality we'd be viewing a Garland nomination.....and we seen how far that went.

Just curious - Obama wins the White House and appoints one of the most liberal justices to ever sit on the court (Sotomayer). Why did he not try to appoint someone better chosen to appeal to moderates and centrists? The simple answer is that he didn't have to, he won the presidential election and had his party in control of the senate. I haven't heard anybody suggest he was wrong in his choice. As he pointed out so clearly, elections have consequences.

So, when Trump has an opening why is he expected to appoint a "centrist"? There has been a double standard on this issue since Bork. And as a result, DEM appointed justices reliably vote left of center and some republican compromise candidates like O'Connor, Kennedy & Roberts have been much more willing to drift to the other side of the aisle so to speak.

It is what it is, but let's at least fair about how this actually plays out.

 

[Trial153]

Just curious - Obama wins the White House and appoints one of the most liberal justices to ever sit on the court (Sotomayer). Why did he not try to appoint someone better chosen to appeal to moderates and centrists? The simple answer is that he didn't have to, he won the presidential election and had his party in control of the senate. I haven't heard anybody suggest he was wrong in his choice. As he pointed out so clearly, elections have consequences.

So, when Trump has an opening why is he expected to appoint a "centrist"? There has been a double standard on this issue since Bork. And as a result, DEM appointed justices reliably vote left of center and some republican compromise candidates like O'Connor, Kennedy & Roberts have been much more willing to drift to the other side of the aisle so to speak.

It is what it is, but let's at least fair about how this actually plays out.

Fair point no doubt. However the political ramifications are in two different realms. In 2009 Obama was in office for a year, he was not facing reelection for another three years nor was the country on the verge of potential violence due to polarization thats been caused by both parties. If at any we needed presidential leadership to step up and bridge a divide its now. That hasn't happened with any crises or situation we have faced this year. Both the president and congressional leadership of both parties all has shown they are more than willing to let it all burn up in face of keeping or gaining power.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Fair point no doubt. However the political ramifications are in two different realms. In 2009 Obama was in office for a year, he was not facing reelection for another three years nor was the country on the verge of potential violence due to polarization thats been caused by both parties. If at any we needed presidential leadership to step up and bridge a divide its now. That hasn't happened with any crises or situation we have faced this year. Both the president and congressional leadership of both parties all has shown they are more than willing to let it all burn up in face of keeping or gaining power.

FDR, in the middle of a depression and a world war appointed the 8 most liberal judges ever sent to the court at the time. There is simply no historical scenario that says one party has to make the other party happy even in tough times.

Obama did not offer up a moderate conservative to replace Scalia even though he had lost the senate during the intervening years - he would have rather (and did) lose the pick rather than cross the aisle.


Remember, for every liberal who is offended by Alito or Thomas, there is a conservative who is offended by Kagan or Sotomayor. And for every liberal who finds this appointment offensive, there is a conservative who is celebrating it. We are equally divided.

And why is it that "coming to the middle" has become the demand of the conservatives, as the liberals run further left than they have ever been. I would like to see both come to the middle, but it is simply unreasonable to expect only one side to fall on its sword. FDR & Kennedy wouldn't vote for AOC. DEM Ed Markey actually ran against a Kennedy kid on the slogan, "we tried the whole 'do for your country thing', now it is time we stand up and demand to know what our government is going to do for us" - classy.

Trump is a unique individual, but his brand of crazy will pass with him. The new DEM party has a huge element that is charting a new path towards the failed leftist policies of Venezuela and Cuba - they are young, they are large in numbers and they will be reshaping America for the next 40 years. And even though I am pissed at the current GOP, I have much graver concerns about the emerging left.

I actually wish the "Unity" thing posted a while back would work, but it won't. I miss Ted Kennedy and Bush working together; Reagan and Tip getting things done. But I fear those days have passed for a while. Maybe they will return in a decade or two.

 

[antlerradar]

all about Roe. The DEM view is that conservative Catholics are generally anti-Roe. So their balancing act is to "discredit her" without alienating key blue-collar catholic voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. This will be interesting to watch - if they get it wrong they could hand Trump the White House and still not have the votes to block her.

I agree. Push too hard and risk losing Midwest blue-collar voters or risk the wrath of the AOC wing of the party if you don't push hard enough. Going to be balancing on the blade of a razor. If you fall, you are not going to want to fall in the middle.

 

[406dn]

Trump is a unique individual, but his brand of crazy will pass with him. The new DEM party has a huge element that is charting a new path towards the failed leftist policies of Venezuela and Cuba - they are young, they are large in numbers and they will be reshaping America for the next 40 years. And even though I am pissed at the current GOP, I have much graver concerns about the emerging left.

That has been the right's claim since at least FDR. Anything outside of conservative thought is a steep slope leading straight to communism.

It might well be that younger Americans aren't that impressed with the situation they are inheriting. I doubt they will try to copy Cuba or Venezuela, you need to come up with a better boogyman.