General US Politics

[Excellen Browning]

6 hours ago, XRay said:

I am kind of worried about court packing, since if we do that, Republicans can also court pack in the future.

I agree, but my honest assessment is that the republicans have started a race to the bottom. That's in terms of voter suppression, the widespread gerrymandering, and the attempt to install judges in the scotus who will overturn chevron deference and guarantee conservative outcomes and policy regardless of who's in the white house, and congress.

[Lewyn]

That race is unstoppable until the GOP are wiped out or made so weak they can't do anything for a long time.  A few updates.  Lindsey Graham says he has the votes to confirm whatever justice Trump puts forward, yeah guess it doesn't matter at all who he picks.  Also guess that most Republicans are hypocrites, not surprised.

Another thing Pelosi said they have tools, but she would not shutdown the government.  My question is why not?  The Republicans have thrown their baby tantrums several times in the past decade shutting down the government when they don't get their way and they didn't give a fuck.  Think if the situation was flipped and Dems stole a justice on Mcconnell's line of thinking, then hypocrisy and rush to confirm a far left justice to give a commanding 6-3 supermajority?  Let's be honest Republicans would shut down the government without hesitation if that is what it took to delay the confirmation til January.  

Why are Democrats such damn weaklings, do they realize what is at stake? 

[Moblin Major General]

2 hours ago, Lewyn said:

 Why are Democrats such damn weaklings, do they realize what is at stake? 

Unfortunately, the minute they start playing by Republican rules, they lose the support of moderates. They can't play hardball until after the election, lest the both sides rhetoric starts coming around and jading the center again. And it's been like this for a long time. Once the House gets a new Speaker (which I hope is soon), we might get stronger responses from them.

[Excellen Browning]

4 hours ago, Lewyn said:

That race is unstoppable until the GOP are wiped out or made so weak they can't do anything for a long time.  A few updates.  Lindsey Graham says he has the votes to confirm whatever justice Trump puts forward, yeah guess it doesn't matter at all who he picks.  Also guess that most Republicans are hypocrites, not surprised.

Another thing Pelosi said they have tools, but she would not shutdown the government.  My question is why not?  The Republicans have thrown their baby tantrums several times in the past decade shutting down the government when they don't get their way and they didn't give a fuck.  Think if the situation was flipped and Dems stole a justice on Mcconnell's line of thinking, then hypocrisy and rush to confirm a far left justice to give a commanding 6-3 supermajority?  Let's be honest Republicans would shut down the government without hesitation if that is what it took to delay the confirmation til January.  

Why are Democrats such damn weaklings, do they realize what is at stake? 

Shutting down the government is an extreme measure, especially now during the pandemic. The republicans may be inhumane monsters who are okay with killing thousands at the drop of a hat, democrats by and large are not. 

If the new scotus appointment can be blocked by a new impeachment, and lord knows there's a ton of things that are worthy of impeachment, then that's by all means the better solution.

[Usana]

All this court packing talk keeps trying to push me towards a republican ticket. As scummy as the blocking and forcing through of candidates feels it is still something that is rather typical. My reading up on all these involved issues is fairly basic, but my knowledge indicates that court packing specifically to change the courts makeup to favor your party would be a whole new level of scum.

As for ramming through a nominee during an election year? John Marshall was forced through in an election year with TWO months before Thomas Jefferson assumed office. In other words John Adams had already lost the election but made his pick anyways. And Adams is hardly the only one. 5 times a president who lost or withdrawn from the election has nominated a justice on their way out after said loss. And Andrew Jackson on his very last full day as president of his 2nd term nominated a justice. Actually he nominated two and got them confirmed though 1 declined to serve. My point being, rushing through a pick just before getting knocked out of or otherwise leaving office, may be scummy, but it isn't a new kind of scum and more just the rules of the game. Packing the court is more akin to flipping the gameboard. Changing the rules I am fine with. Making a rule about elections years let alone making it so the president going out can't nominate? Probably a good idea. Deciding that whomever has power at the time can just up and change the court to suit their policies at any time so that they can ram whatever they want through? Less so.

As for blocking a candidate. Haven't done enough reading yet on that. But a quick look at wikipedia seems to indicate the Garland situation was not the first time the senate simply took no action. As said I haven't yet managed enough reading to know exactly how those instances played out. But a quick look indicates that the Republicans really stretched the no action out(which isn't very surprising I don't think). It looks as if nearly all those cases were instances a lot closer to the election than in the Garland case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nominations_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency

And finally as for Court Packing. Pretty much everytime the Supreme Court has had its number of seats increased has been due to expansion of the country and creation of new circuit courts to cover the new territories. So nearly doubling the size solely so that you can get the majority would be an entirely new level of court manipulation. The closest thing I can find to that is when they tried to decrease the size to 7. The Republicans of the time did not like that so many of the circuits were comprised entirely of southern states. However, wikipedia states that the Chief Justice at the time was the biggest influencer of the act and his hope was that reducing the justices would lead to an increase in salary. So. . . yeah. . .

 

 

On 9/20/2020 at 8:10 PM, Glennstavos said:

The solution to this will always be compulsory voting. And I suppose an infrastructure that ensures everybody who wants to vote, and is legally elligible, can. We're having a few issues there. Unless you can find the magic spell that gets people to suddenly give a shit, compulsory voting is the fastest way to get better representation in general elections. It's not just the US, either. Brexit was decided on by just 26% of eligible voters, which is very similar to the 27% of Americans that got Trump into office. Although technically, those voters didn't get Trump into office, a bunch of anonymous electors did, but the electoral college doesn't need to be the star of every crisis of democracy does it?

I think I must not have been clear. I was mostly talking about of the people who do vote. If you don't bother to vote at all I generally assume you don't land in that "want them gone" camp. Of course there are people who want both candidates gone and don't think it is worth it to bother voting 3rd party or etc. But most of the folks in my personal circuit who actively dislike 1 or more of the candidates to the point that they want them gone do bother to vote. Even if only for a 3rd party. Though that mostly started up in 2016. Before 2016 most of them were blue no matter who type people since blue was the lesser evil. Ever since the lead up to 2016 though the most vocal of them appear to be Green.

Anyways, I am not a fan of compulsory voting and would probably move any politician in support of it on my blacklist. It seems many of the compulsory voting places just let you turn in a black/voided type ballot. Which just baffles me. Imaging myself as a non-voter being forced to drive in since I live in the middle of nowhere with Eustace as a neighbor just because you really want me to turn in a blank piece of paper just . . . infuriates me. Same with all the wasted paper, the wasted fuel, wasted hours of work(since you'll need more staffing), etc. The only time it makes sense to me is if you are forcing it in order to poll why people are feeling disenfranchised in order to solve the problem of low turn out. And there are other ways to go about that. Also it doesn't really help much since such voters are likely to vote with little research. It won't change much since folks already do that(so it isn't a bad thing or at least not a thing that would make anything worse), but I again don't see the point in forcing folks to do so. Let them decide if it is worth their effort. Don't go pointing guns at people's heads to force them to vote. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and is in my opinion the lazy man's way to try and 'solve' the problem. Compulsory voting does not equal enthusiastic voting. You want people to vote, find out why they aren't engaged and engage them. Its not easy, but that is the right way to do it.

That said if it came with an internet voting option bundled in I would probably be pacified since that is something I would like to see and I can compromise as long as I am offered something I am willing to concede for. Sadly there are so many security issues that I don't really envision this happening anytime soon. If ever in my lifetime.

13 hours ago, XRay said:

What about tying tax returns to voting? People have to give a shit then, since if they do not vote, they are not getting their tax return.

I know in my case if I were a non-voter I would just withhold differently*. As long as you make at least 90 percent of the tax due you don't owe any penalties you just pay the difference up. I already have to do this on the city level due to issues with city and employer not syncing up well(I work in a different city than I live in). In addition penalties tend to be waved if you owe less than 1000 dollars minus what you already paid. So unless you miscalculate by more than a grand you probably won't pay a penalty. Folks mostly just take the big check because it is easy, anxiety free since you don't have to worry about accidentally miscalculating and underpaying, and effectively forces them to save for a potential big purchase.

*Actually I am a vindictive asshole once pissed off so if something like that happened I would probably just permanently spite vote against the party responsible, or at least until another party pissed me off. Once you piss me off I am often more than willing to chop off my own hand just to spite you. I try not to get pissed off. It isn't good for me or anyone else.
 

[Tryhard]

18 minutes ago, Usana said:

Packing the court is more akin to flipping the gameboard. Changing the rules I am fine with. Making a rule about elections years let alone making it so the president going out can't nominate? Probably a good idea. Deciding that whomever has power at the time can just up and change the court to suit their policies at any time so that they can ram whatever they want through? Less so.

Not at all. The Republicans have already flipped the gameboard and the Democrats are still trying to play within the rules. Anyone suggesting packing the courts is unaware about how weak and without conviction the Democrats actually are. 

[Shoblongoo]

Aight--Romney's a [YES]. They have the votes.
____

100% fine with a Court Packing plan, if Dems win the White House and the Senate.

Thats fair turn-around for blocking Obama from appointing Scalia's replacement for 240 days before the 2016 election and then ramming RBG's through in ~40. 

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Anyone suggesting packing the courts is unaware about how weak and without conviction the Democrats actually are. 

Anyone who can generalize the Democratic party's viewpoints is unaware of how the Democratic Party actually works.

 

Court packing and killing the filibuster work hand-in-hand. Republicans can easily reverse everything, but then the next D in power can reverse that. It's pretty much a scotch tape solution to grand structural problems within our country's framework.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

41 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Anyone who can generalize the Democratic party's viewpoints is unaware of how the Democratic Party actually works.

 

Court packing and killing the filibuster work hand-in-hand. Republicans can easily reverse everything, but then the next D in power can reverse that. It's pretty much a scotch tape solution to grand structural problems within our country's framework.

Okay: the current Democratic party led by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi do not have the spine to go ahead with court packing. See: the numerous times that the Democrats have immediately caved to the Republicans, including multiple government shutdowns. Pelosi backed off the idea of court-packing when asked about it. Biden has dismissed the idea of doing such in any circumstance previously because of fear of Republican reprisal, as well.

Without radical change, it's not happening.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

I mean lets be clear: what the Republicans are doing right now is Court-packing.

Holding open a Supreme Court seat for 240 days before an election one cycle to deny a pick to Obama and then rushing a confirmation through at the 11th hour to make sure one more goes to Trump is Court-Packing.

"Court-Packing" via expanding the court is becoming a mainstream idea right now among senior Democratic leadership because the way things are shaping up; it is required as a counter-measure to Republican efforts to pack the courts with a conservative majority, rather than as an affirmative power play by the left.
_____

But why stop there???

For a snapshot of how badly the current structure of government has failed us:

-We have a president that received ~3 million fewer votes then the opposition candidate
-We have a senate where the majority party represents ~15 million fewer people then the minority 
-We're about to have a Supreme Court where a majority of 5 of the 4 justices were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote

...its a broken system of minority rule by a shrinking conservative white {majority}, holding the government hostage across the board...

And JUST packing the courts is, frankly, too small a fix for it. (whats to stop R's from getting back into power the same way they did last time and doing it again?)

I'd encourage the D's to REALLY go hard if after November, they're back in control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Statehood for D.C.
Statehood for Puerto Rico. 

Pack the SENATE with new blue seats, and give Republicans the hurdle of 58 seats they have to hold if they ever want to take it back. 

Republicans wanna play hardball? Lets play hardball.  

Edited September 22, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Okay: the current Democratic party led by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi do not have the spine to go ahead with court packing. See: the numerous times that the Democrats have immediately caved to the Republicans, including multiple government shutdowns. Pelosi backed off the idea of court-packing when asked about it.

Isn't the government shutdown a result of not caving? lol

Quote

Biden has dismissed the idea of doing such in any circumstance previously because of fear of Republican reprisal, as well.

Without radical change, it's not happening.

Well yeah, no shit. Senate's not guaranteed this year, nor is the presidency.

Considering the Democrats have shifted their tune on the filibuster within the last few months, I wouldn't be so sure. This isn't the 2009-2010 era party.

If your argument is simply "the democrats don't have balls," they're a minority party in the senate. There's a few that cave and they suck, the party as a whole has said "nothing's off the table if there's a confirmation." Whatever you want that to mean, I have no idea, but we don't really live in a time where we can predict things with the confidence you have.

[Shoblongoo]

I think for many democrats who were previously willing to give their Republican colleagues the benefit of the doubt that whatever ideological differences existed between them, they were all working together to maintain the helm of state.  And treated maintaining institutional norms and professional courtesies as the higher purpose than advancing  causes while in power.

The last 4 years have been--instructive--as to what exactly we are dealing with. And what we need to be prepared to do when we have a governing majority again, to level the playing field. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

Isn't the government shutdown a result of not caving? lol

There was two shutdowns. The first was briefly, where the Democrats caved on DACA and the government was shut down regardless.

The second the Democrats offered money for Trump's border wall initially, but Trump being the child that he is pushed them until he had to force sign a spending bill. I guess you could say that the Democrats "won" in this regard, so you may not consider it caving, fair enough.

My pessimism is a result of seeing the Democrats cave to Republican demands for years, even for far longer than Trump, on things like defense spending, healthcare (Obamacare was modelled after 90's Republican healthcare plans - how many Republicans voted for it? 0.), social benefits, foreign policy (not as bad as the Republicans, but Obama was still droning everywhere and invading Libya and the like...) etc.

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

Well yeah, no shit. Senate's not guaranteed this year, nor is the presidency.

Considering the Democrats have shifted their tune on the filibuster within the last few months, I wouldn't be so sure. This isn't the 2009-2010 era party.

Unless he suddenly contradicts himself, he doesn't think they should pack the courts if they get the presidency and senate. It's unlikely he would consider it.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hasn't commented publicly on expanding the court since Ginsburg's death. But he previously dismissed the idea, warning of reprisal if and when Republicans regain control.

"I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we'll live to rue that day," he told Iowa Starting Line early in the primary race last year. A few months later, during a Democratic primary debate, Biden once again rejected the idea. "I would not get into court packing," Biden said. "We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all."

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

If your argument is simply "the democrats don't have balls," they're a minority party in the senate. There's a few that cave and they suck, the party as a whole has said "nothing's off the table if there's a confirmation." Whatever you want that to mean, I have no idea, but we don't really live in a time where we can predict things with the confidence you have.

I would think that such a thing would need to be unanimous, no? You can't have democrats caving if you want to do this.

From leadership, the only one I've seen gung-ho about doing this is Schumer... and he has lied about other things before.

In no situation can I imagine them doing it, I can see alternatives for them trying to play hardball, but not this. But if we are going to not predict things like this I wish I would stop seeing how Biden is going to beat Trump in a landslide from folks. I see that 538 called Hillary for 28 to 71 in terms of chances in 2016 - and 538 were probably the closest, realistically. They now have Biden at 22 to 77. Not exactly that much different despite the fact in any sane world Trump would have no chance in hell.

 

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

I think for many democrats who were previously willing to give their Republican colleagues the benefit of the doubt that whatever ideological differences existed between them, they were all working together to maintain the helm of state.  And treated maintaining institutional norms and professional courtesies as the higher purpose than advancing  causes while in power.

The last 4 years have been--instructive--as to what exactly we are dealing with. And what we need to be prepared to do when we have a governing majority again, to level the playing field. 

Republicans have been obstructing for years even before Trump. Did you know they tried to get Obamacare repealed 54 times between 2011 and 2014 when they had no means of doing so?

The modern Republican party has not changed that much. And after Trump it'll probably be the same too. And yet I've rarely seen any bite from the Democrats in response.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

11 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

My pessimism is a result of seeing the Democrats cave to Republican demands for years, even for far longer than Trump, on things like defense spending, healthcare (Obamacare was modelled after 90's Republican healthcare plans - how many Republicans voted for it? 0.), social benefits, foreign policy (not as bad as the Republicans, but Obama was still droning everywhere and invading Libya and the like...) etc.

Different Democratic party then vs now. The landscape has shifted to the point where even West Virginia senator is considering destroying the filibuster. That's massive, because he's the furthest right of the party (given the state he lives in, it's a necessity; this is part of the issue when discussing the Democratic party, because they're an attempt at a unified front in front of a massive tent with holes).

13 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Unless he suddenly contradicts himself, he doesn't think they should pack the courts if they get the presidency and senate. It's unlikely he would consider it.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hasn't commented publicly on expanding the court since Ginsburg's death. But he previously dismissed the idea, warning of reprisal if and when Republicans regain control.

"I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we'll live to rue that day," he told Iowa Starting Line early in the primary race last year. A few months later, during a Democratic primary debate, Biden once again rejected the idea. "I would not get into court packing," Biden said. "We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all."

Early primary Joe Biden is a much different candidate than current Joe Biden.

Currently he dodges the question, simply because the focus should be on what is going on now and what the Democrats can/will do about it later. To avoid giving a soundbite. But Chuck Schumer has said nothing's off the table with a senate majority, and Pelosi has threatened another impeachment hearing over this. I don't see where their heads of parties are attempting to cave.

You don't want soundbites to encourage the other side to vote.

16 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I would think that such a thing would need to be unanimous, no? You can't have democrats caving if you want to do this.

From leadership, the only one I've seen gung-ho about doing this is Schumer... and he has lied about other things before.

In no situation can I imagine them doing it, I can see alternatives for them trying to play hardball, but not this. But if we are going to not predict things like this I wish I would stop seeing how Biden is going to beat Trump in a landslide from folks. I see that 538 called Hillary for 28 to 71 in terms of chances in 2016 - and 538 were probably the closest, realistically. They now have Biden at 22 to 77. Not exactly that much different despite the fact in any sane world Trump would have no chance in hell.

Court packing would have to be unanimous or SCOTUS nominations? Both are just simple majorities. The latter is solely in the Senate, the former is a simple majority in both chambers of Congress.

I'm not sure where you're hearing about Biden beating Trump in a landslide. I'm hearing significant amounts of pessimism wherever I go, followed by a "but I'll go through hell to vote for Biden right now." The polls are the polls, and they're weighted heavier for non college-educated whites among other things (non-educated whites weren't picked up on polls in 2016 as effectively as they should've been; polls were on point in 2018), so who knows? Currently 538 says 77 to 22; Biden's much more electable than Clinton, and 22% is not a 0% chance.

Considering Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and only won by a 5-digit total number of votes among three states in 2016, it's reasonable to say that he did win, but in a very very close election where maybe lower voter turnout among certain counties may have been a cause. It's easy to say the 28% happened with hindsight, but in context it was never realistic to say a Clinton landslide.

I think if Biden wins, it should be by a landslide and it could be by a good amount, but there's so many forces at work to suppress the vote that no matter what happens the result wont be accurate. I have it in my head that Biden will somehow win a close election, then the election will get investigated only to learn that a shitload of Biden ballots were tossed out in the mail and that the election wasn't even close.

I firmly believe that in ideal circumstances wrt voting and the USPS and Trump voters not threatening people at the polls, it is a guaranteed landslide lol but sadly America is fucked up.

[Excellen Browning]

3 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Okay: the current Democratic party led by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi do not have the spine to go ahead with court packing. See: the numerous times that the Democrats have immediately caved to the Republicans, including multiple government shutdowns. Pelosi backed off the idea of court-packing when asked about it. Biden has dismissed the idea of doing such in any circumstance previously because of fear of Republican reprisal, as well.

Without radical change, it's not happening.

They had the spine to go ahead with impeachment in spite of having no chance of success, and they walked from negotiations for the second coronavirus relief bill because the compromise the republicans were offering was shit.

This is a nice hot take and all, but not really one that's based in reality.

[Lord Raven]

I'm not going to speculate much on Puerto Rico but Biden's definitely come out in favor of DC Statehood (aka Senate stacking) as well. I'm not really sure what to expect from a Biden presidency overall, but the platform is pretty rock solid and the Democrats are gradually embracing it.

[Tryhard]

23 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

They had the spine to go ahead with impeachment in spite of having no chance of success

you mean the one that was ultimately pointless and really only served to waste political capital on the part of the democrats?

this was probably the worst example you could have used.

23 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

and they walked from negotiations for the second coronavirus relief bill because the compromise the republicans were offering was shit.

This is a nice hot take and all, but not really one that's based in reality.

I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with politics the most since 'rona started so perhaps I'm not aware of this story, but this is still recently and is developing, right?

Edited September 22, 2020 by Tryhard

[Excellen Browning]

20 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

you mean the one that was ultimately pointless and really only served to waste political capitol on the part of the democrats?

this was probably the worst example you could have used.

So how, exactly, does this refute my point?

20 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with politics the most since 'rona started so perhaps I'm not aware of this story, but this is still recently and is developing, right?

Check out the HEALS(r) and HEROES(d) acts, they're the proposed follow ups to the CARES act by the respective parties. The differences are stark. There were negotiations at the end of july and into august for a compromise, which failed(for good reason.) And then the senate went into recess for the summer, on McConnell's order. At the same time, a bunch of provisions on the CARES act, like the foreclosures and eviction moratorium, expired at the end of last month.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Excellen Browning

[Etrurian emperor]

Its possible that the Democrats will be too spineless to level the playing field when they are in power again. However its equally possible that the Trump presidency has hardened or even radicalized the Democrats. 

[Tryhard]

20 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

So how, exactly, does this refute my point?

Because standing in front of a moving truck may be 'having a spine' or brave, but it's also very stupid. If there was also no consequences for what was ultimately bluster then I would do it as well. But I'm not interested in the Democrats symbolic 'resistance' that doesn't actually achieve anything. C'mon.

20 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

Check out the HEALS(r) and HEROES(d) acts, they're the proposed follow ups to the CARES act by the respective parties. Check them out, the differences are stark. There were negotiations at the end of july and into august for a compromise, which failed(for good reason.) And then the senate went into recess for the summer, on McConnell's order. At the same time, a bunch of provisions on the CARES act, like the foreclosures and eviction moratorium, expired at the end of last month.

I'll look into it.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

49 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its possible that the Democrats will be too spineless to level the playing field when they are in power again. However its equally possible that the Trump presidency has hardened or even radicalized the Democrats. 

I hope it doesn't radicalize them too much. Because that means moderates are going to be caught in the middle of a massive civil conflict between neo-fascists and democratic socialists. We recognize when the pendulum swings, but if it's gonna be violent, fast, and wide swings every time, the country will not survive.

[Crysta]

If you're still torn between the neo-fascists and the democratic socialists -- as if they're in any way equally bad -- then we have bigger problems.

[Usana]

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I mean lets be clear: what the Republicans are doing right now is Court-packing.

Holding open a Supreme Court seat for 240 days before an election one cycle to deny a pick to Obama and then rushing a confirmation through at the 11th hour to make sure one more goes to Trump is Court-Packing.

I have already gone over this. But I guess I will do it again. It is only Court-packing in the way that say FDR who got to fill the seat of 8 justices is. The current system is effectively set up as a gambling system. Both parties are basically gambling on being in power during death/retirements of Justices. Sometimes this results in one party or the other making a big sweep. Though as far as I know FDR is definitely the record holder there. Point is this is how the game has been setup up for centuries effectively and isn't anything new.

Rushing a confirmation through is nothing new.  Adams after he lost the election managed to nominate and cram through a justice in 2 months before Jefferson took Office. Jackson nominated TWO during his last full day as president, though one declined to serve so he really only got to fill one seat. Six presidents who have lost or withdrawn an election have managed an election year nomination. Trump would only be the 7th president to do so. Thus he is in good company. Now, I think we certainly could use a nice law to prevent such shenanigans, but it is the rule of the game right now and both parties have been content to gamble in this way in the past. If folks finally decided they are tired of this and make a law preventing election year nominations I would be in full support of the attempt. Though this would further make election years disruptive, but it is probably worth it to prevent these kinds of situations.

Holding a seat open. Multiple times the senate has chosen to take no action on a nomination. I am not even sure if you can say Republicans hold the record. John Tyler tried to nominate Read in February of his last year but the senate blocked him and his name was eventually withdrawn. Tyler was blocked hard by the senate. He had two vacancies during his term that ended in 1845, one opened in 1843 and another in 1844. He was repeatedly blocked and rejected over and over. He did finally get one through at the very end by nominating a Democrat, though apparently even that confirmation came as a surprise. So this guy effectively was effectively prevented from filling a seat for nearly two years. While he kept withdrawing and submitting new names means that each individual nomination probably doesn't take the record for most time in limbo, if you decide to look at it as an unfilled vacancy instead of an individual confirmation, it doesn't really appear the Republicans hold the record. So again not new and is just how the rules are set up. We can vote to change them, though this one is a bit trickier to settle I think. But you could switch it so that nominations are automatically confirmed unless the senate(with the typical standard majority) votes no. So if there is no vote then the nomination just goes through after X amount of time. After all if the senate doesn't vote no, then clearly they have no objections right?

 

Now as for court packing. Picking up FDR's court packing plan is a lot more acceptable than the bits I have been hearing would be. FDR's concern with his plan(other than you know forcing his policy through) was on the fact that due to austerity measures Justices were refusing to retire since they didn't want to retire with a reduced pension. So FDR's plan was to allow a president to make a nomination for any justice over 80, I think it was, and when that justice did eventually retire their seat would just vanish. Basically 9 would still be the magic number, this would just reduce the amount of gambling for vacancies during office. The plan basically became unnecessary when he effectively got to nominate the entire court. There are also plenty of suggestions for term limits, but this would be very hard since I think that one requires an amendment, which is why FDR did his end run plan. FDR's plan doesn't require an amendment. Though I wonder if you could combine term limits with FDR's idea to get around it?  Assuming you prefer term limits to just an age cut off.

 

2 hours ago, Crysta said:

If you're still torn between the neo-fascists and the democratic socialists -- as if they're in any way equally bad -- then we have bigger problems.

Its less equally bad and both bad. I mean I don't care if the cesspit is 75percent shit or 100percent shit. I am not wanting to wade in regardless. So my tactical voting ends up becoming very narrowly focused so as to avoid walking in shit as much as possible and in general with the aim to prevent anyone from flipping the board completely. So scum as usual bugs me less than piles of new scum being added making the mess even worse. And stuff like court packing suggestions makes me really want a lame-duck government so as to reduce the amount of shit coming down.

[Crysta]

2 hours ago, Usana said:

Its less equally bad and both bad. I mean I don't care if the cesspit is 75percent shit or 100percent shit. I am not wanting to wade in regardless. So my tactical voting ends up becoming very narrowly focused so as to avoid walking in shit as much as possible and in general with the aim to prevent anyone from flipping the board completely. So scum as usual bugs me less than piles of new scum being added making the mess even worse. And stuff like court packing suggestions makes me really want a lame-duck government so as to reduce the amount of shit coming down.

Okay, what social democratic policies are 75% as bad as neo-fascist policies? Court packing isn't it, because I guarantee if the situation was in reverse the party positions would just swap. 

[Moblin Major General]

Just now, Crysta said:

Okay, what social democratic policies are 75% as bad as neo-fascist policies? Court packing isn't it, because I guarantee if the situation was in reverse the party positions would just swap. 

It's less that they have bad policies, it's just that with the way American politics operates, they would be extreme and probably expand far beyond the scope of the original goal, and probably be overall unpopular because our education system keeps teaching us that unregulated capitalism is necessary for our society to function. What we want is usually far above what we need as a country. That's why we're in such deep shit.