Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Xzi]

I'm sure it's all for the good of the people and not at all to seize power over the court, which the Democratic party uses to effectively legislate by reading the constitution using a kaleidoscope, as they have for many years now.

So we're gonna pretend Scalia didn't spend his whole career ruling straight down party lines? I seriously doubt the guy ever glanced at the Constitution once in his life. He'd get a case in front of him, call up the Koch brothers to see what ruling they wanted on it, and make that ruling. Impartiality from Republican appointees is a convenient myth.

Term limits, expansion of the court, or both are a must. The only reason the right is against these things is because they appear to be consequences for their own actions, but in the long-run it'd create a more just system overall.

 

[Foxi4]

I misread your point about the Constitution and thought you were referring the Constitutional checks and balances that are the problem with the Senate, Electoral College, etc. Each side is going to argue that it's the other side that uses the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench, so I don't think there's any reason to say anything else on that topic.

Fair, provided we agree that doing so is a perversion of the system and that the Supreme Court was never intended to be a replacement for the legislature when the party in power fails to push their agenda effectively.

I'm not advocating for anything other than democracy. The goal isn't "put more members of the Democratic Party in power." The goal is a fair democratic electoral system. A gerrymandered House is not a fair electoral system. An unrepresentative Senate is not a fair electoral system. An Electoral College is definitely not a fair electoral system. Requiring 60% to pass any legislation is not a fair system. And, a Supreme Court with lifetime appointments and inconsistent rules about who can nominate justices is not a fair system.

Pressing X.

You are making what seem to be a lot of references to the filibuster, which is a racist relic that was always anti-democratic. The filibuster, contrary to popular myth, does not result in an increase in discourse and compromise. In fact, it allows a minority to block anything they want without having to work with the majority party. Without the filibuster, the minority would instead have to actually participate in the legislative process in order to have their voices heard.

The filibuster prevents legislation that's only popular with one side of the aisle to pass and forces both parties to reach compromises. Congress wasn't created to rapidly pass new laws - the opposite is true, the hurdles are there on purpose and are supposed to stop Congress from passing legislation that does not have broad appeal.

I am 100% not advocating for the Supreme Court to be able to overturn the vote. It's the Republican side that has done that and wants to do that. I cannot be pushing for a dictatorship if I'm advocating for increased democracy. In reality, making it so a political party in this country cannot compete unless they're overwhelmingly more popular than the ruling party, that's what potentially breeds a dictatorship. Imagine a corrupt country for a moment that has a corrupt ruling party and an opposition party, but despite the opposition party having majority support, they still cannot defeat the ruling party because the ruling party has made it so the cards are always in their favor. That's what is happening in the United States right now with the anti-democratic issues I've listed ad nauseum in this thread.

I cannot be called a bad guy when my team's name is The Good Guys™. As a side note, the opposite is true - the Democratic party is the ruling party, the Republicans are the opposition. What you have a problem with is that the opposition has teeth to bite back with, you'd prefer if the Democrats were in Congress in numbers required to pass legislation completely unopposed. If that is not your intention, it is in effect what you're advocating for.

So we're gonna pretend Scalia didn't spend his whole career ruling straight down party lines? I seriously doubt the guy ever glanced at the Constitution once in his life. He'd get a case in front of him, call up the Koch brothers to see what ruling they wanted on it, and make that ruling. Impartiality from Republican appointees is a convenient myth.

Term limits, expansion of the court, or both are a must. The only reason the right is against these things is because they appear to be consequences for their own actions, but in the long-run it'd create a more just system overall.

Scalia is dead and irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[Xzi]

Scalia is dead and irrelevant to this conversation.

And two mini-Scalias (partisan hacks) have been appointed in his place. Jury's still out on Gorsuch. One of the three is in a stolen seat. To correct that there are two options: add two new seats (because there can't be an even number of justices), or remove one of Trump's appointees from the bench and replace them with a Biden appointee. With as much screeching as there's been about the former option, I'm pretty sure Republicans would lose their shit over the latter option even more.

 

[Foxi4]

And two mini-Scalias (partisan hacks) have been appointed in his place. Jury's still out on Gorsuch. One of the three is in a stolen seat. To correct that there are two options: add two new seats (because there can't be an even number of justices), or remove one of Trump's appointees from the bench and replace them with a Biden appointee. With as much screeching as there's been about the former option, I'm pretty sure Republicans would lose their shit over the latter option even more.

None of the seats are "stolen". President Trump filled in the vacancies with the consent of the Senate, as per the appointment clause. Sour grapes are a bad look.

 

[Valwinz]

And two mini-Scalias (partisan hacks) have been appointed in his place. Jury's still out on Gorsuch. One of the three is in a stolen seat. To correct that there are two options: add two new seats (because there can't be an even number of justices), or remove one of Trump's appointees from the bench and replace them with a Biden appointee. With as much screeching as there's been about the former option, I'm pretty sure Republicans would lose their shit over the latter option even more.

the party with the votes gets to put people you need to stop crying ok ? the Supreme court is not only for dems to put people

 

[Xzi]

None of the seats are "stolen".

"Water isn't wet." You might be able to convince someone who doesn't follow any politics or current events of this nonsense, but not I.

 

[Foxi4]

"Water isn't wet." You might be able to convince someone who doesn't follow any politics or current events of this nonsense, but not I.

Not following very closely, clearly. That, or unfamiliar with the procedure of confirming a justice.

 

[Xzi]

Not following very closely, clearly. That, or unfamiliar with the procedure of confirming a justice.

What procedure? McConnell just made up the rules as he went along. Then ignored his own rules whenever convenient. Such corruption cannot go unanswered.

 

[Foxi4]

What procedure? McConnell just made up the rules as he went along. Then ignored his own rules whenever convenient. Such corruption cannot go unanswered.

He was under no obligation to confirm Obama's picks, with or without historical precedent. There was no consent from the Senate and thus no confirmation. Besides, let's not pretend you guys wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if it was a 5-4 balance instead of 6-3 conservative majority - you'd still be trying the same old packing tricks to get a majority. Tried it under FDR - didn't work. Trying it now, not gonna work. Maybe third time lucky.

 

[Xzi]

He was under no obligation to confirm Obama's picks, with or without historical precedent. There was no consent from the Senate and thus no confirmation.

It's not just that there was no confirmation, there was no confirmation hearing. Which is completely without historical precedent to that point. If they had given Garland a hearing, as Constitutionally mandated, and rejected him, then Obama was meant to nominate someone else.

Besides, let's not pretend you guys wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if it was a 5-4 balance instead of 6-3 conservative majority - you'd still be trying the same old packing tricks to get a majority.

Ah yes, the classic fallacy of "I can do whatever I want, commit whatever crimes I want, because surely there's a Democrat out there somewhere that might do worse." My opinion of Biden has never been all that high, but I can say with confidence that he would not be exploring the possibility of expanding the court if not for the fact that he personally watched McConnell cheat Obama.

 

[Foxi4]

It's not just that there was no confirmation, there was no confirmation hearing. Which is completely without historical precedent to that point. If they had given Garland a hearing, as Constitutionally mandated, and rejected him, then Obama was meant to nominate someone else.

Ah yes, the classic fallacy of "I can do whatever I want, commit whatever crimes I want, because surely there's a Democrat out there somewhere that might do worse." My opinion of Biden has never been all that high, but I can say with confidence that he would not be exploring the possibility of expanding the court if not for the fact that he personally watched McConnell cheat Obama.

What would this exercise in futility do besides wasting taxpayer money? You'd prefer if they rejected all nominees individually or collectively? You and I both know they wouldn't confirm a single one of them, there was no consent from the Senate, McConnell was the Senate majority leader.

 

[Xzi]

You'd prefer if they rejected all nominees individually or collectively? You and I both know they wouldn't confirm a single one of them, there was no consent from the Senate, McConnell was the Senate majority leader.

Correct, all McConnell had to do was give a hearing to one or two nominees, and that would've been enough to cover his ass. Which makes him all the dumber for not doing that and instead making up some bullshit election-year rule, flouting Constitutionally-mandated procedure in the process.

 

[Foxi4]

Correct, all McConnell had to do was give a hearing to one or two nominees, and that would've been enough to cover his ass. Which makes him all the dumber for not doing that and instead making up some bullshit election-year rule, flouting Constitutionally-mandated procedure in the process.

Who ruled that it was unconstitutional? I must've missed that part, I don't remember hearing about a successful legal challenge.

 

[Xzi]

Who ruled that it was unconstitutional? I must've missed that part, I don't remember hearing about a successful legal challenge.

I'm not sure what a legal challenge would be capable of fixing at this point, at best McConnell would receive the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, at worst the case would reach the Supreme Court and be dismissed by the very people who benefited most from his corrupt actions. I've already laid out the only two options for actually fixing the problem instead of dancing around it.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not sure what a legal challenge would be capable of fixing at this point, at best McConnell would receive the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, at worst the case would reach the Supreme Court and be dismissed by the very people who benefited most from his corrupt actions. I've already laid out the only two options for actually fixing the problem instead of dancing around it.

I was just making sure that you were talking out of your behind, and have now confirmed that. All I can say is "good luck with the packing attempt" without a majority in the Senate, every Republican across the board will vote against it since they're not five and they can see it for what it really is - an attempt at seizing more power. There's nothing legitimate about it, the public at large seems to agree.

 

[tabzer]

Lol. The argument is "it's not fascism if we are forcing people to do the right thing".

 

[Valwinz]

Buhahahahah
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1387834659409698819

 

[Xzi]

every Republican across the board will vote against it since they're not five and they can see it for what it really is - an attempt at seizing more power.

They'll vote against it because they're the minority party clinging to vestiges of power like rats cling to a sinking ship. They know it's both corrupt and unconstitutional, but they felt like they got away with it at the time. Now they're pissed because it's coming back to bite them in the ass. No sympathy from me.

 

[Foxi4]

Buhahahahah
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1387834659409698819

I'm actually surprised by this low viewership. Biden's speeches are hilarious. Not hilarious enough to watch live, maybe, but still worth tuning in for a re-run on YouTube.

 

[Xzi]

I'm actually surprised by this low viewership. Biden's speeches are hilarious. Not hilarious to watch live, maybe, but still worth tuning in for a re-run on YouTube.

I'm not surprised, a lot of people tuned into Trump's speeches to hate-watch or because they were expecting a trainwreck. Both those audiences are gone, so the only people tuning into Biden are heavily politically engaged (C-SPAN viewers), or people looking for a sleep aid. People voted to make politics boring again, and that's precisely what they got.