time to pack the court or whatever it takes

[I-5]

Besides, you've already expressed your agreement on restricting late term abortions

I suggest going back to read what I said about late term abortions. It's more nuanced than saying I expressed agreement with you.

[I-5]

Yes, she is one of 9 justices, but her opinion probably could sway a lot of rulings. For example, today the Supreme court made a ruling on the Pennsylvania Republican Party's request to nullify all mail in ballots that arrive after Nov 3 (as opposed to mailed by Nov 3). 'The Court declined that invitation with its 4-4 tie. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the three liberal justices, but the four most conservative members of the Court, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, would have granted the request. Add expected-to-be Justice Barrett as the fifth vote, and the Supreme Court's doors could be wide open to undermine the protections for the right to vote embedded within state constitutions.'

[RiverDog]

Yes, she is one of 9 justices, but her opinion probably could sway a lot of rulings. For example, today the Supreme court made a ruling on the Pennsylvania Republican Party's request to nullify all mail in ballots that arrive after Nov 3 (as opposed to mailed by Nov 3). 'The Court declined that invitation with its 4-4 tie. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the three liberal justices, but the four most conservative members of the Court, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, would have granted the request. Add expected-to-be Justice Barrett as the fifth vote, and the Supreme Court's doors could be wide open to undermine the protections for the right to vote embedded within state constitutions.'

By 'chipping away', I thought you were talking about Roe v. Wade. But be that as it may. Yes, her vote could tilt the balance in some cases.

That's what happens when you lose elections. 2016 was a titanic Democratic failure. They had a huge opportunity not only to beat a very weak POTUS candidate in Donald Trump (Cbob said at the time something to the effect that Trump was the best Republican candidate the Dems could have ever hoped for), they failed to re-take the Senate even though the math was in their favor. Had the Dems not f-upped 2016, SCOTUS would have had a much different look to it.

It was dirty pool what the Republicans did by holding open a SCOTUS vacancy for so long back in 2016. IMO that was the travesty in this whole mess. It was like bring a switch blade to a fist fight. Now the Dems want to take it a step further by bringing a sub machine gun to the fight. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Hawktawk]

Dems are absolutely correct to oppose this . As at that time a conservative republican I still was uncomfortable with McConnells tactics regarding Garland. You run the senate you're going to have the voter to defeat him. But to not even give the man a fair hearing and a vote up or down? That's about protecting these scumbags from having to vote on the record. And McConnell has done this hundreds of time with Dem sponsored legislation.He calls himself the undertaker.About all this Senate has done is slam through hundreds of conservative judges, some totally unqualified according to the american bar association. He had stated during the Garland travesty that he would not vote on a nominee in an election year and Lindsey Graham was even more adamant" use it against me".

Discussing ACBs jurisprudence is missing the point . AMERICANS DONT CARE IF SHES QUALIFIED. THIS IS WRONG WITH 30 MILLION VOTES CAST. The really screwed up thing is guys like Graham doing this may help him win according to SC polls. Kind of like nominating and jamming through a drunken rapist saved them in the senate in 2018 with their red meat slavish shills. This advice and consent thing is not worth a damn if 60% of americans oppose this move but the same senators will squeak through on the state level and continue to impose apartheid on the american people.

I just voted on my state supreme court. Lets try that and do away with lifetime appointments . They can serve a term like anyone else and go be a defense attorney for all I care. The system is FUBAR beyond fubar.....

[RiverDog]

Dems are absolutely correct to oppose this . As at that time a conservative republican I still was uncomfortable with McConnells tactics regarding Garland. You run the senate you're going to have the voter to defeat him. But to not even give the man a fair hearing and a vote up or down? That's about protecting these scumbags from having to vote on the record.

I agree with you 100%. It was an outrage that McConnell bastardized the process the way he did. But the cure you are suggesting, ie court packing, would make things much, much worse. It's also bad politics as a clear majority oppose it, which is why it's more of a scare tactic than it is a viable proposal. The Dems won't have the balls to put it forward.

Lets try that and do away with lifetime appointments . They can serve a term like anyone else and go be a defense attorney for all I care. The system is FUBAR beyond fubar.....

I completely disagree. Lifetime appointments and a high bar of removal insulates justices from political pressures and stabilizes the court. Do you really want to see a high turnover of justices and the ever changing direction of the court depending on who controls the White House/Senate? Would you want to see a president like Trump appoint 5 justices in 4 years? It would undermine the confidence people have in the court.

I could imagine lawyers and politicians timing lawsuits to coincide with what they anticipate as better or worse odds of gaining a favorable decision depending on who a POTUS/Senate might choose to sit on SCOTUS or re-trying a case that has already been decided in front of a new court. Terrible idea.

[Aseahawkfan]

Dems are absolutely correct to oppose this . As at that time a conservative republican I still was uncomfortable with McConnells tactics regarding Garland. You run the senate you're going to have the voter to defeat him. But to not even give the man a fair hearing and a vote up or down? That's about protecting these scumbags from having to vote on the record. And McConnell has done this hundreds of time with Dem sponsored legislation.He calls himself the undertaker.About all this Senate has done is slam through hundreds of conservative judges, some totally unqualified according to the american bar association. He had stated during the Garland travesty that he would not vote on a nominee in an election year and Lindsey Graham was even more adamant" use it against me".

Discussing ACBs jurisprudence is missing the point . AMERICANS DONT CARE IF SHES QUALIFIED. THIS IS WRONG WITH 30 MILLION VOTES CAST. The really screwed up thing is guys like Graham doing this may help him win according to SC polls. Kind of like nominating and jamming through a drunken rapist saved them in the senate in 2018 with their red meat slavish shills. This advice and consent thing is not worth a damn if 60% of americans oppose this move but the same senators will squeak through on the state level and continue to impose apartheid on the american people.

I just voted on my state supreme court. Lets try that and do away with lifetime appointments . They can serve a term like anyone else and go be a defense attorney for all I care. The system is FUBAR beyond fubar.....

Did you just call Kavanaugh a drunken rapist? Wow, you area real scumbag. You don't even know that man and you just claimed he was a drunken rapist over some 30 year old charges that were barely remembered that amounted to about 30 seconds of his life. You are not a good person or reasonable.

[I-5]

Since we can’t go back to 2016 and undo what McConnell did to railroad Garland, what should dems do if two wrongs don’t make a right? What I hear now is that democrats always bring a knife to a gunfight. What’s the solution?

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Holding up the show in 2016 wasn’t right, but it was an option open to them and they used it. The Dems would have done it too, and if they had an option now, they would use it in a heartbeat to stop the appointment. Same for nominating a SCOTUS judge right before a presidential election. Neither side has any real moral ground; they are playing in the same game using any and all tactics available to them. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but what do you do when everybody in the game isn’t all that concerned with what is right, only winning?

[Aseahawkfan]

Since we can’t go back to 2016 and undo what McConnell did to railroad Garland, what should dems do if two wrongs don’t make a right? What I hear now is that democrats always bring a knife to a gunfight. What’s the solution?

Assess from a purely political standpoint. Does packing the court open up the door for the Republicans to do the same? Do you have some other means to stop the ACB nomination? Is ACB worth using the nuclear option over and creating a situation where the Republicans can use the nuclear option? These are the questions the Democrats must ask themselves. Anything they do the Republicans will do back. That is the game. So as a citizen of America expected to govern the nation, do you want these methods practiced by both parties? You know if the Democrats "pack the court" as they say, Republicans will do the same back when they have the power to.

No matter how many people write off the Republicans or vice versa, each group always returns to power at some point because Americans in general don't like to go too far one way or the other. If things go too far one way, they rebel. Americans as an overall group are fairly centrist even if the media likes to trot out the worst members of each party to make it seem otherwise.

I don't personally think ACB is worth court packing and this other rubbish. But right now people are in this weird space where they believe the SCOTUS will vote right on the basis of who appointed them. I don think they will. I don't think they are lock step with either political side. From what I have read and seen of ACB, she would make a good justice. She seems level-headed, highly intelligent, she's a mom, and I don't think would be supportive of corruption or other issues. The Dems and left wing media is trying to make a villain out of her because that is what opposing political parties do as going, "She's a fine candidate, but she's against our political viewpoint so we don't want her" doesn't work very well.

[I-5]

After wading through everything you wrote, the answer I got was 'assess' and 'it's not worth court packing'....soooo do nothing. Meanwhile the SCOTUS is ready to go with with a very unbalanced 6-3 ratio (Justice Roberts being the only true swing vote, much respect to him).

The second takeaway is that it's fine for McConnell to pull his stunts, but if the dems do it, two wrongs don't make a right. Why is it ok for McConnell again? And when I say that, I mean, what are the repercussions for him doing that....nothing?

[Hawktawk]

Did you just call Kavanaugh a drunken rapist? Wow, you area real scumbag. You don't even know that man and you just claimed he was a drunken rapist over some 30 year old charges that were barely remembered that amounted to about 30 seconds of his life. You are not a good person or reasonable.

Wow dude. I've been calling him that since quite a few people reported that is exactly who he was. Like for 2 years and you just noticed? You seem a little triggered and cranky asea. maybe like a guy with a closet wish for a Trump win or something? Are you really Burrton in disguise?And you haven't followed the story at all.It was a pattern, a lifestyle. You dont care about the truth just what makes you feel comfortable.

You believe him fine. I believe his victims.More americans than not do. .As I pointed out earlier in the thread why no sex abuse or alcoholic accusations against Gorsuch and nothing at all against ACB except some secret religious sect and voting on her nomination weeks from an election? If dredging all that up was just the dem playbook why not all the others? You have no answer for that... You're a transactional shill to believe this was manufactured out of thin air. I saw a cover up

Drunk rapists aren't good people and shouldn't sit in judgement of us all for 40 years. But when you have a president who is currently having the justice department shield him from lawsuits stemming from multiple sexual assaults and defamation resulting from his comments towards his victims and 25 women have now come forward (you probably dont believe them either)well I guess the drunken rapist fits right in. I have watched his jurisprudence and think its quite funny he sided with the majority in a 7-2 decision to see trump's taxes but it doesn't matter. He is who he is. He should have never sniffed the SCOTUS and McConnell had warned Trump not to pick him but he did anyway dragging america through Kavanaugh's sordid past. Kavanagh sexually assaulted women while drunk and he's a SCOTUS .He got away with it but he's forever in my skunk file.

If hating drunk rapists makes me a scumbag Ill wear the mantle with pride.

[RiverDog]

Since we can’t go back to 2016 and undo what McConnell did to railroad Garland, what should dems do if two wrongs don’t make a right? What I hear now is that democrats always bring a knife to a gunfight. What’s the solution?

How about take the high road? Isn't that what the Dems and Biden have been preaching? Or are they no different than the Republicans that they assail? Isn't that what this election is all about? A return to normalcy?

[c_hawkbob]

Since we can’t go back to 2016 and undo what McConnell did to railroad Garland, what should dems do if two wrongs don’t make a right? What I hear now is that democrats always bring a knife to a gunfight. What’s the solution?

How about take the high road? Isn't that what the Dems and Biden have been preaching? Or are they no different than the Republicans that they assail? Isn't that what this election is all about? A return to normalcy?

So normalcy is the republicans doing whatever they can get away with and the democrats doing nothing to balance the scales in the name of "taking the high road" ... how convenient for you.

[RiverDog]

So normalcy is the republicans doing whatever they can get away with and the democrats doing nothing to balance the scales in the name of "taking the high road" ... how convenient for you.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Republicans are likely going to pay for their transgressions at the polls this November. If you want to assure that the Dem's advantage they are likely to gain is short lived, just keep on pushing for unpopular measures like the court packing plan. It will incite more extremism within the Republican party, and give rise to more far right candidates with the followers to put them back in office. Is that what you want?

It's like any other fight. At some point, one side has to go first, unclench their fist, and let cooler heads prevail.

[RiverDog]

After wading through everything you wrote, the answer I got was 'assess' and 'it's not worth court packing'....soooo do nothing. Meanwhile the SCOTUS is ready to go with with a very unbalanced 6-3 ratio (Justice Roberts being the only true swing vote, much respect to him).

The second takeaway is that it's fine for McConnell to pull his stunts, but if the dems do it, two wrongs don't make a right. Why is it ok for McConnell again? And when I say that, I mean, what are the repercussions for him doing that....nothing?

Never did I say what McConnell did was "OK", to the contrary. I've denounced it.

The repercussions are going to happen on Nov. 3rd. Trump is almost certainly going to lose the election and the Republicans are likely going to lose control of the Senate. If you take a look at the math in the Senate in 2022, the R's will be defending nearly twice as many seats as the Dems (20-12 with 2 unknown) so they are likely going to be completely out of the loop for at least the next 4 years. There's plenty of other issues the Dems can use to 'get even', if revenge is what floats your boat.

As far as the 'unbalanced ratio' goes, in my over 50 years of following politics, never have I had the fear of the Supreme Court as you apparently do. Personally, I like how Chief Justice Roberts has run the show. It's the one branch of government that seems to be working, and I don't think the appointment of Judge Barrett is going to do anything radical to materially change the direction of the court.

[RiverDog]

Holding up the show in 2016 wasn’t right, but it was an option open to them and they used it. The Dems would have done it too, and if they had an option now, they would use it in a heartbeat to stop the appointment. Same for nominating a SCOTUS judge right before a presidential election. Neither side has any real moral ground; they are playing in the same game using any and all tactics available to them. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but what do you do when everybody in the game isn’t all that concerned with what is right, only winning?

Except this time, the public is steadfastly opposed to the next option. Everyone has their limit, and it appears that the court packing plan is it for the vast majority of voters. If Biden gets behind this, or at least had he a couple weeks ago before voting got as far down the road as we are now, it's an issue that could cost him the election. Even his refusal to denounce it could cause him problems.

[Aseahawkfan]

After wading through everything you wrote, the answer I got was 'assess' and 'it's not worth court packing'....soooo do nothing. Meanwhile the SCOTUS is ready to go with with a very unbalanced 6-3 ratio (Justice Roberts being the only true swing vote, much respect to him).

The second takeaway is that it's fine for McConnell to pull his stunts, but if the dems do it, two wrongs don't make a right. Why is it ok for McConnell again? And when I say that, I mean, what are the repercussions for him doing that....nothing?

Not what I said. You view this as right and wrong, which is your first mistake.

You don't get politics. And that's fine. You want to act like this is a right or wrong issue. But this is politics. In politics as both parties have shown, you take your opportunities when you get them and you ram them through. That is how both parties work. If you can't accept this, then you don't understand politics. You probably never will. I have never seen Democrats or Republicans act in any other fashion but to ram things through when they have sufficient power to do so. Only when they must do they compromise such as when the government is split. This is just the reality of politics.

I will put this very simply. If you think the Democrats packing the court will give them an advantage politically, they can do it. Then when the Republicans take power and pack the courts more, then you will have to accept this outcome as the Democrats did the same.

The same as if the Democrats gain power and put judges on the court during an election year and you can't stop it, then you have to accept the outcome.

Very simple reality. No idea why anyone pretends this isn't how it works. Only reason Garland didn't make it on the court is the Republicans had the means to stop them. Period.

Right and wrong has nothing to do with it. There is how things work and that's it. You have the juice, you ram it through. You don't, you get rammed on. You want Democrat court packing have at it. Just know the Republicans will do the same when they get the chance.

[Aseahawkfan]

Except this time, the public is steadfastly opposed to the next option. Everyone has their limit, and it appears that the court packing plan is it for the vast majority of voters. If Biden gets behind this, or at least had he a couple weeks ago before voting got as far down the road as we are now, it's an issue that could cost him the election. Even his refusal to denounce it could cause him problems.

Do you think the public even knows what packing the courts means to the point it will affect the election?

[mykc14]

After wading through everything you wrote, the answer I got was 'assess' and 'it's not worth court packing'....soooo do nothing. Meanwhile the SCOTUS is ready to go with with a very unbalanced 6-3 ratio (Justice Roberts being the only true swing vote, much respect to him).

The second takeaway is that it's fine for McConnell to pull his stunts, but if the dems do it, two wrongs don't make a right. Why is it ok for McConnell again? And when I say that, I mean, what are the repercussions for him doing that....nothing?

Do nothing? Sometimes that's what you should do politically, but it rarely happens. When Trump won the election in 2016 what did the Democrats do? Their answer was to blame Russia spend 100's of millions try to prove collusion and election fraud took place. When they finally had means to impeach him, they did, but without the numbers to really do anything about it. When Trump was planning on picking somebody for SCOTUS what did Pelosi threaten to do? Impeach again. The Republicans had an opportunity to block a SCOTUS nomination, what did they do? They blocked it. If the Dems could block it now they certainly would. The only reason you are upset right now is that the Republicans are 'winning' this round. In 2016 Biden said he would push a SCOTUS nomination through even a few months before an election, what has changed? Oh yeah the Republicans are in control so it's bad. Republican's said they should wait until after the election. That is our current political system. I actually don't mind this aspect of government because it does keep things from going too far right or left. When I get worried is when we politically set up a situation that can be completely abused by either side, i.e. packing the court. Despite what you think about what the Republicans are doing with the SCOTUS they are doing nothing that would be considered a slippery slope or abuse of power. The obsession the Left has with Trump is making their political decisions seem odd to many people and make them much less appealing than they should be in this political climate.

[mykc14]

As far as the 'unbalanced ratio' goes, in my over 50 years of following politics, never have I had the fear of the Supreme Court as you apparently do. Personally, I like how Chief Justice Roberts has run the show. It's the one branch of government that seems to be working, and I don't think the appointment of Judge Barrett is going to do anything radical to materially change the direction of the court.

I think the Supreme Court is the most important branch of our government as far as keeping us from straying too far from the basic principals laid out in the constitution. Personally, I wouldn't touch it. I understand the feeling that the court is currently trending Conservative, but if you look at decisions over time most members really do seem to vote using the constitution as a guide and not personal feelings or political ideologies.

[mykc14]

So normalcy is the republicans doing whatever they can get away with and the democrats doing nothing to balance the scales in the name of "taking the high road" ... how convenient for you.

I think both parties are doing whatever they can get away with it's just that the Republicans are in the political position to do the most about it right now. I don't think any party will ever 'take the high road' politically. Individuals within the party might, but by and large each party will do whatever they can to stay in power. I personally don't have a problem with this except when it does one of two things- 1) cost a ton of tax payer money with little possibility of delivering anything significant and 2) does something that threatens the retaliative stability of the government/creates a slippery slope that can be abused by either or both parties over time, which would inevitably threaten our governmental system.

[RiverDog]

Do you think the public even knows what packing the courts means to the point it will affect the election?

Yes.

You're right, the general public is naïve, and those 20-30% on each end of the spectrum are so brainwashed that they probably don't have a clue. But it doesn't require a very large number of voters, perhaps just 3% or 4% in a few swing states, to understand what court packing means and how it could affect society in order for it to have a huge effect on the election.

Trump is at the point in the election where he's going to have to flip at least some Biden voters in a few places in order to win. Court packing is the one loose end that Biden hasn't been tied down to, and if he were to come out Thursday and says that he supports a court packing plan, it absolutely could turn those votes.

[Hawktawk]

I just saw that a poll shows a plurality of voters of both parties say confirm her following her performance at the hearing and the same poll says less than 30% want the court packed . Whether Biden plans to do it or not he will say he won’t as it would be a serious problem in the closing days. Frankly I think it would be a more effective court with say 21 as a single vacancy would be far less likely to drastically affect the balance on a myriad of rulings. But apparently my view is in a distinct minority . The poll I want in my favor is Nov 3. The rest is window dressing .

[RiverDog]

I just saw that a poll shows a plurality of voters of both parties say confirm her (Barrett) following her performance at the hearing and the same poll says less than 30% want the court packed . Whether Biden plans to do it or not he will say he won’t as it would be a serious problem in the closing days. Frankly I think it would be a more effective court with say 21 as a single vacancy would be far less likely to drastically affect the balance on a myriad of rulings. But apparently my view is in a distinct minority .

Here's what we know that Biden has said about the issue:

During the primary last year, Biden said that he believed Democrats would “live to rue” the day they expanded the court, and later added that such a game of “political football” could “come back to bite us.” At an October 2019 debate, he provided his most direct answer up until that point: “I would not get into court-packing. 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.”

But a year later, following the death of Justice Ginsburg, Biden has been careful to give non-answers on the topic. “Whatever the position I take on that, that will become the issue,” Biden said at the first debate, in a master example of saying nothing. In early October, he told reporters that they would “know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over.”

I find that last sentence to be absurd. He has an opinion but he doesn't want to share it until the election is over? What kind of response is that?

Last week, Biden gave a near-complete answer — one that seemed to merge his opinion last year with his current hesitancy — in an interview with Cincinnati’s WKRC. “I’m not a fan of court-packing, but I don’t want to get off on that whole issue. I want to keep focused.”

His opacity may not last all the way to November 3. In his debate-substitute town hall with George Stephanopoulos, Biden said he would provide a real answer on court-packing before the election.

Biden has to answer the question by no later than this Thursday. If he continues to evade it, Trump's team will be all over him like flies on a turd. Stay tuned.

The poll I want in my favor is Nov 3. The rest is window dressing .

That's my message to my friends Cbob and I-5: Keep your eye on the prize. We all agree that we want Trump out of office. Why risk 4 more years of having to tolerate that buffoon on something that the public doesn't want and that the Dems probably won't put forward anyway?

[NorthHawk]

With the two voting sided seemingly entrenched and so many voting early, will it matter what Biden says about
court packing? I think it might have a lesser effect than it could in other years.

[RiverDog]

With the two voting sided seemingly entrenched and so many voting early, will it matter what Biden says about court packing? I think it might have a lesser effect than it could in other years.

That's true, but there's still a lot of voters, including all those that have yet to decide, that have not cast their ballots. Again, we're not talking large numbers, just 3 or 4 percent in the right places that could sway a close election in a couple swing states.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think the court packing issue matters for this election. ACB seems like a good candidate for the Supreme Court. Court packing would be an issue in the next election if the Democrats do it. That would make it easier for a moderate Republican to win back the White House if that is what the Democrats want to do. They're dumb call. Wouldn't be the first time the Democrats did dumb things to give back the White House.

[I-5]

Sorry Riv, getting even with McConnell’s dirty deed doesn’t mean just beating him in the polls. That doesn’t fix the SCOTUS. How do you fix what McConnell did to the nomination process without changing subjects? The focus has to stay on the SCOTUS.

The only reason you are upset right now is that the Republicans are 'winning' this round. In 2016 Biden said he would push a SCOTUS nomination through even a few months before an election, what has changed? Oh yeah the Republicans are in control so it's bad. Republican's said they should wait until after the election. That is our current political system. I actually don't mind this aspect of government because it does keep things from going too far right or left. When I get worried is when we politically set up a situation that can be completely abused by either side, i.e. packing the court.

You are absolutely correct here. So why is adding more justices against the law or morally wrong? Are there even any morals on either side? Only one I can think of is when Al Franken voluntarily stepped down at the hint of accusations, something Kavanaugh didn’t do with much higher level of accusations and number of accusers. I doubt a republican senator would step down similarly. By the way, the Supreme Court has changed in number before, multiple times, as much as 7 times in a 70 year period. Besides, who cares about precedent if McConnell didn’t care about precedent regarding blocking Garland or rushing Barrett? Why get upset now? Republicans never take the high road, so go by their M.O..

[Aseahawkfan]

You are absolutely correct here. So why is adding more justices against the law or morally wrong? Are there even any morals on either side? Only one I can think of is when Al Franken voluntarily stepped down at the hint of accusations, something Kavanaugh didn’t do with much higher level of accusations and number of accusers. I doubt a republican senatorial would step down similarly. By the way, the Supreme Court has changed in number before, multiple times, as much as 7 times in a 70 year period. Besides, who cares about precedent if McConnell doesn’t care regarding blocking Garland or rushing Barrett? Why get upset now?

There is no need to get upset. If the Democrats have the juice, they can do what they want. They only have to decide if it will cost them later on. That's it. If it costs them later on and the Republicans pack the court back, then that is what happens. Just like if pushing through Barrett costs the Republicans votes, then it does.

Al Franken was pushed by his own party to step down and regrets it. Franken did not step down of his own accord or for moral reasons. He should never have allowed his party to force him to step down. It was dumb. The accusations against Franken were weak. I have no idea why he made that decision. It was a political mistake by the Democrats. Franken did not deserve that treatment. He is probably one of the few Democrats in office that was a decent man. Yet his own party due to pressure from the left treated him like he did something evil. Another reason why I don't care for Democrats much, they even eat their own.

Schumer is a piece of garbage for what he did to Franken. I'll never like that guy.

[I-5]

There is no need to get upset. If the Democrats have the juice, they can do what they want. They only have to decide if it will cost them later on. That's it. If it costs them later on and the Republicans pack the court back, then that is what happens. Just like if pushing through Barrett costs the Republicans votes, then it does.

Yep. Any other 'logic' doesn't make sense to me. 'Do unto others' in reverse is the way it works now, so that's just how it is. And yes, everything has a cost, just like McConnell's stunts have a cost. No one is immune. There is no free lunch.

I'm not a big Schumer fan either, but I think if Al could have resisted. He is a decent guy, so he did what he thought was right...and he definitely regrets it now. I wonder if anything prevents a retiring US Senator from running again. I thought he was a great senator.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yep. Any other 'logic' doesn't make sense to me. 'Do unto others' in reverse is the way it works now, so that's just how it is. And yes, everything has a cost, just like McConnell's stunts have a cost. No one is immune. There is no free lunch.

I'm not a big Schumer fan either, but I think if Al could have resisted. He is a decent guy, so he did what he thought was right...and he definitely regrets it now. I wonder if anything prevents a retiring US Senator from running again. I thought he was a great senator.

Franken should run again. If he were in Washington State, I might even vote for him. He's at least someone I believe is for the people, not just in it for himself or for power.

Sort of like when Steve Largent was a politician. We all know Largent is just a good human being regardless of his political affiliation.

[RiverDog]

Only one I can think of is when Al Franken voluntarily stepped down at the hint of accusations, something Kavanaugh didn’t do with much higher level of accusations and number of accusers. I doubt a republican senator would step down similarly.

So why didn't Biden step aside when he was accused of something much more serious, more documented, and more recent, than those that dogged Kavanaugh?

And as far as R's not stepping down after accusations, you must not have been around when Robert Livingston, next in line to replace Newt Gingrich as House Speaker, during the Clinton impeachment hearings stepped down after the relatively benign accusation of marital infidelity.

Careful, my friend. Your slip is showing.

[mykc14]

You are absolutely correct here. So why is adding more justices against the law or morally wrong? Are there even any morals on either side? Only one I can think of is when Al Franken voluntarily stepped down at the hint of accusations, something Kavanaugh didn’t do with much higher level of accusations and number of accusers. I doubt a republican senator would step down similarly. By the way, the Supreme Court has changed in number before, multiple times, as much as 7 times in a 70 year period. Besides, who cares about precedent if McConnell didn’t care about precedent regarding blocking Garland or rushing Barrett? Why get upset now? Republicans never take the high road, so go by their M.O..

Like my post said I don't think either side takes the high road. Furthermore I don't judge either party as morally right or wrong, nor did I say it was against the law. I don't like anything that could help one party consolidate power and make overarching changes in government that don't represent what most of the people in our country want. Imagine for a second that the shoe was on the other foot and the republicans were talking about packing the house. Lets say that Trump is re-elected and Republicans control both houses. Then Trump decides to add 5 more (Random number) conservative Justices. Do you still feel the same way? Is packing the court wrong now? Furthermore lets say that Democrats win both houses and the presidency and they decide to pack the house. Is it all of the sudden OK now? Then 4 years later the Republicans gain control again and they pack the house. It's a slippery slope who's sole purpose is a power grab. With complete control of the government either side could make sweeping changes. They could change term limits and all kinds of things to maintain power. Many Democrats call Trump a dictator. If he had control of both houses and added members to the supreme court who were more radical than who he has appointed so far he could change the presidential term limits.

Politically my rule of thumb has always been I'm only OK with something if I'm OK with both parties doing it, and I would suggest everybody try it. If you're OK with Democrats packing the house but not Republicans then I would say you aren't looking at what's best for our country of 350 million people that is almost split right down the middle politically. I'm OK with Trump pushing through a Justice because I would have been OK with Obama doing the same thing. I'm OK with McConnell blocking Garland because I would be OK with the Dems doing the same thing if they were in power. Is it perfect, of course not but that is what the separation of powers requires to work. I would rather have situations in which individual powers are checked and a Justice doesn't go through than give one branch of the government too much power. Power unchecked almost always turns to extremes if given enough time.

[I-5]

Politically my rule of thumb has always been I'm only OK with something if I'm OK with both parties doing it, and I would suggest everybody try it. If you're OK with Democrats packing the house but not Republicans then I would say you aren't looking at what's best for our country of 350 million people that is almost split right down the middle politically. I'm OK with Trump pushing through a Justice because I would have been OK with Obama doing the same thing. I'm OK with McConnell blocking Garland because I would be OK with the Dems doing the same thing if they were in power. Is it perfect, of course not but that is what the separation of powers requires to work. I would rather have situations in which individual powers are checked and a Justice doesn't go through than give one branch of the government too much power. Power unchecked almost always turns to extremes if given enough time.

There is a flaw in your argument, and that is that the president has no power to 'push through' a justice, since Obama didn't have any power to push through Garland, nor does Trump have any power to push through Barrett....the power rests solely in the senate and the senate leader, and in both cases, it's McConnell. So of course you have no problem with that. How would you feel if Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid had the majority power to push through Garland, and to block Barrett? You should feel good about it, according to your rule of thumb.

[RiverDog]

Politically my rule of thumb has always been I'm only OK with something if I'm OK with both parties doing it, and I would suggest everybody try it. ... I'm OK with Trump pushing through a Justice because I would have been OK with Obama doing the same thing.

There is a flaw in your argument, and that is that the president has no power to 'push through' a justice, since Obama didn't have any power to push through Garland, nor does Trump have any power to push through Barrett....the power rests solely in the senate and the senate leader, and in both cases, it's McConnell. So of course you have no problem with that. How would you feel if Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid had the majority power to push through Garland, and to block Barrett? You should feel good about it, according to your rule of thumb.

Sorry, mykc, I have to side with I-5 on this one. Presidents can only nominate justices. It's the Senate that has the power to actually put them on the bench, and the R's have controlled the Senate during this entire time. Their rationalizations were highly hypocritical and has invited a retaliation that we both have agreed would be unhealthy for our country. None of us should be OK with either holding up Garland or railroading Barrett. We can't have it both ways.

[mykc14]

There is a flaw in your argument, and that is that the president has no power to 'push through' a justice, since Obama didn't have any power to push through Garland, nor does Trump have any power to push through Barrett....the power rests solely in the senate and the senate leader, and in both cases, it's McConnell. So of course you have no problem with that. How would you feel if Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid had the majority power to push through Garland, and to block Barrett? You should feel good about it, according to your rule of thumb.

That is not a flaw in my argument. I understand I could have been more clear, but by saying 'pushing through' I was simply talking about pushing through a nomination, which is what Dem's are saying he shouldn't be doing right now. I guess I should have said 'rushing a nomination through' at any rate those semantics don't have anything to do with my argument. My argument was that I would have been OK with Obama doing the same thing as Trump. My point remains the same and I would have no problem with the Dem's blocking Barrett if they currently controlled the senate. It is a negative to the separation of powers that I, personally, can live with because the consequence of not having those barricades to absolute power in place are far greater. In other words I would rather have a SCOTUS like Garland or Barrett, who seem well qualified, not get confirmed every once in awhile than just give the president the power to nominate and confirm without any way to check their power.

[mykc14]

Sorry, mykc, I have to side with I-5 on this one. Presidents can only nominate justices. It's the Senate that has the power to actually put them on the bench, and the R's have controlled the Senate during this entire time. Their actions were highly hypocritical and has invited a retaliation that we both have agreed would be unhealthy for our country. None of us should be OK with either holding up Garland or railroading Barrett. We can't have it both ways.

See my reply to I-5, I understand how a member of the Supreme Court is put on the bench. I don't know why "none of us should be ok with holding up Garland or railroading Barrett." I am 'OK' with it. I don't love it or think it is ideal but like I mentioned earlier it is an aspect of the separation of powers that I am OK with. I think that a member of the Supreme Court should be put on the bench based on merit, not political differences but that is not the world we live in. I would rather have a nominee blocked because of a political move than not have the separation of power in place.

Calling either the Dem's or Republicans hypocritical is a little like calling water wet. They are both hypocritical as all political parties tend to be. I have no doubt that if the Dem's were in control of the presidency and the Senate the Republicans would be complaining about pushing a SCOTUS nomination through this close to an election. I also have no doubt that in that situation the Democrat President would nominate a Justice and a Democrat controlled senate would confirm the nomination and the Republicans would probably be discussing packing the court if they win the election.

[RiverDog]

See my reply to I-5, I understand how a member of the Supreme Court is put on the bench. I don't know why "none of us should be ok with holding up Garland or railroading Barrett." I am 'OK' with it. I don't love it or think it is ideal but like I mentioned earlier it is an aspect of the separation of powers that I am OK with. I think that a member of the Supreme Court should be put on the bench based on merit, not political differences but that is not the world we live in. I would rather have a nominee blocked because of a political move than not have the separation of power in place.

Calling either the Dem's or Republicans hypocritical is a little like calling water wet. They are both hypocritical as all political parties tend to be. I have no doubt that if the Dem's were in control of the presidency and the Senate the Republicans would be complaining about pushing a SCOTUS nomination through this close to an election. I also have no doubt that in that situation the Democrat President would nominate a Justice and a Democrat controlled senate would confirm the nomination and the Republicans would probably be discussing packing the court if they win the election.

I understand that both parties are hypocritical. But we as good citizens should be calling them out when they do it. They are our leaders, and as all good leaders do, they should be setting an example for others by practicing consistency. It's not good enough for us to say that since the Democrats would have done the same thing so that makes it OK for the Republicans to do. Two wrongs don't make a right. It was either wrong to hold up the Garland appointment or wrong to advance the Barrett appointment. Personally, I don't have a problem with an appointment during an election year as it's happened on multiple occasions and felt that holding up the Garland appointment was wrong.

The other problem I worry about is that these behaviors encourage a tit-for-tat response. Harry Reid allows for simple majority approval for federal judicial appointments then the R's extend it to SCOTUS appointments. Trump diverts DOD money for an "emergency" a the southern border and next thing you know, the Dems will be using the same rationale to address climate change. They are bastardizing what used to be an unwritten set of rules, looking for any loop hole they can to advance their agenda.

[I-5]

Calling either the Dem's or Republicans hypocritical is a little like calling water wet. They are both hypocritical as all political parties tend to be. I have no doubt that if the Dem's were in control of the presidency and the Senate the Republicans would be complaining about pushing a SCOTUS nomination through this close to an election. I also have no doubt that in that situation the Democrat President would nominate a Justice and a Democrat controlled senate would confirm the nomination and the Republicans would probably be discussing packing the court if they win the electio

I would agree with this. Consequently, we understand both parties would do whatever their majority power allows them, and that's exactly what I'm saying. This means we should stop listening to what 'should' or 'shouldn't' be done by a Senate majority, which includes adding justices in the future. They will do whatever they can to hopefully benefit the nation, regardless of how we personally feel. And yes, everything has a consequence.

[mykc14]

I would agree with this. Consequently, we understand both parties would do whatever their majority power allows them, and that's exactly what I'm saying. This means we should stop listening to what 'should' or 'shouldn't' be done by a Senate majority, which includes adding justices in the future. They will do whatever they can to hopefully benefit the nation, regardless of how we personally feel. And yes, everything has a consequence.

I don't know that either side will do what they can to 'hopefully benefit the nation.' I think they will do what they can to stay in power. I would hope that most of them, in principal, believe that what they stand for is best for the nation but I am not shocked when that's not true.