2020 General Election

[∞∞∞]

If he drops - which I doubt - I'm sure he'll say he has info the election is rigged, never explain it, start a media blitzkrieg that the deep state must be taken down, and then he'll try to lead from the sideline.

If he loses - which I believe - I'm sure he'll say he had info the election was rigged, never explain it, start a media blitzkrieg that the deep state must be taken down, and then he'll try to lead from the sideline.

Regardless, I genuinely believe we'll have two Presidents if Trump leaves. Biden being the Constitutional one, and Trump as some defacto President with influential social power. The dude isn't going away by himself no matter what.

[Ibanez]

If he drops - which I doubt - I'm sure he'll say he has info the election is rigged, never explain it, start a media blitzkrieg that the deep state must be taken down, and then he'll try to lead from the sideline.

If he loses - which I believe - I'm sure he'll say he had info the election was rigged, never explain it, start a media blitzkrieg that the deep state must be taken down, and then he'll try to lead from the sideline.

Regardless, I genuinely believe we'll have two Presidents if Trump leaves. Biden being the Constitutional one, and Trump as some defacto President with influential social power. The dude isn't going away by himself no matter what.

The media could sideline him quickly - don't report on him. Leave him to his Parlor/Twitter echo chamber. Don't give him any press coverage.

[JoltinJoe]

Although Trump has been needlessly divisive and thoughtlessly provocative, and I want to see him lose, the thought of the Democrat party getting a blank check is scarier to me than a second Trump term. I don't know who these Democrats are any more, but they have become a menace to our way of life.

Their open threat to "court pack" is the most dangerous idea I have ever heard. I will not let them get control of all of Washington.

I'm going to urge everyone to vote Republican for the Senate. Then nothing will get done, and that's the best option at this moment in time.

[UNI88]

Although Trump has been needlessly divisive and thoughtlessly provocative, and I want to see him lose, the thought of the Democrat party getting a blank check is scarier to me than a second Trump term.

I'm going to urge everyone to vote Republican for the Senate. Then nothing will get done, and that's the best option at this moment in time.

We're definitely better off if neither party controls both chambers and the presidency.

[JoltinJoe]

Although Trump has been needlessly divisive and thoughtlessly provocative, and I want to see him lose, the thought of the Democrat party getting a blank check is scarier to me than a second Trump term.

I'm going to urge everyone to vote Republican for the Senate. Then nothing will get done, and that's the best option at this moment in time.

We're definitely better off if neither party controls both chambers and the presidency.

100% right. Vote Biden. And send Republicans to the Senate.

[UNI88]

We're definitely better off if neither party controls both chambers and the presidency.

100% right. Vote Biden. And send Republicans to the Senate.

I'm voting for Jo. I'm in Oregon and the electoral votes will go to Biden regardless of how I vote. My Senate vote unfortunately won't matter either. Portland outweighs the rest of the state.

[BDKJMU]

I read the majority of the polling was oversampling Democrats by 9%. The usual trick.

Trump is going to win again.

I agree with ‘88. He’s lost whatever fucking mind he had before becoming president.

I still doubt he’ll be the Republican candidate come November.

Even if he is, more and more demographics are going to Biden. Biden leads Trump by 15 in the suburbs which is a historic margin for a Dem. Trump beat Clinton by 10.

You mean Biden? He’s obvioulsy suffering from early onset dementia..

[Ibanez]

Although Trump has been needlessly divisive and thoughtlessly provocative, and I want to see him lose, the thought of the Democrat party getting a blank check is scarier to me than a second Trump term. I don't know who these Democrats are any more, but they have become a menace to our way of life.

Their open threat to "court pack" is the most dangerous idea I have ever heard. I will not let them get control of all of Washington.

I'm going to urge everyone to vote Republican for the Senate. Then nothing will get done, and that's the best option at this moment in time.

If you don't think a Republican President wouldn't pack the courts then you have lost all objectivity.

[Ivytalk]

Although Trump has been needlessly divisive and thoughtlessly provocative, and I want to see him lose, the thought of the Democrat party getting a blank check is scarier to me than a second Trump term. I don't know who these Democrats are any more, but they have become a menace to our way of life.

Their open threat to "court pack" is the most dangerous idea I have ever heard. I will not let them get control of all of Washington.

I'm going to urge everyone to vote Republican for the Senate. Then nothing will get done, and that's the best option at this moment in time.

If you don't think a Republican President wouldn't pack the courts then you have lost all objectivity.

Name ONE Republican politician who advocates expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with Republicans. That’s what court-packing means.

You can’t.

Republicans nominate Republicans, and Democrats nominate Democrats. ‘‘Twas ever thus. But sometimes nominees go rogue when on the bench. Thinking of Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens (to name three).

[∞∞∞]

Although Trump has been needlessly divisive and thoughtlessly provocative, and I want to see him lose, the thought of the Democrat party getting a blank check is scarier to me than a second Trump term. I don't know who these Democrats are any more, but they have become a menace to our way of life.

Their open threat to "court pack" is the most dangerous idea I have ever heard. I will not let them get control of all of Washington.

I'm going to urge everyone to vote Republican for the Senate. Then nothing will get done, and that's the best option at this moment in time.

If you don't think a Republican President wouldn't pack the courts then you have lost all objectivity.

They definitely found a way to pack the court with their boys when they didn't give Garland - a moderate judge - a hearing.

[Ibanez]

If you don't think a Republican President wouldn't pack the courts then you have lost all objectivity.

Name ONE Republican politician who advocates expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with Republicans. That’s what court-packing means.

You can’t.

Republicans nominate Republicans, and Democrats nominate Democrats. ‘‘Twas ever thus. But sometimes nominees go rogue when on the bench. Thinking of Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens (to name three).

My mistake, I knew that. What a brain fart.

What I meant was Republicans, just like Democrats, will load the courts up with their nominees while withholding the confirmation of others when their party isn't in the White House. And the Republicans have done this beautifully. Senate Republicans confirmed 30 appellate judges in Trump's 1st two years compared to 2 in Obama's last 2. They wouldn't entertain Obama's pick for the Supreme Court. I don't buy the "we can't confirm during an election year." It's bullshit. They can confirm - they just don't have the integrity to say, " We refuse to confirm on the chance that our guy wins the White House."


Politicians....what are they good for?

[JoltinJoe]

If you don't think a Republican President wouldn't pack the courts then you have lost all objectivity.

They definitely found a way to pack the court with their boys when they didn't give Garland - a moderate judge - a hearing.

That's not court packing.

See Ivy's response.

[UNI88]

Name ONE Republican politician who advocates expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with Republicans. That’s what court-packing means.

You can’t.

Republicans nominate Republicans, and Democrats nominate Democrats. ‘‘Twas ever thus. But sometimes nominees go rogue when on the bench. Thinking of Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens (to name three).

My mistake, I knew that. What a brain fart.

What I meant was Republicans, just like Democrats, will load the courts up with their nominees while withholding the confirmation of others when their party isn't in the White House. And the Republicans have done this beautifully. Senate Republicans confirmed 30 appellate judges in Trump's 1st two years compared to 2 in Obama's last 2. They wouldn't entertain Obama's pick for the Supreme Court. I don't buy the "we can't confirm during an election year." It's bullshit. They can confirm - they just don't have the integrity to say, " We refuse to confirm on the chance that our guy wins the White House."

Politicians....what are they good for?

Absolutely nothing say it again
Absolutely nothing, listen to me

[Ivytalk]

Name ONE Republican politician who advocates expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with Republicans. That’s what court-packing means.

You can’t.

Republicans nominate Republicans, and Democrats nominate Democrats. ‘‘Twas ever thus. But sometimes nominees go rogue when on the bench. Thinking of Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens (to name three).

My mistake, I knew that. What a brain fart.

What I meant was Republicans, just like Democrats, will load the courts up with their nominees while withholding the confirmation of others when their party isn't in the White House. And the Republicans have done this beautifully. Senate Republicans confirmed 30 appellate judges in Trump's 1st two years compared to 2 in Obama's last 2. They wouldn't entertain Obama's pick for the Supreme Court. I don't buy the "we can't confirm during an election year." It's bullshit. They can confirm - they just don't have the integrity to say, " We refuse to confirm on the chance that our guy wins the White House."


Politicians....what are they good for?

I would have sent Garland’s name to the Senate for debate and a floor vote. And I would have voted no on the merits. Garland’s reflexive pro-labor jurisprudence on the Court of Appeals was reason enough.

[∞∞∞]

They definitely found a way to pack the court with their boys when they didn't give Garland - a moderate judge - a hearing.

That's not court packing.

See Ivy's response.

Pack The Court

I want to see thousands of judges on the Supreme Court before I die. I hope Biden goes nuclear on 1st street.

[JoltinJoe]

If you don't think a Republican President wouldn't pack the courts then you have lost all objectivity.

Name ONE Republican politician who advocates expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with Republicans. That’s what court-packing means.

You can’t.

Republicans nominate Republicans, and Democrats nominate Democrats. ‘‘Twas ever thus. But sometimes nominees go rogue when on the bench. Thinking of Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens (to name three).

I like when a justice "goes rogue" because that means the institution of the Supreme Court is working. Take nine intelligent, reasonable people; place them in a collegial environment in which they discuss the great issues of the day and try to come to some resolution; and you would hope that, over time, this would foster evolution in the beliefs and expressions of each of the individual nine members. It is the gradual change in personnel that makes this possible.

Stacking the Court has a single purpose: to place a whole new slate cultural warriors on the Court in numbers significant enough to negate the gradual, collegial deliberative process outlined above.

If that should ever happen, you can expect that a lot of state legislatures, and state Supreme Courts, are going to start questioning why they must defer to rulings of the Supreme Court.

[Ivytalk]

That's not court packing.

See Ivy's response.

Pack The Court

I want to see thousands of judges on the Supreme Court before I die. I hope Biden goes nuclear on 1st street.

Well, the Supreme Court of your beloved Iran has 42 justices. You can start there.

[Ivytalk]

Name ONE Republican politician who advocates expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with Republicans. That’s what court-packing means.

You can’t.

Republicans nominate Republicans, and Democrats nominate Democrats. ‘‘Twas ever thus. But sometimes nominees go rogue when on the bench. Thinking of Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens (to name three).

I like when a justice "goes rogue" because that means the institution of the Supreme Court is working. Take nine intelligent, reasonable people; place them in a collegial environment in which they discuss the great issues of the day and try to come to some resolution; and you would hope that, over time, this would foster evolution in the beliefs and expressions of each of the individual nine members. It is the gradual change in personnel that makes this possible.

Stacking the Court has a single purpose: to place a whole new slate cultural warriors on the Court in numbers significant enough to negate the gradual, collegial deliberative process outlined above.

If that should ever happen, you can expect that a lot of state legislatures, and state Supreme Courts, are going to start questioning why they must defer to rulings of the Supreme Court.

Fair point. Even Roberts has “evolved” over time, although he keeps his own counsel.

[UNI88]

Name ONE Republican politician who advocates expanding the SCOTUS and packing it with Republicans. That’s what court-packing means.

You can’t.

Republicans nominate Republicans, and Democrats nominate Democrats. ‘‘Twas ever thus. But sometimes nominees go rogue when on the bench. Thinking of Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens (to name three).

I like when a justice "goes rogue" because that means the institution of the Supreme Court is working. Take nine intelligent, reasonable people; place them in a collegial environment in which they discuss the great issues of the day and try to come to some resolution; and you would hope that, over time, this would foster evolution in the beliefs and expressions of each of the individual nine members. It is the gradual change in personnel that makes this possible.

Stacking the Court has a single purpose: to place a whole new slate cultural warriors on the Court in numbers significant enough to negate the gradual, collegial deliberative process outlined above.

If that should ever happen, you can expect that a lot of state legislatures, and state Supreme Courts, are going to start questioning why they must defer to rulings of the Supreme Court.

[UNI88]

That's not court packing.

See Ivy's response.

Pack The Court
Destroy The Country
Burn It Down

I want to see thousands of judges on the Supreme Court before I die. I hope Biden goes nuclear on 1st street.

FYP

[Ibanez]

My mistake, I knew that. What a brain fart.

What I meant was Republicans, just like Democrats, will load the courts up with their nominees while withholding the confirmation of others when their party isn't in the White House. And the Republicans have done this beautifully. Senate Republicans confirmed 30 appellate judges in Trump's 1st two years compared to 2 in Obama's last 2. They wouldn't entertain Obama's pick for the Supreme Court. I don't buy the "we can't confirm during an election year." It's bullshit. They can confirm - they just don't have the integrity to say, " We refuse to confirm on the chance that our guy wins the White House."


Politicians....what are they good for?

I would have sent Garland’s name to the Senate for debate and a floor vote. And I would have voted no on the merits. Garland’s reflexive pro-labor jurisprudence on the Court of Appeals was reason enough.

The very least they could've done was given us some theater.

[JoltinJoe]

I like when a justice "goes rogue" because that means the institution of the Supreme Court is working. Take nine intelligent, reasonable people; place them in a collegial environment in which they discuss the great issues of the day and try to come to some resolution; and you would hope that, over time, this would foster evolution in the beliefs and expressions of each of the individual nine members. It is the gradual change in personnel that makes this possible.

Stacking the Court has a single purpose: to place a whole new slate cultural warriors on the Court in numbers significant enough to negate the gradual, collegial deliberative process outlined above.

If that should ever happen, you can expect that a lot of state legislatures, and state Supreme Courts, are going to start questioning why they must defer to rulings of the Supreme Court.

Fair point. Even Roberts has “evolved” over time, although he keeps his own counsel.

You need to invite him to the next crab feast and work him over a bit.

I like Roberts. He's doing a good job. He disappoints me here and there with a decision. But then again, it is a sign of a healthy society that you don't always get what you want out of the courts or legislatures, so long as you had a fair chance to persuade. If you are living in a society in which you are always getting your way, then you are oppressing some people.

I don't mind being out-voted. I'm just happy to live in a country in which that's how we make our collective decisions.

[Ibanez]

That's not court packing.

See Ivy's response.

Pack The Court

I want to see thousands of judges on the Supreme Court before I die. I hope Biden goes nuclear on 1st street.

1000s? Are you insane?!

[Ibanez]

I like when a justice "goes rogue" because that means the institution of the Supreme Court is working. Take nine intelligent, reasonable people; place them in a collegial environment in which they discuss the great issues of the day and try to come to some resolution; and you would hope that, over time, this would foster evolution in the beliefs and expressions of each of the individual nine members. It is the gradual change in personnel that makes this possible.

Stacking the Court has a single purpose: to place a whole new slate cultural warriors on the Court in numbers significant enough to negate the gradual, collegial deliberative process outlined above.

If that should ever happen, you can expect that a lot of state legislatures, and state Supreme Courts, are going to start questioning why they must defer to rulings of the Supreme Court.

Fair point. Even Roberts has “evolved” over time, although he keeps his own counsel.

Robert's has.


And it's been good to see Trumps judges side with Liberals on some cases.

[Ivytalk]

Fair point. Even Roberts has “evolved” over time, although he keeps his own counsel.

You need to invite him to the next crab feast and work him over a bit.

I like Roberts. He's doing a good job. He disappoints me here and there with a decision. But then again, it is a sign of a healthy society that you don't always get what you want out of the courts or legislatures, so long as you had a fair chance to persuade. If you are living in a society in which you are always getting your way, then you are oppressing some people.

I don't mind being out-voted. I'm just happy to live in a country in which that's how we make our collective decisions.

I’ve read a few articles offering theories about Roberts’ unpredictable jurisprudence. He has a very strong concern for the reputation and heritage of the Court, and he is bothered by cases with highly political implications. That may explain his decisive vote to uphold Obamacare. From the institutional perspective of the Court, it was the less risky option.