7 ms·

There's a lot of things you can "both sides" but only one side is undermining democracy because their positions are unpopular.

rubyist5eva 6y ago
Exactly. I'm sick and tired of the Democratic Party using the judicial branch and SCOTUS to legislate from the bench because they can't get their agenda through in Congress like they are supposed to.
- cj 6y ago
  > Democratic Party using the judicial branch and SCOTUS to legislate from the bench because Hasn't the supreme court been majority conservative for quite some time? Not majority liberal? (unless your comment is sarcasm)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tolbish 6y ago
    thought it was sarcasm at first, but it appears rubyistSeva genuinely isn't aware that the Democratic nominee was blocked four years ago on the basis of it being an election year, only for the Republican party to turn around and do exactly that this year.
    - rubyist5eva 6y ago
      The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent - there was no consent so there was no reason to do it. This year is different - Republicans hold the majority of the Senate and the White House. This nominee has the votes.
      - Schiendelman 6y ago
        To me, your comment reads as an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.
      - Aunche 6y ago
        In that case, the Senate can always just refuse to confirm a new justice whenever the majority isn't the same party as the president.
        rubyist5eva 6y ago
        yes, they can.
        maxerickson 6y ago
        That is the case. I don't think it is obvious that this sort of naked use of power is always going to be the best strategy for a political group though. Only time will tell, but it appears to me that the coalition of voters the GOP has long relied on is starting to fracture.
      - tchock23 6y ago
        That wasn’t the stated reason given by the party at that time. The line sold to the public was ‘can’t confirm in an election year,’ which can be found in many public statements by Republicans at that time. Going through with a nomination while voting has actually started and announcing it one hour after the death of a justice is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
      - plushpuffin 6y ago
        The Senate has traditionally accepted the president's nominee assuming s/he was qualified. Garland had previously been out forward by the GOP as an example of a qualified and respected judge. And let's not forget that had Clinton won, the GOP was determined to keep that seat on the court empty for 4 years. They said as much. And when they refused to even consider Garland they also said that their newly made-up rule would apply if the shoe was on the other foot. They clearly didn't mean that, and the rationale for confirming Barrett that you are parroting above is just that, a rationale. An excuse. Don't pretend the rest of us are stupid. We know exactly why your position on this has changed and it has everything to do with the fact that your side has the temporary power to do what it wants.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      This has the entire list of ‘N’s in U.S. history: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtN...
  - tasty_freeze 6y ago
    Republican presidents placed 11 supreme court justices in a row, from Nixon through GH Bush. Clinton placed two, and republicans have been whining about needing to fix the liberal supreme court ever since. GW Bush placed two, Obama placed two, and it looks like Trump will place three. You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing.
    - rubyist5eva 6y ago
      It's not about having a "liberal" justice or a "conservative" justice. It's about having a court that does what is supposed to do - _interpret_ the law, not create it. Republican Presidents have been very bad at choosing justices that do this as well, David Souter being probably the worst example.
      - tasty_freeze 6y ago
        Pick a case where you believe they created law, then cite the bill that they wrote.
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      > You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing. I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade but see it as an example of legislating from the bench.
      - lordnacho 6y ago
        There's also nothing wrong with that. The distinction between the different branches creating law is pretty vague. If congress makes a law and the court strikes it down, are they "legislating from the bench"? Or are they merely pointing out that the new law is incompatible with the rest of the laws? The quote is right, law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide.
  - rubyist5eva 6y ago
    Anthony Kennedy was a swing vote and he retired in 2018, so no - it was not "majority conservative". Kennedy voted in the affirmative for both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Obergefell v. Hodges, both of which both being particularly egregious examples of legislation from the bench. I am both pro gay marriage and pro-choice - but neither of these things exist in the Constitution. Not one word. Either amend the Constitution or allow states to create their own legislation. If both Roe/Casey and Obergefell disappeared overnight - do you think abortion and gay marriage would all of a sudden become illegal in New York and California? If the Democrats don't see the judicial branch as an extension of the legislative, then why would they be threatening to pack the court with justices that will vote for their causes?
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      If you think those hot button issues define liberal vs conservative, you may be farther to the right than you think.
    - Retric 6y ago
      I think you will find the overwhelming majority of things decided by the Supreme Court are ‘not in the constitution’. That’s simply not how or why it was setup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_... First case: Attorney General did not permissibly construe Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the distribution of drugs for physician-assisted suicide 3rd: Habeas corpus relief may not be granted on the basis of debatable inferences used to overturn the trial court's finding vis-á-vis peremptory challenges 5th: Arbitrator must decide legality of contract unless arbitration clause is itself being challenged 10th: States may constitutionally limit the evidence of innocence a defendant convicted of a capital offense may present at his sentencing hearing to the evidence already presented at his trial.
    - cj 6y ago
      Wasn't Anthony Kennedy nominated by a Republican president? > pack the court with justices Without taking a side myself, I think the problem is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_... And more specifically: > He [Mitch McConnell] said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year.[1][2][3] Senate Democrats criticized the move as being unprecedented, and responded saying that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election.[4] Democrats are not happy with the double standard set by Republicans of blocking a nominee when a justice dies during an election year when it's a liberal one, and not blocking (instead, quickly accelerating) a nominee when it's a conservative one.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Well, since everyone is claiming that with Barrett's nomination that it will turn into a Conservative majority, what does that tell you about what it looks like before that?
    - RonaldRaygun 6y ago
      Everyone is claiming it will shift it from a 5-4 soft conservative majority, with relatively centrist Bush Jr. appointee John Roberts often siding with the Dem appointees on issues of human rights, immigration, and abortion restrictions, to a 6-3 hard conservative majority that will be well-nigh unbreakable for many years.
    - redler 6y ago
      It will go from a conservative majority (typically 5-4 on polarizing cases — now 5-3 after Ginsburg’s death) to an entrenched conservative supermajority of 6-3, far less likely to ever render “non-conservative” verdicts on those cases. As you likely know.
refurb 6y ago
Whose positions are unpopular? Last I checked most of the elections are pretty evenly split at the national level (+/- 10%).
- Retric 6y ago
  Based on polling data, 3/4th if Americans support Roe vs Wade. However, both parties are trying to get elected so they pick a set of options that gives them a significant chance to be elected. Why such unpopular options can make the cut is people don’t care about issues equally. When a significant minority care a lot about one issue they get patched together with other such groups and you can get elected even if most people disagree with the majority of what you stand for. Over time identity politics eventually confuses things as people constantly supporting one party tend to adopt the stances of that party. This gets interesting when parties swap position on some issue.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Seems like Roe vs Wade is Closer to 60/40, but regardless, that’s a pretty loaded question. What does overturn mean? Complete ban on abortion? Replace with something else? When asked if pro-choice/pro-life, Americans are pretty evenly split.[1] So as per the OP’s comment, which issues are so strongly supported that only party clearly supports them? Gun control? No. Welfare reform? No. Higher spending? No. I’m genuinely curious. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
    - Retric 6y ago
      https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-am... 60% think gun laws should be more strict, 11% think they should be less strict. Welfare reform and lower spending are not strictly Republican platforms. Reform isn’t a specific policy decision. Also, Republican administrations have seen some of the largest spending increases. Being a believer in small government, free markets, and zero debt I don’t have a clear party favorite. EX: I firmly believe there should be zero subsides for any industry, as such rebates for installing solar is a bad idea. Flat carbon tax and let the market decide, if “clean” coal can win then it wins.

rubyist5eva 6y ago

Exactly. I'm sick and tired of the Democratic Party using the judicial branch and SCOTUS to legislate from the bench because they can't get their agenda through in Congress like they are supposed to.

cj 6y ago
> Democratic Party using the judicial branch and SCOTUS to legislate from the bench because Hasn't the supreme court been majority conservative for quite some time? Not majority liberal? (unless your comment is sarcasm)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tolbish 6y ago
  thought it was sarcasm at first, but it appears rubyistSeva genuinely isn't aware that the Democratic nominee was blocked four years ago on the basis of it being an election year, only for the Republican party to turn around and do exactly that this year.
  - rubyist5eva 6y ago
    The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent - there was no consent so there was no reason to do it. This year is different - Republicans hold the majority of the Senate and the White House. This nominee has the votes.
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      To me, your comment reads as an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.
    - Aunche 6y ago
      In that case, the Senate can always just refuse to confirm a new justice whenever the majority isn't the same party as the president.
      - rubyist5eva 6y ago
        yes, they can.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        That is the case. I don't think it is obvious that this sort of naked use of power is always going to be the best strategy for a political group though. Only time will tell, but it appears to me that the coalition of voters the GOP has long relied on is starting to fracture.
    - tchock23 6y ago
      That wasn’t the stated reason given by the party at that time. The line sold to the public was ‘can’t confirm in an election year,’ which can be found in many public statements by Republicans at that time. Going through with a nomination while voting has actually started and announcing it one hour after the death of a justice is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
    - plushpuffin 6y ago
      The Senate has traditionally accepted the president's nominee assuming s/he was qualified. Garland had previously been out forward by the GOP as an example of a qualified and respected judge. And let's not forget that had Clinton won, the GOP was determined to keep that seat on the court empty for 4 years. They said as much. And when they refused to even consider Garland they also said that their newly made-up rule would apply if the shoe was on the other foot. They clearly didn't mean that, and the rationale for confirming Barrett that you are parroting above is just that, a rationale. An excuse. Don't pretend the rest of us are stupid. We know exactly why your position on this has changed and it has everything to do with the fact that your side has the temporary power to do what it wants.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    This has the entire list of ‘N’s in U.S. history: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtN...
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  Republican presidents placed 11 supreme court justices in a row, from Nixon through GH Bush. Clinton placed two, and republicans have been whining about needing to fix the liberal supreme court ever since. GW Bush placed two, Obama placed two, and it looks like Trump will place three. You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing.
  - rubyist5eva 6y ago
    It's not about having a "liberal" justice or a "conservative" justice. It's about having a court that does what is supposed to do - _interpret_ the law, not create it. Republican Presidents have been very bad at choosing justices that do this as well, David Souter being probably the worst example.
    - tasty_freeze 6y ago
      Pick a case where you believe they created law, then cite the bill that they wrote.
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    > You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agree with an outcome but never when they agree with an outcome. It means nothing. I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade but see it as an example of legislating from the bench.
    - lordnacho 6y ago
      There's also nothing wrong with that. The distinction between the different branches creating law is pretty vague. If congress makes a law and the court strikes it down, are they "legislating from the bench"? Or are they merely pointing out that the new law is incompatible with the rest of the laws? The quote is right, law isn't just whatever the congressmen decide.
- rubyist5eva 6y ago
  Anthony Kennedy was a swing vote and he retired in 2018, so no - it was not "majority conservative". Kennedy voted in the affirmative for both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Obergefell v. Hodges, both of which both being particularly egregious examples of legislation from the bench. I am both pro gay marriage and pro-choice - but neither of these things exist in the Constitution. Not one word. Either amend the Constitution or allow states to create their own legislation. If both Roe/Casey and Obergefell disappeared overnight - do you think abortion and gay marriage would all of a sudden become illegal in New York and California? If the Democrats don't see the judicial branch as an extension of the legislative, then why would they be threatening to pack the court with justices that will vote for their causes?
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    If you think those hot button issues define liberal vs conservative, you may be farther to the right than you think.
  - Retric 6y ago
    I think you will find the overwhelming majority of things decided by the Supreme Court are ‘not in the constitution’. That’s simply not how or why it was setup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_... First case: Attorney General did not permissibly construe Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the distribution of drugs for physician-assisted suicide 3rd: Habeas corpus relief may not be granted on the basis of debatable inferences used to overturn the trial court's finding vis-á-vis peremptory challenges 5th: Arbitrator must decide legality of contract unless arbitration clause is itself being challenged 10th: States may constitutionally limit the evidence of innocence a defendant convicted of a capital offense may present at his sentencing hearing to the evidence already presented at his trial.
  - cj 6y ago
    Wasn't Anthony Kennedy nominated by a Republican president? > pack the court with justices Without taking a side myself, I think the problem is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_... And more specifically: > He [Mitch McConnell] said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year.[1][2][3] Senate Democrats criticized the move as being unprecedented, and responded saying that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election.[4] Democrats are not happy with the double standard set by Republicans of blocking a nominee when a justice dies during an election year when it's a liberal one, and not blocking (instead, quickly accelerating) a nominee when it's a conservative one.
- refurb 6y ago
  Well, since everyone is claiming that with Barrett's nomination that it will turn into a Conservative majority, what does that tell you about what it looks like before that?
  - RonaldRaygun 6y ago
    Everyone is claiming it will shift it from a 5-4 soft conservative majority, with relatively centrist Bush Jr. appointee John Roberts often siding with the Dem appointees on issues of human rights, immigration, and abortion restrictions, to a 6-3 hard conservative majority that will be well-nigh unbreakable for many years.
  - redler 6y ago
    It will go from a conservative majority (typically 5-4 on polarizing cases — now 5-3 after Ginsburg’s death) to an entrenched conservative supermajority of 6-3, far less likely to ever render “non-conservative” verdicts on those cases. As you likely know.

refurb 6y ago

Whose positions are unpopular? Last I checked most of the elections are pretty evenly split at the national level (+/- 10%).

Retric 6y ago
Based on polling data, 3/4th if Americans support Roe vs Wade. However, both parties are trying to get elected so they pick a set of options that gives them a significant chance to be elected. Why such unpopular options can make the cut is people don’t care about issues equally. When a significant minority care a lot about one issue they get patched together with other such groups and you can get elected even if most people disagree with the majority of what you stand for. Over time identity politics eventually confuses things as people constantly supporting one party tend to adopt the stances of that party. This gets interesting when parties swap position on some issue.
- refurb 6y ago
  Seems like Roe vs Wade is Closer to 60/40, but regardless, that’s a pretty loaded question. What does overturn mean? Complete ban on abortion? Replace with something else? When asked if pro-choice/pro-life, Americans are pretty evenly split.[1] So as per the OP’s comment, which issues are so strongly supported that only party clearly supports them? Gun control? No. Welfare reform? No. Higher spending? No. I’m genuinely curious. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
  - Retric 6y ago
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-am... 60% think gun laws should be more strict, 11% think they should be less strict. Welfare reform and lower spending are not strictly Republican platforms. Reform isn’t a specific policy decision. Also, Republican administrations have seen some of the largest spending increases. Being a believer in small government, free markets, and zero debt I don’t have a clear party favorite. EX: I firmly believe there should be zero subsides for any industry, as such rebates for installing solar is a bad idea. Flat carbon tax and let the market decide, if “clean” coal can win then it wins.