5272

Well, yeah. Kinda figured it would be, from the beginning. I’m open to being surprised like I was on healthcare…but that particular ship and senator has passed.

5273

astronaut-gun-pointing-meme.gif

5274

We just gotta win the Senate at all costs now. I’d rather stack the court, than try to nullify it entirely Jackson-style.

Once we stack the court, we need to do an amendment proposal to stop these shenanigans from happening again.

Maybe a fixed court size and a 30 yr limit on appointments.

5275

Come on. Without 67 seats in the Senate, we aren’t amending jack shit.

People on the left need to stop engaging in fantasy and practice actual hardball politics instead. We aren’t changing justice terms, we aren’t eliminating the EC, we aren’t changing the disproportionate nature of the Senate. Chase the stuff we can do with a simple majority in the Senate.

5276

Before I looked into splitting California, I thought about merging the Dakota and also combining Wyoming and Montana into Wytona. Upon checking I found the constitution is extremely clear you can’t reshape or merge or anything of the sort without the consent of the legislators of the involved states approving. So that effectively kills those ideas. It also make splitting DC into multiple state really hard cause you’d have to create some government body. We can ignore the Republicans who scream bloody murder over any of this things. But not the public at large, there should be some reasonableness. Any of these things, absolutely require the support of the affected populations. So if Puerto Rico rejects statehood this Nov, than it is off the table.

5277

Dare to dream!

5278

I think that is really stretching the criteria for impeachment. It is 100% the President’s right to nominate a replacement. Trump is a garbage person, but he’s not doing anything wrong here.

5279

The DC thing is because it is the simplest thing to do. It just requires an act of Congress, no state legislatures or terroritorial ballots need to be considered. I assume the residents of Tubman, Carver, Robinson, King, and Obama would be ok with getting Senators and a representative.

Another option, that would help with the EC, would be to make the House go to 1000 Representatives.
The advantage of the Senate in the EC would be reduced heavily in such a scenario.

Also, couldn’t the House just impeach left and right during the lame duck, to try and clog up the senate. Impeach Barr, impeach the Postmaster General. impeach Chao, etc… Doubt this would work, but worth a try. My guess is the Senate would just ignore the impeachment.

5280

The House could impeach Trump over something else (eg Coronavirus), thus bringing Senate business to a halt.

According to Senate rules, they can’t ignore it.

Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if so ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles, and shall continue in session from day to day, (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence, (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate,) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.

5281

Can’t the rules be changed at any time?

5282

Would this be true on a non-Presidential impeachment? If this is the case, why not impeach Barr? There’s clear evidence there of misbehavior, and it might generate less anger.

5283

All impeachments follow the same procedure, except that the Chief Justice replaces the VP to preside over presidential impeachment.

Yes but changes are subject to filibuster.

5284

But 50 Senators + Pence could nuke that rule just like they nuked the filibuster for Gorsuch.

The GOP is highly likely to ram a Justice through in the next few weeks/months. They key IMO is not to despair, as although that is bad, it is NOT “Game Over Man” and also to fight hard to pin the hypocrisy and double standard on the GOP.

Also, to anyone who thinks “oh the Dems are changing their position from 2016” - that’s actually irrelevant. We are talking about a GOP Senate majority who pushed through one rule in 2016 and now wants to do the reverse. The rule that applies right now is the rule McConnell and the GOP established in 2016. (This is similar to the legal concept of “estoppel”). The GOP isn’t willing to abide by it’s own rule, the instant their interests shift. That’s a meaningful attack line.

5285

Neither side changed their position. The Democratic position is “the rules should apply equally to everyone” and the Republican position is “the rules do not apply to us”.

5286

@JoshL I think we are in violent agreement, with slight changes of wording.

5287

I could see Romney doing it, but I have no idea where a 4th would come from so it doesn’t matter.

5288

Forcing the Republicans to nuke the filbuster will make Dem efforts to stack the court and nuke the filibuster for everything look more legitimate.

5289

Historically, however, claims of judicial supremacy have provoked contestation. During the early years of U.S. history, it was widely believed that each branch or department of government should interpret the Constitution for itself, without any branch’s interpretation necessarily binding the others.12 Thomas Jefferson held this position, called departmentalism, for all of his life.13 So did James Madison.14 In a book published in 2004, Larry Kramer described departmentalism as operating in service of a broader theory of popular constitutionalism, which holds that the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation resides in “the people themselves.”15 That idea merits careful reconsideration in what increasingly appears to be a populist age, characterized by widespread beliefs that ordinary people should mobilize politically and reject the dominance of privileged elites.16

5290

I’m not so sure. When running for Pres Romney’s position was to nominate SC judges like Thomas, Scalia, etc. to overturn Roe v Wade. Romney is a very conservative guy on alot of issues. He’s principled and hates Trump, sure, but if Trump nominates a conservative judge that isn’t a Trump toadie then I don’t see why Romney would turn down the opportunity to get causes he believes in re-evaluated by the SC.

Of course, it’s possible he was pitching to the right in his Pres campaign, but he’s the senator for freaking Utah of all places I am not sure how he could oppose a conservative SC judge if they aren’t absurdly crazy.

5291

I see Sir Romney the American has yet to issue a statement. Certainly it’s because he’s the one good guy right? And not because he is a naked opportunist?