Supreme Court as an extension of partisanship

[StringJunky]

50 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The Constitution is the problem. As designed the Constitution can be amended, Article Five. Talk of the "Founding Fathers" is just a strawman conservatives in the U.S. use to justify disenfranchisement. The Constitution was never meant to be viewed through the written in stone lense. There has been 27 amendments made to the U.S. Constitution but none on the last 46yrs which is the longest gap without an amendment in the nation's history. The fallacy of the Constitution being a bibical like document which is unalterable has stymied our (U.S.) system of govt. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from writing and passing any law we the people want. 

Cheers. I shall remember to invoke Article Five when someone witters  on about the sanctity  of gun rights.  It sets a rather high bar to change anything though, doesn't it?

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Cheers. I shall remember to invoke Article Five when someone witters  on about the sanctity  of gun rights.  It sets a rather high bar to change anything though, doesn't it?

Obama needed a super majority in the Senate to get anything done his whole tenure due to Republican filibuster yet still managed to get things passed. The bar isn't impossible high. There have been numerous amendments. The problem is that many have come to accept the written in stone mentality as an amendment hasn't been made in nearly 50yrs. It needs to be brought up more often that the Constitution can be amended. People need to hear the idea suggested so it can normalize as a real option. Not only can Amendments be made but they can replace existing one. The 2nd amendment can be replaced. The Constitution absolutely allows for it. 

[MigL]

It isn't done because, as you rightly say, Ten oz, politicians are looking out for their careers, not the country.
Can you imagine how long a politician's career would last in the US, if they proposed gun legislation, or pot for that matter ?

They take the easy road and have unaccountable, appointed-for-life judges make the hard choices, that often disagree with the people's wishes, and then claim its out of their hands.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

It isn't done because, as you rightly say, Ten oz, politicians are looking out for their careers, not the country.
Can you imagine how long a politician's career would last in the US, if they proposed gun legislation, or pot for that matter ?

They take the easy road and have unaccountable, appointed-for-life judges make the hard choices, that often disagree with the people's wishes, and then claim its out of their hands.

The Salary in the House of Representatives in $174,000 dollars. Many political figures own cars worth more than that. Many members of Congress are millionaires some are worth hundreds of millions. I do not think many of then are worried about their political career and public image. That is the problem. Rather they are worried about networking with special interest groups and business so they can get high paying lobbyist jobs and and insider investment information. In my opinion there should be a Constitutional amendment which prohibits Politicians from owning businesses, stock , or receiving money for paid speaking while in office or for at least 2yrs (a single Congressional election cycle) after. We also need public financed elections. Imagine the sort of pro-populist messaging politicians might champion if they didn't have billionaires financing their campaigns for them. The problem isn't that Politicians can't win elections if they speak of amending the Constitution. The problem is politicians won't get rich if the do. 

 

[HB of CJ]

The way it is ...

The CONSTITUTION is deeply chiseled in hard granite.  The AMENDMENT process allows additions.  Only done rarely in over 220 years.  Congress CAN NOT pass any law the voters wish.   Lots of folks here with a poor understanding as to how the US Constitution works.   I wonder if they could even pass a US Citizenship test.  Or if they are even US Citizens.  Yikes!

The US Constitution is most certainly NOT a living document.  It can be AMENDED but not changed.  Original intent.  You gotta have it or you have noting left original.  Common words of that time with definitions of that time.  1789 or so?  A long time ago.  Do not try to put something in that does not belong today.  Conservative means keeping what your have.  More yikes!

Rant:  How many sheeple er people here own firearms?  How many own semi auto weapons?  How many here legally own machine guns?  Now many here know how to use a firearm?  The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting.  It IS ABOUT the armed citizen, (YOU) being able to shrug off or defeat an out of control government.  Think it through.  Very scary indeed.

Rant complete.  Thank you.

[iNow]

You do realize the word is Ammend, not Append, right?

We can do far more than add to it. We can, in fact, change it. 

[Strange]

15 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

It IS ABOUT the armed citizen, (YOU) being able to shrug off or defeat an out of control government.

It is not at all clear that is the original intended meaning. 

And isn't that what elections are for?

Edited October 13, 2018 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

15 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

It can be AMENDED but not changed.

Amended means changed.

[Strange]

15 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

Or if they are even US Citizens.  Yikes!

Imagine that. People on the Internet might not be American. Who ever would have thought it. 

ps. -1 for “sheeple” and general factually incorrect rantiness 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Strange

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

The way it is ...

The CONSTITUTION is deeply chiseled in hard granite.  The AMENDMENT process allows additions.  Only done rarely in over 220 years.  Congress CAN NOT pass any law the voters wish.   Lots of folks here with a poor understanding as to how the US Constitution works.   I wonder if they could even pass a US Citizenship test.  Or if they are even US Citizens.  Yikes!

The US Constitution is most certainly NOT a living document.  It can be AMENDED but not changed.  Original intent.  You gotta have it or you have noting left original.  Common words of that time with definitions of that time.  1789 or so?  A long time ago.  Do not try to put something in that does not belong today.  Conservative means keeping what your have.  More yikes!

Rant:  How many sheeple er people here own firearms?  How many own semi auto weapons?  How many here legally own machine guns?  Now many here know how to use a firearm?  The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting.  It IS ABOUT the armed citizen, (YOU) being able to shrug off or defeat an out of control government.  Think it through.  Very scary indeed.

Rant complete.  Thank you.

 

[Ten oz]

This thread asks about partisan in relationship to SCOTUS and I think we all have own understanding of what partisanship is however under the current administration the definition of partisanship may be changing. I think must of us have understood partisanship in the U.S. to mean Democrat vs Republican. Those lines have become more blurred. Solid lifelong Republicans like Flakes, Corker, McCain, Priebus, and etc have criticized at various points as not authentically Republican enough for not  kowtowing to Trump. Now in an attempt to get out in front of the the controversy surrounding dissatisfaction in his Trump is claiming his Sec. of State James (Mad Dog) Mattis is"sort of a Democrat". Separately there is much speculation that Trump's U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley had ideological differences with Trump in that she is too moderate and that played role in her resignation. Ironically Mattis, Priebus, and Haley were about some of the most partisan faces in the Republican Party at the time they were offered jobs with Trump. S

So what is partisanship under Trump? Does being anything less than a harden Trump supporter makes one "sort of a Democrat" and if so doesn't that make bipartisanship during the Trump-era is impossible? 

[John Cuthber]

I thought it wasn't so much "sort of Democrat" but Anti American, Anti freedom and presumably Anti motherhood and apple pie.

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I thought it wasn't so much "sort of Democrat" but Anti American, Anti freedom and presumably Anti motherhood and apple pie.

Quote

 

President Donald Trump said he is unsure whether Defense Secretary James Mattis is planning to step down from his post, but told CBS' "60 Minutes" in a pre-taped interview that the retired general might and that he regards Mattis as "sort of a Democrat."

"It could be that he is" planning to depart, Trump said, according to an excerpt of a transcript released on Sunday before the show airs. "I think he's sort of a Democrat, if you want to know the truth. But General Mattis is a good guy. We get along very well. He may leave."

 

Trump gave an interview which airs this evening and during it described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat" in explaining whether or not Mattis maybe stepping down or being fired.  

[Ten oz]

SCOTUS isn't the only court Republicans attempt to stack. One of the things striking about what FL's Republican Gov. is trying to do with the State Court is that fact that regardless of whether or not Democrats make the next round of nominations or not the Court will still be majority Republican. The partisan greed here is nearly comical. A majority is assured either way but Republicans still want more.

Quote

 

his year, Florida has very good odds of electing Andrew Gillum, the charismatic, progressive Tallahassee mayor, as their next governor. But outgoing GOP governor Rick Scott thought he had a perfect plan to ensure that even if Gillum won, the state courts would remain in solid Republican control for years to come.

On Monday, however, the Florida Supreme Court put a stop to his scheme.

Scott's idea was that on his last day in office, he would appoint three Republicans to the Florida Supreme Court. The state consitution says that three existing Democratic-appointed justices on the court would hit mandatory retirement on the same date he would exit the governor's mansion: January 8. Scott twisted the meaning of this to interpret it as, the justices would be out of office at midnight on January 8, but he would still be governor until the moment the next governor is sworn in — meaning he would have a window of a few hours to jam his own cronies onto the court instead of the next governor. Last month, in anticipation of this, Scott ordered the judicial nominating commission — whose members he himself appointed — to give him a list of candidates to pick from on January 8.

his year, Florida has very good odds of electing Andrew Gillum, the charismatic, progressive Tallahassee mayor, as their next governor. But outgoing GOP governor Rick Scott thought he had a perfect plan to ensure that even if Gillum won, the state courts would remain in solid Republican control for years to come.

On Monday, however, the Florida Supreme Court put a stop to his scheme. 

Had Scott gone through with this scheme, the Florida Supreme Court would have gone from 4-3 Republican appointees to 7-0, all but ensuring the state courts would become a rubber stamp for the GOP regardless of who won the governor's race.

But following a lawsuit by the League of Women Voters, the Florida Supreme Court itself has now weighed in against this plan, in a ruling that blocks Scott from making the appointments.

"The governor who is elected in the November 2018 general election has the sole authority to fill the vacancies," state the justices, noting that Scott "exceeded his authority by directing the Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission ... to submit its nominations to fill these vacancies by November 10, 2018."

The justices will further decide the question of when the nominating commission can certify its nominations after oral arguments on November 8, two days after the election is held.

The effect of this decision will be fairly moot if Republican nominee Ron DeSantis manages to win in November. But whatever happens, Floridians can now be confident they will have a say in the composition of their state courts when they head to the polls to elect their governor.

Scott's idea was that on his last day in office, he would appoint three Republicans to the Florida Supreme Court. The state consitution says that three existing Democratic-appointed justices on the court would hit mandatory retirement on the same date he would exit the governor's mansion: January 8. Scott twisted the meaning of this to interpret it as, the justices would be out of office at midnight on January 8, but he would still be governor until the moment the next governor is sworn in — meaning he would have a window of a few hours to jam his own cronies onto the court instead of the next governor. Last month, in anticipation of this, Scott ordered the judicial nominating commission — whose members he himself appointed — to give him a list of candidates to pick from on January 8.

https://www.salon.com/2018/10/16/florida-supreme-court-just-thwarted-the-republican-governors-underhanded-and-desperate-plot_partner/