4 ms·

> So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when

by bhupy 6y ago

> So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules? The only agreed upon "rules" are what the legislature passes. "Norms" don't really mean much; those are just glorified pinky promises. You're basically comparing "norms" to laws, but those two are not the same. The fact that there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court isn't a norm that we all just shake hands and agree on, it's what's currently set by legislation. Mitch McConnell never violated any law, nor did he change the rules via legislation. He (and the GOP) exercised the power to advise and consent (or not) to a nomination. If the people had wanted the kind of nomination he refused to consent to, they would have voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate. But alas, that did not happen; those are the rules of the game. What you (and the so called "academics") are advocating for is changing the rules of the game. Notwithstanding the merits of that, it is in no way comparable to just playing hardball by the existing rules, and to argue otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

cozuya 6y ago
Ah, got it, as the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, the Democrats should pass a law changing the amount of SCOTUS justices, and when that is filibustered, they should vote to remove the filibuster, because, again, the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, and those are the rules of the game. That sounds good to me, I hope they take your advice.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Yes, we’re well aware what the rules are. The point is that this is in no way comparable to what the Republicans did, which it sounds like you finally understand, so good job. There’s a reason that Democrats like Manchin and Sinema openly oppose it: because it’s so transparently absurd and bad for the Republic.
  - cozuya 6y ago
    Yeahhhh no. You don't get to blow up norms and then blame the other side for blowing up norms, and 9 SCOTUS judges is just a norm, no matter how hard you try to claim that it is not. The Dems adding SCOTUS judges 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 would be just changing norms, as there's nothing in the constitution that prevents it. Sorry! Maybe the GQP should win elections next time.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Just to be charitable to your argument, even if the number of seats on the court was “just a norm” (a huge stretch, but let’s just say)...you have to know that it would do irreversible damage to change such a norm, and is in no way comparable to stonewalling a single nomination. The moment one party does this, any time power changes, the other power will just pack it right back, ad infinitum, turning the Supreme Court into a wholly political body. GP described this as “destroying the rule of law”, which is effectively what happens when you no longer have an independent judiciary that just changes with the political winds. > Maybe the GQP should win elections next time. It’s not just the “GQP” (seriously, maybe try talking like a normal person), it’s also key Democrats that oppose this. Until you can replace them too, this is a non-starter. And also...the “GQP” happens to enjoy a fairly robust geographical advantage in the Senate map, so it’s really either now or never. All that said, there’s nothing wrong with supporting something that’s even more extreme than what the other side did if that’s what you’re really into, but at least have the guts to be honest with yourself about what it is you’re advocating for and own it! That’s the only consistent position. Regardless of what we agree to call these things, “norms”, “laws”, “cupcakes” (I really don’t care), if you’re unable to grasp just how different the two things are, then you might have more in common with the “GQP” than you think, at least is far as critical thinking goes.
      - cozuya 6y ago
        Oh man, that's a ton of words and effort for "elections have consequences". In 2022, the GQP, yes, the party of qanon, as they won't kick out their qanon members, have a brutal Senate reckoning having to defend a ton of purple and blue state seats. So yeah, if things go well, maybe the Dems will have the balls to do what McConnell has done for 10 years which is blow up "norms" to get what they want. Especially if the far right wing SCOTUS members do things that are INCREDIBLY unpopular among normal non far right wing Americans, like kill Obamacare and healthcare for 15 million Americans, and kill abortion rights which is currently supported by a huge majority of Americans. Essentially, your argument is it would be awful if the party that won the House, won the Senate, won the Presidency did what they wanted. That party supports policies that are incredibly popular among Americans. The other party represents terrible policies that Americans hate, like no COVID relief, banning abortion, racism (birtherism, "build the wall", "send her back"), lawlessness/anti democracy i.e. 1/6 insurrection, "hang mike pence", all of these things the average American does not want. But lets clutch our pearls when the party that WON, NOT YOURS, tries to do what is was given a mandate to do. SAD.

by bhupy 6y ago

cozuya 6y ago

Ah, got it, as the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, the Democrats should pass a law changing the amount of SCOTUS justices, and when that is filibustered, they should vote to remove the filibuster, because, again, the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, and those are the rules of the game. That sounds good to me, I hope they take your advice.

bhupy 6y ago
Yes, we’re well aware what the rules are. The point is that this is in no way comparable to what the Republicans did, which it sounds like you finally understand, so good job. There’s a reason that Democrats like Manchin and Sinema openly oppose it: because it’s so transparently absurd and bad for the Republic.
- cozuya 6y ago
  Yeahhhh no. You don't get to blow up norms and then blame the other side for blowing up norms, and 9 SCOTUS judges is just a norm, no matter how hard you try to claim that it is not. The Dems adding SCOTUS judges 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 would be just changing norms, as there's nothing in the constitution that prevents it. Sorry! Maybe the GQP should win elections next time.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Just to be charitable to your argument, even if the number of seats on the court was “just a norm” (a huge stretch, but let’s just say)...you have to know that it would do irreversible damage to change such a norm, and is in no way comparable to stonewalling a single nomination. The moment one party does this, any time power changes, the other power will just pack it right back, ad infinitum, turning the Supreme Court into a wholly political body. GP described this as “destroying the rule of law”, which is effectively what happens when you no longer have an independent judiciary that just changes with the political winds. > Maybe the GQP should win elections next time. It’s not just the “GQP” (seriously, maybe try talking like a normal person), it’s also key Democrats that oppose this. Until you can replace them too, this is a non-starter. And also...the “GQP” happens to enjoy a fairly robust geographical advantage in the Senate map, so it’s really either now or never. All that said, there’s nothing wrong with supporting something that’s even more extreme than what the other side did if that’s what you’re really into, but at least have the guts to be honest with yourself about what it is you’re advocating for and own it! That’s the only consistent position. Regardless of what we agree to call these things, “norms”, “laws”, “cupcakes” (I really don’t care), if you’re unable to grasp just how different the two things are, then you might have more in common with the “GQP” than you think, at least is far as critical thinking goes.
    - cozuya 6y ago
      Oh man, that's a ton of words and effort for "elections have consequences". In 2022, the GQP, yes, the party of qanon, as they won't kick out their qanon members, have a brutal Senate reckoning having to defend a ton of purple and blue state seats. So yeah, if things go well, maybe the Dems will have the balls to do what McConnell has done for 10 years which is blow up "norms" to get what they want. Especially if the far right wing SCOTUS members do things that are INCREDIBLY unpopular among normal non far right wing Americans, like kill Obamacare and healthcare for 15 million Americans, and kill abortion rights which is currently supported by a huge majority of Americans. Essentially, your argument is it would be awful if the party that won the House, won the Senate, won the Presidency did what they wanted. That party supports policies that are incredibly popular among Americans. The other party represents terrible policies that Americans hate, like no COVID relief, banning abortion, racism (birtherism, "build the wall", "send her back"), lawlessness/anti democracy i.e. 1/6 insurrection, "hang mike pence", all of these things the average American does not want. But lets clutch our pearls when the party that WON, NOT YOURS, tries to do what is was given a mandate to do. SAD.