2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

I must admit, I'm having a hard time understanding your position. You say people think short term and short term positions end up getting people to think short term, yet want term limits on SCOTUS justices rather than lifetime appointments; which will mean bouncing back and forth a lot more often than a continuity of decisions. Shouldn't you be in favor of lifetime appointments then?

I never said I want term limits on on SCOTUS. I agree they should have life time appointments for this important of a job. I think interpreting the constitution shouldn't be influenced at all by political pressure. If you were confusing it with what I was saying with the Fed, I was pointing out they aren't affected by political influence much either since their terms are 14 years.

I think the problem runs in that a short term position (senate) is determining a long term decision. If people think short term and senates want to be reelected, their decision will be influenced politically which results in the SCOTUS becoming political.

And I guess your counter would be, who determines the long term positions then? And I’ll admit I don’t know. But these last two elections prove that we are promoting political influence in the SCOTUS which I think is bad long term

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I never said I want term limits on on SCOTUS. I agree they should have life time appointments for this important of a job. I think interpreting the constitution shouldn't be influenced at all by political pressure. If you were confusing it with what I was saying with the Fed, I was pointing out they aren't affected by political influence much either since their terms are 14 years.

I think the problem runs in that a short term position (senate) is determining a long term decision. If people think short term and senates want to be reelected, their decision will be influenced politically which results in the SCOTUS becoming political.

SCOTUS be like

[oldgoldy97]

US after re-electing Trump:



Also Trump at the end of his next term. Works for both.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I think the problem runs in that a short term position (senate) is determining a long term decision. If people think short term and senates want to be reelected, their decision will be influenced politically which results in the SCOTUS becoming political.

OK.

But why is this a problem? Why wasn't it a problem 20 years ago, 50, 100, 200? What is it about today that makes this an issue?

Justices have been nominated for 2 centuries. They have been confirmed, defeated or resigned their name for those 2 centuries. Why are we changing it now?

[NeedChapmans]

Took OG all of 20 minutes to make his own movie analogy.

The internet is awesome.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

OK.

But why is this a problem? Why wasn't it a problem 20 years ago, 50, 100, 200? What is it about today that makes this an issue?

Justices have been nominated for 2 centuries. They have been confirmed, defeated or resigned their name for those 2 centuries. Why are we changing it now?

Well to be honest, I’m 20 as I’ve said before. So I’ll be honest and say I don’t know if this is a trend with forcing a SCOTUS like the last two elections were. I guess the question is, does political influence in the SCOTUS specifically matter to you?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Well to be honest, I’m 20 as I’ve said before. So I’ll be honest and say I don’t know if this is a trend with forcing a SCOTUS like the last two elections were. I guess the question is, does political influence in the SCOTUS specifically matter to you?

It's a political process. The president nominates. The Senate confirms. It would be foolish of me to think that it isn't influenced by politics. It always has been and it always will be.

Do I wish we lived in a world where nine objective minds made the most important legal decisions about the future and direction of our country? Yes. Is that in any way even close to possible? No. It may be a little more "overt" than it used to be, but having people who vote liberal or conservative on the court is nothing new. And for the most part (minus some heartache and wishful thinking from both sides), it has worked extremely well since it's inception.

I see no reason why it should not continue as-is.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Took OG all of 20 minutes to make his own movie analogy.

The internet is awesome.

Definitely entertaining, that's for sure.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[oldgoldy97]

What’s good for the goose...

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

What’s good for the goose...

You're exactly right. Good to have you onboard.

[oldgoldy97]

In 2016 I wouldn’t have dared play the same game. Go ahead, use my words against me.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

It's a political process. The president nominates. The Senate confirms. It would be foolish of me to think that it isn't influenced by politics. It always has been and it always will be.

Do I wish we lived in a world where nine objective minds made the most important legal decisions about the future and direction of our country? Yes. Is that in any way even close to possible? No. It may be a little more "overt" than it used to be, but having people who vote liberal or conservative on the court is nothing new. And for the most part (minus some heartache and wishful thinking from both sides), it has worked extremely well since it's inception.

I see no reason why it should not continue as-is.

Then the other question should be, what’s the point of having the senate if this is just going to be a political game anyway. Is there really checks and balances? I think checks and balances should be at the forefront. I’m not one of the leftest who want to dismantle what this country was built on but I think this shows that checks and balances aren’t fool proof. I think we need to figure out a better way for checks an balances.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

In 2016 I wouldn’t have dared play the same game. Go ahead, use my words against me.

OG and LG. Two peas in a pod.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Then the other question should be, what’s the point of having the senate if this is just going to be a political game anyway. Is there really checks and balances?

Two important points to not here my good sir.

(1) The senate is much more than just a body whose job it is to confirm judges. The primary role of legislation is crucial to the core C&B of the country

(2) There was a time, just seven short years ago, where it took 60 votes to confirm a judge. All judges. But in 2013, the head of the Senate, Harry Reid, was incredibly frustrated that the minority Republican party was blocking a lot of the judges being nominated by the lead party. So he changed the rules, removing the judicial filibuster and reducing the # of needed votes to 50+ the VP tiebreaker.

Sixty votes meant almost always needing members of the other party to cross over and vote your judge in. More of a checks and balance system than what we have today; thanks to your lovely Democratic senator from Nevada. Unless a super-majority exists in the Senate again (meaning one party has at least 60 votes) that filibuster is unlikely to be added back. That could take a while.

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by cnewby

Snap, snap, snap goes heelie. The break is coming.

Originally Posted by Jopeal

You want company. We get it

This groupie has been following me around since 2016. I look at it as a term of endearment. It's like he gets a ping any time I post something. It is quite spectacular.

[Onions]

Originally Posted by mike1498

Then the other question should be, what’s the point of having the senate if this is just going to be a political game anyway. Is there really checks and balances? I think checks and balances should be at the forefront. I’m not one of the leftest who want to dismantle what this country was built on but I think this shows that checks and balances aren’t fool proof. I think we need to figure out a better way for checks an balances.

All 3 branches are political. We created the most successful country on the planet in less than 250 years. We should probably just ride it out a bit. Seems to be a fairly good system.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

This groupie has been following me around since 2016. I look at it as a term of endearment. It's like he gets a ping any time I post something. It is quite spectacular.

He may still be betrothed to another (jd).
When he switches his photo to the American flag, you’ll know it’s official.

[oldgoldy97]

Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

He may still be betrothed to another (jd).
When he switches his photo to the American flag, you’ll know it’s official.

I think he’d use a different flag, TBH.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

I think he’d use a different flag, TBH.

Accidentally or on purpose?

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Two important points to not here my good sir.

(1) The senate is much more than just a body whose job it is to confirm judges. The primary role of legislation is crucial to the core C&B of the country

Obviously. I was talking about appointing justices.

(2) There was a time, just seven short years ago, where it took 60 votes to confirm a judge. All judges. But in 2013, the head of the Senate, Harry Reid, was incredibly frustrated that the minority Republican party was blocking a lot of the judges being nominated by the lead party. So he changed the rules, removing the judicial filibuster and reducing the # of needed votes to 50+ the VP tiebreaker.

Sixty votes meant almost always needing members of the other party to cross over and vote your judge in. More of a checks and balance system than what we have today; thanks to your lovely Democratic senator from Nevada. Unless a super-majority exists in the Senate again (meaning one party has at least 60 votes) that filibuster is unlikely to be added back. That could take a while.


You're proving my point though that checks and balances doesn't really exist though in this situation. The point of the senate and house wasn't even created because of red vs blue. The house was created to give representation based on population and senate for equal representation for all states. That's why I don't understand in this case what the purpose of the senate because this has nothing to do with checks and balances. It's more of, if the color matches, approved, if not, wait until the next election. I don't know how anyone who supports checks and balances would like this philosophy because this is obviously not checks and balances.

My responses

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Accidentally or on purpose?

I picture him a stunning blonde hair, blue eyed specimen. Textbook.

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

He may still be betrothed to another (jd).
When he switches his photo to the American flag, you’ll know it’s official.

I doubt he would put the American flag up. He is more of a Russian flag kind of guy.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Took OG all of 20 minutes to make his own movie analogy.

The internet is awesome.

He's having a rough day today.

[trixstar]

Oof