Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Can you give me an example?

Their favorite:  Going to a popular vote for president on the grounds that the electoral system is not democratic.   (corrected).

[faberryman]

Their favorite:  Going to a popular vote for president on the grounds that the electoral system is not democratic.   (corrected).

Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?

Any other examples of unconstitutional laws you think the Democrats actually have in mind?

[faberryman]

Why is Matt Gaetz making a six figure ad buy on CNN? Is he thinking that he may be able to convince left-wingers who watch CNN that he is innocent? The ads are only 30 seconds long. That's shorter than the ads for Flex-Seal. I think he would be better off putting the ads on Fox and running them back to back with the MyPillow ads for maximum impact. You don't want any of the base straying from the fold.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/14/matt-gaetz-ad-buy-481588

[Alan Klein]

Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?

Any other examples of unconstitutional laws you think the Democrats actually have in mind?

Well, that's the whole point why the Democrats want to pack the court with liberal justices who believe the constitution is a "living document".  So they can ignore the constitution by declaring legislation as constitutional when it's not. 

[faberryman]

Their favorite:  Going to a popular vote for president on the grounds that the electoral system is not democratic.   (corrected).

Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?

Any other examples of unconstitutional laws you think the Democrats actually have in mind?

Well, that's the whole point why the Democrats want to pack the court with liberal justices who believe the constitution is a "living document".  So they can ignore the constitution by declaring legislation as constitutional when it's not.

What does packing the court have to do with adopting a constitutional amendment?

[Alan Klein]

b

What does packing the court have to do with adopting a constitutional amendment?

If a "packed court" made up of liberal judges declares legislation constitutional even though it really isn't, you don't need to get a change to the constitution to enact laws that would otherwise be illegal.  After 50 years of a liberal supreme court, the Democrats are having a hissy fit because, for a few months, it's been a little conservative.  They should leave things alone and just use Biden to add liberal justices when justices are normally replaced one at a time.  Don't destroy the authority of the court with a cheap political stunt.

[faberryman]

If a "packed court" made up of liberal judges declares legislation constitutional even though it really isn't, you don't need to get a change to the constitution to enact laws that would otherwise be illegal.  After 50 years of a liberal supreme court, the Democrats are having a hissy fit because, for a few months, it's been a little conservative.  They should leave things alone and just use Biden to add liberal justices when justices are normally replaced one at a time.  Don't destroy the authority of the court with a cheap political stunt.

On a scale of 1-10, what do you think the chances are of the Democrats packing the Supreme Court, adopting ordinary legislation that purports to change electing the president to popular vote when the Constitution clearly requires a constitutional amendment to do so, and then a packed Supreme Court deciding that ordinary legislation is fine, you don't need a constitutional amendment after all? Is that what you are afraid of?

[Alan Klein]

On a scale of 1-100, what do you think the chances are of the Democrats packing the Supreme Court and adopting ordinary legislation that purports to change electing the president to popular vote when the Constitution clearly requires a constitutional amendment to do so, and then a packed Supreme Court deciding that ordinary legislation is fine, you don't need a constitutional amendment after all? Is that what you are afraid of?

I'm more concerned with less drastic legislation that could go either way with closer votes.  Adding four liberal justices would make those always go the liberal way.  Just look at all the close votes of the past and imagine them all going to the liberal left.

[faberryman]

I'm more concerned with less drastic legislation that could go either way with closer votes.  Adding four liberal justices would make those always go the liberal way.  Just look at all the close votes of the past and imagine them all going to the liberal left.

I asked for an example of unconstitutional legislation that you were afraid of Democrats adopting and this is what you said:

Their favorite:  Going to a popular vote for president on the grounds that the electoral system is not democratic.   (corrected).

[Alan Klein]

Then imagine all the social decisions that would have been different.  PAcking the court could allow reversal of these decisions.  Then when the republicans subsequently pack the court, do we reverse them again?  Look what happened with presidential executive orders, how Trump reversed Obama's and Biden is reversing them back again to Obama's.  Can you imagine if the Supreme Court starts doing that?  what kind of laws would we have if it changed every four years?

-Re-affirming the 2nd amendment right to bear arms personally.
-Corporations are people for contributions purposes to political parties.
-Muslim ban
-Right of people not to do art (ie. on cakes)that is in opposition to their religion

[Alan Klein]

I asked for an example of unconstitutional legislation that you were afraid of Democrats adopting and this is what you said:

Of course, I would think that's a very serious change.  It's just that I think even liberal justices would not get rid of the electoral system without an amendment.  Democrats are working on a system of bypassing the electoral system, however.  Depending on who wins the popular vote, the state would reverse its electoral vote to match the country's popular decision even though their state voted for the opposite party.  I would think that's unconstitutional.  But a liberal court might consider that constitutional. 

See my last post for some reversals that would be more probable.

[faberryman]

Then imagine all the social decisions that would have been different.  PAcking the court could allow reversal of these decisions.  Then when the republicans subsequently pack the court, do we reverse them again?  Look what happened with presidential executive orders, how Trump reversed Obama's and Biden is reversing them back again to Obama's.  Can you imagine if the Supreme Court starts doing that?  what kind of laws would we have if it changed every four years?

-Re-affirming the 2nd amendment right to bear arms personally.
-Corporations are people for contributions purposes to political parties.
-Muslim ban
-Right of people not to do art (ie. on cakes)that is in opposition to their religion

I don't think it would happen. You do realize that despite the machinations of the politicians, Supreme Court justices don't always vote the way their supporters expected them to.

[Alan Klein]

I don't think it would happen. You do realize that despite the machinations of the politicians, Supreme Court justices don't always vote the way their supporters expected them too.

But it would make a huge difference if you added four liberals to the vote. The point is everyone would know the court has been totally politicized.  Why would anyone pay attention to their decisions?  It's bad enough now that it's lost a lot of its old authority.  If people start ignoring the court's rulings, the country would become a free for all. 

[Robert Roaldi]

But it would make a huge difference if you added four liberals to the vote. The point is everyone would know the court has been totally politicized.  Why would anyone pay attention to their decisions?  It's bad enough now that it's lost a lot of its old authority.  If people start ignoring the court's rulings, the country would become a free for all.

Would you be saying this if Trump had thought to pack 4 more warm bodies onto the court?


Just curious about something. Do all 9 hear every case or do they sit some out?

I was wondering something else to do with their high caseload. Would it make sense to have 4 "alternates" who could sit in to make up the 9 when "regulars" are taking time off or ill or something?

[faberryman]

But it would make a huge difference if you added four liberals to the vote. The point is everyone would know the court has been totally politicized.  Why would anyone pay attention to their decisions?  It's bad enough now that it's lost a lot of its old authority.  If people start ignoring the court's rulings, the country would become a free for all.

I don’t share your cynicism, pessimism, and fear.

[Alan Klein]

Would you be saying this if Trump had thought to pack 4 more warm bodies onto the court?


Just curious about something. Do all 9 hear every case or do they sit some out?

I was wondering something else to do with their high caseload. Would it make sense to have 4 "alternates" who could sit in to make up the 9 when "regulars" are taking time off or ill or something?

I don't know if I would believe the same thing if republicans wanted to pack the court; that's speculation.  I would hope I'd be consistent.

Yes, justices have to hear the case to vote.  For example, the new justice did not vote recently on the case just decided because she missed the discussion earlier.  Same would happen if a justice was ill.  Justices will also recused themselves and not hear a case if there may be a conflict of interest, although there's no rule about this legally I believe. 

Just because a case is appealed to the supreme court, they decide whether they want to hear it.  Most cases are decided at the trial level in Federal Court and at the Appeal Court levels.  Few cases are decided by the supreme court.  I'm not positive about all this. But usually, at least four justices have to want to hear a case before it's even picked up.  They usually look at cases that are important to decide and not just rehashing old decisions that won't clarify the law any further.  Why bother with those?

The fact is they've gotten along fine for 150 years or so with 9 justices.  Extra justices won't matter as far as case load.  That's just an excuse Democrats are using to pack the court.

[TechTalk]

Yes, justices have to hear the case to vote.  For example, the new justice did not vote recently on the case just decided because she missed the discussion earlier.  Same would happen if a justice was ill.

No. A justice does not have to "hear the case to vote". If a justice has been ill or absent, they can decide the case and vote based on the written record.

[TechTalk]

Justices will also recused themselves and not hear a case if there may be a conflict of interest, although there's no rule about this legally I believe. 

There is a statute that establishes rules for recusal (recusal is referred to as judicial disqualification) for all federal justices, judges, and magistrates. A motion can be made for disqualification of any federal judge or justice, but the decision is up to the judge or justice as to whether or not to disqualify themself from a case. A judge's refusal to disqualify themself can be the basis for appeal of a case to an appropriate appellate court. As there is no higher court of appeal in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is effectively the decision of the individual justice.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

[kers]

With  13360 posts this Bear Pit should be called; the Alan Klein Show
Techtalk still need  11515 posts to catch up
So please wait for that moment Alan, before you post again...

[jeremyrh]

With  13360 posts this Bear Pit should be called; the Alan Klein Show

My sympathy is for his poor wife. Imagine living with such a person! :-(