I don't think so. I think they can successfully argue to the American people that the two seats are to balance GOP hypocrisy with Garland and Barrett. Any more than that just looks like a power grab.

In fact, I'd argue they should make the number of seats 11 and propose a Constitutional Amendment capping it there to prevent further funny business. Maybe throw in a clause that a SCOTUS nominee can't be denied an up and down vote?

You'd have to do something about funny business getting them out of committee, too.

Also, wasn't it when FDR proposed packing the courts that some of his wild popularity started to wane (though that may have corresponded with fatigue around the Depression or just because he got stymied in Congress not necessarily with the public, at large)?

SI

Yes. If they keep the house and win the Senate and WH, they need to do everything the R’s would and have done in recent years. And then pass legislation preventing those same shenanigans moving forward.

Hypocritical. You bet it is but that’s the game the R’s under McConnell have been playing and the rules they have laid out to follow.

I think if there was an up and down requirement, that would by definition guarantee they get out of committee.

The Dems took some heavy hits in the 1938 midterm elections after the court packing plan was defeated, but FDR did end up winning two more presidential elections.

The difference is that FDR was packing the court because it was ruling against his legislative proposals. Also, he was trying to increase from 9 to 15. This is why I think the Dems should avoid going for more than 11, because at 11 they can at least directly tie the 2 seats to the Republican hypocrisy on Garland and Barrett.

My problem with two is that some Dems are going to demand less than what was proposed. Demand four, settle for two.

And I'm not sure how much of the 1938 election you can pin on the court plan. There was a nasty drop in the economy that certainly impacted more people.

Mind-blowing stuff at this Trump rally with @jordanklepper pic.twitter.com/K4qirgceDV

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) October 9, 2020

https://twitter.com/mtsw/status/1315...698481665?s=19

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

There's no "less than 2" that makes sense. No one is going to argue for an even number of 10 justices.

I fear if the Dems go for 4, they'll lose the public sentiment right away. This will cause reluctant Dems to drop support for any increase.

I guess I could perhaps see 4 working if they agreed to make it 2 now and 2 after next presidential election. But arguing for 4 right away will almost certainly backfire.

I'm on board with this. I think two is where it should be.


The problem with this is there's nothing to stop the escalation we've seen since at least the early 1980s from just continuing. Whatever legislation you want to put in place, the other party can just repeal it when they get back in power. At some point somebody has to be an adult and decide to put the brakes on the escalation for the long-term health of the Republic, or there's no end to it. It's obvious the Republicans have no intentions of doing that anytime in the forseeable future, which leaves only one party who can. This is why they are getting my vote this cycle.

If they don't govern responsibly, they won't get it again. I'll just go back to voting third party.

That person was Obama and the GOP said, "Fuck You!"

One side adhering to norms without holding the other to account only makes them more brazen. I don't want the Dems to do anything they can get away with, but I'm all in favor of them breaking norms in an effort to restore majority rule. In the long run, that is the only way to bleed off some of the extremism. As long as 40% can control the government, there isn't any electoral need to moderate policies.

Republicans in the Senate under Obama continued the escalation in dealing with judicial nominees after it had been escalated by Democrats under Bush, which came after previous escalations, etc. This issue isn't about who the president is; it doesn't matter who the president is if the Senate doesn't behave itself. That's where the norms have to come into play if any semblance of responsible governmenet is to return.

What stops the GOP from doing what they are doing now if Dems are "responsible"? That's what happened with Obama. Dems went back to the blue slip rule and the GOP refused to accept any nominees from TX. Obama nominated the exact person they said would count as a moderate and they wouldn't even meet with him.

One side following norms while the other doesn't only encourages that side to break more and more norms, knowing there is no consequence.

It's probably also worth pointing out again that it isn't 40%, it's never been 40%, that's just a false number. Trump had 46% of the vote in 2016 and over the last three elections comprising the current Senate, Republicans have gotten 52%, 42%, and 39% of the vote, which averages to 44%. In '18, they got 45% for the House (and lost it). If those numbers hold they'll lose the Senate and the Presidency and we'll have a unified Democratic government.

I'm not saying Democrats should just follow norms. I'm for them breaking them by packing SCOTUS by two seats as a corrective. I'm also saying they are the only chance the country has right now to put responsible governance on the ballot. That means they need to not go too far with it, which was the point of my initial response to another poster.

I think the logic you are using bends the other way just as easily. I.e., if they take breaking norms too far, they are only encouraging the GOP to up the ante next time they are in power. And if national history is any guide, there will be another time and it won't be that long. A decade at most.

I'd go right now for a SCOTUS appointment every two years and term limits. That probably takes an amendment, though, so I don't see it happening.

If the GOP sees adding 2 justices as a reason to add more, fine. Each seat currently is too consequential, so a 99 person court is fine with me.

Bet online one of the big offshore books just moved the line to Biden -220/ Trump +180.

If Clinton Wins, Republicans Suggest Shrinking Size of Supreme Court : NPR

wild huh

And still they see no hypocrisy

You are asking people with no shame to have shame.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Not a gambler can you translate for us dumb asses that don’t know what that means? Is this good for Biden or is he losing according to this.

-220 means that you'd have to bet $220 to win $100

+180 means that if you bet $100 and win it pays out $180 (+150 would be 3:2 odds by horse standards).

This type of line signifies a clear cut favorite, but not one so far ahead that it couldn't swing the other way.

Anything closing in on -400 (as in you have to bet $400 to win $100; or 1:4 odds with horse racing and such) and lower people are basically saying that yeah, that other guy doesn't stand much of a chance.

Thanks Pilotman!

If you want some free money right now, you can bet $1,245.28 on Biden at -165 and bet $687.29 on Trump at +191, and you’ll pocket $67.43 regardless of who wins the election.

He is crazy unhinged this fine morning

I will not abide this Jo Jorgensen slander. :)

The ACB hearings should be some generally good press for his campaign. If he stayed quiet, the news narrative would basically remind his base about the importance of judges with a hint of "crazy Dems might pack the Court!"

This is the perfect week for him to go radio silent and let the news cycle help him out.

But he can't stand to not be the center of things even when it is good for him.

From the "seeing consequences from this Administration's pettiness" department:

Apparently there was an Executive Order last month to halt any sensitivity training in the government. It had this doublespeak title of "Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping" :
Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping | The White House

One of my family members who works for a government institution received an email this week that they had to get rid of the following at their workplace (pending review by the legal department):

• Removed any racial sensitivity training (and this person had a scheduled class cancelled "until further notice")
• Removed Tweets talking about racial diversity
• Removed any past newsletters about diversity
• Removed resource links for things like Hispanic Heritage month, Black Lives Matter, and disability awareness

SI

In what should come as absolutely no surprise technical issues with the polls in Fulton County Georgia. How many times have we been down this road in that state?

too many.

That was not reported nearly enough if it slipped past you, considering how damned obviously backwards that is. It's classic strawman (might not be the right term here) to frame sth identifying and avoiding discrimination as "stereotyping". We are all happy little bunches of atoms to be treated equally so long as we don't insist on being different.

Part of a broader attack as well (see that bill by Cotton for example or Trumps speeches over the summer), trying to create a narrative that racism wouldn't be an issue if people would only stop talking about it or studying it.

Good thing is it will only last a few months hopefully, bad news it is emboldens those in power at institutions to not only make that particular call themselves going forward but also in a host of other areas.

It's basically censorship, too.

I'm sure there are no issues in Gilmer, Fannin, and the other non-urban counties.

Proclamation on Columbus Day, 2020 | The White House

His Columbus Day proclamation is similarly hateful. Stephen Miller must be really proud of himself for that one.

SI

Of course he is. he wrote and Trump never got past the first paragraph reading it.

5 hour waits in "some" communities in Georgia to vote today.

lol

Antiabortion groups say they stand behind Trump's use of a drug tested on cells derived from an aborted fetus because the president 'was not involved with that abortion' https://t.co/VwLHpzgByV via @businessinsider

— Nicholas Carlson (@nichcarlson) October 12, 2020

Jesus Christ, apparently Webster's is soliciting more definition examples of hypocrisy.

Given that the abortion doctor never does the research, I guess fetal tissue research is okay now.

The best part (which we'll never know) will be if it turns out that it was actually an abortion that Trump demanded after getting someone pregnant.

I have a feeling it will be bad again real soon.

But, wait, that would be hypocrisy!

In some states (NC and SC among them...didn't check when I lived in Georgia,) you can see if they voted in a primary, and if so, which one.

About halfway through I thought there was about a 50% chance he was going to mention pussy grabbing.

I don't even know what to say. SMH.

He sounds like a drunkard trying to relive his days as the guy who peaked in high school

I refer back to what someone posted earlier in one of the political threads "Remember, when a candidate lost because if a scream?"

He loves the rallies.

He's not really trying to win anymore. He's just gonna go on a tour around the country getting adulation.

He will be the first President in history who continues to hold rallies after he is defeated.

I had never thought about this. But you may be right.

SI

Or Trump rallies Big Corporations, Big Pharma, Big guns, and Big insurance and becomes Chairman of the Board for the USA Corporation and they strangle the country and Trump rallies his base and they cut off the cities, and shit hits the fan?

Thats a scary scenario,