HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Repugs may lose the WH, S...

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:07 PM

Repugs may lose the WH, Senate and House, but they have 6-3 at the Supreme Court, and they will

use it to strike down everything/as much of what a Biden Administration tries to enact. They will also have a Trump sitting on the sidelines like a protection racket hoodlum, forcing them to enact revenge for his 2020 humiliation ("It would be a shame if something happened that turn my followers away from you" ) .

So what are the options ?

1 ) Hope that the Republicans will realise the error of their ways, and rush to re-embrace "Norms", and not take advantage of getting a big SC majority after planning to do so for the 40 years ?

2 ) Let the SC be damned and enact all the required laws, daring the SC to strike them down ?

3 ) Increase the SC by adding 4 new Justices, giving a 7-6 majority ?

4 ) Fundamentally reform the SC by increasing the number to 19 or 21 creating 3 Justice panels to hear cases (perhaps some specializing in areas, with specialist courts), and picked at random, but giving a 15-6 liberal majority.

Are there other options ?

What would be your preference ?

69 replies, 3380 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Repugs may lose the WH, Senate and House, but they have 6-3 at the Supreme Court, and they will (Original post)
OnDoutside Oct 2020 OP
gopiscrap Oct 2020 #1
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #16
bottomofthehill Oct 2020 #2
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #18
moonscape Oct 2020 #40
Le Roi de Pot Oct 2020 #64
catbyte Oct 2020 #3
Thekaspervote Oct 2020 #4
catbyte Oct 2020 #5
Thekaspervote Oct 2020 #7
COLGATE4 Oct 2020 #33
Thekaspervote Oct 2020 #6
smirkymonkey Oct 2020 #14
LakeArenal Oct 2020 #15
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #21
GeorgeGist Oct 2020 #8
CrispyQ Oct 2020 #19
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #22
StarfishSaver Oct 2020 #62
aeromanKC Oct 2020 #9
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #11
Me. Oct 2020 #10
FM123 Oct 2020 #13
Buckeyeblue Oct 2020 #65
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #23
Me. Oct 2020 #24
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #26
StarfishSaver Oct 2020 #63
UTUSN Oct 2020 #12
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #25
UTUSN Oct 2020 #44
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #49
UTUSN Oct 2020 #51
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #53
UTUSN Oct 2020 #55
Boogiemack Oct 2020 #17
Demovictory9 Oct 2020 #20
MFM008 Oct 2020 #27
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #28
stopbush Oct 2020 #29
dware Oct 2020 #31
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #32
Fla Dem Oct 2020 #30
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #34
Fla Dem Oct 2020 #46
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #48
Arazi Oct 2020 #35
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #37
ProfessorGAC Oct 2020 #36
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #38
ProfessorGAC Oct 2020 #42
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #45
roamer65 Oct 2020 #39
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #47
Volaris Oct 2020 #41
PTWB Oct 2020 #43
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #50
MineralMan Oct 2020 #52
RandiFan1290 Oct 2020 #66
Meowmee Oct 2020 #54
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #56
Meowmee Oct 2020 #57
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #60
Meowmee Oct 2020 #61
OnDoutside Oct 2020 #68
Meowmee Oct 2020 #69
pfitz59 Oct 2020 #58
dware Oct 2020 #67
struggle4progress Oct 2020 #59

Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:12 PM

1. Biden needs to increase the SCOTUS to

23 justices and make sure they are all hard core liberals no more than 29 years old

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:44 PM

16. I like your thinking ;)

If you want to really trigger the rubes, pick a 29 year old one legged African American transgender, woman with a penchant for loudly reading Das Kapital .....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:12 PM

2. Increasing the court by 2 to restore the taken seats.

Put Justice Roberts back in the cross hair to do the right thing. Adding 4 reals of packing the court and legislatively creating a majority adding 2 puts us back to where marriage, healthcare and other things worked their way through the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bottomofthehill (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:47 PM

18. The only problem is that you won't overturn Citizens United or

Any other Republican/Corporate friendly law ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bottomofthehill (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:36 PM

40. I feel the same. Adding 2 to remedy their packing, and expanding

the federal bench for the same reason. Plus, the later has been needed for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bottomofthehill (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:29 AM

64. 3 to restore the seats stolen.. And 3 for seats had we been in power

 

So 6 new Justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:14 PM

3. Somebody had an idea for a 15-member SCOTUS that sounded fair: 5 Democrats, 5 republicans,

and 5 who aren't beholdin' to either party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:18 PM

4. Pete Buttigieg had that idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thekaspervote (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:20 PM

5. Thank you! I just couldn't remember who suggested it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:25 PM

7. 👍

Thx for all the wonderful animal videos by the way..they are great!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:06 PM

33. I'd love to hear who we're going to find those last five...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:24 PM

6. Another idea to deal with a now politicized judiciary- to over turn law a 7-2 majority required

Also 12 year term limits

More at the link

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21451471/supreme-court-justice-constitution-ryan-doerfler

I think these 2 suggestions are a better long term solutions. If we increase the # of justices, the repukes will respond in kind when in power

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thekaspervote (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:42 PM

14. +1000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thekaspervote (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:44 PM

15. ✔️

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thekaspervote (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:51 PM

21. But how will that deal with the next 4 years ? The American people

are crying out for someone to break the "Washington Logjam" so how to achieve that over the next 2 or even 4 years ? The US of A doesn't have a lot of time, within a global context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:26 PM

8. Reduce SCOTUS to 6, the ORIGINAL size ...

and throw out Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:48 PM

19. LOL. That's a move that would take the repubs totally by surprise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:53 PM

22. It definitely would!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:26 AM

62. Not possible.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:27 PM

9. Somethng closer to Mayor Pete's idea (5,5,5)

My additions to Mayor Pete's proposal: 5 chosen by Conservatives, 5 chosen by Progressives and 5 chosen by Non-Partisian committee of which initially the Dems would get 2 of the 6 new judges the other 4 would be non partisian to get to 15 from the 6-3 current court. Lifetime grandfather'ed in and otherwise 18 year terms. The Dems would get 2 right off the bat to get to 5 and after most likely Thomas retires the GOP would go down to 5. You have something to make everybody happy while at the same time to some degree de-politicizes the Court and does not depend on fluke retirements and or deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aeromanKC (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:39 PM

11. It's a good idea, however you know what the RWNJs would do is

corrupt the committee picking the non partisan judges, but as an idea it's good. One would ask though, is this another Dem believing in the essential good nature of Republicans ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:36 PM

10. My Preference Would Be To Pass New Laws

that are so well written they cannot be challenged. Barrett's defense has been that it's up to Congress to legislate, so let it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Me. (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:41 PM

13. Yes!

Joe said something to that effect at the town hall in Miami - all the things they want to wrestle away from us via SCOTUS - just pass new laws. Heck, they could even "copy & paste" add a new line then call it Bidencare.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:52 AM

65. Right now this might be the best solution

I'm for adding justices. I'm for reform in general around the SC. I think term limits on the court make sense. Maybe 10 years. Maybe an 8 year term with an option to be renominated for a second 8 year term.

I also think the Senate should have to vote to confirm within 30 days of the nomination.

And the number of justices should be increased. I like 21 or 29. I don't think 15 is enough.

But I think Democrats should be more aggressive in affirming constitutional rights. If there was a federal law affirming a woman's right to choose, a lot of restricting state laws would be invalidated. Then it becomes a states right argument which has been settled a long time ago (in fact we fought a war over it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Me. (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:56 PM

23. The issue with that is Republican lawyers would apply for stays

Which lower courts will probably agree to while Republican interests work their way up to the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #23)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:00 PM

24. They Will Always Try

we have to move forward regardless or we never will. And if the public is behind the new laws, as eventually they were with the ACA, the Cons will lose elections as they are now going to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Me. (Reply #24)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:07 PM

26. 100% agree that the public want to see these changes, but the Repug

Tactic will be to delay, delay, delay. Frustration will grow if they see stuff not happening. I'm more in favour of Democrats being bold, making the hard changes within the first few months and show the voters that they mean business for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Me. (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:28 AM

63. This exactly

 

I still like the idea of adding more justices to the court, but at the same time, it's important to very carefully craft laws to comport with the restrictions imposed by the Court since even a larger Court would be constrained to some degree by stare decisis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:39 PM

12. It's the *WRITING*, not the *policy*!1 Since wingnuts claim no policy in SCotUS,

the focus is on how the legislation is WRITTEN UP.

Anything ("anything" being the policy/issue) can be written in any number of ways, phrasing, framing - so it's a child's game to write up whatever to fit the "Constitutional" paradigm.

With all the speech writers, academics, Constitutional scholars, think tankers - a specialized writing machine can stymie SCotUS of whatever composition.

Think the WWII bomb crew, the pre-CIA (OSS) crew, et al.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:01 PM

25. It won't stop them going to the courts, whether it's superbly written

or not. They will attempt to get everything bogged down in the courts. Don't forget that McConnell will still probably be around, looking to the 2022 Senate election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #25)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:52 PM

44. "superbly" - I'm not talking style, am talking ironclad language.

By ironclad I mean our Lib agenda policies expressed in Constitutional terms. Any issue can be done up that way.

If we just stay focused on numbers of justices and senate majority we're boxed in and screwed.

I'm talking strategy dealing with the prevailing adverse conditions of being outnumbered on those two fronts.

But aw well, hate to resort to religious imagery but here and hear: prophet and wilderness.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #44)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 06:00 PM

49. I'm talking the same but that won't stop them going to court to delay and hope to get a RW court.

We've seen evil b'stards like Koch just pour money into every dirty trick they can, just because they have the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #49)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 06:11 PM

51. With all the lower courts plus SCotUS they *have* right wing courts now and years to come.

Long term strategy takes long term time for long term results.

Otherwise we stay bouncing from election to election.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 06:20 PM

53. I agree but surely they can do both ? The Democratic Party took it's eye off the ball for a decade,

but i sense that there's a new breed who are pushing to do what the Dems failed to do for years, and they don't plan to stop on Nov 4, but I am not expecting the GOP to come out with their hands up either. That said, I think there will be a civil war within the GOP post Trump, so they'll have their hands full too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #53)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 06:43 PM

55. Glad we understand each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:45 PM

17. For a while. But we must legislate the laws we want to have and enforce them.

 

It makes it so much easier if Congress does their work. That is why we must vote in huge numbers to take back the Senate and extend our margin in the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boogiemack (Reply #17)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:49 PM

20. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:09 PM

27. SCOTUS

WIll be changing more than republicans can imagine soon.
It will begin with 2 more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #27)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:12 PM

28. 2 more only gets you to 6 to 5 though, that's not going to do much

except hand being aggrieved to the Republicans ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:13 PM

29. Impeach Kavenaugh and Amy for perjury and remove them from the SCOTUS.

Then appoint two liberal replacements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:57 PM

31. Impeaching is the easy part,

it's the convicting and removing that's the problem, even if we won all the Sen races, we would still be far short of the needed 67 votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:58 PM

32. It's an option, but I'm not sure how it would play at a time when Democrats will need to be

seen doing constructive stuff. Bear in mind that there will be a clamour to investigate Trump and associated gang. Enlarging the court might be a lot cleaner ? Even enlarging under the guise of reforming the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 04:51 PM

30. Age or term limits should be introduced. Retire at 75, or after 25 years, whichever comes first.

Last edited Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

So a new judge is appointed at 50, they have 25 years on the court and they will be 75.
Or appointed when they are 55, have to retire at 75, so they get 20 years.
Applied to any new appointed. Current judges not affected.

JUDGE---------------APPOINTED-------AGE AT APPT------YEARS ON COURT------CURRENT AGE
Clarence Thomas------10/1991-----------------42------------------29---------------------72
Stephen Breyer---------8/1994-----------------56------------------26---------------------82
John Roberts------------9/2005-----------------50------------------15---------------------65
Samuel Alito------------1/2006------------------56-----------------15----------------------70
Sonia Sotomayor-------8/2009----------------- 56------------------11---------------------66
Elena Kagan------------8/2009------------------50------------------10---------------------60
Neil Gorsuch------------4/2017------------------50------------------3----------------------53
Brett Kavanaugh-------10/2018-----------------53------------------2----------------------55

All these current judges appointed when they were in early to mid 50's except for Thomas and now Barrett who is 48.

Also think number of SC Judges should be increased to 18. Nine judges picked at random hear a case. They will not be assigned, nor do they get to pick the cases they hear. It should be a random pick. Remaining 9 hear the next case.

Just my thoughts. After hearing Senator Whitehouse the other day talk about all the dark money and influencing that goes on, something has to be done to keep the SC fair, non-political and honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:06 PM

34. Thanks, they are great ideas. I would suggest an odd number, so that there is a greater chance of

a decisive result ? But certainly term limits and minimum age makes sense, and maybe a minimum number of years on the Federal bench ? My greatest fear (as I mentioned in the OP) is obstruction a 6-3 RWNJ majority will do to a Biden administration. Something has to change in the short term, and after Feinstein's behaviour yesterday, I fear what appeasement will do in the next session.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #34)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:56 PM

46. I think I addressed that by suggesting 9 judges would be selected to hear each case.

The remaining 9 judges would get the next case, the process would be repeated for every 2 cases. There would be a person(s) in charge of the case assigning process, not a judge.

I agree with a minimum # of years on the federal bench. Amy Barrett barely has 3 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #46)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:57 PM

48. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:09 PM

35. We have a backlog of cases in the lower courts.We need to expand the federal, Circuit court judges

Once we add DC, Puerto Rico (and maybe the USVI) as additional Senators it's only logical to add more judges at the lower level.

Increase federal appeals courts by 30.

Increase Circuit Courts to 15 (from 12)

Each Supreme Court justice should handle their own Circuit so there should be 15 SCOTUS judges.

Now some of the backlog is because #MoscowMitch has held these seats open so long but we can use that and weaponize that fact against him.

Everyone has a right to a speedy trial. Time to "do our constitutional duty" and ensure it happens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #35)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:15 PM

37. Exactly, it would be justifiable reason to reform and expand. I think speed is the key though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:10 PM

36. #2 Is From The R Playbook

I say do it. Turnabout is fair play.
As to an increase, add 3. If the court is at an impasse, the law must be a judgment call and should stand until new legislation is enacted.
#1 won't happen in big enough numbers because you still have those free-dumb caucus people. The media will still think their opinions matter. There'll be no shutting them up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #36)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:23 PM

38. There is certainly an argument to legislate and be damned, and then if Republicans obstruct in

the SC, Democrats would have further justification to go ahead and reform the SC. The problem is that it loses time, and may end up frustrating voters who want to see change.

Whatever Democrats do, they need to do it quickly, and let's face it the House already has a shed load of new laws ready to go, so ram them through asap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #38)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:44 PM

42. Have A Hundred Day Plan

One for R Senate, one if they've got full control.
Pass separate legislation on preexisting conditions. Scotus strikes down ACA, PEC is already addressed.
With R Senate, easy to win PR battle calling their obstructionism, and their refusal to help people.
Full control, ram it through.
Decriminalize pot & eliminate the interstate prohibitions. If R Senate balks, they get accused of preventing a tax revenue source & reducing prison costs. (Cutting spending, so to speak)
Full control: shouldn't take more than a week.
Just some examples that they could do fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #42)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:54 PM

45. Yes ! They can use all the legislation the House passed but McConnell wouldn't bring to the floor,

remember there was even a bipartisan bill on Prescription Drugs that McConnell blocked ? Actually, we should have a Top 20 thread of what people would like to see done in the first 100 days...might do that soon.

There really will be no time to lose come January.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:36 PM

39. If we eliminate the filibuster, Congress can change the size of the SC no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #39)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:57 PM

47. Yes, that has to happen, and i think it was instructive that President Obama called for it, and as

we know, he's not one for hot head ideas ! It needs to go immediately, but will Schumer agree to it ? I know he's said that Nothing is off the table, but that could be a batting down the issue for both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:40 PM

41. I'm fine with expanding the court to 13 (one for each federal judicial district)

It's not court packing or unpacking; it's about re-allocating the workload more fairly and...JUDICIOUSLY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 05:44 PM

43. If we win the senate and presidency while retaining the house we must take immediate decisive action

 

1. Expand the size of the Supreme Court to 29 justices to combat hypocritical Republican court packing.

2. Pass a major voting rights / election integrity protection act that makes Election Day a national holiday, establishes minimum standards for election security, and criminalizes conduct related to election interference.

3. Implement the Wyoming rule - increasing the number of representatives in the house significantly.

4. Add states to the union including DC and PR.

5. Pass Medicare for All, free tuition for community / state schools and other progressive legislation while we have our newly strengthened majority thanks to voting rights, new states and the Wyoming rule. These programs will be so popular that if the Republicans ever do manage to reclaim power they’ll be unable to dismantle them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTWB (Reply #43)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 06:10 PM

50. This is a moment in time to be decisive, and I hope Joe realises that. How many times have we heard

ordinary voters cry out for the Washington logjam to be broken ? Do it, tell them you are doing it, and doing it for them.

The other thing that will benefit Democrats (and i think is a McConnell blunder) is passing not just a 1.6 trillion financial package but a 3 trillion package on Day One on Jan 20 2021. Joe will be decisive in getting on top of Covid, and hammer the crap out of any Republican Governor who doesn't fall in line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 06:11 PM

52. Could have been prevented in 2016.

I know who to blame. Yes, I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #52)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 09:00 AM

66. Don't be so hard on Hillary

It's 2020 and we have an election in just over 2 weeks to worry about now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 06:27 PM

54. Things that need to change

Sc has needed restructuring since they appointed w as prez. Increase justices, only 5 years of service. Make the presidency a prime minister, less power and can be gotten rid of immediately in cases of insanity, corruption and fascism etc. Less power to the senate and states are represented by population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmee (Reply #54)

Sat Oct 17, 2020, 07:07 PM

56. As someone who live in a parliamentary system, the American system is pretty good, but the clear

issue is US politics has been infected by money, politicians of the lowest order and the tossing aside of "norms". US Politics (if it ever really was) has gone from the Marquis of Queensbury rules to MMA Cage fighting, and these "norms" now need to be codified into law.....and Nancy has Legislation ready just for that !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #56)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:56 AM

57. No, what I said needs to be done

so that this can never happen again... I know it won't though. People refuse to see that there are fatal flaws with the whole system because they think it is the greatest system in the world. It isn't, far from it. It is not even a true democracy of any sort. And last eliminate the electoral college, as well as make the senate based on population.

Agree there are plenty of things that need to be made actual law, release of taxes 10-15 years worth, you can't run for any office if you are inciting violence and more, a lot more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmee (Reply #57)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 07:34 AM

60. Yes there are fatal flaws, but largely because breaking "norms" to win, isn't illegal. We have

multi seat constituencies using proportional representation, with 9 different parties + Independents represented in parliament, and I'm not sure it's all that better to be honest.

I hope we see Pelosi's HR1, For the People Act, enacted without delay and it will address an awful lot of your concerns. It is instructive that when I went to google for the substance of it, the top of the search list was from the Heritage Foundation slating HR1 !

SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Divisions.—This Act is organized into 3 divisions as follows:

(1) Division A—Voting.

(2) Division B—Campaign Finance.

(3) Division C—Ethics.

It's well worth a look through https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text

Just in Division A-Voting

PART 1—PROMOTING INTERNET REGISTRATION
PART 2—AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION
PART 3—SAME DAY VOTER REGISTRATION
PART 4—CONDITIONS ON REMOVAL ON BASIS OF INTERSTATE CROSS-CHECKS
PART 5—OTHER INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE VOTER REGISTRATION
PART 6—AVAILABILITY OF HAVA REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS
PART 7—PROHIBITING INTERFERENCE WITH VOTER REGISTRATION
PART 8—VOTER REGISTRATION EFFICIENCY ACT
PART 9—PROVIDING VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION TO SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
PART 10—VOTER REGISTRATION OF MINORS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #60)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 08:22 AM

61. have to disagree

the fatal flaws of having no protections allowed fascism in the door where it has taken over the process, and the breaking of so called norms, which needed to be laws, not norms, with no repercussions. The power of the Prez & Senate/electoral college are another matter, not norms, and they are the fatal flaws. Without those flaws it would not be able to happen and you would be able to get rid of an unfit leader quickly or really to stop him or her from being elected, legitimately or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmee (Reply #61)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 04:29 PM

68. It would only be fatal if Trump wins. Yes there are flaws, but provided the Dems win as we hope,

many of those norms will be replaced with Laws (HR1), and I've heard panel discussions where people want to go beyond that, based on what they see could happen to other "norms", there are quite a number of PACs/Dem Groups looking beyond this election. However, it absolutely is a kick up the backside of the American people, who took their Democracy for granted, believing the bullshit. Maybe something good can come out of it, in that there is a recognition that not every US citizen is equal under the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #68)

Wed Oct 21, 2020, 03:37 AM

69. He was installed as prez due to those fatal flaws

and allowed to spend nearly 4 years destroying and pillaging the country, he has murdered over 200,000... all with the help of his enablers who are crooks and traitors. I will never see this as something good coming from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 03:04 AM

58. If the Dems get the Presidency and Congress they can write laws over-turning Court Decisions.

Let the Court "legislate from the bench", then Impeach the bastards. We have every one of them on record swearing not to "legislate from the bench". Perjury is Impeachable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pfitz59 (Reply #58)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 11:23 AM

67. Ok, they're impeached.

Now what?

You really think that there are 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove?

Even if we win all the Senate seats up for re-election this year, we would still be far short of the magic 67.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 03:11 AM

59. Kavanaugh's qualifications for being on the court were his star role in the Clinton investigation,

suggesting that the President used a cigar sexually on Lewinsky, and his role in Bush v Gore; Roberts' qualification was also his role in Bush v Gore; and Barrett's qualification is also her role in Bush v Gore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread