Trump tweets that he has covid 19

[Mr. Deez]

I see no evidence of them trending toward the GOP.

There isn't conclusive proof, but there is pretty substantial evidence - Bush's performance, Romney's performance in Wisconsin, Scott Walker's performance, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, etc. Look also at their congressional and state legislative races. It's about where the Deep South was in the '70s.

 

[Crockett]

Your candidate won't oppose packing the US Supreme Court, which would easily be the most dangerous move since 1861. And this is coming from someone who is currently arguing with Garmel AGAINST Trump.

FDR didn't have the political muscle to do this. Biden a one termer with comparative tiny charisma couldn't do it even if he tries.

 

[UTChE96]

FDR didn't have the political muscle to do this. Biden a one termed with comparative tiny charisma couldn't do it even if he tries.

Much different Democratic party now than in the 1930s. A candidate who ran as a Socialist finished 2nd and would have won the nomination if not for DNC collusion. I believe there are enough red state moderate Dems in the Congress to block it but it will be close.

 

[Horn6721]

Crock
Which Trump decisions do you think are dangerous?

 

[Mr. Deez]

FDR didn't have the political muscle to do this. Biden a one termed with comparative tiny charisma couldn't do it even if he tries.

Biden won't need any political muscle to do it. If it's going to happen, it'll come from Capitol Hill, and it is the most consequential issue of this election or any election in decades. The fact that your colleagues in the press will tolerate a non-answer from him on it is a disgrace. They have the professionalism of a brain surgeon snorting a line of coke.

 

[Crockett]

I guess it would be smarter to issue bald faced lies like McConnell and Lindsay Graham. If Trump has proven anything it's that America can tolerate more lies than I could ever have imagined.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I guess it would be smarter to issue bald faced lies like McConnell and Lindsay Graham. If Trump has proven anything it's that America can tolerate more lies than I could ever have imagined.

Have you really thought through what packing the Court entails? It's a lot more consequential than some flip flopping senators or Trump lying about the size of his inauguration crowd.

 

[horninchicago]

Seriously, who cares what any democrat here or anywhere else has to say? Morons.

 

[Crockett]

Well I guess we'll see what impact Trump and McConnell will have by by filling courts with judges of questionable legal talent but unquestionable right wing bona fides and

. The pendulum swings too far and you get too high handed it energizes the other side. I think expanding the Supreme Court would be a bridge too far.

 

[horninchicago]

Yeah I figured @Crockett would Poop my comment above, but seriously,, anyone who votes Democrat has a screw loose, and that goes for you too.

 

[horninchicago]

******* A, to think anyone would vote for that retard Biden just screams moron.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Well I guess we'll see what impact Trump and McConnell will have by by filling courts with judges of questionable legal talent but unquestionable right wing bona fides and

. The pendulum swings too far and you get too high handed it energizes the other side. I think expanding the Supreme Court would be a bridge too far.

None of his Supreme Court nominees have been of questionable legal talent, and expanding the Court isn't just a bridge too far. It's completely insane.

 

[Crockett]

******* A, to think anyone would vote for that retard Biden just screams moron.

The least imaginative among us equates intelligence to having thoughts and opinions identical to our own. I miss the old days around here when we could share different perspectives without enduring insults unworthy of a middle school bully.

 

[horninchicago]

The least imaginative among us equates intelligence to having thoughts and opinions identical to our own. I miss the old days around here when we could share different perspectives without enduring insults unworthy of a middle school bully.

Yeah well, to think that any intelligent person would vote for Biden just defies logic, so take it however you want.

 

[Monahorns]

Well I guess we'll see what impact Trump and McConnell will have by by filling courts with judges of questionable legal talent but unquestionable right wing bona fides and

We won't see that because it isn't happening. Trump is nominating great judges with great resumes. The fact that you assert this means you aren't worth listening to.

 

[Crockett]

Hey, I'm no expert on Judicial qualification. I honest to God know more about judging livestock.

The American Bar Association does have some smart people who are qualified to evaluate nominees, though admittedly they probably won't all pass the horninchicago intelligence test.

ABA ratings during he Trump administration - Ballotpedia

I'm sure Trump said all these nominees had admirable qualifications.

 

[Garmel]

Hey, I'm no expert on Judicial qualification. I honest to God know more about judging livestock.

The American Bar Association does have some smart people who are qualified to evaluate nominees, though admittedly they probably won't all pass the horninchicago intelligence test.

ABA ratings during he Trump administration - Ballotpedia

I'm sure Trump said all these nominees had admirable qualifications.

The ABA leans left (Deez will tell you that) so I'm not sure I buy into their analysis. Only 4 for Clinton but 8 for Bush and 8 for Trump.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Hey, I'm no expert on Judicial qualification. I honest to God know more about judging livestock.

The American Bar Association does have some smart people who are qualified to evaluate nominees, though admittedly they probably won't all pass the horninchicago intelligence test.

ABA ratings during he Trump administration - Ballotpedia

I'm sure Trump said all these nominees had admirable qualifications.

The ABA isn't the sole arbiter of who's qualified. Also, I don't see Barrett, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch on the list of even allegedly unqualified judges.

 

[Crockett]

I didn't allege the Supreme Court nominees had questionable expertise.

 

[Monahorns]

Well I guess we'll see what impact Trump and McConnell will have by by filling courts with judges of questionable legal talent but unquestionable right wing bona fides and

I didn't allege the Supreme Court nominees had questionable expertise.

Crockett. Just quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[mchammer]

Well I guess we'll see what impact Trump and McConnell will have by by filling courts with judges of questionable legal talent but unquestionable right wing bona fides.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I didn't allege the Supreme Court nominees had questionable expertise.

Then why bring it up in the context of court packing?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Court packing has nothing to do with rejecting or confirming nominees. He sounds like the idiots who blame gerrymandering for Democrats not controlling the Senate.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We won't see that because it isn't happening. Trump is nominating great judges with great resumes. The fact that you assert this means you aren't worth listening to.

The American Bar Association does have some smart people who are qualified to evaluate nominees, though admittedly they probably won't all pass the horninchicago intelligence test.

ABA ratings during he Trump administration - Ballotpedia

I'm sure Trump said all these nominees had admirable qualifications.

The ABA leans left (Deez will tell you that) so I'm not sure I buy into their analysis. Only 4 for Clinton but 8 for Bush and 8 for Trump.

A few things about this. First, none of this has anything to do with court packing. It's an entirely separate matter that was brought up to divert attention away from the dumpster fire that is court packing and to draw an equivalence of some sort when there is none. Those 8 lower court judges could be illiterate one-legged strippers with meth addictions, and it wouldn't even be in the same galaxy of crappiness and destructiveness as Court packing. Though the conservatives here know it's bad, I'm not even sure that they appreciate the degree to which it is bad.

Second, I don't doubt that there have been some duds in Trump's judicial nominations. For example, Brett Talley was a joke (and was withdrawn). Most presidents have had some, because like other cush federal jobs, federal judgeships are sometimes given to political hacks as a reward. However, to say Trump is "filling the courts" with people who have questionable qualifications is an absurd exaggeration.

Third, Garmel is right that the ABA leans left. Lawyers tend to be liberal. It shouldn't shock anyone that their organizations lean that way. Does that mean the ABA rating is worthless? No. I think they generally try to be fair, and most of their analysis is solid. I'll readily admit that an unqualified rating would make me pause on a nominee and want to look further. However, is it perfect, and would it cause me to knee jerk reject a nominee? Hell no. Why not? Because it leaves open significant room for subjectivity.

Consider their criteria for judicial temperament - "the nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law."

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of that, but with verbiage like "compassion," "open-mindedness," "freedom from bias," and "equal justice under the law," there's a lot of room for political bias and agendas that have nothing to do with being a competent judge to enter the equation.

 

[UTChE96]

Have you really thought through what packing the Court entails? It's a lot more consequential than some flip flopping senators or Trump lying about the size of his inauguration crowd.

Exactly. I believe this is what will prevent it from happening. There are still a few rational Dems that understand this will be a political weapon that Republicans will for sure use against them one day.

Case in point, I bet they wish Harry didn't go nuclear on the Federal judiciary or they could have prevented ACB from getting confirmed. Huge mistake. Very short sighted.

 

[Monahorns]

Those 8 lower court judges could be illiterate one-legged strippers with meth addictions, and it wouldn't even be in the same galaxy of crappiness and destructiveness as Court packing. Though the conservatives here know it's bad, I'm not even sure that they appreciate the degree to which it is bad.

Deez I think you have done a good job explaining the big problem that court packing would present. If followed, it would lead to the Supreme Court always leaning towards the viewpoint of the President. Of course, it would take the Senate allowing it to happen too. It would neutralize the separation of powers aligning two together. It would also be an obvious farce if the Supreme Court had 100 or 200 members.

My only counterpoint was that an obvious farce would be instructive to the nation. I believe that there are serious issues with where our system has ended up. It needs serious reform in several areas. As long as there is a veneer of respectability or competence, meaningful reform is much more difficult politically. Once the man behind the curtain is exposed metaphorically it should be more accepted. Maybe then we could get Social Security and entitlement reform. Maybe people would want less government control over their lives and shrink the size and budget of it. Maybe we wouldn't believe government justifications for foreign wars and mask mandates and lockdowns. Maybe we could get a healthy currency and banking system.

None of that will happen if people continue to believe everything is functioning well. It isn't, But most people don't realize. We need something to catalyze public support for change that will actually help things.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez I think you have done a good job explaining the big problem that court packing would present. If followed, it would lead to the Supreme Court always leaning towards the viewpoint of the President. Of course, it would take the Senate allowing it to happen too. It would neutralize the separation of powers aligning two together. It would also be an obvious farce if the Supreme Court had 100 or 200 members.

My only counterpoint was that an obvious farce would be instructive to the nation. I believe that there are serious issues with where our system has ended up. It needs serious reform in several areas. As long as there is a veneer of respectability or competence, meaningful reform is much more difficult politically. Once the man behind the curtain is exposed metaphorically it should be more accepted. Maybe then we could get Social Security and entitlement reform. Maybe people would want less government control over their lives and shrink the size and budget of it. Maybe we wouldn't believe government justifications for foreign wars and mask mandates and lockdowns. Maybe we could get a healthy currency and banking system.

None of that will happen if people continue to believe everything is functioning well. It isn't, But most people don't realize. We need something to catalyze public support for change that will actually help things.

The problem is that we wouldn't reach the conclusions you and I would generally want. People wouldn't assume that government in general was something not to be trusted. They'd assume that government was legitimate when their side was in power and illegitimate when it wasn't. Everything would be selective, which is basically the end of the concept of the rule of law. On social issues, we're already there.

Ruining the Court won't make people receptive to entitlement reform. Frankly, we aren't that deep on the issue. Entitlement reform fails for two reasons. First, "they're going to take away your Social Security" is a discussion-ender. It's like calling someone racist. Furthermore, our political media accepts it as such and does it without any analysis or discussion. That guarantees that the elderly vote to keep it.

Second, our young people are too stupid to understand how they're getting robbed. Even worse, they're too preoccupied with weed, video games, and internet porn to even be concerned. They'd have to put down their doobie, their video game controller, and their dicks for ten minutes so they can think straight enough to do some 4th grade math. They aren't willing to do that.

 

[Crockett]

So what evidence dio we have that court packing is in the works?

 

[horninchicago]

So what evidence dio we have that court packing is in the works?

Well, people on your side falsely claim Trump has never condemned white supremacy etc. He has, multiple times, but the false claim of saying he hasn't is always proof to the left and media that he approves of them.

Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that by not answering the question on it, that means Biden will do it? How can you think otherwise and how do you defend his not answering and saying voters don't deserve to know. What outrage would you feign on here if mean bad Orange Man did that?

 

[theiioftx]

So what evidence dio we have that court packing is in the works?

Dems like Schumer and other senate races have either openly supported it or uncomfortably refused to condemn it. I truly think some of the liberals on this board never watch anything but CNN.