The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Soon four more justices will be added to the court.  I wonder why trump didn't try this when he was president.  Given the disasterous path we have gone in since Biden took over, it is worrisome to have a wore court

That will never happen.  Supreme Court is and has always been nine justices.

False.

Not counting vacancies for dead people, there have been:
6 in 1789
7 in 1807
9 in 1837
10 in 1863
7 in 1866
9 in 1869

They don't have the votes to ram it through and Pelosi said that she wouldn't even bring it to a vote.

Trump didn't try it for the exact same reason that the Democrats will fail if they try it.  Trump lacked the Congressional votes to accomplish it and so do the Democrats. 

The Democrats have both houses and the executive branch.  How can they be stopped from pushing any law they want?

Because the Democrats aren't a single being who all vote the same way, first of all.

And secondly, the senate currently has a filibuster for everything except a couple of budget things, which means it would require 60 votes.  So, they'd have to overturn the filibuster first, then get all 50 of 50 Senators to vote the same way.

It's possible, but not very likely.

Not very likely, especially if they can't even get Pelosi on board. Overall it's a bad idea anyhow

Not super interested in these alligator tears about how terrible this idea would be, after the stunts Republicans pulled with Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett.

Mitch McConnell made it crystal clear that the only rule is: you pass whatever the hell you want if you can get the votes for it.  The filibuster did not stop McConnell from doing a single thing that he wanted to.

No tears here. Remember elections have consequences. You guys didn't have the numbers and votes at the right time, that's the way it works.

Or conversely, maybe this year the Dolphins will try to change the rules at halftime to their benefit because they're losing the game. Anyhow, as of today it's a moot point. Maybe you'll get lucky and next week will be different. Midterms should be interesting this year, haha.

Exactly... Anything the Democrats do to alleviate Trump's hijacking of the Judiciary is fine by me.

No one hijacked anything. Did you think Trump was going to nominate some whack job liberal to the SC? He did what he was elected to do.

The dems simply lost at their own game and now you're all in your feelings about it. Every time you guys try to rig the game it comes back to bite you in the ass. Go ahead, make the court 13 and see what happens. It will bite you in the ass again LMAO

Too many people on both sides that know this is a bad idea in the long run so I don't see it happening. In my lifetime I've never seen so many power hungry politicians but there are enough good guys and gals on both sides to keep this from happening.

It’s easy for you to say.  We got a seat stolen and now you just want us to take it.  I hope we pack the courts.  It would better reflect the electorate anyway.  Political norms are gone...just grab power any way you can if the other side is going to.  There’s no other choice.

You should tell that to CF, who is over here whining about how "people on both sides know this is a bad idea."  But when Mitch McConnell was blocking Merrick Garland, or confirming Amy Coney Barrett 9 days before an election?  No worries at all from CF then.

It's crystal clear that the only rule now are you pass whatever you can pass; power is power.  This entire thread is a smokescreen, designed to try to distract from the power grabs by Senate Republicans that have already taken place.  I don't want to hear any more nonsense about "unprecedented actions."

This thread was reporting news, and wondering why Trump, or any president before didn't try this tactic. 

False.

1 it wasn't reporting news.  It announced as a foregone conclusion something that was very doubtful to happen.

2 it is blatantly false that no president has attempted this.  A few have some have been successful some have not.

No one knew beforehand that Trump would get to pick 3 justices, but the opportunity presented itself. If the situation was reversed the Dems would have done the exact same thing. And don't even try to argue that point. They're all hypocrites. So the only alligator tears are from the left, you guys started this shit.

McConnell and republicans used the same procedural tactics within the framework of the senate that the Democrats did in 2013. And McConnell specifically warned Reid about the consequences of using the nuclear option and that the Democrats would "regret it", but they still moved forward.

Now the Democrats do "regret it" and want to act like a petulant children. They blame everyone but but themselves and want to keep escalating the situation proposing passing legislation to fundamentally transform one of the branches of government. The SC is supposed to be non political and the left is trying to make it political to their benefit.

If they would have proposed picking 11 instead of 13, they might have an ounce of credibility. But it's no coincidence that the number 13 was picked to take control of the judicial system by any means. Democrats are just sad desperate people that will do ANYTHING to gain power. What they gonna do when this blows up in their face too and they regret it, launch the missiles?

I knew it: you're doing exactly the same whining as CF, while pretending that you're a realist.  The Democrats want to fundamentally transform one of the branches of government - so scary!  If they had only picked a useless number like 11 (that allowed us to retain the power we grabbed), maybe this wouldn't be so bad!  Dems are so sad and desperate that they'll do ANYTHING in their lust for power!

ALLIGATOR TEARS.

The only justification Mitch McConnell needed is, "I can do it, therefore I'm doing it."  The GOP attempted to repeal Obamacare - not with the same 60 votes it took to pass it, but with only 50.  And the only reason they failed is because they couldn't even count to 50.

I have no patience for any conservative that wants to whine and complain about Democrat power grabs.  You guys made it crystal clear: all bets are off, all options are on the table.  Reap what you sow.

Yes, you Democrats made it clear in 2013 that all options are were on the table. You were warned not to do it or you would "regret it", but you did anyway and it came back to bite you in the ass. Yes, you're correct, you reap what you sow.

So when you get done changing your Kotex, let me know how "all bets are off, all options on the table" worked out for you last time you tried it. You should be thankful that it's only 6-3 and not 7-2 or 8-1.

Why are you citing 2013 as the start?  2013 was after 6 years of McConnell deciding to filibuster everything under the sun:

(https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/senate_cloture_votes_chart.jpg?w=599&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C629px)

WTF you talking about? We're talking about the "Nuclear Option". You know the difference right?

Again, here come the liberals trying to CONFLATE terms to confuse people too ignorant to know the difference. I guess the "use of proper terminology" doesn't matter in this thread either 🙄🙄🤔🤔🤣🤣

The "nuclear option" was a response to greatly increased filibuster use by McConnell, as per the above linked graph.

You think you're talking about a cause, but you're actually talking about an effect.

Using the filibuster is not the same thing as fundamentally changing the Senate rules to rig the game in your favor. There's a reason they call it the nuclear option. It's viewed as such a dramatic step in the procedural arms race that it’s been likened to nuclear warfare. The Democrats are the ones who escalated the situation. They were warned not to do it and proceeded to get their ass handed to them.

This is like a back and forth verbal argument. And then someone (Democrats) gets their feelings hurt because they're losing the verbal argument. Then proceeds to escalate to a physical fight and gets their ass beat beat down.

Now you crying about hijacking and stealing. The simple fact is that the Republicans did the same thing the Democrats were warned not to do in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. You democrats lost at your own game, now you want to try and cheat again because you can't handle it? Go ahead and watch it blow up in your face again, I like watching you guys go into meltdown mode, LMFAO

The Senate rules are "fundamentally changed" all the time.  The Byrd Rule (which was created in 1985) was a "fundamental change," as was allowing Senators to filibuster without speaking.

More importantly, though: you're offering a false dilemma.  You say that the Democrats escalated the situation in 2013 by eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees.  The alternative option would be to allow the filibuster to continue, resulting in zero Obama judges being confirmed.  And we're supposed to believe that had the Democrats not done this, a Republican-controlled Senate would have... allowed an Obama Supreme Court nominee to go through, after they filibustered every lower court nominee?  Yeah, that is the emptiest of promises.

Listen, I have no problem with the "Power is power" argument.  That's 100% fine with me.  My objection is to the fake outrage at the idea that the Democrats might exercise power that is legally available to them.

That's exactly what you're doing by saying that Trump and the republicans hijacked and stole 3 SC seats when all they did is use the same option the democrats they used in 2013? They didn't hijack or steal anything. You're just using that as an excuse to escalate again to tilt the odds in your favor. So what happens when the Republicans eventually gain control again and add even more seats to regain majority on the court?

Oh, and by the way, I'm not outraged or even worried about this because more than likely it's not going to happen anyhow. Just correcting "terminology" used in this thread. There were no SC seats hijacked or stolen. They were simply filled by Republicans instead of Democrats.

FUCK...YES!!

And the voice of reason is heard throughout the land...

And that is why this country will fall in the next 20-30 years. Too many people like you that say f it if it gets me my way. As it stands ... you are in the minority but that is changing at a increasingly alarming rate.

If you think using politics to keep a seat open is the same as packing the courts then it's useless to argue. the next time Repub or any other members take control they would just add more seats until the whole thing was as useless as our political system.

You're right...it's useless. Please feel free to not vote any more.  Just pretend you're in Georgia...with a tan.

In 2013, Democrats eliminated the filibuster on judicial nominees outside of the Supreme Court.
In 2017, Republicans eliminated the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees to confirm Neil Gorsuch.  This is, indeed, comparable to what Dems did in 2013; it is expected and not what I'm referring to.

What I am referring to is in 2016 when Senate Republicans refused to even allow hearings for Merrick Garland (who was nominated 8 months before the election) under the premise that no nominee should be confirmed in an election year, and then in 2020 the same Senate Republicans not only held hearings in an election year, but confirmed a nominee 8 days before the election... after millions of Americans had already cast their votes for a new President.

That is not "the same option Democrats used in 2013."

Then we'll have a situation better than the one we have now.  At least in that future, Democrats get to temporarily control the Supreme Court after a victory, instead of this BS "heads we win, tails you lose" game Republicans play now.

When it looked like Hillary was going to win, Senate Republicans were already saying that they would keep the Supreme Court at 8 until the vacancy could be filled by a Republican President.  Why would Democrats have any interest in playing this kind of game?  Making the Supreme Court a rubber stamp is preferable to a reality in which only Republicans are ever allowed to control it.

Conservatives have been saying that successfully for decades.  They said it with Bush v. Gore, they said it with Merrick Garland, they said it with Amy Coney Barrett.

For all your high-minded talk about protecting the Supreme Court, you would happily cheer on the prospect of a "useless" Supreme Court if the alternative was a Court controlled by the liberals.

The elected officials in a country should bear some resemblance to the electorate.

And it doesn't.

The electoral college makes the presidential election close, when it isn't.
The senate is by state, where liberal pockets are grossly underrepresented.  And some places (like DC, which has more people than some states) has no representation at all.
The House is gerrymandered terribly.  More people vote for Democrats, yet we send more Republicans.

And the Supreme Court is way more right leaning that the people it represents AND the GOP is stealing seats on top of it.

This isn't democracy, whether I agree with the ideology or not.

This is the biggest issue in this country. People in LA, Miami, and NY should not dictate how other states live just because they pack more people in them. We can argue legal/illegal another time.  We need to expand states rights and limit Federal reach just like our forefathers set it up. This way We can have gun toting no abortio states where biloical women can play in sports and then we can have 89 genders with abortion convenience stores that serve acid and oxy like slurpees and do it in gun free zones so no one gets hurt. Everyone will be able to live how they want without forcing religion, ideals, or lack thereof on anyone.  

if we're going to live in fantasy land, why don't we just recruit about 1 million liberals from california and new york to go move to montana, north dakota, south dakota, wyoming, and idaho, split them up evenly and we'll end up permanently turning 5 states and 10 senators blue.

Since were're in fantasy land. Better yet, lets just spilt the country in half and make them separate countries with their own federal governments that stays out of each others business. Then if you find yourself and your views leaning left, you can go live in liberal land and vice versa for people leaning right. Because the way I see it the division is only going to get worse and more violent.

The proposed alternative - in fact, the actual reality - is letting people in WY, AK, and AR dictate how the majority of Americans live, solely because their states were drawn to include a lot of empty land.

No thanks.  I can't speak for others, but I prefer democracy.

Given that we just saw Senators from MO and TX try to overturn the voting results in PA and GA, I am skeptical that the meaning of "states' rights" in the future you propose would be any different than it has been for the last 60 years: things that I want should be left up to the states, while things that I don't want should be restricted by the feds.  I mean, unless I'm mistaken and this is actually a call to abolish the Patriot Act.

However, this does bring up an interesting question about your commitment to self-determination: do you think the politicians in Tallahassee should be dictating laws to the residents of Miami?  That is to say: when is it OK for distant bureaucrats to impose their values on a local population that doesn't share them?

Like-minded people to yourself already tried this.  It didn't work, not least because your plan would conscript many loyal Americans who love our country and its Constitution.  

You say they can pick up and move?  Well, good news: you can pick up and move right this moment.  I hear Singapore has a government more aligned with conservative values (if there can even be said to be such a thing, post-MAGA).

You people don't love this country or it's constitution. If you did you wouldn't be trying to fundamentally transform it into something else.

We're not the ones always reaching for secession as the solution, nor are we the ones who would rather fly the flag of the Confederacy than the flag of the United States.  You don't get to claim the mantle of patriot at the same time you are advocating for dissolving the Union.

The sad irony is that secession doesn't even solve the problem; it only shifts discontent slightly.  Instead of statehouses being angry with the tyrannical feds, you will have city halls being angry with the tyrannical state capitols.  It doesn't truly fix anything, and if "just move to another state!" is your answer, as I already said, there's nothing stopping you from moving to another country right now.

So there's a small percentage of people that fly the Confederate Flag and there's a small percentage that burn and spit on the American Flag. And they're both on opposite ends of the spectrum, so it's really no different. Fau proposed something absurd and and so did I. And if you notice the post in question, the words "fantasy land" are the words you missed or conveniently ignored.

to be fair i only proposed something absurd because CF did :)

also while my idea is absurd, i can't claim it to be mine, during obama's term there was a stupid movement to have all fundamentalist christians to move to south carolina to turn it into a religious state.

and i don't think it'll need to happen artificially, techie liberals will organically move to less populated red states purely for property prices and because they can work remotely in their fields. You're already seeing this in montana, it's alot less red than it used to be. Just you wait.

Not gonna affect me to any real extent in my lifetime, so it really doesn't matter too much.

West Virginia was offering remote workers money to move there.

If I understand your reply correctly, Fau was fantasizing about liberals moving to red states and turning them blue, while you were fantasizing about breaking up the Union.  Points for consistency, at least.

Man why? Look, I'm trying to learn Madden 21 after playing Madden 03 for 18 years. I ain't tryin to think about this shit right now. You getting my damn defense lit the fuck up, LMFAO

If we split the country up in to two separate, ideological opposites, they probably would both fail, at least at first.

The red country would be broke as shit, first of all.  Pretty much all of the money comes from the blue states.  But then, the blue states wouldn't be able to produce their own food.

It'd likely end in a war over resources.

CA is the #1 food producer in the US and #5 in the world.  I don't think food would be as big of an issue as you suggest.

(https://inetsgi.com/images/668/images/97bb4999.png)

Also, I think that more red states may adopt what FL just passed, House Bill 1 "Combating Public Disorder Act". It should deter some of the extremists once they start getting felonies, fines, and jail time. Not to mention if you gonna play in the road and intimidate or threaten people you might just get run over.

LOL ... California’s farms and ranches are doing the producing and is very RED as is much of the state. LOL ... they wouldn't stick around very long. Unless LA and San Fran learned to cultivate more than pot you might have a chance.

Red states wouldn't need as much money if they weren't paying for other people.

In your version of this hypothetical secession, are Democrat-controlled Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin still part of Texas?  Take the blue cities out of the new Confederacy and you guys won't have to worry about where your money goes, because you won't have any.

We have also previously discussed that when it comes to federal money, blue states are makers and red states are takers, so you're wrong there, too.

Aside from your hearty plastic LOL, do you have anything from any reputable source?  Otherwise I have to consider that as just a steamy shovelful of horse$hit.

I think he's referring to this:

(https://i0.wp.com/scng-dash.digitalfirstmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cal-counties.gif)

(https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/california-2020-election-results-1607689636.png?crop=1.00xw:1.00xh;0,0&resize=900:*)

Tulare, Fresno and Kern counties each had gross value of agricultural production over $6 billion.
Tulare County decreased 13.7 percent from $8 billion in 2014 to $6.98 billion in 2015 but was still the No. 1 ranked county both years.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/27/california-farms-produce-a-lot-of-food-but-what-and-how-much-might-surprise-you/ (https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/27/california-farms-produce-a-lot-of-food-but-what-and-how-much-might-surprise-you/)
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/california/ (https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/california/)

Only Fresno county is blue.

Why does that even matter?  CA is CA.

If you're talking about slicing up states into red and blue chunks, secession becomes even more unworkable.  You can't seriously believe every Republican in a blue state gets to secede but every Democrat in a red state has to suck it up.

Thanks...I appreciate the post.

Spider is right though...CA is a blue state, and no matter how much twisting gets done to this impossible scenario, that isn't going to change.