How Dems take back the supreme Court post Trump. Court packing, and FDR.

Is adding additional justice seats a good idea?


  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
absolutely wrong strategy. The dems lost 2016 because Democrat voters could not be inspired to come out to vote for centrist Hillary. Remember- Bernie stomped her in the rust belt and does well with working class whites. Ironically enough, he lost because Hillary had a stronghold in black districts.

Of course, Republicans will advise Dems to return to center.
Mississippi is full of working-class white people. The Democrats in that area voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Hillary got 82.47% of the primary vote in that state.

Bernie's appeal outside of safely Democratic states is vastly overblown.
 
You are saying I can't have a union that can collectively bargain.

I don't expect the average Joe to understand this, but the employer is the one who requires union membership.

Now the workers threaten to go on strike, if the company doesn't require union membership, but if a employer never agrees to union membership, then no one is required to join a union.

The whole narrative is based on a lie.

Unions are still perfectly free to collectively bargain, that did not change with this latest ruling.

What did change was the unions ability to compel forced association.

The union has no right to collectively bargain for someone that doesn't want to be a part of their Union, nor do they have the right to compel membership fees from people who don't want to be a part of their Union.

This decision ends the immoral practice of forced association through unionism.
 
What about the other stuff. Is an appointment pretty much 50 votes standard now? Should Dems hold out during election years? Or instances where a liberal justice unexpectedly passes away?

Yeah, they should do whatever it takes to preserve the country within the context of liberal governance.
 
Unions are still perfectly free to collectively bargain, that did not change with this latest ruling.

What did change was the unions ability to compel forced association.

The union has no right to collectively bargain for someone that doesn't want to be a part of their Union, nor do they have the right to compel membership fees from people who don't want to be a part of their Union.

This decision ends the immoral practice of forced association through unionism.

It was required by law. Unions are compelled to bargain for all members of their labor class as an exclusive bargaining agent. Now they're still forced to bargain for non-members whilst non-members can free-ride without contributing. Go and read the actual decision. It's in the first paragraph of the syllabus.
 
PFFFF Trump will appoint two more judges during his era. Kennedy will not be the last one lol
The next two lib judges are already in line. SCOTUS will experience a total shift to the right during the next two or three years.

Remember? THE most important election...
 
Mississippi is full of working-class white people. The Democrats in that area voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Hillary got 82.47% of the primary vote in that state.

Bernie's appeal outside of safely Democratic states is vastly overblown.
yes, it was known she obliterated Bernie in the south because Bill had strong favorable support there. The working class whites in the south werent dem anyway so the black vote mattered more in the primary.
 
Packing the Court is a terrible idea, but a legal one. There is nothing unlawful about adding or subtracting Justices. The precedent it would set would be awful. The only somewhat reasonable 'packing' legislation I could see being sustainable would be allowing one new nomination per each POTUS term no matter who is President. Then you'd have to debate whether you'd have mandatory retirement ages and if you'd have a maximum number of justices.
 
It was required by law. Unions are compelled to bargain for all members of their labor class as an exclusive bargaining agent. Now they're still forced to bargain for non-members whilst non-members can free-ride without contributing. Go and read the actual decision. It's in the first paragraph of the syllabus.

Even if that's true, it's completely irrelevant.

Unions don't have the right to compel forced association.

It's not an individual Labor's fault that a union has too broad of a focus.

No matter how much they would like to think they do, a union does not uniformly speak for everyone in any given industry. The Supreme Court just agreed.
 
Lol, the most damaging decision in the history of this country, in Citizens United, was pure legislation from the bench, and a restructuring of our country through emporer supreme Court.

That was done by Republicans.

You guys put our whole country up for sale. It is a fucking disgrace.
Uhh, no.

Obama was elected. Obama was the president when the supreme Court seat was vacated.

The Republicans cheated to stop his appointment.

It is time to cheat back.
And thank Republicans for that(logical party)..the obama world view was a disaster,how the fuck anyone in their right mind could vote twice for him is beyond me...Now europe is in chaos,because of merkel and obama...it's a fuc#kin disgrace
 
yes, it was known she obliterated Bernie in the south because Bill had strong favorable support there. The working class whites in the south werent dem anyway so the black vote mattered more in the primary.

Like I said, Bernie's appeal outside safe blue districts is vastly overblown. He wouldn't have the slightest hope in the South, and might actually cause Virginia to flip back Republican. Midwestern God's country would reject a socialist on that merit alone, so kiss goodbye Ohio.

On a different note, I have to disagree with the message in your belt ranking.

There's only one source of all wealth, and that's individual human intelligence. A form of Labor that's valuable to other people, must first be discovered by an individual human intelligence. At that point, the less intelligent begin to copy this new discovery in order to better their own lives.

The individual is the source of all wealth.

Let's use a farming example/thought experiment to help you understand:

Let's say both of us have a bag of seeds that we need to plant. We both have only basic handmade tools to do so (intelligence was required to even make those tools, but I'll move on).

If I start to plant my seeds into solid Boulders and rocks, and you plant your seeds into rich and fertile soil, I obviously labored much longer and harder than you, yet produced no value. Without intelligence guiding it, labor will often prove itself to be worthless.
 
Even if that's true, it's completely irrelevant.

Unions don't have the right to compel forced association.

It's not an individual Labor's fault that a union has too broad of a focus.

No matter how much they would like to think they do, a union does not uniformly speak for everyone in any given industry. The Supreme Court just agreed.

Unions are compelled to represent those who don't want representation without compensation. That's the law now. The original Abood decision was 7-2; this wasn't a partisan issue until the past decade or so.

I disagree with the reasoning Alito used in Janus; especially his dismissal of the Garcetti standard being met. However, there will be more seismic changes coming now that Trump gets to put another Federalist Society adherent to the SCOTUS.
 
I feel like all future supreme court decisions will be decided by the bible and major corporations
actually it's "decisions will be decided by major corporations under the guise of the bible"
 
Unions are compelled to represent those who don't want representation without compensation. That's the law now.

And that's an individual laborer's fault and/or problem how?

If they don't want to be a part of the Union, the union should have no power to compel them to do so.

There is no freedom without the freedom of association.

The freedom of association also implies the freedom to disassociate.
 
And that's an individual laborer's fault and/or problem how?

If they don't want to be a part of the Union, the union should have no power to compel them to do so.

There is no freedom without the freedom of association.

The freedom of association also implies the freedom to disassociate.

We're already talking about non-union members. They weren't compelled to join the union.
 


I just cant see why America cant simply expand the court and impose term limits (with the judge barred from public service and with a big pension after his term is served so there is no way to bribe them.)
 
I just cant see why America cant simply expand the court and impose term limits (with the judge barred from public service and with a big pension after his term is served so there is no way to bribe them.)
Expanding the Court is possible, but not without risks. Term limits might require a Constitutional Amendment, not sure about that though.
 
I just cant see why America cant simply expand the court and impose term limits (with the judge barred from public service and with a big pension after his term is served so there is no way to bribe them.)

Congress could increase or decrease the number of justices with a simple majority vote and POTUS signature. Term limits would need a Constitutional Amendment.
 
Expanding the Court is possible, but not without risks. Term limits might require a Constitutional Amendment, not sure about that though.

In the end it seems that it would be rather irrelevant because the issue with the court seems to be a symptom of bipartisan polarization of the American society.

Without taking away the parties power over every single aspect of American politics, it seems like everything else is largely irrelevant.
 
We're already talking about non-union members. They weren't compelled to join the union.

What exactly is the distinction between a dues-paying member, and a dues-paying non-member?

That's truly a distinction without a difference.
 
Back
Top