The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 07, 2019, 10:36:44 pm
-
Holder says next Dem president should consider packing courts
By Chris Mills Rodrigo - 03/07/19 05:02 PM EST
Former Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that the next Democratic president should considering packing the Supreme Court by adding additional seats.
Holder made the comment during a discussion at Yale Law National Security Group, a spokesperson for Holder confirmed to The Hill.
“In response to a question, Attorney General Holder said that given the unfairness, unprecedented obstruction, and disregard of historical precedent by [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, when Democrats retake the majority they should consider expanding the Supreme Court to restore adherence to previously accepted norms for judicial nominations,†said Patrick Rodenbush, spokesperson for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which Holder heads.
Holder, who served under former President Obama, had been considering a 2020 presidential run, but this week officially announced he would not.
Calls for Democrats to pack courts have risen in response to perceived injustices in how Republicans have handled recent Supreme Court nominees.
more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/433124-holder-says-next-dem-president-should-consider-packing-courts
-
This failed spectacularly under FDR, when he had every political advantage. Good luck in this current environment.
-
Interesting that Holder isn't running in 2020. Indicating either he knows he can't beat Trump or he knows he has too much baggage; possibly both.
-
This failed spectacularly under FDR, when he had every political advantage. Good luck in this current environment.
That was then, and this is now when openly avowed socialists are elected to Congress.
-
That was then, and this is now when openly avowed socialists are elected to Congress.
What do you think New Dealers were?
-
What do you think New Dealers were?
Not openly avowed socialists.
-
They don't call him Eric The Red for nothing! He is a communist apparichic and long has been!
-
Not openly avowed socialists.
The ‘second bill of rights’ did all the talking.
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm)
-
And the rats didn't even need 'but Trump did it' as an excuse to consider this little gem.
Political advantage is the only reason they need to do anything. They know our guys will wilt.
-
The ‘second bill of rights’ did all the talking.
http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/economic_bill_of_rights.htm)
Whatever...
-
Not openly avowed socialists.
FDR tried to pack the court.
-
Whatever...
Ted Cruz is glad he never ran up against you in his Harvard debate days. *****rollingeyes*****
-
What do you think New Dealers were?
Socialism indeed. FDR's New Deal fundamentally changed government. The gov't stepped in and reorganized banking. The gov't paid farmers to end surpluses and boost prices. Several agencies were formed that were more or less entitlements; Public Works Administration, Workers Progress Administration and Social Security Administration. Farm subsidies, unemployment insurance and unions were born.
Some of his programs/ideals were seen as unconstitutional and overreach of the feds and were challenged in SCOTUS.
Think of what we just went through with Bammy. A move towards socialism; the start of universal healthcare, he had the highest number of citizens ever in the history of the U.S. on food stamps and welfare programs; progressive tax program, Dodd-Frank, transgender bathrooms, push for diversifying suburbs and resettlement.
The up and coming DEMS are also laying the framework for socialism.
-
Ted Cruz is glad he never ran up against you in his Harvard debate days. *****rollingeyes*****
You make pointless points and then try to insult me? Again...whatever.
-
:hijack:
***suicide***
https://www.hoover.org/research/how-fdr-saved-capitalism (https://www.hoover.org/research/how-fdr-saved-capitalism)
How FDR Saved Capitalism
-
:hijack:
***suicide***
https://www.hoover.org/research/how-fdr-saved-capitalism (https://www.hoover.org/research/how-fdr-saved-capitalism)
How FDR Saved Capitalism
You're right of course.
-
You make pointless points and then try to insult me? Again...whatever.
It's only 'pointless,' because you don't want to acknowledge their efforts declare who they are. For instance, Ben Sasse introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Senate Democrats opposed it. Did any of them declare out loud: 'I support infanticide'....? No. Does anyone with an ounce of sense dispute that's exactly where they stand? No.
I don't know if you work at being obtuse or if it's natural.
-
It's only 'pointless,' because you don't want to acknowledge their efforts declare who they are. For instance, Ben Sasse introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Senate Democrats opposed it. Did any of them declare out loud: 'I support infanticide'....? No. Does anyone with an ounce of sense dispute that's exactly where they stand? No.
I don't know if you work at being obtuse or if it's natural.
Go pull wings off of flies.
-
Here we go again. It’s unfortunate the Founders did not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court in the Constitution.
-
no sh!t?
-
no sh!t?
I'm reasonably sure a fair number of them 'pack' that, too.
-
So, is he saying the "republicans" should pack the court now?
I have a hard time following lawyers' arguments. I wanted to go to law school, but my grades weren't low enough.
-
So, is he saying the "republicans" should pack the court now?
I have a hard time following lawyers' arguments. I wanted to go to law school, but my grades weren't low enough.
Grades aren't the problem, but you have to have your integrity removed, and mine was just too pervasive in the vital organs for surgery.
-
So, is he saying the "republicans" should pack the court now?
I have a hard time following lawyers' arguments. I wanted to go to law school, but my grades weren't low enough.
Really? Show the school your post and the title of this thread "Holder says next Dem president should consider packing courts"
-
I am sure The Donald will keep this advice in mind in
his remaining 6 years.
:)
-
That was then, and this is now when openly avowed socialists are elected to Congress.
@Sanguine
Uhhhh,Comrade Franklin and his commie cousin-wife weren't openly avowed socialists?
REALLY?
It was during the excessively long reign of those two that America quit being America.
-
You make pointless points and then try to insult me? Again...whatever.
@Sanguine
Uhhh,just because they are pointless to you,doesn't mean they are pointless.
-
So, is he saying the "republicans" should pack the court now?
I have a hard time following lawyers' arguments. I wanted to go to law school, but my grades weren't low enough.
You realize you are talking about the professions of most of our Congress, don't you/
-
Here we go again. It’s unfortunate the Founders did not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court in the Constitution.
Exactly. I was thinking that the DEMS would impose term limits, but I see them packing the courts instead. It would still take an act of Congress and the President signing? Once the DEMS have a full majority (and they eventually will), I anticipate that they will, along with changing the electoral process.
-
I am sure The Donald will keep this advice in mind in
his remaining 6 years.
:)
With a DEM majority in the House, I don't see that happening.
-
With a DEM majority in the House, I don't see that happening.
My gut is telling me that the current situation is extremely temporary
-
My gut is telling me that the current situation is extremely temporary
I'm not worried so much about 2020. I'm more worried about 2024. My gut tells me we will then see a full DEM majority.
-
I'm not worried so much about 2020. I'm more worried about 2024. My gut tells me we will then see a full DEM majority.
@libertybele
IMNSHO,it all depends of if we get the border wall put up,and how serious we get about bouncing non-citizens out of the country so they can't vote here.
If we fail at either,America is OVER.
-
@Sanguine
Uhhh,just because they are pointless to you,doesn't mean they are pointless.
In this case it does.
-
So, is he saying the "republicans" should pack the court now?
I have a hard time following lawyers' arguments. I wanted to go to law school, but my grades weren't low enough.
That’s not what he’s saying, but it’s certainly an invitation. However, I believe that would require Congress to amend the law to increase the number first, so that’s probably not going to happen right now.
-
You realize you are talking about the professions of most of our Congress, don't you/
Seems like a conflict of interest to me. They are just laying the groundwork for more lawyering.
-
My gut is telling me that the current situation is extremely temporary
I believe this graph shows how their rule may end. This trend is unsustainable as it shows the radicalism of the party which is accelerating.
Sorry ladies, but liberalism is coming mostly from the women serving in Congress. Wish we could see more conservative women coming forth.
You know who you are.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Women_Serving_in_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_by_Party_through_2019.png)
-
Seems like a conflict of interest to me. They are just laying the groundwork for more lawyering.
Absolutely. The lawyer on the other thread has been arguing for more legislation and litigation as the solution to fighting.
Seems a self-interest in seeking importance in that profession to me, something a free people does not need.
-
Absolutely. The lawyer on the other thread has been arguing for more legislation and litigation as the solution to fighting.
Seems a self-interest in seeking importance in that profession to me, something a free people does not need.
Not advocating violence toward anyone, but Shakespeare had it right.... :shrug:
-
Seems like a conflict of interest to me. They are just laying the groundwork for more lawyering.
Some years ago I wrote a piece about this very subject that got quite a bit of attention at the time. I should still have it around here somewhere and will try to find it over the weekend.
-
I am sure The Donald will keep this advice in mind in
his remaining 6 years.
:)
:thumbsup:
-
Eric Holder need's to be in jail for FAST AND FURIOUS and Benghazi. It is said, he was there too, in Benghazi gun running, that is why they had to k!ll those 4, there. Allow them to die a horrible death. Torture, castration, burning, cutting,
sodomizing the men to death. Obama used E.A. to protect Holder. NO MORE DEMON-RAT PRESIDENTS! Eric Holder using tax dollars for riots in Chicago. Promoting riots. Do people want that baloney...AGAIN? I DON'T.
-
You realize you are talking about the professions of most of our Congress, don't you/
Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 08, 2019, 06:42:50 PM
Seems like a conflict of interest to me. They are just laying the groundwork for more lawyering.
Quote from Bigun on March 08, 2019 11:47:36 PM Some years ago I wrote a piece about this very subject that got quite a bit of attention at the time. I should still have it around here somewhere and will try to find it over the weekend.
@IsailedawayfromFR @Smokin Joe
I couldn't find the piece I wrote over at TOS back when Bill Clinton was president, but it was definitely based on the following quote from Federalist 47 and my firm belief that it is a patent conflict of interest for practicing lawyers to serve in the legislatures. They are all officers of the court and thus members of the judicial branch of government. It is impossible to have three separate and distinct branches of government with lawyers serving in at least two (sometimes in the past it has been all three) branches.
“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to everyone that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.â€
Federalist #47 [James Madison]
-
Electing people who aren't lawyers to the legislature just might make for some plain text, understandable laws, devoid of the nuances that are used to say the law doesn't say what it says. Then we can go back and read the plain language of the Constitution and make some reasonable decisions about what it says (especially in the light of the supportive documentation in the Federalist). When the logic of the various and oft contended phrases is in question, it only makes sense to rely on the contemporaneous information written to explain the Constitution to the People, not on the legal fantasies of judges who pay the document and original intent little heed.
-
Electing people who aren't lawyers to the legislature just might make for some plain text, understandable laws, devoid of the nuances that are used to say the law doesn't say what it says. Then we can go back and read the plain language of the Constitution and make some reasonable decisions about what it says (especially in the light of the supportive documentation in the Federalist). When the logic of the various and oft contended phrases is in question, it only makes sense to rely on the contemporaneous information written to explain the Constitution to the People, not on the legal fantasies of judges who pay the document and original intent little heed.
Some years ago a very good friend (a practicing attorney) came to me and told me that he had decided he was going to run for a seat in the Texas legislature. I invited him to lunch the next day and explained to him why I could not, in good conscience, support that effort but would do everything in my power to help him should he decide to run for a judgeship somewhere (we elect them in Texas). To make a long story short, he is still serving as a State District Court Judge today.