SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1603094045

Message started by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 00:54:05

Title: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 00:54:05

Being appellate court judges means they set the precedent which becomes the law. Of those 53 judges that Trump/McConnell rammed through the system, many of them deemed 'unqualified' by the Bar Association. How many were Black?

None. Not one. This is court packing, and in a diverse country like America it's a disgrace. This is the racist agenda of McConnell. Many of the most important Supreme Court decisions have been 5-4, so one single person decides the law for 330 million Americans.

This is why the Supreme Court should be increased to 15, so a proper diversity of views are represented. Serious reform is essential and I believe that the American people will deliver a substantial Senate majority to Biden, and if that happens, then he definitely has the mandate for change.

Remember Merrick Garland was not some über Liberal judge, he was a compromise judge that Obama thought would be suitable to McConnell, but McConnell unconstitutionally point blank refused to consider Garland because he wanted extreme Judges like Barrett and the appellate court judges installed who would be conducive to maintaining laws that keep the GOP in power. It's that simple.

This is the result of putting an unqualified imbecile like Trump in office, there needs to be a correction back to normality.

6/7 of the 9 Scotus Judges will be Catholic once Barrett is in. Here's a quote from Barrett... “Keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end…that end is building the Kingdom of God”

Barrett said in her confirmation hearing that the precedent that married couples cannot legally be denied access to contraception, is not a 'super precedent', meaning, it can be revisited.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 08:43:41

This is not court packing and it has never been defined as court packing. Redefining words and terms is standard practice by leftist which is akin to slowly raising the temperature of the water pot our lobster is taking a leisurely bath in.

If victorious, in a few months when President Harris nominates multiple Supreme Court justices the media will offer plenty of cover by saying the same thing, that the Republicans were doing this for years. Not only is that a lie, it’s part of a long-term strategy.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by Serowbot on 10/19/20 at 08:47:19

I think both sides do it,... but Rep's ran with it like they stole it this time.
...'cause they know they kinda' did.... :-?

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 09:08:25

No, that’s not true. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it. The understood definition of court packing has always meant adding justices (in this case to the Supreme Court) as a way to achieve goals not achievable through the legislative body. PERIOD.

Argue the diversity of Trump’s picks separately but it is dishonest to lump it under court packing as a means to avoid effectively pleading guilty to committing the act.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 09:12:46

And a future President Harris was wrong to quote a made up comment by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln did not submit a name as a replacement judge because there was no one to submit it to. It’s not like today where are you have email or other methods. The Senate was not in session, there was no way for him to submit a name. But given that all of his supreme court appointments were required to effectively pass a litmus test , had the senate been in session, Lincoln would have submitted a name and it absolutely would have been someone who was required to rule on cases involving the confederacy in a particular way.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by Serowbot on 10/19/20 at 09:31:01

I Googled it,... you're right.

Court packing, simply put, is when more justices are added to the Supreme Court than currently are seated—and has been discussed as a way Democrats might counteract an enduring conservative majority on the court if they win back the Senate and White House in 2020. The term court packing is historically associated with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the late 1930s.

Specifically,... adding more not replacing with partizans...

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by verslagen1 on 10/19/20 at 09:31:52

I'm appalled, 53 you say.

Quote:

U.S. President Barack Obama nominated over four hundred individuals for federal judgeships during his presidency. Of these nominations, Congress confirmed 329 judgeships, 173 during the 111th & 112th Congresses[1] and 156 during the 113th and 114th Congresses.[2]

The most potent filibustering of Obama's nominees occurred in the Republican controlled 114th Congress. Obama nominated 69 people for 104 different federal appellate judgeships during this Congress, and although some nominees were processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, many of them stalled on the floor of the Senate. With the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, in the beginning of a presidential election year, the Republican majority in the Senate made it their stated policy to refuse to consider any nominee to the Supreme Court put forward by Obama, arguing that the next president should be the one to appoint Scalia's replacement. Scalia's death was only the second death of a serving justice in a span of sixty years.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 14:40:10

@Serobot,

If your definition of court packing as adding justices, then it a completely innocuous term.

The premise of my post though is obviously bald faced racism. So let's forget 'court packing' for the moment and address this egregious racism. 53 Judges, appellate court judges, the ones who when overturning lower courts set precedent, which all lower courts have to then follow. These are very powerful judges, most of their cases are not kicked up to the Supreme Court, for further review, most of their judgements become the law of the land.

Of the 53 judges, not a single judge, not one, none at all, as in zero, were b
Black. That is insane. It's the very definition of institutional racism because they set law.

That's the main point that got skirted around by trying to redefine 'court packing'.

Back to the definition of 'adding judges'. The Supreme Court has had anywhere from 5 to 10 judges, there is no specified number in the constitution. Remember the Republicans reduced the number of Judges for nearly one year, in other words, they've already been monkeying around with the numbers.

Court Packing, has an obvious meaning that does not require recourse to a dictionary. For example if Biden added two more Judges and he selected two Judges nominated by the Federalist society. Would the Republicans object. No they would not obviously, would they scream 'court packing' and cry 'foul' No they would not.

Therefore it's obvious that what is meant by 'court packing' or 'branch stacking' is centred on specifically adding partisan persons, by using the constitution to expand the court with people that you choose.

In other words it's simply putting people you choose on the court, which is er how all judges get on the supreme court, one party chooses. However that wasn't deemed a problem with either Ginsburg or Scalia, both had virtually total bipartisan support, 96-3, 98-0

So really court packing which is actually not really a thing, is simply putting your own partisan people in, in a way that is not considered right, or fair, or just because if it was right or fair or just, then it would just be what normally happens.

This is why if Merrick Garland was not unconstitutionally blocked from a Senate hearing, then the Democrats would not now be complaining about Amy Coney Barrett.

Amy Coney Barretts nomination is court packing, if you will or not court packing depending on if it's right just or fair, that Garland was denied.

The question after the election if Biden wins the Senate, which is not that certain, is, should he undo the obvious court packing of the Republicans.

Or maybe simply the threat of doing that will be enough to rein in the Supreme Court from making decisions that the vast majority of Americans do not want.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/19/20 at 14:44:40

I, too, posted the definition of packing , and was told by someone who doesn't care what Has been the definition that it was now
Whatever you want it to be..
Then, when I treated that Bullshit with the derision it deserved,
Amazingly
I got yet another definition.
I folded at that point
And then
Because I folded
Choosing to not engage further
I was
Over my head..

Yeah, Phhht..

If others could be enlightened and accept having actually, by definition, been incorrect and accept what is normal, then the frustration level and animosity that accompanies said frustration, would naturally decline.

Perhaps a word with the unnamed?

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 14:48:35

The understood definition of court packing...

That is specious reasoning. When we discuss or debate things it's proper to define any terms more precisely if those terms have different meanings. The dictionary does not dictate the terms, it's just a general reference.

For example, if we want to debate a topic, 'does god exist', then there is no debate without defining god, as that word means to the people debating it. That is why the recent presidential 'debate' was not a debate, it was just people talking over each other.

So I am defining court packing to mean adding extreme partisan judges by unconstitutional means or even by raw power. Which is what the republicans did, by keeping 200 of Obama's Federal Court appointments vacant for Trump. And notice the word 'extreme' partisan. Garland for example was not considered 'extreme' he was an acceptable choice, but McConnell wanted people like Barrett who have extreme views.

That's how I define it, and if you wish to argue against it you know what I mean. You cannot go to a dictionary of your choice and then tell me, you understand what I mean differently because I just explain what I mean.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 14:51:56

@JoG, as I said above. We aren't debating the meaning of the term Court Packing, we are debating whether it's proper of the Republicans to deny Garland, and then ram home Barrett, and if it's not proper why shouldn't Biden address that?

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by verslagen1 on 10/19/20 at 15:06:46

594640475A5D6C5C6C54464A01330 wrote:

when confronted with the facts, the goalposts are quickly moved.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 15:24:34

when confronted with the facts, the goalposts are quickly moved.

lol. when confronted with the facts, obfuscation is the name of the game. The facts are that 53 Appellate courts judges and not a single one Black, is wrong. Denying Garland and ramming in the extreme Barrett, while people are voting is wrong.

Should Biden right these wrongs if he is given a Senate mandate. This is the thread topic.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 17:39:54

No. Doesn’t work that way. A child can argue that milkshakes in the morning fulfill the requirement for dairy but that’s a child talking and is dismissed for what it is.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 17:41:20

6B796D6E797F7D180 wrote:

Elections have consequences.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/19/20 at 17:54:44

In what way is Barrett
Extreme?

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 18:01:43

No. Doesn’t work that way.

Please explain how it does work, How do you reason that explaining what one means when discussing something is something that 'doesn't work'. I really don't get that at all.

Elections have consequences.

Yes, elections have consequences... and...? that doesn't answer my post you quoted at all.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 18:10:23

796660677A7D4C7C4C74666A21130 wrote:

In what way is Barrett
Extreme?

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 18:25:35

@WM This is not court packing and it has never been defined as court packing.

Fine, call it whatever you like, let's say holding up 200 Federal court judges for Trump which is what McConnell did, and appointing 53 Appellate court judges none of whom is Black, and unconstitutionally refusing to hold a hearing for Garland then ramming through Barrett on a reversal of his phoney pretext, is not 'court packing'. I don't know what you'd call it but it doesn't matter because the question is...

Is it something that Biden should address and if not why not.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 20:14:53

70627675626466030 wrote:

When you change the meaning of words and phrases, we’re not talking about the same thing. Biden wants to pack the court. Trump doesn’t. End. Full stop.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 20:18:50

24362221363032570 wrote:

It wasn’t unconstitutional. They held the Senate.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/19/20 at 20:20:41

5E4C585B4C4A482D0 wrote:

[quote author=796660677A7D4C7C4C74666A21130 link=1603094045/15#15 date=1603155284]In what way is Barrett
Extreme?

She said in her confirmation hearing that the law that makes it legal for married couples to purchase contraception, is not a 'super precedent' and is open to being reversed.

That's just one off the top of my head that comes to mind.[/quote]

You didn’t watch the hearing did you? You watched clips on the news or CNN or MSNBC right?

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/19/20 at 22:24:43

@wm, in fact is is unconstitutional, you haven't read the part of the constitution that deals with the issue of Senate confirmations, have you?

What makes you think I didn't watch Barretts confirmation hearings? Which I did in order to hear for myself because I am interested in the topic. Don't assume that everyone has such a shallow grasp of the facts as you obviously do, which is why I suppose you are unable to answer with anything other than "it's unconstitutional" hoping you'll get lucky.

What about the 53 Judges none of whom were Black, do you think that Biden should address that? Do you think it's representative of the US, or representative of racist Republicans. They couldn't even bring themselves to insert a token Black, that's how racist they are, it's more important that the law of the land is established by white folks only, no matter how bad it looks.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/20 at 05:39:21

No, you didn’t watch the hearings and certainly not with a discerning ear.

The super-precedent is a scholarly approach others agree with and is certainly based on common sense. And had you listened to the hearings and other witnesses, you would have heard that. And you would have heard part of that definition is based upon the fact that some legislative body would have to debate and pass legislation going against established principles from one of these super precedents.

For example a legislative body would have to pass legislation overturning the foundational principles behind Brown versus the Board of Education. After that, an injured party would file suit and a lower court would need to rule in favor of the legislation. That would need to repeat itself as the process moved upwards through the system, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. The likelihood of that happening is beyond the description of unlikely. For that to happen, the nation would be in such disarray, we would have long since ceased being the United States of America. There is wide consensus on five or six of these super-precedents and she listed them all. Go look it up.

Roe v. Wade is precedent , and strong precedent , but it’s not a super precedent . The fact that there are court cases constantly, protest, elections are won or loss based upon someone’s abortion view, clearly and without question defines Roe v. Wade as less than a super precedent.

But, it’s unlikely that that would be overturned without dozens and dozens of states passing state laws outlawing abortion as provided by Roe v. Wade. Now there will likely be further restrictions. I think a lot of people would agree with certain parental consent laws and restrictions on late term. But Roe v. Wade as it originally was written is not going anywhere.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/20/20 at 13:50:30

Well I'll say again I watched the debate, so you keep saying I didn't is obviously you projecting.

Why are you even in this thread if you persistently refuse to address the 53 Appellate court judges, none of whom are Black? Do you think that's representative of the US population.

"Super Precedent" is actually not a thing.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRXYd9Icqi0
[/media]

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/20 at 15:11:16

There was a discussion during Neil Gorsuch’s hearing on the topic. It’s an established legal topic of debate. Again, if your video is claiming this is not a thing or something she made up, like I said, you didn’t watch the hearings, you watched a few clips.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/20/20 at 16:11:02

If people opine about 'super precedent' or what is not a 'super precedent' then of course it's a topic. Obviously it's a 'topic'. Unquestionable it's a topic'. Everything that is discussed is a 'topic'.

But it is not a thing. And by that I mean, it is not a legal doctrine. Same as 'court packing'. It's a topic, it mainly referenced the 1937 attempt but other people use it in different ways but however it's used, like 'super precedent' it is not a 'thing', it's not a legal doctrine. Whether it's right, or wrong, whether it's against the 'spririt' of the law are arguable. But it's not a doctrine. It's more an historical reference point. Roosevelt's plan was not illegal.

So super precedent is not a doctrine. And in that sense it's not a thing, that has any legal meanings. In fact by Barrett's own testimony it's a label that different brands of textualism will apply differently. In other words as Kirschner pointed out, it's just a word to hide ones ideology behind.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/20/20 at 16:17:54

Great article in the WaPo on Biden's alternatives to 'court packing' as it were.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/20/biden-court-packing-alternatives/

There is, however, a better way for Democrats to achieve their policy goals without responding to Republican court-packing with court-packing of their own.

For if Democrats are able to expand the Supreme Court, then they could just as well use the same legislative power to overturn many of the worst decisions of the Rehnquist and Roberts courts over the last 30 years and stymie a new conservative majority on the court in its quest to dismantle the regulatory state.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by WebsterMark on 10/21/20 at 05:47:27

Again, you’ve simply wrong. Super-precedent is an accepted line of thinking when the topic is stari decisive. Had you watched the hearing, you would have noticed no one questioned or misunderstood the term. It’s been a part of the discussion for years. The debatable point is what qualifies as a super-precedent.

You can continue to redefine words and phrases all you want and hyper-partisans will foolishly fall for it.
Court packing means one thing and one thing only.
Super-precedent is a mainstream line of thinking how to view legal precedents.

You want to make a point about court diversity, go ahead, but I have no interest if the term court packing is redefined so as to be included. You’ve convinced yourself it is so I’m yak it up all you want.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/21/20 at 14:14:38

Again, you’ve simply wrong. Super-precedent is an accepted line of thinking when the topic is stari decisive.

Yeah well it's not up to you to declare whatever you want to be true by unilateral decision with absolutely nothing to back you up.

I won't bother quoting from this 2005 article on the origins of 'super precedent' but you'll see that it means whatever an ideological judge wants it to mean. For some 'Roe v Wade' is 'super precedent' for others like Barrett, it is not. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/so-do-you-believe-in-superprecedent.html

Super precedent, ostensibly is a form of an untouchable stare decisis. But if what is untouchable is simply a matter of opinion then there is effectively no such thing as 'super precedent' that has any meaning. This is why we have 4/4 decisions in some cases.

But this article may interest you, or at least keep you awake at night, it contains a bewildering array of heavy weapons other than so called 'court packing', that a Democratic congress can use to address a rogue Supreme Court. https://www.vox.com/21514454/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-packing-voting-rights

Let's hope the Democrats use their time wisely.

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by MnSpring on 10/25/20 at 16:46:40

5C4E5A594E484A2F0 wrote:

... Why are you even in this thread if you persistently refuse to address the 53 Appellate court judges, none of whom are Black? Do you think that's representative of the US population ...

So, you are totally in favor of,
selecting a person, to do a job,
Not by who is best to do that job,
but on the color of their skin.

So you need a Doctor/Attorney/Electrician/Car Mechanic, Etc. Etc. Etc. ... ... ... ... ...
You will select on Skin Color, rather than ability.

OK GOT IT !

;D
;D
;D
;D
;D
;D
;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Trump appointed 53 appellate court judges.
Post by eau de sauvage on 10/25/20 at 17:37:14

@Mn,

Oh the irony. Reread your own post and see if you can spot the irony. Scroll down for answer....
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes, that is correct, the 53 appellate court Judges were selected by skin colour, among other things like being complete toadies and/or as per the American Bar Association, "unqualified".

Are you suggesting that there are no black persons at all, qualified to do the job, even though that many of the selected white people were rated "unqualified", by the ABA.

So you would then be suggesting that of all the legal people to choose from every single black person is less qualified to do the job than the white people who were rated as "unqualified".

Obviously absurd. So why would McConnell lean so heavily to white appointees? The answer is that the qualities he wanted was ones who are complete toadies.

For example Judge Rao, who was appointed to the Appellate court and also rated "unqualified" managed to convince one of the other appellate court judges to come over to her side and her reasoning in the case was "widely mocked".

The issue was so important that the full appellate court (en banc) sat to rehear the case and they promptly threw it out.