Dem leadership will make judicial changes

[mysteryowl]

Biden said there would be a bipartisan group given 6 months to come up with how to change our judicial system to clean up the issue of it being political.

We can expect changes are yet to come. It is reassuring.

[CincyDem]

1. We win the WH, we win the Senate and we win the House. 6 months is 25% of our power hour.

Who knows what happens in 2022. If we've got the WH and congress there is no f'ing was we should spend 6 months, AKA 25% of our power term, trying to cut a deal with the devil.

I've been taught for 6 years that "elections have consequences motherf'cker"...so it's time to take the lesson out for a spin for a couple years.

[Boogiemack]

52. Can we just wait until we win to keep discussing this?

Constant discussion of this in the media and among social media is giving rise to some Independents and anti-Trump GOP second thoughts about not voting for Trump. We can always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This plus the rioting in Philly...justified or not..is energizing some sleeping voters among our opposition.

[lagomorph777]

59. Yeah, because it's a secret?

Please - everybody knows this has to be done. We have to set the stage NOW or Biden really will fritter away 6 months.

[sarcasmo]

2. I'm no fan of this 6 months deal. The GOP wouldn't wait 6 months.

[notinkansas]

24. Bingo!

We can't wait six months.

[Sunsky]

31. I agree

Hit them hard and fast. We don't need time for them to create distractions (they will try) and the media to create a negative narrative, then we cave.

[OnDoutside]

54. Let's see what the SC strikes down. If they kill pre-existing conditions, on Nov 10th, expect all

hell to break loose.

[sarcasmo]

62. Agreed.

[vercetti2021]

3. I think they'll change their tone when the election is over

If we take it all. They'll change their tone and restore balance

[mysteryowl]

5. I am really glad Kamala will be VP to light a fire under Biden.

She won't tolerate delays. There is so much work to do all at once!

[vercetti2021]

8. Yep

But Pelosi and Schumer aren't gonna go quietly. It's a street fight now.

[mysteryowl]

14. We The People will put pressure on our own party to

get a move on and be progressive!

[Budi]

26. Tell me how many times in 2016 when 'Progressives' were campaigning ...

Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2020, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)

...did they ever mention the Supreme Court.

How about NEVER .

Establishment
Wall Street
Supreme Court? Never a freakin mention.

While the progs were campaigning against the Democratic Party, the warnings from Dem leaders of how serious the consideration of a liberal Supreme Court was, that warning was flat out ignored.

So please don't give us the rah rah 'get a move on and be progressive' talk tonight.

The warnings were sounded loud & clear.
Right now, tonight, the 'progressive wing' really has some proving to do to convince us that thet aren't going to wait for hindsight to motivate them again.

Pardon me, I am livid at the deafness & lack of foresight when the warnings of years of experienced voices were all around them.

A bunch of naive people just plain old fucked up.
50 years of long hard fighting for the right for females to even wear slacks instead of skirts, Vote, or hold a political seat in our US Congress, was completely erased from history tonight.

Our Democratic Party has always been the ones that moved progress of, by & for the people. We had no other choice. That fight was already won. We needed to 'progress' it further with the SC.

Democrats sounded the SC alarm.
In have no idea why some failed to see it as serious as it was.

We fought hard for the freedom that as females, they now enjoy & they ignored the warnings of those who had already been there, you know,.. the 'establishment'. They traded it away for the promise of free stuff.
That's what happened to bring us to this tragic night.

You damned right we are pissed at the naivete of a demographic that had it already in there hands. We expected them to carry the torch of those hard fought rights forward. Seat the SC to protect it & someday codify it into law.

Thanks for nothing. We women of the Democratic Party were already progressive long before this demographic was ever born.

[P.C.L.D.]

27. thank you

I will never stop being angry about 2016 until this mess is over

[betsuni]

29. THANK YOU!

[Gothmog]

35. Great post

[mysteryowl]

36. This graphic from a study shows you are wrong. Democrats have moved right since 2000.

The party moves right trying to compromise with republicans and they just compromise our party.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/republican-party-autocratic-hungary-turkey-study-trump


I often get posts like yours on DU when every I talk about progressives, for DU is on the conservative side of the democratic party.
Look at the cheering squad of comments you got, which reinforces my point.

[Budi]

45. You mean the year 2000 when Again, the 3rd party split the Fla vote

Giving us oil man Bush, instead of Al Gore who even then was sounding the alarm on climate change and wanted to do something about it as President?

That 2000?

[George II]

49. "Look at the cheering squad of comments you got, which reinforces my point." - what point is that?

[Budi]

53. Sounds like an us against them statement rather than the unity we need to..

..meet the extreme challenges a most perfectly left Democrat like Biden will be dealing with.

It's horribly divisive at a time when give & take is necessary to correct the blatant wtf's of 2000 & 2016.

IMO
💙

[brer cat]

39. I wish I could rec this post!

[George II]

44. Brava! Some people should have lived through the 50s, 60s, and 70s. This wasn't all handed.....

....to Americans back then, they (we) had to fight for it.

Back then people didn't sit behind their keyboards, on their phones, on Twitter or TikTok or Instagram or Twitch sending "memes" and playing video games. They were out in the streets or meeting with (meeting WITH) their legislators, working to make things better for everyone. They didn't refuse to vote because the candidates weren't "pure" enough.

Things weren't the way they are today. There was rampant racial and gender discrimination. Women couldn't get credit cards, or mortgages, or car loans. They couldn't get certain jobs. They were excluded from clubs and organizations. African Americans couldn't rent in certain areas or also couldn't get credit at banks and merchants or get mortgages. Neighborhoods were red-lined.

Thankfully due to the hard work of people decades ago, most of that is gone.

Now, unfortunately, some of the gains of previous generations are threatened because some feel our candidate(s) aren't "pure enough" or "progressive" enough. They either refuse to vote or vote for "protest" candidates, as useless as not voting at all. They smugly stand on "principle" and ideals, while everything that was handed to them and took for granted is going to disappear.

[Budi]

46. Exactly right George ll.

Thank you

[Budi]

47. Sounds more regressive than progressive

Thankfully due to the hard work of people decades ago, most of that is gone.

Now, unfortunately, some of the gains of previous generations are threatened because some feel our candidate(s) aren't "pure enough" or "progressive" enough. They either refuse to vote or vote for "protest" candidates, as useless as not voting at all. They smugly stand on "principle" and ideals, while everything that was handed to them and took for granted is going to disappear.

The more they speak the less faith I have in that demographic 😬

[mcar]

51. Well said!

[still_one]

57. +++

[ehrnst]

61. Yep! (nt)

[NurseJackie]

28. Oh, brother!

[betsuni]

30. What does "Pelosi and Schumer aren't gonna go quietly" mean?

[Thekaspervote]

10. They better!! 6 months is too much time to waste when we may have only 2 yrs

Midterms notoriously are a loss for the president in power

[vercetti2021]

11. Maybe

But people are gonna want the Trump stench out. 2022 could be a good year too

[Moostache]

4. I'm serious about getting 45-yr old liberal firebrands and installing 4 of them at once...

No hearings in committee needed...or a cursory floor vote really...fuck it, if we have the votes, make it like an intentional walk in baseball now...just send them to the bench and be done with it.

[mysteryowl]

9. They need to change more than the Supreme court.

With the 200 + radical judges put on courts across the country, there is a lot of work to do there as well.

[OnDoutside]

55. Only 4 ? A dozen of them has a better ring to it.

[Karadeniz]

6. 1) They don't need 6 months. 2) bipartisan means an element of hard right, the last thing justice

Needs. 3) impeach Thomas, perjuring financial documents
4) investigate obstruction of Kavanaugh probe. 5) add justices

[mysteryowl]

12. Notice how the only "bipartisan" talk is from the Dems.

The democratic party is getting more and more conservative in the name of compromise. I say screw that!

[lagomorph777]

60. "Bipartisan" is a mirage; how is that not blatantly obvious by now?

We don't have time to waste; America is DYING. Steamroll over the assholes.

[Thekaspervote]

13. Impeaching a justice just like a potus takes a 2/3rds majority

[Blue Owl]

7. K&R

[PlanetBev]

15. I think the pressure on Biden to expand the court will not be something he can ignore

People are really angry about this. It’s beyond hypocritical.

Republicans are engaged in the wholesale destruction of democracy. We don’t have the luxury of six months. If this is not moved on quickly, it will be too late to reverse the slide into complete autocratic rule.

[mysteryowl]

17. I have been hearing about more options than adding to the court.

They can move justices back their state supreme courts or where ever they came from. I guess this is something that can be done.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. No it's not possible to demote a SCOTUS Justice. Nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. It will be up to the people to hold their feet to the fire. Nt

[roamer65]

16. It all rides on taking the Senate and killing the filibuster.

[Ell09]

18. Not reassured

Personally I see no reason for a "bipartisan" group to study this. We've seen what the Republicans have done to the Courts for the last 8 years and they have finally achieved their end goal which they have been working towards for decades. So my questions would be: who are the Republicans that would be qualified to be part of this group? Everyone on that side of the aisle that was ins the Senate actively supported denying Garland, appointing Kavanaugh, rushing a nomination after RBG, and appointing Amy Coney Barrett who is clearly unqualified for the Supreme Court regardless of your political leanings.

I understand the measured approach this close to the election. Simply don't rock the boat, don't create a potential distraction from COVID, the Economy, and Trump in general that gives people a reason to vote for the Republicans. That said, the only way I will feel reassured on this issue is if the Supreme Court is expanded to 13 (or current unfit Justices are removed and replaced) and something is done to rectify all the lower court positions that were stolen from Obama and all of the lower court positions that were rammed through during the Trump administration. I simply don't trust our leadership to fight hard enough. 6 months in to the Biden Presidency is June. The general public will have forgot all about RBG and her wish by then. If COVID-19 isn't under control at that time Biden could be underwater in the polls by then. If we take the Senate and Biden wins, we must act on "unpacking" the courts immediately. We have an entire branch of Government that is supposed to be Independent that has now become an arm of the Republican Party. There is no greater threat to our democracy right now (IMHO). If we learned anything from Obama''s first big win, it's that spending time trying to appeal to a compromise with the other side only results in getting less done. We have to be in "attack" mode the minute Biden is sworn in.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. 6 months will be plenty of time for a well funded opposition ad campaign

Remember Harry and Louise and their worries about Hillarycare in the 90’s? Killed that initiative dead before the ink was dry on the study.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. Our side needs a bigger, better ad campaign.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. Our side needs to act swiftly and ruthlessly- no ads necessary. Nt

[area51]

56. THIS. n/t

[FakeNoose]

48. Right - there was no "bipartisan" activity while the Repukes were in charge

They held closed door meetings and never even informed the Democratic committee members or allowed them a vote. The Senate Repukes for the last 10 years have been completely autocratic in every way.

Let them see what it's like.

We need to undo all the damage, THEN maybe we can allow them to have a say.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. My concern is, by next summer, some senatorial spines may jellify

I’m talking about DiFi, Manchin and Sinema - Schumer better be ready to put them all in the Steve King Club (no Committee assignments, only floor votes) if they balk.

[Ell09]

23. Agreed

I am worried about my potential Senator coming out of Iowa in Greenfield. She's said she's not in favor of "packing" the courts in a debate and also is running ads talking about her ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans. Granted, she could simply be trying to appeal to the mythical "middle" but it's not exactly reassuring. I think back to all those representatives from states like Oklahoma that won election on Obama's coattails in '08 who didn't want to/refused to vote for the more progressive legislation that was suggested early in his first term. Those representatives lost their next races anyway, but they erroneously thought that they could hold on to their seats by not doing anything they deemed liberal.

I think you are completely right that the longer we wait, the more spines will jellify. I just hope we have enough sturdy spines in January to start the process.

[LovingA2andMI]

25. More Like Six Days.....

Bipartisan my a**. Expand The Court! Period!

[JCMach1]

32. How did that bipartisanship work out for Obama?

After what they just pulled they have to be crushed straight away: SCOTUS to 13 and statehood for DC and if PR wants it.

[mysteryowl]

37. Yep

[Tribetime]

33. 6 days should be all...what's going to happen to

People with no health insurance. They don't have 6 months.

[mysteryowl]

38. Agreed.

[Buckeyeblue]

40. However it's done it needs to make sense and not look overly partisan

Obviously to get this passed, Democrats will have had to win the presidency and retake the Senate. I think then we'll have to look at the size of the victory to see the size of the voter mandate.

Whatever the new process, Republicans have to be included, even if we drag them along.

I also think Biden should make a major human rights speech where he says that we've neglected our own house while giving the rest of the world advice. The speech should say that for far too long we have depended on a court tainted by political derision to recognize and bless, and in some cases grant, basic human rights. The speech needs to indicate that we need to do better. That our members of congress need to leave the biasis of their constituents at home. And we need to legislate to an America the holds up as proof of our greatness the individual freedoms our citizens enjoy.

[mysteryowl]

41. And, to remove the religious right from infecting politics.

[Buckeyeblue]

43. That's the subtext, right?

I think we have to also protect religious liberties. And we need to call that out.

[Statistical]

42. Why a delay? The sense of urgency is high now. Six months after inaguration the here and now

will involve other crisis and emergencies. Some report from some bipartisan group will quickly be forgotten.

[lagomorph777]

58. Six months is waaaaay too long. SCROTUS will dismantle the nation in that time.

Need to unpack it as ITEM 1 on the agenda.