The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[All-American]

Two weeks ago AA was saying he and I’m assuming other lawyer friends were going to end up voting for Trump over an action that hasn’t even happened yet.

I have never said I would vote for Trump.

And I don't have any friends. I'm fat and I'm stupid. We've been over this, fus.

[UVACoug]

Look at his approval rating in the GOP.

Look at Romneys polls vs Trumps in Utah.

Read the posts of any cross section in this forum.

I’m born and raised in Utah and have been frequenting BYU slanted message boards for 17 years and I’ve read or heard very little push back to Trumps bloviating.

Two weeks ago AA was saying he and I’m assuming other lawyer friends were going to end up voting for Trump over an action that hasn’t even happened yet. KatyLied and dabrockster are so terrified of Kamala and ‘who is really running Joe Biden’ that they might vote for Trump.

You specifically referenced conservatives "here," which I presume means posters on this board. Not sure how national approval ratings or polls of Utah in general have anything to do with what people are saying here. And I have read nearly all the political posts on this board over the last several months, and don't recall seeing any of what you are describing. There are a couple of Trump supporters. A few non-Trump supporters that defend him from time to time. And many conservatives that have been firmly against Trump for the last 4 years. But I haven't seen anyone who has said they are switching from not supporting him to supporting him because of court packing. Sounds like a made up complaint to me.

[fusnik]

I don’t post, rarely log in but, forgive me if I’m wrong read AA post that he had multiple friends that were leaning Trump over concerns of court packing. He, now I may be wrong, said he was considering it as well.

To me that is insanity. It’s shocking really that someone as intelligent and presumably as accomplished as AA would vote for Trump over the slim possibility of court packing.

As far others here are concerned give me an hour and I’m sure I can find plenty of support. This forum is almost unreadable because of UTs involvement. Another abortion in itself.

Let me summarize this board over the past 4 years:

UT deranged posts
Frank raising alarms
People like you post nuanced crap to justify Trump/GOP behavior
NS wishing Trump dies
wapiti electronically wearing a MAGA hat while saying he doesn’t support the president just policies
More UT 4chan memes
SU telling people that mask wearing is dumb in cars

[Jarid in Cedar]

I think you are referring to AA's friends voting for Trump again because there was another SC nomination in the mix. Now that the confirmation and voting will occur before the election, that talk may have subsided.

[beefytee]

The biggest difference in failing to fill seats vs court packing that I see is that one is easily reversible and the other is not.

If there are empty seats, they just get filled when someone is willing to fill them. There is no undoing court packing.

[Applejack]

Two more interesting (if you are into politics) things about the court-packing/nomination issue:

1. I thought Trump would slow roll this nomination, allowing this issue to carry the day and give him a boost on election day ("I hate the guy, but he nominates conservative justices and there is an opening now, so..."). The fact that repubs did the opposite and are high-tailing to get this through the senate tells me that they know that they are unlikely to retain the presidency and/or the senate so they have to act now. Otherwise, we wouldn't you let it play out a little bit?

2. Why aren't the dems saying that they won't support court-packing? I have briefly described why it is a twitter pipe dream to pack the court, but there must have been some backroom meeting two or three weeks ago when EVERY dem was instructed not to answer that question. Biden (who has consistently opposed court packing) is suddenly mum as are numerous senate candidates who previously disavowed it. And it's not popular--you aren't gaining any votes right now by not talking about it and letting fox news publish multiple stories a day about the topic. I can only speculate but I think it could be because democrats view 1. the presidency as all but sealed up () and 2. most senate seats as pretty much set how they are going to come out and 3. viewing it as a negotiating chip with the repubs--i.e., ok, we won't pack the court (even though we could) in exchange for X.

What is X? DC statehood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Applejack]

Also, as a historical matter, the Supreme Court used to be six, so just expanding the court is not something to be afraid of on a constitutional level.

Still is a bad idea.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Two more interesting (if you are into politics) things about the court-packing/nomination issue:

1. I thought Trump would slow roll this nomination, allowing this issue to carry the day and give him a boost on election day ("I hate the guy, but he nominates conservative justices and there is an opening now, so..."). The fact that repubs did the opposite and are high-tailing to get this through the senate tells me that they know that they are unlikely to retain the presidency and/or the senate so they have to act now. Otherwise, we wouldn't you let it play out a little bit?

2. Why aren't the dems saying that they won't support court-packing? I have briefly described why it is a twitter pipe dream to pack the court, but there must have been some backroom meeting two or three weeks ago when EVERY dem was instructed not to answer that question. Biden (who has consistently opposed court packing) is suddenly mum as are numerous senate candidates who previously disavowed it. And it's not popular--you aren't gaining any votes right now by not talking about it and letting fox news publish multiple stories a day about the topic. I can only speculate but I think it could be because democrats view 1. the presidency as all but sealed up () and 2. most senate seats as pretty much set how they are going to come out and 3. viewing it as a negotiating chip with the repubs--i.e., ok, we won't pack the court (even though we could) in exchange for X.

What is X? DC statehood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good post. Has to be something like that.

[All-American]

Let me be clear about where I am and where I have been.

I did not vote for Trump in 2016. I don't think I ever considered voting for Trump in 2016. I didn't vote for Hillary either, but if you had held a gun to my head and said I had to pick one, I would probably have gone with Hillary so we could run against her in 2020. (Actually I probably would have asked you to just pull the trigger, but no matter.)

When I saw the lineup of 2020 Democratic candidates, my plan had been to do the same this year: vote for someone else and continue to lament that our primary systems are failing us so badly. To my surprise (relief?), instead of nominating one of the fringe crazies (like Bernie, Warren, or Harris), Democrats went with a comparatively moderate candidate with years of experience playing the game of politics. At that point I was presumptively for Biden, if for no other reason than to acknowledge that Democrats had a chance to pull a crazy move like what Republicans did in 2020 and opted not to.

Biden spent every waking moment walking me off of that presumption since. The Harris VP pick was just bad. The vacant SCOTUS seat didn't change my mind much, though I've seen it affect others including a few die-hard never-Trumpers. Speaking for myself, I would have been more compelled to vote for Trump if he had pledged to leave it open and let voters decide who would fill it, but that's not what he did. I'd be content to score that win and let Biden take the reins-- and happy to do so if Republicans could keep the Senate.

But it is increasingly probable that Democrats will control both chambers and the White House. As calls for court packing have continued to arise-- and as Democrats increasingly refuse to renounce it, and even begin promoting it-- I'm increasingly convinced that giving Democrats the chance to do that would have grave consequences. It is good to see at least some left-minded friends acknowledge that court packing is a terrible idea and should not be entertained, but at some point we will be on notice that it is on the table. And, yes, that has me wavering.

If I were voting today I'd write in Romney. Or maybe Zach Wilson. Ask me again in a week or two and it might not be the same.

[All-American]

Also, as a historical matter, the Supreme Court used to be six, so just expanding the court is not something to be afraid of on a constitutional level.

Still is a bad idea.

If you could get both sides to agree to it, and to put up however many new justices would be acceptable to both sides and not change the ideological balance, there would be nothing to be afraid of.

But let's be real. The reason we are hearing whispers about court packing has nothing to do with the inherent flaws of a nine-member court or the superiority of a court with thirteen Justices.

[Bo Diddley]

I think it's only talk. Sure there are some who are serious, but cooler heads will prevail. There was also talk that the Dems were going to impeach Kavanaugh. But I think that too was just talk. Still, all such talk works to undermine the institution of the SC, much more so than what the GOP did in the election year.

[fusnik]

The biggest difference in failing to fill seats vs court packing that I see is that one is easily reversible and the other is not.

If there are empty seats, they just get filled when someone is willing to fill them. There is no undoing court packing.

Can we reverse Gorsuch and the 100+ judicial nominations Obama should have had?

Again Trump brings the worst of us to light.

AA going to write in Romney a man who voted to impeach Trump over voting for the moderate. I heard for years if the dems just put up someone moderate I’ll gladly vote for the Ds. The Dems literally crush Bernie and Warren and replace them with a moderate and a hawk AG and republicans still looking for reasons to come home.

Conservatives make fun of liberal TDS, Trump has literally broken the brains of millions of adults. It’s incredible.

Lest we forget Trump endorsed a child predator! Trump paid off a porn star! Trump owes 400 million with no real means except grift you pay it back!

But yeah let’s have 4 more years of Jr and Jared and Miller.

GTFO.

[fusnik]

I think it's only talk. Sure there are some who are serious, but cooler heads will prevail. There was also talk that the Dems were going to impeach Kavanaugh. But I think that too was just talk. Still, all such talk works to undermine the institution of the SC, much more so than what the GOP did in the election year.

It’s called leverage.

If Biden wins and the dems keep the house and lose the Senate, Joe can go in and say I want X, and if you fuck around I’ll do Y.

If Joe wins and senate and house control is the dems you won’t hear court packing or DC statehood, etc ever again except on Fox News when Ted Cruz pontificates on all the liberal justices Biden is appointing and how they need to stop them.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Can we reverse Gorsuch and the 100+ judicial nominations Obama should have had?

Again Trump brings the worst of us to light.

AA going to write in Romney a man who voted to impeach Trump over voting for the moderate. I heard for years if the dems just put up someone moderate I’ll gladly vote for the Ds. The Dems literally crush Bernie and Warren and replace them with a moderate and a hawk AG and republicans still looking for reasons to come home.

Conservatives make fun of liberal TDS, Trump has literally broken the brains of millions of adults. It’s incredible.

Lest we forget Trump endorsed a child predator! Trump paid off a porn star! Trump owes 400 million with no real means except grift you pay it back!

But yeah let’s have 4 more years of Jr and Jared and Miller.

GTFO.

Well, I just put up a poll. Let's see how this shakes out.

[Pelado]

Two more interesting (if you are into politics) things about the court-packing/nomination issue:

1. I thought Trump would slow roll this nomination, allowing this issue to carry the day and give him a boost on election day ("I hate the guy, but he nominates conservative justices and there is an opening now, so..."). The fact that repubs did the opposite and are high-tailing to get this through the senate tells me that they know that they are unlikely to retain the presidency and/or the senate so they have to act now. Otherwise, we wouldn't you let it play out a little bit?

2. Why aren't the dems saying that they won't support court-packing? I have briefly described why it is a twitter pipe dream to pack the court, but there must have been some backroom meeting two or three weeks ago when EVERY dem was instructed not to answer that question. Biden (who has consistently opposed court packing) is suddenly mum as are numerous senate candidates who previously disavowed it. And it's not popular--you aren't gaining any votes right now by not talking about it and letting fox news publish multiple stories a day about the topic. I can only speculate but I think it could be because democrats view 1. the presidency as all but sealed up () and 2. most senate seats as pretty much set how they are going to come out and 3. viewing it as a negotiating chip with the repubs--i.e., ok, we won't pack the court (even though we could) in exchange for X.

What is X? DC statehood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think Biden has any intention of packing the court. I think he's refusing to disavow it so that Senate Democrats have a bargaining chip against the confirmation of ACB. I still expect to see Republicans call the bluff and move forward with the confirmation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk