[jedrider]

The idea that a conservative six to three court would install a candidate that had obviously lost the electoral college is ludicrous.
They might bring an end to the debate as they did with Gore Vs. Bush but they would always come down on the side of the candidate that had carried the most electoral college votes.
They are conservative. They do not change the rules. They go by them.

Sure they do. You have too much faith that the definition of conservatism is also the definition of the American Way. If push comes to shove, they will pick conservative over American. They'll do it because they can't see that the thing they detest is the thing they should love. All they need is the letter of the law, they don't need the spirit.

Well let us agree to disagree on that one as it is just my opinion against your opinion. In just a couple of weeks or so we can see what they actually do in real time and then we can have more then idle speculation to discuss.

Yes. I don't want to push this. I only bring it up because I feel badly about the situation. That's enough to mention it, but not to stress it.

Plenty of room to feel badly about the situation. On Democracy Now, they highlighted how ideological (as in Republicans win-win, not necessarily in conservatism of itself is good) is Kavahnaught and Amy and how a recent decision had an opinion by Kava(I can't spell it, but it ends in a naught!) that was sophomoric and inaccurate and that three of the justices were all on the Florida board that stopped the recount and gave the 2000 election to Bush. Anyway, the Supreme Court is now interwined with the around the corner counting of the election results.

My own prediction is that the election will not be close and the Supreme Court will stay out of it, but these all make good betting opportunities.

[vtsnowedin]

My own prediction is that the election will not be close and the Supreme Court will stay out of it, but these all make good betting opportunities.

A week ago I would have agreed with you but I see it drawing closer day by day.
Two terrible candidates and it is coming down to the lessor of two weasels.

[AdamB]

Two terrible candidates and it is coming down to the lessor of two weasels.

Our oligarchs have offered up two brands from the same product line that we might feel good about our choice!! All of us citizens seem happy with the arrangement, and as long as we are, two brands of the same product line is what we'll get!!

Either choice bankrupts the country, either choice gives some folks what they want, guns for those, socialized something or another for the other, political correctness in favor of the winning brand, and so on and so forth.

[Newfie]

Two terrible candidates and it is coming down to the lessor of two weasels.

Our oligarchs have offered up two brands from the same product line that we might feel good about our choice!! All of us citizens seem happy with the arrangement, and as long as we are, two brands of the same product line is what we'll get!!

Either choice bankrupts the country, either choice gives some folks what they want, guns for those, socialized something or another for the other, political correctness in favor of the winning brand, and so on and so forth.

This points to why I personally believe voting is pointless.

IF I were to engage in the political area it would he to lobby for various structural reforms to assure this farce does bot reoccur.

Campaign finance reform
Term limits
How Presidential candidates are selected
How Representatives are selected

I am sure there are additional worthy changes, this is just my list.

We can expect repeats of past failures until we fix the system.

[AdamB]

We can expect repeats of past failures until we fix the system.

Think of it more as features, not failures! Aren't democratic republics supposed to get the government we deserve?

[vtsnowedin]

It is nice to see that the conservative court is not just a rubber stamp for GOP positions.

A woman and man pray outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2020, the day after the Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to become a Supreme Court Justice. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

WASHINGTON (AP) — North Carolina, yes. Pennsylvania, yes. Wisconsin, no. That’s how the Supreme Court has answered questions in recent days about an extended timeline for receiving and counting ballots in those states.

In each case, Democrats backed the extensions and Republicans opposed them. All three states have Democratic governors and legislatures controlled by the GOP.

At first blush, the difference in the outcomes at the Supreme Court seems odd because the high court typically takes up issues to harmonize the rules across the country. But elections are largely governed by states, and the rules differ from one state to the next.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 242b633cdf

[Tanada]

It is nice to see that the conservative court is not just a rubber stamp for GOP positions.

A woman and man pray outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2020, the day after the Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to become a Supreme Court Justice. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

WASHINGTON (AP) — North Carolina, yes. Pennsylvania, yes. Wisconsin, no. That’s how the Supreme Court has answered questions in recent days about an extended timeline for receiving and counting ballots in those states.

In each case, Democrats backed the extensions and Republicans opposed them. All three states have Democratic governors and legislatures controlled by the GOP.

At first blush, the difference in the outcomes at the Supreme Court seems odd because the high court typically takes up issues to harmonize the rules across the country. But elections are largely governed by states, and the rules differ from one state to the next.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 242b633cdf

If you read the whole thing the Supremes upheld the acts of legislatures in PA & NC but vertirned the action of an activist judge in Wisconsin. I see this as fully in line with how the court system is supposed to work.

[vtsnowedin]

If you read the whole thing the Supremes upheld the acts of legislatures in PA & NC but overturned the action of an activist judge in Wisconsin. I see this as fully in line with how the court system is supposed to work.

As do I.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I thought that dollar is going to be inflating but in my wildest dreams I was not suspecting that Supreme Court is going to be inflating too!

There will be 13 judges, one for each district if all goes well:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3bPDmDHrc4E/

This will just give Democrats an edge.

But it wont end up there.
If Democrats ever lose before collapse of United States then Republicans will surely get an idea that each state should have SC judge - and hey presto - there will be 50 of them, each new nominated by Republicans.

But Democrats won't give up easy - they will make every municipality to have SCOTUS judge.

And then there will be an inflation of municipalities and inflation of SCOTUS judges!

Every block of flats or cul-de-sac will become to be a municipality and get its own SCOTUS judge!
10 millions of SCOTUS judges by the end of XXI century and that is just the beginning.

Finally every American will become to be a municipality and appoint himself to be a SCOTUS judge

[vtsnowedin]

If a fifty-one to fifty vote in the Senate can change the number from nine to thirteen in 2021 then just a fifty-one to fifty vote in 2023 can change it back again and add in some forced retirements to achieve that goal.
The Democrats are desperate to get their ideas in place this biennium because they can see how slim their chances are for the 2022 midterm election.
If they also foolishly get rid of the 60 vote filibuster now they will find they can't get that back in 2023 and will have shot themselves in both feet.
If the rest of Biden Harris policy works out as poorly as the border crossings are they will go down as a one term presidency on par with the Carter administration.

[Pops]

The Supreme Court was a good idea, lifetime tenure and appointment by politicians via the luck-O-the-draw not so much. Here is another example where Rs play the game better, they've been concentrating on packing the judiciary since Row v Wade while the Ds haggle over what color hat to wear. Any and everyone knew that trump would get at least one justice if elected but they pissed their votes away and he got 3. Oh well.

The US might collapse but it won't be from Justice inflation I don't think, amusing as it is. Pretty sure expanding the number won't happen even though Ds are pretty pissed about McConnells power grab. If the US collapses it will be because the Rs have decided against power sharing and working for the good of the country but rather "governing" like trump by prioritizing punishing their opponents and rewarding their base.

The picking of SCOTUS judges should be change though, not random chance IOW. Maybe fixed terms so every POTUS gets to appoint one. A 36 year term is still a long time, maybe 18 years. the "term limited" judges would go down a notch to the appeals court if they want (the constitution calls for tenure).

I read somewhere that there isn't popular support for more seats but there is for term limits.

[Pops]

If the rest of Biden Harris policy works out as poorly as the border crossings are they will go down as a one term presidency on par with the Carter administration.

Anyone that worried about border crossings didn't vote for Biden in the first place. They have a 53-40" approval at the moment. That's about as good as it gets nowadays, Obama floated between 45-55% and trump was even more consistent at 37-42% generally.

Rs are in decline, Biden's numbers are essentially the partys' numbers, Ds and D-leaners are 49% to Rs 40% per Gallup. Even discounting "shy" (read: ashamed) trump voters, that is a big advantage. And the Rs are afraid to stand up and take back the educated voters they are loosing rapidly for fear they will lose their newfound "base". Biden is going after the working people in the pocketbook. He won't get the people worried about the Border Crossers, those are the MAGA base, he won't get the people with 2 or 3 gun safes and Don't Tread... flags, but so what?

[Plantagenet]

Biden ...a 53-40" approval at the moment.

Its good to know that there is someone in the world who is so blind to the facts that he doesn't notice that every election the pollsters consistently overestimate national D support by ca. 5-7%. Every election the pollsters admit they are undercounting Rs by 5-7% right after the election proves the polling was wrong.

Do you think this polling error only exists at the moment of elections?

Think about it, Pops. If the pollsters consistently undercount Rs by 5-7% after extensive polling prior to presidential elections, why would you be so gullible as to accept their numbers just after the election?

If the same polling bias exists now that exists during elections, then chances are that much ballyhooed 53-40 polling number is actually more like 47-46.



Cheers!

[aadbrd]

Suspicious thing for someone who keeps claiming to be non-partisan to suggest.

[Plantagenet]

Suspicious thing for someone who keeps claiming to be non-partisan to suggest.

Yo Aadbrd/Mos. What a bizarrely uninformed post you've made. Your "suspicions" border on the paranoiac and could only be held by someone who doesn't know the facts.

Facts ARE inherently non-partisan, you know. IMHO the facts are just the facts.......and unfortunately your post shows you either don't know or are pretending you don't know the facts.

So lets look at the facts on the issues with polling, OK?....

Anyone who follows the news knows that the national polls significantly undercounted and so failed to accurate predict the actual "R" vote in the last two presidential elections.

And, anyone who follows the news knows that multiple pollsters have admitted their poll numbers have been consistently undercounting "Rs".

Here.....perhaps you didn't retain information and forgot or perhaps you never actually saw the poll numbers or the news stories about the failures in polling. If so, let me help you.

Click on the link below. and read this news story, published just a few days ago.....Its all about pollsters admitting they are undercounting the R vote and studies trying to figure out why the polls are undercounting the R vote.....

Do you get it now?

I can't imagine why you were unable to remember on your own that there was a big difference between the polls and the actual vote counts in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. And why are you so completely ignorant of all the news stories about pollsters saying saying their polls undercount Rs that have been published since the 2020 election? Don't you ever read newspapers? Why don't you know these things? Is it possible you have temporary amnesia on this subject? What gives?

Ok....here it is......here comes the link. And, as a bonus, I'll quote from the link to help you out since it seems you never click on links and never actually read news stories, or if you do you immediately forget what you read.....

WSJ: pollsters-say-they-undercounted-republicans-in-2020-

"Self-assessments by two polling groups in recent days conclude that they undercounted Republicans ... in 2020 and that there is no firm answer yet for how to fix the problem.

The examinations come after many pollsters significantly understated Republican strength in the 2020 presidential and congressional elections, and the findings suggest that a variety of polling methodologies came up short. One report, released Tuesday by five Democratic polling firms, finds that their surveys undercounted [R] voters ... Another, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, concluded that obtaining the proper representation of Republicans in surveys has become more difficult.

Do you understand what those words mean about the polls and the pollsters? Can you comprehend the meaning in those sentences?

IF so, DO you get it now?


My work here is done, Aardbrd/mos. Once again, I'm very glad for the opportunity to help you understand the facts

And, as a bonus, your amazingly ill-informed post has been my PeakOil.com laugh of the day! Please accept my sincerest THANKS!

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

Suspicious thing for someone who keeps claiming to be non-partisan to suggest.

And of course, no citations.

I'm just STUNNED at Planty babbling opinionated nonsense and not having a solid set of highly credible citations to back such claims up.

Of course, when I google search on this ("pollsters undercount republicans"), I find that claim is from GOP leaning to heavily leaning sources. And about Trump elections, not generally.

And of course, when you look down the list and find sources like NYT, huffpost, etc, they have a completely different take on it.

Again, I'm stunned/shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

Planty, at some point you'll be no more credible than the likes of SL if you keep it up, and that's pretty sad.

[Plantagenet]

of course, no citations.

Now you're either lying or you're blind or you don't know what a link to a citation looks like.

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you don't know what a link to a citation looks like....

Let me help you find the link.

There is a link to a relevant news article right in the middle of my post, so look in that part of the post. And my post is just above your post....does that help?

HINT: you can tell when a block of text is a link because it is underlined and appears in a light blue font.

Ok.....do you see it now?

Great.

And now that I've help you find the link, here's how you read the citation.

Just click....use your mouse and click....on the highlighted blue font. A new window will open on your IBM PCjr. computer with that news story.

OK...Have you got that. Now....CLICK....that means push down on your mouse. P U S H D O W N.

Did the page open?

Good?

Now might I suggest you actually read it?.........

That way you'll actually know something about the topic under discussion. And wouldn't that be a pleasant change?

Cheers!

[evilgenius]

Packing the court or inflating the court are both ok, as long as the operation of them still allows the people's wishes to be known. The court can be ordered any way. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution.

We all know they don't do that in a vacuum. They do that according to philosophical interpretations concerning the Constitution. All the while, though, there is a national consensus.

Do the party's wishes match that? It's during times like these, where the choir stands up and sings so loudly, that those who make those decisions can think they hear everybody else. The temptation must be great to believe that they really do stand for everybody.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Packing the court or inflating the court are both ok, as long as the operation of them still allows the people's wishes to be known. The court can be ordered any way. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution.

We all know they don't do that in a vacuum. They do that according to philosophical interpretations concerning the Constitution. All the while, though, there is a national consensus.

Do the party's wishes match that? It's during times like these, where the choir stands up and sings so loudly, that those who make those decisions can think they hear everybody else. The temptation must be great to believe that they really do stand for everybody.

In my world, temptation / politics trumps all, as the 2000 Bush V. Gore case proved with 100% of ALL court votes strictly along PARTY LINES (and to hell with legal theory) -- the courts are primarily legal animals. Not re the constitution, but re furthering their party's aspirations.

For me, that (in addition to a lot of suspicion, re court decisions along the way), ended about 90% of my respect / delusions re the purity of the US court system.

Oh, and I wanted Bush to win. It was the PRINCIPLE of the thing, and the way the courts voted 100% along party lines, and to hell with the constitution, philosophy, or evidence.

[evilgenius]

In the 5/4 court, enough times, a judge has voted the other way than all of the surrounding institutions would expect. I don't expect that with a 6/3 court. And I don't see manipulable divisions on the 6 side. They are all a bunch of openly weak people, weak in the same way. They all follow pretty much the same ideology, which they use to blind themselves to their own hypocrisy. From Amy Coney Boebert, to Rumpledrinkenstein, they all fly a flag of values which they use to judge others as significantly different than them. Once you can adequately reason the existence of an out group you can throw the book at them. We need to be careful.