Democrats would abolish Supreme Court, elect judges, let United Nations decide | Washington Examiner

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  4 weeks ago  •  46 comments

By:   SecretsBedard (Washington Examiner)

Democrats would abolish Supreme Court, elect judges, let United Nations decide | Washington Examiner
The recent decisions by the Supreme Court's conservative majority on abortion and guns appear to have pushed Democrats deeper into seeking radical changes that would shift the court back into liberal hands.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The recent decisions by the Supreme Court's conservative majority on abortion and guns appear to have pushed Democrats deeper into seeking radical changes that would shift the court back into liberal hands.

While, for many, simply packing the court with more left-wing judges was the answer before the recent decisions, a new survey found support for killing the court, electing judges, and even allowing the United Nations to have the final say.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey sponsored by the Heartland Institute, for example, found that 39% of Democrats would let the U.N. reverse Supreme Court decisions it viewed as human rights violations. The reversal of Roe vs. Wade could fall into that category.

Worse, a majority (53%) of Democrats would support legislation to "abolish" the court and turn it into an elected chamber with judges picked on ballots. Just 21% of Republicans agree with that proposal.


Coming This AM:
Most Democratic Voters Want to 'Abolish' Supreme Court
Majority of Democratic voters say SCOTUS is fundamentally racist, fundamentally sexist, now favor establishment of a new "democratically elected Court with justices chosen by the American people directly." https://t.co/9r7pb4oibO

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) July 12, 2022

And 64% of Democrats support packing the court with 13 judges, up from the current nine. Just 19% of Republicans agreed.

Driving the liberal anger, according to the survey, is a feeling among Democrats that the Supreme Court is "racist" and "sexist," despite having two black people and four women sitting on it, all but Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett being liberals.

In the survey, 56% of Democrats said the court is a "fundamentally racist" institution. And 67% said it is a "fundamentally sexist" institution.

All that said, it is no surprise that Democrats generally don't like the court. According to Rasmussen's preview of its survey being released later Tuesday: "In the wake [of] a recent string of decisions strengthening the Second Amendment, reining in the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, and ending the constitutional right to an abortion, however, Democratic voters mostly disapprove of the Supreme Court. Only 33% of Democrats view the court favorably, while 63% have an unfavorable opinion of the court, including 40% of Democrats who have a Very Unfavorable view of the Supreme Court."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    4 weeks ago
While, for many, simply packing the court with more left-wing judges was the answer before the recent decisions, a new survey found support for killing the court, electing judges, and even allowing the United Nations to have the final say.

Is THIS the new liberal world order?

The Democrats control Washington, D.C. and this is the very best they can accomplish---blowing up the court?

LMAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

Looks like some Democrats are choosing a weird strategy here.

Don't get the results you want, simply tear down the 'offending' institution.

Much easier than legislating.

Such idiots.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @2    4 weeks ago
Don't get the results you want, simply tear down the 'offending' institution.

DoJ is prosecuting over 800 people and counting for actually trying to tear down an 'offending' institution. Get back to me when liberals actually try to do something other than whining and taking surveys.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    4 weeks ago

Only warning--stay on topic.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    4 weeks ago

You are forgetting the thousands upon thousands of BLM and Antifa seditionists. Sorry if the DOJ doesn't prosecute them with the same vehemence as the Jan 6th rioters. You will have to take that up with them.

You were saying about literally tearing it all down? Seems that leftists prefer to burn it all down.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3  evilgenius    4 weeks ago

So the WE takes some some random survey and are blowing it up to get you all riled up?

...all but Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett being liberals.

That's just a outright lie.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3    4 weeks ago
That's just a outright lie.

Very interesting take on things.

I have NEVER heard anyone try to claim anything nearly as silly as saying that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are not women and not leaning liberal.

What SPECIFICALLY are you claiming here?

That women aren't women?

Minorities aren't minorities?

WHAT???????

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    4 weeks ago
I have NEVER heard anyone try to claim anything nearly as silly as saying that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are not women and not leaning liberal.

There are 4 other judges you haven't mentioned that are NOT LIBERAL.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
There are 4 other judges you haven't mentioned that are NOT LIBERAL.

true, that is why I didn't mention it.

Perhaps you would be well-served to go back and read the whole paragraph you partially quoted and see where you went wrong here.

HERE is what you responded to:

Driving the liberal anger, according to the survey, is a feeling among Democrats that the Supreme Court is "racist" and "sexist," despite having two black people and four women sitting on it, all but Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett being liberals.

You replied:

That's just a outright lie.

Where I went to school, this means that out of the two black people and four women sitting on the Court today, all but two (Thomas and Barrett) are liberals, and you choose to mislabel that as a lie, which makes ZERO sense here in the real world.

WHERE is the lie you claim???????????????

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Okay. You got me. It's a shitty strung on sentence. I could grammar police the shit out of it, but I've spent way too much time on this hyper partisan bullshit anyway. I'll give you this one Tex.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

You don't need to worry about giving me anything.

I can argue just fine on my own.

This should serve as proof.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
I can argue just fine on my own.

Ummm.... sure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
Ummm.... sure.

Trite.

But I did prove you wrong!
Or that you did not comprehend the words you read.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    4 weeks ago
But I did prove you wrong!

Once. Put a star on your calendar!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.7    4 weeks ago
Put a star on your calendar!

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3    4 weeks ago
So the WE takes some some random survey and are blowing it up to get you all riled up?

Sometimes it actually pays off to read the article---all of it.

Of course, the article CLEARLY states it is a Rasmussen survey, not the WE, so there is that to shoot down your post with for starters.

Why would you claim it is a WE survey?

Just some more fake news you can attempt to claim is real?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.2.1  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2    4 weeks ago
Of course, the article CLEARLY states it is a Rasmussen survey, not the WE, so there is that to shoot down your post with for starters.

Let me clarify for the politically obtuse... It changes nothing of my point and you only serve to deflect from your own seeded article.

The WE took a random Rasmussen survey and blew it up to get you all riled up. Seems it worked too. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.2.1    4 weeks ago
The WE took a random Rasmussen survey and blew it up to get you all riled up. Seems it worked too. 

Actually reading AND comprehending the article tell us who understand that the poll wasn't just some random thing, it was specifically conducted upon request.

I am not mad because I don't believe Democrats have enough power to do any of the dumbfuck things that were suggested.

SO, why are you mad? Can you see how utterly stupid these Democratic suggestions really are at long last?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.2.3  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    4 weeks ago
...it was specifically conducted upon request.

Why is that relevant? 

...I don't believe Democrats have enough power to do any of the dumbfuck things that were suggested.

Then why post it?

SO, why are you mad?

Not mad, just disappointed that we spend too much time on hyperpartisan bullshit.

Can you see how utterly stupid these Democratic suggestions really are at long last?

Partisan bullshit is partisan bullshit. It's all we're fed here. This article is Republican partisan bullshit about Democratic partisan bullshit. Have you eaten enough partisan bullshit today? Would you like to discuss something that has actual merit?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.2.3    4 weeks ago
Why is that relevant? 

Well, you started out with a false premise, just wanted to correct it before it went any further south.

Then why post it?

To simply point out how far some Democrats are willing to go to get their way. And to alert sane people as to what COULD happen if Democrats ever get a super-majority in Congress.

Partisan bullshit is partisan bullshit. It's all we're fed here. This article is Republican partisan bullshit about Democratic partisan bullshit. Have you eaten enough partisan bullshit today? Would you like to discuss something that has actual merit?

Gee, why not post your very own seed to talk about all the things you would rather be talking about instead of coming here to take a shit?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.2.5  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.4    4 weeks ago
Gee, why not post your very own seed to talk about all the things you would rather be talking about instead of coming here to take a shit?

Taking a shit in a shit pile... Funny.

Well, you started out with a false premise, just wanted to correct it before it went any further south.

Awesome. You sure showed everyone ALL Rasmussen polls are relevant. Every single one of them. Good job!

To simply point out how far some Democrats are willing to go to get their way. And to alert sane people as to what COULD happen if Democrats ever get a super-majority in Congress.

How likely is that to happen in the next 4 to 6 years? Considering their big platform push is still "Trump bad", I'm guessing less than 0. I'm not expecting either party to dominate in a super majority for the next decade barring prolonged violence in the streets as some far far far left/right wackos keep suggesting. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.2.5    4 weeks ago
Taking a shit in a shit pile... Funny.

I will point out that you willingly CHOSE to come here, no one forced you.  And it was YOUR choice to shit here. Why?

Awesome. You sure showed everyone ALL Rasmussen polls are relevant. Every single one of them. Good job!

No, you just misunderstand what I stated.

I didn't even know you were going to say that ALL Rasmussen polls are relevant or that was what was under discussion.

I said THIS poll. That means exactly that. One poll, this one.

How likely is that to happen in the next 4 to 6 years?

Based on recent polls, not very likely Democrats will be given a super-majority any time soon, if ever. Thankfully.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.2.7  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.6    4 weeks ago
And it was YOUR choice to shit here. Why?

To get my fellow conservatives to see how far away from reality they might be drifting.

No, you just misunderstand what I stated.

I understood. I'm just a snarky bastard like the rest of NT.

Based on recent polls, not very likely Democrats will be given a super-majority any time soon, if ever. Thankfully.

Now that that's been established let's move past hair on fire partisan propaganda.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.2.7    4 weeks ago
To get my fellow conservatives to see how far away from reality they might be drifting.

Is it your posit that some Democrats are not advocating for the things mentioned in the poll?  Are you claiming the poll isn't real now?

I understood.

Per your posts, I see no evidence for that claim.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.2.9  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    4 weeks ago
Is it your posit that some Democrats are not advocating for the things mentioned in the poll?  Are you claiming the poll isn't real now?

No, I didn't say much of anything about Democrats past being whiny. But now that you mention it I did find this on the web...

President Joe Biden remains unmoved on the issue of court expansion, the White House said, despite his criticism of the Supreme Court rulings handed down this week on gun rights and abortion.

...

Per your posts, I see no evidence for that claim.

Now who's being trite?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @3.2.9    4 weeks ago
No, I didn't say much of anything about Democrats past being whiny.

I didn't say you did, nor did I ask. I specifically am talking about the things mentioned as 'solutions' in the poll.

Now who's being trite?

I am sorry if me telling it like it is is upsetting you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

A new Rasmussen Reports survey sponsored by the Heartland Institute,

Heartland Institute

MBFCLow.png?resize=357%2C128&ssl=1

right011.png?resize=600%2C67&ssl=1

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits  one or more   of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.

  • Overall, we rate the Heartland Institute Right Biased and Questionable based on promoting anti-science propaganda, lack of transparency with funding, and more than five failed fact checks by IFCN fact-checkers.
 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
4.1  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

The whole "article" is a joke.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
4.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @4.1    4 weeks ago

Hyperpartisan bullshit is more like. I wish we could have real discussions here, but the whole place is left/right with very little in the center.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @4.1    4 weeks ago

If someone forced you to comment, send me a sign so I can call 911 for you.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
4.1.4  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    4 weeks ago

Was I talking to you?  HINT:  No I wasn't.  Bugger off.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @4.1.4    4 weeks ago
Was I talking to you? 

Did I say you were?

Do you know how open forums work?

Bugger off.  

No can do, it is my seeded article.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
4.1.6  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    4 weeks ago

I'll be ignoring all comments from the Seeder then.  Bye bye.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @4.1.6    4 weeks ago

Excellent.

You can also ignore the seeded article!

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
4.1.8  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
Hyperpartisan bullshit is more like.

Agreed.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @4.1.8    4 weeks ago

And yet, here you all are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago
Partisan bullshit is partisan bullshit. It's all we're fed here. This article is Republican partisan bullshit about Democratic partisan bullshit. Have you eaten enough partisan bullshit today? Would you like to discuss something that has actual merit?

One must learn to comprehend things.

Rasmussen did the survey.

Figure it out, FFS.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
4.3  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

It always comes down to extremely conservative, low factual reporting and questionable sources with some posters.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @4.3    4 weeks ago
It always comes down to extremely conservative, low factual reporting and questionable sources with some posters.

Be real nice if you could actually point out what in the article isn't true.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5  Dismayed Patriot    4 weeks ago
64% of Democrats support packing the court with 13 judges, up from the current nine.

Seems like Democrats are simply realizing that they may need to mirror conservatives who have clearly long believed the ends justify the means. Nearly every conservative justice swore in their confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law and that they would respect settle law and they would definitely not be "activist justices", yet here we are. And conservatives who support them don't care about their lies, they don't care about the slimy tactics used by McConnell to stop Garlands confirmation and secure ACB's confirmation. They don't care if it's breaking some unwritten rules or skirting the law if the ends justify the means. And the fact is stacking the court isn't illegal, it's just one of those unwritten rules in congress that Republicans cry and whine to high heaven if Democrats suggest using it yet it's clear Republicans wouldn't hesitate if they felt they needed to break that rule to give them a political win. Democrats are tired of fighting with both hands tied behind their backs while scum like Mitch McConnell or dishonest Donald slap them around "owning the libs" to the cheers of his deplorable sycophants.

I think it would be stupid to expect Republicans to "fight fair", so I support Democrats using whatever legal tactics they need to in order to move our nation forward away from the deplorable right wing conservative swamp that the Mango Mussolini inspired.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    4 weeks ago
Nearly every conservative justice swore in their confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law

it was settled law until it wasn't. You are aware that SCOTUS decisions can be overturned, I hope.

Jeeze, some folks act as if SCOTUS had never overturned a prior SCOTUS Decision before.

I think it would be stupid to expect Republicans to "fight fair", so I support Democrats using whatever legal tactics they need to in order to move our nation forward away from the deplorable right wing conservative swamp that the Mango Mussolini inspired.

Good luck on your fantasy, but Democrats won't be able to do any of the idiotic suggestions some are supporting anytime in the near future.

And I remain grateful for THAT.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    4 weeks ago
You are aware that SCOTUS decisions can be overturned, I hope.

Every single Justice that's been appointed the last century has voted to overturn precedent. Justice Jackson said similar things about precedent in her hearing. She too, will vote to overturn precedent.

And just as surely as the sun will rise in the east, those who think Gorsuch lied will applaud for her vote to overturn precedent. 

I wonder if they are lying to themselves, or if think they are actually fooling anyone with such transparent nonsense? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    4 weeks ago
s clear Republicans wouldn't hesitate if they felt they needed to break that rule to give them a political win

Lol  If that were true., the Republicans could  have packed  the Court and overturned Roe decades ago. Shit, even Trump didn't pack the Court.  

And yet again, the people who claim Trump "broke norms" and threatened democracy  are more than happy to break every norm in the book to implement their desires.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2    4 weeks ago
If that were true., the Republicans could  have packed  the Court and overturned Roe decades ago. Shit, even Trump didn't pack the Court.  

We know it isn't true.

But how can we explain it where they can understand it?????

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
6  arkpdx    4 weeks ago

I got a better idea. Let's keep the Constitution as is and keep the SCOTUS  as is and keep the nominating process for judges the same and let them have lifetime terms as we do now and disband the United Nations and tell the current non US members that are not our allies to get the "F" out of the country. 

 
 

Who is online

Ender
GregTx
bugsy
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
JohnRussell


40 visitors