Fake news is strong.

No law professors.

These are from Woman studies and other useless professors.


This fool is standing hope and not Constitutional obligations.

Got a list of all 100 and their fields or just spouting wishful thinking? I think I know which.

Translator fail for the entire second sentence.

Constitutional obligations? Explain. This should be fun.

I've said it before and I will say it again. Regardless of death bed wishes and/or the election, the sitting President has the right to nominate a SCOTUS pick. Note, I said nominate, not confirm. That is the job of the Senate.

Even if (likely when, it seems) Trump loses, until the end of his term he is able to nominate a SCOTUS pick. Obama was allowed to pick Merrick Garland, but the Senate was Republican. They chose to not confirm him. Even after Trump was elected, Obama could have picked a person for SCOTUS. The Senate would have made the confirmation decision.

In this case, the Senate leans Republican, so the pick will likely be confirmed. It might not be what some people want, but it is legal.

Why didn't Obama pick a person?

He chose not to. I can only assume because there was a conservative majority in the Senate.

He had the option. If there had been a Democrat majority, the person could have been confirmed even after Trump won the election.

Just because a sitting President is in Lame Duck status, it does not mean his powers are revoked. Some choose not to do anything after the election and that is their option.

He chose not to out of honor.

I think it was more because Moscow Mitch made it clear was serious that he wasn't holding any confirmation hearings for Obama by not even hearing Merrick Garland, actually a republican pick, that he wasn't going to consider anyone Obama put forth.

The politics of "because I can", not serving the country or even his party, just his own animus.

This precedent is going to backfire big-time if, as appears likely, dems take the Whitehouse and Senate. Adding ten seats to the supreme court and filling them with far left activist judges might happen just because they can, and that's the standard now.

For all intents and purposes his powers are revoked when the Senate is only interested in obstructionism, like today's that won't consider bills and revels in their nickname "the chamber of death, where bills go to die".

The "lame duck" ploy was just pure "because we can"ism. No legal precedent, actually a dereliction of duty by congress ignoring what the constitution says they shall do. I sure as Fuck hope dems grow a spine and ignore all right wing arguments as they have ignored democrats, and play the politics of "because we can" through October 2024, then write an amendment to stop more...like capping the supreme court at 19 forever and other instances where because I can-ism can override patriotism. If they don't exercise their power to the fullest, ignoring any attempt to reach across the aisle or compromising to get some bypartisanism in the next two years at a minimum (assuming they win), they'll deserve to be discarded.

There is no honor in politics.

It would be incredibly likely that any attempt to add new seats to the Supreme Court would be found unconstitutional.

However, it wouldn't be the first time we have had more or fewer judges. This isn't something new as opposing political entities have done their best to stack the court, one way or the other, from the very beginning.

If it happens, it happens. Although I suspect it might lead to another civil war if it is obnoxious enough. Maybe we can end up in Districts this time, with some sort of gladiatorial display to keep the masses calm?

As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

Obama is an honorable man. Trump is a deplorable man.

I'm not arguing the merits of either. I don't think Trump is a good man or President.

It's my firm opinion that Obama chose to play the long game, hoping that the anger over Garland not being confirmed would influence the upcoming election. He believed that they might take the Senate back and then either he or Hillary would then be able to get the nominee they wanted. Plus as @newtboy pointed out, there was no way any pick he chose was going to pass muster with the Republican controlled Senate. Picking another person would likely tarnish them and remove a good liberal pick from future selection.

I consider Obama a good person and a mediocre President. I voted for him the first time because I bought into his mantra of change. It didn't happen. He forced through the ACA on party line votes, fucking up my personal situation in regards to doctors and insurance. He further screwed up the situation with the middle east which directly led to the entire Syria/ISIS situation. He did authorize drone strikes that led to many non combatant deaths and some pretty reprehensible situations. That is including the fact that his administration considered any military aged male in strike zones to be enemy combatants UNLESS they could be verified otherwise after their death. So many of those were not counted. There are other issues I have with his Presidency, but those are some of the big ones.

He did kill Bin Laden. I will give him kudos for that. I also think that once he lost control of the Congress in his second term he had no way to get anything accomplished, so I can't say he wouldn't have done something I liked in his second term. He is also an amazing orator.

Why? The constitution doesn't forbid it, and doesn't list the number of seats. Guaranteed if Trump/Republicans had considered it, it would already have been tried.

It could, Republicans threaten civil war every time it looks like they won't get their way on anything these days. Using their own politics of "because we can" would certainly enrage them....good thing they're mostly pussies, afraid of a deer, and obese. I think they'll shit themselves if confronted with an armed enemy....like militia boy did. The difference being in war, the dems shoot back. Side note, who is more patriotic, the one's using the exact same politics they've endured from Republicans, or the one's who threaten to destroy the union and nation (too dumb to realize China and Russia would make us a proxy war then come in to collect the pieces).

All for gladiator games....or giant robot wars....or death races. Especially if the representatives have to fight personally.

Remember, the ACA was barely passed and had to be watered down so red state democrats would vote for it, then the states had the option to opt in or out of federal assistance. Those that opted out all had terrible experiences with higher insurance costs, states that opted in had relatively stable costs and millions insured, lowering medical costs across the board (because they didn't have to eat 30% of bills and pass the cost to the rest of their patients). Should have been universal single payer. (Side note, my insurance went up 5-10% before Trump, and more than doubled under Trump. I've had the same policy since 08.)

Funny, the people I recall claiming Daesh was a nothing burger were all Republicans, Democrats were pushing to take them on immediately when they emerged in northern Iraq. You do remember who took us into Iraq with no plan to leave, right? Not Obama.
Wasn't it Bush who decided the rules for war in Iraq, like everyone's a combatant? Obama failed to fix them and that's why he lost my second vote, not doing enough...granted he had a pure obstructionist Senate so was stimied, but I expected more.

I feel like people's political memories only go back through Obama now, and that's just dumb. Our history is much longer, our memories should be too.

I just have a feeling. Could be wrong, could be right. It could be argued that since all 3 are supposed to be separate branches that congress adding more justices would be tampering with checks and balances. Then again, precedent might count in favor of it.

War/Secession isn't only a purview of the conservatives. I recall many people saying similar things when Bush/Trump was elected. Especially Trump, as I recall people saying California should leave the union etc. As I've told you before, I honestly think it might be the best solution at this point. Half of us bitterly disagree with the other half and it's getting worse every single election/year.

I'm old enough and jaded enough at this point that I figure it couldn't hurt. The USSR broke up, might as well be our turn.

Agreed, no telling how they might interpret things now, especially when non constitutional lawyers with <3 years experience are considered reasonable.
True, people suggested wexit, I have but not really seriously, but I do not hear liberals constantly claiming "if you don't do what I say, we're going to start a civil war and kill you.

A peaceful Wexit would be awesome for the west, and disastrous for the remainder in the union. Without our economy, produce, and taxes, America would have folded decades ago. Since those that would balk are convinced we take more than we give the government, now is the time to try it. At least it would shut the morons pretending we are the takers up, they would be terrified if forced into reality.

The ACA was passed on party lines, it was going to be screwed up because of that no matter what. What pisses me off about it is that instead of trying to come up with a better solution, the Democrats rammed that fucker through. I can only assume it is because for a brief period they had control of the legislative and executive branches all at the same time. So rather than take a chance to fix it, they figured if they were going to get anything they might as well get it in place.

Obama inherited the situation in the ME. Bush fucked up royally. Obama just took a bad situation and made it worse. Admittedly, there were other fingers in the pie also, but he is still culpable.

The rules for the drone war were decided by Obama's administration. Regardless of what Bush did before, that lays 100% on Obama and his team. Some good articles to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html

https://www.propublica.org/series/drones

Oh please. It wasn't from a lack of effort, it was 100% due to republicans wanting nothing to do with fixing health care and refusing to discuss it at all beyond screaming about how bad it would be...because Obama suggested it. They spent years trying to offer compromise solutions, all ignored. The only way to move forward was to ignore the group that wouldn't accept ANYTHING suggested and wouldn't make any suggestions themselves. Eventually they came to their senses, tailored it for the senators that might vote for something, and went forward. You call it ramming it through, I call it circumventing the roadblock of republicans who would never under any circumstance vote for any Obama plan. This was essentially the Republican plan from decades earlier that they said was hyper liberal.

Fixing it properly would be moving to single payer, which no republican would vote for and red state democrats would be committing political suicide. They fixed (broke) it just enough to get those red state dems to vote for it.

It's pretty disingenuous to claim they just slapped it together quickly as a slap at republicans. They took years and had to move forward with imperfect compromised progress instead of disastrous status quo.

Now, rather than trying to fix it, Republicans have spent 10 years trying to just kill it, leaving the higher insurance and higher bills but removing all assistance and pre existing conditions safeguards.

From my standpoint, it is useless and makes my life more difficult. Regardless of how it was passed, I wish it was dead.

That I won't argue...it's your personal anecdotal experience and how you feel. That's different from general facts.

My anecdotal experience was I kept my policy, my doctor, and under Obama my cost went up 5% over 6 years, and under Trump my cost went from $205 a month to $485 a month, my deductible went from $3k to $4.5k, coverage went down and many procedures aren't covered at all. I'm going to try to get Obama care this year, I should save thousands and get better coverage.

Yeah, I can only say for certain what has happened here. Most doctors that run private practices and are rated well slowly started transitioning to either a service that charges a large amount of money per patient per year, in addition to insurance, or they simply posted on their website they no longer accept insurance. They call it direct primary care, like you pay a fee per month.

https://reason.com/video/doctors-direct-primary-care/

My doctor joined a concierge service called MDVIP. I just checked and he lowered his rates to 1,800 per year per patient. Whether you go or not. He was a great doctor, but I refuse to pay 3600 per year for my wife and me to see a doctor. Not when they will bill our insurance as well for any actual visits/treatments.

Instead we had to switch to Austin Regional Clinic, who has an amazing lab and bloodwork team, but the doctor situation is as I mentioned before. There is no feeling that I have a personal doctor. Usually they schedule me with whichever one is available or a PA. Every time I have to re-list what meds I am on and what existing conditions I have because they don't remember. You would think they could look at a chart, but they are so busy every time. It's like sex in high school, in, out, and thanks for coming.

We've tried some others, even a few private practices, but none have been up to par. All of them seem to be super busy and have trimmed their staff to the bone.

If the ACA isn't changed or doesn't go away, I don't see it getting any better.

You're kidding. You can get good care (I assume anything non surgical?) For $1800 a year and you don't?!? I pay that three times over for insurance that pays almost nothing until I'm $4500 out of pocket, and compared to today's market here that's a bargain.

Here I'm lucky to have a doctor at all. We have a huge shortage, always have since I've lived here.

Do you really see it getting better without the aca? Can you tell me why, since normally any improvements wouldn't go to patients or level of care but instead to higher profits?

I sure don't recall when advancements of any kind led to lower health care costs on average...my thought was the aca just spread the pain of paying for the indigent, and gave them preventative care to lower their need for expensive treatments we pay for either way, with higher insurance rates covering care for the poor and lowering overall costs or with higher care cost, leading to higher insurance and more unhealthy poor skipping out on higher bills.

I absolutely think single payer is best. Costs can be negotiated by the entire country, leading to lower costs. Everyone gets basic care, no one skips on their bill, leading to lower costs. 20% that the insurance industry takes from every medical dollar goes away, leading to lower costs. Like other nations with universal healthcare, anyone who chooses can buy supplemental insurance that covers better, more comfortable care like private rooms or choice of top doctors, so nothing's lost for patients. The only issues I see are ideological.

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

That is on top of insurance. We pay roughly 275 dollars per paycheck for both of our insurance. Before the ACA, that insurance was sufficient to cover our doctor, etc.

After the ACA, more and more independent doctors are going to the concierge or direct pay method. Most of the reason given is the extra red tape. They apparently would rather charge for the office visits and minor tests via fee/concierge payment instead of trying to wade through the post-ACA insurance hoops.

Here in Texas, it is rapidly splitting into 3 groups. Lower quality doctors that remain independent, good doctors like my old one who are going direct pay/concierge, and doctors that are part of a multi doctor clinic.

Sounds to me like a commercial for single payer.

Not only does everyone save the 20% off the top insurance takes but that adds nothing but red tape and hoops to try to deny coverage, but we cut the red tape and split the hoops too. Prices would be fairly fixed (with some leeway between say San Francisco and Redding, seriously affluent vs lower middle class, high rent vs low rent) which would drastically lower costs with one group of 350 million to negotiate most favored nation pricing for everything like Trump promised by it didn't deliver, and insurance still available for preferential treatment or private practices like most single payer nations have.

I will agree, what ever the cause, quality of care and access to care are both on a downward spiral, and something needs to change. Fighting over covering everyone or making it a pay to play (read as pay to live) system where many go to drastic lengths to get care, be that crime, 4 jobs, or just a willingness to not pay is not solving the problem, it's creating it.

Then they plopped covid on all of it like epoxy in the lifters. Thanks Trump. ;-)