Re: POTUS/General Election Thread 2020
I wish NCSC (from the above link) had provided more background on who initiated, and/or supported the impeachment legislation in the other states besides PA.but we should also note the case in which much of the Pennsylvania legislature signed on to impeaching state supremes over their court order requiring non-partisan districting in Pennsylvania.
From the second link:
Interesting choice of words---"..undermine the integrity [...] betray the trust of the people."“Members should understand that I do not take this first step towards the removal of a Supreme Court justice lightly,” Ryan said in his resolution. “Regrettably, Justice Wecht’s actions undermine the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; betray the trust of the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and have brought disrepute to the Unified Judicial System.”
A little background on Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1249: (yes I know I'm getting off topic, but this speaks to the lengths the GOP goes to ensure its' grip on power through the courts)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redist...n_Pennsylvania
Called by the Public Interest Law Center of Pennsylvania "one of the top three starkest partisan gerrymanders in the country and the worst in Pennsylvania's history" Senate Bill 1249 was challenged in court:On September 14, 2011, Republican senate leadership introduced a congressional redistricting bill which contained neither a map nor description of proposed congressional district lines. The proposed lines were added in the senate State Government Committee on December 13, 2011. The committee approved the bill 6-5 along party lines. Breaking with his party, Republican Sen. Mike Folmer opposed the Republican bill, saying "all you have to do is look at (the map)" to see it appeared to be specifically drawn to dilute Democratic votes and was the perfect example of why redistricting reform is needed. Barry Kauffman, lobbyist for Common Cause of Pennsylvania, agreed with Folmer, saying the plan "is a clear-cut case of politicians picking their voters in order to prevent voters from having a meaningful opportunity to pick their elected officials.
https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-...cting-lawsuit/
Not precedent setting....gerrymandering has been going on since the US was founded. Which brings us back to Rep. Frank Ryan. In introducing House Resolution 1044 [to impeach Judge Wecht], Ryan stated:Our lawsuit contended that in 2011 Pennsylvania elected officials manipulated the congressional district boundaries to entrench a majority Republican delegation in Congress and minimize the ability of Democratic voters to elect U.S. House representatives. Filed in the state’s Commonwealth Court, the complaint alleged the current congressional map was designed to pack as many Democratic voters as possible into Pennsylvania’s 1st, 2nd, 13th, 14th and 17th districts. At the same time, the map was designed to spread the remaining Democratic voters among the other 13 districts so that Democratic voters fall short of a majority in each of these 13 districts. The net effect maximized the number of Pennsylvania congressional seats held by Republicans.
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvan...justice-wecht/
However:cited the redistricting case; the case in which the court said the City of Pittsburgh had the right to pass a paid sick leave ordinance; as well as recent cases involving mail-in ballots for the upcoming election and the governor emergency disaster proclamation relative to the covid-19 pandemic.
So why go after just Wecht? Well.....in all of the cases cited by Ryan, Wecht was joined by a majority of the court.
Laughable if it wasn't so sad.“He’s an object lesson,” Ledewitz said. “Undoubtedly, they’re upset with the four-justice majority [in the redistricting case].”
But Ryan explained that when Wecht ran for the Supreme Court in 2015, one of the issues he addressed on the campaign trail was redistricting. Therefore, Ryan said, Wecht should have recused from the case when it came before the court in 2018.
“He’s legislating from the bench,” Ryan said. “This is strictly a constitutional issue for me.”
Which brings us to Amy Coney Barrett, and perhaps the 'real' reason behind her nomination:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...-coney-barrett
But there should be no doubt about why Barrett has been chosen. Much of the commentary about her selection will focus on the issue of abortion, and her likely role in overturning Roe v. Wade. During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to appoint Justices who would vote to overrule that landmark, and with his three selections, including Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, he appears to have delivered. Barrett is not only a member of a conservative organization within the Catholic Church; her legal writings, and the views of some who know her, suggest that she would overturn Roe.
Still, it’s worth remembering the real priorities of Trump and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, in this nomination. They’re happy to accommodate the anti-abortion base of the Republican Party, but an animating passion of McConnell’s career has been the deregulation of political campaigns. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision brought the issue to wide public attention, but McConnell has been crusading about it for decades. He wants the money spigot kept open, so that he can protect his Senate majority and the causes for which it stands. This, too, is why the Federalist Society has been so lavishly funded over the years, and why it has expanded from a mere campus organization into a national behemoth for lawyers and students. Under Republican Presidents, Federalist Society events have come to operate as auditions for judicial appointments. The corporate interests funding the growth of the Federalist Society probably weren’t especially interested in abortion, but they were almost certainly committed to crippling the regulatory state.Much like just about everything else in America today, SCOTUS is now viewed as a tool for 'delivering the agenda'.It should go without saying that the nomination and the expected confirmation of Barrett in the final days before a Presidential election represent a paramount act of hypocrisy for McConnell and the other Republicans who denied even a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, in 2016. But the fact that these Republicans are willing to risk that charge shows how important the Supreme Court is to them. Far more than a senator, a Supreme Court Justice can deliver on the agenda. The war on abortion is just the start.
And on something of a 'lighter' note:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gn-event-rally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtEaR1JU-psPete Buttigieg, who had earlier shared an old photo of himself dressed in a Star Trek costume, tuned in, wielding a Borg action figure as he chatted with Takei about how Star Trek taught viewers equality.
As Trek the vote to victory continued it was the turn of Abrams, a progressive icon who was the Democratic nominee for Georgia governor in 2018, and one of the Trek the vote to victory hosts, to take over hosting duties.
According to the New York Times Abrams “can recite with picayune detail the obscure plot points from incidents buried deep in the [Star Trek] canon”, and the former gubernatorial candidate seemed nervous.
“I literally just tweeted out that I was about to talk to you guys, and therefore do not require Christmas presents this year, or possibly ever again in life,” Abrams told the female Star Trek actors. (She had indeed tweeted.)
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
themselves in not-quite-so many words, everyone suddenly stops caring and moves on. Is anyone talking about Biden's Senate papers today? Caginess is rewarded over transparency and forthrightness, and we know politicians are the type to respond to incentives. So it shall be until the MSM finally changes as an institution. 
Bookmarks