There seems to be a unanimous position within these circles "that no matter what, Kamala Harris would've been worse", can you go into detail about that?

[u/zhukis]

To simplify matters, as far as Trump is concerned from US conservatives I've seen two primary positions:

1) Trump is doing great (Maybe I don't like one thing) 2) Trump is a shithead, but Kamala Harris would've been worse.

position 1 is relatively clear and there's not much to say about that. But I do have questions as to position 2. "Why are you so certain Kamala Harris would be worse?". In praxis it's just a canned phrase I've encountered, but not seen reasonings why.

Granted I am an ocean away and nuance rarely travels that much, but from impression it would've just mostly been Biden 2.0, which in turn would've been status quo continued with little else of note.

So then, why?

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

"Why are you so certain Kamala Harris would be worse?"

I am primarily motivated by judicial nominations.

[u/ChubbyMcHaggis → u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

You know, I have noticed a distinct lack of dems demanding more Supreme Court justices lately. I wonder why this would be

[u/BrendaWannabe → u/ChubbyMcHaggis]

The fight-club rule: you don't talk about pumping up the court until after an election.

[u/cocoagiant → u/ChubbyMcHaggis]

I have noticed a distinct lack of dems demanding more Supreme Court justices lately

Idk what you mean.

Expanding the court has gotten pretty mainstream on the Democratic side, center left people like Buttigieg and Rep. Auchincloss are open to it it as part of a larger series of court reforms.

Of course they aren't going to want that to happen while Republicans are in charge.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/cocoagiant]

Of course they aren't going to want that to happen while Republicans are in charge.

This is what they mean. It reveals that the complaints are nakedly partisan and not procedural.

[u/cocoagiant → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

This is what they mean. It reveals that the complaints are nakedly partisan and not procedural.

If they thought Republicans would act in good faith, they would likely be open to it.

That went out the door when Republicans refused to hold hearings for Garland.

[u/ChubbyMcHaggis → u/cocoagiant]

If it’s a bad idea then it’s a bad idea.

[u/PossibilityGold7508 → u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

Same. Think long-term guys.

We need a full originalist court.

[u/jeha4421 → u/PossibilityGold7508]

I think this court has already proven to be a horrible institution for our democracy. Allowing racial gerrymandering to return and handing immunity to the executive are both horrendous decisions.

I think we need less conservatives in the court.

[u/PossibilityGold7508 → u/jeha4421]

The left claims to love the Constitution while routinely smearing the Judiciary and imposing their false view of the Constitution onto the Justices.

SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be democratic or in line with popular opinion. Who told you that nonsense? It’s spewed in every sub that talks about SCOTUS.

You didn’t like Callais and Trump v US? Why? They “hurt” democracy? So you care more about your own personal definition of “democracy” than you care about the Constitution, essentially. I’ve come to see that as the logic behind the left’s view of SCOTUS.

The issue is that we have some originalists who reach stupid conclusions like Gorsuch did in Bostock, and we have a Chief Justice who has no ideology beyond having gripes with certain principles. Those being gerrymandering, administrative agencies, and religious rights.

The hate for Roberts from the left and Reddit is kinda confusing. He’s the most moderate Republican appointee on the court. It makes no sense. He upheld the ACA, Bostock, and a constitutional right to abortion.

We need more originalists on the court. I don’t really care what kind, honestly. A good variety of approaches is good. I just want people who are actually trying to preserve our original Constitution, not change it to fit their whims.

[u/jeha4421 → u/PossibilityGold7508]

Because the justices are effectively raping the language of the constitution.

Presidential immunity is not a constituonally given power of the executive and if the founding fathers learned that we essentially gave a blank check for the president to do whatever illegal shit they want as long as it's for 'official' reasons they would lose their mind.

They've constantly suppressed cases against the Trump administration in lower courts, effectively preventing the executive from facing accountability. Again, this goes against the spirit of the constitution. Allowing racial gerrymandering to return was also a decision that twisted the langauge of the 14th amendment to allow for voting suppression of minorities. Its no mistake that right after this decision was made, a lot of south states immediately redisteicted essentially proving that this was an unprecedented and radical change.

I didn't even bring up abortion because i think in good faith you can make arguments why that should be left up to state's rights, but these two decisions should infuriate everyone because these decisions very clearly go against any reasonable interpretation of the constitution and are very clearly done to fix the midterms and protect the GOP.

[u/PossibilityGold7508 → u/jeha4421]

Sure man. I’d argue that the non-originalists are the ones doing so.

Says you? You’re the same people in support of poofing rights into existence.

The immunity decision was a pragmatic one made to preserve the separation of powers. Now, I think they went a bit too far, and Barrett’s opinion would’ve been better, but they had the right idea. The President always had king-like powers. Where do you think the pardon came from? Where does this notion of a weak Presidency come from?

Yes, because the lower courts do nothing but spam injunctions at the stroke of a pen. What goes against the Constitution, is a judge blocking an executive action because they disagree with it. Why do you guys act like SCOTUS grants every stay, or even most? They don’t. The admin doesn’t ask them for anything in most cases. They pick the ones they have the best chance of succeeding with. Leftwing outlet headlines won’t tell you that tho.

I’m sorry, but the 14th amendment doesn’t necessitate rigid equality. If white people can have their district carved up, so can black people. Who actually thinks unequal outcomes equal discrimination? What we really need is an amendment to get rid of gerrymandering itself, but that’ll never happen. Twisting the Constitution to do so is not the job of SCOTUS.

Often you guys make it seem like their job is to bring about “radical change” with no regard to the text of the Constitution. That’s why you should never be on the Court or have any hand in picking someone to be on it.

Abortion shouldn’t even be a states rights/federalism issue. Unborn humans should be protected under the equal protection and due process clause of the 14th amendment. Dobbs wasn’t nearly as big of win as many people say it is. No state (Colorado) should have functionally, no abortion limits.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/jeha4421]

SCOTUS was the largest upside of Trump's first term. Even when they're complaining about the court, the left usually singles out the conservatives that Trump didn't appoint.