|
Thug Lessons posted:Yes, if you're not particularly fond of democracy and believe rule by elites is preferable, you aren't going to want election of Supreme Court justices. I don't share that view. It's unfortunate to hear that you don't understand how a representative government works. Your ideas are also extremely easy to corrupt given that the elites you're talking about have far more political power than you will ever hope to have (and rulings like Citizens United further it). If you think that those people will somehow not corrupt a popular election for the SCOTUS you're not working with reality. You simply don't share the view that America's governing system should work the way it has because if it does, then the SCOTUS is going to potentially end up with a liberal majority instead of a conservative majority. It's pretty clear when you look at posts from people like oswald ownenstein that they genuinely fear the idea that the court might make awful rulings like "women get to have control over their bodies" or "workers are allowed to unionize" or even terrible things like "racism still exists in America and so things such as Preclearance are still needed to ensure a certain political party doesn't disenfranchise poors and minorities with new Jim Crow laws." Conservatives are scared because Scalia's death could very well be the death of their party. Having 5 liberal justices threatens their vote suppressing theocratic dreams for America. If there's 5 justices who agreed with things like the VRA, rather than 5 who include men that personally hate it, the GOP loses a vital tool in keeping a stranglehold on several states. Get a ruling against Gerrymandering and the party's pretty heavily hosed. Subjunctive posted:What aspect of the US electoral mechanics mention the primaries of those two parties? I'm non-American, I thought it was just an internal party choice. If a party decided to run its primary 2 years before the election, would that make it an election year? The primaries are simply a result of how our process has developed. A party could hold their primary that far out if they wanted, though it'd be a strategic mistake. For better or worse the two major parties are the only ones that matter outside of spoiler effect (IE: Perot and Nader) and at the latest the election season is fully underway once the primaries start taking place. You could argue that it begins when people start formally declaring and campaigning and debating but if nothing else, once the primaries are underway the US election season is in full swing. It sucks and your example is a terrible thing that a lot of people fear will become reality as it's slowly starting, with people early last year making their plans to run known. That excludes obvious people like Clinton whom everyone knew was going to run again after Obama unless something happened to her before then. I'd love to see the FPTP system replaced with something else but there is no loving chance that the two parties of power are going to forge a system that lessens their own chances to be in control. Thug Lessons posted:Yeah, I actually think that's a case where it's appropriate. I see the judicial system as sort of like a scientific or technical community - you want the people who are the smartest, most knowledgeable and most competent in charge. I see them less as an elite than experts. Barring that, I'd like to see a democratic system where the people who are going to be determining American law are only installed with the explicit consent of the American people. The current system, where the Court's makeup is determined by politicians that seize on acts of fate like justices randomly dying to exert their political will, is in my view the worst. Congratulations, with your system in place slavery would still exist in the US as would segregation and a whole lot of horrible poo poo like child labor. Views like what you're espousing are the exact reason that the people whose job is to be the final say on the Constitution need to be able to operate without being beholden to voters and special interests.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Congratulations, with your system in place slavery would still exist in the US as would segregation and a whole lot of horrible poo poo like child labor. Views like what you're espousing are the exact reason that the people whose job is to be the final say on the Constitution need to be able to operate without being beholden to voters and special interests. I think your reasoning is flawed. Not just your specific reasoning here, but the way you reason in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:When I talk about democratic control a public veto is what I have in mind. I'd be open to other proposals however. Can't think of a better one personally, I don't think we have a huge problem with lovely judges in the UK and our current unelected house of politically appointed old farts has been spending most of its time recently trolling the poo poo out of the government and blocking all its showpiece legislation so I'm kind of on an oligarchic high right now. It certainly has its merits to have someone who is unaccountable to the whims of the public as a counterbalance to the fuckery by people who do so in the name of public support. Though I suppose the best solution there would be a written and evolving constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I think your reasoning is flawed. Not just your specific reasoning here, but the way you reason in general. So the majority sure have tyranny over the minority, do you not think Brown vs Board would of been "public vetoed"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So the majority sure have tyranny over the minority, do you not think Brown vs Board would of been "public vetoed"? I certainly don't think slavery would still exist, because that was decided by the Civil War, not the courts. That guy is obviously seriously deranged. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
gohmak posted:So you argue that this time will be different? It will not be. I don't know what you think "last time" was so it's hard to know which of the many reasons you might be wrong it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I think your reasoning is flawed. Not just your specific reasoning here, but the way you reason in general. Your view doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS has made multiple massive, landmark decisions that were publicly unpopular and via your ideas would not have happened or would've been overturned. Thug Lessons posted:I certainly don't think slavery would still exist, because that was decided by the Civil War, not the courts. That guy is obviously seriously deranged. Slavery would've been brought back in all but name, much like Debtor's Prison has, and you're very clearly avoiding defending your proposed system which would have resulted in unpopular, yet constitutional, decisions being overturned or not happening. We'll ignore the effectiveness that the south resisted Reconstruction, your proposal would've resulted in extremely pro-segregation justices and the VRA in its entirety would've been immediately challenged and struck down as would Affirmative Action and numerous other changes. Homosexuality would still be an outright criminal act. The only people who want publicly elected judges are the ignorant and the corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I certainly don't think slavery would still exist, because that was decided by the Civil War, not the courts. That guy is obviously seriously deranged. actually it was decided by unilateral executive action. large numbers of 'the people' rioted and lynched people on the streets of manhattan as well as in other places in response to emancipation
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:It's really not and to pretend that it would be otherwise with an R in the white house and a D controlled senate is inane. Like Ginsburgh dying and about to be replaced by Trump with a conservative justice? Come on. This happens all the time. Even with all the Anita Hill poo poo, a Democrat controlled Senate voted to confirm a weirdo archconservative to replace Thurgood Marshall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
it is 100% clear cut what the constitution says about the appointment of supreme court justices: the president nominates them and the senate votes it's great and intensely funny that stalwat defenders of the constitution right wingers are getting their undies twisted trying to calvinball their way out of a third obama scotus pick. it pisses all over scalia's legacy in the most shameful way possible and i love it
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:actually it was decided by unilateral executive action. large numbers of 'the people' rioted and lynched people on the streets of manhattan as well as in other places in response to emancipation No, it was decided by the passage of the 13th Amendment, which was approved by a two-thirds majority in Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, if you want to be technical about it. But really it was the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it is 100% clear cut what the constitution says about the appointment of supreme court justices: the president nominates them and the senate votes That sort of implies that Scalia was dedicated to constitutional originalism more than he was to conservative regressive shitocracy. He wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Here's an example of what I was discussing earlier, this is naked, brazen political partisanship. https://gop.com/rnc-statement-in-response-to-president-obamas-remarks-on-scotus-nomination/ quote:For 80 years, there has never been a nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year and President Obama should let his successor fill Justice Scalia's seat on the bench. This is not about the person, this is about the Court. The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice by allowing this issue to be front and center in this year’s election. As Democrats have already admitted, their breach of decades of precedent is all about scoring political points. He literally loving described appointing a new SCOTUS justice with 11 months left as "scoring political points." Could the Democrats also be this shameless and slimy? Sure, but it's pretty loving shameless and slimy no matter how you go about it. I thoroughly despise what our political system has become, this is a sick joke where simply wanting to fill vacant seats is "political points." And it's a Goddamn lie because he's deliberately ignoring Kennedy. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, it was decided by the passage of the 13th Amendment, which was approved by a two-thirds majority in Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, if you want to be technical about it. But really it was the Civil War. "really it was the civil war, but it wasn't this thing that happened during the civil war that made the war one about freeing slaves. it was a codified law after. no, i'm not wildly flipping my argument around trying to maintain internal cohesion, why do you ask?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:That sort of implies that Scalia was dedicated to constitutional originalism more than he was to conservative regressive shitocracy. He wasn't. But generally people like to be remembered for things other than conservative regressive shitocracy because otherwise we could condense a lot of the history books down into that category heading followed by a list of names.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"really it was the civil war, but it wasn't this thing that happened during the civil war that made the war one about freeing slaves. it was a codified law after. no, i'm not wildly flipping my argument around trying to maintain internal cohesion, why do you ask?" It was always a war about slavery from the beginning and the Emancipation Proclamation began a process of codifying that which was completed with the passage of the 13th Amendment. The South seceded because an abolitionist President was elected and that's really it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It was always a war about slavery from the beginning and the Emancipation Proclamation began a process of codifying that which was completed with the passage of the 13th Amendment. The South seceded because an abolitionist President was elected and that's really it. the south seceded because of slavery, the north responded to southern military aggression because of a desire to preserve the union, not to free slaves. the emancipation proclamation was pretty unpopular and caused rioting + the inclusion of a reunified union with postwar slavery as part of the peace democrat platform anyway this is all tangential to the moderately baffling invocation of the civil war's impact on slavery in support of a larger argument as to why the power of the executive should be curtailed given that the civil war was one of the biggest examples of a strong exeuctive in united states history. i assume you were just looking for an escape hatch when you were pressed on brown vs. board and didn't think it through
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the south seceded because of slavery, the north responded to southern military aggression because of a desire to preserve the union, not to free slaves. the emancipation proclamation was pretty unpopular and caused rioting + the inclusion of a reunified union with postwar slavery as part of the peace democrat platform Okay actually I changed my mind and you're right. What happened in the Civil War is that even though Union soldiers marched into battle singing "John Brown's Body" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" it wasn't really about slavery even though the South said it was and then on Jan 1, 1963 Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the country collectively made this face:  , which is Weebay from The Wire, and realized that actually it was about slavery, and nothing else that happened before or after was really significant because that doesn't support the asinine point you're trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Here's an example of what I was discussing earlier, this is naked, brazen political partisanship. Kennedy was nominated in 87 so technically McConnell is right that a nomination and confirmation haven't both happened in an election year, but he's still just trying to weasel his way out of letting Obama do his job since if Obama appoints a new justice it's all but certain to cripple the GOP's gains that rely on SCOTUS support like when the VRA was gutted and a bunch of red states immediately enacted laws that just happen to target people who overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, or gerrymandered the state so that their vote on the state level is largely worthless. Thug Lessons posted:It was always a war about slavery from the beginning and the Emancipation Proclamation began a process of codifying that which was completed with the passage of the 13th Amendment. The South seceded because an abolitionist President was elected and that's really it. And none of this makes your suggested changes to the SCOTUS selection method any less terrible or the fact that popular votes for the SCOTUS would be hugely hosed up just like other popular elections for judges are. Popular elections would mean you have people campaigning and raising money and creating a whole shitload of potential conflicts of interest. Or maybe you figure that a justice who gets a ton of donations from Big Whatever will rule impartially in any cases involving them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And none of this makes your suggested changes to the SCOTUS selection method any less terrible or the fact that popular votes for the SCOTUS would be hugely hosed up just like other popular elections for judges are. Popular elections would mean you have people campaigning and raising money and creating a whole shitload of potential conflicts of interest. Or maybe you figure that a justice who gets a ton of donations from Big Whatever will rule impartially in any cases involving them. I've already addressed theses objections repeatedly in posts you didn't bother reading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay actually I changed my mind and you're right. you know if i'm pointing out how you're patching holes in your argument by misrepresenting american history you probably shouldn't double down on that by misrepresenting pop culture as well, especially when the wire itself is all about failures of electing judges
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
If you want to know why judicial elections are such a terrible idea, 95% of the US posters reading this who have voted have voted in a judicial election and I expect about 95% of those people didn't realize it or don't remember it. They almost certainly couldn't tell you who they voted for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you want to know why judicial elections are such a terrible idea, 95% of the US posters reading this who have voted have voted in a judicial election and I expect about 95% of those people didn't realize it or don't remember it. They almost certainly couldn't tell you who they voted for. That's why I'm arguing for a popular veto of Supreme Court justices specifically, not for an election progress for Supreme Court justices that mirrors the electoral process for other positions. 95% of the people posting in this threat ATM haven't realized this because they have poor reading comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you want to know why judicial elections are such a terrible idea, 95% of the US posters reading this who have voted have voted in a judicial election and I expect about 95% of those people didn't realize it or don't remember it. They almost certainly couldn't tell you who they voted for. PA had three supreme court seats up for election last year I don't remember the names, but I voted all D I also voted my neighbor for drunk driving trial judge
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
I'm wondering if that guy is making a run for the title of smartest child on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
I strongly support 18 year SCOTUS terms (which would result in each President getting exactly 2 SCOTUS nominees) and mandatory votes on circuit and appeals nominees as well. The founders clearly didn't envision how big of shitheads we would become.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay actually I changed my mind and you're right. What happened in the Civil War is that even though Union soldiers marched into battle singing "John Brown's Body" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" it wasn't really about slavery even though the South said it was and then on Jan 1, 1963 Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the country collectively made this face: This is not the hill you want to die on. Nationwide abolition was not popular in 1860, even if northerners didn't want slaves in their states. Lincoln won on a Free Soil platform, not an abolitionist one. Abolition and black civil rights gained popularity during the civil war beacause slavery was associated with the insurrection and it became a tool to break the power of the plantation owners and prevent them from dominating the south again after the war and starting the whole rebellion thing again in 20 years. When the planters actually did overthrow the state governments with white supremacist insurrections 20 years later, the north was all "eh as long as you don't secede again then whatever". Abolition would not have passed in a popular vote. The thirteenth amendment only passed congress because the south wasn't there to oppose it, and even then it almost failed in the house anyway and they had to delay the vote so Lincoln could go around visiting individual representatives to whip for it, and I don't think he would have had the time to visit a few million people no matter how many times you delayed the referendum. Oh yeah, and it only got the requisite number of states because half the states had military governments installed by the executive which weren't accountable to their states' popular wills. Now let's imagine Brown v Board except instead of a Supreme Court filled with justices chosen by New Dealers FDR and Truman, the justices were subject to popular veto by the registered voters of the 1940s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
^^^ Don't forget women's rights. Hope you like living in a nation where abortion is considered murder and women are little more than property of their husbands/fathers.Thug Lessons posted:I've already addressed theses objections repeatedly in posts you didn't bother reading. This may surprise you but your posts didn't actually answer anything. Hand-waving away something you don't like does not count as an answer. Or do you mean the popular veto? A thing that would be a nightmare to administer and would have extremely low turnout unless it gets a federal mandate to ensure people can go vote, or can be voted on online or via mail. Good luck with any of those. The reality is that you'd end up with an ultra low turnout where certain groups have a disproportional representation. You're suggesting an extra hurdle because you're unable to accept that a popular vote already happens. We elect our senators and reps. IN doing so we entrust them with certain responsibilities. If you voted for a senator who you think might not share your views on the SCOTUS then tough poo poo. You made your choice and elections have consequences. So like I said before, none of what you've said makes your ideas any less terrible. You already have a say in who sits on the SCOTUS and if you want a direct vote on it too loving bad. Direct elections for the judiciary are awful and there's a reason you're dying alone on this hill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is not the hill you want to die on. Nationwide abolition was not popular in 1860, even if northerners didn't want slaves in their states. Lincoln won on a Free Soil platform, not an abolitionist one. Abolition and black civil rights gained popularity during the civil war beacause slavery was associated with the insurrection and it became a tool to break the power of the plantation owners and prevent them from dominating the south again after the war and starting the whole rebellion thing again in 20 years. When the planters actually did overthrow the state governments with white supremacist insurrections 20 years later, the north was all "eh as long as you don't secede again then whatever". I want you to understand that this discussion started with someone saying "if you had your way slavery would still exist!" and continued with me arguing with someone claiming it wasn't the Civil War that ended slavery, it was the Emancipation Proclamation alone. quote:Now let's imagine Brown v Board except instead of a Supreme Court filled with justices chosen by New Dealers FDR and Truman, the justices were subject to popular veto by the registered voters of the 1940s. If it had been up to a popular vote rather than the Senate FDR probably would have packed the Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's why I'm arguing for a popular veto of Supreme Court justices specifically, not for an election progress for Supreme Court justices that mirrors the electoral process for other positions. 95% of the people posting in this threat ATM haven't realized this because they have poor reading comprehension. You're rubbish at arguing. I need a flow-chart to follow your twisting logic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:You're rubbish at arguing. I need a flow-chart to follow your twisting logic. The whole point is to be bad but voluminous in argument. It's what he does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's why I'm arguing for a popular veto of Supreme Court justices specifically, not for an election progress for Supreme Court justices that mirrors the electoral process for other positions. 95% of the people posting in this threat ATM haven't realized this because they have poor reading comprehension. Well they can't realize it because you keep changing what your point is. You weren't talking about a popular veto until two pages ago when somebody else mentioned it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I want you to understand that this discussion started with someone saying "if you had your way slavery would still exist!" and continued with me arguing with someone claiming it wasn't the Civil War that ended slavery, it was the Emancipation Proclamation alone. It's me, I'm the guy who said it. Now I'm saying this: We don't care and have moved on instead of going full  over the civil war. On behalf of Somethingawful dot com's D&D posters you win the slavery argument if it makes you feel better. Now defend your ideas and other such garbage and address facts such asthere is no such thing as a popular vote for other appointments and until Scalia died you likely gave zero fucks about wanting one for the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:You're rubbish at arguing. I need a flow-chart to follow your twisting logic. I've laid it out pretty clearly repeatedly. It's only complicated because I have to double back and correct people and go off on their tangents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I want you to understand that this discussion started with someone saying "if you had your way slavery would still exist!" and continued with me arguing with someone claiming it wasn't the Civil War that ended slavery, it was the Emancipation Proclamation alone. i only said that because you vaguely tapped on the civil war as an answer, which was odd given your stance that we need to put more checks on the power of the executive when it was the power of the executive that is historically regarded as the cause of the thing you're bringing up like it's just pretty clear that you're lost in the woods here just trying to wander your way into a solid argument
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I want you to understand that this discussion started with someone saying "if you had your way slavery would still exist!" and continued with me arguing with someone claiming it wasn't the Civil War that ended slavery, it was the Emancipation Proclamation alone. None of that supports your claim that slavery could have been abolished by popular vote. Even with the southern representatives gone, Lincoln had to go around whipping individual house members to get them to agree, and without executive-controlled military governments in the south it would never have been ratified. Thug Lessons posted:If it had been up to a popular vote rather than the Senate FDR probably would have packed the Court. With New Dealer segregationists because that was a litmus test to win elections in the south at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
 Let's all shut up about slavery because it's dead and gone, just like Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Honestly, this isn't fun anymore. If y'all are happy with the system of nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, don't let me bother you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Honestly, this isn't fun anymore. If y'all are happy with the system of nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, don't let me bother you. Yes, please stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Honestly, this isn't fun anymore. If y'all are happy with the system of nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, don't let me bother you. Thanks, please don't type anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:57
|
|
