|
Lemming posted:Fascists get emboldened when they feel powerful. Which is why this is so disastrous. Trump will see a noticeable uptick in approval as a result of this, and demoralized conservatives used to seeing strings of Dem electoral victories will now think the tide is turning, which may be self-fulfilling. The converse is also true - if progressives see this as a huge setback and it saps even a little enthusiasm, we absolutely won't be winning the Senate as it relies on us outperforming and them under performing in solidly red states.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
 "Roe Vs Wade is overturned, because I hate it and because I hate it, God hates it. I rule for the majority because I am the majority" - Judge Screaming Hatred Skull
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas, the oldest republican justice, is only 70.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Sulphagnist posted:This is only a problem because the US system has been built into a ridiculous contraption over the centuries where minority (formerly, slaveholder) rights have been backed by multiple procedural gimmicks instead of a solid grounding in basic rights like everywhere else. If you have a chamber like the House and a chamber like the Senate and a bullshit electoral college to elect a powerful executive, nothing will ever get done in an otherwise normal partisan political environment and once bad faith and procedural abuse seep into the system it quickly rots. Compromise was the only way to get anything done because the system was built to require it; not because compromise is an intrinsic good. I'd argue the UK's system is showing signs of underlying strain, namely Scotland's independence movement + Brexit and its effects on Northern Ireland. I kind of feel like there's a push worldwide for continual Balkanization of societies as people feel the need to split themselves into smaller and smaller groupings for the purpose of ideological alignment. For the US, this does seem like the inevitable outcome of the "great compromise" pushing the undemocratic parts of the Constitution to the breaking point. When the Constitution was enacted, my back of the envelope calculations show that there was a 12:1 population split between the largest state and the smallest state (Virginia:Delaware), and that's counting slaves, who obviously had no political representation at the time other than the 3/5's compromise. That ratio is now approaching 70:1 (California:Wyoming) today. And yet California and Wyoming both get 2 Senators, and Wyoming gets outsized say in a presidential election, etc. The rural/urban ideological divide is at its worst right now because of that. It's deeply ironic that the most undemocratic vote you can take in the Constitution is the one to amend it (the 3/4 of states needed to amend, each being counted as one). The urban areas of the country are being held hostage by the rural areas. That being said I think simple demographics suggest it might get better from here. This might just be the baby boomer population pyramid bulge being worked out of the system. Cost of living issues are pushing people geographically inward. Whether those forces correct things in time before the country tears itself apart remains to be seen. The next Civil War might be the populous states trying to extract themselves from a contract they find increasingly undemocratic and onerous. The defenders of civil rights as the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Makes me miss the good old days when the screaming skull justices were left-wing radicals. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Vietnom nom nom posted:I'd argue the UK's system is showing signs of underlying strain, namely Scotland's independence movement + Brexit and its effects on Northern Ireland. I kind of feel like there's a push worldwide for continual Balkanization of societies as people feel the need to split themselves into smaller and smaller groupings for the purpose of ideological alignment. The biggest culprit here is Congress back in 1929 capping the number of representatives to 438. That is why we have the imbalance in the EC that we see today. The 2 free senators each is a much smaller factor here. That isn't to say there isn't an argument to be made against having the Senate at all of course (not that I would agree with that, just that the argument could be made).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Makes me miss the good old days when the screaming skull justices were left-wing radicals. Look at all those moochers in the left-hand lower corner. That's probably the GOP convincing them to surrender their food stamps and medicare in the corner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The biggest culprit here is Congress back in 1929 capping the number of representatives to 438. That is why we have the imbalance in the EC that we see today. The 2 free senators each is a much smaller factor here. That isn't to say there isn't an argument to be made against having the Senate at all of course (not that I would agree with that, just that the argument could be made). you could have a proper 1500 seat and the senate could just shut it down - in the nearish future 70 senators will represent only 30 percent of the population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The biggest culprit here is Congress back in 1929 capping the number of representatives to 438. Capping the House was the direct result of the Drys (eg the people for Prohibition) completely shutting down any and all possibility of reapportionment from the 1920 census. Mainly because it would have resulted in them getting run out of office by the Wets (which happened in 32 anyways)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Hey guys, how do you think the DNC is handling the news? https://twitter.com/davidsiders/status/1012043479667445761 Oh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
that would be a real shame if the new court allows states to outlaw abortion. It's a bummer when the nanny state butts into every corner of your life and tells you what you can and can't do
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Makes me miss the good old days when the screaming skull justices were left-wing radicals. Don't be silly, those justices aren't screaming. They have decorum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Magnitogorsk. posted:that would be a real shame if the new court allows states to outlaw abortion. It's a bummer when the nanny state butts into every corner of your life and tells you what you can and can't do Yeah, I’m really mad the law won’t let me kill people who inconvenience me. loving nanny state, if they want to live they should be able to defend themselves. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:Yeah, I’m really mad the law won’t let me kill people who inconvenience me. loving nanny state, if they want to live they should be able to defend themselves. ......jesus loving christ, you earned that god damned avatar, you fuckhead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:......jesus loving christ, you earned that god damned avatar, you fuckhead. shhh let the right-wing nutjobs tear each other apart over b-b-bortions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Magnitogorsk. posted:that would be a real shame if the new court allows states to outlaw abortion. It's a bummer when the nanny state butts into every corner of your life and tells you what you can and can't do A 5-4 ruling allowing states to outlaw abortion would be a victory for the left at this point, its very possible that abortion is just outlawed completely now
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:I think the best angle on this is bring up the horror of Citizens United / letting gerrymandering stand / gutting the VRA / assaults on the democratic fabric of the country, form that into a case against Roberts, and then impeach him that way. Pick between that and adding two justices and then push for whatever is easier in 2020 (if we get back control). Roberts would be 8th on the list of people who deserve to be impeached from this court. In fact, he is the only reason we still have Obamacare
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:A 5-4 ruling allowing states to outlaw abortion would be a victory for the left at this point, its very possible that abortion is just outlawed completely now how exactly do you propose that someone virulently pro-life gets the votes of Murkowski and Collins, which will very likely both be necessary for confirmation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Arkane posted:how exactly do you propose that someone virulently pro-life gets the votes of Murkowski and Collins, which will very likely both be necessary for confirmation? They're members of this party that you don't seem to be familiar with, the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Arkane posted:how exactly do you propose that someone virulently pro-life gets the votes of Murkowski and Collins, which will very likely both be necessary for confirmation? hm how did they vote last spring on a virulently pro-life nominee
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Arkane posted:how exactly do you propose that someone virulently pro-life gets the votes of Murkowski and Collins, which will very likely both be necessary for confirmation? im justice neil gorsuch and i approve this message
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They're members of this party that you don't seem to be familiar with, the Republicans. Not only are they both pro-choice, but Collins already implied she wouldn't vote for someone who didn't think that Roe v Wade was settled law, and I think we can assume that Murk will have similar misgivings. So unless you have McCain get well again and/or replaced, and a few Ds cross over, a super pro-life Justice is unlikely to be walking through that door. VitalSigns posted:hm how did they vote last spring on a virulently pro-life nominee Much different dynamic replacing Scalia versus replacing the swing vote
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Its only going to take 51 votes in the Senate to confirm the new nominee That seat is lost Dems. Better hope Ginsburg hangs on
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not only are they both pro-choice, but Collins already implied she wouldn't vote for someone who didn't think that Roe v Wade was settled law, and I think we can assume that Murk will have similar misgivings. Imagine being so loving stupid you wrote this post
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Samara posted:Its only going to take 51 votes in the Senate to confirm the new nominee 50 votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
No R is going to try to block a Trump nominee with Midterms right around the corner. Likewise your D's who are holding on by a thread in red states like McCaskill and Manchin will probably break for the Trump candidate too because they know they'll still get Dem voters regardless so might as well try to keep your right-leaning constituents mollified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Arkane posted:how exactly do you propose that someone virulently pro-life gets the votes of Murkowski and Collins, which will very likely both be necessary for confirmation? the nominee says the same generic nonsense about respect for precedent every single previous republican nominee has said. or do you think collins and murkowski were unclear that, say, alito was virulently pro-life and was nominated because of it, given that both of them voted for alito evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not only are they both pro-choice, but Collins already implied she wouldn't vote for someone who didn't think that Roe v Wade was settled law, and I think we can assume that Murk will have similar misgivings. i guess i missed the page in the rulebook where gorsuch doesn't get a vote when Roe gets back to the court
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Please stop quoting and/or engaging with Arkane. Thanks. Trump will nominate Wyrick. He's 37.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Please stop quoting and/or engaging with Arkane. Thanks. Was he one of those last 'hopefuls' people were talking about when the first seat was getting filled? The only other names I can distinctly recall from all that were Gorsuch and Pryor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Non-US poster here. I'm sorry, I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseam, but can anybody please give me a short summary on the viability of expanding the supreme court in the Democrats favour?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the nominee says the same generic nonsense about respect for precedent every single previous republican nominee has said. or do you think collins and murkowski were unclear that, say, alito was virulently pro-life and was nominated because of it, given that both of them voted for alito Everyone and their mother knows that they're replacing the swing vote on abortion. Do you think the two pro-choice Republicans are going to roll over for a super pro-life nominee? I think that view is wrong...obviously the view is plausible in a cynical type of way, but I think it is a misreading of the current dynamics in the Senate. Remember that Collins and Murk both voted no on healthcare due to abortion. Lemming posted:Imagine being so loving stupid you wrote this post Whether it's loving stupid I guess remains to be seen, but I've made like >$20k betting on Supreme Court stuff in the past 2 years so I guess we'll see if I can keep the streak going!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Much different dynamic replacing Scalia versus replacing the swing vote Nah they don't give a poo poo or they wouldn't be Republicans. If Roe gets overturned it will be years later and they won't be directly responsible if they're even in politics by then. If they are they can just handwring or whatever about the need for women to control their bodies and no one in our cowardly media apparatus will ever challenge them on their vote for this, and they know it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Holy everliving gently caress were there just some fireworks on msnbc just now. I thought Chris Matthews was going to jump through the screen and stab Steve waterboy Kornacki in the throat. Anyone else catch it?! edit: Matthews was blathering some unknown strategies that will be used to stop next SC pick. No one really knew what he was talking about and he just kept getting angrier Professor Skittles fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Freudian slippers posted:Non-US poster here. I'm sorry, I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseam, but can anybody please give me a short summary on the viability of expanding the supreme court in the Democrats favour? It'd be the death of our democracy. So not viable in the slightest without a bloody revolution in which I want no part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:19
|
|
Cat Army 
|
shut up you loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Everyone and their mother knows that they're replacing the swing vote on abortion. Do you think the two pro-choice Republicans are going to roll over for a super pro-life nominee? I think that view is wrong...obviously the view is plausible in a cynical type of way, but I think it is a misreading of the current dynamics in the Senate. Collins already said something mealymouthed about wanting someone with "respect for precedent" but not saying she'd insist on Roe and Collins and Murk mostly voted no because of Medicaid. I would like to believe they're not going to roll over but we all know the song and dance: the nominee will not say anything one way or the other and both of them will vote for the nominee. Nobody seriously believes they're going to stop a Republican SCOTUS nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Was he one of those last 'hopefuls' people were talking about when the first seat was getting filled? The only other names I can distinctly recall from all that were Gorsuch and Pryor. I'm not sure but Trump will pick him because he's super young and it will be a huge middle finger to his critics/red meat for his base, which is all he cares about. He'll brag about his nominee being 37 and people will cheer him at rallies for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
Freudian slippers posted:Non-US poster here. I'm sorry, I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseam, but can anybody please give me a short summary on the viability of expanding the supreme court in the Democrats favour? The number of seats on the Supreme Court is set by law. You just change that law, expanding it from 9 to 11, then fill those vacancies. It just takes a simple majority in Congress (after you abolish the filibuster).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:22
|
|