|
VitalSigns posted:This is just absolutely incredible What you're supposed to do is never get your right to vote restored. Clearly if you wanted to vote you should've never been a  The only way this gets fixed is through another voter drive in Florida that is essentially "this amendment tells the GOP to gently caress off with their poll tax and nullifies any laws passed to restrict the restoration of voting rights to felons." Won't matter for this November, and the GOP will just ignore it or pass a new law for Roberts to uphold, but the entire purpose of the GOP's law is to ensure felons can never have their voting rights restored due to wilful incompetence by the state government. Raenir Salazar posted:It isn't though, because most Democrats are vulnerable to losing their seats if they go through with it for frivolous ("Because we won, might makes right") reasons. What's it like working for the DNC?
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It isn't though, because most Democrats are vulnerable to losing their seats if they go through with it for frivolous ("Because we won, might makes right") reasons. For this to have any internal consistency, this means they have to stop accepting billionaire money, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It isn't though, because most Democrats are vulnerable to losing their seats if they go through with it for frivolous ("Because we won, might makes right") reasons. No, you say, Republicans did something wrong, these steps correct that wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:No, you say, Republicans did something wrong, these steps correct that wrong. What's wrong isn't that they have positions of power, what's wrong is that they obstructed Obama from doing his constitutional duty. That isn't something easy to correct, it isn't fair, but someone has to have principles at some point or it's just constant escalation and tit for tat actions and nothing ever improves in the aggregate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What's wrong isn't that they have positions of power, what's wrong is that they obstructed Obama from doing his constitutional duty. That isn't something easy to correct, it isn't fair, but someone has to have principles at some point or it's just constant escalation and tit for tat actions and nothing ever improves in the aggregate. If one side is being fair and the other side isn't, then no one that matters will have principles, because the side that's abusing power without any limits will simply run roughshod over the rights of their principled opponents and seize all the power for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If one side is being fair and the other side isn't, then no one that matters will have principles, because the side that's abusing power without any limits will simply run roughshod over the rights of their principled opponents and seize all the power for themselves. I wonder what the most compact way to communicate this to  democrats is
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If one side is being fair and the other side isn't, then no one that matters will have principles, because the side that's abusing power without any limits will simply run roughshod over the rights of their principled opponents and seize all the power for themselves. Right, hence why as I said originally, people need to be smart about it, and focus on a reasoning that won't cause them to lose everything you work towards. The point is to be strategic about it and not act out of, what seems more like the principle of revenge than about good policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It isn't though, because most Democrats are vulnerable to losing their seats if they go through with it for frivolous ("Because we won, might makes right") reasons. First of all, want to bet that you can? Second, loving lol if you think stopping the Republicans' bullshit is a frivolous reason. How loving white and sheltered are you? Raenir Salazar posted:Right, hence why as I said originally, people need to be smart about it, and focus on a reasoning that won't cause them to lose everything you work towards. The point is to be strategic about it and not act out of, what seems more like the principle of revenge than about good policy. Politics is mass movement. Revenge is an excellent motivator. Whatever you are proposing isn't good policy, it's milquetoast do-nothing bullshit. A terrible motivator btw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What's wrong isn't that they have positions of power, what's wrong is that they obstructed Obama from doing his constitutional duty. That isn't something easy to correct, it isn't fair, but someone has to have principles at some point or it's just constant escalation and tit for tat actions and nothing ever improves in the aggregate. Democrats and Republicans are in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma and Republicans have been slamming the defect button for decades. The optimal strategy for Democrats is tit for tat but Democrats have been sitting on the cooperate button, forgetting the defect button even exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Reset the clock. https://twitter.com/MikeScarcella/status/1284156949093920773
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Right, hence why as I said originally, people need to be smart about it, and focus on a reasoning that won't cause them to lose everything you work towards. The point is to be strategic about it and not act out of, what seems more like the principle of revenge than about good policy. The thread was already on a "be tactful about it" line of conversation on the previous page, but yes, revenge phrasing should be avoided. At the present time, I'd use Craig K's phrasing and then Main Paineframe's phrasing if someone cares enough to express that they "see through" Craig K's phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:I wonder what the most compact way to communicate this to Running them out of office in the primaries like with Crowley and now Engel is a good way to deal with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:Reset the clock. January 6 is 173 days away. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Politics is mass movement. Revenge is an excellent motivator. Whatever you are proposing isn't good policy, it's milquetoast do-nothing bullshit. A terrible motivator btw. But there's no indication that there is mass movement in favor of stacking the supreme court, especially by 4 justices; much less any indication that people are all that upset about Garland. Things like, "We gotta gerrymander Republicans out of existence" has no constituency. Especially when saying the quiet part out loud is more about putting it to Republicans than about reversing their damage. What does have a constituency, is expanding the vote, in eliminating gerrymandering and creating fair and competitive districts. What probably has a constituency is quietly expanding the lower courts, something that used to be quite routine. galenanorth posted:The thread was already on a "be tactful about it" line of conversation on the previous page, but yes, revenge phrasing should be avoided. At the present time, I'd use Craig K's phrasing and then Main Paineframe's phrasing if someone cares enough to express that they "see through" Craig K's phrasing. Exactly. disjoe posted:Democrats and Republicans are in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma and Republicans have been slamming the defect button for decades. The problem is that Republican voters either don't care or actively support Republicans doing what they do, the Democratic base doesn't reward their representatives for the same behaviour, and independents are frustratingly more willing to excuse Republicans for it than Democrats. The larger point is that it isn't a good strategy for Democrats to pursue, except decisively, quickly for low hanging fruit with high returns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:January 6 is 173 days away. Imagine having the fate of your country depend on the health of a single one of its citizens. Raenir Salazar posted:But there's no indication that there is mass movement in favor of stacking the supreme court, especially by 4 justices; much less any indication that people are all that upset about Garland. Things like, "We gotta gerrymander Republicans out of existence" has no constituency. Especially when saying the quiet part out loud is more about putting it to Republicans than about reversing their damage. These are minutiae of government my dude, outside of politics nerds such as us nobody is going to be very excited by them most of the time. So when you have power what you do is you act to do the right thing and people will follow. Republicans do this poo poo all the drat time, and keep creating a new reality for you to live in while you wring your hands telling yourself that materially changing the world is impossible, actually. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
I think it's just that all of the people clamoring for it have been on the far-left side of the Democratic Party, and if the centrist leaders quietly supported it, no one would really care.
galenanorth fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:January 6 is 173 days away. Don't worry, Biden will nominate some anti-abortion ghoul in her place if he wins to be 'fair' to the republicans, anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:January 6 is 173 days away. I mean it's not like if Biden wins he's gonna pick anyone slightly left, Ginsburg really hosed up on every level with her retirement
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
Truth be told I doubt Obama would have selected anyone good either, honestly this countries political options are such trash lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Right wing Democratic court nominees like (checks notes) Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Truth be told I doubt Obama would have selected anyone good either, honestly this countries political options are such trash lol Sotomayor and Kagan are fine, Ginsburg's problem is that she waited too long and by the time she started seriously contemplating retirement the Democrats had lost the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
He gave us Sotomayor and Kagan who are both excellent but I'm not sure how intentional that was. Sotomayor in particular probably turned out way more progressive than he intended. Also Obama appointed both his justices before the 2010 elections that swung the legislature R, so unless RBG retired before that he wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting somebody as progressive as her through confirmations even if he wanted to, particularly considering back then the the filibuster for judicial nominations was still around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Any non-heritage society judge is more likely than not to be decent, and even the heritage society picks are sometimes not terrible.atelier morgan posted:Don't worry, Biden will nominate some anti-abortion ghoul in her place if he wins to be 'fair' to the republicans, anyway This is an impossibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Sydin posted:He gave us Sotomayor and Kagan who are both excellent but I'm not sure how intentional that was. Sotomayor in particular probably turned out way more progressive than he intended. Democrats controlled the Senate until 2014.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Sydin posted:He gave us Sotomayor and Kagan who are both excellent but I'm not sure how intentional that was. Sotomayor in particular probably turned out way more progressive than he intended. Come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
rscott posted:Democrats controlled the Senate until 2014. Enough to prevent a filibuster? Reid specifically refused to invoke the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations in 2013 so I'm not sure they would have been willing to do that back then. Maybe they would have had RBG said she'd step down, idk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What's wrong isn't that they have positions of power, what's wrong is that they obstructed Obama from doing his constitutional duty. That isn't something easy to correct, it isn't fair, but someone has to have principles at some point or it's just constant escalation and tit for tat actions and nothing ever improves in the aggregate. Republicans refused to do their duty, result, one conservative justice where there should be a progressive. Solution? Add two justices, from a progressive President. It resets the balance to where it would be if they did their duty. Republicans refused to confirm judges for Obama. Solution? Expand the federal bench, confirm judges from democratic President. It's neither overreach nor abuse. It is a fair, equitable and lawful solution. It also helps alleviate an actual issue with overworked federal courts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Could we avoid the utterly idiotic "nothing matters lol" posts in this thread, possibly? Like seriously skipping over Kagan and Sotomayor to claim Obama would appoint terrible judges. Unreal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:Reset the clock. This is pretty much the most obvious "I ain't quittin' til Trump's out" statement possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Even if Obama would have picked somebody just as progressive as RBG and Reid would have nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations to ensure they got through, that's not the reality we live in. We live in one where we need to pack the loving courts. Hand wringing about RBG having not retired when you think she should have is worthless conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Best thing would be to expand the number of seats on SCOTUS and trial courts over time so that each individual judge doesn't make things super swingy when they retire/die. That would help depoliticize the judiciary a bit. For example: add two seats in 2022, 2 in 2026, 2 in 2030 and 2 in 2034. Each president is guaranteed at least 2 seats that on midterm years so there is less for Republicans to bitch about, but it fixes the current court quickly as two seats filled by Biden would revert the court back to where it should be. That or the idea that appeals court judges take rotating turns sitting as extra associate judges so ideologues like Scalito and Beeranaugh can't push through bullshit opinions
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
The problem is you don't know when or if you'll get a shot again. The Senate is only going to favor Republicans more and more as time goes on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Could we avoid the utterly idiotic "nothing matters lol" posts in this thread, possibly? Didn't Obama nominate the gops pick for Scalia
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The problem is that Republican voters either don't care or actively support Republicans doing what they do, the Democratic base doesn't reward their representatives for the same behaviour, and independents are frustratingly more willing to excuse Republicans for it than Democrats. The larger point is that it isn't a good strategy for Democrats to pursue, except decisively, quickly for low hanging fruit with high returns. I think the question is "why is this the case"? It's not some magic coincidence that Republican voters care and Dem voters don't. Both are the result of decades of intentional efforts by the political parties to cast the Court's decisions in a given light, as a response to the political role the Court played through much of the 20th century, which itself was the result of various attempts to influence the composition and ideology of the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Slaan posted:That would help depoliticize the judiciary a bit. I think the horse is out of the barn on this one. The only Republican constituency that can win primaries sees the court system as the vehicle for imposing their religious bigotry on the rest of us and give no impression that they can be talked out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The problem is you don't know when or if you'll get a shot again. The Senate is only going to favor Republicans more and more as time goes on. And that's why you make Puerto Rico and DC a state. 3/4 democratic senators and suddenly the Senate more closely represents the us population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Best thing would be to expand the number of seats on SCOTUS and trial courts over time so that each individual judge doesn't make things super swingy when they retire/die. That would help depoliticize the judiciary a bit. Or you could just throw some progressives on the court and not give the GOP more chances to stack the bench with more beers. torgeaux posted:And that's why you make Puerto Rico and DC a state. 3/4 democratic senators and suddenly the Senate more closely represents the us population. Also this. Do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
On the topic of Puerto Rico admission, they're holding a yes/no referendum this November for the first time in Puerto Rico's history https://apnews.com/cdf24e971c469dcea977cbb1ccded453?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow galenanorth fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jul 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There needs to be a substantive feasible reason to do so and "Republicans got some people appointed when it was their right to do so" isn't one of them. The reason is a fig leaf and everyone will understand that, but yes "officially" the reason would be that the court needs more SCOTUS justices to keep up with the increasing load of appeals from below. We might also note that the percentage of certs granted has steadily gone down over time and argue that they need help in the high court to take more cases on, its not like the calendar is jammed, time is not the bottleneck here, we'd argue 11 would accomplish more than 9. Everyone would call bullshit and say we're actually using our majority to blatantly seize power. And yeah, justified or not, we are. The GOP has permanently and irrevocably destroyed any unspoken agreements here, if we have the votes, we pack the court. We probably wont have the votes without a huge senate majority because of reluctance to eliminate the filibuster. (A nomination cant be filibustered, but a bill expanding the court can be). But if that is ever not true, we do it, and yes it might make re-election slightly more difficult for a few senators, but its worth the risk. Maybe some individual senators in purple states might cowardly decide its not worth it to them, but tactically as a party its worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
nerve posted:Didn't Obama nominate the gops pick for Scalia That was the plot of a West Wing episode where Glenn Close becomes Chief Justice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 19:18
|
|