|
To all those saying we have to expand the court. Y'all are going to be very pissed if the GOP somehow takes the house in November...
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
ilkhan posted:To all those saying we have to expand the court. Y'all are going to be very pissed if the GOP somehow takes the house in November... If the GOP takes the House, they almost certainly also held the Senate and the presidency and it won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
clockworx posted:If we're working under the premise that Dems have a spine (lol) and that Republicans can't be allowed any power (active or obstructionist) until they reform and actually want to govern (lol), would the following plan make sense if Dems can recapture the Senate and Presidency? No. Because Republicans will still like all those undemocratic things and when they win again in 4 or 8 years they'll just bring it all back. What the Democrats should do is use all those same undemocratic tricks against republicans even harder. Gerrymander the gently caress out of New York and California so they together send like 120 Democrats and 5 republicans to the house. Have one voting location for all of rural Ohio with a 7 hour lineup while people in Cleveland and Cincinnati can just walk up and vote. Then once Republicans want to ban all that poo poo, everyone can get together and have a constitutional convention to finally put an end to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The thing is, the courts haven't grown for decades despite the country's expansion and we need dozens if not hundreds of additional judges. This needs to be done as well as expanding the House. If McConnell rams someone through there could be the political will to do one if not both those things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 16:03
|
|
for a minute or two to fix the judiciary so that the Federalist Society's activists don't get to undo what progress has been made in the last century.
|
Slow mode has been switch off. Please feel free to offer feedback on the experiment here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:To all those saying we have to expand the court. Y'all are going to be very pissed if the GOP somehow takes the house in November... If the Republicans take back the house the Democrats don't take the Senate and Trump strolls to victory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:To all those saying we have to expand the court. Y'all are going to be very pissed if the GOP somehow takes the house in November... LOL that isn't happening. What happens if the SCOUTS is 4-4 on that ACA case from the 5th circuit? Does that kill the ACA for the whole country or just that circuit's jurisdiction?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:LOL that isn't happening. Just that jurisdiction, ties mean the lower court ruling stands and they only have power in that jurisdiction. I would not put 100% chance on Roberts not joining the crazies, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Lagoa seems like the smart pick since she's from Florida and doesn't (seem?) to have as many batshit statements on the record as Barrett does but I doubt it's going to be her if the nuts think she's squishy on abortion....
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:LOL that isn't happening. To answer the question, if they declare a deadlock, then the ruling is only good in that circuit. If they are deadlocked, then since a circuit split is not acceptable I would assume the court will keep the stay in place and hold it over until a full court can rehear it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No. Because Republicans will still like all those undemocratic things and when they win again in 4 or 8 years they'll just bring it all back. Gerrymandering doesn’t help the senate, presidency and governorships, so you’re still kind of hosed on all those fronts. Hard to suppress Republican votes without a Dem governor. Edit - that's also why I suggested adding states to hopefully help the senate, and potentially the presidency a bit. clockworx fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Sep 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
clockworx posted:Gerrymandering doesn’t help the senate, presidency and governorships, so you’re still kind of hosed on all those fronts. Hard to suppress Republican votes without a Dem governor. Gerrymander absolutely helps with those elections as well because when you Gerrymander state level elections and steal the state government you get to directly target opposing voters for suppression in all elections and that's how you end up with situations like Wisconsin in 2016 and Georgia in 2018 where results were close and the vote difference was a fraction of the number of people whose voting power was targeted for suppression by the GOP in the lead up to those elections (and is continuing, aggressively, in Georgia). Sure it won't suddenly turn California in to a blood red state or Texas in to a deep blue, but when you can keep even a couple percent of the state's voting population from the polls it can and will result in a party winning close elections they'd have likely lost otherwise. That's why it wasn't a surprise to anyone paying attention when the SCOTUS was given a perfect case of oppressive Gerrymandering but ruled in the GOP's favor anyways (though the excuse of "well courts can't answer political questions" was a surprise in how nakedly corrupt it was).
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Instead of thinking unjust ways to govern "but with good intentions", how about just governing justly? Adding Supreme Court justices? There's a reasonable case to made that doing so would result in actual, better governance. Sure, go for it. Gerrymander more? Um, no. How about move change elections to be based on popular vote instead. Organize representative districts based on geographies who have common interests, such as, you know, geography, infrastructure, transportation routes, etc. I realize I'm hand-waving a bit of this, but the solution to bad governance from one political party is probably not bad governance by a different political party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Gerrymander more? Um, no. How about move change elections to be based on popular vote instead. Organize representative districts based on geographies who have common interests, such as, you know, geography, infrastructure, transportation routes, etc. This is naive. When the GOP makes horribly gerrymandered districts, they often will say their districts make sense by grouping people with common interests, etc. When they blatantly say they are doing it for partisan reasons, this is them not listening to their lawyers and loving up by saying the quiet part out loud or being arrogant, but since the courts basically said political gerrymandering is OK (or they can't rule on it), then they don't even have to pretend anymore. The opportunity to end gerrymandering died at the supreme court. Maybe we can get them to reconsider and go "woops, actually maybe gerrymandering is bad after all", but that could only come from gerrymandering the gently caress out of the GOP. Your plan is unilateral disarmament, followed by pouting when the GOP doesn't play fair. When we draw maps, we draw them fairly and have a fair election, and when they draw them, we get hosed for 10 years? Uhh, no. They won't see the light after 2030 if we are fair to them for 10 years and then they suddenly have a lot of power over maps. Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Sep 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Gerrymander absolutely helps with those elections as well because when you Gerrymander state level elections and steal the state government you get to directly target opposing voters for suppression in all elections and that's how you end up with situations like Wisconsin in 2016 and Georgia in 2018 where results were close and the vote difference was a fraction of the number of people whose voting power was targeted for suppression by the GOP in the lead up to those elections (and is continuing, aggressively, in Georgia). Thanks, that's a good point. I wasn't thinking of state-level governments quite as much. Does voter suppression ability typically lie with the governor, the state legislative body or both?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
clockworx posted:Thanks, that's a good point. I wasn't thinking of state-level governments quite as much. Does voter suppression ability typically lie with the governor, the state legislative body or both? It varies widely by state, governors and legislatures in different states have different levels of power affecting elections, and sometimes the SOS is an elected position with a lot of suppression-related power as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Organize representative districts based on geographies who have common interests, such as, you know, geography, infrastructure, transportation routes, etc. Rigel posted:This is naive. When the GOP makes horribly gerrymandered districts, they often will say their districts make sense by grouping people with common interests, etc. When they blatantly say they are doing it for partisan reasons, this is them not listening to their lawyers and loving up by saying the quiet part out loud or being arrogant, but since the courts basically said political gerrymandering is OK (or they can't rule on it), then they don't even have to pretend anymore. We should entrench such institutions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:There is nothing stopping a state from electing its legislature or congressional delegation with a more representative method. Yes there is. Congressional districts are required by the constitution. So whatever your idea is, if it involves getting rid of districts, then it is DOA. If we want to assume that we have the votes to open up a constitutional convention and have fun imagining what we can do then re-writing the government from scratch, well OK but that is not realistic. Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Sep 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Yes there is. Congressional districts are required by the constitution. So whatever your idea is, if it involves getting rid of districts, then it is DOA. If we want imagine that we have the votes to open up a constitutional convention and have fun imagining what we can do then re-writing the government from scratch, well OK but that is not realistic. Fairvote posted:The way we elect Congress has also changed. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the exact mechanisms for electing Congress, leaving it up to the states. In the first few post-revolutionary decades, some states chose to elect representatives using the single-winner district system, in which each congressional district elects just one member of Congress, but others chose multi-winner districts, in which a large district elects multiple winners. In the first Congress, in which James Madison, John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Munroe and Benjamin Harrison ran, 46% of the U.S. House was elected using state-wide multi-winner districts. For the first fifty years of the republic, significant proportions of U.S. House members were elected in multi-winner systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
The way to get more representative is to massively expand the House, say to the point where no district has more than 50% more people than the smallest. Would help with the E.C. too, and no amendment required, just a bigger building. Doesn't do much about the Senate, though. Adding new states and carving up existing ones would though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:The way to get more representative is to massively expand the House, say to the point where no district has more than 50% more people than the smallest. Would help with the E.C. too, and no amendment required, just a bigger building. With the exception of five corner case districts (too big - MT-al, DE-al; too small - RI-1, RI-2, and WY-al) they all already meet this qualification. (And even those are still pretty close - they vary by no more than 50% from average size.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:With the exception of five corner case districts (too big - MT-al, DE-al; too small - RI-1, RI-2, and WY-al) they all already meet this qualification. (And even those are still pretty close - they vary by no more than 50% from average size.) Hm. Well, since we really want to enlarge by 5-10 fold, I guess the next step is a minimum per state. Or statehood for a tiny territory; getting rid of every internal tax Haven is also good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
whos that broooown posted:This is pretty sexist tbh. D&D comment indistinguishable from FB posts from boomers. "You pointing out sexism is the real sexism here"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:With the exception of five corner case districts (too big - MT-al, DE-al; too small - RI-1, RI-2, and WY-al) they all already meet this qualification. (And even those are still pretty close - they vary by no more than 50% from average size.) this is a function of OP choosing a bad number to be his arbitrary cut-off, just low all-around. Anything that presumes the current one per 700,000 apportionment is going to be silly; something like one seat per 250k and you'll easily double the number of seats and still be less than was used before they capped the number to 435. Also, the congress has jumped to 437 twice when we added new states; we should probably put the number low enough so that there are no DE-al or MT-al.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Question; let's say election day comes, Biden wins the presidency but democrats fail to take the senate back. During his first term, three more seats open up on the SC. Definitely not likely to happen, but right now I'm theory-crafting a this outcome based on the age of the oldest current justices (2 liberal/1 conservative). Would the GOP block all three judges over those four years? Let's go one step further and say the first passes on Year One, the second during midterms, the final Year 3. What recourse could democrats have? Especially since the GOP ran out of excuses to use since they've already burned them all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Would the GOP block all three judges over those four years? They would have no reason not to, it's worked before. The only thing that might make them hesitate is that the Court will stop functioning entirely if can't make quorum (5 justices IIRC). quote:Let's go one step further and say the first passes on Year One, the second during midterms, the final Year 3. What recourse could democrats have? Especially since the GOP ran out of excuses to use since they've already burned them all. Hope that the American people are sufficiently against this to flip the Senate after the first blockade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Question; let's say election day comes, Biden wins the presidency but democrats fail to take the senate back. During his first term, three more seats open up on the SC. Definitely not likely to happen, but right now I'm theory-crafting a this outcome based on the age of the oldest current justices (2 liberal/1 conservative). In this scenario the Dems are likely to take the senate in subsequent elections, but it's not a sure thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:The way to get more representative is to massively expand the House, say to the point where no district has more than 50% more people than the smallest. Would help with the E.C. too, and no amendment required, just a bigger building. There's no Constitutional requirement that everyone be physically present in the chamber, iirc. A bunch of people from the 1770s couldn't have imagined the internet and if they had they'd probably have said "you can have people just in their districts year round while also fulfilling Congressional duties? Yeah do that." Parrotine posted:Question; let's say election day comes, Biden wins the presidency but democrats fail to take the senate back. During his first term, three more seats open up on the SC. Definitely not likely to happen, but right now I'm theory-crafting a this outcome based on the age of the oldest current justices (2 liberal/1 conservative). You can recess appoint judges and Congress has to recess, even for a fraction of a second, for a new Congress to take over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They would have no reason not to, it's worked before. The only thing that might make them hesitate is that the Court will stop functioning entirely if can't make quorum (5 justices IIRC). Yeah but for four straight years? Only blockade I'm familiar with is Obama on his final year, maybe there's an example from the past where this has happened before?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Yeah but for four straight years? Only blockade I'm familiar with is Obama on his final year, maybe there's an example from the past where this has happened before? What's going to stop them? Fascists are immune to hypocrisy. They revel in it, in fact, because it lets them misdirect their opposition in to fighting pointless battles while they seize more and more power. So, again, what's going to stop them from doing exactly that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Gerund posted:this is a function of OP choosing a bad number to be his arbitrary cut-off, just low all-around. Anything that presumes the current one per 700,000 apportionment is going to be silly; something like one seat per 250k and you'll easily double the number of seats and still be less than was used before they capped the number to 435. MT-al may split after the next reapportionment anyway. (RI-2 almost certainly will disappear, creating RI-al.) I’m not at all against expanding the House, though I don’t think it’s a panacea, but the “widely disparate populations” aspect is far less important than the “enabling non-rich people to run” and “increase in local representation” aspects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:What's going to stop them? Fascists are immune to hypocrisy. They revel in it, in fact, because it lets them misdirect their opposition in to fighting pointless battles while they seize more and more power. So, again, what's going to stop them from doing exactly that? This. McConnell already said he would block any of Clinton's nominees if she won but didn't take the senate back in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:What's going to stop them? Fascists are immune to hypocrisy. They revel in it, in fact, because it lets them misdirect their opposition in to fighting pointless battles while they seize more and more power. So, again, what's going to stop them from doing exactly that? If that's truly they case then I gotta hope that democrats get off their asses for once to actually turn up and vote. It's nuts how vital 2016 was for the state of our country looking back, but I guess people were too worried about some dumb emails to care enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:If that's truly they case then I gotta hope that democrats get off their asses for once to actually turn up and vote. It's nuts how vital 2016 was for the state of our country looking back, but I guess people were too worried about some dumb emails to care enough. The vast majority of the voting age population doesn't know or care about the vast majority of things discussed in this very forum. They don't know the stakes. This isn't unchangeable but its how things are, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
What would the the option to request some of the other justices like Thomas retire during a Dem administration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
Gatts posted:What would the the option to request some of the other justices like Thomas retire during a Dem administration. There's no way to get them to retire. I guess you could threaten to pack the court if they don't, but they probably still wouldn't. It's pretty rare to want to voluntarily stop being one of the most powerful people in the country, especially when doing so means your lifelong enemies get more power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
If so what’s the prospect of negotiating with like Roberts on the future of the supreme court’s relevancy if the Dems win, pack the courts, ensure the end of conservative rule, etc. and no one enforced their decisions. Basically put his legacy in question to the point it puts pressure back to go to the GOP to not put a crazy on there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Gatts posted:What would the the option to request some of the other justices like Thomas retire during a Dem administration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If so what’s the prospect of negotiating with like Roberts on the future of the supreme court’s relevancy if the Dems win, pack the courts, ensure the end of conservative rule, etc. and no one enforced their decisions. Basically put his legacy in question to the point it puts pressure back to go to the GOP to not put a crazy on there. I'm not sure what your point is, yes Roberts cares about the court's image, but its not their fault that the GOP stole a seat, and they aren't going to retire. We don't consult with the court, if we have to pack the court and have the ability, we just do that and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Gatts posted:If so what’s the prospect of negotiating with like Roberts on the future of the supreme court’s relevancy if the Dems win, pack the courts, ensure the end of conservative rule, etc. and no one enforced their decisions. Basically put his legacy in question to the point it puts pressure back to go to the GOP to not put a crazy on there. I'm not quite sure what you mean but the only way non-court entities can steer the court is to make appointments and it's very clear under what circumstances that can happen, so promises and threats don't hold very much water while the outcome of the election is still in doubt. There is no point in trying to negotiate before they hold the power or after they get it, in one case Roberts can ignore them at no cost to himself or the court and in the other they can impose their will on the court over his objections. haveblue fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Sep 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 19:59
|
|