|
After the SCOTUS rules that the VRA is Unconstitutional because gently caress You, the Democratic Party is unironically going to bang the "if you want this to change you need to get out and vote" drum.Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not irrevocably. Decent chance things turn around in our lifetimes. The kids are alright and all the worst people are over 70, which is the age folks just start randomly dying. Unless that's going to happen within the next 2 years it's going to be too little, too late. The increasingly open fascism of the Republican Party isn't going to let something like free and fair elections get in the way of decades of sabotage and work to turn the US into a theocratic hellscape. The Senate is also going to be a problem long after you and everyone else in this thread is dead (unless everyone's dead due to nuclear annihilation, which is increasingly likely). Crosby B. Alfred posted:Even if you had favorable senate... how do you get someone like Barrett off the court as it's essentially a lifetime appointment. The way I see it, an entire generation is essentially hosed but I'd be glad to be proven wrong. You'd either have to stack the court, make them resign, or remove them by force. An equally likely outcome is that if by some fluke we end up with a president with a spine and even slightly left of center politics, they publicly state what we've known for decades: the current SCOTUS is illegitimate and to give any weight to their rulings would be a mockery of justice and perpetuation of the lie of their alleged legitimacy. The US has been kicking this can down the road since Bush v. Gore and delaying only continues to make it worse since the GOP are working towards a very specific goal and the rich old fucks running the Democratic Party don't care because they figure they'll be safe if poo poo hits the fan or they'll already be dead due to age/disease. See also: most Dem politicians giving zero fucks about passing laws to kneecap the EC idiocy and force a popular vote for POTUS even after losing twice in two decades to chuckfuck failsons who couldn't have won otherwise.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There are a lot of things that could be done, ranging from impeachment to reorganization of the federal courts to court packing etc. That requires us to be lucky enough for the Dems to be holding both the Senate and the presidency when that happens (assuming they don't retire under a Republican president), which is very far from a sure thing, not even getting into the part where Roberts would have to be willing to bring it back at that point which also isn't a guarantee
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
Does anyone really think there is a law they can pass to bypass the electoral college which the Supreme Court would not invalidate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
Piell posted:That requires us to be lucky enough for the Dems to be holding both the Senate and the presidency when that happens (assuming they don't retire under a Republican president), which is very far from a sure thing, not even getting into the part where Roberts would have to be willing to bring it back at that point which also isn't a guarantee Democrats don't need to hold both (if they did, they would just appoint Dems). As long as they held either when that happened, the court would just shrink. Hence the 4-3. yronic heroism posted:Does anyone really think there is a law they can pass to bypass the electoral college which the Supreme Court would not invalidate? They don't need to. States can assign electors however they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
Dameius posted:This wouldn't end up being the first time that the court is circumvented. They've made their ruling, now let them enforce it; to paraphrase. That only really works when SCOTUS is ordering the federal government to do (or stop doing) something. If SCOTUS decides that abortion is left to the states, a bunch of states will immediately outlaw it and enforce this themselves - lower courts will back these states by citing SCOTUS. At that point what can Biden do, apart from loudly saying he disagrees? Voting restrictions are similar, unless they are directly to do with the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 11:10
|
|
|
Piell posted:That requires us to be lucky enough for the Dems to be holding both the Senate and the presidency when that happens I said 4-3, not 5-4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:They don't need to. States can assign electors however they want. Except SCOTUS can review and rule on what the states and state courts do, as in Bush v. Gore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
SixFigureSandwich posted:That only really works when SCOTUS is ordering the federal government to do (or stop doing) something. If SCOTUS decides that abortion is left to the states, a bunch of states will immediately outlaw it and enforce this themselves - lower courts will back these states by citing SCOTUS. At that point what can Biden do, apart from loudly saying he disagrees? The courts only have as much power as we choose to give them and a sufficiently motivated Congress could reshape the court to their needs at will. The rub there, of course, is the tricky bit of that sentence, "sufficiently motivated." Almost every American alive right now has lived their entire lives in a world where there has been an active campaign by the Republican party to complete an ideological take over of the court to dismantle, at minimum the FDR government, if not take it even further back. This campaign is finally bearing its spoils and while we have on paper things that are "simple" to stop it, they are not easily accomplished with the current membership of the opposition or they would have done it already. Things are absolutely going to get worse before they get better. Probably a lot worse. So long as we live under the current constitution though we will have our path out from under them, we just need to actually do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
We really do need to abolish states. What a stupid loving idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You'd either have to stack the court, make them resign, or remove them by force. An equally likely outcome is that if by some fluke we end up with a president with a spine and even slightly left of center politics, they publicly state what we've known for decades: the current SCOTUS is illegitimate and to give any weight to their rulings would be a mockery of justice and perpetuation of the lie of their alleged legitimacy. That's not wrong but in even in a perfect scenario that is one uphill battle. Sure, it can be won but I think things will get so much worse in the meanwhile. Barely anyone these days understands gerrymandering or even in the electoral college I will say though there some progressive elements of the Democratic Party that are finally pushing against it. I'm also genuinely interested to see what happens with the recent abortion case - it sounds like absolute political suicide to reverse Roe vs. Wade but what the gently caress do I know? This reminds me of a recent NYT Article, Trump Won’t Let America Go. Can Democrats Pry It Away? quote:“They [Democrats] have won the popular vote in 7 out of 8 presidential elections — that’s almost unthinkable. They have also won the popular vote in the Senate in every six-year cycle since 2000. You cannot look at a party in a democracy that has won the popular vote almost without fail for two decades and say, gee, that party really has to get it together and address its “liabilities.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Does anyone really think there is a law they can pass to bypass the electoral college which the Supreme Court would not invalidate? Again, this is the point at which the POTUS (and Congress) declare the SCOTUS invalid and just refuse their rulings entirely. Though if both branches are in agreement of "gently caress The SCOTUS" then they'd probably be willing to stack the bench and create a majority of non-shitheads. Crosby B. Alfred posted:This reminds me of a recent NYT Article, Trump Won’t Let America Go. Can Democrats Pry It Away? And yet when the Dems find themselves with a majority in both chambers and the WH they don't take any steps to address the issues that only let them hold power when there's a fluke, rather than always holding power because they're who a majority of the people want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:they're who a majority of the people want. This might be a little strong but I think we all get what you are trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Democrats don't need to hold both (if they did, they would just appoint Dems). As long as they held either when that happened, the court would just shrink. Hence the 4-3. Hieronymous Alloy posted:I said 4-3, not 5-4. Correct, that's three liberals and four conservatives, you would have to rely on Roberts bringing the VRA back (presumably it would have been gone for years or decade+ at that point) which is very far from a guarantee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
If there was a gun to Roberts head and he was told to protect the VRA he'd pull the trigger himself. Destroying the VRA is literally one of his goals in life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If there was a gun to Roberts head and he was told to protect the VRA he'd pull the trigger himself. Destroying the VRA is literally one of his goals in life. What's awesome is the VRA was last passed unanimously by the body that has the exclusive authority over voting rights as enumerated in the constitution, but the SCOTUS can just say "nah, fam" and ol' barry o. just said "shucks" like he did every time because he really didn't care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And yet when the Dems find themselves with a majority in both chambers and the WH they don't take any steps to address the issues that only let them hold power when there's a fluke, rather than always holding power because they're who a majority of the people want. The democrats barely have a majority. It's razor thin and the party is way more diverse than the GOP. Gerrymandering enables more centrist politicians while preventing progressive or left leaning candidates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:What's awesome is the VRA was last passed unanimously by the body that has the exclusive authority over voting rights as enumerated in the constitution, but the SCOTUS can just say "nah, fam" and ol' barry o. just said "shucks" like he did every time because he really didn't care. Pretty much. Obama could've said "nah Congress has sole authority on this matter and you don't get to ignore Amendments that you don't like so gently caress you and your ruling, the DOJ is going to continue enforcing the VRA in its entirety and if you don't like it feel free to retire from the bench" but that requires a POTUS who gives even the slightly gently caress about the country. Crosby B. Alfred posted:The democrats barely have a majority. It's razor thin and the party is way more diverse than the GOP. Gerrymandering enables more centrist politicians while preventing progressive or left leaning candidates. Cool, so what's the excuse for them not having done this back when Obama was POTUS with comfortable majorities in both chambers, other than  ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
That's why the midterms are going to be such a relief, it's so embarrassing having to explain why "it's not a real majority okay" all the time, once they're in the minority again all those pesky expectations of action will just melt away
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Pretty much. Obama could've said "nah Congress has sole authority on this matter and you don't get to ignore Amendments that you don't like so gently caress you and your ruling, the DOJ is going to continue enforcing the VRA in its entirety and if you don't like it feel free to retire from the bench" but that requires a POTUS who gives even the slightly gently caress about the country. How do you imagine DOJ continuing enforcement?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Cool, so what's the excuse for them not having done this back when Obama was POTUS with comfortable majorities in both chambers, other than Good question, I don't know but that's enough for to jump to any conclusion but when it comes to our current circumstances having two centrist or Republican light senators is going to severely limit your ability to change anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
Democrats need a Trump to be able to rally voters to vote against. It's how they got their most conservative and pro-neoliberal canidate ever of Biden elected. Also they have their head in the sand and will be the first against the wall once the billionaire funded theocracy takes over. Of course turtlefuck Mitch will be next and he knows it, hence his very half-hearted anti-Trump rhetoric and actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Democrats need a Trump to be able to rally voters to vote against. It's how they got their most conservative and pro-neoliberal canidate ever of Biden elected. I don't know if Biden is meaningfully more neoliberal or conservative than Obama or Hillary. They've been running lovely conservatives for a while without Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
What democratic candidate hasn’t run as a lovely neoliberal? Jimmy Carter became one after neoliberalism was invented, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If there was a gun to Roberts head and he was told to protect the VRA he'd pull the trigger himself. Destroying the VRA is literally one of his goals in life. The wild thing about this action is that Roberts didnt even join. The man who enabled imho 2016 has to suffer the consequences that the justices who have been seated as a result of Shelby are so far to the right that even he can't with good conscience join.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:The wild thing about this action is that Roberts didnt even join. The man who enabled imho 2016 has to suffer the consequences that the justices who have been seated as a result of Shelby are so far to the right that even he can't with good conscience join. Or, cynically, he gets the results he wants and still looks reasonable, i.e. the best of both worlds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:The wild thing about this action is that Roberts didnt even join. The man who enabled imho 2016 has to suffer the consequences that the justices who have been seated as a result of Shelby are so far to the right that even he can't with good conscience join. cannot in good OPTICS join, and doesn't need to, knowing the foregone conclusion of all cases with remotely partisan interests at stake from here until the soft balkanization of the union he has no personal issue with most of their politics
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:The wild thing about this action is that Roberts didnt even join. The man who enabled imho 2016 has to suffer the consequences that the justices who have been seated as a result of Shelby are so far to the right that even he can't with good conscience join. I have feeling that the final result on this might be a 6-3 with Roberts joining the conservatives even though he didn't join them on the stay of the lower court ruling. If I remember the article I read about it, his dissent was basically "yes we need to accept this case and dismantle the VRA, but in the meantime we should respect the ruling of the lower court which was properly decided based on established precedent" which makes sense because above all else Roberts wants his right-wing judicial activism to be cloaked in a veneer of legitimacy and respect for judicial tradition, and he thinks long-term so he would be fine with one election cycle of a slightly less gerrymandered map in one state if it means people accept it when the Supreme Court eviscerates the VRA six months later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I have feeling that the final result on this might be a 6-3 with Roberts joining the conservatives even though he didn't join them on the stay of the lower court ruling. If I remember the article I read about it, his dissent was basically "yes we need to accept this case and dismantle the VRA, but in the meantime we should respect the ruling of the lower court which was properly decided based on established precedent" which makes sense because above all else Roberts wants his right-wing judicial activism to be cloaked in a veneer of legitimacy and respect for judicial tradition, and he thinks long-term so he would be fine with one election cycle of a slightly less gerrymandered map in one state if it means people accept it when the Supreme Court eviscerates the VRA six months later. It's this. Roberts wants to have the guise of legitimacy so that history treats him better than he deserves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's this. Roberts wants to have the guise of legitimacy so that history treats him better than he deserves. Sure, he may have consigned us to our deaths, but at least he wasn't rude about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
https://reason.com/2022/01/18/kansa...ana-businesses/ So what're the odds this ends up before the SCOTUS in a few years and will they continue to ignore that civil forfeiture is extremely unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
I feel like this thread is in "the calm before the poo poo storm that we all know is coming" mode. Of course the same can be said about November 2022
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
We're pretty much guaranteed to see the end of Roe and probably what little remains of the VRA so you're putting things mildly. I think AA is also on the chopping block for this upcoming session?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:We're pretty much guaranteed to see the end of Roe and probably what little remains of the VRA so you're putting things mildly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes they did grant cert on one of those, so at some point this year/early next AA is effectively dead as well (it almost was once before, but then Scalia died). I'd say we should hope for another miracle but Manchin's already gone out and Manchin'd the hypothetical situation of if another vacancy were to happen before the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'd say we should hope for another miracle but Manchin's already gone out and Manchin'd the hypothetical situation of if another vacancy were to happen before the midterms. Manchin already clarified that he meant right before a presidential election, not some indeterminate time before the midterms, but okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Manchin already clarified that he meant right before a presidential election, not some indeterminate time before the midterms, but okay. You say that as if directly lying about what you would do in hypothetical SCOTUS nominations is a thing that senators don't do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You say that as if directly lying about what you would do in hypothetical SCOTUS nominations is a thing that senators don't do. And why, exactly, do you think Manchin - who has voted for every single judicial nominee Biden has put forward - wouldn’t vote for a SCOTUS nominee before the midterm when he’s said he would do so?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And why, exactly, do you think Manchin - who has voted for every single judicial nominee Biden has put forward - wouldn’t vote for a SCOTUS nominee before the midterm when he’s said he would do so? Because SCOTUS is different and Manchin has spent the last year destroying any trust in his word that anyone has ever had, if they had any. He might be lying, he might not, but trusting Manchin? Only to gently caress things up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
It’s so laff how easy it is to bribe politicians, even to betray their own party or voting base by simply blowing smoke up their asses by making their names constant front page news. Super easy to do when you’re an oligarch that owns said news. Pretty cheap too! The best part is the delusions of grandeur that they are probably getting by thinking that infamy equals popularity. That poo poo only works for the repubs who are going to be paid to replace you, dudezzz All that to be said I can’t wait for a bunch of 6-2 decisions all the way until January 2025.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Kalman posted:And why, exactly, do you think Manchin - who has voted for every single judicial nominee Biden has put forward - wouldn’t vote for a SCOTUS nominee before the midterm when he’s said he would do so? https://twitter.com/truthout/status/1493707944180940803?t=n4AiPqrsE3jsxD5n4cRq6A&s=19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GaXa8tSBE
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2022 03:27
|
|
