|
Kaal posted:The power to ordain courts is given to Congress, not the president. So what you're suggesting explicitly violates Article III. But beyond that, I am not afraid of a popularly-elected government (to the meager extent that the presidency reflects this) wielding authority over the courts. That is, indeed, a fundamental part of a free and just society. America cannot long abide a half-democracy. And if the Roberts court rules that they can't be dismissed that way, and the legislative and executive respond with "yeah, whatever, bro," then how do you end up with anything other than the Republicans saying they'll restore the "real" Supreme Court, and the effective SCOTUS depending completely on who's in charge in the other two branches after that point? I just don't see how you go down that road without the endgame being "the Supreme Court and the shadow Supreme Court could swap places every time there's an election." Groovelord Neato posted:He doesn't win that election without being the incumbent. He did win the 2004 election. The fact is that Roberts and Alito were appointed by a president who won the popular vote. I'm not going to concede that your imagination is reality. PerniciousKnid posted:If all 9 justices on the 2022 court were coincidentally appointed by a Republican right after 2004, despite Democrat majorities in every other national election in the last thirty years, do you think that is legitimate? The answer may reveal your political views! Do you think someone who lost the election is ackshually the president instead of the winner, because of reasons? The answer may reveal your political views and Donald Trump's!
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:He did win the 2004 election. The fact is that Roberts and Alito were appointed by a president who won the popular vote. I'm not going to concede that your imagination is reality. Yes he won in 2004. Nobody is claiming he didn't. He would not have had he not had the election stolen for him in 2000. Because he would not have been the incumbent you see.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:And if the Roberts court rules that they can't be dismissed that way, and the legislative and executive respond with "yeah, whatever, bro," then how do you end up with anything other than the Republicans saying they'll restore the "real" Supreme Court, and the effective SCOTUS depending completely on who's in charge in the other two branches after that point? I just don't see how you go down that road without the endgame being "the Supreme Court and the shadow Supreme Court could swap places every time there's an election." So what? Having a legitimate SCOTUS about half the time seems better than the current situation. That wouldn't be very sustainable either and ultimately break down. Good. A Democrat Party with the necessary qualities to do this would probably not have such a terrible time trying to win elections. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Do you think someone who lost the election is ackshually the president instead of the winner, because of reasons? The answer may reveal your political views and Donald Trump's! I'm talking about the fact that SCOTUS was "legitimately" appointed by a consistently minority party.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Do papers just do this for hate clicks? It's like they know it's poo poo when they publish an op-ed unsigned. https://twitter.com/PostOpinions/status/1524031970946256897?s=20&t=P7Omk_OZ9epF_Q1V_N1Kng Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:49 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I'm talking about the fact that SCOTUS was "legitimately" appointed by a consistently minority party. Please explain how elections other than the 2004 election are in any way relevant to the legitimacy of Roberts' or Alito's appointments.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:'Lack of objection is consent by default, impeach me if you have a problem with it' Just look at how those senators were dressed. They were asking for it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Please explain how elections other than the 2004 election are in any way relevant to the legitimacy of Roberts' or Alito's appointments. This has been addressed. Incumbency.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Please explain how elections other than the 2004 election are in any way relevant to the legitimacy of Roberts' or Alito's appointments. Time flows linearly, events in the past influence events that take place in the future. If I won an election legitimately in say 2000 and then immediately used that power to prevent losing future elections you would not call my one-party dictatorship in 2022 legitimate. If I was handed an election I did not win, used that power to start an illegal war so I could win future elections I would also call that illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This has been addressed. Incumbency. Repeating something that fails to address the issue means you're continuing to fail to address the issue. "Incumbency" isn't an argument that those two were improperly appointed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Only if you don't understand the argument
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Only if you don't understand the argument I understand that you haven't made one. Do you?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:I understand that you haven't made one. Do you? No I laid the argument out pretty clearly as did uPen though I would quibble with the Iraq bit as I think that almost cost him re-election - he would've lost if the election had been a month later as his approval had been on a steady downward trend.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:No I laid the argument out pretty clearly as did uPen. Pretending that the winner really lost because it's inconvenient for you to have to think about, and that you can replace him with an imaginary candidate who would have appointed your ideal justices, isn't an argument about the legitimacy of those two justices' appointments. It's just speculative fiction.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
I, for one, think it is cool and good that a majority vote on the court for decades can be had by winning 2 non-consecutive elections, especially when one of those elections didn't achieve a popular vote majority. That's what democracy looks like, folks! The ability to overturn legislation for decades because you won two elections for a term-limited position that comes up every 4 years. Definitely a good system that makes sense. Judicial Review is a made-up power invented by Federalists who fled to the courts and wanted to subvert the rise of democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:because it's inconvenient for you to have to think about I'm not the one having issues with the inconvenience of having to think about things. Your stance only makes sense if each election happens in a vacuum.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I'm not the one having issues with the inconvenience of having to think about things. The evidence is indeed clear that you're struggling with it. Groovelord Neato posted:Your stance only makes sense if each election happens in a vacuum. So how many elections do you think don't count because you don't like the result? Massive Trump-style "I get a do-over on 2016 because the Democrats were mean to me" energy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Pretending that the winner really lost because it's inconvenient for you to have to think about, If SCOTUS can do it, why shouldn't we?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:And if the Roberts court rules that they can't be dismissed that way, and the legislative and executive respond with "yeah, whatever, bro," then how do you end up with anything other than the Republicans saying they'll restore the "real" Supreme Court, and the effective SCOTUS depending completely on who's in charge in the other two branches after that point? I just don't see how you go down that road without the endgame being "the Supreme Court and the shadow Supreme Court could swap places every time there's an election." If Roberts and the other Republicans are trying to seize unconstitutional powers from Congress in plain violation of Article III, then you're already off to the races with a constitutional crisis. And all the actual power is with Congress, who is much more capable of escalating beyond, "Your court is now in charge of traditional Supreme Court duties like interpreting international treaties, as the founders intended". At the end of the day, creating an inflexible system where all conflicts have the highest stakes is inherently unstable. It forces people to escalate because losing becomes untenable. A society ruled by unanswerable priests who hold office for 35-40 years is not a stable society. The only alternative is court reform, one way or another. tagesschau posted:Pretending that the winner really lost because it's inconvenient for you to have to think about, and that you can replace him with an imaginary candidate who would have appointed your ideal justices, isn't an argument about the legitimacy of those two justices' appointments. It's just speculative fiction. Again, legitimacy comes from actual popular support. There are plenty of autocrats out there who seize power and then "win elections." They don't have meaningful legitimacy. Basing the legitimacy of court justices on such unstable foundation is not rational or persuasive. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:If SCOTUS can do it, why shouldn't we? True or false: SCOTUS ignored the actual election results to install the loser of the 2004 election into office, where he subsequently appointed Roberts and Alito.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:True or false: SCOTUS ignored the actual election results to install the loser of the 2004 election into office, where he subsequently appointed Roberts and Alito. We've repeatedly explained to you that they did that in 2000. You must be incredibly thick, since I'm assuming good faith.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:True or false: SCOTUS ignored the actual election results to install the loser of the 2004 election into office, where he subsequently appointed Roberts and Alito. If both of those seats were removed from today's court the court would be effectively the same but 4-3, this is an attempt to hold onto an academic distinction without establishing why anyone should care about the noise produced.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:We've repeatedly explained to you that they did that in 2000. You must be incredibly thick, since I'm assuming good faith. If you're continuing to insist that SCOTUS installed the loser of the 2004 election into the 2005-2009 presidential term in 2000, that's not a reality-based position, so there's no point in treating it as one.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Pretending causality doesn't exist is certainly a way to make an argument
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:I understand that you haven't made one. Do you? You are blind.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Y'all are making a big stretch assuming Al Gore wouldn't have lost to whoever the republicans ran in 2004.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:If you're continuing to insist that SCOTUS installed the loser of the 2004 election into the 2005-2009 presidential term in 2000, that's not a reality-based position, so there's no point in treating it as one. Claiming that your opponent is not making an argument is not the same as arguing that your opponent's argument is invalid. Edit: Mr. Nice! posted:Y'all are making a big stretch assuming Al Gore wouldn't have lost to whoever the republicans ran in 2004. See, this is an actual point.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Alito gets his opinions from syphilitic morons who have been dead for 400 years, and if he ran for President himself he would never be elected with his platform of "Marital Rape Isn't Real," and his obsession with witchcraft. And yet there he is, with as much or more power over legislation than the President. Blessed to live under the rule of such a wise system of government.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Alito gets his opinions from syphilitic morons who have been dead for 400 years, and if he ran for President himself he would never be elected with his platform of "Marital Rape Isn't Real," and his obsession with witchcraft. And yet there he is, with as much or more power over legislation than the President. Blessed to live under the rule of such a wise system of government. I'm curious which parts are going to be excised when the actual opinion is published. That's probably why they got so mad because we got to see the purestrain Alito poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Y'all are making a big stretch assuming Al Gore wouldn't have lost to whoever the republicans ran in 2004. I agree it goes too far to say that we definitely would have had a better court today. But the illegitimacy of W indelibly blights him and his picks
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Pretending causality doesn't exist is certainly a way to make an argument Good thing I haven't done anything like that, then. Blue Footed Booby posted:See, this is an actual point. An actual point that I did make above: tagesschau posted:Pretending that the winner really lost because it's inconvenient for you to have to think about, and that you can replace him with an imaginary candidate who would have appointed your ideal justices, isn't an argument about the legitimacy of those two justices' appointments. It's just speculative fiction. "I assume Al Gore is the only person who could legitimately have been president from 2005 to 2009" and/or "there's no way a Republican could have won the 2004 election without cheating" is a huge, huge stretch.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Please explain how elections other than the 2004 election are in any way relevant to the legitimacy of Roberts' or Alito's appointments. I'm saying The People are consistently voting for Democrats but are subjected to SCOTUS rulings made by a court of Republicans. How do you argue that SCOTUS has any popular legitimacy under those circumstances?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Less than a year ago, I made this post:vyelkin posted:Since 1968 (53 years ago now!), there have been 32 years of Republican presidents and 21 years of Democratic presidents. In that time, Republicans have appointed 16 Supreme Court justices and Democrats have appointed 4. Those numbers should now be updated. In the last 54 years there have been 32 years of Republican presidents and 22 years of Democratic presidents, and in that time Republicans have appointed 16 Supreme Court justices and Democrats have appointed 5. Even without getting into the weeds of which presidential elections are legitimate or illegitimate (I would personally argue that the Republicans winning the popular vote exactly once in the last eight presidential elections means their appointees are less democratically legitimate, but the limitations of the US's broken democracy means that's at least debatable on an institutional legitimacy level), it's hard to argue that the system of SCOTUS appointments is at all democratic when the appointment numbers are so lopsided. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
At most 10% of House seats are competitive. Democracy is super busted.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Do papers just do this for hate clicks? It's like they know it's poo poo when they publish an op-ed unsigned. Counterproposal: We kidnap their families and then blackmail them into legalizing weed. (This is satire, obviously. I’d never support such a rude course of action.)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:At most 10% of House seats are competitive. Democracy is super busted. Well, US democracy at least. I'm in the "Roe was always on shaky ground and should have been a temporary solution" camp. Griswold should've led to a straightforward reckoning after the sexual revolution that it was a widely accepted and endorsed decision by the American public, which should be codified into law, and a constitutional amendment passed explicitly laying out the right. Instead we got the likes of Phyllis Schlafly preventing even a simple declaration that women have equal rights. The most anti-democratic vote in the US Constitution is the one to amend the constitution. That's really core to the problem. California gets the same weight as Wyoming with a 70-1 population ratio, and you need 3/4 of the (geographically defined!) states to give the thumbs up. We've stopped amending the constitution not because it's perfect as is, but because its flawed amendment process is no longer a viable solution. The last amendment to it was 30 years ago, and that was a laughable sop to the decorum poisoned. There's no way to fix the amendment process because there's no way the small states would ever agree to lessen their power. Ultimately it could tear the country apart, and that might be a good thing. At some point the larger states are going to balk at the endlessly spiraling population disparities and the tension it causes between their electorates expectations and what our current Republic can deliver. Civil War 2 might, ironically, really be about states rights.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Vietnom nom nom posted:
There's always the possibility of compromise at gunpoint. Like, if California and New York etc were going to Brexit unless a compromise was reached, small states might be motivated to accept a lesser power imbalance. But there's certainly no purely voter turnout-driven solution.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Vietnom nom nom posted:I'm in the "Roe was always on shaky ground and should have been a temporary solution" camp. Griswold should've led to a straightforward reckoning after the sexual revolution that it was a widely accepted and endorsed decision by the American public, which should be codified into law, and a constitutional amendment passed explicitly laying out the right. I think liberals were thrilled that they can claim the mantle of feminism rights defenders without ever having had to do anything, thanks to the supremes' largess, and now Congress is probably panicking at the thought that they might be asked to do something.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
It is extremely funny the last amendment was about Congressional pay and had been proposed 200 years prior.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:At most 10% of House seats are competitive. Democracy is super busted. It gets even worse when you drill down to state levels. In 2018, Wisconsin voted Democratic by a 53-45 statewide margin, a 7-point swing from 2016, but the State Assembly results were 63-36 in favour of the Republicans and only one seat changed hands. Relevant to this thread, SCOTUS has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is fine, which means that there is functionally no way for the voters of Wisconsin to remove their Republican state government.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 19:27
|
|