|
tagesschau posted:I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am specifically disputing the idea that the winner of the popular vote in the election that decided who was president between 2005 and 2009 doesn't get to pick anyone because his party usually loses. I have not extended this to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett. No one ever said this.
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:Wrong on both counts. This truly feels like a tit for tat and not anything that resembles a debate in my mind. It seems similar to arguing about if people were recycling more on earth 2 when corporations continue to be the largest contributors to climate change. The root cause is the Supreme Court in and of itself has zero legitimacy. It doesn’t matter what would happen in a Gore elected president in 1999 world. What matters is what Biden and the ruling party do at this moment. Recognizing the truth that is the Supreme Court holds zero legitimacy and holds no power is the first step to undoing the mess this country has allowed to entangle itself in.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:No one ever said this. Other than where they, y'know, did. PerniciousKnid posted:I'm talking about the fact that SCOTUS was "legitimately" appointed by a consistently minority party. vyelkin posted: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 virtualboyCOLOR posted:The root cause is the Supreme Court in and of itself has zero legitimacy. It doesn’t matter what would happen in a Gore elected president in 1999 world. What matters is what Biden and the ruling party do at this moment. Recognizing the truth that is the Supreme Court holds zero legitimacy and holds no power is the first step to undoing the mess this country has allowed to entangle itself in. If you find the very concept of the Supreme Court illegitimate, and nothing can convince you otherwise, that's just dogma that you're pretending is an actual argument. Also, you're ignoring the reality that even if you could snap your fingers and make the Supreme Court disappear, you would still need someone or something to make final pronouncements as to what laws mean.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am specifically disputing the idea that the winner of the popular vote in the election that decided who was president between 2005 and 2009 doesn't get to pick anyone because his party usually loses. I have not extended this to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett. I specifically said nothing of the sort but you keep replying to me as if I did.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:If you find the very concept of the Supreme Court illegitimate, and nothing can convince you otherwise, that's just dogma that you're pretending is an actual argument. It is no more dogma that preaching the Supreme Court is legitimate despite the court literally having no power. In fact, it is a weaker argument that is dependent on faith than facts. quote:Also, you're ignoring the reality that even if you could snap your fingers and make the Supreme Court disappear, you would still need someone or something to make final pronouncements as to what laws mean. It’s a good thing that the constitution state the Supreme Court has the power to review laws and the gives the power to the executive branch to ultimately execute those laws however it deems necessary, up to and including rejecting the Supreme Court’s review, as has already been stated but you seem to ignore.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:It is no more dogma that preaching the Supreme Court is legitimate despite the court literally having no power. In fact, it is a weaker argument that is dependent on faith than facts. Legitimacy isn’t a function of power.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Other than where they, y'know, did. "less democratically legitimate" is an extremely specific word choice that does not mean the same rhing. You are clearly conflating a bunch of different, closely related arguments into something you can most easily argue against but fail to coherently dispute any one of them. Which, to be fair, is related our lack of a coherent agreement on what confers legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/DataProgress/status/1524486918033088512 The Women’s Health Protection Act would codify abortion rights into law if it passed. It already passed the House of Representatives. Every single Democratic senator besides Manchin voted for the bill. Every last one, even that piece of poo poo Sinema voted for it. If there was just one more Democratic senator that was better than Manchin, it would be signed by Biden tomorrow. In other news, this poo poo actually is getting through to Independent (read: proudly ignorant) voters. https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1524418959205875712
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/DataProgress/status/1524486918033088512 Not without simultaneously blowing up the filibuster, even if only for this one bill. And they both just voted against doing that for a different bill a couple months ago.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
That bill wouldn't have passed even with Manchin's token vote. It's similar to the $15 minimum wage that Sinema voted with her curtsy-thumbs down action that cost her nothing to vote for since it wouldn't hit 60 votes.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That bill wouldn't have passed even with Manchin's token vote. It's similar to the $15 minimum wage that Sinema voted with her curtsy-thumbs down action that cost her nothing to vote for since it wouldn't hit 60 votes.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/DataProgress/status/1524486918033088512 However manchin dies one day I hope it is exceptionally slow and painful. It’ll still be better than he deserves but maybe he can take Collins with him. Mr. Nice! posted:That bill wouldn't have passed even with Manchin's token vote. It's similar to the $15 minimum wage that Sinema voted with her curtsy-thumbs down action that cost her nothing to vote for since it wouldn't hit 60 votes. What stops A Dem from saying the filibuster isn’t necessary, the parliamentarian saying is it, and Harris overruling them?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:However manchin dies one day I hope it is exceptionally slow and painful. It’ll still be better than he deserves but maybe he can take Collins with him. Multiple democratic senators besides Manchin have said they will note vote to eliminate the filibuster for anything. They don't have 50 votes to change senate rules.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Multiple democratic senators besides Manchin have said they will note vote to eliminate the filibuster for anything. They don't have 50 votes to change senate rules. No, at this point the only other holdout is Sinema. Again, they just held the vote to do exactly that earlier this year. It got 48 votes.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, at this point the only other holdout is Sinema. Again, they just held the vote to do exactly that earlier this year. It got 48 votes. Thank you for the correction. Either way, nothing good is going to happen from here on out. Prep for the worst. Hold your love ones close, and get the gently caress out of republican controlled states.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 05:42
|
|
|
Durbin announced today he won't vote to end the filibuster for Roe. There may be more who just haven't been asked yet.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Thank you for the correction. Either way, nothing good is going to happen from here on out. Prep for the worst. Hold your love ones close, and get the gently caress out of republican controlled states. Have no fear: a Republican controlled state will come to you. Technically it already has since the democrats and their supporters have surrendered to the fascists.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 05:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:What stops A Dem from saying the filibuster isn’t necessary, the parliamentarian saying is it, and Harris overruling them? If the presiding officer makes a ruling contentious enough that anyone objects to it they need a majority of the chamber to sustain their interpretation. They can’t just do whatever they want by fiat.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, at this point the only other holdout is Sinema. Again, they just held the vote to do exactly that earlier this year. It got 48 votes. No they voted to make a one time exception for a different bill, they did not vote to eliminate it FizFashizzle posted:My state is so gerrymandered the gop simply changes the map in advance of elections to ensure their positions. vyelkin posted:
I think it will be kind of nice and I'm looking forward to it, will certainly take all the stress out of election times since I will already know who the courts and gerrymandered state legislatures will pick no matter what voters say. Yeah it may suck that my vote won't count but since Democrats are obviously fine with this and don't feel the need to do anything to stop it despite controlling congress and the executive for probably the last time, by voting for them I was voting for this outcome anyway so in a way I'll still get what I voted for
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:It is no more dogma that preaching the Supreme Court is legitimate despite the court literally having no power. In fact, it is a weaker argument that is dependent on faith than facts. I feel like I am about to hear a bad and pedantic take about what "having power" means at this point. Saying that the SCOTUS has no power is asinine. It has power because the entire political apparatus of the US, including a majority of the population, believes it does. Whether it should or not is different, given the political makeup of the court and blatant lie of its non-partisan nature that are nevertheless believed. Or are we going to get some stupid game of thrones level philosophizing on what even is power, maaaaan?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
raminasi posted:If the presiding officer makes a ruling contentious enough that anyone objects to it they need a majority of the chamber to sustain their interpretation. They can’t just do whatever they want by fiat. The Democrats are the majority of the chamber though, that's the point. If they can pass a bill they can break the filibuster for it with the same people. Except for the senators who want to vote yes on bills they don't want to pass.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 13:13
|
|
|
Man I totally forgot that the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for California to force pregnancy crisis centers to say stuff about actual clinics and abortions when they'd previously ruled it's cool for states to force abortion providers to say things that are factually untrue.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Man I totally forgot that the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for California to force pregnancy crisis centers to say stuff about actual clinics and abortions when they'd previously ruled it's cool for states to force abortion providers to say things that are factually untrue. I thought their law forced CPCs to say that they were not licensed medical facilities and all of that jazz. It required they be honest about themselves, which the SCOTUS said is a bridge too far. e: it was both! loving sick of this nation. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 14:11 on May 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I feel like I am about to hear a bad and pedantic take about what "having power" means at this point. Saying that the SCOTUS has no power is asinine. It has power because the entire political apparatus of the US, including a majority of the population, believes it does. Whether it should or not is different, given the political makeup of the court and blatant lie of its non-partisan nature that are nevertheless believed. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I just want to point out that this post mocks Game of Thrones (a highly mockable property no doubt) but also reaches basically the same conclusion about power that Game of Thrones does.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:It’s a good thing that the constitution state the Supreme Court has the power to review laws and the gives the power to the executive branch to ultimately execute those laws however it deems necessary, up to and including rejecting the Supreme Court’s review, as has already been stated but you seem to ignore. You can state whatever you want, but the only correct reaction is to ignore the things you're just making up because you wish things worked that way, as you're doing here. Feel free to point out the part of Article II or Article III that explicitly confers this power. I'll take it as a concession on this point when you aren't able to find one. Harold Fjord posted:You are clearly conflating a bunch of different, closely related arguments into something you can most easily argue against but fail to coherently dispute any one of them. Exactly backwards, as usual. You've been trying to make a distinction where there's no difference so you can pretend I haven't been addressing the arguments. Repeating it won't make it any less false.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Exactly backwards, as usual. You've been trying to make a distinction where there's no difference so you can pretend I haven't been addressing the arguments. Repeating it won't make it any less false. So you are doing it deliberately then. Ok, as long as we're all on the same page. You don't understand the distinctions or you refuse to acknowledge them for other reasons. I'mma make a short list of the various reasons some of us consider SCOTUS illegitimate. Let me know if I've missed your's, folks. Some of these interrelate and are almost the same, but I'm not sure they are quite the same. 1. Reflect the will of a minority of the country. 2. Disproportionately chosen by the party that is almost always a minority of vote share in the election of the nominating official. 3. Selected by a nominating official whose own position is selected through a very anti-democratic process. 4. disproportionately selected by a nominating official who himself was illegitimately placed into power by SCOTUS. 5. Include members whose seats were denied to a properly elected nominating official via anti-democratic rules lawyering. 6. Making rulings outside of the scope of its authority to manipulate a political outcome. 7. Include members who perjured themselves in the nominating process to obtain their seats. 8. Includes members simply not fit to serve for various reasons outside of said perjury. Rapists, bribe takers, etc. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:So you are doing it deliberately then. Ok, as long as we're all on the same page. If "it" is "conflating a bunch of different, closely related arguments," then I'm not doing it at all. I don't think I can help you if it's still not clear to you at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:If "it" is "conflating a bunch of different, closely related arguments," then I'm not doing it at all. I don't think I can help you if it's still not clear to you at this point. You can't help anyone because you are starting from a position of denying basic causality, specifically any relationship to the 2000 theft Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You can't help anyone because you are starting from a position of denying basic causality. I'm not. You're just continuing to invent things you wish were true so you can attack me for things that nobody's actually saying, and there's no point in engaging with that delusion any further as long as it continues.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Tag you haven't made a coherent argument except that bushes nominations somehow should not be considered in light of the 2000 theft. That is anti-causality. I've broken out the various arguments though if it helps you sort your thoughts. Edit- it looks like you think the 2000 theft was legitimate. Which, lmao. Do you? Are you a Republican who just thinks all complaints about Bush v. Gore are sour grapes? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:05 on May 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I feel like I am about to hear a bad and pedantic take about what "having power" means at this point. Saying that the SCOTUS has no power is asinine. It has power because the entire political apparatus of the US, including a majority of the population, believes it does. Whether it should or not is different, given the political makeup of the court and blatant lie of its non-partisan nature that are nevertheless believed. Not quite because your point is mostly valid. The only thing that provides power to the Supreme Court is the political apparatus controlled by the current party in power. This means that the Dems considers the extremist takeover of the Supreme Court and the move towards fascism to be legitimate. If the Dems wanted to, they could invalidate the Supreme Court and it would be 100% in their power without the entire US government falling apart.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
This is apparently an incredibly pedantic conversation about legitimacy and arguing about the 2000 and 2004 elections that has been going on for two days, and it extremely sucks to keep reading about. Please wrap this up.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Not quite because your point is mostly valid. The only thing that provides power to the Supreme Court is the political apparatus controlled by the current party in power. This means that the Dems considers the extremist takeover of the Supreme Court and the move towards fascism to be legitimate. Where do they get the 50 (or 60) votes in the Senate to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction? This is a mandatory prerequisite for demonstrating that "if the Dems wanted to," it's possible. Or, if you are proposing that the president just ignore anything from the Supreme Court he doesn't like (which isn't a power the constitution confers), how does that not immediately turn into a situation where effective judicial authority flows through the Oval Office? So much for separation of powers.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Where do they get the 50 (or 60) votes in the Senate to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction? This is a mandatory prerequisite for demonstrating that "if the Dems wanted to," it's possible. "They don't want to, so they can't" doesn't rebut "they could if they wanted." We all agree they don't really want to. This is why I'm not actually worried Republicans will steal an election. They don't need to as long as they can count on Dems not to do to much and always kowtow to their judiciary. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:57 on May 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Where do they get the 50 (or 60) votes in the Senate to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction? This is a mandatory prerequisite for demonstrating that "if the Dems wanted to," it's possible. You're answering your own question. There are 50 Dems in the senate so if they want to do something they have 50 votes to do it, if they don't have 50 votes from their 50 senators they don't want to do it. Unless they all have aphasia or something that makes it possible for them to want to say 'aye' but physically incapable of forming the word. And yeah that's the issue the other two branches can check the court if they want but they don't so the court has unrestricted power to run roughshod over the constitution. This can happen in any direction. If the president declared himself president for life and congress didn't remove him and the court didn't rule against him then he would have unchecked power too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Where do they get the 50 (or 60) votes in the Senate to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction? This is a mandatory prerequisite for demonstrating that "if the Dems wanted to," it's possible. This is a complete, total, and utter pipe dream. I don't think you'll even get 1 single Senator in the entire Senate voting for an attempt to strip the Supreme Court of judicial review, much less 50. It would be far easier and more realistic to simply expand to 13 justices and pack the court.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is a complete, total, and utter pipe dream. I don't think you'll even get 1 single Senator in the entire Senate voting for an attempt to strip the Supreme Court of judicial review, much less 50. It would be far easier and more realistic to simply expand to 13 justices and pack the court.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Packing the court is going to happen with a republican president and senate, though.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Packing the court is going to happen with a republican president and senate, though. Like stealing the presidency via statehouse fuckery, they'll only do it if they really need to.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
They don't need to since it's been established that Democrats confirm Republican justices and Republicans don't confirm Democrat justices. They'll get an 8-1 court soon enough
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 16:57
|
|