|
Harold Fjord posted: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. Almost all of this list applies to the legislature and executive as well.
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No they voted to make a one time exception for a different bill, they did not vote to eliminate it The post I was responding to said "they will note vote to eliminate the filibuster for anything." They in fact already voted to eliminate it for a thing. Yes, not to end it entirely in all cases; that's a different question.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
It should be noted that voting to eliminate the filibuster for a thing when you know the vote will fail is different from voting to do that when you expect the vote to succeed.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
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. It would really be tough to get 60 or 70 Senate seats. I mean, 60, sure, but 70 or 80? I don't think any party has ever held 90 Senate seats.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The post I was responding to said "they will note vote to eliminate the filibuster for anything." They in fact already voted to eliminate it for a thing. Yes, not to end it entirely in all cases; that's a different question. Kinda the important question since this bill is a different thing, but yeah they did do that VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:It would really be tough to get 60 or 70 Senate seats. I mean, 60, sure, but 70 or 80? I don't think any party has ever held 90 Senate seats. Setting aside the immediately post-Civil War Senates, which were lopsided for different reasons, the highest party share in the Senate was in the 75th Congress, when Democrats held 76 of 96 seats. (This was the peak of the series of Congresses that passed basically all the New Deal legislation.)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CAKitchener/status/1524930481040637953
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
That's the thing that makes me angriest about the Louisiana law. The people who wrote it, and voted for it, clearly don't have even a basic understanding on how female reproduction works. Less than half of all fertilized eggs make it to blastocysts, even in controlled lab conditions for IVF. In normal conditions, ~73% of all conceptions don't survive past 6 weeks of gestation. Yet they want to define the start of life at fertilization, opening the route to charge any woman whose behavior they don't like if they can convince themselves it made egg survival less likely.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:In normal conditions, ~73% of all conceptions don't survive past 6 weeks of gestation. Here's AJ's recap of the SCOTUS timeline notably, it puts the refusal to hold hearings after Obama's nomination, rather than before. So, look forward to having to explain in 10 years that the GOP was going to refuse any nominee, and it had nothing to do with the specific candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That's the thing that makes me angriest about the Louisiana law. Politicians in general but ESPECIALLY Republicans not having even an 8th graders level of comprehension about the topics they decide for millions of people is par for the course. It really speaks to the deeply broken state of our system that it's so normalized. Here's one of my all time favorites, and a great example of why we ended up where we are now. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 05:04 on May 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Almost all of this list applies to the legislature and executive as well. Pretty much. The structure of the US federal government is interesting in that each branch can, at every point, claim legitimacy in a completely different fashion: 1. The executive was elected through the constitutional mechanism. They can claim a mandate and legitimacy from that. 2. The legislature was also...although quite probably in a completely different election than the executive head and by a completely different electorate. They can claim a mandate and legitimacy from their elections. 3. The judicial branch was confirmed through the actions of the executive and legislative branches combined, so has double the legitimacy... ...yes, the judicial review and nullification of laws is completely absent from the original constitution, but you don't have any meaningful check if the legislative branch gets to decide which laws they passed violate that constitution. And a minority check on popular frenzies catching the legislature and causing them to pass some dumbass performative poo poo* is basically the perfect way to check that. ...the real problems are of course with who's getting elected and how competitive the races are, but that's a separate issue. *If nothing comes to mind, google "Florida legislature" or "Louisiana legislature" or "Texas legislature."
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Politicians in general but ESPECIALLY Republicans not having even an 8th graders level of comprehension about the topics they decide for millions of people is par for the course. It really speaks to the deeply broken state of our system that it's so normalized. The inevitable result of abstinence-only sex ed in action. Men who only barely understand that loving and children are related, and in the entirely wrong context at that given the number of Republican lawmakers who go down for CSAM.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Setting aside the immediately post-Civil War Senates, which were lopsided for different reasons, the highest party share in the Senate was in the 75th Congress, when Democrats held 76 of 96 seats. Yeah, to be serious, Democrats controlled the House for all but three (3) sessions between the New Deal and the Contract With America.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The inevitable result of abstinence-only sex ed in action. Men who only barely understand that loving and children are related, and in the entirely wrong context at that given the number of Republican lawmakers who go down for CSAM. There was a German physicist who coined a great phrase that I think does the best job of describing this. Not even Wrong. One of the definitions is when there exists such an extreme lack of knowledge and understanding of even the most fundamental of domain concepts that the answer that is given doesn't even have the appropriate context to the question. Saying "2+2 = 5" is merely a wrong answer, but saying "2+2 = Cheese" is Not Even Wrong and suggests that the person may not even know or understand basic arithmetic concepts.. And in truth that really gets to the heart of the issue with Republicans. The problem isn't that they have wrong opinions, its that they don't understand that knowledge and facts are not a matter of opinion. There's an entire framework for critically navigating the problem solving process that they simply are not aware of because they think everyone is just shooting from the hip and making it up as they go, just like they are. vvv: yup, that's him. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 07:40 on May 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
Pauli.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 07:26
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:There was a German physicist who coined a great phrase that I think does the best job of describing this. I think we have to realize that conservatives and especially the Republican party essentially know what their conclusion is and will do everything to reach to that conclusion. Evidence be damned, I know the answer and no one will move me off of it. And the real insidious part is that the Republicans cravenly used these cleaves when they obviously didn't believe it but now, their elected leaders DO believe this poo poo and are policy makers.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
They also just lie about what is or isn't an abortifacient. It's what Hobby Lobby did when the Court decided corporations can have religious beliefs even when they're not religious entities in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 13:21
|
|
|
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. there are a lot of posters in d&d whose vehemence is inversely proportionate to the degree to which they understand basic facts about a subject. this subforum would be somewhat better if they would stop doing this! KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
VBC is correct. The three branches keep each other in check. If potus tells SCOTUS to gently caress off, Congress can weigh in.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:VBC is correct. The three branches keep each other in check. If potus tells SCOTUS to gently caress off, Congress can weigh in. VBC is not even close to correct. Neither Judicial review nor presidents ignoring supreme court decisions are written in the constitution. the only way congress can weigh in is impeachment or criminal referral to the DOJ. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:there are a lot of posters in d&d whose vehemence is inversely proportionate to the degree to which they understand basic facts about a subject. this subforum would be somewhat better if they would stop doing this!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:VBC is not even close to correct. Neither Judicial review nor presidents ignoring supreme court decisions are written in the constitution. the only way congress can weigh in is impeachment or criminal referral to the DOJ. Also technically, Congress can decide what cases the court can hear but I don't think have exercised that power.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Also technically, Congress can decide what cases the court can hear but I don't think have exercised that power. IIRC they did once, in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Also technically, Congress can decide what cases the court can hear but I don't think have exercised that power. https://twitter.com/un_a_valeable/status/1521316031939104769 Look up Ex Parte McCardle (1869). It's very funny. SCOTUS had finished listening to arguments and was in the middle of writing the opinion when Congress did the thin. quote:
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:VBC is not even close to correct. Neither Judicial review nor presidents ignoring supreme court decisions are written in the constitution. the only way congress can weigh in is impeachment or criminal referral to the DOJ. Judicial Review isn’t written in the constitution, it is inferred by the court itself https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about posted:
As such, the Supreme Court has very little standing. The president has full authority to ignore the supreme court’s rulings.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Judicial Review isn’t written in the constitution, it is inferred by the court itself Precedent, especially long standing precedent, at least ostensibly has a degree of binding power in common law countries, of which the US is one. Granted ostensibly is doing some heavy lifting here, cause there's no enforcement mechanism other than the largely nonfunctional systems for removing judges, but that's a pretty different thing from "nothing the courts says is real maaaaan".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Precedent, especially long standing precedent, at least ostensibly has a degree of binding power in common law countries, of which the US is one. Granted ostensibly is doing some heavy lifting here, cause there's no enforcement mechanism other than the largely nonfunctional systems for removing judges, but that's a pretty different thing from "nothing the courts says is real maaaaan". The point of the abortion decision is that precedent doesn't mean anything, though
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Precedent, especially long standing precedent, at least ostensibly has a degree of binding power in common law countries, of which the US is one. Granted ostensibly is doing some heavy lifting here, cause there's no enforcement mechanism other than the largely nonfunctional systems for removing judges, but that's a pretty different thing from "nothing the courts says is real maaaaan". I don’t personally find it any more far fetched than other solutions such as packing the courts or impeaching a justice while also existing in the realm of “could happen”. We both know nothing will happen because both Republicans and Democrats (and their supporters) desire stripping away human rights and support the fascist takeover of the courts. Piell posted:The point of the abortion decision is that precedent doesn't mean anything, though Exactly. Not to mention the supreme court has been ignored before.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
It's kinda ironic that people are calling for the SCOTUS to be ignored because they want SCOTUS decisions to remain on the books. Imagine Trump going "gently caress the SCOTUS, it's an illegitimate court that I no longer acknowledge. Gay marriage, abortion rights, contraception rights are now all gone" when he was president.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Piell posted:The point of the abortion decision is that precedent doesn't mean anything, though Yeah that's the 'ostensibly', because it turns out there's no will to actually stop them from ignoring precedent they don't like. Thomas in particular outright and vocally rejects the notion of stare decisis, which is completely disqualifying in a judge but there is no functional oversight system. Of course, the flip side is that the court has no enforcement power either; if the other branches don't want to listen to them, they really don't have to. The whole lack of functional, codified mutual oversight is exactly why the federal government is in decay.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It's kinda ironic that people are calling for the SCOTUS to be ignored because they want SCOTUS decisions to remain on the books. Gee, golly, if you ignore the actual reasons people want something and the underlying facts of the case, their desires can seem unreasonable? Who would have thought. GaussianCopula posted:Imagine Trump going "gently caress the SCOTUS, it's an illegitimate court that I no longer acknowledge. Gay marriage, abortion rights, contraception rights are now all gone" when he was president. Look at this innocent person claiming they didn't commit a murder. Isn't that crazy? Could you imagine if Ted Bundy were to declare he didn't commit any murders? I bet you'd all be upset about that! And yet here you are defending this innocent guy doing the same thing. Tsk tsk. How ironic. Also, yknow, Trump and the Republicans were openly calling the courts illegitimate for years, that's how they justified what they did.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Look at this innocent person claiming they didn't commit a murder. Isn't that crazy? Could you imagine if Ted Bundy were to declare he didn't commit any murders? I bet you'd all be upset about that! And yet here you are defending this innocent guy doing the same thing. Tsk tsk. How ironic. look at this other person claiming their torture was bad and shouldn't have happened, can you imagine if Jack Bauer was stopped from torturing out information that let him find the atomic bomb which will destroy los angeles??
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:
So are you saying that, functionally, it’s better when the Supreme Court does it but not the president?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:23
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:So are you saying that, functionally, it’s better when the Supreme Court does it but not the president? I think the fact that the supreme court decides based on the law, even if you disagree with their particular philosophy of how they interpret the law, leads to more stable decisions than letting an directly elected president, who might not be the most stable genius, do it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
The concept of the Supreme Court is fine in the abstract, or at least as fine as any other part of our government structure. The problem is 1) it has been hijacked by bad faith actors, and 2) it has no effective oversight because the other branches of government have either also been hijacked or are incapable of action for various reasons. There is no human institution that could survive that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
It's not like the Supreme Court was good before the birth of the conservative legal movement. It had one short period of being pretty good.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I think the fact that the supreme court decides based on the law, even if you disagree with their particular philosophy of how they interpret the law, leads to more stable decisions than letting an directly elected president, who might not be the most stable genius, do it. Please understand what that statement means: when magical words are used to strip away human rights because they are supported by tradition based on a racist and sexist document, that is ok. Stability is more important than human rights because it MIGHT be abused. Please clarify if that is not what you mean.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:34
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Please understand what that statement means: when magical words are used to strip away human rights because they are supported by tradition based on a racist and sexist document, that is ok. Stability is more important than human rights because it MIGHT be abused. I don't see the current draft opinion as "stripping away human rights". The Mississipi law that is going to be upheld bans abortions after the 15th week, which is one week more than German law allows, which is seen as reasonable. Moreover overturning Roe v Wade is not going to make abortion illegal, it will return the question to the democratic institutions that are supposed to decide those questions. Congress had decades to codify abortion rights on a federal level, with several periods in which Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. If state legislators decide that their state is going to have stricter abortion regulations, than that's how the democratic process is supposed to work.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It's kinda ironic that people are calling for the SCOTUS to be ignored because they want SCOTUS decisions to remain on the books. This only seems like a problem to you because you're accustomed to congress not doing its job to make laws protecting these things that all have majority support And they're all about to go away anyway because they were built on a foundation of trusting an unelected committee whose appointments can be gamed politically, and the side against these things turned out to be better at and/or more willing to game it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:44
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This only seems like a problem to you because you're accustomed to congress not doing its job to make laws protecting these things that all have majority support Why is DOMA still on the books? Why did the Democrats not codify Roe v Wade? My educated guess is that the support for these measures might be high in opinion polls, but would proof difficult for at least some democrats at the ballot box. That's why they loved to hide behind the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why is DOMA still on the books? Pretty much yeah the US federal government is very undemocratic by design so not only can you have issues with reactionaries and megacorps having disproportionate influence on the government, but also the government doesn't really have to care what the people want anyway. For example even reactionary voters want legal weed though at this point and it passes whenever it comes up on a referendum, but the central government doesn't have to give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:54
|
|