|
Big Slammu posted:Parliament is the ultimate sovereign with no checks other than what’s customary, and can theoretically pass a law saying “every 3rd baby born shall be thrown out” and no court or countervailing governmental authority can stop them. Would’ve saved the crown the embarrassment of prince Andrew to be fair…
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Would’ve saved the crown the embarrassment of prince Andrew to be fair… If the crown is trying to protect itself from embarrassing failsons that is going to need to be a much longer list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:Question: does the SC have an explicit right, as granted by either the Constitution or a law passed by Congress, to rule on the Constitutionality of any law, or are they only explicitly the final court of appeals? If neither then by their own recent logic they have no authority. Does it matter? It's not like Congress or the POTUS has ever challenged them when they overstep their authority. Grouchio posted:Just read this before you continue dooming, aight? They didn't grant cert just to say "actually this thing that would ensure our party will never lose another presidential election since blue states with gerrymandered GOP legislatures can just overrule the election results for those states is stupid." The fact that even 20 years after Bush v. Gore there are people who think the GOP isn't just consolidating power and making progress on their long term goals of permanent power, with a dash of theocratic insanity, is extremely telling about education in this country. The right is winning the war and so many on the other side don't even notice or care and won't until they're being beaten to death and murdered by some right wing militia. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
To be clear I'm saying they are going to do that but in a way that will let them claim to idiots who believe them that they didn't
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:To hammer on drafting intent as well you have to keep in mind that the capital C “Constitution” in the UK is literally just a number of collection of laws that parliament has passed since olden times and there are theoretically no enshrined rights that require special rules to remove like we have here. Parliament is the ultimate sovereign with no checks other than what’s customary, and can theoretically pass a law saying “every 3rd baby born shall be thrown out” and no court or countervailing governmental authority can stop them. Actually the UK constitution also includes historical traditions, academic works that are considered authoritative and probably whatever the Queen happens to fancy. The British have the same attitude towards constitutions that we have to dictionaries i.e. They are descriptive rather prescriptive works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:To be clear I'm saying they are going to do that but in a way that will let them claim to idiots who believe them that they didn't That tracks pretty well with the past quarter century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Sorry, I didn't realize you meant within the party. Who and what do you mean, specifically, since you keep going on about how the “left is backing anti abortion candidates too” and never clarifying what seems to be your own definition of “left” or “backing.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
My guess is they mean Pelosi (and others) continuing to support people like Cueller: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/in-case-youre-wondering-nancy-pelosi-is-still-supporting-the-only-antiabortion-house-democrat The article also mentions at least one other primary where the establishment backed the anti-choice candidate over the pro-choice one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
No, they’re a centrist whatabout’ing that by saying “the left does that too” but when pressed just said “well not within the party” whatever that means.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
I’m almost certain that’s a reference to Heath Mello, who was a candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska in 2017.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I’m almost certain that’s a reference to Heath Mello, who was a candidate for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska in 2017. He wasn't just "a candidate", he was the Democratic nominee. Why wouldn't "the left" back him against the Republican incumbent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Who and what do you mean, specifically, since you keep going on about how the “left is backing anti abortion candidates too” and never clarifying what seems to be your own definition of “left” or “backing.” Bernie Sanders backed anti-choice candidates in the past (with the Democratic Party) and also made that weird quote about Planned Parenthood being part of the Democratic establishment as a reason to not back Hillary Clinton. Saying Pelosi won't do anything on Roe is literally verifiably false. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Bernie Sanders backed anti-choice candidates in the past (with the Democratic Party) and also made that weird quote about Planned Parenthood being part of the Democratic establishment as a reason to not back Hillary Clinton. https://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat quote:
So Bernie sanders (along with members of the DNC!) once did something that was deeply unpopular with his base and most lefty dems in an obscure municipal level general election against a GOP candidate on behalf of members of the DNC is equivalent to Pelosi and the DNC helping an anti choice “moderate” stamp out a progressive in a primary, and this is somehow representative of the left wing of the party. Interesting line of reasoning. So what has Pelosi done on Roe that you’re referring too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Actually the UK constitution also includes historical traditions, academic works that are considered authoritative and probably whatever the Queen happens to fancy. The British have the same attitude towards constitutions that we have to dictionaries i.e. They are descriptive rather prescriptive works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Just read this before you continue dooming, aight? This seems extraordinarily credulous. Oh word, new arguments and scholarship mean academics don't think this was real? I'm sure that will prevent them from doing it, they're famously internally consistent. As noted, there's no reason to grant this case cert except to impose a new ruling, considering the way the lower courts already ruled. It's gonna be bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:So what has Pelosi done on Roe that you’re referring too? House Dems passed a Roe codification bill almost a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:House Dems passed a Roe codification bill almost a year ago. I'm wondering why he's talking about Pelosi specifically, it's a very weird choice to pick her of all powerful Dems as an exemplar unless he's trying to make the opposite of the point he seems to trying to make, that "the centrist liberal wing of the party is just as pro-choice as the progressive wing", given her recent track record. quote:Saying Pelosi won't do anything on Roe is literally verifiably false. I'm not even sure why he's bringing up Pelosi or saying that it's somehow possible to verify now that she will act in the future to do anything substantial. Or if he means that she's acted in the past substantially on abortion rights, I'm wondering what he means but I wouldn't consider anything I'm aware of that she's done "doing anything." Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jul 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Or if he means that she's acted in the past substantially on abortion rights, I'm wondering what he means but I wouldn't consider anything I'm aware of that she's done "doing anything." She's Speaker of the House. The House passed a Roe codification bill. What would you count as "anything" for the leader of the House?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
I think the greater frustration comes from the Democrats' reaction to the leak. If the draft was leaked as a test balloon to gauge reaction, their non-committal urges to keep voting blue makes them just as culpable as Thomas. Consider for a moment if a draft saying "well actually you need to belong to a militia to own a gun" had leaked. The Republican response would have been absolutely overwhelming. You'd see riots, calls to hang the court as traitors, and serious talk about dismantling or packing the SCOTUS into oblivion. There would have been coordinated 24/7 attacks on each judge's credibility and fitness for the bench. It would have been made obvious that that decision would not be stood for, and certainly steered a few justices towards a more tolerable outcome when faced with the societal consequences of pushing too far. Democratic leadership didn't do that. Or anything like that. They made it plain that this decision was tolerable by tolerating it. So nothing changed between the draft and the final because why the hell would it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:I'm not even sure why he's bringing up Pelosi or saying that it's somehow possible to verify now that she will act in the future to do anything substantial. The US Senate, with its extreme rural bias, supermajority rules, and where Americans voted for democrats by a 10-point margin but got the slimmest majority where the median senator represents west virginia with all the moderation that entails.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:She's Speaker of the House. The House passed a Roe codification bill. Demanding an end to the filibuster to make that bill mean anything, disciplining Manchin or Sinema, she’s one of the most powerful people in the country, responding seriously to the fact the GOP have an “I win” button to basically end any tiny shred of democracy left that they’re warming up to take full advantage of while they’re talking themselves into “groomer” pogroms, there’s tons she could do but has opted not to. In any case, this was because someone was claiming that Pelosi and her ilk has been equally or more committed to abortion rights than “the left” which is a baffling claim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 06:47
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:It’s also incredibly pathetic, because it’s someone saying “someone else should do something drastic and dangerous with this information, but not me, I’m too important to take such risks” making it simultaneously try-hard edginess and also do-nothing weakness that's the entire point of the "someone do something" meme, it's for someone else to do something, preferably the people in power who also btw are illegitimate, powerless, paralyzed, unelected by any remotely representative process, etc etc, oh but they're definitely gonna do something just because folks asked in caps while masquerading as being mad about things online.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 07:01
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Demanding an end to the filibuster to make that bill mean anything, disciplining Manchin or Sinema, she’s one of the most powerful people in the country, responding seriously to the fact the GOP have an “I win” button to basically end any tiny shred of democracy left that they’re warming up to take full advantage of while they’re talking themselves into “groomer” pogroms, there’s tons she could do but has opted not to. ...Nancy Pelosi is not in the Senate. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:...Nancy Pelosi is not in the Senate. As party leadership in the legislative branch why are her and Schumer just letting wreckers block any attempt to retain civil rights or neutralize the court without consequences? Not really sure what the point of this line of argument is anymore
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Comstar posted:When can we expect the SCOTUS to hear the case about letting democracy die and when can we expect their ruling to kill it? https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketfiles/00-949.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:As party leadership in the legislative branch why are her and Schumer just letting wreckers block any attempt to retain civil rights or neutralize the court without consequences? What consequences do you think would get, say, Manchin to fall in line on this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:As party leadership in the legislative branch why are her and Schumer just letting wreckers block any attempt to retain civil rights or neutralize the court without consequences? This isn't the 1st, or even 10th time we have seen this tiresome argument on this board. The answer is not "they could do something, but just don't care" or "they secretly hate abortion". You know what the reason is, and i know what your response to that likely will be. Can we just skip ahead to the part where you bring up something new?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
I don't spend enough time in D&D to know what your answer is, could you just post it in spoilers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What consequences do you think would get, say, Manchin to fall in line on this? His net worth is surprisingly small. I'm kinda surprised that straight-up bribes--not campaign funding transfer, just a briefcase of cash--to whip votes isn't a more common practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What consequences do you think would get, say, Manchin to fall in line on this? I don’t know, I’d imagine a lifetime party aparachnik would have some ideas though. Rigel posted:This isn't the 1st, or even 10th time we have seen this tiresome argument on this board. The answer is not "they could do something, but just don't care" or "they secretly hate abortion". Yes, I don’t think they care, at least not as much as they care about keeping their position of power. What’s your coy point and why are you being such as dismissive rear end in a top hat? This a really ridiculous derail, I’m baffled that so people are going to the mat here to seemingly claim Pelosi has been more principled than progressives. Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jul 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
It has always shocked me exactly how cheaply our democracy has been bought over the years. Things are a bit different now with the significant difference in campaign spending but a mid level NFL QB could probably be the god king of the Dem or Republican party if they were willing to spend the money on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:His net worth is surprisingly small. I'm kinda surprised that straight-up bribes--not campaign funding transfer, just a briefcase of cash--to whip votes isn't a more common practice. An interesting idea! But I've always had the sense that Manchin is actually pretty reflective of the WV electorate and that if he strays too far from their opinions he's at a real risk of getting voted out. Senators like money, but they also absolutely like power. SMEGMA_MAIL posted:I don’t know, I’d imagine a lifetime party aparachnik would have some ideas though. To you, does the fact that they haven't done anything of the sort constitute evidence that they don't actually have any such ideas? I'm fully sympathetic to the position that the Democratic Party, and especially its leadership, has not sufficiently risen to the challenge posed to human rights and democracy in general by the conservative political movement over the past several decades. But that's not the same as claiming that there's some obvious, easy thing they're just not bothering to do to solve the problem. (And this an especially hard case to make when one can't actually name such a thing, and is only presuming that it exists!) They deserve criticism not because they're failing to do easy things, but because they're failing to do hard things, and whipping Joe Manchin to vote in a way his constituency opposes is a very, very, very hard thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:His net worth is surprisingly small. I'm kinda surprised that straight-up bribes--not campaign funding transfer, just a briefcase of cash--to whip votes isn't a more common practice. He's almost certainly being bribed, unfortunately not by us. raminasi posted:An interesting idea! But I've always had the sense that Manchin is actually pretty reflective of the WV electorate and that if he strays too far from their opinions he's at a real risk of getting voted out. Senators like money, but they also absolutely like power. Also this. Manchin get's off on his position. He's enjoying loving with people. Same for Sinema. The average person finds it extremely difficult to go against their in-group. Unsurprisingly both Manchin and Sinema have somewhat quirky personality traits that already set them up as outsiders, which they have little problem with. Sinema was practically gleeful doing the thumbs down curtsey. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Layperson here. So this Independent State Legiature thing. Is that the end? Because it feels like the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Travic posted:Layperson here. So this Independent State Legiature thing. Is that the end? Because it feels like the end. Yeah, it could be the end. "oh, the state voted for someone we don't like? poo poo...well...there were a lot of irregularities in the vote, so we are going to wipe away the results and have the legislature vote on our own electors. Oh, we own a super majority? Well, if the people don't like it they can vote us out. Which they can't actually do because we are gerrymandered to hell. Oh, and the SC has also said that being gerrymandered to hell is a non justicable"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
seems like everyone would just have to join the Republican Party and do a hostile takeover. perfectly functioning democracy!!!!! Bellum fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Travic posted:Layperson here. So this Independent State Legiature thing. Is that the end? Because it feels like the end. If the SCOTUS says it's allowed then yes, it is 100% the end due to the amount of states the GOP has gerrymandered control of the legislature to the point that you can't realistically expect to get rid of them (and the SCOTUS has of course said it's ok). With ISL in place Obama would've lost in 2012 or possibly even both his elections, to say nothing of Biden in 2020 (which is why this is getting pushed so hard now) or whomever runs in 2024. Not that the GOP will need to steal that one, given how much the Dems are loving up. There would probably, hopefully, be a lot of violence in response to stealing an election like this but there wasn't when Bush v. Gore happened and the cops are going to side with their fellow fascists if things actually do go badly. e: The argument for ISL is also much more extreme than saying that the US Congress has sole authority over US election law and that the SCOTUS has no authority to rule on such matters, including prior cases like Shelby County. It could be a Dred Scott-tier ruling and with similarly cataclysmic results. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Yeah, that would be a concrete step towards a soft coup and the end of the US system of government. If this decision goes in favor of ISL, state legislatures now choose the president. State legislatures have already been given the power to choose themselves since the court sanctioned partisan gerrymandering. Whoever holds a state legislature when this regime is enacted will never lose that control. This still leaves more red states than blue states, so the president and senate become permanently republican, and with them the court. The house could go blue in wave elections but it doesn't have the power to undo any of this. The will of the voters is entirely removed from this process and the country is now run by the GOP.Evil Fluffy posted:There would probably, hopefully, be a lot of violence in response to stealing an election like this but there wasn't when Bush v. Gore happened There wasn't a lot of violence because it was legitimately an extremely close call that made its way up to what was at the time considered the ultimate authority in the country. If CNN reports based on exit polling that Biden won state X by a large margin and the legislature announces that no, actually, he didn't, because we say so, there will almost certainly be violence Bellum posted:seems like everyone would just have to join the Republican Party and do a hostile takeover. This is exactly what would happen. The GOP would become US politics and becoming politically active would mean playing by their rules. The Democrats would die off and the GOP in blue states would develop a (small, relatively powerless) left wing haveblue fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jul 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
I wonder, is the Dobbs decision going to gently caress with everyone who has embryos frozen for IVF?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
If that happens, the country balkanizes or calls a constitutional convention. The areas with all the people and all the GDP aren't going to long-tolerate being openly ruled. We already saw flashes of this during the first months of Covid under Trump when it was becoming clear that the GOP was fanning the pandemic in hopes that it would devastate urban areas. Multi-state coalitions started forming and developing informal government agreements. If those conditions continued, those coalitions would reform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2022 20:37
|
|
