|
This is the same sort of logic as "add new supreme court justices until we have a majority" except on a grander scale. And of course both have massive entrenched ideological resistance for decorum reasons.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Clarste posted:This is the same sort of logic as "add new supreme court justices until we have a majority" except on a grander scale. And of course both have massive entrenched ideological resistance for decorum reasons. No, it isn't. Ignoring the court and packing it are quite different. One works within the rules of government we have, one doesn't. That's not a decorum argument. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:States are not conscious entities in their own right. The question isn't really whether the states themselves are willing to give up their own over-representation, but whether the ordinary people who live in those states are willing to give up. I never suggested states were "conscious entities in their own right." When one talks about "states" I assumed it was understood that said states were representative democracies influenced, by at least some degree, by their voting populations. My apologies for not making that clear. I'm still going to need some level of evidence suggesting that the ordinary people of such small states would be willing to give up their overrepresentation in the Senate and EC, but especially in the Senate. edit: fixed last sentence, said one thing but meant the other Judgy Fucker fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No, it isn't. Ignoring the court and packing it are quite different. One works within the rules of government we have, one doesn't. Who said anything about ignoring the court? We're taking about legally admitting states. It's certainly "one weird trick" but it is absolutely within the rules of government to admit states with congressional approval.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Who said anything about ignoring the court? virtualboyCOLOR posted:right now, today, Biden and the Dems can disband/pack/ignore the Supreme Court (all legally) and accomplish the same outcomes in a much faster fashion. Maybe I got my wires crossed on who is addressing who
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Fair enough. My fault for not quoting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No, it isn't. Ignoring the court and packing it are quite different. One works within the rules of government we have, one doesn't. That's not a decorum argument. Please demonstrate the exact legal text where the Supreme Court has the authority to exert its will and the ramifications of the executive branch and legislative branch (both controlled by the party in power) tells the court to eat poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Sorry, I missed this in the rest of the back-and-forth.Bar Ran Dun posted:Well the definitions of revolution can be quite broad and diverse and a good common place a lot of people in both sides of this conversation might find a discussion of that definition is Mike Duncan’s Revolutions podcast in the addendum episode that just came out. Agreed, I just think swapping from "the Revolution" to "revolutionary change" at this point in the discussion will confuse things. Bar Ran Dun posted:I’m not arguing it would be easier . I have a strong personal preference for reform in the manner you and weasel are presenting. I agree that these are related in that they require political activation, but I think there's a much harder pull in both quality (violence versus normal civics) and quantity (amount of people needed to drive the change) between the two. Bar Ran Dun posted:The danger and opportunity is that these types of movements once created can be turned into the other. Here’s a way to think about it. The Koch’s created a fundraising, legislation spreading, organization that could turn out people to vote and physically protest for their libertarianism. A large part of the Trumpist success was subverting and getting control of those structures. They jumped in the car did some donuts in old Charle’s lawn and drove off on a joy ride. This is also correct, but I think there's also a distinction to be made between the a) Koch apparatus and conservatism generally, and b) good faith civic participation/activism in pursuit of changes. The Koch apparatus was outcomes-metric driven in a way that led them to increasingly exploit bad faith and false representations of reality to draw in populist support from specific tranches. This strategic populism based on false pretenses (think tea party astroturfing and Fox news, for instance) was what created a constituency driven by its own ideological commitment to lies and primed them for a populist revolt. These same lies also rapidly moved upward through the proxies and organizations which formed the conservative movement, with Kochites actually believing, e.g., hycrochloroquine bullshit. Obviously we're both glossing over something much more complex here, the form and degree of the Republican autocannibalism could be its own series of threads. But I'd argue that gaining popular support for an amendment like this doesn't need to rely on the same sort of misrepresentation to shift support or votes. Indeed, as we're seeing here, the "let's burn this mother down" parties to the discussion have a primarily ennervating effect on activation writ large, because what they demand is so much greater (and because it sabotages broader discussion. To the degree that there's a policy fix for the problem, it comes from better policing the rhetorical abuses and lies of the participants who want to grab the wheel, and to resist the temptation to construct or ally with antidemocratic populist constituencies that would otherwise derail the effort at reform. (or at a minimum, resist the urge to indulge in their rhetorics, which will inevitably poison the organization attempting to exploit them). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Please demonstrate the exact legal text where the Supreme Court has the authority to exert its will and the ramifications of the executive branch and legislative branch (both controlled by the party in power) tells the court to eat poo poo. On point 1, Article III, Section 1, as well as the bill of rights. On point 2, much like the answer to any question of "what if we just ignore the law" like if you ask "what if the president just abolished congress and rules by decree": the answer is a degradation and potential collapse of the rule of law. That's the value of court-packing, as it works within the rule of law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:On point 1, Article III, Section 1, as well as the bill of rights. Point one states nothing of the sort of affirming the supreme courts rule and it literally took a gentlemen’s agreement in the first ever court case. It’s basically decorum dressed as “law”. Point two has technically already occurred when the senate did not bring Obama’s nomination to the floor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Yeah, the Supreme Court gave itself the power to interpret law; that's not actually in the Constitution. Except as they've interpreted it, of course. This isn't like a secret conspiracy or anything, it's basic legal theory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, I have, multiple times, as has EW. Like every constitutional amendment, it's a lengthy process of actually participating in building consensus for the change. This is also what is necessary for the alternative being used to try to shut down the topic, The Revolution, except more likely and more likely to accomplish its goals. The burden shift being attempted- to require that others re-explain and justify the entire process of political advocacy within democratic systems, is obviously absurd. This "question" came after the insults and shift in claims. Okay, so how are people supposed to go about that? Going "build consensus" doesn't seem to function considering that small enthrenched interests can just go "no, we aren't changing anything because this benefits us" and the best you can do is go "well... just convince them". You cannot convince someone to give up power unless you have a pretty compelling reason for it. Even if it is the correct thing to do long term, it will not be in the immediate term for them and they are likely to not really care. Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, I don't have to pretend that "queries phrased in a more combative way than I'd like" without any actual questions are questions. Bully for you. I'm going to disagree with this assessment but if you want to behave as you are, keep doing so. Discendo Vox posted:No, it's unreasonable to convert the government's lawmaking process into solely the executive. Shortening the process of government, as an example of an individual and company working to make something happen, into "the president signing something" is fairly normal, yes. Does the president have no control over congress, unofficially? I'm not saying this solely focused on the executive and your facile focusing in on the individual minutiae instead of what is actually being communicated to you is emblematic of how academia makes for poor communicators and worse teachers. Discendo Vox posted:Entrenched interests are not a new concept invented in the last 20 years- the process of creating change in the government through participation in its processes remains possible. We have explained how it would work. Others have, in fact, done the usual dance of declaring it impossible and demanding revolution as the alternative, which is the actual thing that shuts down discussion. All discussion of specifics gets diverted into demands to counterbalance the infinite counterfactual of revolution. Prove it. You keep saying that it's possible, but how do you propose it to be done. I'm asking you, how do you propose people in states that would lose out to change the way things are run can be appealed to or convinced to vote against their immediate, and heck even long term, interests? How are you going to convince state governments that they should sign off on reducing their say at a federal level beyond "getting involved". Are you proposing a revolt of some kind to convince people to simply give up their outsized say in things? Discendo Vox posted:There were not questions about my answers until after several rounds of dismissal. I don't have to pretend they didn't occur, or that the answers aren't being dismissed. They seem to be. The apparent response to what you are saying is "your answers are not answers, they are a repetition of facts." You aren't actually answering things. You keep dodging the questions and instead insisting on a vast and co-ordinated conspiracy. Instead of how it is, with people disagreeing with your attitude and treating you exactly as you treat them. Discendo Vox posted:Constitutional amendments aren't something that generally happens quickly. The Z in this equation isn't new, and is the same set of factors and obstacles that have always occurred. Interlocutors have repeatedly and specifically called for "Y" as the alternative, because the facts-free demand for revolution as a counterfactual alternative serves to shift all burdens and terminate all discussion of specifics. Great, so for things that need to happen quickly, or that require immediate or instant helpful action, what would you propose? If these things cannot be implemented quickly, then what is to prevent someone from simply using the existing structure in such a way that fundamentally undermines it and results in a worse system simply by awaiting the decay of the institutions. You keep bringing it back to revolution, because it allows you to dismiss any calls for change as something that must occur when the time is right. The time to change things was decades ago. Discendo Vox posted:As both I and EW have stated repeatedly, addressing the problem of senate representation, like other constitutional-scale requirements, involves a long process of advocacy to develop consensus toward the change. It's usually a process that takes, at least, decades, or an unusual event granting the current congress a consensus. In the immediate term, removal of intermediate obstacles like the filibuster throw the problem into greater relief and build public literacy in the issues involved- organizations like fairvote are a part of that process. Epps actually already drafted an amendment (probably more detailed than would be necessary) for one of the proposed methods. More broadly, moving the legislature to unified control and addressing the rules passed over the last 20 years that diminish party control would also help realign incentives for members of the Senate. Oh finally some answers! This is at least progress but this ignores the physical reality of how to convince people to give up the power they hold over federal government because they've been "persuaded" otherwise. How do you think you will counter the obvious reaction against this movement and why do you think that this is a better option than otherwise? How do you think you will assemble this, and do you believe that most of the people involved will vote away their jobs? You do realise I was meaning the "do communism harder" thing as a reference to the, obviously foolish, idea that "it can be solved if we just do it harder" right? Or was this a misunderstood communique sort of development? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Okay, so how are people supposed to go about that? Going "build consensus" doesn't seem to function considering that small enthrenched interests can just go "no, we aren't changing anything because this benefits us" and the best you can do is go "well... just convince them". You cannot convince someone to give up power unless you have a pretty compelling reason for it. Even if it is the correct thing to do long term, it will not be in the immediate term for them and they are likely to not really care. We've described this multiple times, and it's been done many times. You're ignoring those answers. Change through civic processes isn't a new concept. Josef bugman posted:Shortening the process of government, as an example of an individual and company working to make something happen, into "the president signing something" is fairly normal, yes. Does the president have no control over congress, unofficially? I'm not saying this solely focused on the executive and your facile focusing in on the individual minutiae instead of what is actually being communicated to you is emblematic of how academia makes for poor communicators and worse teachers. Your "shortening" involves repeatedly changing your position. Saying the president can sign something is already a shift from your previous claim that the president can "make the law". The "minutia" of really basic elements of how the government is structured is something that's pretty important to understand if you want to affect any kind of change. Knowing that the executive doesn't create laws isn't some complex academic subject, it's you being willfully ignorant. Josef bugman posted:Prove it. You keep saying that it's possible, but how do you propose it to be done. I'm asking you, how do you propose people in states that would lose out to change the way things are run can be appealed to or convinced to vote against their immediate, and heck even long term, interests? How are you going to convince state governments that they should sign off on reducing their say at a federal level beyond "getting involved". Are you proposing a revolt of some kind to convince people to simply give up their outsized say in things? Again, demanding that others repeatedly re-explain the entire process of legislative and democratic advocacy as an alternative to revolution isn't a remotely sensical burden shift. Josef bugman posted:They seem to be. The apparent response to what you are saying is "your answers are not answers, they are a repetition of facts." You aren't actually answering things. You keep dodging the questions and instead insisting on a vast and co-ordinated conspiracy. Instead of how it is, with people disagreeing with your attitude and treating you exactly as you treat them. I have not actually insisted on a "vast and co-ordinated conspiracy". I've repeatedly pointed to the responses I've already provided, and the details I've explained, and also pointed to how they are ignored and the claims responding to them have shifted. Josef bugman posted:Great, so for things that need to happen quickly, or that require immediate or instant helpful action, what would you propose? If these things cannot be implemented quickly, then what is to prevent someone from simply using the existing structure in such a way that fundamentally undermines it and results in a worse system simply by awaiting the decay of the institutions. You keep bringing it back to revolution, because it allows you to dismiss any calls for change as something that must occur when the time is right. The time to change things was decades ago. There is no means by which the US Senate will be immediately or instantly reformed. Demanding that is to demand that others accept that action addressing it is futile. It's a way to dismiss engaging with the real, longer-term processes by which constituencies can be shifted to actually change things- and a way to ruin discussion of that process. Josef bugman posted:Oh finally some answers! The answers aren't new, they were provided before. Josef bugman posted:This is at least progress but this ignores the physical reality of how to convince people to give up the power they hold over federal government because they've been "persuaded" otherwise. How do you think you will counter the obvious reaction against this movement and why do you think that this is a better option than otherwise? How do you think you will assemble this, and do you believe that most of the people involved will vote away their jobs? The same way that every such process has operated, by consolidating constituencies of support and identifying and exploiting cleavage points in opposing groups. In the same way that Americans opposed gay marriage, until they didn't, or Manchin opposed glimate change provisions, until he didn't, individuals and polities can be shifted through case-specific action. The existence of opposing parties and interests is also an obstacle to your euphemistic "otherwise"- in fact it's a much bigger obstacle because a lot more people are opposed to overthrowing the government than people opposed to senate reform. Josef bugman posted:You do realise I was meaning the "do communism harder" thing as a reference to the, obviously foolish, idea that "it can be solved if we just do it harder" right? Or was this a misunderstood communique sort of development? The problem of the "do X harder" claim is that it reflects an underlying unfalsifiable set of premises regarding the viability of X- that it can be applied to any set of facts. My point is that it does not apply to this situation in ways already articulated by both me and EW- Senate reform is in fact possible, and it requires work through systems of civic and democratic participation. There are ways in which it could be that do not apply. The inverse, a Zeno's paradox whereby any change is impossible because it requires intermediate steps, is a demand for futility. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Yeah, the Supreme Court gave itself the power to interpret law; that's not actually in the Constitution. Except as they've interpreted it, of course. This isn't like a secret conspiracy or anything, it's basic legal theory. I’m not sure if your are being sarcastic here but that is exactly it. The Supreme Court has no legal standing to enact any of its will. It requires both the executive branch and the legislative branch to willingly neuter powers actually granted to them by the constitution. “Legal Theory” is simply another way to say “decorum” but with suits and briefcases. How many “legal theories” have gone down in flames because there were no laws explicitly stating that something was a law? The Supreme Court’s standing is on shaky reasoning that is far worse than the legal standing the Supreme Court said Roe v Wade stood on. It’s crazy what armchair scholars and actual scholars think are sound legal precedents the constitution stands on. The fragility of the constitution and down right stupidity of those that wrote it can not be overstated. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Right, going to stop quoting because it makes it rather hard to read. Pretend I just added your stuff in here between each paragraph. Do you think that things can be applied regardless of context or changes in the structure of government over time? When the last successful constitutional ammendment was 1992 and, before that was 1971. Do you think that there may have been changes in the last 30 or 51 years that may make such a thing less likely? Not really. I was trying to say "the president can sign a law" to compare it against "the president cannot order the sun pissed out". Do you believe that me doing a shortening of a process, instead of perhaps running through the "they call me bill" video in it's entirety, was obfuscating my reasoning or making things unclear? Was I hard to understand, did you not get what I was saying? If you want me to be more exact I can do so, but this seems weird in a context where you insist on typing in all caps to prove the unseriousness of people who disagree with you. I'm not asking you to re-explain it, I was asking you to explain it. Which you have now done, and again thanks. I mean taking off of what Bear Enthusiast said. You seem to feel persecuted when people disagree with you. Or at least that's what you've voiced. In which case you've laid out your reasoning why it cannot be. That's good, but will you consider the question as to wether it should be reformed if it cannot be changed to meet the needs of people in the moment? If there is no change possible in this moment, the moment where suffering is absolutely happening, then why should this thing continue? The effort to change things for the better is important, but why continue to insist upon the same pathways that have lead to this point? I am not so sure that is possible. For one, many of the smaller states would resent the loss of power far more so than some other additions to what marriage is. For two, I do not think it would be possible to convince people in an opposition party to your own to back something that would lead to their own extinction. Not without either a threat of violence or the offer of enough money to Scrooge McDuck through. If you think so then I'm sure I won't convince you otherwise, but thank you for replying with things we can argue or discuss about. It needn't though. The proposal that this is the only way that reform could be accomplished, is incorrect. It is the way you would perhaps prefer it. But it could be done by far worse methods too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you think that things can be applied regardless of context or changes in the structure of government over time? When the last successful constitutional ammendment was 1992 and, before that was 1971. Do you think that there may have been changes in the last 30 or 51 years that may make such a thing less likely? The changes of the last 30 to 51 years have if anything thrown the Senate into sharper relief and increased the degree of public awareness of the issue, which is part of why this discussion is happening in the first place. Josef bugman posted:Not really. I was trying to say "the president can sign a law" to compare it against "the president cannot order the sun pissed out". Josef bugman posted:Do you believe that me doing a shortening of a process, instead of perhaps running through the "they call me bill" video in it's entirety, was obfuscating my reasoning or making things unclear? Was I hard to understand, did you not get what I was saying? You continuing to get even your own claims incorrect indicates you don't seem to even be clear about your own reasoning. Not understanding, and feeling the need to constantly "shorten" the reality of how the government actually operates, actively harms your ability to either discuss or understand how change occurs. Josef bugman posted:If you want me to be more exact I can do so, but this seems weird in a context where you insist on typing in all caps to prove the unseriousness of people who disagree with you. Josef bugman posted:I'm not asking you to re-explain it, I was asking you to explain it. Which you have now done, and again thanks. I had already explained it before, as had others. Ignoring them to repeatedly pretend that the explanation has not occurred does not help. Josef bugman posted:I mean taking off of what Bear Enthusiast said. You seem to feel persecuted when people disagree with you. Or at least that's what you've voiced. Do you even get why this is already different from claiming I'm "insisting on a vast and co-ordinated conspiracy"? You should attend to and respond to what I am saying, and not misrepresent it, rather than relying on others to assign positions to me. Josef bugman posted:In which case you've laid out your reasoning why it cannot be. That's good, but will you consider the question as to wether it should be reformed if it cannot be changed to meet the needs of people in the moment? If there is no change possible in this moment, the moment where suffering is absolutely happening, then why should this thing continue? The effort to change things for the better is important, but why continue to insist upon the same pathways that have lead to this point? You are now arguing that a government that cannot instantly completely reorganize its structure to address any source of current suffering should not be reformed and instead be overthrown. How exactly do you envision this working? Why on earth are you thinking the burden is on me to defend the existence of elections and civic advocacy from this? Josef bugman posted:I am not so sure that is possible. For one, many of the smaller states would resent the loss of power far more so than some other additions to what marriage is. For two, I do not think it would be possible to convince people in an opposition party to your own to back something that would lead to their own extinction. Not without either a threat of violence or the offer of enough money to Scrooge McDuck through. If you think so then I'm sure I won't convince you otherwise, but thank you for replying with things we can argue or discuss about. Other users have already repeatedly provided both examples and processes by which this happens. You keep ignoring them to insist on the impossibility of anything other than a euphemistically defined revolution. It makes discussion of the specifics of process impossible. Josef bugman posted:It needn't though. The proposal that this is the only way that reform could be accomplished, is incorrect. It is the way you would perhaps prefer it. But it could be done by far worse methods too. You are the person insisting on the worthlessness of all other methods in favor of an unsubstantiated and by your own reckoning far worse method- that literally a government that cannot instantly reorganize itself by some means to redress any source of undefined suffering must be addressed by euphemistic violence, which will lead to the end of suffering...somehow. That constitutional amendment be instant, or that it is worthless or impossible. You make discussion impossible. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Yeah, the Supreme Court gave itself the power to interpret law; that's not actually in the Constitution. Except as they've interpreted it, of course. This isn't like a secret conspiracy or anything, it's basic legal theory. I was specific in what I said for a reason, and I didn't list Marbury v. Madison. Vesting the supreme judicial power in the Supreme Court, well, means they have the supreme judicial power. The bill of rights - which specifies things that Congress cannot do - means that when congress does those things, they don't have the force of law. Marbury v. Madison just recognized that in a handy way to get out of a situation where Jefferson was likely to blow the supreme court off if he didn't like the ruling (as democratic institutions were somewhat weak at the time). You can set up a system with parliamentary supremacy - that is what the UK and other countries have, where there are no actual checks on Parliament's power to pass laws. That's not what the constitution set up, and there isn't really any real ambiguity on that point. The whole Marbury v. Madison thing is overblown and used whenever someone wants an excuse to just ignore the supreme court. It is implicit in any system that if there are laws that the legislature can't pass, someone besides the legislature has the power to determine that. That is, fundamentally, a judicial power (you are interpreting two laws and determining if they conflict). This is made more obvious by that there's not a single state in the USA that has a legislative supremacy government: in every single one the state supreme court has the power to overturn laws based on the state constitution. There is no way in which the country is better off with a supreme court that is, essentially, just an advisory board. The United States are a better country with enforceable minority rights. But the current supreme court has been packed with illegitimate appointees who were specifically selected to be willing to ignore the constitution, so that needs to be remedied: the answer to that is new and better judges, and since waiting for the current crop to die requires relying far too much on luck, packing the court it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
I assume something is cut off, but will reply to what is there. Saying "it's thrown things into sharper relief therefore action is more likely" does not seem to be true as regards climate change. It's a belief that you think makes action more likely. It is not certain. What I wrote was "If someone were president then they can change the law of the land." which is done through not vetoing something, not signing something for 10 days or signing it. Your the one who seemed to think what I meant was "the President comes up with the idea whole cloth and then congress does it". Okay? I... where in any of your responses to me did you answer how to persuade people? Not really? You claim a conspiracy of people reinterprets all your words for their benefit instead of believing that people disagree with you. What you want to define as "vast" is up to yourself, but I'd say that it sounds like your using conspiracy theorist language. Shall I ammend this in such a way that you cannot interpret it otherwise? Perhaps to "your alleging that people are only disagreeing with you because they do so every time and it is personally targetted at yourself"? Would that be better? If a government cannot help it's citizens in need then what is the point of the government? That is the question I am asking. How long do you want people to wait for results when there is suffering happening now because of the time it takes? I like to ask you questions, because it's important to see what people think. I haven't actually said anything about reform or revolution. I've mentioned them both but I don't think you can declare me asking for anything without reading between the lines so hard that you are creating entirely new paragraphs. I thought we were having a chat about how you think things should work, because your only response to "how will this work" is going "get involved". If I responded to you asking "How exactly do you envision this working?" with; There are many groups who want to challenge the way things are, local anarchist groups for instance that often have a great deal to do in helping local matters, get involved at a local level! You'd perhaps see me as being not terribly serious. This is how you sound when you explain civics to people who know it already. Where have I called on this? Who do you think you are addressing here? I have called for nothing and no one. I haven't called for revolution anywhere in this conversation? Where are you getting this from? I'm really not. Have you confused me with someone else? BRJurgis posted:Guys stop making discussion impossible. None of this is a discussion. Sorry. I'm just very confused at this point? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Sep 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
I have no skin in this, but I find it really weird DV keeps mentioning EW in all his posts (we said this, we said that). If your point is strong enough, just speak for yourself dude don't bring someone else into your meltdown to try and help
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:You have to be living on another planet to think that we're going to get 75% of the states in this country to agree or ratify anything at all, let alone to abolish the electoral college, which is the only way any Republican in the last 30 years has become president, George W. beat John Kerry in the popular vote in 2004. Foxfire_ posted:An amendment removing the Senate is not comparable to any historical amendment. You'd need Nebraska and friends to go "Government listens to what we want much too often. We want to de facto remove all of our ability to influence the federal government". Convince Republicans to abolish the senate by reminding them they can only gerrymander the House. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:George W. beat John Kerry in the popular vote in 2004. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Sep 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No, it isn't. Ignoring the court and packing it are quite different. One works within the rules of government we have, one doesn't. That's not a decorum argument. Eh? Packing the court seems much easier than making new states. You don't even need the House for that. Just a majority of the senate and the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
So at some point this evening Trump arrived on a plane at Dulles Airport in DC. He's not handcuffed, but he does look like he came straight from the golf course. Tons of rumors going around about this including possibly being indicted. Xiahou Dun posted:https://twitter.com/_MajorNews/status/1569149426702090242?s=20&t=ZMgPmDSS_v90oI78DF76ZQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No, it isn't. Ignoring the court and packing it are quite different. One works within the rules of government we have, one doesn't. That's not a decorum argument. one of them has been done in american history- to pretty much exclusively good results- and one of them hasn't. recall the horrific, norm-shattering words of the authoritarian tyrant Abraham Lincoln: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." by precedent, when the supreme court has become hideously out of alignment with the majority of the people's will, the successful course of action to follow is to tell Roberts 'you and what army.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:one of them has been done in american history- to pretty much exclusively good results- and one of them hasn't. that quote (if not apocryphal) was said by Andrew Jackson in reference to the decision in Worcester v. Georgia, where the court had ruled in favor of Cherokee sovereignty. After that, Andrew Jackson did something else famous that involved the Cherokee.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 05:27
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:one of them has been done in american history- to pretty much exclusively good results- and one of them hasn't. I'm well aware that you believe that Presidents can ignore whatever the Supreme Court says by screaming "Andrew Jackson!" (or has it become "Abraham Lincoln!" for you?) at the top of their lungs. It isn't any more true now than the last time you brought it up. Are you referring to Lincoln as a tyrant because he suspended Habeas Corpus? I've never understood that complaint. Rebellion is explicitly mentioned as a time when it could be suspended. And the size of the Supreme Court has been changed over the course of its history. FDR may have failed to pack the court, but it hasn't always been 9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So at some point this evening Trump arrived on a plane at Dulles Airport in DC. He's not handcuffed, but he does look like he came straight from the golf course. Tons of rumors going around about this including possibly being indicted. I'm guessing it's for some 9/11 related photo op event.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
Republicans posted:I'm guessing it's for some 9/11 related photo op event. He now almost constantly seems at least half like someone who got dragged out of bed that morning to be arrested so it's impossible to say
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 08:48
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:one of them has been done in american history- to pretty much exclusively good results- and one of them hasn't. In addition to you having just supported the trail of tears with your misattributed quote, changing the size of the Supreme Court was routine for a hundred years - both increasing and decreasing its size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
There's also the fact that Lincoln could afford to be less concerned about political opposition, because much of the opposing party had removed themselves from Congress and from the electorate at large. He didn't have to worry as much about tyrannical policies causing an armed uprising or civil war (something that is absolutely a risk when you're suspending civil rights and arbitrarily mass-arresting politicians and journalists), because he was already in one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Eh? Packing the court seems much easier than making new states. You don't even need the House for that. Just a majority of the senate and the presidency. No, the composition of the Supreme Court is set by law and you would need the House to change that. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...m=0&jumpTo=true
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Point one states nothing of the sort of affirming the supreme courts rule and it literally took a gentlemen’s agreement in the first ever court case. It’s basically decorum dressed as “law”. The Supreme Court did not invent the concept of judicial review, which predates Marbury, and indeed the formation of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:The Supreme Court did not invent the concept of judicial review, which predates Marbury, and indeed the formation of the United States. Exactly. Marbury is the judicial equivalent of contracting a carpenter to frame a wall and having them decide hammering nails into wood is an implicit part of the task.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
One thing I'm worried about is Republicans creating mini electoral colleges in their states for state wide positions. Is there anything that would prevent this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
Ither posted:One thing I'm worried about is Republicans creating mini electoral colleges in their states for state wide positions. You mean the thing they're trying to do to let the gerrymandered state legislatures determine the winner of the state presidential races?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
Ither posted:One thing I'm worried about is Republicans creating mini electoral colleges in their states for state wide positions. There is a line of supreme court decisions overturning state stuff that violates one man-one vote (like state senates based on geography, like the US senate). I am skeptical of the current supreme court upholding that line of reasoning if it is directly opposed to the interests of the republican party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Exactly. Marbury is the judicial equivalent of contracting a carpenter to frame a wall and having them decide hammering nails into wood is an implicit part of the task. If it isn’t explicitly stated than it doesn’t count. See every single ruling the court made about politicians and bribery as well as how the Supreme Court ruled on overturning Roe v Wade. Not to mention the practical implication that they literally have no method of enforcing their rulings without the executive and legislative branch humoring them. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:If it isn’t explicitly stated than it doesn’t count. Yeah, it's like contracting a carpenter to put up a wall and the carpenter decides that hammering nails is necessary to put up the wall but also the nails, hammer, and wall are all concepts and the person who contacted the carpenter could decide at any moment that the carpenter is not allowed to use nails and it's kosher as long as "the carpenter uses nails to put up the wall" are not explicitly in the contract. It's going to make it really loving hard for that carpenter to frame the conceptual wall you've asked them to build without conceptual nails but it's in your right to demand that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah, it's like contracting a carpenter to put up a wall and the carpenter decides that hammering nails is necessary to put up the wall but also the nails, hammer, and wall are all concepts and the person who contacted the carpenter could decide at any moment that the carpenter is not allowed to use nails and it's kosher as long as "the carpenter uses nails to put up the wall" are not explicitly in the contract. It's going to make it really loving hard for that carpenter to frame the conceptual wall you've asked them to build without conceptual nails but it's in your right to demand that. If we really want to get into it, it's basically that it's assumed you'll be bringing nails, hammer, tools etc, but when it comes time to pay it turns out that the person who contracted you is going to subtract that from what you're paid. Things that are implied are OK with it benefits the rich and powerful but not when it has any downsides, then we need to have a strict literal interpretation. Judicial review is an obvious implication of the constitution, but so is a right to privacy and, welp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 19:15
|
|