|
FlamingLiberal posted:The miracle is called court packing and the Dems have made it clear that is not an option they want to consider, even though the GOP has been gaming the system for years and is in the process of destroying all precedent they don't like. The GOP is also going to immediately expand the SCOTUS the second they get the chance if they ever lose the majority, and they won't short of a freak incident that removes multiple conservative justices while there's a Dem WH/Senate/House. And once the SCOTUS rules in favor of the NCGOP in the ISL lawsuit, they're probably never going to lose power once they regain it.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
haveblue posted:It’s more likely that one or more of them drop dead during a Democratic president/senate period than any of them get impeached or resign This is more the "miracle" I meant, I don't think you're going to get a new court for a while barring the Supreme Court party plane crashing in the Pacific Ocean with all hands lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 12:01
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And once the SCOTUS rules in favor of the NCGOP in the ISL lawsuit, they're probably never going to lose power once they regain it. This fear is overblown. All the bad, frightening, antidemocratic things people are afraid they might do, they can already do. There is nothing in the constitution that says there needs to be an election for president. A state controlled by the GOP can simply cancel the presidential election and appoint a slate of electors now. As for being able to ignore their governor and their state courts while drawing the map, they already aren't being restrained for the most part to gerrymander, and they still have to follow federal law. The ISL decision, as stupid and wrong as it might be, could actually benefit Dems more than the GOP because they would then be able to ignore their courts and their redistricting commissions which have prevented them from effectively gerrymandering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The ISL decision, as stupid and wrong as it might be, could actually benefit Dems more than the GOP because they would then be able to ignore their courts and their redistricting commissions which have prevented them from effectively gerrymandering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Haven't the republicans had more redistricting maps struck down over the past few years? And don't they have more control over states? The GOP was having problems mostly from running afoul of Federal law, which ISL won't touch. When it comes to maps, this decision is not going to help the GOP very much at all. The Dems on the other hand are getting their gerrymanders blocked locally, which ISL would remove. The few times the GOP gets blocked locally, they generally try, try, and try again until they get the most gerrymandered map they can possibly pass through (or in the case of OH, run out the clock and force their map since the map reform the people passed stupidly didn't have an option to let their state courts draw the map if the legislature brazenly refuses to follow their state law). edit: Just to add onto this, a stupid ISL decision wouldn't be completely meaningless for the GOP, it would probably allow them to redraw NC.... but it would also allow the Dems to ignore the redistricting commission in CA and the courts in NY and redraw those maps to the extreme gerrymanders they would have wanted, so its potentially a bigger benefit for the Dems. Rigel fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Nov 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
Also, regarding the fear that a state controlled by Republicans doesn't like the results of the presidential election and decides to ignore the vote to send their slate of presidential electors, that practice is very specifically going to be forbidden by the electoral vote count act reform which will be passed in the lame duck. (and it will pass, it sailed out of committee 14-1 and McConnell has endorsed it). If the GOP wants to cancel an election and hand their electoral votes to their candidate, they must do that well before the election, which they already could do now. Once voting starts, its too late, and ISL wont let them ignore federal law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Also, regarding the fear that a state controlled by Republicans doesn't like the results of the presidential election and decides to ignore the vote to send their slate of presidential electors, that practice is very specifically going to be forbidden by the electoral vote count act reform which will be passed in the lame duck. (and it will pass, it sailed out of committee 14-1 and McConnell has endorsed it).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why do you think SCOTUS wouldn't just rule the federal law unconstitutional? Because it is not reasonable to think otherwise, at all, even with this court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why do you think SCOTUS wouldn't just rule the federal law unconstitutional? In this case, the federal law exists mostly to formalize Senate convention, by clearly declaring when the Senate will consider it acceptable to use its inherent power to refuse to seat a senator. The Supreme Court overturning it wouldn't have any real impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This fear is overblown. All the bad, frightening, antidemocratic things people are afraid they might do, they can already do. There is nothing in the constitution that says there needs to be an election for president. A state controlled by the GOP can simply cancel the presidential election and appoint a slate of electors now. As for being able to ignore their governor and their state courts while drawing the map, they already aren't being restrained for the most part to gerrymander, and they still have to follow federal law. No, states right now can't just decide "we're canceling the election for POTUS and deciding who the electors are" however that (among other things) will be possible if the ISL lawsuit is successful. What federal law do they have to follow? The Voting Rights Act? A law that John Roberts is well known to dislike and wants to see completely dismantled? Also you're talking about a court that has already decided, when faced with a Republican gerrymander that severely disenfranchised a bunch of not-Republicans, decided "oh well this election stuff isn't a matter for the courts" and washed their hands of it. Rigel posted:Because it is not reasonable to think otherwise, at all, even with this court. Yes because this court is very reasonable in their behavior. Definitely calling things impartially and not with specific long term political goals in mind. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:No, states right now can't just decide "we're canceling the election for POTUS and deciding who the electors are" This is just completely 100% wrong. Once voting starts perhaps they can't (but thats unclear until the electoral vote count reform act gets passed in the next couple months to make sure), but the states absolutely can pass a law in, say July to say they aren't having an election for president this year and instead our electors will be this list of people. The rest of your post seems to be based on the assumption that this quote was correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is just completely 100% wrong. Once voting starts perhaps they can't (but thats unclear until the electoral vote count reform act gets passed in the next couple months to make sure), but the states absolutely can pass a law in, say July to say they aren't having an election for president this year and instead our electors will be this list of people. The rest of your post seems to be based on the assumption that this quote was correct. There are multiple states where the GOP does not hold the governorship,or the state supreme court, and your example would fail in those cases unless they can override a veto and convince the judges their "gently caress your democracy we're keeping power forever" bill is a-ok. With ISL, the governor and the courts are powerless to stop those gerrymandered Republican legislatures from stacking the deck to ensure their party eventually takes those statewide offices too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There are multiple states where the GOP does not hold the governorship,or the state supreme court, and your example would fail in those cases unless they can override a veto and convince the judges their "gently caress your democracy we're keeping power forever" bill is a-ok. States already can decide not to have elections for president anymore and appoint electors. ISL doesn't change this. That is not even getting into the fact that this is all just a silly paranoid doom-fantasy anyway. GOP legislatures in states Trump lost universally and emphatically told Trump to gently caress off when he asked them to try this, and they aren't going to do it in 2024 either. The biggest effect this is going to have is to stop governors and courts from blocking gerrymanders, which is actually going to potentially help Democrats a lot more than the GOP since red states are mostly not unilaterally restricting their side right now, while its the blue states who are trying to be "fair".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
One thing to keep in mind is that the Electoral Count Act doesn't really have any binding effect on the states (and it's doubtful that it really has any binding effect on the Senate, either). Rather than that, it's more of a deal with the states: it promises that if the state follows certain conditions and meets certain requirements, Congress won't dispute or reject the electoral votes the state produces. The punishment for violating it is that Congress no longer guarantees that they won't gently caress around with the violator's EVs. It's a piece of convention that's been written into law simply to make it a bit more permanent than your average Senate rule, and therefore isn't especially vulnerable to the courts. The primary effect of the ISL theory being confirmed by the courts would be to remove some of the most effective routes for opposing gerrymandering and discriminatory voting laws. It's hard for me to see the "what if they overturn the election and just pick their own winner" as much more than a conspiracy theory from Trump-obsessed liberals, because the entire point of the ISL theory is to allow them to rig elections overwhelmingly in their favor so that they'll never lose in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's hard for me to see the "what if they overturn the election and just pick their own winner" as much more than a conspiracy theory from Trump-obsessed liberals, because the entire point of the ISL theory is to allow them to rig elections overwhelmingly in their favor so that they'll never lose in the first place. You literally just described a conspiracy to subvert elections and pick their own winners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:You literally just described a conspiracy to subvert elections and pick their own winners. In this case though, the subversion is likely going to benefit Democrats more than the GOP. Republicans currently are not being restrained much on drawing maps by the state, but the Democrats are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:You literally just described a conspiracy to subvert elections and pick their own winners. There's some important differences between "gerrymandering" and "straight-up declaring the election invalid and just appointing whoever they want", which is why I like to talk specifics and details rather than vague sweeping statements like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's some important differences between "gerrymandering" and "straight-up declaring the election invalid and just appointing whoever they want", which is why I like to talk specifics and details rather than vague sweeping statements like this. like it's not an either/or here, they can angle to overthrow elections and use the same momentum to try to rig election law in their favor. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why do you think SCOTUS wouldn't just rule the federal law unconstitutional? Because the constitution is clear on federal authority here and bad decisions from the court tend to rely on exploiting ambiguities, otherwise they’d already have Trump installed for life. But moreover, the options are 1) try to set up good laws or 2) don’t try to set up good laws. I don’t think “someone else may do something bad” is good enough reason not to write good laws. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Nov 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
The 15th amendment is extremely clear on congressional authority but Shelby County still happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:The 15th amendment is extremely clear on congressional authority but Shelby County still happened. Might as well do nothing then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's hard for me to see the "what if they overturn the election and just pick their own winner" Hard to imagine the Supreme Court confine that what is this, the year 2000?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Hard to imagine the Supreme Court confine that what is this, the year 2000?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:The level that the Brooks Brothers Riot and the SCOTUS decision has been memoryholed is astonishing. Unlike 2020, that coup actually worked. It also shows that SCOTUS has no compunctions about choosing winners or putting their thumbs on the scale to the maximum extent, when it can get away with it. It’s not even about when they can get away with it, they already know the can. It’s just that nobody in the halls of power was willing to do it for Trump specifically. It’s funny because he gave them their iron grasp on the court but they have absolutely no loyalty or respect for him
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It’s not even about when they can get away with it, they already know the can. It’s just that nobody in the halls of power was willing to do it for Trump specifically. It’s funny because he gave them their iron grasp on the court but they have absolutely no loyalty or respect for him The right wing of the court gave it to itself. First through Bush v Gore, then by killing the voting rights act. Trump is a consequence of the court, not a cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:The right wing of the court gave it to itself. First through Bush v Gore, then by killing the voting rights act. Trump is a consequence of the court, not a cause. Without trump liberals would have replaced Scalia and Ginsburg, nor would Kennedy have retired
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Without trump liberals would have replaced Scalia and Ginsburg, nor would Kennedy have retired
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Hillary would have still had a Republican Senate her first two years, and it is unlikely they would have gotten to 50 in 2018 in this alternate timeline. There is no reason to assume McConnell wouldn't have left those seats vacant the entire time. There's a big difference between using an "upcoming" election as an excuse to keep an opening vacant, and holding that opening through a president's entire turn. Both are possible, but I don't think "There is no reason to assume McConnell wouldn't have left those seats vacant the entire time" is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There's a big difference between using an "upcoming" election as an excuse to keep an opening vacant, and holding that opening through a president's entire turn. Both are possible, but I don't think "There is no reason to assume McConnell wouldn't have left those seats vacant the entire time" is reasonable. Also, in this alternate timeline, maybe whatever happened differently that made Hillary win also carries enough senators over the line to get to 50. But this whole line of conversation isn't very useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There's a big difference between using an "upcoming" election as an excuse to keep an opening vacant, and holding that opening through a president's entire turn. Both are possible, but I don't think "There is no reason to assume McConnell wouldn't have left those seats vacant the entire time" is reasonable. What possible consequence would McConnell potentially have suffered for having extended his SC embargo that he didn't risk with instituting it in the first place, and why wouldn't he have kept it in place, considering he suffered no significant penalties for doing it in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Also, in this alternate timeline, maybe whatever happened differently that made Hillary win also carries enough senators over the line to get to 50. But this whole line of conversation isn't very useful. I agree. My point was that they have the power to steal elections and the only reason they didn’t is because they didn’t want to over Trump v Biden
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There's a big difference between using an "upcoming" election as an excuse to keep an opening vacant, and holding that opening through a president's entire turn. Both are possible, but I don't think "There is no reason to assume McConnell wouldn't have left those seats vacant the entire time" is reasonable. Based on what past actions of his?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Just the fact that you reacted to him stealing a Supreme Court seat with "well maybe he would have still let Hillary have it" proves he wouldn't. There are no consequences, he can straight up steal the court and still get the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
A Hillary victory absolutely would have evoked weaponized accusations of election theft. Given that Obama was snubbed by "let the voters decide," it's extremely on-brand that the Republicans could have dragged out replacing the justices until the recounts were complete. And then the special commission to investigate the recount, then the special commission to investigate the previous special commission and Russian interference. and Benghazi again. And oh look at the time it's Hilary's fourth year and we've already established that's off limits for appointments. Besides the Constitution doesn't say how many justices we're supposed to have anyway so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 02:14
|
|
|
loving John Mccain was saying that Republicans would block any SCOTUS candidate that Clinton put up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just the fact that you reacted to him stealing a Supreme Court seat with "well maybe he would have still let Hillary have it" proves he wouldn't. You have a very strange definition of “proves”. Can you elaborate on what you mean here? We’re off in alternate reality land, so I’m curious how one proves anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
Folks really stuck on the alt history to prove the point (I think if I’m understanding right) that the USSC had already gained the ability to steal elections? I guess it’s unknowable but in our world Trump won and gave the conservatives a 5-4 majority (ultimately 6-3) which is what was actually needed to use the courts to steal an election. They had already done it in 2000 when their numbers allowed them to, then lost those numbers when Scalia died, and without trump they didn’t have them anymore. Now they do Would they actually steal an election? I think it’ll come down to who they’re stealing it for (they despise trump), who they’re stealing it from (Biden just wasn’t that scary to them), and some additional cost benefit analysis (how convoluted is the legal reasoning, how likely can we make this look like the system is working as intended, etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
Given how the electorate reacted to all the election fraud stuff, deliberately holding off on supreme court justices if Hillary had won would have resulted in the Republican party getting absolutely walloped in 2018. The American public on the whole has an idea of how the system overall is supposed to work, squatting on a supreme court appointment after losing the presidential election would have been a massive anchor in the publics eyes
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There's a big difference between using an "upcoming" election as an excuse to keep an opening vacant, and holding that opening through a president's entire turn. Both are possible, but I don't think "There is no reason to assume McConnell wouldn't have left those seats vacant the entire time" is reasonable. Republican senators were openly talking about leaving Scalia’s seat vacant for four years if Hilary won. They’d have left it vacant the entire time because McConnell already did so to Obama and the gop suffered nothing as a result. HashtagGirlboss posted:Folks really stuck on the alt history to prove the point (I think if I’m understanding right) that the USSC had already gained the ability to steal elections? I guess it’s unknowable but in our world Trump won and gave the conservatives a 5-4 majority (ultimately 6-3) which is what was actually needed to use the courts to steal an election. They had already done it in 2000 when their numbers allowed them to, then lost those numbers when Scalia died, and without trump they didn’t have them anymore. Now they do Stealing it in 2020 was a non-starter because they’d have to have stolen multiple states, not just one like in 2000. There would have been widespread, extremely justified, violence if they tried. They know that risking a civil war is foolish when they can continue the slow march to permanent minority rule through the courts as they’ve been doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Without trump liberals would have replaced Scalia and Ginsburg, nor would Kennedy have retired Trump gave away the game when he said he’d just appoint from the federalist society list, but Jeb! would have done the same thing. He’s not the critical factor. Trump (or Jeb!) would not have won without Shelby County and Shelby county wouldn’t have gone with way it did without Bush v Gore. The court made the court. The court and the massive amount of money behind the federalist society. Evil Fluffy posted:Stealing it in 2020 was a non-starter because they’d have to have stolen multiple states, not just one like in 2000. There would have been widespread, extremely justified, violence if they tried. They know that risking a civil war is foolish when they can continue the slow march to permanent minority rule through the courts as they’ve been doing. The thing that triggered the war was Lincoln’s election yes, but Lincoln was still saying that he’d respect the institutions of slavery and so on. The crisis for southerners was that he was elected on a purely sectional basis. They saw the demographic bomb as it were and knew their days of dominating the federal government were numbered. In a contemporary context, imagine if both Texas and Florida flipped reliably blue. The GOP would be left with the rump of the Deep South and the great plains and would never see the White House again. That’s why it’s so important to use every single lever to prevent voting rights Proust Malone fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Nov 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2022 04:26
|
|