USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

zoux posted:

What? Through what means?

Well, there's these things called bills that get passed in Congress.

I remember Obama promising to codify Roe. And I remember the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 last year.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 22:21

BougieBitch: Oct 2, 2013; Basic as hell

RealityWarCriminal posted:

I think it's silly to presume any group owes their vote. It was silly when Biden said it and he got roasted for it. Since then we've learned nothing.

I don't think interpreting it as being "owed a vote" makes sense, people can certainly choose not to vote and many people did. I think it makes perfect sense to say "if you are trans, Biden might be losing to 'didn't vote', but Trump or DeSantis are such a distant 3rd and 4th that you need a magnifying glass to see them on the graph". You can make the case for flip votes vs base turnout as the more important factor, but there is no universe where trans people are a substantial portion of flippable votes to Trump, just cases where you can depress their turnout

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:44

DynamicSloth: Jul 30, 2006; "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Mellow Seas posted:

* it could easily be as little as 10; Thomas and Alito are old, if not by �rich guy� standards. I regret to inform people who find the word hilarious that this will require people �VOTE!� for Dems, however.

Republican appointees have been the majority of the court since 1973 and most like Thomas are probably being quietly bribed not to retire during Democratic administrations, good luck with your plan to swipe it back from them through voting, but you'll probably need to clean sweep every general election from now until 2040.

Adding seats to the court is hard, it requires controlling the House, Senate and Presidency, but occasionally when the public gets really sick of Republicans that constellation is possible. It will take years and Dems should be laying the groundwork now, there is no other feasible route to reform.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:44

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

theCalamity posted:

Well, there's these things called bills that get passed in Congress.

I remember Obama promising to codify Roe. And I remember the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 last year.

Ok, once again, explain to me the legislative process that results in the codification of Roe. We'll just leave aside the obvious eventual SCOTUS ruling on the matter for now, how does that bill (which failed twice btw) become law?

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:45

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

theCalamity posted:

Well, there's these things called bills that get passed in Congress.

Yes. Congress can do those things. You need to have enough votes, though.

If 98% of your party favoring something does not make that thing happen the solution is not relentless self-flagellation, it is getting more drat seats.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:46

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

DynamicSloth posted:

Republican appointees have been the majority of the court since 1973 and most like Thomas are probably being quietly bribed not to retire during Democratic administrations, good luck with your plan to swipe it back from them through voting, but you'll probably need to clean sweep every general election from now until 2040.

That doesn�t sound crazy when you consider that they�ve won all but one election since 1992, even if two of them flukishly turned out upside down (and in 2000 they had pretty clearly won the EC as well.) If they�ve won 7 out of 8 they can win the next four. Hell I would say it�s much more likely than the Republicans winning two of them.

E: and the fact that Republicans had so many misfires on court selections between Nixon�s picks and Souter and Kennedy just emphasizes how long activists were willing to support a party that tried but had thus far failed to accomplish their goals.

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jul 13, 2023

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:49

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

I don't think Thomas is bribed to not retire as much as he knows to not retire. The idea that the court is not a political body and judges don't step up or down from the court when politically advantageous is a weird modern invention that only one party even seems to follow.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:51

DynamicSloth: Jul 30, 2006; "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Mellow Seas posted:

That doesn�t sound crazy when you consider that they�ve won all but one election since 1992, even if two of them flukishly turned out upside down (and in 2000 they had pretty clearly won the EC as well.) if they�ve won 7 out of 8 they can win the next four.

Ok but the Republican who wins the next dodgy election will still get to replace the Republican judges and start the clock again, better luck next time Charlie Brown.

Gumball Gumption posted:

I don't think Thomas is bribed to not retire as much as he knows to not retire.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction, he knows if he decides to retire tomorrow the fancy vacations and limitless graft all come to an end. No one ever has to annunciate that's what it's for but the people supplying the graft certainly know it is to make their bench content.

DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jul 13, 2023

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:53

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

Gumball Gumption posted:

I don't think Thomas is bribed to not retire as much as he knows to not retire. The idea that the court is not a political body and judges don't step up or down from the court when politically advantageous is a weird modern invention that only one party even seems to follow.

Most especially considering the consequences of RBG not retiring is very recent memory.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:53

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

zoux posted:

Ok, once again, explain to me the legislative process that results in the codification of Roe. We'll just leave aside the obvious eventual SCOTUS ruling on the matter for now, how does that bill (which failed twice btw) become law?

Well, typically, a bill gets introduced and co-sponsored. It then goes through a committee and if it survives that, it gets brought to the floor of either/both chambers to be voted on. Again, the Dems apparently had a chance during Obama's admin to codify Roe. I remember him promising to do it. The Dems vowed to codify Roe, but failed despite holding the House and Senate.

Mellow Seas posted:

Yes. Congress can do those things. You need to have enough votes, though.

If 98% of your party favoring something does not make that thing happen the solution is not relentless self-flagellation, it is getting more drat seats.

How many seats we need?

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:53

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

DynamicSloth posted:

Ok but the Republican who wins the next dodgy election will still get to replace the Republican judges and start the clock again, better luck next time Charlie Brown.

It took the GOP 50 years to take the court. It might take 50 to get it back.

theCalamity posted:

Well, typically, a bill gets introduced and co-sponsored. It then goes through a committee and if it survives that, it gets brought to the floor of either/both chambers to be voted on. Again, the Dems apparently had a chance during Obama's admin to codify Roe. I remember him promising to do it. The Dems vowed to codify Roe, but failed despite holding the House and Senate.

I consider these contextless arguments about "simply doing politics" to be much akin to Dinesh Dsouza talking about how Democrats were the party of slavery. Technically correct, but substantially wrong.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:55

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

DynamicSloth posted:

Ok but the Republican who wins the next dodgy election will still get to replace the Republican judges and start the clock again, better luck next time Charlie Brown.

Then I guess we�d better hope they don�t win any elections.

I also don�t expect any Justice under 70, possibly under 80 would voluntarily give up their seat just to help Republicans. They aren�t any less vain than RBG. So Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB aren�t getting replaced any time soon.

theCalamity posted:

How many seats we need?

Um, more than half, for starters.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:57

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

zoux posted:

It took the GOP 50 years to take the court. It might take 50 to get it back.

Cool. So what's the plan people are running on? That's the difference between asking for support and blind faith

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:58

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

zoux posted:

I consider these contextless arguments about "simply doing politics" to be much akin to Dinesh Dsouza talking about how Democrats were the party of slavery. Technically correct, but substantially wrong.

Could you elaborate? Obama had 2 years of House and Senate control, with between 56 and 58 Democratic Senators for those two years.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:58

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

zoux posted:

It took the GOP 50 years to take the court. It might take 50 to get it back.

Is there anything the Dems could've done to counteract the GOP's plans?

zoux posted:

I consider these contextless arguments about "simply doing politics" to be much akin to Dinesh Dsouza talking about how Democrats were the party of slavery. Technically correct, but substantially wrong.

Did they or did they not have a chance to codify Roe?

# ? Jul 13, 2023 18:59

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Gumball Gumption posted:

Cool. So what's the plan people are running on? That's the difference between asking for support and blind faith

The plan is "voting harder" and "for blue no matter who". That's what the GOP did, they didn't have a 20 step plan to controlling the courts laid out in 1974. They just kept voting for their guys in specials, in midterms, on-cycle and off. They got lucky with vacancies, but they also helped to make their own luck there and the Dems had the opposite of that.

Judgy Fucker posted:

Could you elaborate? Obama had 2 years of House and Senate control, with between 56 and 58 Democratic Senators for those two years.

What's the cloture threshold?

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:00

Fork of Unknown Origins: Oct 21, 2005; Gotta Herd On?

zoux posted:

The plan is "voting harder" and "for blue no matter who". That's what the GOP did, they didn't have a 20 step plan to controlling the courts laid out in 1974. They just kept voting for their guys in specials, in midterms, on-cycle and off. They got lucky with vacancies, but they also helped to make their own luck there and the Dems had the opposite of that.

What's the cloture threshold?

50 if the majority party wants it to be.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:01

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Judgy Fucker posted:

Could you elaborate? Obama had 2 years of House and Senate control, with between 56 and 58 Democratic Senators for those two years.

Many of those senators were anti-abortion or at least lukewarm on it. (Not pro- enough to strike down the filibuster over it - although that was not even something that as discussed as an option back then, unlike now.) They were from conservative states. There are not really people like that in the party anymore, certainly at the national level - 2010 basically wiped them out, with 2014 picking up the stragglers. There is one non-GOP Senator who does not fully support abortion rights and one Senator who will not touch the filibuster. If we had 58 Dems with the 2023 distribution of policy opinions (and a president less listless and conciliatory than Obama) things would be very different.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:03

DynamicSloth: Jul 30, 2006; "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

zoux posted:

It took the GOP 50 years to take the court. It might take 50 to get it back.

Bullshit propaganda, it took them 8 years to go from having 0 appointments under FDR to a majority under Ike, the Democrats had a 5-4 majority during the New Frontier, since 1973 and the subsequent 50 years have all been a Republican majority court.

When were these 50 years the Republicans were in the wilderness.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:04

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

The courts just struck down the NY Congressional Map that likely gave the GOP its House majority in 2022.

Republicans have already vowed to appeal.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1679523094598152193

quote:

A New York appeals court on Thursday ordered the state�s congressional map to be redrawn, siding with Democrats in a case that could give the party a fresh chance to tilt one of the nation�s most contested House battlegrounds leftward.

Wading into a long-simmering legal dispute, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Albany said that the competitive, court-drawn districts put in place for last year�s midterms had only been a temporary fix.

They ordered the state�s bipartisan redistricting commission to promptly restart a process that would effectively give the Democrat-dominated State Legislature final say over the contours of New York�s 26 House seats for the remainder of the decade.

�In granting this petition, we return the matter to its constitutional design. Accordingly, we direct the I.R.C. to commence its duties forthwith,� Elizabeth A. Garry, the presiding justice, wrote in the majority opinion, referring to the Independent Redistricting Commission. (Two members of the five-judge panel dissented.)

Republicans vowed to appeal, leaving a final decision to the state�s highest court, the Court of Appeals, just a year after it stopped an earlier attempt by Democrats to gerrymander the maps.

Why It Matters
The decision has potentially far-reaching political implications.

The current district lines were drawn by a neutral court-appointed expert last spring to maximize competition. The new map served that purpose, helping Republicans flip four seats en route to taking control of the House.

If Thursday�s ruling stands, both parties believe Democrats could conceivably draw maps that pass legal muster while making re-election almost impossible for incumbent Republicans like Representatives Mike Lawler and Marc Molinaro in the Hudson Valley, or Anthony D�Esposito and George Santos on Long Island and in Queens, among others.

The case in New York is just one part of a national battlefield that is still being remade by court battles spawned by last year�s once-a-decade redistricting process.

New Democratic seats in New York could help offset gains Republicans are expected to make in North Carolina, where a newly conservative top court is allowing the party to replace a more neutral map, and potentially in Ohio. Democrats also won an unexpected victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in June that could net the party a handful of seats in the South.

Background
The legal fight over New York�s lines traces back to 2014, when voters adopted a constitutional amendment that outlawed gerrymandering and created a new bipartisan redistricting commission to minimize partisan mapmaking.

The first time the commission set out to draw district lines last year, though, it deadlocked between equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. When the commission failed to even meet to complete its work, Democratic leaders in the Legislature commandeered the process and adopted lines giving Democrats clear advantages.

Republicans sued, and the Court of Appeals ruled that Democrats had not only gerrymandered the maps impermissibly, but also violated the 2014 redistricting procedures. It stripped the Legislature of its mapmaking authority, vesting it in the neutral expert.

Democrats filed a new lawsuit last year, paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, arguing that those maps were meant to be temporary and asking the courts to force the bipartisan commission to complete its work.

Though the commission would have the first shot at drawing the new maps under Thursday�s ruling, both parties expected the panel to deadlock again. That would send the final mapmaking authority back to the Legislature � only this time with the blessing of the courts.

Republicans are trying to block that possibility. On Thursday, party leaders said they would appeal.

�The Court of Appeals must overturn this ruling, or Democrats will gerrymander the map to target political opponents and protect political allies,� Representative Elise Stefanik said in a joint statement with Edward Cox, the top New York House Republican and state party chairman.

Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top House Democrat, lauded the ruling and said the current map was undemocratic. Its lines were �drawn by an unelected, out-of-town special master appointed by an extreme right-wing judge, who himself was handpicked by partisan political operatives,� he said.

What�s Next
The Court of Appeals is now likely to once again have the final say.

The seven-judge panel was skeptical of Democrats a year ago, and could view the current lawsuit as an attack on its earlier ruling. But Thursday�s ruling shifts the burden to Republicans to argue why the top court should reverse the new status quo.

Importantly, the bench has also moved decidedly leftward since then, and is now led by a liberal chief judge, Rowan D. Wilson, who dissented from the 2022 decision.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:04

Morrow: Oct 31, 2010

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

50 if the majority party wants it to be.

That's not how it works and you know it.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:05

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

zoux posted:

What's the cloture threshold?

zoux posted:

One thing I'd be in favor of is jettisoning these traditions that give single senators the ability to gently caress everything up

Is there a particular reason you want to see Senatorial privilege with regard to confirmations taken away but not the (also) totally outdated and anti-democratic filibuster? Because it seems like you're defending the latter--or if not defending it, acting like it's an untouchable institution?

Mellow Seas posted:

Many of those senators were anti-abortion or at least lukewarm on it. (Not pro- enough to strike down the filibuster over it - although that was not even something that as discussed as an option back then, unlike now.) They were from conservative states. There are not really people like that in the party anymore, certainly at the national level - 2010 basically wiped them out, with 2014 picking up the stragglers. There is one non-GOP Senator who does not fully support abortion rights and one Senator who will not touch the filibuster. If we had 58 Dems with the 2023 distribution of policy opinions (and a president less listless and conciliatory than Obama) things would be very different.

Do you happen to know how many of those Democratic senators were anti-abortion? Was it more than 5?

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:06

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

zoux posted:

The plan is "voting harder" and "for blue no matter who".

lmao, that's a terrible plan

The "vote blue no matter who" is especially insipid considering that anti-abortion democrats exist

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:06

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

DynamicSloth posted:

Bullshit propaganda, it took them 8 years to go from having 0 appointments under FDR to a majority under Ike, the Democrats had a 5-4 majority during the New Frontier, since 1973 and the subsequent 50 years have all been a Republican majority court.

When were these 50 years the Republicans were in the wilderness.

I don't know what the future holds, all I know is that politics is never over, we're never going to get to a state where we can dust off our hands and say "there, done". So it's going to take work, whether it's for 5 years or 50 years we don't know, you're never going to just get to stop voting and bask in the end of history.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The courts just struck down the NY Congressional Map that likely gave the GOP its House majority in 2022.

Republicans have already vowed to appeal.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1679523094598152193

Presuming they did redraw, these would be in place in 2024?

Judgy Fucker posted:

Is there a particular reason you want to see Senatorial privilege with regard to confirmations taken away but not the (also) totally outdated and anti-democratic filibuster? Because it seems like you're defending the latter--or if not defending it, acting like it's an untouchable institution?

Do you happen to know how many of those Democratic senators were anti-abortion? Was it more than 5?

I'm not defending it, I hate the filibuster as I hate all minoritarian parliamentary procedures that subvert democracy. But I'm not confusing "is" and "ought": this is the system we have and we have to deal within that system. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster, and it's not an issue a lot of people vote on.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:08

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

50 if the majority party wants it to be.

Correction. 51 people, including a minimum of 50 Senators who want to forever give up their ability to block future bills they don't like via the fillibuster. The party of those senators has influence over Senators, but way less than it would like even on things far less divisive than this.The difference might sound small , and many people pretend it does not exist, but it is absolutely critical.

There's close to 50, provided that you don't think there's a conspiracy of them lying about that. But there is not 50.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:08

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Morrow posted:

That's not how it works and you know it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cloture thing just a senate rule? It's not enshrined in the Constitution.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:08

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

zoux posted:

Presuming they did redraw, these would be in place in 2024?

Yes.

Democrats argued that the emergency map that was designed to be as competitive as possible was a temporary emergency measure because the Independent Redistricting Commission did not finish drawing a map before the election.

If they win on appeal, then this would throw it back to the Independent Redistricting Commission (which is expected to deadlock again) and if it deadlocks, then the state legislature gets to draw the maps. There is a constitutional amendment banning gerrymandering in New York, so they can't be extremely aggressive about it, but they can get much more favorable maps than the current one.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:11

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

zoux posted:

The plan is "voting harder" and "for blue no matter who". That's what the GOP did, they didn't have a 20 step plan to controlling the courts laid out in 1974. They just kept voting for their guys in specials, in midterms, on-cycle and off. They got lucky with vacancies, but they also helped to make their own luck there and the Dems had the opposite of that.

What's the cloture threshold?

Well no, they developed the federalist society and playrd vacancies to their advantage including denying Obama appointments and we're very vocal about it. It's not just voting harder, that's blind faith. The Dems have actively not been making their own luck. We need to be able to call out defensive tactical failures to have an honest discussion about getting abortion rights codified.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:14

plogo: Jan 20, 2009

zoux posted:

The plan is "voting harder" and "for blue no matter who". That's what the GOP did, they didn't have a 20 step plan to controlling the courts laid out in 1974. They just kept voting for their guys in specials, in midterms, on-cycle and off. They got lucky with vacancies, but they also helped to make their own luck there and the Dems had the opposite of that.

I see it more as- conservatives that had entered into the republican party were extremely upset at Reagan and HW Bush's supreme court appointees so they created their own infrastructure. Both among elites, like the federalist society, and at the ground level in volunteer campaigns for state houses and stuff like that. It is not obvious to me that the abortion movement would have succeeded in the way it did if not for the "betrayal" by Reagan and Bush in supreme court appointments. And the while the strategy for the anti abortion movement might have included "vote harder", it was not "vote red no matter who", the movement has been extremely confrontational within the party and has been a contributor to the ongoing factional wars in the GOP.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:15

Fork of Unknown Origins: Oct 21, 2005; Gotta Herd On?

theCalamity posted:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cloture thing just a senate rule? It's not enshrined in the Constitution.

That�s correct.

theCalamity posted:

lmao, that's a terrible plan

The "vote blue no matter who" is especially insipid considering that anti-abortion democrats exist

It�s part right. On Election Day the best, or sometimes least bad, thing you can do is blue no matter who (unless RFK is the candidate in which case I think the best thing is to hide in a hole.) The actual work of moving a party happens way before that, during primaries where we get actual leftist people on the ballot and at the very local level where we get actual leftist people�s careers started.

And yes it�s a ton of work and yes it takes a long time.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:16

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

plogo posted:

I see it more as- conservatives that had entered into the republican party were extremely upset at Reagan and HW Bush's supreme court appointees so they created their own infrastructure. Both among elites, like the federalist society, and at the ground level in volunteer campaigns for state houses and stuff like that. It is not obvious to me that the abortion movement would have succeeded in the way it did if not for the "betrayal" by Reagan and Bush in supreme court appointments. And the while the strategy for the anti abortion movement might have included "vote harder", it was not "vote red no matter who", the movement has been extremely confrontational within the party and has been a contributor to the ongoing factional wars in the GOP.

Yeah but these voters weren't voting for Democrats in general elections. Primary fights, go at it, that's what they're for.

Can you elaborate on the Reagan and HW Bush picks as betrayals, I guess I could see how O'Connor and Souter might've been, but Reagan appointed Scalia and Bork, and HW Thomas.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:19

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

It�s part right. On Election Day the best, or sometimes least bad, thing you can do is blue no matter who (unless RFK is the candidate in which case I think the best thing is to hide in a hole.) The actual work of moving a party happens way before that, during primaries where we get actual leftist people on the ballot and at the very local level where we get actual leftist people�s careers started.

And yes it�s a ton of work and yes it takes a long time.

If you want to vote for someone who is anti-abortion, or anti-trans, or any other regressive democrat, go right ahead. I won't.

edit: I want to add that, to me, it seems like the "vote harder" and "vote blue no matter who" plans have been in place for a long, long time now and I'm not happy with the results. Additionally, these plans don't take into account how exhausting it is for people, especially when their lives are on the line.

theCalamity fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 13, 2023

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:19

Fork of Unknown Origins: Oct 21, 2005; Gotta Herd On?

theCalamity posted:

If you want to vote for someone who is anti-abortion, or anti-trans, or any other regressive democrat, go right ahead. I won't.

It�s a failure of the US political system that sometimes to do the least harm you have to vote for someone who is bad. But it�s still the system.

It�s a legitimate utilitarian versus idealism argument whether we should vote for someone objectionable over someone more objectionable but up to a point I fall on the utilitarian side.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:26

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

zoux posted:

Can you elaborate on the Reagan and HW Bush picks as betrayals, I guess I could see how O'Connor and Souter might've been, but Reagan appointed Scalia and Bork, and HW Thomas.

The GOP considers all those instances of "huh, this person actually has good opinions on this one limited topic" as betrayal

Also Reagan failed to appoint Bork, another situation the right-wing complex was erected to avoid in the future

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:27

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

theCalamity posted:

If you want to vote for someone who is anti-abortion, or anti-trans, or any other regressive democrat, go right ahead. I won't.

edit: I want to add that, to me, it seems like the "vote harder" and "vote blue no matter who" plans have been in place for a long, long time now and I'm not happy with the results. Additionally, these plans don't take into account how exhausting it is for people, especially when their lives are on the line.

Ok what's the other plan to quickly get everything we want forever that is easy and not exhausting? Because I agree, we should do that.

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

It�s a failure of the US political system that sometimes to do the least harm you have to vote for someone who is bad. But it�s still the system.

It�s a legitimate utilitarian versus idealism argument whether we should vote for someone objectionable over someone more objectionable but up to a point I fall on the utilitarian side.

I wouldn't vote for a transphobe but I don't think that's likely to happen in the Democratic party, which is probably the most LGBT friendly major party anywhere in the world.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:28

trevorreznik: Apr 22, 2023

DynamicSloth posted:

Bullshit propaganda, it took them 8 years to go from having 0 appointments under FDR to a majority under Ike, the Democrats had a 5-4 majority during the New Frontier, since 1973 and the subsequent 50 years have all been a Republican majority court.

When were these 50 years the Republicans were in the wilderness.

Souter is a load bearing justice in a lot of these examples. Replace him with say, Bork (I jest, but surely there was a comparable comparison to Kennedy/O'Connor that Souter was picked over ), and it's a much, much different court.

Although I suppose in this what-if world, you also have Supreme Court Justice Harriet Miers instead of Alito.

Edit: To be more clear, while O'Connor/Souter/Kennedy were picked by Republican presidents, I don't think of them being Republican judges in the way that someone like Alito is. Souter clearly wasn't.

trevorreznik fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jul 13, 2023

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:29

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Judgy Fucker posted:

Do you happen to know how many of those Democratic senators were anti-abortion? Was it more than 5?

No, I don�t know. I would guess that most of them were in a similar situation to Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who was nominally pro-life but knew that was an unpopular stance in her state, so she would have never voted for (let alone overturned the filibuster for) something like codifying Roe, just in case some entirely hypothetical future court overturned it. Especially since, at the time, it would have done nothing but maintain the status quo and write Bill Cassidy�s campaign ads for him.

Of course, moderates like that almost always end up losing anyway, which she did, in 2014, despite their best pandering efforts. It�s always the most conservative Dems who get taken out in a red wave. I think in the end the 2010 and �14 elections hastened the ideological consolidation among Dems by taking mostly-conservative voices like Landrieu or Max Baucus out of the caucus.

theCalamity posted:

If you want to vote for someone who is anti-abortion, or anti-trans, or any other regressive democrat, go right ahead. I won't.

This is not a choice I have ever been faced with, personally, nor have most Democratic voters. Because almost all Democrats voters support those things, and so their candidates do, and those who don�t are a rounding error.

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 13, 2023

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:29

plogo: Jan 20, 2009

zoux posted:

Yeah but these voters weren't voting for Democrats in general elections. Primary fights, go at it, that's what they're for.

The anti abortion movement made hell or sat out the race for certain republicans in the general election as well. There were a lot of anti abortion democrats back in the day so they could be played off moderate republicans. Remember- conservative southern dems maintained power for a long time! Richard Shelby was the last senator to flip from democrats to republicans as part of the southern realignment and that was 1994! State houses could have conservative dems as the dominant faction even in 2008 (ok i don't have a source for this one, but I'll bet its true)!

zoux posted:

Can you elaborate on the Reagan and HW Bush picks as betrayals, I guess I could see how O'Connor and Souter might've been, but Reagan appointed Scalia and Bork, and HW Thomas.

I mean its dumb but it's deep in the conservative movement mythos. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/08/Reagan-nomination-outrages-allies-pleases-critics/7676363412800/

Pick up a copy of your preferred history of the conservative movement since the 70s or the anti abortion movement and they will talk about conservative resentment of supreme court picks but I can't think of a single comprehensive narrative on this point.

I think this is part of the reason rank and file republicans were more concerned about the supreme court vs rank and file dems until recently.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:33

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

plogo posted:

Remember- conservative southern dems maintained power for a long time! Richard Shelby was the last senator to flip from democrats to republicans as part of the southern realignment and that was 1994!

It�s actually even later than that. Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia was a full on hard-r southern Democrat and kept his seat until 2005. He memorably campaigned for Bush at the 2004 RNC.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 22:21

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

plogo posted:

The anti abortion movement made hell or sat out the race for certain republicans in the general election as well. There were a lot of anti abortion democrats back in the day so they could be played off moderate republicans. Remember- conservative southern dems maintained power for a long time! Richard Shelby was the last senator to flip from democrats to republicans as part of the southern realignment and that was 1994! State houses could have conservative dems as the dominant faction even in 2008 (ok i don't have a source for this one, but I'll bet its true)!

That's true, the Democratic realignment does confuse a lot of things. I suppose a better framing would be "conservative vs liberal" but that's even harder to nail down. Do you have particular examples of squishy-on-abortion Republicans who are thought to have lost races to conservative anti-abortion Dems?

Mellow Seas posted:

It�s actually even later than that. Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia was a full on hard-r southern Democrat and kept his seat until 2005. He memorably campaigned for Bush at the 2004 RNC.

Texas state legislature wasn't majority R until 2003.

# ? Jul 13, 2023 19:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »