|
Celexi posted:With this onslaught why is biden not packing the courts, ho right he doesn't care. You're confusing intent with facts on the ground regarding capability. I think if you had 62 Democrats in the Senate they would already be passing legislation to expand the courts; but they don't have 62 Dems, they don't even have 52 Dems, they have exactly 50 Dems which require frequent VP tie breaking votes and is in a precarious position where the moment Republicans decide to scrap the various unofficial rules that govern the Senate seize power the moment there's 49 Dems present but all 50 Republicans. 50 Dems is a huge benefit for Biden's agenda but it isn't some clear cut mandate to do things that would have been politically difficult to achieve even with a supermajority. It's clear that the dam is bursting but acting like the fact it isn't happening right now doesn't mean anything about peoples intentions.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You're confusing intent with facts on the ground regarding capability. I think if you had 62 Democrats in the Senate they would already be passing legislation to expand the courts; but they don't have 62 Dems, they don't even have 52 Dems, they have exactly 50 Dems which require frequent VP tie breaking votes and is in a precarious position where the moment Republicans decide to scrap the various unofficial rules that govern the Senate seize power the moment there's 49 Dems present but all 50 Republicans. There is no filibuster for Supreme court nominees and there is nothing on the constitution preventing bidden from appointing 20 more to the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
Celexi posted:There is no filibuster for Supreme court nominees and there is nothing on the constitution preventing bidden from appointing 20 more to the supreme court. This is trivially untrue, at a minimum constitution says: quote:He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. At a minimum it says right there that the Senate has to consent for the President to appoint people to the Supreme Court; and the size of the Supreme Court as mandated is determined by Act of Congress, which currently requires 60 votes to change; Biden cannot legally or constitutionally appoint a 12th person to the supreme court because the law that decides the number doesn't allow for a 12th justice. e to add, the law in question is the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869]Judiciary Act of 1869.[/rul] quote:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall hereafter consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum; and for the purposes of this act there shall be appointed an additional associate justice of said court. So yes, both the law and the constitution absolutely says Biden cannot unilaterally appoint 20 more people to the Supreme Court; who also ruled that Biden cannot even fill vacancies via recess appointment as long as the Senate maintains pro-forma sessions (only an issue when it was held by obstructing Republicans, less of an issue now). Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is trivially untrue, at a minimum constitution says: Kill the filibuster and change the law to be 100 supreme court justices?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:28
|
|
|
Celexi posted:Kill the filibuster and change the law to be 100 supreme court justices? There's no popular mandate to expand the supreme court like this, there aren't 50 votes to do this, nothing to do with Biden which was your original claim. Which suffices to prove that it has nothing to do with President Biden. Biden who is the head of the executive branch has no authority or powers over the legislative branch, and considering all the poo poo he's taking from the media about the afghanistan withdrawal he doesn't even have the political capital to use the Bully Pulpit to try to encourage Congress to consider it; and once they abolish the filibuster that's the crossing the rubicon moment where Republicans probably just seize control of the Senate the moment a Dem senator walks away. Now the Democrats could campaign on reforming the filibuster and expanding the court in 2022, and then if they gain 2 more senators to bypass Sinema and Manchin, there will be a clearer mandate for them to do away with the filibuster, but there clearly isn't the political will before that moment because there's no cover to perform such a dangerous and unpopular act.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:33
|
|
|
They've spent exactly zero effort building public support for court rebalancing and it is still supported by roughly half of Democrats (which is really the only voters that should matter here). Imagine where they'd be if they spent even a fraction of the effort that went into convincing Americans to send their kids to COVID-ridden schools or ripping their masks off and jumping back into conspicuous consumption just because they were vaccinated. E: Of course the Republicans will have control of the Senate once Democrats no longer have a majority. That has nothing to do with the filibuster. Stickman fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:and once they abolish the filibuster that's the crossing the rubicon moment where Republicans probably just seize control of the Senate the moment a Dem senator walks away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:42
|
|
|
Stickman posted:They've spent exactly zero effort building public support for court rebalancing and it is still supported by roughly half of Democrats (which is really the only voters that should matter here). Imagine where they'd be if they spent even a fraction of the effort that went into convincing Americans to send their kids to COVID-ridden schools or ripping their masks off and jumping back into conspicuous consumption just because they were vaccinated. The problem is as we saw during the election the media gave an intense amount of scrutiny to the question forcing Biden to play it safe given Biden's campaign seemed to know that the election was going to be a lot closer than what the pollsters were saying. I think if Biden's numbers internally matched what the pollsters were saying and the Dems were angling for a 55 seat majority I think Biden would've been more affirmative about the desire for filibuster reform and SCOTUS reform; similarly today if Biden tried to use the bully pulpit and make that argument you would see an intense media scrutiny campaign with pundits and talking heads lining up against it wringing their hands worried about it might make it too easy to do good things and a lot that support you need may fail to materialize because of the manufacturing of a (in this case) lack of consent for such meaningful change. Dems need to be able to move quickly and that's incredibly difficult when you need every hand on deck and can just do a simple head count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 09:55
|
|
|
It should have been the Democratic line from the second McConnell filled Scalia's seat. Instead they lost the initiative and two seats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 10:34
|
|
|
Stickman posted:It should have been the Democratic line from the second McConnell filled Scalia's seat. Instead they lost the initiative and two seats. Dems weren't a majority in the Senate when Obama nominated Merrick Garland, if they had won a majority in 2016 then they could have prevented Trump from filling the seat or demand a compromise candidate but there was nothing they could do. Arguing in 2016 when Trump controls the Presidency and Republicans control the Senate and also I think the House? That they should pack the courts and abolish the filibuster is just inviting Republicans to do it first; that is a huge gamble and one with potentially disasterous consequences for American democracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 10:58
|
|
|
Well thank god they're doing nothing then
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 13:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Dems weren't a majority in the Senate when Obama nominated Merrick Garland, if they had won a majority in 2016 then they could have prevented Trump from filling the seat or demand a compromise candidate but there was nothing they could do. Arguing in 2016 when Trump controls the Presidency and Republicans control the Senate and also I think the House? That they should pack the courts and abolish the filibuster is just inviting Republicans to do it first; that is a huge gamble and one with potentially disasterous consequences for American democracy. All of recorded shows that the second D's got a fair SCOTUS advantage Republicans would do this ASAP. Evil really will win because Good is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Or just wait a bit. The actuarial tables might just do their work for them, considering the average age of the respective party members in each chamber, especially the leadership. Anyone expecting to see things get better by just waiting for old conservatives to die is at best a fool and at worst actively undermining progress. Trying to wait out Conservatives has never worked before and it sure as gently caress isn't going to work right now while they have seized control of the courts and are aggressively undermining the ability for their opponents to vote in states they control while Democrats sit around with their thumbs up their asses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
We just have to wait 50 years for Kyrsten Sinema to die of old age and then you ladies can control your uteruses again
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:All of recorded shows that the second D's got a fair SCOTUS advantage Republicans would do this ASAP. Evil wins bc good has been marginalized and demonized into being irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
Raenir you're confusing "a popular mandate" with "has the votes in the legislature to enact that mandate". Marijuana legalization is extremely popular, but has minimal support in the legislature. Votes do not translate 1:1 with policy, and a politician being elected does not imply that all or even a majority of the people of voted for them support any given part of their platform. Besides, if the litmus test for 'popular mandate' is 'filibuster proof majority' there are nearly zero policies that have a popular mandate, and due to structural factors that's unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
If you want someone to blame for not packing the court right now the biggest names are Sinema and Manchin (and a handful more unknown Senate dems), not Biden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:once they abolish the filibuster that's the crossing the rubicon moment where Republicans probably just seize control of the Senate the moment a Dem senator walks away. If you lead like this you'll never get anything done. At least lead like Harry Reid: Used the filibuster to block Bush nominees in the 2000s while conservative activists grinded teeth and threatened the nuclear option, then in 2013 actually used the nuclear option on judicial nominees to get Obama nominees in. Stop caring about principle and start ratfucking your enemies because they're trying to loving kill you. The republicans break democracy's guardrails when it suits them anytime they're in power, and if you try to protect the guardrails, if you don't break some of your own and threaten to turn government into a big game of calvinball where the road ends with absolute unchecked power given to whoever gets 51% of the vote this time, the GOP are never gonna stop. The USSR stopped threatening the world with nuclear annihilation once Reagan looked crazy enough that he might beat them to it. Republicans know they have nothing to fear to break traditions to serve their own ends because they know Democrats are too interested in restoring/preserving tradition. You basically have to accelerate driving the whole country to the brink before they'll say "whoa hold on, maybe we can negotiate something." And the good news is this time "the brink" isn't the end of all life on Earth, but merely an anything-goes Senate. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Sep 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Raenir you're confusing "a popular mandate" with "has the votes in the legislature to enact that mandate". Marijuana legalization is extremely popular, but has minimal support in the legislature. Votes do not translate 1:1 with policy, and a politician being elected does not imply that all or even a majority of the people of voted for them support any given part of their platform. Besides, if the litmus test for 'popular mandate' is 'filibuster proof majority' there are nearly zero policies that have a popular mandate, and due to structural factors that's unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. Something polling popular nationally does not translate to providing a mandate; often what might be popular nationally is not popular in the actual districts having elections. I'm a little confused by your post because it seems like you agree with this conclusion; the popular polling of the populace of any particular issue does not translate to policy; and also does not translate to support. M4A vs Public Option is an good example of this, a majority supported M4A when polled but their actual voting didn't reflect polling. The point here is people are suggesting that the Dems change the rules (especially when its largely being perceived as "changing the rules because they lost") to advance policy perceived as popular and the point is to point out that this isn't actually that simple; I'm not saying that the Dems need to have a super majority to do anything at all, as that's clearly wrong and they've been doing plenty of things with just 50 dems, but changing the rules isn't being seen as a significant barrier when it really is pretty significant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Anyone expecting to see things get better by just waiting for old conservatives to die is at best a fool and at worst actively undermining progress. Trying to wait out Conservatives has never worked before and it sure as gently caress isn't going to work right now while they have seized control of the courts and are aggressively undermining the ability for their opponents to vote in states they control while Democrats sit around with their thumbs up their asses. You might want to check which side is older. Hint: it's not the GOP
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The point here is people are suggesting that the Dems change the rules Which rules are you talking about and where did these rules come from and have they been changed before?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:M4A vs Public Option is an good example of this, a majority supported M4A when polled but their actual voting didn't reflect polling. All you can infer is that there isn't an overwhelming majority of single-issue M4A voters. Our hosed-up multi-stage electoral system does not magically produces referendums specific policies, especially not in 2020 when the overwhelming messaging from the media was "we can't vote too progressive or we'll never beat Trump". Again, top-down messaging that reflects and supports the policies that are actually needed could move both polling and voting, it's just that the leadership does not want either M4A or the perception of "bias", however unwarranted. It's America's vicious spiral. E: removed unnecessarily inflammatory assessment of argument. Stickman fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Sep 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Considering the structural inequity with regards to representation by the Senate, how many Democratic Senators would be the minimum to represent a political mandate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:Considering the structural inequity with regards to representation by the Senate, how many Democratic Senators would be the minimum to represent a political mandate? 60 only if you assume that Sinema and Manchin have been replaced as well. Otherwise 62.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Celexi posted:With this onslaught why is biden not packing the courts, ho right he doesn't care. Joe Biden is an economic and social conservative. Most Dem senators are quite conservative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Piell posted:If you want someone to blame for not packing the court right now the biggest names are Sinema and Manchin (and a handful more unknown Senate dems), not Biden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
Stickman posted:All you can infer is that there isn't an overwhelming majority of single-issue M4A voters. Our hosed-up multi-stage electoral system does not magically produces referendums specific policies, For example in Florida, the two parties that opposed the $15 minimum wage referendum (the Florida Republican and Democratic parties) picked up 99% of the statewide vote between them yet the referendum passed with 60+% So if you assume that every vote for a major state party represented complete voter agreement with the entire party platform, the $15 wage should have gone down in flames >99: <1 Or in several states the party that supports the Medicaid expansion (the Democrats) gets blown out statewide while the Medicaid expansion has never failed in a voter referendum on the exact same ballot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Joe Biden is an economic and social conservative. That's_Bait.jpg Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 10:29
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say that Republican leadership is more influenced by its base where Democrat leadership tries to manage its base's desires. Republicans end up with much more enthusiasm and full throated support and (often theatrical) action for the wall, abortion bans, culture war, etc. Democrats instead offer somber explanations of why we can't have popular things like M4A, a national minimum wage, federal marijuana reform, etc. In an ideal America, "any means necessary" Democrats would exist alongside or instead of Republicans who routinely break norms and unspoken rules. Broad support seems to embolden Republicans, and I think it's a chicken-and-egg problem: Democrats shun bold action because it puts them on precarious footing, but they're only on that footing because they play it "safe" WRT popular issues. Packing the courts would be good for America and a great move politically, but it's functionally impossible for the current incarnation of the party to even attempt it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 12:16
|
|
|
moths posted:I think it's fair to say that Republican leadership is more influenced by its base where Democrat leadership tries to manage its base's desires. The GOP used to play their base like a fiddle, but they're now at the mercy of it because they conditioned it too well and too many Republican Politicians are true believers these days. Their monster got away from them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
moths posted:In an ideal America, "any means necessary" Democrats would exist alongside or instead of Republicans who routinely break norms and unspoken rules. Broad support seems to embolden Republicans, and I think it's a chicken-and-egg problem: Democrats shun bold action because it puts them on precarious footing, but they're only on that footing because they play it "safe" WRT popular issues. The slightly leftist factions within the Democratic party lost the power struggle in 2019/2020, and the business as usual center-right faction remains in control. So they're free to continue their ambitious goals of getting more donations, and appealing to moderate republicans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The GOP used to play their base like a fiddle, but they're now at the mercy of it because they conditioned it too well and too many Republican Politicians are true believers these days. It's been a winning strategy, all things considered. The George Will types get thrown overboard and replaced by Cawthorns and Boeberts who stoke voter enthusiasm and coast to victory in the general. Red seats become an even bolder shade of red. From an overall party perspective, what's the downside exactly? Despite losing two branches of government and throwing a violent tantrum on 1/6, conservative ideological victories are still going to dominate the headlines for the next four years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Dick Jones posted:It's been a winning strategy, all things considered. The George Will types get thrown overboard and replaced by Cawthorns and Boeberts who stoke voter enthusiasm and coast to victory in the general. Red seats become an even bolder shade of red. From an overall party perspective, what's the downside exactly? Despite losing two branches of government and throwing a violent tantrum on 1/6, conservative ideological victories are still going to dominate the headlines for the next four years. Not to mention the two branches they don't currently control still defer to the judgments of the branch they do control and are likely to control for the next 30-40 years unless we get lucky and Thomas+Alito suddenly keel over and the Dems get to replace both of them without Sinema or Manchin demanding at least one of the seats go to some right wing dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
Dick Jones posted:It's been a winning strategy, all things considered. The George Will types get thrown overboard and replaced by Cawthorns and Boeberts who stoke voter enthusiasm and coast to victory in the general. Red seats become an even bolder shade of red. From an overall party perspective, what's the downside exactly? Despite losing two branches of government and throwing a violent tantrum on 1/6, conservative ideological victories are still going to dominate the headlines for the next four years. To an extent, but it's really been helped more by voter suppression and gerrymandering, though ironically the increased fanaticism of their candidates does threaten those 5-10 point bias districts that gerrymandering needs to really work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Can we just drop all pretense and say that cops have full legal immunity? Because that’s where we’re at Nice to see not only the insanity of QI on display but the insanity of Castle Rock v Gonzalez in that last case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Their monster got away from them. So long as the base keeps voting to allow moneyed interests to do whatever they want, who gives a darn whatever other things the monster believes in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Not sure I buy it.  https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1435888877638721537
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 10:00
|
|
|
The only reason Republican operatives would be worried about the Texas law being allowed is because if they ever succeed in outlawing abortion they not only lose that as a means to mobilize a segment of their voters but they also know full well what the national reaction is going to be the first time a pregnant woman is left to die an agonizing death in a US hospital like what happened in Ireland a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 13:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The only reason Republican operatives would be worried about the Texas law being allowed is because if they ever succeed in outlawing abortion they not only lose that as a means to mobilize a segment of their voters but they also know full well what the national reaction is going to be the first time a pregnant woman is left to die an agonizing death in a US hospital like what happened in Ireland a few years ago. the US generally doesn't give a drat about maintaining the right to abortion though, as the past couple decades of constant erosion to that right without much more than an occasional street march have shown. We haven't even seriously pursued clinic-bombing terrorists on an organizational level, instead just gazing upon a long string of 'lone wolf' events where they're found with literal carloads of evidence pointing to their support and financing networks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Yeah I'm really skeptical of this belief that standing back and letting the Republicans abolish women's rights will somehow destroy the conservative movement and usher in so many Democratic wins we'll get tired of winning. Really just seems like an excuse to do nothing or perhaps very successful reverse psychology from the GOP. "Oh Brer Donkey, don't throw us into the briar patch" cried Brer Elephant, "don't let us ban abortion, anything but that, gosh we'd sure lose forever if you let us destroy Roe v Wade and then tweeted 'VOTE'!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 16:08
|
|