| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10830 Posts
More serious, whats up with the age structure of your politicians? So many of these guys are ancient, here it is kinda unusual that someone dies while he is still active in politics. It seems pretty normal in the US for some senator to fall terminally ill at a high age and still not quitting. I mean being around ~70 is fine but older than that? ffs there are several guys in there that "served" for over 30 years. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 24 2019 05:57 Kyadytim wrote: This case provides a really clear look at the damage McConnell and Senate Republicans have done to the institution of the Supreme Court. If the court upholds the citizenship question on the census 5-4 and there is reason to believe that if Merrick Garland had been seated that the case would have gone 5-4 against adding that question to the census, then it is immediately obvious that this case was decided not on the legal merits of the arguments but by Mitch McConnell's politicking in the Senate in 2016. Conservatives might equally say that because Garland was not seated, the case was then decided on legal merits. It hinges on which judicial philosophy you agree with. | ||
KwarK
United States43403 Posts
Politics in the Trump era is certainly more exciting. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On April 24 2019 06:39 Danglars wrote: Conservatives might equally say that because Garland was not seated, the case was then decided on legal merits. It hinges on which judicial philosophy you agree with. Yes, except actually no. EDIT: The point here is that McConnell reduced the Supreme Court to being just another political football. The outcome of this case is predicated on McConnell's actions before the legal merits of the arguments even comes into play. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But look at the bright side. We are now liberated from the need to pretend that the nomination process is about merit or keeping the court from becoming a political football. That era is over. Just think of all the norms we get to break going forward. Now we can openly talk about amending the constitution to say money isn’t speech or changing the makeup of the court to undo the 40 year effort to stack it with conservative judges. The sky is the limit. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11706 Posts
From what i can tell, the reason for that is mostly that judges require large majorities (2/3) instead of the simple majority to confirm that they require in the US. This means that there is basically no way for a single party, or even a ruling coalition, to just push judges through, which means that judges have to have the approval of most of the parties. There are a few other differences like no judges for life here, but i think the main point is the 2/3 majority. I don't know if that would work in such a partisan environment as the US, and obviously currently the party that starts doing something like that when they are in power are the suckers who give up "their" judges. But if you really want people to take the supreme court serious again, you need to find a way to get judges who are not only approved by one party. On the other hand, if i recall correctly conservatives wanted to delegitimize the supreme court for ages anyway, so i guess that they succeeded in this. But this whole thing leads to big problems with the whole "checks and balances" of government. Because it slowly looks as if there is less and less of that. Congress and executive are already pretty linked and rather often controlled by the same party, and since you no longer seem to have a iudicative to control this, i don't know how many checks and balances there are actually left. Considering the kinda fascist way that people like Trump act, i find that pretty scary. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 24 2019 06:44 Kyadytim wrote: Yes, except actually no. EDIT: The point here is that McConnell reduced the Supreme Court to being just another political football. The outcome of this case is predicated on McConnell's actions before the legal merits of the arguments even comes into play. If you’re on this side of the fence, you say the left politicized the court to draft legislation when efforts failed in Congress and the executive. It’s an ideological position whether or not the case would be better decided with textualist and originalist judges, or activist judges. I think people already know this at some level, even if they do believe the ends justify the means within the law. So yes, if you consider Merrill Garland to be a 5-4 vote the other way, you’re doing the exact same thing you criticize others for. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43403 Posts
On April 24 2019 07:22 Danglars wrote: If you’re on this side of the fence, you say the left politicized the court to draft legislation when efforts failed in Congress and the executive. It’s an ideological position whether or not the case would be better decided with textualist and originalist judges, or activist judges. I think people already know this at some level, even if they do believe the ends justify the means within the law. So yes, if you consider Merrill Garland to be a 5-4 vote the other way, you’re doing the exact same thing you criticize others for. When was the last time there was a left leaning majority in SCOTUS? The idea that they're pushing their agenda through a court system they don't control is quite strange to me. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On April 24 2019 07:22 Danglars wrote: If you’re on this side of the fence, you say the left politicized the court to draft legislation when efforts failed in Congress and the executive. It’s an ideological position whether or not the case would be better decided with textualist and originalist judges, or activist judges. I think people already know this at some level, even if they do believe the ends justify the means within the law. So yes, if you consider Merrill Garland to be a 5-4 vote the other way, you’re doing the exact same thing you criticize others for. My go-to analogy for this is the prisoner's dilemma. As long as Republicans continue to engage in the action that corresponds to a prisoner defecting, the only choices Democrats have are cooperating and letting Republicans steamroll them or also defecting. There's nothing wrong with both criticizing Republicans for defecting and also defecting until Republicans stop defecting. Also, given the gains Republicans have made from defecting behaviors, there's absolutely no reason for liberals to listen to conservatives calling for cooperating behaviors at this point in time. On April 24 2019 07:30 KwarK wrote: When was the last time there was a left leaning majority in SCOTUS? The idea that they're pushing their agenda through a court system they don't control is quite strange to me. You have to keep in mind that a number of Republican appointees in the last several decades failed to serve as partisan actors and therefore are probably considered left leaning. /s | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 24 2019 07:36 semantics wrote: Accuse others of doing the same thing you're doing then say it's a nothing burger. Sprinkle in something about how, by doing the same thing they've been doing, we're stooping to an unacceptable low, and act as though the math checks out on that one. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: also, there hasn’t been a liberal majority on the court since the 1970s. Any claims otherwise are crazy. Just look at the number of nominees the Republicans have been able to get appointed since the 1980. You know, for all two democrats that held the oval office in the last 39 years. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
Surely the Supreme Court could do with some other reforms rather than bemoaning who’s abusing it more? Term limits, maybe a requirement of a supermajority for confirmation, surely there’s some things could be done? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 24 2019 07:59 Wombat_NI wrote: Surely the office is just too political full stop and this isn’t a particularly new phenomenon. Surely the Supreme Court could do with some other reforms rather than bemoaning who’s abusing it more? Term limits, maybe a requirement of a supermajority for confirmation, surely there’s some things could be done? You go back to the 1930s, and find Democratic President FDR threatened to court pack because things weren't going his way. In the 1800s, the Marshall court involved political appointments to sway the ideology, and there was internecine fighting. An attempted impeachment of a sitting justice because he was campaigning for a presidential candidate. The troubles aren't new. The emergent reality of a president needing control of the senate to get his candidate through is new. Even Scalia, not very much liked here, had a confirmation vote of 98 for 0 against as lately as 1986 and the other wing's Ruth Bader Ginsburg sailed through on a vote of 96-3. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On April 24 2019 08:18 Danglars wrote: You go back to the 1930s, and find Democratic President FDR threatened to court pack because things weren't going his way. In the 1800s, the Marshall court involved political appointments to sway the ideology, and there was internecine fighting. An attempted impeachment of a sitting justice because he was campaigning for a presidential candidate. The troubles aren't new. The emergent reality of a president needing control of the senate to get his candidate through is new. Even Scalia, not very much liked here, had a confirmation vote of 98 for 0 against as lately as 1986 and the other wing's Ruth Bader Ginsburg sailed through on a vote of 96-3. There is also that, albeit Scalia’s confirmation is 3 years before I was born so I’d like to think it’s not super recent :p I don’t really see current trends reversing as long as Row c Wade is rhetorically seen as being in play. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
"If I'm still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper. None of that stuff is going to pass," McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro, Ky. thehill.comMcConnell noted that if Republicans win back the House or President Trump wins reelection "that takes care of it." But he pledged that even if Republicans lose the White House, he would use his position as majority leader to block progressive proposals like the Green New Deal. "I guarantee you that if I'm the last man standing and I'm still the majority leader, it ain't happening. I can promise you," McConnell added. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
I think it will be an interesting debate to have when all is said and done about who was more destructive to our democracy: McConnell or Trump. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Classic vs Krystianer
Solar vs TBD
ShoWTimE vs TBD
MaxPax vs TBD
MaNa vs MilkiCow
GgMaChine vs Mixu
SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Cure vs Creator
The PondCast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
DragOn vs Sziky
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
|
|
|
EPT
