|
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 |
On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey.
It's bullshit to imply that a SCOTUS majority = voter majority, and you know it. A majority of Americans have consistently polled in favor of protecting abortion rights. Not majority of Democrats. Majority of Americans. This is unpopular by every metric except the 6 asses that were strategically planted in SCOTUS seats. They overturned what a majority of Americans want. Tell me how that's democratic.
But yay, you get your win. That's all that matters.
And let us not get bogged down in abstract shit like "is it democratic to repeal Roe". That's a misdirection. It's one of the problems with repealing Roe. But the main thing that upsets folks is that the rights of pregnant people are being dismantled, their healthcare options being removed, banned, and criminalized by a minority of religious extremists. The party of freedom telling everyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. Lol.
|
On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword.
Obviously repealing Roe isn't a threat to democracy. It is, however, a result of threats to democracy being ignored and brushed aside until they became actual harm to democracy, which has lead to the current situation of a very large number of American citizens losing a measure of bodily autonomy in a way that makes it clear that they cannot count on the damaged democratic process to protect them.
|
I guess we're blindly partisan for thinking that people shouldn't lose their rights to healthcare, privacy, and bodily autonomy due to a small, radical fringe of unelected conservatives. Guilty on that one, mate.
|
On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 07 2022 08:24 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2022 08:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 07 2022 07:04 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2022 06:19 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
[quote]
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys. Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed. It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x. I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong. The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent. And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened. And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements. If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence. The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal. Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea? It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it. It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it. To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though.
It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want.
What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in.
Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do.
Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either.
You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy.
|
On May 10 2022 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 03:33 micronesia wrote:
Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only. I think the right solution here is to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court by adding 4 justices. Once the Supreme Court just ends up being theatrics, it will lose a lot of its perceived power. Every time the pendulum swings and another president takes office, some more justices get added, so it’s just kinda not a thing anymore. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is operating as an unelected ultimate power. The right solution is to invalidate it as an institution by packing the court
I've never met someone as eager to live under an authoritarian government as you. A couple pages ago you wanted Biden to essentially be more like Trump and try to do more with executive orders and now you'd like to see him pack the Supreme Court. Seems like you'd basically be happy with a dictatorship so long as they forgive student loans.
|
The threat to democracy is that the method for instating new Supreme Court justices is broken. The composition of the court depends on an accident of fate, namely, who's in charge of the White House and Senate when a sitting justice dies. You could model the composition of the court as nine coin flips. If you flip nine coins, you could easily get 6 heads and 3 tails, or 2 heads and 7 tails. Neither outcome does a good job of representing the people who voted on the White House and Senate, who are always split nearly 50-50. And real life is worse than the coin flip model, because coin flips are independent, but SC nominations are linked --- that is, if a president fills three vacancies, they're all heads or all tails, so it's highly unlikely that the court will be close to 50-50 after that.
It's a recipe for unfair outcomes even before Senate Republicans' obvious Garland / Barrett double standard.
It's not about agreeing with every decision the Supreme Court makes. It's about having faith that their decisions are the outcome of a fair process. I don't think that either Democrats or Republicans still have any illusions about that.
|
On May 10 2022 04:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2022 03:33 micronesia wrote:
Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only. I think the right solution here is to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court by adding 4 justices. Once the Supreme Court just ends up being theatrics, it will lose a lot of its perceived power. Every time the pendulum swings and another president takes office, some more justices get added, so it’s just kinda not a thing anymore. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is operating as an unelected ultimate power. The right solution is to invalidate it as an institution by packing the court I've never met someone as eager to live under an authoritarian government as you. A couple pages ago you wanted Biden to essentially be more like Trump and try to do more with executive orders and now you'd like to see him pack the Supreme Court. Seems like you'd basically be happy with a dictatorship so long as they forgive student loans.
I mean, by that definition you've seen about 60 million people who are eager to live under an authoritarian government. What's your point then?
|
On May 10 2022 04:38 Djabanete wrote:
The threat to democracy is that the method for instating new Supreme Court justices is broken. The composition of the court depends on an accident of fate, namely, who's in charge of the White House and Senate when a sitting justice dies. You could model the composition of the court as nine coin flips. If you flip nine coins, you could easily get 6 heads and 3 tails, or 2 heads and 7 tails. Neither outcome does a good job of representing the people who voted on the White House and Senate, who are always split nearly 50-50. And real life is worse than the coin flip model, because coin flips are independent, but SC nominations are linked --- that is, if a president fills three vacancies, they're all heads or all tails, so it's highly unlikely that the court will be close to 50-50 after that.
It's a recipe for unfair outcomes even before Senate Republicans' obvious Garland / Barrett double standard.
It's not about agreeing with every decision the Supreme Court makes. It's about having faith that their decisions are the outcome of a fair process. I don't think that either Democrats or Republicans still have any illusions about that.
I think the main thing is that the Supreme Court wasn’t designed to be the primary mechanism of legislation. This is just a huge bug essentially.
I’d like to use this to point out there was nothing special about the founding fathers or the constitution. A group of people did their best at the time and they did a really good job all things considered. But it is not reasonable to expect a bunch of ideas from 200 years ago to operate cleanly and without issue. Clearly we will find issues as time goes on. The problem we now face is that there is some sort of implied divinity in our system purely because it’s old. We have major issues that we don’t have a good way of fixing in the proper way right now.
Just think of how amazing you’d have to be to somehow design a flawless form of government that withstands the test of time for 200 years. It’s not remotely reasonable.
|
On May 10 2022 04:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2022 03:33 micronesia wrote:
Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only. I think the right solution here is to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court by adding 4 justices. Once the Supreme Court just ends up being theatrics, it will lose a lot of its perceived power. Every time the pendulum swings and another president takes office, some more justices get added, so it’s just kinda not a thing anymore. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is operating as an unelected ultimate power. The right solution is to invalidate it as an institution by packing the court I've never met someone as eager to live under an authoritarian government as you. A couple pages ago you wanted Biden to essentially be more like Trump and try to do more with executive orders and now you'd like to see him pack the Supreme Court. Seems like you'd basically be happy with a dictatorship so long as they forgive student loans.
I get where you’re coming from with Mohdoo specifically. I was critical of Mohdoo Island at the time. But to be clear, people getting thrown in prison for gender-affirming care, abortions, IUDs, etc. is the *non*-tyrannical option?
|
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On May 10 2022 04:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2022 03:33 micronesia wrote:
Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only. I think the right solution here is to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court by adding 4 justices. Once the Supreme Court just ends up being theatrics, it will lose a lot of its perceived power. Every time the pendulum swings and another president takes office, some more justices get added, so it’s just kinda not a thing anymore. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is operating as an unelected ultimate power. The right solution is to invalidate it as an institution by packing the court I've never met someone as eager to live under an authoritarian government as you. A couple pages ago you wanted Biden to essentially be more like Trump and try to do more with executive orders and now you'd like to see him pack the Supreme Court. Seems like you'd basically be happy with a dictatorship so long as they forgive student loans.
I’d happily live under Supreme Leader Mohdoo
More seriously and broadly speaking, the frustration is not from any desire for dictatorial rule, but a clear structural roadblock between democratic will and enaction of almost anything that has a mandate of some kind.
It may be even less functional than Northern Ireland, which also contains many good on paper structures, but in practice sees us frequently without any government for long stretches of time. At least the British government can rule us directly in the event of these regular impasses.
|
On May 10 2022 04:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 07 2022 08:24 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2022 08:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 07 2022 07:04 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence. The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal. Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea? It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it. It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it. To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/1523137624671940608Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though. It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want. What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do. Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either. You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy.
I mean I don't doubt that you are prepared to make every possible cynical assumption about the Republican party, and just reduce everything to the simplest possible explanation of "Republicans are evil and this is them acting to consolidate their power and impose their evil views on the rest of us." But what we actually believe is that the Supreme court shouldn't unilaterally add text to the constitution in the form of new "rights" that aren't there. It's very much about maintaining our constitutional order.
By the way abortion is going to remain very legal in the blue states. Which shows that the court is not trying to impose its views on abortion on those who don't agree with those views. That is actually what Roe did, and the court is now undoing that unlawful imposition. You and others may want to force red states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so.
|
|
|
On May 10 2022 05:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:32 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 07 2022 08:24 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2022 08:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea? It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it. It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it. To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/1523137624671940608Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though. It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want. What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do. Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either. You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy. I mean I don't doubt that you are prepared to make every possible cynical assumption about the Republican party, and just reduce everything to the simplest possible explanation of "Republicans are evil and this is them acting to consolidate their power and impose their evil views on the rest of us." But what we actually believe is that the Supreme court shouldn't unilaterally add text to the constitution in the form of new "rights" that aren't there. It's very much about maintaining our constitutional order. By the way abortion is going to remain very legal in the blue states. Which shows that the court is not trying to impose its views on abortion on those who don't agree with those views. That is actually what Roe did, and the court is now undoing that unlawful imposition. You and others may want to force red states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so.
Weird how you are incredibly comfortable with the supreme court unilaterally taking away rights from people, though.
See, i might believe some of that if the republicans hadn't shown time and time again that they have absolutely no problem turning their deeply held important principles 180° if it helps them gain some power. See supreme court justices, for example.
I am a lot more likely to believe that it is about the principle if the concrete issue is something that goes against what you usually want, and not something that you have been demanding and fighting for for decades.
In the same vein, i don't believe for a second that if republicans have the power to do so, they wouldn't pass a federal abortion ban in a second. Didn't we have a quote of one of them demanding just that thing only a few pages back?
Don't get me wrong, i dislike how the US works quite a lot. I agree that it would be better if congress were actually useful, and would do stuff. But in the current situation, if something needs to get done, congress isn't doing it. This is why we have all this stuff with executive orders and court decisions and so forth.
I generally agree that it would be better if that stuff were done by congress. But congress doesn't do anything. And we cannot just ignore issues forever. The US system is utterly broken.
|
United States42491 Posts
The correct way for running the country at this point would involve tossing a grenade into the SCOTUS chambers each time a new POTUS is elected. That way they can select a favorable Supreme Court and not be subject to whatever partisans the previous guy selected. Then when the new guy comes in the circle of life turns and all the last guy’s nominees get fragged.
It’s the logical conclusion of politicizing SCOTUS nominees.
|
On May 10 2022 05:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:36 BlackJack wrote:On May 10 2022 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2022 03:33 micronesia wrote:
Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only. I think the right solution here is to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court by adding 4 justices. Once the Supreme Court just ends up being theatrics, it will lose a lot of its perceived power. Every time the pendulum swings and another president takes office, some more justices get added, so it’s just kinda not a thing anymore. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is operating as an unelected ultimate power. The right solution is to invalidate it as an institution by packing the court I've never met someone as eager to live under an authoritarian government as you. A couple pages ago you wanted Biden to essentially be more like Trump and try to do more with executive orders and now you'd like to see him pack the Supreme Court. Seems like you'd basically be happy with a dictatorship so long as they forgive student loans. I get where you’re coming from with Mohdoo specifically. I was critical of Mohdoo Island at the time. But to be clear, people getting thrown in prison for gender-affirming care, abortions, IUDs, etc. is the *non*-tyrannical option?
I'd say it's the less-tyrannical option until we can figure out how to give the dictator teeth in the few areas he's more progressive in and make him impotent in the area of banishing people from society on a whim. Progress isn't always a straight line. Sometimes it's two-steps forward and one-step back. I'd rather take the occasional one-step back than try to invalidate the supreme court and bypass the legislature through executive order.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe Biden should just suspend the constitution and install whatever SCOTUS justices are necessary to come to the right conclusions so we don't have to deal with this 5-and-a-half conservative justice situation any longer.
|
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On May 10 2022 06:34 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Biden should just suspend the constitution and install whatever SCOTUS justices are necessary to come to the right conclusions so we don't have to deal with this 5-and-a-half conservative justice situation any longer.
I preferred Kwark’s hand grenade option, more flashy. Plus helps to stimulate the otherwise starved American arms industry.
|
On May 10 2022 05:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:32 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 07 2022 08:24 WombaT wrote:On May 07 2022 08:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea? It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it. It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it. To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/1523137624671940608Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though. It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want. What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do. Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either. You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy. I mean I don't doubt that you are prepared to make every possible cynical assumption about the Republican party, and just reduce everything to the simplest possible explanation of "Republicans are evil and this is them acting to consolidate their power and impose their evil views on the rest of us." But what we actually believe is that the Supreme court shouldn't unilaterally add text to the constitution in the form of new "rights" that aren't there. It's very much about maintaining our constitutional order. By the way abortion is going to remain very legal in the blue states. Which shows that the court is not trying to impose its views on abortion on those who don't agree with those views. That is actually what Roe did, and the court is now undoing that unlawful imposition. You and others may want to force red states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so.
With the same logic, guns would remain very legal in red states, why should the court impose its views on guns on those who don't agree with those views, regarding 2A? Time to get a well regulated militia. You and others may want to force blue states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. Or are you saying that this is only important when it comes to the stuff you/red states disagree on?
By your reasoning, why even have a bill of rights if state laws are always better?
|
Yes, you're only going to have basic human rights if and when you happen to live in a blue state. Otherwise, eh, state's rights and religious freedom, what can you do? Oh and 2A. MAGA.
Being pregnant from getting raped and dying from complications because you couldn't get an abortion is the ultimate expression of freedom.
|
On May 10 2022 08:04 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 05:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 04:32 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 07 2022 08:24 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it. To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/1523137624671940608Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though. It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want. What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do. Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either. You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy. I mean I don't doubt that you are prepared to make every possible cynical assumption about the Republican party, and just reduce everything to the simplest possible explanation of "Republicans are evil and this is them acting to consolidate their power and impose their evil views on the rest of us." But what we actually believe is that the Supreme court shouldn't unilaterally add text to the constitution in the form of new "rights" that aren't there. It's very much about maintaining our constitutional order. By the way abortion is going to remain very legal in the blue states. Which shows that the court is not trying to impose its views on abortion on those who don't agree with those views. That is actually what Roe did, and the court is now undoing that unlawful imposition. You and others may want to force red states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. With the same logic, guns would remain very legal in red states, why should the court impose its views on guns on those who don't agree with those views, regarding 2A? Time to get a well regulated militia. You and others may want to force blue states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. Or are you saying that this is only important when it comes to the stuff you/red states disagree on? By your reasoning, why even have a bill of rights if state laws are always better?
He didn't say state laws are always better. He said he doesn't think there is a right to abortion enshrined in the constitution and therefore it should be left up to the states. If he thinks it is enshrined in the constitution then it's not left up the states. I don't see a problem with the logic of that, at least not to the point that we should toss out the bill of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
