|
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 |
EDIT: I left one line of my notes up here.
There's two issues tied really closely together here. First is the Supreme Court's reputation for being impartial, which is gone. Second is the loss of decorum and civility. They've been dead for a while, at least since Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland, but it's only now starting to sink in for a lot of people left of center.
Events this week should have made it eminently clear that choosing civility and decorum over winning by any means necessary is a losing proposition. Look at all of these 5-4 decisions and ask yourselves "Would this decision have been different if Garland was on the Court instead of Gorsuch?"
Mitch McConnell broke civility and decorum and stood atop their corpses for a year to blockade Garland, and that paid rich dividends for him.
It's time for liberals to stop trying to win by being nice, and just start trying to win. Mad about the decision regarding California's CPC law? Start picketing them the way anti-freedom activists picket abortion clinics. The Supreme Court has, in the words of someone far better with words than I, been playing Calvinball with the law. The travel ban case says that you can't look at statements determining religious animus. The wedding cake case says that you must. Planned Parenthood v Casey lets the state force an anti-abortion script on doctors, but God forbid that we force CPCs to mention that abortion is an option they don't provide.
Mitch McConnell has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and in doing so turned the Supreme Court into a political football (or soccer ball, or baseball, because this is Calvinball now) for generations to come.
Until Niel Gorsuch dies or retires, or until Democrats block a Republican president from replacing a conservative justice and that justice is replaced by a Democrat president, every 5-4 decision in favor of conservatives is going to be viewed through the lens of "What would Gorsuch have done?" And that is going to serve as a strong reminder that winning matters a lot more than being civil about it.
tl;dr The GOP killed civility and planted the seeds of policy wins in its corpse. Now they're reaping that harvest in the form of this week's Supreme Court decisions.
Oh, and look. Kennedy is retiring and McConnell is doing a complete 180. Maybe Dems can leverage these recent decisions and Kennedy retiring into retaking the Senate.
|
United States44177 Posts
On June 28 2018 03:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
welp, kennedy announced his retirement
Guess it’ll be on those second amendment folks to use their constitutional rights to prevent the appointment, to quote our President explaining how to react if the other side wins and gets to nominate Supreme Court justices.
|
The Democrats would need to change the senate map to retake it. They are simply defending more seats this year.
|
Is it liberals' turn to charge the cockpit because this country is fucked if we don't do something?
|
Time to play a fun new drinking game: every time SC rules 5-4 to pull the country back a few decades, down Russian Bear vodka until passing out.
Far and away the US has the largest and most active mathematics community internationally, which I wanted to be a part of. But at this rate I'm gonna say fuck it, at least in the shithole I live in we are still moving away from the bleakest parts of our past, rather than ramming back into it full speed.
The recent protest actions against the border separations and for gun control have been heartening, but so so much more is needed.
|
On June 28 2018 03:44 Simberto wrote:
It feels weird how a lot of US politics seems to be based on being lucky enough to be in power when a few judges quit. (Or just not giving a fuck and delaying the decision until you are in power again)
Anyways, i guess this means that the US is even more fucked for the foreseeable future? Get a Trump nominee in instantly (No way is he going to have to wait for a full year like Obama), and have a 5:4 or more republican judges on everything? So more decisions for money in politics, against minority rights, against womens rights, for christian liberty (It isn't really religious liberty anymore, is it?), for corruption, against humans rights and for all the other disgusting shit the republican party stands for.
it is weird; for a long time people periodically point to that and propose changing it to a more stable and consistent arrangement, but that has yet to happen.
and it's unlikely to since it'd require an amendment. and good process is not something that wins votes, so it doesn't get worked on much. voters heavily focus on policy over process.
|
This is just what losing looks like. No matter what you say about the GOP, they voters turn up every midterm and vote their people into office. Compliancy and placing to much faith in “norms” got us here.
|
|
|
On June 28 2018 03:44 Simberto wrote: So more decisions for money in politics, against minority rights, against womens rights, for christian liberty (It isn't really religious liberty anymore, is it?), for corruption, against humans rights and for all the other disgusting shit the republican party stands for.
nah, the republican party doesn't stand for a long list of "disgusting shit" like you say they do. I disagree with many of their policies and at the same time I realize that engaging in a maudlin rant won't result in meaningful discussion.
|
McConnell will go down as the great Republican mastermind for setting the SC up like this for the next few decades. I expect many Democrat-led initiatives to never advance, and decisions like Roe vs Wade to be overturned.
|
Here's some food for thought. How willing do you think Roberts would be to outright overturn Roe v Wade? Because Thomas is all for it, I guarantee you Gorsuch was screened before his nomination to determine if he'd vote to overturn it, as would Kennedy's replacement, and Alito has been in favor of every abortion restriction he's seen.
It would be incredibly ironic if the US moved back a half century on abortion the same year Ireland moved forward a half century on the same topic.
|
On June 28 2018 04:06 Kyadytim wrote:
Here's some food for thought. How willing do you think Roberts would be to outright overturn Roe v Wade? Because Thomas is all for it, I guarantee you Gorsuch was screened before his nomination to determine if he'd vote to overturn it, as would Kennedy's replacement, and Alito has been in favor of every abortion restriction he's seen.
It would be incredibly ironic if the US moved back a half century on abortion the same year Ireland moved forward a half century on the same topic.
I doubt Roberts would let the court take up the case, let alone overturn the ruling. Roe v. Wade is one of those rulings that could put the Court’s structure at risk and he knows it. I could see the Democrats running on a platform of reshaping the court like FDR attempted to do. The court can only be so imperial before people start pushing for it to be changed.
|
For all of Kennedy's moderation over the years, this term and this decision speak well of him.
People thought it was getting to be late for this announcement, but with so many importsnt opinions coming out this year I thought he still might do it after waiting. Good on him.
|
Yes, good on him for writing one of the whimpiest concurrences in the history of the Supreme Court.
|
Well Roberts is the swing vote now. I definitely think he will shift ever slightly left to fill the Kennedy void and try and fight back against the partisan reputation of his court. I also think he will be more inclined to uphold precedent, especially of his own court (like Gay marriage), but most things are not safe now.
Roe v Wade may be fucked.
|
On June 28 2018 04:15 farvacola wrote:
Yes, good on him for writing one of the whimpiest concurrences in the history of the Supreme Court.
The man considers himself a philosopher-king, bound to happen.
|
So what are the chances GOP/Trump pushes through a 'yes' man judge to the SC and all legal challenges that may be brought forth as a result of the Mueller investigation are all for naught? That doesn't seem far-fetched does it? It's not like the GOP will suddenly care about the rule of law especially when they have the highest court in the land in their pocket.
At that point it won't matter what Mueller discovers, there will be zero accountability.
|
On June 28 2018 04:15 farvacola wrote:
Yes, good on him for writing one of the whimpiest concurrences in the history of the Supreme Court.
His language for Citizens United about citizen’s faith in democracy will serve as the perfect lesson in judicial naïvete.
On June 28 2018 04:20 crms wrote:
So what are the chances GOP/Trump pushes through a 'yes' man judge to the SC and all legal challenges that may be brought forth as a result of the Mueller investigation are all for naught? That doesn't seem far-fetched does it? It's not like the GOP will suddenly care about the rule of law especially when they have the highest court in the land in their pocket.
At this point it won't matter what Mueller discovers, there will be zero accountability.
The result of the Mueller investigation will never reach the Supreme Court in a meaningful way. That will be handled in Congress.
|
On June 28 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 04:15 farvacola wrote:
Yes, good on him for writing one of the whimpiest concurrences in the history of the Supreme Court. His language for Citizens United about citizen’s faith in democracy will serve as the perfect lesson in judicial naïvete. Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 04:20 crms wrote:
So what are the chances GOP/Trump pushes through a 'yes' man judge to the SC and all legal challenges that may be brought forth as a result of the Mueller investigation are all for naught? That doesn't seem far-fetched does it? It's not like the GOP will suddenly care about the rule of law especially when they have the highest court in the land in their pocket.
At this point it won't matter what Mueller discovers, there will be zero accountability. The result of the Mueller investigation will never reach the Supreme Court in a meaningful way. That will be handled in Congress.
really? I feel like I've heard so much commentary on a range of legal questions regarding the Mueller investigation likely being challenged and appealed etc.
|
On June 28 2018 03:54 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Far and away the US has the largest and most active mathematics community internationally, which I wanted to be a part of. But at this rate I'm gonna say fuck it, at least in the shithole I live in we are still moving away from the bleakest parts of our past, rather than ramming back into it full speed.
the university of waterloo says "hi". if you are looking for a great math community i recommend that school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
