|
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 October 21 2023 05:41 farvacola wrote:
Other than Thomas and maybe Alito, that tack would get nowhere so bring it on. I also don’t think there’s a world in which Trump deliberately tried to get himself found guilty, he thinks he’s innocent!
I’m not sure what you mean by drawing some sort of distinction between SCOTUS and the federal judiciary, Mohdoo, but there’s not really any doubt that SCOTUS is the headpiece of the judiciary and is very much a part of it.
Sure, they are technically a component of it as defined by textbooks, but I am seeing limited evidence that the supreme court operates with the same limitations (aside from power scaling their ruling authority) as the lower tiers on the judiciary ladder. Who regulates and/or provides oversight to the supreme court? Through what mechanism would a supreme court justice be removed from the court? Let's assume tomorrow it is found that Thomas directly sold a ruling to someone. How would he be removed? Would he be removed while Biden is president?
In the absence of accountability, what limits to power actually exist?
|
Impeachment is really the only direct check on SCOTUS’s power, but their power is channeled through the laws (and the Constitution) they’re called on to interpret. They can’t just conjure up laws out of thin air, though they sure seem to try in some cases! Nevertheless, there’s no doubt their relative lack of accountability is an issue and there’s increasing interest in some sort of reform.
|
On October 21 2023 06:07 farvacola wrote:
Impeachment is really the only direct check on SCOTUS’s power, but their power is channeled through the laws (and the Constitution) they’re called on to interpret. They can’t just conjure up laws out of thin air. Nevertheless, there’s no doubt their relative lack of accountability is an issue and there’s increasing interest in some sort of reform.
And that’s my point. When we examine the pathway to accountability, and then we consider how that mechanism is fundamentally at odds with party vs party power dynamics, we ought to be direct and admit we do not have accountability.
It would be dishonest for us to say we have a mechanism of accountability because we all agree that mechanism would never actually be used because the negative impact to the people USING that mechanism to hold them accountable would be deeply harmed by it. The political power associated with Supreme Court rulings is too huge for any party to ever decide to eject one of their own justices while the other party is in power. It’s too big of a loss. The problem is the institution of the Supreme Court as a whole. The design philosophy of the Supreme Court does not sufficiently meet modern needs.
|
I don’t necessarily disagree with much of that, Mohdoo, but I think you’re taking a bit too narrow a view. The lack of accountability enjoyed by SCOTUS is just as much an indictment of the legislature as it is the judiciary, which is to say the problems you’re describing are bigger and more fundamental. I definitely agree that our federal system relies too much on norms that can and have been neutralized by extremist politics that care only about winning.
|
On October 21 2023 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2023 06:07 farvacola wrote:
Impeachment is really the only direct check on SCOTUS’s power, but their power is channeled through the laws (and the Constitution) they’re called on to interpret. They can’t just conjure up laws out of thin air. Nevertheless, there’s no doubt their relative lack of accountability is an issue and there’s increasing interest in some sort of reform. And that’s my point. When we examine the pathway to accountability, and then we consider how that mechanism is fundamentally at odds with party vs party power dynamics, we ought to be direct and admit we do not have accountability. It would be dishonest for us to say we have a mechanism of accountability because we all agree that mechanism would never actually be used because the negative impact to the people USING that mechanism to hold them accountable would be deeply harmed by it. The political power associated with Supreme Court rulings is too huge for any party to ever decide to eject one of their own justices while the other party is in power. It’s too big of a loss. The problem is the institution of the Supreme Court as a whole. The design philosophy of the Supreme Court does not sufficiently meet modern needs.
It's still a non sequitur. You can't claim "supreme court isn't accountable and therefore not part of the judiciary". They're still part of the judiciary system, they all came up through the ranks and know intimately how the judiciary system works. They know free speech has specific (narrow) limits and gag orders are a necessary tool to protect the process. They might rule that in this case the gag order was too restrictive. They aren't going to blanket rule that presidential candidates have unlimited free speech, even if that is used to bully juries and witnesses in their own trial, because it'd torpedo a system they all very much believe in upholding.
|
So how is any Republican speaker candidate going to get 217 votes within their own party?
The Republican Party has way too many candidates born from gerrymanders whose only real position is to be petty and bitter like Jim Jordan. Since they decided to kill their own speaker during this time of the year, any speaker candidate has to answer how they aim to deal with the shutdown cliff and the $106 billion supplimental funding for Israel and Ukraine.
You have Republicans that are straight up anti-Israel/Ukraine, you have Republicans in blue or moderate states who want no part of a shutdown, and you have Republicans who never vote for continuing resolutions. And half of them don't know the first thing about compromise or negotiation. Is the solution here to try and bully candidates with death threats until they fall in line?
|
United States24629 Posts
I think the democrats turn up the heat on the more moderate republicans. The more moderate republicans set some type of deadline that the GOP needs to pick and seat a new speaker by x date or they will vote for Jeffries instead.
|
Like I said before, the chance there is a Dem speaker is essentially zero. McCarthy knew making a deal with Dems would be substituting one set of hostage takers for another, but I don't think there is any universe where a "compromise" candidate is a Democrat. That's just not something that even the blue-district GOP reps can do and survive. Unless somehow you think Jeffries would give away enough to Republicans for them to vote for him without losing huge support in his own conference. Dem speaker is still easily the least likely scenario.
and re Jordan, he was actually saying a lot of the right things behind the scenes, even if the Gaetz's of the House were basically sabotaging him by trying to play hardball. He was trying to address the concerns of the blue district reps and promising to protect them, etc. In the end though it was too much. But from what I read he handled himself well, and I think that stands to reason since he was a big McCarthy guy who used his relationship with leadership to get things he wanted. Def someone who was willing to make deals, but I think the optics were just a little too much.
|
United States24629 Posts
It's basically turning into a game of chicken where democrats and republicans are driving toward the cliff, except the republicans have neither brakes nor a steering wheel and are counting on the democrats using theirs or everyone just tumbles into the ocean.
edit: if the current GOP members can't agree on a person then they can either hand the baton to the democrats who have a plurality of like-minded people or they can hold the government hostage until the next election, with a shutdown until next november+ where the majority of the GOP members take tremendous political damage even if the crazies get a boost from their nuts supporters back home.
|
On October 22 2023 10:32 micronesia wrote:
It's basically turning into a game of chicken where democrats and republicans are driving toward the cliff, except the republicans have neither brakes nor a steering wheel and are counting on the democrats using theirs or everyone just tumbles into the ocean.
edit: if the current GOP members can't agree on a person then they can either hand the baton to the democrats who have a plurality of like-minded people or they can hold the government hostage until the next election, with a shutdown until next november+ where the majority of the GOP members take tremendous political damage even if the crazies get a boost from their nuts supporters back home.
Is there anything the president and senate could do to diminish the effect a broken house and lack of speaker would have on a year of legislation? Only thing that comes to mind is some form of martial law? I can't imagine that being a good idea, but I can't imagine 1+ year of a government with no legislation and no budget being a good idea either.
|
On October 22 2023 17:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2023 10:32 micronesia wrote:
It's basically turning into a game of chicken where democrats and republicans are driving toward the cliff, except the republicans have neither brakes nor a steering wheel and are counting on the democrats using theirs or everyone just tumbles into the ocean.
edit: if the current GOP members can't agree on a person then they can either hand the baton to the democrats who have a plurality of like-minded people or they can hold the government hostage until the next election, with a shutdown until next november+ where the majority of the GOP members take tremendous political damage even if the crazies get a boost from their nuts supporters back home. Is there anything the president and senate could do to diminish the effect a broken house and lack of speaker would have on a year of legislation? Only thing that comes to mind is some form of martial law? I can't imagine that being a good idea, but I can't imagine 1+ year of a government with no legislation and no budget being a good idea either. Pretty sure disbanding the House is not an option, so no. I don't see how they can do anything.
And that is by design. The whole point is that all 3 (House, Senate, President) need to agree before something happens. Its just that the Founding Fathers never envisioned things could become so dysfunctional and so didn't build in any of the safeguards we see in other (non British) democracies.
|
On October 22 2023 09:45 Introvert wrote:
Like I said before, the chance there is a Dem speaker is essentially zero. McCarthy knew making a deal with Dems would be substituting one set of hostage takers for another, but I don't think there is any universe where a "compromise" candidate is a Democrat. That's just not something that even the blue-district GOP reps can do and survive. Unless somehow you think Jeffries would give away enough to Republicans for them to vote for him without losing huge support in his own conference. Dem speaker is still easily the least likely scenario.
and re Jordan, he was actually saying a lot of the right things behind the scenes, even if the Gaetz's of the House were basically sabotaging him by trying to play hardball. He was trying to address the concerns of the blue district reps and promising to protect them, etc. In the end though it was too much. But from what I read he handled himself well, and I think that stands to reason since he was a big McCarthy guy who used his relationship with leadership to get things he wanted. Def someone who was willing to make deals, but I think the optics were just a little too much. I'd love to read some sources on that if you have them because all I've been seeing is talk of behind the scenes members telling Jordan he will never ever become speaker and a supposed secret conference vote completely ending his candidacy. All that would seem to suggest his private support is even lower then his public support would seem to indicate.
But I'm not deep into the Republican media so I can easily miss some behind the scenes info.
|
If the gop can't get a speaker and the government shuts down it will be a worse electoral defeat than if some gop reps "take one for the team" and try to blame the difficulties on them and the dems.
|
My guess is that moderate GOPers and the Dems will put together a power sharing agreement under which a compromise Speaker will be appointed, someone like Emmer or Cole perhaps
|
United States42250 Posts
They’ve got far more in common than with the edges of their own parties. It’s purely partisan optics that prevent them working together.
|
On October 22 2023 18:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2023 09:45 Introvert wrote:
Like I said before, the chance there is a Dem speaker is essentially zero. McCarthy knew making a deal with Dems would be substituting one set of hostage takers for another, but I don't think there is any universe where a "compromise" candidate is a Democrat. That's just not something that even the blue-district GOP reps can do and survive. Unless somehow you think Jeffries would give away enough to Republicans for them to vote for him without losing huge support in his own conference. Dem speaker is still easily the least likely scenario.
and re Jordan, he was actually saying a lot of the right things behind the scenes, even if the Gaetz's of the House were basically sabotaging him by trying to play hardball. He was trying to address the concerns of the blue district reps and promising to protect them, etc. In the end though it was too much. But from what I read he handled himself well, and I think that stands to reason since he was a big McCarthy guy who used his relationship with leadership to get things he wanted. Def someone who was willing to make deals, but I think the optics were just a little too much. I'd love to read some sources on that if you have them because all I've been seeing is talk of behind the scenes members telling Jordan he will never ever become speaker and a supposed secret conference vote completely ending his candidacy. All that would seem to suggest his private support is even lower then his public support would seem to indicate. But I'm not deep into the Republican media so I can easily miss some behind the scenes info.
Not exclusively right wing stuff, there were things available in other outlets like CNN (excerpts):
Behind the scenes, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio have been making a direct pitch to more centrist members, both insisting they will make their reelection battles a priority and ensure more stability atop the badly divided conference, according to sources familiar with the conversations.
Jordan and Scalise have made overtures to a bloc of New York Republicans who are among the most vulnerable in the House and would be considered a key prize for whichever candidate wins them over. Scalise plans to meet virtually on Friday with freshman GOP lawmakers and a separate group of more mainstream Republicans, after Jordan made his case to the latter group during a call on Thursday.
ordan is also targeting another key constituency that is seen as up for grabs: moderate members who were loyal to McCarthy. Over the years, the former speaker has had a tepid relationship with Scalise, his top deputy, as the two were long seen as potential rivals. McCarthy, though, is staying neutral in the race right now.
Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida, a McCarthy ally who considers himself center right, said Jordan “certainly can win me over.”
“He was one of Kevin McCarthy’s most vocal supporters,” Gimenez told CNN. “And you know what? That carries a lot of weight.”
During the Main Street Caucus meeting on Thursday, Jordan promised to protect moderates and vowed not to put them in tough positions, according to a source on the call.
Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the vulnerable New York Republicans, spoke up on the call and noted that the Freedom Caucus tends to listen to Jordan, who helped found the group. LaLota has not endorsed any candidate yet.
In private conversations with some New York Republicans, sources say, Jordan has emphasized he cares about the issues that matter to them, noting he held his field hearing on crime in New York City and is also a fierce advocate for border security. Jordan has also pitched his conservative background as an advantage to moderates, arguing that his ties to the GOP hardliners make him the best positioned candidate to bring the divided conference together.
Also rumored that Jordan was floating the idea of increasing the SALT cap to 20k, something blue state Republicans (and Democrats) really want.
|
On October 23 2023 06:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2023 18:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2023 09:45 Introvert wrote:
Like I said before, the chance there is a Dem speaker is essentially zero. McCarthy knew making a deal with Dems would be substituting one set of hostage takers for another, but I don't think there is any universe where a "compromise" candidate is a Democrat. That's just not something that even the blue-district GOP reps can do and survive. Unless somehow you think Jeffries would give away enough to Republicans for them to vote for him without losing huge support in his own conference. Dem speaker is still easily the least likely scenario.
and re Jordan, he was actually saying a lot of the right things behind the scenes, even if the Gaetz's of the House were basically sabotaging him by trying to play hardball. He was trying to address the concerns of the blue district reps and promising to protect them, etc. In the end though it was too much. But from what I read he handled himself well, and I think that stands to reason since he was a big McCarthy guy who used his relationship with leadership to get things he wanted. Def someone who was willing to make deals, but I think the optics were just a little too much. I'd love to read some sources on that if you have them because all I've been seeing is talk of behind the scenes members telling Jordan he will never ever become speaker and a supposed secret conference vote completely ending his candidacy. All that would seem to suggest his private support is even lower then his public support would seem to indicate. But I'm not deep into the Republican media so I can easily miss some behind the scenes info. Not exclusively right wing stuff, there were things available in other outlets like CNN (excerpts): Show nested quote +Behind the scenes, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio have been making a direct pitch to more centrist members, both insisting they will make their reelection battles a priority and ensure more stability atop the badly divided conference, according to sources familiar with the conversations.
Jordan and Scalise have made overtures to a bloc of New York Republicans who are among the most vulnerable in the House and would be considered a key prize for whichever candidate wins them over. Scalise plans to meet virtually on Friday with freshman GOP lawmakers and a separate group of more mainstream Republicans, after Jordan made his case to the latter group during a call on Thursday.
ordan is also targeting another key constituency that is seen as up for grabs: moderate members who were loyal to McCarthy. Over the years, the former speaker has had a tepid relationship with Scalise, his top deputy, as the two were long seen as potential rivals. McCarthy, though, is staying neutral in the race right now.
Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida, a McCarthy ally who considers himself center right, said Jordan “certainly can win me over.”
“He was one of Kevin McCarthy’s most vocal supporters,” Gimenez told CNN. “And you know what? That carries a lot of weight.”
During the Main Street Caucus meeting on Thursday, Jordan promised to protect moderates and vowed not to put them in tough positions, according to a source on the call.
Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the vulnerable New York Republicans, spoke up on the call and noted that the Freedom Caucus tends to listen to Jordan, who helped found the group. LaLota has not endorsed any candidate yet.
In private conversations with some New York Republicans, sources say, Jordan has emphasized he cares about the issues that matter to them, noting he held his field hearing on crime in New York City and is also a fierce advocate for border security. Jordan has also pitched his conservative background as an advantage to moderates, arguing that his ties to the GOP hardliners make him the best positioned candidate to bring the divided conference together. Also rumored that Jordan was floating the idea of increasing the SALT cap to 20k, something blue state Republicans (and Democrats) really want. Thanks, sounds like he indeed was trying hard but I do have to wonder how many actually believed him and would be willing to change their stance. Talk is cheap, especially when you want something out of them.
|
On October 23 2023 03:33 KwarK wrote:
They’ve got far more in common than with the edges of their own parties. It’s purely partisan optics that prevent them working together.
Agree. Generally consider myself Republican and yet I am ready to vote for Yang, should he run again, because all the parties are dysfunctional so we might as well have the printer just give the money back to us.
Call me stupid or disinterested or conspiratorial or whatever you want based on my posting in the mafia forum, but that is where I am at. Low Intel voter who just wonders why we don't build good rail and help the poor in effective ways and also why we do not put any checks on depopulating.
We are learning from Japan about currency stabilization going wrong. We are inflating the currency in some decently healthy ways, in other words. When will we learn that infrastructure projects are not wasteful spending when done right, and that raising children and supporting the conventional family structure is necessary to a functional society? Because Japan shows us the guide posts positively as well as negatively there.
I speak not of Korea because my wife (for now?) grew up there and she is raising our daughter well. Personal experience that engenders some respect...
|
On October 23 2023 09:53 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2023 03:33 KwarK wrote:
They’ve got far more in common than with the edges of their own parties. It’s purely partisan optics that prevent them working together. Agree. Generally consider myself Republican and yet I am ready to vote for Yang, should he run again, because all the parties are dysfunctional so we might as well have the printer just give the money back to us. Call me stupid or disinterested or conspiratorial or whatever you want based on my posting in the mafia forum, but that is where I am at. Low Intel voter who just wonders why we don't build good rail and help the poor in effective ways and also why we do not put any checks on depopulating. We are learning from Japan about currency stabilization going wrong. We are inflating the currency in some decently healthy ways, in other words. When will we learn that infrastructure projects are not wasteful spending when done right, and that raising children and supporting the conventional family structure is necessary to a functional society? Because Japan shows us the guide posts positively as well as negatively there. I speak not of Korea because my wife (for now?) grew up there and she is raising our daughter well. Personal experience that engenders some respect...
If you're looking for effective ways to help the poor, Andrew Yang's UBI proposal is not it. His design was "$1,000/month flat UBI to everyone, paid for by eliminating all social welfare programs." The obvious flaw is he's taking the money currently being used to help the poor, and redistributing it to everyone. Even assuming that any savings in reduced bureaucracy allows that number to actually work, the poorest people receive more than $1,000 in various forms of aid every month.
So everyone will see a $1,000/month increase in their income.... except the poor, who will see smaller increases in their monthly income the poorer they already are. Some of the people who are currently the worst off will see their monthly income actually go down, while prices are presumably going up because the spending power of the middle class went up.
|
Northern Ireland24385 Posts
On October 23 2023 15:26 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2023 09:53 Alakaslam wrote:On October 23 2023 03:33 KwarK wrote:
They’ve got far more in common than with the edges of their own parties. It’s purely partisan optics that prevent them working together. Agree. Generally consider myself Republican and yet I am ready to vote for Yang, should he run again, because all the parties are dysfunctional so we might as well have the printer just give the money back to us. Call me stupid or disinterested or conspiratorial or whatever you want based on my posting in the mafia forum, but that is where I am at. Low Intel voter who just wonders why we don't build good rail and help the poor in effective ways and also why we do not put any checks on depopulating. We are learning from Japan about currency stabilization going wrong. We are inflating the currency in some decently healthy ways, in other words. When will we learn that infrastructure projects are not wasteful spending when done right, and that raising children and supporting the conventional family structure is necessary to a functional society? Because Japan shows us the guide posts positively as well as negatively there. I speak not of Korea because my wife (for now?) grew up there and she is raising our daughter well. Personal experience that engenders some respect... If you're looking for effective ways to help the poor, Andrew Yang's UBI proposal is not it. His design was "$1,000/month flat UBI to everyone, paid for by eliminating all social welfare programs." The obvious flaw is he's taking the money currently being used to help the poor, and redistributing it to everyone. Even assuming that any savings in reduced bureaucracy allows that number to actually work, the poorest people receive more than $1,000 in various forms of aid every month. So everyone will see a $1,000/month increase in their income.... except the poor, who will see smaller increases in their monthly income the poorer they already are. Some of the people who are currently the worst off will see their monthly income actually go down, while prices are presumably going up because the spending power of the middle class went up.
I mean the actual numbers and logistics of it probably need some refinement, I think UBI is a fundamentally pretty sound idea if it’s set at the level that the baseline is enough to live on, and if you want some luxuries then the incentive is there for you to work further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
