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.
On August 01 2024 00:13 KT_Elwood wrote: I wish the whole Fox News possé would get on the same plane and strand on a small island paradise in the pacific and never be found again.
I don't want them to die or get injured, they shouldn't starve, but just put as much real distance between them and humanity as they portrait every day to have removed themselves moraly from any spark of honesty.
Alternatively: Gulag.
Yes, we need to stack the Supreme Court, ban Trump from the ballot, assassinate our political enemies, and send right-wing news hosts to the Gulag in order to *checks notes* preserve our Democracy.
On August 01 2024 00:13 KT_Elwood wrote: I wish the whole Fox News possé would get on the same plane and strand on a small island paradise in the pacific and never be found again.
I don't want them to die or get injured, they shouldn't starve, but just put as much real distance between them and humanity as they portrait every day to have removed themselves moraly from any spark of honesty.
Alternatively: Gulag.
Yes, we need to stack the Supreme Court, ban Trump from the ballot, assassinate our political enemies, and send right-wing news hosts to the Gulag in order to *checks notes* preserve our Democracy.
For them to be right-wing news hosts, the show they host needs to actually count as news. You also need to cite an example of someone wanting to assassinate political enemies, if you're going to use it for the sake of argument.
And as Micronesia indicates, precluding a convicted felon from the ballot and adjusting the Supreme Court to actually reflect the population it's representing are both eminently reasonable to me. And highly democratic, to wit.
Since I talked about shooting congress I'll just add that I was talking about a situation where the Speaker refused to swear in the new Congress so Republicans could throw out a legitimate election. I have no problem with shooting people after they commit to a fascist takeover of the government. But lets not do so before they cross that line.
On August 01 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote: Sorry, I should have added the caveat that people here only support scotus stacking if the stacking is done in their favor.
No, it's because they have a shit approval rating among the public due to a series of extremely unpopular and blatantly partisan decisions, undoing decades of legal precedent and taking a piss all over their trustworthiness as an institution.
You keep going for the low hanging fruit. It's easy to make anyone sound like a hypocrite when you strip away enough context. Do better.
On August 01 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote: Sorry, I should have added the caveat that people here only support scotus stacking if the stacking is done in their favor.
People were unhappy but 'ok' with the SC until they decided to overturn Roe v Wade despite it standing for nearly 50 years.
The SC is openly partisan and corrupt with members openly accepting bribes lol
I'll accept evidence from the last 150 years of U.S. history which has shown people politically aligned with the majority of posters in this thread are in favor in stacking SCOTUS whenever it favors issues politically aligned with the majority of posters in this thread but not whenever it favors issues politically aligned with the political opponents of the majority of posters in this thread. It may be difficult to find.
On August 01 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote: Sorry, I should have added the caveat that people here only support scotus stacking if the stacking is done in their favor.
I'm guessing what a lot of people actually want would be something akin to 'stop having lifetime appointees', but that because of just how the scotus ended up being republican-stacked (refusing garland because of proximity to the presidential election and then appointing Barrett with closer proximity to the presidential election) people would also be happy to go 'honestly I care more about you guys fucking off and about preserving important rights than about preserving an archaic system'.
I honestly don't have too strong opinions on this, the role of the supreme court seems like one of many many things in american politics in dire need of reform. I'm not a fan of the whole 'Biden should just appoint 4 democratic justices so we get a 7-6 split in our favor' though. But the notion that important political decisions in a country can hinge upon whether a judge dies in december or january and that this can influence matters for decades to come seems.. silly.
On July 31 2024 22:56 NewSunshine wrote: Careful, DPB, you're just showing Trump that this is exactly the man to tap for his cabinet. You know, after everyone else quit or was fired or was nailed by prosecutors and tax authorities... #OnlyTheBest
On August 01 2024 00:13 KT_Elwood wrote: I wish the whole Fox News possé would get on the same plane and strand on a small island paradise in the pacific and never be found again.
I don't want them to die or get injured, they shouldn't starve, but just put as much real distance between them and humanity as they portrait every day to have removed themselves moraly from any spark of honesty.
Alternatively: Gulag.
Yes, we need to stack the Supreme Court, ban Trump from the ballot, assassinate our political enemies, and send right-wing news hosts to the Gulag in order to *checks notes* preserve our Democracy.
On August 01 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote: Sorry, I should have added the caveat that people here only support scotus stacking if the stacking is done in their favor.
I'm 2/4 in favor of that list:
I'm fine with Democrats stacking the Supreme Court, especially as payback for Republicans and Trump already stacking the Supreme Court and stealing Obama's Supreme Court Justice vacancy.
I'm fine with banning Trump from the ballot, as I believe he committed treason and that would constitutionally disqualify him from being able to run for president ever again.
I disagree that we should assassinate our political enemies, unlike Trump who made Pence out to be a political enemy of his, resulting in Pence's assassination attempt, and unlike the conservative who tried to assassinate Trump.
I disagree that we should send right-wing news hosts to the Gulag, but maybe they should be held accountable for their lies and actions more frequently.
On August 01 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote: Sorry, I should have added the caveat that people here only support scotus stacking if the stacking is done in their favor.
No, it's because they have a shit approval rating among the public due to a series of extremely unpopular and blatantly partisan decisions, undoing decades of legal precedent and taking a piss all over their trustworthiness as an institution.
You keep going for the low hanging fruit. It's easy to make anyone sound like a hypocrite when you strip away enough context. Do better.
What part of my post do you disagree with? If Trump won 2024 you would be okay with him adding justices to make the court even more right-leaning? Of course not. You’re okay with Biden/harris stacking the court but not okay with Trump stacking the court. You can add context to justify your position if you want but you can’t just pretend that’s not your position.
On August 01 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote: Sorry, I should have added the caveat that people here only support scotus stacking if the stacking is done in their favor.
No, it's because they have a shit approval rating among the public due to a series of extremely unpopular and blatantly partisan decisions, undoing decades of legal precedent and taking a piss all over their trustworthiness as an institution.
You keep going for the low hanging fruit. It's easy to make anyone sound like a hypocrite when you strip away enough context. Do better.
What part of my post do you disagree with? If Trump won 2024 you would be okay with him adding justices to make the court even more right-leaning? Of course not. You’re okay with Biden/harris stacking the court but not okay with Trump stacking the court. You can add context to justify your position if you want but you can’t just pretend that’s not your position.
When court stacking was talked about previously. I believe after the Republicans 'stole' a seat from Obama, the idea wasn't that Democrats would stack the courts and that would be it forever and over. Yes Republicans would just retaliate by stacking it again, and then Democrats do it again and hopefully by that time both sides agree that the system is broken and some actual reform might happen and god forbid the US might get an actual impartial SC.
Court stacking isn't a solution. A constitutional amendment to better define a non-Partisan role for the SC.
Until such an amendment is made, court stacking is a short-term patch that might right now alleviate some of the problems they're causing but long-term is much worse than not stacking the court. That said, if you want accelerationism, this is one of the least harmful places to start!
Trump just had a 40-minute interview with a panel of journalists at the National Association of Black Journalists conference in Chicago. It was rough for him, and it's going to be clipped big time. Within the first 5 minutes, he complained about being held accountable for his racist rhetoric and insisted that he "didn't know Kamala Harris was black" and that she only "happened to turn black" a few years ago, and that she used to only be Indian until she recently "became a black person". Trump apparently doesn't know that bi-racial people can exist, and the crowd appropriately laughed at him. He also rambled and whined and lied a lot, as per usual. Here's the full interview (with Brian Tyler Cohen's commentary):
Term limits is actually not a terrible idea, but A) it requires and amendment, and B) it needs to be prospective only. Most of the complaints are obviously disingenuous. The left was all in favor of the Court making policy when they liked it. In fact their whole judicial philosophy or lackthereof is based on it. Roe was a decision of policy totally unmoored from the constitution, and it's the same decision thst caused SCOTUS approval to tank among dems. But even granting that, having a set rotation isn't a horrible idea, but the right isn't going to go along with it when it's simply a ploy to remove justices they worked so hard to get onto the court. Any dem who can't allow (B) is not being serious about what is possible.
The thirteenth amendment outlaws forced pregnancy except as punishment for a crime.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
However, the U.S. Constitution has no authority in the United States, since the Supreme Court has always 'interpreted' it to mean whatever they please. Turns out you shouldn't let a council of nine rule your country for life, even if they occasionally make sane decisions.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
However, the U.S. Constitution has no authority in the United States, since the Supreme Court has always 'interpreted' it to mean whatever they please. Turns out you shouldn't let a council of nine rule your country for life, even if they occasionally make sane decisions.
What's your argument here? That not allowing women to get an abortion is akin to enslaving them?
That seems like the pretty obvious argument being made—the State forcing (under penalty of law) women to carry developing children to term in their bodies does seem a lot like slavery, which otherwise is only legal with a criminal conviction, and usually with severe restrictions. I'm not sure why the argument connects to the earlier discussion, though... My guess is the argument is that overturning Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional and thus an alternate reason for stacking the court besides a more general "we should stack the court with people that share our beliefs and not let the other side stack it."
The problem with that argument is that we already know what slavery is and it's not that. It's just a really bizarre argument.
It also perfectly highlights why I'm more afraid of tyranny from the left than tyranny from the right. The people on the right have been pushing the same ideology for their entire existence and they are losing miserably. However there is something very weird that exists on the left, and you can see it from a handful of posters on this forum: They will literally believe anything as long as you tell them it's the new PC and virtuous thing to believe and will twist into pretzels to convince themselves it is rational. e.g. "You can't be racist against white people" or "the unvaccinated are responsible for the pandemic." The people pushing the really fucked up ideas, like hauling people off to camps or gulags belong to the latter group. The same old Jesus-freaks pushing their usual shit don't scare me at all.
On August 01 2024 11:40 BlackJack wrote: The problem with that argument is that we already know what slavery is and it's not that. It's just a really bizarre argument.
You don't have to agree with the argument, but let's not pretend you in any way showed it was false here.
EPT
