|
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 11 2018 01:24 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 22:13 Artisreal wrote:On October 10 2018 19:57 Silvanel wrote:On October 10 2018 18:06 Aquanim wrote:On October 10 2018 18:03 Silvanel wrote:
I love how enemies of nuclear conveniently ignore the fact that coal/gas power plants and mining create more deaths and enviromental damage EVERY YEAR than nuclear power plants during its entire history.
You do know that dust created as byproduct of coke production is radioactive and You get more radiation from driving on roads in any country with heavy coal industry (such as Poland) then by working in Nuclear Power Plant? [To get rid of that dust they add it to asphalt].
Lets face it, there is no power source which is totally safe and enviromentaly friendly its just a question of choice. Somehow people think that CERTAINITY of polluting entire world moderately is better than RISK of polluting small area heavily. I'm not aware of anybody in this thread who opposes nuclear power but supports coal/gas power... I'm quite sure it's not a well-populated position in any case. The interesting discussion IMO is the comparison between nuclear and renewables. Like i said all energy sources have some drawbacks. Major problem with renewables is low energy density and lack of stable supply. They simply cannot support heavy industry. They also consume large quantities of rare earth metals and require HUGE amount of energy to prepare production (solar panels for PVC/CVD depesition or silicon refining and windturbines for superalloy production). Hydro changes river beds and environment heavily. The way i see it most environmentally friendly solution is to have nuclear as major energy source and solar/wind/hydro as supplemental. Get rid of all coal/gas as power source. Energy payback time is a very valid point. I think currently you'd also have to add a bit of payback time on top of the established numbers due to limited recycling opportunities. Albeit the projected energy payback time of current models is around 2 years, newer PV models are expected to achieve that in around a year's time according to the US department of energy.
PV systems can repay their energy investment in about
2 years. During its 28 remaining years of assumed opera-
tion, a PV system that meets half of an average household’s
electrical use would eliminate half a ton of sulfur dioxide
and one-third of a ton of nitrogen-oxides pollution. The
carbon-dioxide emissions avoided would offset the opera-
tion of two cars for those 28 years.
SourceThough this will considerably vary with the location where the PV modules are installed and may take 5 years according to a LCA done by the scientific team of the German parliament. Regarding wind turbines, many of them, >80%, do not use massive amounts of Neodymium and that other metal I cannot remember. Though I've seen 90% as well, e.g. here, slide 12. The data is from 2010 and with more offshore wind farms, where the reliability and maintenance advantages of rare earth permamagnets are incredibly valuable, I suspect it might be closer to the 80% now, but I'm not certain. Enercon (a big player here in Germany) doesnt use any rare materials but copper and steel instead (established recycling pathways for those exist). They only have 7% share of the global production of onshore plants though (I'm unsure about offshore numbers). Siemens developed new generators that need less than 1% of Dysprosium (15% global share). Currently, there are no ready to deploy solutions for non-rare earth wind turbines that are as efficient and reliable as rare earth wind turbines. Research is being conducted but not yet of practical relevance. Payback time of current wind turbines ranges between 6 and 17 months, according to a recent publication in the Sustainbility Journal. This is in Texas and as always, (energy/co2) payback will vary from location to location. It's been reported up to 6 years in Scotland when peatland was used ( source) What I'd be more concerned about is the recyclability of fibreglass rotor blades than the recyclability of rare earths. The latter will be recycled due to costs at some point. Ill have some time tomorrow or firday to give my thoughts about nuclear that I just briefly and superficially mentioned the other day. The source You quoted actually mentions 3 years (not that it matters that much if its 2 or 3) but i have more problems with the fact that they "calculate" and "estimate" not actually measure those values in real life. I know the total energy consumption required to produce single PV sheet might be difficult to track but i would love if someone actually did test this. BTW I didnt know they use offgrade silicon from microprocessor industry. Thats actully really smart solution. I remember my prof. use to say that whoever comes ups with energy efficient process to refine silicon for solar power production will get nobel prize. Beacuse silicon used by microprcessor industry is too pure for solar panels (meaning it could be less pure) and consumes HUGE amount of energy and silicon from lower energy process is not pure enough. So there is really no efficeint way to refine silicon for PV purpose. So usuing offgrade silicon from micropressor industry (that would be melted and purified again anyway) is great solution. Thanks for this, i learned something new. Anyway i think advances in PVD/CVD are more important either way and that is the way forward with PV.
CVD/PVD of designed nano wires/layers or just the normal materials without variations? If we solve the scaling and recycling the nano wires could probably be interesting for reducing material usage.
|
On October 11 2018 01:24 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 22:13 Artisreal wrote:On October 10 2018 19:57 Silvanel wrote:On October 10 2018 18:06 Aquanim wrote:On October 10 2018 18:03 Silvanel wrote:
I love how enemies of nuclear conveniently ignore the fact that coal/gas power plants and mining create more deaths and enviromental damage EVERY YEAR than nuclear power plants during its entire history.
You do know that dust created as byproduct of coke production is radioactive and You get more radiation from driving on roads in any country with heavy coal industry (such as Poland) then by working in Nuclear Power Plant? [To get rid of that dust they add it to asphalt].
Lets face it, there is no power source which is totally safe and enviromentaly friendly its just a question of choice. Somehow people think that CERTAINITY of polluting entire world moderately is better than RISK of polluting small area heavily. I'm not aware of anybody in this thread who opposes nuclear power but supports coal/gas power... I'm quite sure it's not a well-populated position in any case. The interesting discussion IMO is the comparison between nuclear and renewables. Like i said all energy sources have some drawbacks. Major problem with renewables is low energy density and lack of stable supply. They simply cannot support heavy industry. They also consume large quantities of rare earth metals and require HUGE amount of energy to prepare production (solar panels for PVC/CVD depesition or silicon refining and windturbines for superalloy production). Hydro changes river beds and environment heavily. The way i see it most environmentally friendly solution is to have nuclear as major energy source and solar/wind/hydro as supplemental. Get rid of all coal/gas as power source. Energy payback time is a very valid point. I think currently you'd also have to add a bit of payback time on top of the established numbers due to limited recycling opportunities. Albeit the projected energy payback time of current models is around 2 years, newer PV models are expected to achieve that in around a year's time according to the US department of energy.
PV systems can repay their energy investment in about
2 years. During its 28 remaining years of assumed opera-
tion, a PV system that meets half of an average household’s
electrical use would eliminate half a ton of sulfur dioxide
and one-third of a ton of nitrogen-oxides pollution. The
carbon-dioxide emissions avoided would offset the opera-
tion of two cars for those 28 years.
SourceThough this will considerably vary with the location where the PV modules are installed and may take 5 years according to a LCA done by the scientific team of the German parliament. Regarding wind turbines, many of them, >80%, do not use massive amounts of Neodymium and that other metal I cannot remember. Though I've seen 90% as well, e.g. here, slide 12. The data is from 2010 and with more offshore wind farms, where the reliability and maintenance advantages of rare earth permamagnets are incredibly valuable, I suspect it might be closer to the 80% now, but I'm not certain. Enercon (a big player here in Germany) doesnt use any rare materials but copper and steel instead (established recycling pathways for those exist). They only have 7% share of the global production of onshore plants though (I'm unsure about offshore numbers). Siemens developed new generators that need less than 1% of Dysprosium (15% global share). Currently, there are no ready to deploy solutions for non-rare earth wind turbines that are as efficient and reliable as rare earth wind turbines. Research is being conducted but not yet of practical relevance. Payback time of current wind turbines ranges between 6 and 17 months, according to a recent publication in the Sustainbility Journal. This is in Texas and as always, (energy/co2) payback will vary from location to location. It's been reported up to 6 years in Scotland when peatland was used ( source) What I'd be more concerned about is the recyclability of fibreglass rotor blades than the recyclability of rare earths. The latter will be recycled due to costs at some point. Ill have some time tomorrow or firday to give my thoughts about nuclear that I just briefly and superficially mentioned the other day. The source You quoted actually mentions 3 years (not that it matters that much if its 2 or 3) but i have more problems with the fact that they "calculate" and "estimate" not actually measure those values in real life. I know the total energy consumption required to produce single PV sheet might be difficult to track but i would love if someone actually did test this. BTW I didnt know they use offgrade silicon from microprocessor industry. Thats actully really smart solution. I remember my prof. use to say that whoever comes ups with energy efficient process to refine silicon for solar power production will get nobel prize. Beacuse silicon used by microprcessor industry is too pure for solar panels (meaning it could be less pure) and consumes HUGE amount of energy and silicon from lower energy process is not pure enough. So there is really no efficeint way to refine silicon for PV purpose. So usuing offgrade silicon from micropressor industry (that would be melted and purified again anyway) is great solution. Thanks for this, i learned something new. Anyway i think advances in PVD/CVD are more important either way and that is the way forward with PV.
That's my bad with the payback.
|
On October 11 2018 01:38 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 01:24 Silvanel wrote:On October 10 2018 22:13 Artisreal wrote:On October 10 2018 19:57 Silvanel wrote:On October 10 2018 18:06 Aquanim wrote:On October 10 2018 18:03 Silvanel wrote:
I love how enemies of nuclear conveniently ignore the fact that coal/gas power plants and mining create more deaths and enviromental damage EVERY YEAR than nuclear power plants during its entire history.
You do know that dust created as byproduct of coke production is radioactive and You get more radiation from driving on roads in any country with heavy coal industry (such as Poland) then by working in Nuclear Power Plant? [To get rid of that dust they add it to asphalt].
Lets face it, there is no power source which is totally safe and enviromentaly friendly its just a question of choice. Somehow people think that CERTAINITY of polluting entire world moderately is better than RISK of polluting small area heavily. I'm not aware of anybody in this thread who opposes nuclear power but supports coal/gas power... I'm quite sure it's not a well-populated position in any case. The interesting discussion IMO is the comparison between nuclear and renewables. Like i said all energy sources have some drawbacks. Major problem with renewables is low energy density and lack of stable supply. They simply cannot support heavy industry. They also consume large quantities of rare earth metals and require HUGE amount of energy to prepare production (solar panels for PVC/CVD depesition or silicon refining and windturbines for superalloy production). Hydro changes river beds and environment heavily. The way i see it most environmentally friendly solution is to have nuclear as major energy source and solar/wind/hydro as supplemental. Get rid of all coal/gas as power source. Energy payback time is a very valid point. I think currently you'd also have to add a bit of payback time on top of the established numbers due to limited recycling opportunities. Albeit the projected energy payback time of current models is around 2 years, newer PV models are expected to achieve that in around a year's time according to the US department of energy.
PV systems can repay their energy investment in about
2 years. During its 28 remaining years of assumed opera-
tion, a PV system that meets half of an average household’s
electrical use would eliminate half a ton of sulfur dioxide
and one-third of a ton of nitrogen-oxides pollution. The
carbon-dioxide emissions avoided would offset the opera-
tion of two cars for those 28 years.
SourceThough this will considerably vary with the location where the PV modules are installed and may take 5 years according to a LCA done by the scientific team of the German parliament. Regarding wind turbines, many of them, >80%, do not use massive amounts of Neodymium and that other metal I cannot remember. Though I've seen 90% as well, e.g. here, slide 12. The data is from 2010 and with more offshore wind farms, where the reliability and maintenance advantages of rare earth permamagnets are incredibly valuable, I suspect it might be closer to the 80% now, but I'm not certain. Enercon (a big player here in Germany) doesnt use any rare materials but copper and steel instead (established recycling pathways for those exist). They only have 7% share of the global production of onshore plants though (I'm unsure about offshore numbers). Siemens developed new generators that need less than 1% of Dysprosium (15% global share). Currently, there are no ready to deploy solutions for non-rare earth wind turbines that are as efficient and reliable as rare earth wind turbines. Research is being conducted but not yet of practical relevance. Payback time of current wind turbines ranges between 6 and 17 months, according to a recent publication in the Sustainbility Journal. This is in Texas and as always, (energy/co2) payback will vary from location to location. It's been reported up to 6 years in Scotland when peatland was used ( source) What I'd be more concerned about is the recyclability of fibreglass rotor blades than the recyclability of rare earths. The latter will be recycled due to costs at some point. Ill have some time tomorrow or firday to give my thoughts about nuclear that I just briefly and superficially mentioned the other day. The source You quoted actually mentions 3 years (not that it matters that much if its 2 or 3) but i have more problems with the fact that they "calculate" and "estimate" not actually measure those values in real life. I know the total energy consumption required to produce single PV sheet might be difficult to track but i would love if someone actually did test this. BTW I didnt know they use offgrade silicon from microprocessor industry. Thats actully really smart solution. I remember my prof. use to say that whoever comes ups with energy efficient process to refine silicon for solar power production will get nobel prize. Beacuse silicon used by microprcessor industry is too pure for solar panels (meaning it could be less pure) and consumes HUGE amount of energy and silicon from lower energy process is not pure enough. So there is really no efficeint way to refine silicon for PV purpose. So usuing offgrade silicon from micropressor industry (that would be melted and purified again anyway) is great solution. Thanks for this, i learned something new. Anyway i think advances in PVD/CVD are more important either way and that is the way forward with PV. CVD/PVD of designed nano wires/layers or just the normal materials without variations? If we solve the scaling and recycling the nano wires could probably be interesting for reducing material usage.
I think he's talking about actual elemental purity of the substrate Si (getting rid of other charge carriers and whatnot) rather than Si nanowires. There are a lot of issues that the 20 nm folks run into that micron folks don't care about.
Edit: Sorry, I need to stop contributing to pulling this thread off-topic...
|
Well in this context PVD and CVD are predominantly used for deposition of amorphous and poly-crystaline silicon thin films (at least to my knowledge) i am not sure if nanowires are aplicable in PV (i am not keeping track on research since i left uni) and if yes if they are feasible due to energy requirements. I havent been keeping track on research on thin films since i left Uni few years back and even back then i was focused on mechanical properties not electricity generation.
Edit: And when i was talking about silicon purity i was talking about wafers (like they use in microprocessors) which are obtained trough Czochralski process (or similiar) not PVD or CVD. That silicon can also be used for electricity generation but since Czochralski process and zone melting are extremly energy cousming its not very efficient hence the fact they use offgrade silicon or PVD/CVD thin films for efficient PV panels.
Edit2: Well i agree we are extremly off topic. Sorry, at least i hope it was intresting to SOMEONE.
|
I wonder if Florida getting a bunch of weirdly intense storms will eventually impact its political landscape.
|
It only took one day to see th change coming over the court. Deporting legal immigrants convicted of crimes which they already served their sentences. Have no doubt that Kavanaugh will support the administration’s efforts to strip citizenship from legal immigrant citizens and children of legal immigrants born in the US. As someone married to a first generation American, this plants a seed of terror in the back of my mind.
|
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference to the executive will go poof!
|
On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference the executive will go poof!
We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father.
|
On October 11 2018 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:lmao. Bloomberg was viable like...20 years ago. Bloomberg will get absolutely trashed by whoever Bernie passes his torch too. I don't think Bernie himself will run, but I think Bernie will go balls deep for someone. I almost don't mind Bloomberg trying because it is so utterly hopeless. He will need to run on single payer and $15 min wage in order to be remotely suitable for the modern day left.
but if bloomberg wins the nomination you’d vote for him
|
On October 11 2018 04:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:lmao. Bloomberg was viable like...20 years ago. Bloomberg will get absolutely trashed by whoever Bernie passes his torch too. I don't think Bernie himself will run, but I think Bernie will go balls deep for someone. I almost don't mind Bloomberg trying because it is so utterly hopeless. He will need to run on single payer and $15 min wage in order to be remotely suitable for the modern day left. but if bloomberg wins the nomination you’d vote for him
I think there are many trash tier Democrats that people would vote for if the alternative is more Trump. Ending state funded abuse of immigrant children and deportation of legal immigrants is a compelling platform.
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 11 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father.
It has slowly transforming into an activist court since the early 60's. But people stayed conspicuously silent when it came to passing judgments that reinforced with their values. And in some cases, publicly rejoiced at the notion that the Court could be used to push "progress" e.g. Obergefell vs Hodges.
The whole Kavanaugh mess is missing the forest for the trees. SCOTUS has arrogated too much power in the last half-century. Impeaching Kavanaugh neither changes that fact nor dissuades future nominations will continue to be a political minefield as long as SCOTUS' powers remain ill-defined and continuously expand.
On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference to the executive will go poof!
You're 50 years late. Miranda vs Arizona already established that precedent.
|
Nah, Warren was rather consistent in his treatment of executive powers, difference between state and federal bodies notwithstanding. After all, he had ground floor knowledge of stateside executive actions unlike most justices.
Also, the notion that "judicial activism" increased by any significant measure during his tenure would require totally ignoring Lochner era (and prior) SCOTUS decisionmaking, but use of such a loaded term broadcasts your agenda loud and clear enough to make arguing that point a useless venture. The federal courts have *always* been activist with the proper framing.
|
On October 11 2018 04:50 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father. It has slowly transforming into an activist court since the early 60's. But people stayed conspicuously silent when it came to passing judgments that reinforced with their values. And in some cases, publicly rejoiced at the notion that the Court could be used to push "progress" e.g. Obergefell vs Hodges. The whole Kavanaugh mess is missing the forest for the trees. SCOTUS has arrogated too much power in the last half-century. Impeaching Kavanaugh neither changes that fact nor dissuades future nominations will continue to be a political minefield as long as SCOTUS' powers remain ill-defined and continuously expand. Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference to the executive will go poof! You're 50 years late. Miranda vs Arizona already established that precedent.
What is an activist court beyond a label created by Southern states after Brown v The Board of Education? The court turned active once it started undercutting segregation, redline and supporting congresses efforts to protect the civil liberties of minorities and labor. Where was precedent when the current court gutted the voter’s rights act? Or the 40 year precedent when it came to unions just this year? Unions, that are prohibited from only representing their members, but cannot force non-members to pay for the representation they are legally obligated to provide.
Precedent is meaningless in the current political climate, just like norms and traditions. Like origionalism is just a term popularized in the 1980s to describe a political slat to justifying rulings. Precedent is a means to an end in the world of politics. And with every conservative justice, the court will weaken the federal governments power over the wealthy and powerful, while eroding the civil liberties and rights the have-nots. Conservatism is not an adherence to precedent, but the annihilation of it.
|
On October 11 2018 05:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 04:50 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 11 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:
We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father. It has slowly transforming into an activist court since the early 60's. But people stayed conspicuously silent when it came to passing judgments that reinforced with their values. And in some cases, publicly rejoiced at the notion that the Court could be used to push "progress" e.g. Obergefell vs Hodges. The whole Kavanaugh mess is missing the forest for the trees. SCOTUS has arrogated too much power in the last half-century. Impeaching Kavanaugh neither changes that fact nor dissuades future nominations will continue to be a political minefield as long as SCOTUS' powers remain ill-defined and continuously expand. On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference to the executive will go poof! You're 50 years late. Miranda vs Arizona already established that precedent. What is an activist court beyond a label created by Southern states after Brown v The Board of Education? The court turned active once it started undercutting segregation, redline and supporting congresses efforts to protect the civil liberties of minorities and labor. Where was precedent when the current court gutted the voter’s rights act? Or the 40 year precedent when it came to unions just this year? Unions, that are prohibited from only representing their members, but cannot force non-members to pay for the representation they are legally obligated to provide. Precedent is meaningless in the current political climate, just like norms and traditions. Like origionalism is just a term popularized in the 1980s to describe a political slat to justifying rulings. Precedent is a means to an end in the world of politics. And with every conservative justice, the court will weaken the federal governments power over the wealthy and powerful, while eroding the civil liberties and rights the have-nots. Conservatism is not an adherence to precedent, but the annihilation of it.
Originalism is marketing. The only difference is it's more obvious when the liberal judges are going out on a limb. Things like "equal sovereignty of the states" argument used to strike down the voting rights act sounds like an adherence to originalism, but it's a completely made up justification.
|
On October 11 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference the executive will go poof! We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father.
If Kavanaugh were to be removed from the supreme court when the relevant bodies return to democratic control, is it not likely that republican politicians would vow to remove any justices they perceive as left-leaning upon their eventual return to power?
I doubt they would have any moral or ethical qualms with doing so, even though it overtly and undeniably politicizes the supreme court.
That's not to say that removing Kavanaugh would be unwise if that were the eventual result. Just wondering what people gauge to be the likelihood of that type of response.
|
On October 11 2018 05:57 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference the executive will go poof! We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father. If Kavanaugh were to be removed from the supreme court when the relevant bodies return to democratic control, is it not likely that republican politicians would vow to remove any justices they perceive as left-leaning upon their eventual return to power? I doubt they would have any moral or ethical qualms with doing so, even though it overtly and undeniably politicizes the supreme court. That's not to say that removing Kavanaugh would be unwise if that were the eventual result. Just wondering what people gauge to be the likelihood of that type of response. They already swore to randomly accuse Democrats of sexual assault if Kavanaugh didn't pass so... 100%?
The US does not negotiate with terrorists. And a removal of Kavanaugh would not (just) be based on him being partisan but perjury and an actual through investigation of the allegations of sexual assault.
I'd be again removing him just for partisanship.
|
On October 11 2018 05:57 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference the executive will go poof! We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father. If Kavanaugh were to be removed from the supreme court when the relevant bodies return to democratic control, is it not likely that republican politicians would vow to remove any justices they perceive as left-leaning upon their eventual return to power? I doubt they would have any moral or ethical qualms with doing so, even though it overtly and undeniably politicizes the supreme court. That's not to say that removing Kavanaugh would be unwise if that were the eventual result. Just wondering what people gauge to be the likelihood of that type of response.
He would never get removed unless they found something truly criminal or wildly unethical that caused the whole nation to want him removed. Removal from office is impossible without the support of the overwhelming majority of the country. It is a bipartisan event.
Now, impeaching him and forcing the Senate to put him on trial would put him and the court on notice that Congress wasn’t going to put him with his partisan bullshit. A warning shot from a separate, but very much equal branch of government.
Honestly, I don’t believe any of this would happen. The court was viewed as neutral refer between the two political spectrum because the vast majority of the US people saw it that way. The conservatives(a minority political group) saw it as an activist court, casing rulings that changed the culture in this country. And through political will, they have changed the face of the court. But as I stated above, the erosion was what we call norms, rules and traditions is a two way street. The conservative’s anti-activist Supreme Court is someone else’s Imperial Court that acts like it is above the two branches. The court is no longer neutral for a large number of Americans. And like the conservatives before them, these Americans will make their opinion known.
On October 11 2018 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 05:57 Dromar wrote:On October 11 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 04:11 farvacola wrote:
It'll be fun/shameful to see Kav blow in the wind once a Dem takes the presidency. Suddenly, deference the executive will go poof! We can only hope the House has the spine to go full Thomas Jefferson on Kav impeach him for allowing his political opinions to influence his legal decisions. Give the Orgionalists a history lesson on the intent of their favorite founding father. If Kavanaugh were to be removed from the supreme court when the relevant bodies return to democratic control, is it not likely that republican politicians would vow to remove any justices they perceive as left-leaning upon their eventual return to power? I doubt they would have any moral or ethical qualms with doing so, even though it overtly and undeniably politicizes the supreme court. That's not to say that removing Kavanaugh would be unwise if that were the eventual result. Just wondering what people gauge to be the likelihood of that type of response. They already swore to randomly accuse Democrats of sexual assault if Kavanaugh didn't pass so... 100%? The US does not negotiate with terrorists. And a removal of Kavanaugh would not (just) be based on him being partisan but perjury and an actual through investigation of the allegations of sexual assault. I'd be again removing him just for partisanship.
The Senate of the time didn’t agree with Jefferson or the House, acquitting Samuel Chase on all counts. But it made an impression.
|
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up.
|
On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up.
Likely, but it would chip away at that conservative majority on the court too. And why should the left handicap itself by being concerned with something he right is not?
|
On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up.
The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
