US Politics Mega-thread - Page 838

On October 12 2018 03:37 IgnE wrote:
what about seriously considering just splitting the country in two? why not let them/us secede? maybe we should reexamine that option

On October 12 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote:
Secession would fail because neither side would be willing to take Florida.

On October 12 2018 03:42 farvacola wrote:
Without looking into the specifics, that seems like a recipe for Brexit 2.0, only much, much worse.

On October 12 2018 03:54 Gahlo wrote:

Which side gets where? Do people have to pay to move from the "wrong" part of the country to the "right" part of it for their political beliefs, where they currently live, or where they are moving to? Is it possible for either of these new nations to be viable?

On October 12 2018 04:32 IgnE wrote:


whats so bad about brexit? lets just assume that yes there will be a brief period of economic cost to the split. the question is whether the long-term equilibrium is favorable over maintainig the status quo. we can agree, i think, that the euro as a whole presents long-term equilibrium problems for the EU which does not have the latitude the US has to prop up less economically productive states with monetary policies.

On October 12 2018 04:36 IgnE wrote:


yes they would have to pay to move. the question, again, is one whether the cost of moving is worth the perceived costs of relocating, and the long-term equilibrium. presuming both halves retain some democratic governance structure, the risk to minority opinion of not liking democratic outcomes is inherent to the system.

the key thing to consider is that theres already a lot of discontentment in the larger internally fractured whole

On October 12 2018 00:00 Doodsmack wrote:


To be clear the reasoning stated by Republicans in 2016 was not that the president and Senate were controlled by different political parties, it was only that we were in a presidential election year. This revisionism that talks about the parties being different is now being used by Republicans to justify potentially confirming a nominee in 2020 if it were to come up. But doing that would directly contradict the clearly stated reasoning in 2016. Which is fine if you're now saying the party should just use the power that it has, just be honest about the inconsistency.

On October 12 2018 00:07 Mohdoo wrote:


Sorry to be responding late,

In an ideal case, which of these would be decided by a court and which of these would be decided by congress/senate?

Healthcare
Immigration
Gay marriage
Abortion

In an ideal case, do you prefer those issues are solved by a court, or solved by elected officials? My main criticism of the court isn't even because of the court. My main criticism is that deference to the supreme court allows for our shitbag senators and congressmen to hide behind court rulings. When our elected officials have less of a voting record, they are less accountable. When everything goes to the supreme court, politicians are less accountable. We aren't allowing our democracy to properly function when we defer to the courts with every single major issue.

Furthermore, the idea of lifelong appointment is inherently flawed as it pertains to law. The idea that it prevents partisanship is shot 6 times in the head by just reviewing the last 10 years. We can find other methods of making the court more neutral. The current system is not good and I would be very surprised if you think the supreme court is functioning in a healthy way.

We aren't stuck with the current system. Nothing about our laws and institutions is defined by god or any other greater than human being. This is an entirely man-made system that is born with all the same flaws as the people who crafted it. It is important to recognize that in every single other situation in life, we can look back at decisions made 80 years ago and think "yeah, but obviously we know a lot more now and would not do that today". The same is also true of American law and institutions. We didn't just magically come up with the most slam dunk system you could ever imagine our first try. Our system is bad and it shouldn't be surprising. It is super old and old ideas are generally improved on over time. It is how every single thing in the world works.

On October 12 2018 05:02 Introvert wrote:


healthcare: it is complicated, but it should be worked out by legislative bodies.

immigration: if you look at us history, for the large majority of it the courts were loath to get involved here. the constitution gives Congress power and the courts generally have deferred to Congress on what rules to make and to the executive on how he enforces them.

gay marriage: the states
abortion: the states

what needs to happen is for Congress to exercise it's own power and start to rein in the courts. then it wont matter as much who is there. this is obviously a hard problem, but I hope some of our left friends see the supreme court they now face and decide they like restraint and Congress again. and I sincerely hope a newly conservative supreme court, instead of going activist, starts to restrain itself and the courts below it. in that case a 5-4 might actually incentivize this movement. it remains to be seen. some libertarians, especially, favor a more active court.

On October 12 2018 05:02 Introvert wrote:


healthcare: it is complicated, but it should be worked out by legislative bodies.

immigration: if you look at us history, for the large majority of it the courts were loath to get involved here. the constitution gives Congress power and the courts generally have deferred to Congress on what rules to make and to the executive on how he enforces them.

gay marriage: the states
abortion: the states

what needs to happen is for Congress to exercise it's own power and start to rein in the courts. then it wont matter as much who is there. this is obviously a hard problem, but I hope some of our left friends see the supreme court they now face and decide they like restraint and Congress again. and I sincerely hope a newly conservative supreme court, instead of going activist, starts to restrain itself and the courts below it. in that case a 5-4 might actually incentivize this movement. it remains to be seen. some libertarians, especially, favor a more active court.

On October 12 2018 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Gay marriage can't be a state to state thing. It's a Federally recognized status which means that all states would have to recognize the marriages of other states. Also it's a fundamental right so why would you even want some states to be allowed to not recognize it.

On October 12 2018 05:07 farvacola wrote:
Allowing states discretion in recognizing gay marriage also runs afoul of full faith and credit.