There was an article posted on Supreme Court reform the other day that actually approached this issue in a nuanced and (reasonably) balanced manner. I've argued in the past against...
I loved that article. 27 justices, expanded court able to hear more cases. We could do it like three separate panels, nine justices on each. Task one with taking over for FISA and handling...
I loved that article. 27 justices, expanded court able to hear more cases. We could do it like three separate panels, nine justices on each. Task one with taking over for FISA and handling national security matters at that level. Let the decision of one panel be appealed to another. Major issues get the full court. Eighteen year term limits, no second terms allowed to avoid politicking for re-election.
Stacking the court isn't the answer. Reforming and updating it is.
I'd like to see Democrats issue the following ultimatum when they're back in power: agree to a Constitutional amendment, setting term limits on Supreme Court Justices, or sit back while we pack...
Should we consider 18-year term limits on the Supreme Court? Maybe that's not a bad idea. That's the kind of thing that most dems would be open to a conversation about. Court packing? Ugh... I don't know about that.
I'd like to see Democrats issue the following ultimatum when they're back in power: agree to a Constitutional amendment, setting term limits on Supreme Court Justices, or sit back while we pack the courts. I agree that it's not a good look. I agree, further, that court packing borders on authoritarianism. But the current Supreme Court misrepresents the political composition of America, and despite that failing, we could be stuck with its current political alignment for another thirty years. A disappointing midterm -- or even Presidential election -- doesn't warrant a nuclear option. But for an unfair Supreme Court pick, all options are nuclear options.
Exactly. Court packing really should be used as an option of last resort; it's simply not a sustainable strategy. (Can you imagine if every federal court ballooned to twice its size, only to be...
Exactly. Court packing really should be used as an option of last resort; it's simply not a sustainable strategy. (Can you imagine if every federal court ballooned to twice its size, only to be further increased when the opposition party gained power?) Supreme Court reform is the real goal.
I personally don’t believe the Supreme Court should even exist, or at least not anywhere near its current form, so destroying its legitimacy is a Ok with me. That said you’re right the optics have...
I personally don’t believe the Supreme Court should even exist, or at least not anywhere near its current form, so destroying its legitimacy is a Ok with me.
That said you’re right the optics have to be considered, but I’m not sure the number of people who would be alienated by court packing is greater than those than would be motivated by the democrats finally taking the gloves off.
E:
To electorate, the SC essentially invented its own function of judicial review. That’s fine, it’s a sensible function, but as is the case for so, so many things, the constitution wasn’t designed for it. The Supreme Court over its history has been a regressive institution designed to nullify democratic will. For every Roe there are ten citizens united Maybe you could have argued this was necessary in the eighteenth century (though I’m doubtful), but it’s so blatantly undemocratic in the modern world it’s absurd.
This is part of a broader pattern of failures that really gives me no hope for fixing things before complete institutional collapse occurs. The founders designed a republic ran by white property holders and no one ever bothered to change that, we’ve just tried to force a different system into the framework. And it’s failed, miserably. And how can we even attempt to fix it now? The founders have been deified, “origianlism” is viewed as a valid judicial philosophy instead of pure insanity and the partisan divide is unbridgeable. America will fail because it loves its institutions more than the values they claim to represent.
It’s literary, I suppose. Once the USSR collapsed and America was left virtually unopposed there was nothing left to hold it together.
Also, if anyone is a wizard who can magically enact constitutional change, here are my suggestions:
runoff voting
voting is done by mail and monitored for suppression and fraud. The electoral comission has broad power to investigate and if necessary enforce fair elections by force.
SC only exists to appeal lower court rulings
“constitutional review” is done by popular referendum
senate is gone, house selects the president (subject to popular recall)
massively expand the number of reps, districting is done independently with the mandate of not splitting communities between districts (so your rep hopefully actually represents you)
all elections are federally funded
lobbying is made as illegal as feasible without abridging the people’s right to petition
I'm surprised to say I actually agree with you for the most part. The US government has some fundamental flaws that will cause it to collapse if left untreated. The US Constitution has many flaws...
I'm surprised to say I actually agree with you for the most part. The US government has some fundamental flaws that will cause it to collapse if left untreated. The US Constitution has many flaws and since those flaws benefit those in power, they are almost impossible to fix. It might actually take another civil war.
Oh man. Amen. I'm not American but this is one of the things that bugs me the most about a lot of Americans. They treat their institutions, the Constitution, their nation etc as a religion, follow...
America will fail because it loves its institutions more than the values they claim to represent.
Oh man. Amen. I'm not American but this is one of the things that bugs me the most about a lot of Americans. They treat their institutions, the Constitution, their nation etc as a religion, follow it blindly, are crazy patriotic... But when it comes to actually understanding and following the ideals, few are there to ring the bell.
It's a lot like religion and Christians who would never in a million years be kind to their neighbors or give to the poor.
I have absolutely zero faith that this would have positive results. Yeah the Republicans are fascists but the Democrats are basically George Bush in 2000 at this point. I would rather fight for...
I have absolutely zero faith that this would have positive results. Yeah the Republicans are fascists but the Democrats are basically George Bush in 2000 at this point.
I would rather fight for socialism and fail than spend any effort on the Democrats.
I'm not proposing to abandon the democrats per se. I'm just not going to donate $20 to the war chest of another hawkish center left establishment democrats. If one says some good stuff, I'm open...
I'm not proposing to abandon the democrats per se. I'm just not going to donate $20 to the war chest of another hawkish center left establishment democrats. If one says some good stuff, I'm open to it.
I said the other thing of course with Hillary Clinton in mind yes, but mostly with my local politics in mind. I am from Chicago Illinois and right now there are some pretty exciting prospects - most of whom are democrats. But right now the big race is between Bruce Rauner, an evil conservative billionaire, and JB Pritzker, a nice friendly relatable... patrician billionaire. Okay. Great. I hate them both. Neither of them is a path to socialism.
I'm fucking sick of swallowing the centrist's lines, hoping that maybe they might squeeze some money for social programs or something. But the Democratic machine in Chicago is maybe special so I won't pretend like it speaks for all areas of America.
Part of the problem is that Congress and the Senate are completely partisan at this point. So when you vote for one of the two billionaires, you are 99% of the time voting for their party. This...
Part of the problem is that Congress and the Senate are completely partisan at this point. So when you vote for one of the two billionaires, you are 99% of the time voting for their party. This includes a lot of the policies that their Democrat colleagues will push for.
OTOH if you don't, you are passively voting for their opponent, and the policies their Republican colleagues will push for.
So there's more to consider than the person themselves. This is broken of course, but until fixed you have to play along.
Sorry to say it, but this is such bull shit. People like to trot this line out when people discontent with whomsoever the dems run decide to vote third party and it makes me SO. FUCKING. ANGRY. No...
you are passively voting for their opponent
Sorry to say it, but this is such bull shit. People like to trot this line out when people discontent with whomsoever the dems run decide to vote third party and it makes me SO. FUCKING. ANGRY.
No I didn't cast a protest vote. I expressed my right to representation in this shit form of government. I refuse to be held hostage.
Maybe I voted or Nader because I think he'd be good at being president - not because I wanted to stick it to John Kerry and Al Gore. Ever think of that? Maybe I think Hillary fucking sucks. Yeah Donald sucks too and decidedly worse. But you're not going to blackmail me into voting for someone that sucks IMSO.
Usually it's something along the lines of "Ooooh you better vote for the democrat or you'll have a republican in office." Like bitch please what if I think the democrats suck too? NAFTA? "Superpredators?" Three strikes? Bail-out after 2008? These are all democratic presidential policies and they sucked.
Maybe if more leftists had the stones to not kow tow to less-of-two-evil-ism there would be less evil.
I don't know why you're so angry at me right now. I'm not trying to vote-shame you; voting is an essential right in democracy and you do what you want with it. But, it's important to understand...
Exemplary
I don't know why you're so angry at me right now. I'm not trying to vote-shame you; voting is an essential right in democracy and you do what you want with it. But, it's important to understand how to get what you want in a democracy. And sometimes, that means voting for things you don't agree with.
It's extremely important to understand that in a FPTP system, any vote that isn't explicitly cast for the person with the second most votes, has been cast for the person with the most votes. This is why FPTP sucks. If you want to fix that, if you want your voice heard, you will have to vote for someone who will replace FPTP. And if that someone is a third-party candidate... you might have to be creative about how to get them into office.
I'm sorry you folks are stuck with such a terrible system, but this is not a problem that's fixed by voting unstrategically and then complaining about it online. You have to use all the tools at your disposal: Media, Money, voting strategies.
Totally agree. Leftist Americans that don't vote Dem are helping the party most unlike them in hope that it will magically make things go in the opposite direction. Like for heck sake, the system...
Totally agree. Leftist Americans that don't vote Dem are helping the party most unlike them in hope that it will magically make things go in the opposite direction.
Like for heck sake, the system is stupid and nobody LOVES the Democratic party but if you support candidates that fit your ideology and when push comes to shove, vote for the one that matches you the most, progress is made. It's slow, boring, and hard. And it should be.
I recently watched an Obama commencement speech about this, a pretty recent one where he talks about the upcoming midterms. He was saying exactly this. Progress is progress and shooting for...
I recently watched an Obama commencement speech about this, a pretty recent one where he talks about the upcoming midterms. He was saying exactly this. Progress is progress and shooting for perfection while rejecting small steps is foolish. Maybe someone can dig up the speech...
Oh hey I am not mad at you. You just happened to make an argument that makes me really angry. These are the only things I have to vote on. Occasionally I get a candidate I like and proceed to be...
Oh hey I am not mad at you. You just happened to make an argument that makes me really angry.
voting for things you don't agree with
These are the only things I have to vote on. Occasionally I get a candidate I like and proceed to be shit on for not playing some two-party politic bullshit game.
I dunno I guess its hard to fully express how awful two party politics are. Yes, I understand the reasoning and why voting strategically matters but playing along just feels like complacency. Especially when the "liberal" half of the spectrum is actually a moderate conservative wing pretending to have leftist bents.
You can call this complaining but until you've lived it or something similar I'm just not going to be all that receptive.
I haven't lived it, but I do empathize and understand. As a European I especially empathize with how right shifted your politicians are and mourn the lack of a true liberal party in the US. May I...
I haven't lived it, but I do empathize and understand. As a European I especially empathize with how right shifted your politicians are and mourn the lack of a true liberal party in the US.
May I ask you why you vote? Most people vote because they want to enact change. But voting unstrategically does not bring in change.
Okay so I am a left libertarian (read academic anarchist). I vote becuase I think it matters. Yeah you don't affect change by voting strategically . but in American you don't affect change by...
Okay so I am a left libertarian (read academic anarchist). I vote becuase I think it matters. Yeah you don't affect change by voting strategically . but in American you don't affect change by voting and you don't affect change by voting strategically. That leaves voting your conscious.
An American socialist by the name of Debs once said "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it." That's basically why I vote.
I vote because it matters so me that in a legal, real sense I made the choice given to me that I wanted. Its not a matter of pragmatism. Voting for a politician I don't believe in is a degrading experience. I vote to not feel degraded.
Ah! Yes! This exactly. I always skip mentioning this because it doesn't feel like it could happen but that's part of the reason I vote 3rd party.
If a third party spoiling the vote is a legitimate threat, then mainstream candidates will try to win those voters back. A person who votes third party is probably a pretty reliable voter given that they're voting with no expectation of their candidate winning, so it's a big win if you can get them to your side.
Ah! Yes! This exactly. I always skip mentioning this because it doesn't feel like it could happen but that's part of the reason I vote 3rd party.
What on earth? This is nuts. No, you don't instantly overthrow the currently established government with whatever your differing views are, but you absolutely, slowly, affect change.
in American you don't affect change by voting and you don't affect change by voting strategically.
What on earth? This is nuts.
No, you don't instantly overthrow the currently established government with whatever your differing views are, but you absolutely, slowly, affect change.
Okay so I was being a little melodramatic. I merely mean to draw attention to the fact the democrats are not the great champions of the common person they try to sell themselves as being.
Okay so I was being a little melodramatic. I merely mean to draw attention to the fact the democrats are not the great champions of the common person they try to sell themselves as being.
Okay well then let me ask you: Do you think the tea party would exist without Fox News and big moneyed interests that support it? To be clear, I vote in Democratic primaries and share you views...
the Tea Party took the GOP more towards an extreme right?
Okay well then let me ask you: Do you think the tea party would exist without Fox News and big moneyed interests that support it?
To be clear, I vote in Democratic primaries and share you views that we can effect who they run. In the primaries I try to get the right candidate in the race. If they don't make it to the general, I'm not going to vote the party line just cuz.
I really question that. A shift right in a two party system is very different from a shift left in a 4 or 5 or more part system. I occupy the far left. In europe I could "vote strategically" and...
especially empathize with how right shifted your politicians are
I really question that. A shift right in a two party system is very different from a shift left in a 4 or 5 or more part system. I occupy the far left. In europe I could "vote strategically" and just pick the farthest left, greenest party. In America, that's not the case. In America., national elections your choices are conservative centrism and the fucking mujaheddin.
Please understand that, although the US is not my country, its politics greatly affect me and I follow them closely. The shift towards the far-right that it's experiencing right now is influencing...
Please understand that, although the US is not my country, its politics greatly affect me and I follow them closely. The shift towards the far-right that it's experiencing right now is influencing politics in Europe, and influencing the politicians that run here.
I posit to you that I have no ability to vote in US elections which so deeply and troublingly affect my home continent's and home country's politics. Your first-past-the-post system affects me, my family and my fellow citizens and none of us have a way to vote in it.
So your choice not to vote strategically does affect me as well. Again, not trying to vote shame you; your vote is yours. But please don't question my empathy in the matter. You are not affected by the way I vote; while I have to vote and I am affected by the choices made by a country whose voting system is rigged.
What makes you think I don't understand where you're coming from? You've been the only one declaring that I can't possibly empathize if I am not a US voter. I've had this very conversation with...
What makes you think I don't understand where you're coming from? You've been the only one declaring that I can't possibly empathize if I am not a US voter.
I've had this very conversation with family members, who allowed crooks to get elected because the opposition was "too boring" to vote for. I myself have had to vote strategically -- even though the French runoff system is better than FPTP in the long term, it suffers from the same issue of "throwing away votes" for candidates that stand no chance.
Look, I understand where you're coming from, and you have every reason to be angry. What I fear is that you're not open to understanding the mathematical consequences of your voting strategy. These consequences affect you directly, most of all, and your democratic voice will keep being stolen from you.
Understand that politicians have to deal with this game as well. Warren didn't run in 2016 because she didn't want to create a divide between Clinton's strong female demographic, and Bernie Sanders' strong progressive demographic. She is biding her time to run in 2020. And she has a good shot at winning, because she knows how to play the game, and that's part of politics.
Understanding the rules so that you may change them (hopefully for the better) is part of politics. Unfortunately right now, those who understand the rules best don't have the country's/world's best interests in mind.
Court reform, not (merely) packing. The present court is too small. Expand it. The current court hears too few cases. Multi-track cases. An expanded court, hearing cases in parallel, with smaller...
Exemplary
Court reform, not (merely) packing.
The present court is too small. Expand it.
The current court hears too few cases. Multi-track cases. An expanded court, hearing cases in parallel, with smaller banks of justices, could hear far more than the 80 of 8,000 appealled or referred cases annually.
The current court's balance swings on a single President's appointments, affecting all cases heard, potentially for years, until the next appointment. By expanding the court, dividing the judges into panels, and randomly assigning and reconstituting those panels with time, the sense of a "sure thing" going to court, or even of a house advantage, is greatly reduced. The court may have an overall bias toward liberal or conservative views (or some other categorisation), but any given case might find itself in front of a minority panel.
The number of critical and closely divided cases is small, as noted below. The significance of those cases, both in terms of their impact on affected persons and businesses, and on increasingly partisan politics within the US, is far larger than the apparently minor occurences of same.
One of the criticisms of the present court is that it "comforts the comfortable, and afflicts the afflicted." I'd like to take Russell's argument one step further: Have the Supreme Court ride circuit again. Put the justices directly in contact with the people, out in the country, and with the visceral reality of trial court procedure.
That's two justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, confirmed by senators who collectively received fewer votes than the senators in opposition. Republicans...
That's two justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, confirmed by senators who collectively received fewer votes than the senators in opposition. Republicans changed the rules to ram their cronies through the process before the midterms. This minority rule can not continue.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.
Hear me out, but I think this was one of the best case scenarios for the Dems. If Kavanaugh had failed to be confirmed, the right would be whipped up into a frenzy for the midterms and show up in...
Hear me out, but I think this was one of the best case scenarios for the Dems. If Kavanaugh had failed to be confirmed, the right would be whipped up into a frenzy for the midterms and show up in greater numbers to vote, likely killing any hope of a blue wave, especially for control of the senate. Now that he's in (as much as it sucks), red voters will probably not care as much as they would have otherwise or give into Trump apathy.
Now, Dems are whipped up even more for the midterms than solely about Trump. Hopefully this will translate to higher blue turnout and a reduction in red turnout.
It was a real long shot to prevent Kav's successful nomination given how the GOP controls the house, senate, and White House. We've seen the damage being done with that now. Stopping that from...
It was a real long shot to prevent Kav's successful nomination given how the GOP controls the house, senate, and White House. We've seen the damage being done with that now. Stopping that from continuing should be priority #1, and that means retaking the senate. While that is also unlikely, it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Not American, and although I followed this a little bit I never quite understood why it is so bad that this guy could become a judge. So can anyone tell me - what kind of actual consequences will...
Not American, and although I followed this a little bit I never quite understood why it is so bad that this guy could become a judge. So can anyone tell me - what kind of actual consequences will it have that there are five of nine conservatives in the supreme court?
One subtext to all of this is that Kavanaugh's nomination guarantees Justice Roberts as the median voter, by that I mean Roberts would be the vote that is most likely to be the deciding vote in...
One subtext to all of this is that Kavanaugh's nomination guarantees Justice Roberts as the median voter, by that I mean Roberts would be the vote that is most likely to be the deciding vote in any close case (where 5 sit on one side of the issue and 4 sit opposed to that side). 538 made a good visual and article on where the median voter has sat ideologically on the court over time (and who it was).
You can also see from other visuals in that article that Kavanaugh's background in his decisions is very conservative. We're talking just about Justice Thomas level conservative. For context, Gorsuch ideologically was seen to be an almost exact match for Justice Scalia, the justice he was being nominated to replace (though it's hard to see how Gorsuch can ever match Scalia's wit). These two justices, Scalia and Thomas, until 2016 made up the dissents and rulings that were consistently the most opposed to precedent and most conservative in terms of values being expressed within the rulings' arguments themselves. They each regularly joined each others' arguments, dissent, concurring or otherwise, and rarely only signed on to others' arguments even on relatively banal matters (instead filing concuring-in-ruling opinions regularly--basically saying "I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree with how you got there"). In other words, they were each (and Thomas continues to be) the most prolific justices on the court in expressing their views, especially in opposition to the other justices.
It's not yet clear from the one term how Gorsuch plans to situate himself in his arguments. He just finished serving the first full term in June, which isn't all that much data to draw upon. In that first term you have Gorsuch playing a Roberts-like role as a swing vote in at least one important case in favor of the liberal bloc of judges. In that same first term, Gorsuch wrote the opinion of five separate 5-4 decisions that broke against the liberal bloc of judges and voted in two more 5-4 decisions that broke against the liberal bloc (one of which had Justice Roberts replacing Justice Ginsberg in the opposition. Ginsberg agreed with the majority along with Gorsuch).
It won't be clear where Kavanaugh sits for a couple years or the first major Supreme court decision on a cultural issue since Trump took office (just in time for the full swing of the presidential election cycle). But we can already see that 5-4 decisions in favor of the liberal bloc of justices are already quite rare. With how Kennedy was viewed as a moderate judge (though his record in the 2017 term doesn't match that view), it's likely Kavanaugh will not play the role of deciding vote for a more liberal opinion on the court for ... probably ever. Does anyone even remember the last time Thomas cast a deciding 5-4 vote with the liberal justices?
Edited for clarity. Saw some really sloppy word choice.
That's not a particularly easy question to answer unless you know what the role of the Supreme court is, which is itself not a super easy thing to quickly summarize. From a previous comment of mine:
That's not a particularly easy question to answer unless you know what the role of the Supreme court is, which is itself not a super easy thing to quickly summarize. From a previous comment of mine:
I am not a lawyer (or even American) but I can give it a try:
The Federal court system in the US has three tiers, District courts, Circuit courts and the Supreme court. District courts basically take first crack at most cases and their decisions can then potentially be appealed to the appropriate Circuit courts, whose decisions can then potentially be appealed to the Supreme court, who makes the final decision and sets the precedent which the "lower" courts are obliged to follow. It's way way way more complicated than that, especially when State court decisions are involved, but that's the very basics as far as I understand them.
If you want to get a better sense of SCOTUS and the huge impact their rulings have, there is an absolutely fantastic and incredibly interesting podcast called "More Perfect" that I highly recommend checking out.
They can overturn current law of the land decided by previous supreme court decisions. Decisions like the right to abortion or same-sex marriage are the most commonly cited. Their job is basically...
They can overturn current law of the land decided by previous supreme court decisions. Decisions like the right to abortion or same-sex marriage are the most commonly cited. Their job is basically to interpret the law (they don't write the laws) and decide whether or not legislation is "constitutional".
What do you mean by a presidential annulment? So far as I'm aware, even if it were discovered tomorrow that Trump was only appointed president because of actual hacking of voting machines, there's...
What do you mean by a presidential annulment? So far as I'm aware, even if it were discovered tomorrow that Trump was only appointed president because of actual hacking of voting machines, there's no mechanism for just undoing his presidency.
https://outline.com/V9YYdm In this opinion piece Robert Reich imagines one scenario where the Trump presidency could be annulled, and makes the case that even though it is not specifically in the...
In this opinion piece Robert Reich imagines one scenario where the Trump presidency could be annulled, and makes the case that even though it is not specifically in the Constitution, the Constitution gives the SC power to declare laws null and void, so there is nothing stopping them from declaring all laws passed during Trump's admin null and void.
The 2016 election was the first federal election I voted in, and I gotta say it hasn't been terribly encouraging for participation in further politics. I know that voting is important, but when...
The 2016 election was the first federal election I voted in, and I gotta say it hasn't been terribly encouraging for participation in further politics. I know that voting is important, but when the government is this much of a shitshow its hard to maintain the stance that I can do anything to stop/fix these problems
The people that support him are operating on an entirely different set of standards. That disgusting display in the senate was gold to them, the debts and lies hardly register (or simply don't...
The people that support him are operating on an entirely different set of standards. That disgusting display in the senate was gold to them, the debts and lies hardly register (or simply don't matter), and the conspiracy theories are par for the course. In fact those conspiracy theories are bonus points because he's even more of their guy now. As long as he supports their agenda everything that will eclipse everything else he says or does. It will be ignored, explained away, or praised. That's where we are right now.
I quite simply cannot fathom why people would be happy to see a politician lie on purpose. I cannot possibly think of a single reason why that would be a good thing. Edit: Christ, we even...
I quite simply cannot fathom why people would be happy to see a politician lie on purpose. I cannot possibly think of a single reason why that would be a good thing.
Edit: Christ, we even impeached a president over an inconsequential lie in the recent past!
He isn’t even supposed to be a politician! Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law and should ostensibly be apolitical. While that is generally an impossibility, it...
a politician lie on purpose
He isn’t even supposed to be a politician! Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law and should ostensibly be apolitical. While that is generally an impossibility, it is still the ideal that should be aspired to. Kavanaugh’s record as a judge, and his handling of this scandal clearly demonstrate his political affiliation and I have not hope that his political views will not affect his decisions.
I think I can help a little here. I'm generally conservative but lean libertarian. I'm not a straight line party voter, but a common chord among a lot of right wing people that I know, is that...
I think I can help a little here. I'm generally conservative but lean libertarian. I'm not a straight line party voter, but a common chord among a lot of right wing people that I know, is that they wanted someone that would fight back. George Bush was relentlessly made fun of for looking stupid (he kinda did, but that's beside the point), more recently, Joe Biden said Mitt Romney was going to put y'all back in chains. Republicans are tired of being called a racist, sexist, bigot... and so they found a guy that doesn't apologize for it. Personally, I found both our recent candidates abhorrent, but think we sort of deserve trump for failing to properly screen candidates. The race to the bottom with insults that is going on now, gaurantees us the worst type of person.
Edit: Whoops, I thought this reply was from a different thread. I guess what I wrote still kind of fits, though, so I will keep it here. I think you're illustrating my point about tribalism and...
Edit: Whoops, I thought this reply was from a different thread. I guess what I wrote still kind of fits, though, so I will keep it here.
I think you're illustrating my point about tribalism and how it is hurting the country as a whole. I'm pretty sure that most conservative/republicans are not majorly bigoted, but because the people who are bigoted also fly under that banner, everyone gets that label. Even though most of the party has disavowed David Duke, people still associate him with the Republican party. That is why it is so unfortunate that Trump won. Now the people on the Democrat side see an exaggerated portion of the Republican electorate as deplorable people - an evil force that needs to be stopped. The problem is so much deeper than just insults.
Serious question: What does that statement mean in this context? Is the problem really that there's a divide in political affiliation? Or that one side went nuts?
Our country is more divided than ever
Serious question: What does that statement mean in this context? Is the problem really that there's a divide in political affiliation? Or that one side went nuts?
Well, the real reason (in my view) for all of these agendas is that there's money it. Money that constituents will likely never see, but because conservatives in power can spin it as "This way is...
Well, the real reason (in my view) for all of these agendas is that there's money it. Money that constituents will likely never see, but because conservatives in power can spin it as "This way is our tribe's thing, and the other tribe can't take that from us", they get support over and over again. Divide and conquer
When I want to relax I read stories, usually fantasy/dystopians. I imagine what it would be like to live a day in the characters life. What sort of terrible decisions would I have to make and what...
When I want to relax I read stories, usually fantasy/dystopians. I imagine what it would be like to live a day in the characters life. What sort of terrible decisions would I have to make and what lengths would I go to for survival and freedom.
I’ve been spending less time imagining lately, because we’re living the plot right now. Some of the stories may as well be journal entries for how fucked up things continue to become. He should have never been voted in or selected, I’m afraid of how much more awful things can get.
Court packing needs to be added to the Democratic platform. I don't think it will, but it needs to be.
There was an article posted on Supreme Court reform the other day that actually approached this issue in a nuanced and (reasonably) balanced manner. I've argued in the past against poorly-conceived calls for court-packing, for exactly the reasons you outline, but there are ways to change the court that aren't ungodly awful ideas.
I loved that article. 27 justices, expanded court able to hear more cases. We could do it like three separate panels, nine justices on each. Task one with taking over for FISA and handling national security matters at that level. Let the decision of one panel be appealed to another. Major issues get the full court. Eighteen year term limits, no second terms allowed to avoid politicking for re-election.
Stacking the court isn't the answer. Reforming and updating it is.
I'd like to see Democrats issue the following ultimatum when they're back in power: agree to a Constitutional amendment, setting term limits on Supreme Court Justices, or sit back while we pack the courts. I agree that it's not a good look. I agree, further, that court packing borders on authoritarianism. But the current Supreme Court misrepresents the political composition of America, and despite that failing, we could be stuck with its current political alignment for another thirty years. A disappointing midterm -- or even Presidential election -- doesn't warrant a nuclear option. But for an unfair Supreme Court pick, all options are nuclear options.
Exactly. Court packing really should be used as an option of last resort; it's simply not a sustainable strategy. (Can you imagine if every federal court ballooned to twice its size, only to be further increased when the opposition party gained power?) Supreme Court reform is the real goal.
I personally don’t believe the Supreme Court should even exist, or at least not anywhere near its current form, so destroying its legitimacy is a Ok with me.
That said you’re right the optics have to be considered, but I’m not sure the number of people who would be alienated by court packing is greater than those than would be motivated by the democrats finally taking the gloves off.
E:
To electorate, the SC essentially invented its own function of judicial review. That’s fine, it’s a sensible function, but as is the case for so, so many things, the constitution wasn’t designed for it. The Supreme Court over its history has been a regressive institution designed to nullify democratic will. For every Roe there are ten citizens united Maybe you could have argued this was necessary in the eighteenth century (though I’m doubtful), but it’s so blatantly undemocratic in the modern world it’s absurd.
This is part of a broader pattern of failures that really gives me no hope for fixing things before complete institutional collapse occurs. The founders designed a republic ran by white property holders and no one ever bothered to change that, we’ve just tried to force a different system into the framework. And it’s failed, miserably. And how can we even attempt to fix it now? The founders have been deified, “origianlism” is viewed as a valid judicial philosophy instead of pure insanity and the partisan divide is unbridgeable. America will fail because it loves its institutions more than the values they claim to represent.
It’s literary, I suppose. Once the USSR collapsed and America was left virtually unopposed there was nothing left to hold it together.
Also, if anyone is a wizard who can magically enact constitutional change, here are my suggestions:
runoff voting
voting is done by mail and monitored for suppression and fraud. The electoral comission has broad power to investigate and if necessary enforce fair elections by force.
SC only exists to appeal lower court rulings
“constitutional review” is done by popular referendum
senate is gone, house selects the president (subject to popular recall)
massively expand the number of reps, districting is done independently with the mandate of not splitting communities between districts (so your rep hopefully actually represents you)
all elections are federally funded
lobbying is made as illegal as feasible without abridging the people’s right to petition
I'm surprised to say I actually agree with you for the most part. The US government has some fundamental flaws that will cause it to collapse if left untreated. The US Constitution has many flaws and since those flaws benefit those in power, they are almost impossible to fix. It might actually take another civil war.
Oh man. Amen. I'm not American but this is one of the things that bugs me the most about a lot of Americans. They treat their institutions, the Constitution, their nation etc as a religion, follow it blindly, are crazy patriotic... But when it comes to actually understanding and following the ideals, few are there to ring the bell.
It's a lot like religion and Christians who would never in a million years be kind to their neighbors or give to the poor.
I have absolutely zero faith that this would have positive results. Yeah the Republicans are fascists but the Democrats are basically George Bush in 2000 at this point.
I would rather fight for socialism and fail than spend any effort on the Democrats.
I'm not proposing to abandon the democrats per se. I'm just not going to donate $20 to the war chest of another hawkish center left establishment democrats. If one says some good stuff, I'm open to it.
I said the other thing of course with Hillary Clinton in mind yes, but mostly with my local politics in mind. I am from Chicago Illinois and right now there are some pretty exciting prospects - most of whom are democrats. But right now the big race is between Bruce Rauner, an evil conservative billionaire, and JB Pritzker, a nice friendly relatable... patrician billionaire. Okay. Great. I hate them both. Neither of them is a path to socialism.
I'm fucking sick of swallowing the centrist's lines, hoping that maybe they might squeeze some money for social programs or something. But the Democratic machine in Chicago is maybe special so I won't pretend like it speaks for all areas of America.
Part of the problem is that Congress and the Senate are completely partisan at this point. So when you vote for one of the two billionaires, you are 99% of the time voting for their party. This includes a lot of the policies that their Democrat colleagues will push for.
OTOH if you don't, you are passively voting for their opponent, and the policies their Republican colleagues will push for.
So there's more to consider than the person themselves. This is broken of course, but until fixed you have to play along.
Sorry to say it, but this is such bull shit. People like to trot this line out when people discontent with whomsoever the dems run decide to vote third party and it makes me SO. FUCKING. ANGRY.
No I didn't cast a protest vote. I expressed my right to representation in this shit form of government. I refuse to be held hostage.
Maybe I voted or Nader because I think he'd be good at being president - not because I wanted to stick it to John Kerry and Al Gore. Ever think of that? Maybe I think Hillary fucking sucks. Yeah Donald sucks too and decidedly worse. But you're not going to blackmail me into voting for someone that sucks IMSO.
Usually it's something along the lines of "Ooooh you better vote for the democrat or you'll have a republican in office." Like bitch please what if I think the democrats suck too? NAFTA? "Superpredators?" Three strikes? Bail-out after 2008? These are all democratic presidential policies and they sucked.
Maybe if more leftists had the stones to not kow tow to less-of-two-evil-ism there would be less evil.
I don't know why you're so angry at me right now. I'm not trying to vote-shame you; voting is an essential right in democracy and you do what you want with it.
But, it's important to understand how to get what you want in a democracy. And sometimes, that means voting for things you don't agree with.
It's extremely important to understand that in a FPTP system, any vote that isn't explicitly cast for the person with the second most votes, has been cast for the person with the most votes. This is why FPTP sucks. If you want to fix that, if you want your voice heard, you will have to vote for someone who will replace FPTP. And if that someone is a third-party candidate... you might have to be creative about how to get them into office.
I'm sorry you folks are stuck with such a terrible system, but this is not a problem that's fixed by voting unstrategically and then complaining about it online. You have to use all the tools at your disposal: Media, Money, voting strategies.
Totally agree. Leftist Americans that don't vote Dem are helping the party most unlike them in hope that it will magically make things go in the opposite direction.
Like for heck sake, the system is stupid and nobody LOVES the Democratic party but if you support candidates that fit your ideology and when push comes to shove, vote for the one that matches you the most, progress is made. It's slow, boring, and hard. And it should be.
I recently watched an Obama commencement speech about this, a pretty recent one where he talks about the upcoming midterms. He was saying exactly this. Progress is progress and shooting for perfection while rejecting small steps is foolish. Maybe someone can dig up the speech...
Oh hey I am not mad at you. You just happened to make an argument that makes me really angry.
These are the only things I have to vote on. Occasionally I get a candidate I like and proceed to be shit on for not playing some two-party politic bullshit game.
I dunno I guess its hard to fully express how awful two party politics are. Yes, I understand the reasoning and why voting strategically matters but playing along just feels like complacency. Especially when the "liberal" half of the spectrum is actually a moderate conservative wing pretending to have leftist bents.
You can call this complaining but until you've lived it or something similar I'm just not going to be all that receptive.
I haven't lived it, but I do empathize and understand. As a European I especially empathize with how right shifted your politicians are and mourn the lack of a true liberal party in the US.
May I ask you why you vote? Most people vote because they want to enact change. But voting unstrategically does not bring in change.
Okay so I am a left libertarian (read academic anarchist). I vote becuase I think it matters. Yeah you don't affect change by voting strategically . but in American you don't affect change by voting and you don't affect change by voting strategically. That leaves voting your conscious.
An American socialist by the name of Debs once said "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it." That's basically why I vote.
I vote because it matters so me that in a legal, real sense I made the choice given to me that I wanted. Its not a matter of pragmatism. Voting for a politician I don't believe in is a degrading experience. I vote to not feel degraded.
Ah! Yes! This exactly. I always skip mentioning this because it doesn't feel like it could happen but that's part of the reason I vote 3rd party.
What on earth? This is nuts.
No, you don't instantly overthrow the currently established government with whatever your differing views are, but you absolutely, slowly, affect change.
Okay so I was being a little melodramatic. I merely mean to draw attention to the fact the democrats are not the great champions of the common person they try to sell themselves as being.
Okay well then let me ask you: Do you think the tea party would exist without Fox News and big moneyed interests that support it?
To be clear, I vote in Democratic primaries and share you views that we can effect who they run. In the primaries I try to get the right candidate in the race. If they don't make it to the general, I'm not going to vote the party line just cuz.
I really question that. A shift right in a two party system is very different from a shift left in a 4 or 5 or more part system. I occupy the far left. In europe I could "vote strategically" and just pick the farthest left, greenest party. In America, that's not the case. In America., national elections your choices are conservative centrism and the fucking mujaheddin.
Please understand that, although the US is not my country, its politics greatly affect me and I follow them closely. The shift towards the far-right that it's experiencing right now is influencing politics in Europe, and influencing the politicians that run here.
I posit to you that I have no ability to vote in US elections which so deeply and troublingly affect my home continent's and home country's politics. Your first-past-the-post system affects me, my family and my fellow citizens and none of us have a way to vote in it.
So your choice not to vote strategically does affect me as well. Again, not trying to vote shame you; your vote is yours. But please don't question my empathy in the matter. You are not affected by the way I vote; while I have to vote and I am affected by the choices made by a country whose voting system is rigged.
You're like SOOOOO close to getting where i'm coming from.
What makes you think I don't understand where you're coming from? You've been the only one declaring that I can't possibly empathize if I am not a US voter.
I've had this very conversation with family members, who allowed crooks to get elected because the opposition was "too boring" to vote for. I myself have had to vote strategically -- even though the French runoff system is better than FPTP in the long term, it suffers from the same issue of "throwing away votes" for candidates that stand no chance.
Look, I understand where you're coming from, and you have every reason to be angry. What I fear is that you're not open to understanding the mathematical consequences of your voting strategy. These consequences affect you directly, most of all, and your democratic voice will keep being stolen from you.
Understand that politicians have to deal with this game as well. Warren didn't run in 2016 because she didn't want to create a divide between Clinton's strong female demographic, and Bernie Sanders' strong progressive demographic. She is biding her time to run in 2020. And she has a good shot at winning, because she knows how to play the game, and that's part of politics.
Understanding the rules so that you may change them (hopefully for the better) is part of politics. Unfortunately right now, those who understand the rules best don't have the country's/world's best interests in mind.
Court reform, not (merely) packing.
The present court is too small. Expand it.
The current court hears too few cases. Multi-track cases. An expanded court, hearing cases in parallel, with smaller banks of justices, could hear far more than the 80 of 8,000 appealled or referred cases annually.
The current court's balance swings on a single President's appointments, affecting all cases heard, potentially for years, until the next appointment. By expanding the court, dividing the judges into panels, and randomly assigning and reconstituting those panels with time, the sense of a "sure thing" going to court, or even of a house advantage, is greatly reduced. The court may have an overall bias toward liberal or conservative views (or some other categorisation), but any given case might find itself in front of a minority panel.
The number of critical and closely divided cases is small, as noted below. The significance of those cases, both in terms of their impact on affected persons and businesses, and on increasingly partisan politics within the US, is far larger than the apparently minor occurences of same.
One of the criticisms of the present court is that it "comforts the comfortable, and afflicts the afflicted." I'd like to take Russell's argument one step further: Have the Supreme Court ride circuit again. Put the justices directly in contact with the people, out in the country, and with the visceral reality of trial court procedure.
https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/9btDjFcNhg1
That's two justices appointed by a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, confirmed by senators who collectively received fewer votes than the senators in opposition. Republicans changed the rules to ram their cronies through the process before the midterms. This minority rule can not continue.
Just under half the current court are appointees of presidents rejected by the popular vote.
Related: The Supreme Court's Legitimacy Crisis
Autocracy: Rules for Survival
Hear me out, but I think this was one of the best case scenarios for the Dems. If Kavanaugh had failed to be confirmed, the right would be whipped up into a frenzy for the midterms and show up in greater numbers to vote, likely killing any hope of a blue wave, especially for control of the senate. Now that he's in (as much as it sucks), red voters will probably not care as much as they would have otherwise or give into Trump apathy.
Now, Dems are whipped up even more for the midterms than solely about Trump. Hopefully this will translate to higher blue turnout and a reduction in red turnout.
It was a real long shot to prevent Kav's successful nomination given how the GOP controls the house, senate, and White House. We've seen the damage being done with that now. Stopping that from continuing should be priority #1, and that means retaking the senate. While that is also unlikely, it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Yeah, the dems could even impeach him, but it's highly unlikely that they could remove him from office in the near future.
Accelerationism is most of my hope, too.
Not American, and although I followed this a little bit I never quite understood why it is so bad that this guy could become a judge. So can anyone tell me - what kind of actual consequences will it have that there are five of nine conservatives in the supreme court?
One subtext to all of this is that Kavanaugh's nomination guarantees Justice Roberts as the median voter, by that I mean Roberts would be the vote that is most likely to be the deciding vote in any close case (where 5 sit on one side of the issue and 4 sit opposed to that side). 538 made a good visual and article on where the median voter has sat ideologically on the court over time (and who it was).
You can also see from other visuals in that article that Kavanaugh's background in his decisions is very conservative. We're talking just about Justice Thomas level conservative. For context, Gorsuch ideologically was seen to be an almost exact match for Justice Scalia, the justice he was being nominated to replace (though it's hard to see how Gorsuch can ever match Scalia's wit). These two justices, Scalia and Thomas, until 2016 made up the dissents and rulings that were consistently the most opposed to precedent and most conservative in terms of values being expressed within the rulings' arguments themselves. They each regularly joined each others' arguments, dissent, concurring or otherwise, and rarely only signed on to others' arguments even on relatively banal matters (instead filing concuring-in-ruling opinions regularly--basically saying "I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree with how you got there"). In other words, they were each (and Thomas continues to be) the most prolific justices on the court in expressing their views, especially in opposition to the other justices.
It's not yet clear from the one term how Gorsuch plans to situate himself in his arguments. He just finished serving the first full term in June, which isn't all that much data to draw upon. In that first term you have Gorsuch playing a Roberts-like role as a swing vote in at least one important case in favor of the liberal bloc of judges. In that same first term, Gorsuch wrote the opinion of five separate 5-4 decisions that broke against the liberal bloc of judges and voted in two more 5-4 decisions that broke against the liberal bloc (one of which had Justice Roberts replacing Justice Ginsberg in the opposition. Ginsberg agreed with the majority along with Gorsuch).
It won't be clear where Kavanaugh sits for a couple years or the first major Supreme court decision on a cultural issue since Trump took office (just in time for the full swing of the presidential election cycle). But we can already see that 5-4 decisions in favor of the liberal bloc of justices are already quite rare. With how Kennedy was viewed as a moderate judge (though his record in the 2017 term doesn't match that view), it's likely Kavanaugh will not play the role of deciding vote for a more liberal opinion on the court for ... probably ever. Does anyone even remember the last time Thomas cast a deciding 5-4 vote with the liberal justices?
Edited for clarity. Saw some really sloppy word choice.
To answer that final question it was in June 18, 2015, in one of the final cases of the 2014 court.
That's not a particularly easy question to answer unless you know what the role of the Supreme court is, which is itself not a super easy thing to quickly summarize. From a previous comment of mine:
They can overturn current law of the land decided by previous supreme court decisions. Decisions like the right to abortion or same-sex marriage are the most commonly cited. Their job is basically to interpret the law (they don't write the laws) and decide whether or not legislation is "constitutional".
I guess the only way we could reverse this is the unlikely possibility of a presidential annulment.
What do you mean by a presidential annulment? So far as I'm aware, even if it were discovered tomorrow that Trump was only appointed president because of actual hacking of voting machines, there's no mechanism for just undoing his presidency.
https://outline.com/V9YYdm
In this opinion piece Robert Reich imagines one scenario where the Trump presidency could be annulled, and makes the case that even though it is not specifically in the Constitution, the Constitution gives the SC power to declare laws null and void, so there is nothing stopping them from declaring all laws passed during Trump's admin null and void.
...so much for that plan then right?
The 2016 election was the first federal election I voted in, and I gotta say it hasn't been terribly encouraging for participation in further politics. I know that voting is important, but when the government is this much of a shitshow its hard to maintain the stance that I can do anything to stop/fix these problems
It really does matter, just not in every election, and there's little way to know beforehand, so please, for the love of god, vote.
https://www.sos.state.oh.us/media-center/press-releases/2018/2018-01-03/
Ridiculous bullshit
The people that support him are operating on an entirely different set of standards. That disgusting display in the senate was gold to them, the debts and lies hardly register (or simply don't matter), and the conspiracy theories are par for the course. In fact those conspiracy theories are bonus points because he's even more of their guy now. As long as he supports their agenda everything that will eclipse everything else he says or does. It will be ignored, explained away, or praised. That's where we are right now.
I quite simply cannot fathom why people would be happy to see a politician lie on purpose. I cannot possibly think of a single reason why that would be a good thing.
Edit: Christ, we even impeached a president over an inconsequential lie in the recent past!
He isn’t even supposed to be a politician! Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law and should ostensibly be apolitical. While that is generally an impossibility, it is still the ideal that should be aspired to. Kavanaugh’s record as a judge, and his handling of this scandal clearly demonstrate his political affiliation and I have not hope that his political views will not affect his decisions.
I think I can help a little here. I'm generally conservative but lean libertarian. I'm not a straight line party voter, but a common chord among a lot of right wing people that I know, is that they wanted someone that would fight back. George Bush was relentlessly made fun of for looking stupid (he kinda did, but that's beside the point), more recently, Joe Biden said Mitt Romney was going to put y'all back in chains. Republicans are tired of being called a racist, sexist, bigot... and so they found a guy that doesn't apologize for it. Personally, I found both our recent candidates abhorrent, but think we sort of deserve trump for failing to properly screen candidates. The race to the bottom with insults that is going on now, gaurantees us the worst type of person.
Edit: Whoops, I thought this reply was from a different thread. I guess what I wrote still kind of fits, though, so I will keep it here.
I think you're illustrating my point about tribalism and how it is hurting the country as a whole. I'm pretty sure that most conservative/republicans are not majorly bigoted, but because the people who are bigoted also fly under that banner, everyone gets that label. Even though most of the party has disavowed David Duke, people still associate him with the Republican party. That is why it is so unfortunate that Trump won. Now the people on the Democrat side see an exaggerated portion of the Republican electorate as deplorable people - an evil force that needs to be stopped. The problem is so much deeper than just insults.
Serious question: What does that statement mean in this context? Is the problem really that there's a divide in political affiliation? Or that one side went nuts?
Well, the real reason (in my view) for all of these agendas is that there's money it. Money that constituents will likely never see, but because conservatives in power can spin it as "This way is our tribe's thing, and the other tribe can't take that from us", they get support over and over again. Divide and conquer
I guess I'm just getting cynical about using "the divide" as a euphemism. It implies that the divide itself is the problem and not one side of it.
When I want to relax I read stories, usually fantasy/dystopians. I imagine what it would be like to live a day in the characters life. What sort of terrible decisions would I have to make and what lengths would I go to for survival and freedom.
I’ve been spending less time imagining lately, because we’re living the plot right now. Some of the stories may as well be journal entries for how fucked up things continue to become. He should have never been voted in or selected, I’m afraid of how much more awful things can get.