Democratic Debate #1 Thread (Night 2)

Actual presidents faced with actual crises can't just pivot and say "well, before I get to North Korea

You mean like going to G20 and finding out that all that adult talk is complicated and fucking off to Korea? ;)

Apparently she's an anti-vaxxer. I had no interest in anything she had to say after I'd learned that.

And enforce rules by actively managing mics.

The experience that Biden mentioned happened 47 years ago, so it doesn't inform Biden about healthcare in the same way.

He also talked about his son, who died in 2015 after years of suffering from brain cancer.

I've never heard of her before tonight, and all her comments smelled richly of someone practiced at sounding very smart while saying nothing of substance. Which to be fair, a lot of politicians do as well, but hers was next level. I can't recall a single detail about her position on any topic other than she wants to be president.

I think that there needs to be less active winnowing of the field (as an external force). Y'all seem not to remember that running a campaign takes money and donations that candidates can't sustain if they aren't getting donations. There is a built-in check that will force these candidates to meet the reality of their candidacy head on.

Now you can say "but any dollars that get donated to these candidates is wasted," but the people who choose to throw their money at these apparently lost causes have every right to do whatever they want with their money (especially since money is legally speech, thanks Citizens United). And in any case, the voters that support them might be less in line with democrats generally and alienating them may have a detrimental impact on trying to persuade them to vote for whoever the democratic nominee ends up being.

The Constitution is actually really vague about the makeup of the Court. It doesn't suggest a number of justices or how they're supposed to be appointed. Really the only stipulation is that they have lifetime appointments unless they fail to exhibit "good behavior" and their pay can't be docked. Almost everything about how the court works is a matter of norms and custom.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

So in theory, you can rotate people between the Supreme and Inferior federal courts since they're technically at the same status. The main proposal to do this is to keep the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court as they are, but to supplement with a rotating bank of Justices from the other courts to bring the overall count up.

As a matter of structure it's actually a good idea. Right now way too much jurisprudence is done based on the personal idiosyncrasies of 9 people and too much of our political stakes hinge on when the Reaper decides to collect. If you rotate the justices people can't tailor their cases/arguments based on who they will be arguing to, they have to make arguments that stand on their own and count on a random panel of judges to decide on it. It would, overall, just make the whole system an process more impartial and rational.

In practice though, like I said the Republicans have packed the lower courts too so I don't think this idea by itself will be enough to actually play the kind of legislative hardball we'd need to undo Republican ratfucking of our electoral system.

This general systemic weakness of the court actually one of the reason previous courts have been fairly reluctant to exercise any legislative prerogative, unlike high courts in other countries. They don't have real power, and they're usually aware that the second they step too far out of line of the other branches their influence evaporates in a flash. This happened before when they told Andrew Jackson to desist on relocating the Cherokee Nation. Jackson said the court made their ruling, but let's see them enforce it and pushed on with the Trail of Tears anyway. Nobody said shit because there was shit all to do about it.

John Roberts seems to understand this, which is why he's a bit cautious about undoing the New Deal and the Warren Court. But some of the other hardline right wingers, like Gorsuch and Alito, seem to think they can get away with more impunity. And who knows, a few more rulings undermining the possibility of free and fair elections and they just might.

They packed the Supreme Court too. Gorsuch sits on a stolen seat.

I don't think we agree completely - I do think he has enough experience to be president, he's just not currently my first choice.

I disagree. I think having an array of candidates with different ideas and backgrounds is good for democracy. We could just let the party put forth only their well oiled machines and have less choice. Do I like Marianne, no, but do I think she or another lower tier candidate has something to offer, yes. If nothing else they can force the machine to speak to issues they have dismissed. They should have broken this up into 4 debates.