Say goodbye to same sex marriage in the USA, and say hello to nakedly partisan rulings that attempt to hand as much electoral control to the GOP as possible.
Say goodbye to same sex marriage in the USA, and say hello to nakedly partisan rulings that attempt to hand as much electoral control to the GOP as possible.
Just in case there's anyone else here who needs to hear this right now: our marriages are not theirs to take. They can do whatever they want legally and they will probably try, but the...
Just in case there's anyone else here who needs to hear this right now: our marriages are not theirs to take.
They can do whatever they want legally and they will probably try, but the relationship between my husband and I existed before we had the right to legally marry and it will continue on even if they revoke that. My marriage is not dependent on or enabled by the law; it is merely recognized by it. The law might shift its standing, but that won't shift mine. It won't make me love my husband any less.
Maybe it’s ignorance or lack of imagination, but I don’t see the Supreme Court taking any cases that would undo anyone’s marriage. The only legal process I can think of that can undo a marriage is...
Maybe it’s ignorance or lack of imagination, but I don’t see the Supreme Court taking any cases that would undo anyone’s marriage. The only legal process I can think of that can undo a marriage is a divorce, so how could a case happen?
I think the likelihood of nullifying pre-existing marriages outright is extremely low, though not impossible. It's been tried before: when Prop 8 revoked pre-existing marriage rights in...
I think it's far more likely that they will chip away at recognitions. Right now my marriage is recognized in any state, so when my husband and I go visit my family in the south (assuming we ever can again safely), our marriage is still valid there. If they re-allow states the option to not recognize them, there's a good chance that I'd be considered married to my husband in our current state while simultaneously considered single in my home state. If we were to visit together, any legal protections offered by marriage wouldn't necessarily be afforded to us.
Prior to widespread marriage, one of the saddest and lesser known discriminations gay couples faced was denial of hospital visitation rights. This was particularly noteworthy during the AIDS crisis, when many people were prevented from seeing their dying partners given that they had no familial or legal connection. There's a particularly famous case from 2007 where Janice Langbehn was prevented from seeing her partner before she died, and this one was particularly heartbreaking because their kids were with her, and they too were denied from seeing their mother.
Even without outright nullification of my marriage, it's very possible for them to erode it by allowing discrimination at different levels. I think this is the more likely path they'll take, angling it under "religious freedom". It's not that my marriage will suddenly go away, but I fully expect it'll be put back on shakier ground. After all, it wasn't that long ago that 31 states outright amended their constitutions to ban people like me from marrying my husband. While we've made a lot of progress, I'm under no illusions that everyone is on board with people like me, and I also know that people who don't like me are more than willing to enact such discrimination legally or even illegally in whatever ways they can. Prior to the Obergefell ruling which forced things unilaterally forward in a very powerful way, they did openly discriminate and were generally pretty successful at it. My current marriage, which is acknowledged federally and by all fifty states right now, would be invalid in over half the country if we turn the clock back just six years.
If you look at the voting breakdowns in that Wikipedia page, you'll see that a lot of the gay marriage bans passed with flying colors. These were not slim majorities that squeaked by; these were unequivocally clear referendums on the idea that my husband and I were undeserving of such recognition. Large majorities, millions upon millions of voters, went on record not just to assert that we shouldn't have a right to marriage, but they did so with the strongest of statements: by codifying it into their founding documents.
While things have undoubtedly improved since then, I know that those contingents who voted against people like me are still quite large, and I know that they also, on account of current political norms, feel more emboldened than they ever have.
I get the sense that a lot of people think that the idea that people might actually roll back LGBT protections or support is borderline alarmist, and I get that nearly everything now has a bit of "the sky is falling" quality to it, but I think when people like me say we're worried, we're generally speaking from a well-earned pessimism. For years I watched the nature of my relationship be put to vote across the country and, for years, different parts of my country told me over and over again that my love was undeserving.
I used to spend a lot of time fretting over that, because it hurt. It hurt a lot. It was a long time before I realized that my dignity and worth are not contingent on the outcome of a vote. For a long time I lived my life on borrowed ground, asking myself "what can I do to get them to like me?" This is the wrong question to be asked when you yourself are being voted on. The right question is: "what have the people who are trying to determine my life done to earn my trust?" And, right now, as a gay man in America, I can't say that this country has my trust. Not yet.
I'm doing a lot of conjecture here, but depending on the specific case brought before the court (I don't know of any currently pending that address this topic) they could rule that same sex...
I'm doing a lot of conjecture here, but depending on the specific case brought before the court (I don't know of any currently pending that address this topic) they could rule that same sex couples do not have a right to marry, and that all current such marriages are nullified. What that actually means from a practical standpoint is mostly relevant in legal contexts. The special legal privileges assigned to a spouse would no longer apply. Medical decision making and etc.
In a spiritual sense, you are 100% right. And I agree. The law doesn't get to say who or how any people love one another. But in a practical sense, it does matter. They can make it harder to see...
My marriage is not dependent on or enabled by the law; it is merely recognized by it. The law might shift its standing, but that won't shift mine. It won't make me love my husband any less.
In a spiritual sense, you are 100% right. And I agree. The law doesn't get to say who or how any people love one another.
But in a practical sense, it does matter. They can make it harder to see your husband when he's in the hospital or make your life hell if something happens to one of you and his family decides he shouldn't get your inheritance. Marriage laws give a lot of rights to spouses that are extremely important in critical times.
All of these things can just increase the "otherness" of the LGBTQ+ community and make it easier for people to write them off as less than or justify their (mis)treatment of them.
Yeah, I very much agree (see my message downthread where I go into a bit more about that), and I don't intend my comment to downplay anything. I simply wanted to affirm, in the face of some darker...
Yeah, I very much agree (see my message downthread where I go into a bit more about that), and I don't intend my comment to downplay anything. I simply wanted to affirm, in the face of some darker practical concerns, the spirit that underlies them.
I didn't take it as you downplaying it at all. I really agree with the spirit of your argument that you don't need the government (or anyone else) to tell you how you feel about another person.
I didn't take it as you downplaying it at all. I really agree with the spirit of your argument that you don't need the government (or anyone else) to tell you how you feel about another person.
This just makes me so angry for a few reasons. She's so incredibly unqualified. To me this, more than anything else, is actually weakening the image of the Supreme Court the most. What started...
This just makes me so angry for a few reasons.
She's so incredibly unqualified. To me this, more than anything else, is actually weakening the image of the Supreme Court the most. What started with Kavanaugh now seems complete. Growing up the court to me actually felt like a hallowed chamber. The decisions made there were above politics and partisanship, even if the views of members of the court also agreed with the views of certain political parties.
A 6-3 majority is huge, Thomas and Alito are both in their early 70s (Breyer is 82, so hopefully will step down assuming Dems take president + senate), so realistically should be around for another 15+ years easily if needed. In my mind, this means the only way the balance of the court is restored assuming no other changes are made, is if the Dems manage to hold the Senate for the next 20 years. Unfortunately if there's another Republican President/Senate combo in the near future I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to talk Thomas and Alito in to retiring early so they can appoint younger judges in their place.
Honestly though, that's not what upsets me the most. As shitty as it is, it's expected, and realistically if Clinton had been elected and we had a Democratic senate I would have been pushing for justices to retire so we can nominate some younger justices, I can at least understand it, even if it pisses me off.
No, what makes me upset the most is how blatantly partisan and power hungry this move has been. They nominated and confirmed a justice in less than 2 months. While poll after poll stated that the majority of the country believes that whoever wins this next election should get to nominate the justice (which could still have been Trump.), while they failed to pass any sort of COVID relief to the millions and millions of people who are struggling every day. Hell, I would have been a tiny bit less angry if they had even waited until the lame duck session (assuming they passed coronavirus relief before election day.)
But no, instead they rammed this through in record time. Which in a way gives me hope, it tells me that the Republicans in the senate don't believe they have a chance in hell at winning a fair election.
Oh, and to top it all off McConnell has sent the Senate home on break until after the Election, again without passing any relief. I truly hope that everyone is paying attention at how little the party in majority right now cares about the people they are supposed to represent.
I think it's incredibly likely that the Democrats turn to court packing sometime in the next presidency or two. The alternative, just letting a 6-3 conservative court exist for 20+ years seems...
I think it's incredibly likely that the Democrats turn to court packing sometime in the next presidency or two.
The alternative, just letting a 6-3 conservative court exist for 20+ years seems like a losing proposition.
My concern is that the Democrats have a history of not doing anything in the name of bipartisanship. Also, at this point I don't think it's packing the courts so much as balancing or expanding.
My concern is that the Democrats have a history of not doing anything in the name of bipartisanship.
Also, at this point I don't think it's packing the courts so much as balancing or expanding.
Also, let's just make the Supreme Court make all decisions unanimously instead of by a majority vote. Especially if there's no prolonged break once deliberation starts. Bet partisan hackery falls...
Also, let's just make the Supreme Court make all decisions unanimously instead of by a majority vote.
Especially if there's no prolonged break once deliberation starts. Bet partisan hackery falls by the wayside real quick after 48 hours without a solid sleep.
Have you ever tried to get a group of more than two to be unanimous about anything? There's always one asshole who makes it hard on everyone else until he gets his way because everyone else is so...
Have you ever tried to get a group of more than two to be unanimous about anything? There's always one asshole who makes it hard on everyone else until he gets his way because everyone else is so done with the whole thing.
This is a good observation, but consensus is a valid decision-making process. I actually use it for work a lot. It's not as hard as people think it is, particularly if the format of the discussion...
Exemplary
This is a good observation, but consensus is a valid decision-making process. I actually use it for work a lot. It's not as hard as people think it is, particularly if the format of the discussion is speaking from silence or a similar variation (see: Quaker meetings). The system requires some amount of good faith on the part of those involved, but it is not unreasonable to expect this level of decorum on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg and Scalia's erstwhile friendship is not just reflective of their personal characters, but of the attitude of the Court as an institution. Not that I've met them myself, but my perspective has always been that the justices have an appropriate level of mutual trust, concern, and respect for one another, at least to the extent that their legal disagreements are not actively issued in bad faith. As much as I resent their presences on the bench, I feel that this also applies to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett. Our recent appointee in particular has a lot of unpleasant opinions, but I don't doubt that she genuinely believes that interpreting the Constitution in a way that aligns with those opinions is what's best for the nation.
There is always going to be some politicking on the Court—the justices do not exist in a vacuum, and evidently wish for their vision to maintain strength in the form of future appointments, hence their strategically timed retirements. However, a group of nine people who have nowhere else to be promoted are nevertheless going to have a pretty unique outlook on what it means to work as a collective body. Requiring unanimity might initially result in the Court taking on fewer potentially controversial cases—why bother deliberating if it's inevitably going to end up in gridlock?—but I also feel that such a requisite would set a precedent (as it were) within the institution that is currently not expected. That is, it would force justices to re-evaluate the extremity of their positions in a way that may not be immediately visible, but nevertheless prioritizes moderation in the long run, particularly as new justices are appointed. Minority dissents would be replaced by "standing outside of consensus," which ends up being kind of the same thing anyway, in effect if not in technicality. The power to block consensus altogether would mean that a more tactful approach would be required to get anything done. And the Court, I am certain, is unequivocally interested in making some manner of decision in each of the many cases it adjudicates.
You'll have to forgive me for stepping beyond the internet cynicism bubble here, but I find the assumption that we're doomed for endless partisanship uninspired and unrealistic. If the Supreme Court found a way to remain more or less intact (even unantagonistic) during a civil war, it seems a little preposterous to expect so little of its modern iteration. Our current political climate, polarized though it may be, does not fundamentally preclude fair, nuanced, or even unanimous decision-making.
This isn't partisan cynicism. I literally had the college politics class where we tried to get perfect consensus on something truly easy to agree upon in a class of twelve, and there was the guy...
This isn't partisan cynicism. I literally had the college politics class where we tried to get perfect consensus on something truly easy to agree upon in a class of twelve, and there was the guy who stonewalled everyone until he had the majority of the power in the room simply because no decisions could be made without his vote. I make no statements about who would be stonewalling when, but to assume that a situation requiring consensus in governing would end in anything other than stonewalling seems... seems unrealistic, given the situation on the ground.
How many times in the last 20 years has the government been shut down temporarily because an agreement couldn't be reached about basic funding? How prevalent is the filibuster as a basic tool of government?
I don't know about endless partisanship, other than it's been the norm for the last 40 years and only getting worse. None of that precludes a change, but I don't see how we get there and I don't think that requiring consensus of the solution when there are such strong and misaligned forces in government.
You get there by constitutional reform and maybe press reform. The voters themselves aren't nearly as polarized as the politicians. Here's what you do: Remove the senate, we don't need that. Or...
You get there by constitutional reform and maybe press reform. The voters themselves aren't nearly as polarized as the politicians.
Here's what you do: Remove the senate, we don't need that. Or allocate senators according to population. Both chambers of congress are elected according to popular vote, having a local representative should be second to the concern of having a representative congress. If 60% of the people voted for anarcho-syndicalist senators, then you have 60% anarcho-syndicalist senators. Equal voting rights/powers should be a constitutional requirement.
Remove the electoral college. President is chosen by the popular vote.
Wherever elections need to be had by a certain margin, allow coalitions. President must be voted by 50% of voters? Alright, we'll allow coalitions of parties. Sanders can run against Biden and Trump without spoiling it. And if it turns out its a 20/40/40 split, Biden can come to a compromise with Sanders. Apply similarly for similar elections.
By now we should have broken the two-party system. This should relax the ridiculous partisanship a good bit. It should also shift power around a bit towards a more democratic distribution. I suspect this would already be enough to break the media bullshittery. But in case it is required, news organizations must not be allowed to lie. How you penalize this without censoring too much, I don't know. Maybe press accreditation?
Germany wanted to pass press restrictions in the 50s. The press organizations came together, voluntarily restricted what they can and can't do, and the law was never passed. The press council has a press code they enforce - usually this happens by forcing a member press outlet to print a reprimand in their publication. Minor infractions are dealt with more confidentially by just telling the outlet off. Clauses of the code include things such as: No discrimination, no corruption(clearly declare ads), stick to the truth, don't publish names of suspects, protect personal information. Looking at the german press, I'd say it's working rather well for us. Sure, we've got a shitstain of a national newspaper, but frankly, it wouldn't pass as a shitstain in the US I think.
The only problem with this plan is that sitting congresspeople would have to dethrone themselves.
The US requires unanimous decisions in jury trials and often it works, but hung juries do happen. There would need to be a procedure for what happens when the justices cannot agree. Perhaps the...
The US requires unanimous decisions in jury trials and often it works, but hung juries do happen. There would need to be a procedure for what happens when the justices cannot agree.
Perhaps the lower court ruling stands, as if they hadn’t taken the case? I think this would mean that the Supreme Court would make rulings much less often and be less powerful.
That 52-48 was closer than I thought it would be, and honestly closer than I feel it has any right to be. What the hell kind of world do we live in anymore? I did like Schumer's speech. I think...
That 52-48 was closer than I thought it would be, and honestly closer than I feel it has any right to be.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) advised his ranks to limit time in the chamber because of the virus.
What the hell kind of world do we live in anymore?
I did like Schumer's speech. I think it's a horrible sign that we have a new justice who was just promoted on her qualifications without having to justify any positions on anything, especially since it'll be stuff that's thrown in front of a heavily conservative SCOTUS. Yeah, we need the most qualified person for the job, but when your job is to interpret laws that affect the whole nation, your ideology and values matter, and it's my impression she didn't have to account for that during the investigation, despite the Democrats' best efforts.
I had no doubt she'd get it, and after making the mistake of being optimistic in 2016 I'm under no illusion about how bad this is going to be in the long run. Guys like Mitch McConnell are going...
I had no doubt she'd get it, and after making the mistake of being optimistic in 2016 I'm under no illusion about how bad this is going to be in the long run. Guys like Mitch McConnell are going to write it off as lefty catastrophizing, like I even tried to in 2016 in denial about how things were shaping up, while not being significantly affected by the resulting changes in policy.
Yes, that's basically how Susan Collins has managed to remain a senator for so long. Maybe she used to be more liberal, maybe she's always been playing this game, I don't know, but being from...
Yes, that's basically how Susan Collins has managed to remain a senator for so long.
Maybe she used to be more liberal, maybe she's always been playing this game, I don't know, but being from Maine originally I know plenty of Democrats who over the years have voted for her because they liked her.
The last 4 years of Trump have made it abundantly clear that she no longer cares for the people she represents and I don't know of a single democrat who still supports her (not to say they don't exist.)
Say goodbye to same sex marriage in the USA, and say hello to nakedly partisan rulings that attempt to hand as much electoral control to the GOP as possible.
Just in case there's anyone else here who needs to hear this right now: our marriages are not theirs to take.
They can do whatever they want legally and they will probably try, but the relationship between my husband and I existed before we had the right to legally marry and it will continue on even if they revoke that. My marriage is not dependent on or enabled by the law; it is merely recognized by it. The law might shift its standing, but that won't shift mine. It won't make me love my husband any less.
In the words of my favorite song, from my favorite songwriter: "If they take it away again someday, this beautiful thing won't change."
Maybe it’s ignorance or lack of imagination, but I don’t see the Supreme Court taking any cases that would undo anyone’s marriage. The only legal process I can think of that can undo a marriage is a divorce, so how could a case happen?
I think the likelihood of nullifying pre-existing marriages outright is extremely low, though not impossible. It's been tried before: when Prop 8 revoked pre-existing marriage rights in California, its proponents tried to void the marriages that were passed before it went into effect.
I think it's far more likely that they will chip away at recognitions. Right now my marriage is recognized in any state, so when my husband and I go visit my family in the south (assuming we ever can again safely), our marriage is still valid there. If they re-allow states the option to not recognize them, there's a good chance that I'd be considered married to my husband in our current state while simultaneously considered single in my home state. If we were to visit together, any legal protections offered by marriage wouldn't necessarily be afforded to us.
Prior to widespread marriage, one of the saddest and lesser known discriminations gay couples faced was denial of hospital visitation rights. This was particularly noteworthy during the AIDS crisis, when many people were prevented from seeing their dying partners given that they had no familial or legal connection. There's a particularly famous case from 2007 where Janice Langbehn was prevented from seeing her partner before she died, and this one was particularly heartbreaking because their kids were with her, and they too were denied from seeing their mother.
Even without outright nullification of my marriage, it's very possible for them to erode it by allowing discrimination at different levels. I think this is the more likely path they'll take, angling it under "religious freedom". It's not that my marriage will suddenly go away, but I fully expect it'll be put back on shakier ground. After all, it wasn't that long ago that 31 states outright amended their constitutions to ban people like me from marrying my husband. While we've made a lot of progress, I'm under no illusions that everyone is on board with people like me, and I also know that people who don't like me are more than willing to enact such discrimination legally or even illegally in whatever ways they can. Prior to the Obergefell ruling which forced things unilaterally forward in a very powerful way, they did openly discriminate and were generally pretty successful at it. My current marriage, which is acknowledged federally and by all fifty states right now, would be invalid in over half the country if we turn the clock back just six years.
If you look at the voting breakdowns in that Wikipedia page, you'll see that a lot of the gay marriage bans passed with flying colors. These were not slim majorities that squeaked by; these were unequivocally clear referendums on the idea that my husband and I were undeserving of such recognition. Large majorities, millions upon millions of voters, went on record not just to assert that we shouldn't have a right to marriage, but they did so with the strongest of statements: by codifying it into their founding documents.
While things have undoubtedly improved since then, I know that those contingents who voted against people like me are still quite large, and I know that they also, on account of current political norms, feel more emboldened than they ever have.
I get the sense that a lot of people think that the idea that people might actually roll back LGBT protections or support is borderline alarmist, and I get that nearly everything now has a bit of "the sky is falling" quality to it, but I think when people like me say we're worried, we're generally speaking from a well-earned pessimism. For years I watched the nature of my relationship be put to vote across the country and, for years, different parts of my country told me over and over again that my love was undeserving.
I used to spend a lot of time fretting over that, because it hurt. It hurt a lot. It was a long time before I realized that my dignity and worth are not contingent on the outcome of a vote. For a long time I lived my life on borrowed ground, asking myself "what can I do to get them to like me?" This is the wrong question to be asked when you yourself are being voted on. The right question is: "what have the people who are trying to determine my life done to earn my trust?" And, right now, as a gay man in America, I can't say that this country has my trust. Not yet.
Maybe in time, but definitely not yet.
I'm doing a lot of conjecture here, but depending on the specific case brought before the court (I don't know of any currently pending that address this topic) they could rule that same sex couples do not have a right to marry, and that all current such marriages are nullified. What that actually means from a practical standpoint is mostly relevant in legal contexts. The special legal privileges assigned to a spouse would no longer apply. Medical decision making and etc.
In a spiritual sense, you are 100% right. And I agree. The law doesn't get to say who or how any people love one another.
But in a practical sense, it does matter. They can make it harder to see your husband when he's in the hospital or make your life hell if something happens to one of you and his family decides he shouldn't get your inheritance. Marriage laws give a lot of rights to spouses that are extremely important in critical times.
All of these things can just increase the "otherness" of the LGBTQ+ community and make it easier for people to write them off as less than or justify their (mis)treatment of them.
Yeah, I very much agree (see my message downthread where I go into a bit more about that), and I don't intend my comment to downplay anything. I simply wanted to affirm, in the face of some darker practical concerns, the spirit that underlies them.
I didn't take it as you downplaying it at all. I really agree with the spirit of your argument that you don't need the government (or anyone else) to tell you how you feel about another person.
Barrett has never tried a case to verdict or argued an appeal in any court...
The single least qualified Supreme Court Justice ever.
This just makes me so angry for a few reasons.
She's so incredibly unqualified. To me this, more than anything else, is actually weakening the image of the Supreme Court the most. What started with Kavanaugh now seems complete. Growing up the court to me actually felt like a hallowed chamber. The decisions made there were above politics and partisanship, even if the views of members of the court also agreed with the views of certain political parties.
A 6-3 majority is huge, Thomas and Alito are both in their early 70s (Breyer is 82, so hopefully will step down assuming Dems take president + senate), so realistically should be around for another 15+ years easily if needed. In my mind, this means the only way the balance of the court is restored assuming no other changes are made, is if the Dems manage to hold the Senate for the next 20 years. Unfortunately if there's another Republican President/Senate combo in the near future I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to talk Thomas and Alito in to retiring early so they can appoint younger judges in their place.
Honestly though, that's not what upsets me the most. As shitty as it is, it's expected, and realistically if Clinton had been elected and we had a Democratic senate I would have been pushing for justices to retire so we can nominate some younger justices, I can at least understand it, even if it pisses me off.
No, what makes me upset the most is how blatantly partisan and power hungry this move has been. They nominated and confirmed a justice in less than 2 months. While poll after poll stated that the majority of the country believes that whoever wins this next election should get to nominate the justice (which could still have been Trump.), while they failed to pass any sort of COVID relief to the millions and millions of people who are struggling every day. Hell, I would have been a tiny bit less angry if they had even waited until the lame duck session (assuming they passed coronavirus relief before election day.)
But no, instead they rammed this through in record time. Which in a way gives me hope, it tells me that the Republicans in the senate don't believe they have a chance in hell at winning a fair election.
Oh, and to top it all off McConnell has sent the Senate home on break until after the Election, again without passing any relief. I truly hope that everyone is paying attention at how little the party in majority right now cares about the people they are supposed to represent.
I think it's incredibly likely that the Democrats turn to court packing sometime in the next presidency or two.
The alternative, just letting a 6-3 conservative court exist for 20+ years seems like a losing proposition.
My concern is that the Democrats have a history of not doing anything in the name of bipartisanship.
Also, at this point I don't think it's packing the courts so much as balancing or expanding.
You know what's better than 9 Supreme Court justices? 19 Supreme Court justices.
Also, let's just make the Supreme Court make all decisions unanimously instead of by a majority vote.
Especially if there's no prolonged break once deliberation starts. Bet partisan hackery falls by the wayside real quick after 48 hours without a solid sleep.
Have you ever tried to get a group of more than two to be unanimous about anything? There's always one asshole who makes it hard on everyone else until he gets his way because everyone else is so done with the whole thing.
This is a good observation, but consensus is a valid decision-making process. I actually use it for work a lot. It's not as hard as people think it is, particularly if the format of the discussion is speaking from silence or a similar variation (see: Quaker meetings). The system requires some amount of good faith on the part of those involved, but it is not unreasonable to expect this level of decorum on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg and Scalia's erstwhile friendship is not just reflective of their personal characters, but of the attitude of the Court as an institution. Not that I've met them myself, but my perspective has always been that the justices have an appropriate level of mutual trust, concern, and respect for one another, at least to the extent that their legal disagreements are not actively issued in bad faith. As much as I resent their presences on the bench, I feel that this also applies to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett. Our recent appointee in particular has a lot of unpleasant opinions, but I don't doubt that she genuinely believes that interpreting the Constitution in a way that aligns with those opinions is what's best for the nation.
There is always going to be some politicking on the Court—the justices do not exist in a vacuum, and evidently wish for their vision to maintain strength in the form of future appointments, hence their strategically timed retirements. However, a group of nine people who have nowhere else to be promoted are nevertheless going to have a pretty unique outlook on what it means to work as a collective body. Requiring unanimity might initially result in the Court taking on fewer potentially controversial cases—why bother deliberating if it's inevitably going to end up in gridlock?—but I also feel that such a requisite would set a precedent (as it were) within the institution that is currently not expected. That is, it would force justices to re-evaluate the extremity of their positions in a way that may not be immediately visible, but nevertheless prioritizes moderation in the long run, particularly as new justices are appointed. Minority dissents would be replaced by "standing outside of consensus," which ends up being kind of the same thing anyway, in effect if not in technicality. The power to block consensus altogether would mean that a more tactful approach would be required to get anything done. And the Court, I am certain, is unequivocally interested in making some manner of decision in each of the many cases it adjudicates.
You'll have to forgive me for stepping beyond the internet cynicism bubble here, but I find the assumption that we're doomed for endless partisanship uninspired and unrealistic. If the Supreme Court found a way to remain more or less intact (even unantagonistic) during a civil war, it seems a little preposterous to expect so little of its modern iteration. Our current political climate, polarized though it may be, does not fundamentally preclude fair, nuanced, or even unanimous decision-making.
This isn't partisan cynicism. I literally had the college politics class where we tried to get perfect consensus on something truly easy to agree upon in a class of twelve, and there was the guy who stonewalled everyone until he had the majority of the power in the room simply because no decisions could be made without his vote. I make no statements about who would be stonewalling when, but to assume that a situation requiring consensus in governing would end in anything other than stonewalling seems... seems unrealistic, given the situation on the ground.
How many times in the last 20 years has the government been shut down temporarily because an agreement couldn't be reached about basic funding? How prevalent is the filibuster as a basic tool of government?
I don't know about endless partisanship, other than it's been the norm for the last 40 years and only getting worse. None of that precludes a change, but I don't see how we get there and I don't think that requiring consensus of the solution when there are such strong and misaligned forces in government.
You get there by constitutional reform and maybe press reform. The voters themselves aren't nearly as polarized as the politicians.
Here's what you do: Remove the senate, we don't need that. Or allocate senators according to population. Both chambers of congress are elected according to popular vote, having a local representative should be second to the concern of having a representative congress. If 60% of the people voted for anarcho-syndicalist senators, then you have 60% anarcho-syndicalist senators. Equal voting rights/powers should be a constitutional requirement.
Remove the electoral college. President is chosen by the popular vote.
Wherever elections need to be had by a certain margin, allow coalitions. President must be voted by 50% of voters? Alright, we'll allow coalitions of parties. Sanders can run against Biden and Trump without spoiling it. And if it turns out its a 20/40/40 split, Biden can come to a compromise with Sanders. Apply similarly for similar elections.
By now we should have broken the two-party system. This should relax the ridiculous partisanship a good bit. It should also shift power around a bit towards a more democratic distribution. I suspect this would already be enough to break the media bullshittery. But in case it is required, news organizations must not be allowed to lie. How you penalize this without censoring too much, I don't know. Maybe press accreditation?
Germany wanted to pass press restrictions in the 50s. The press organizations came together, voluntarily restricted what they can and can't do, and the law was never passed. The press council has a press code they enforce - usually this happens by forcing a member press outlet to print a reprimand in their publication. Minor infractions are dealt with more confidentially by just telling the outlet off. Clauses of the code include things such as: No discrimination, no corruption(clearly declare ads), stick to the truth, don't publish names of suspects, protect personal information. Looking at the german press, I'd say it's working rather well for us. Sure, we've got a shitstain of a national newspaper, but frankly, it wouldn't pass as a shitstain in the US I think.
The only problem with this plan is that sitting congresspeople would have to dethrone themselves.
That sounds amazing. I hope we can get there.
The US requires unanimous decisions in jury trials and often it works, but hung juries do happen. There would need to be a procedure for what happens when the justices cannot agree.
Perhaps the lower court ruling stands, as if they hadn’t taken the case? I think this would mean that the Supreme Court would make rulings much less often and be less powerful.
That 52-48 was closer than I thought it would be, and honestly closer than I feel it has any right to be.
What the hell kind of world do we live in anymore?
I did like Schumer's speech. I think it's a horrible sign that we have a new justice who was just promoted on her qualifications without having to justify any positions on anything, especially since it'll be stuff that's thrown in front of a heavily conservative SCOTUS. Yeah, we need the most qualified person for the job, but when your job is to interpret laws that affect the whole nation, your ideology and values matter, and it's my impression she didn't have to account for that during the investigation, despite the Democrats' best efforts.
I had no doubt she'd get it, and after making the mistake of being optimistic in 2016 I'm under no illusion about how bad this is going to be in the long run. Guys like Mitch McConnell are going to write it off as lefty catastrophizing, like I even tried to in 2016 in denial about how things were shaping up, while not being significantly affected by the resulting changes in policy.
So long as the result is secure, often a party will be fine with letting some members in vulnerable districts vote the other way if it helps them.
Yes, that's basically how Susan Collins has managed to remain a senator for so long.
Maybe she used to be more liberal, maybe she's always been playing this game, I don't know, but being from Maine originally I know plenty of Democrats who over the years have voted for her because they liked her.
The last 4 years of Trump have made it abundantly clear that she no longer cares for the people she represents and I don't know of a single democrat who still supports her (not to say they don't exist.)
Get her outta there!
I would if I still lived there!
Don't worry, working on getting rid of Tillis down south.
Low-effort Reddit trolling seems to be surprisingly politically effective.