Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died(npr.org)
npr.org
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87
1,563 comments
There would seem to be precedent for this now.
Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
I'm curious: does anybody seriously think that if the positions were reversed that the Democrats would honor this?
Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump?
None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn't grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage.
Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you're going to have.
Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump?
None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn't grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage.
Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you're going to have.
The reason why this is not transferable to the Democrats, is because they haven't previously refused to hold confirmation hearings for an appointee solely on the basis that there'd be an election later that year.
If you're asking whether Democrats would have placed themselves in a similar position in 2016 if the roles were reversed, then the answer is no. I'd expect them to consider the nominee, and quite likely vote against - but they wouldn't stonewall until election.
If you're asking whether Democrats would have placed themselves in a similar position in 2016 if the roles were reversed, then the answer is no. I'd expect them to consider the nominee, and quite likely vote against - but they wouldn't stonewall until election.
But Democrats did try to nominate Garland in 2016, so now can they protest if Republicans put up a nominee now? Republican position may be inconsistent between 2020 and 2016, but if Reps now take position taken by Dems in 2016, how can Dems be critical if it?.
They can be critical of it precisely because of the republicans' hipocrisy.
Why would anyone believe Democrats would behave differently after they spent all of last year again threatening to pack the Supreme Court?
Has any elected democrat threatened to pack the supreme court, except as a response to McConnell reversing his position now that his party is in control?
You can't compare the senate majority leader with a random anonymous twitter account.
You can't compare the senate majority leader with a random anonymous twitter account.
Two top candidates in the 2019 primaries, both senators, one of whom is running for VP: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434533-warren-ha...
From their statements, it's hard for me to see a "threat". This is a threat: https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274.
"We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court, We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that." is...not.
Even still, your argument doesn't follow. Reacting to someone doing a thing you disapprove of isn't the same as instigating the thing. Your argument is that since Democrats disapprove of what Republicans did, and are considering taking action to undo and action they disapprove of, that they would have also done the act. That is very strange reasoning.
"We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court, We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that." is...not.
Even still, your argument doesn't follow. Reacting to someone doing a thing you disapprove of isn't the same as instigating the thing. Your argument is that since Democrats disapprove of what Republicans did, and are considering taking action to undo and action they disapprove of, that they would have also done the act. That is very strange reasoning.
Nobody should be talking about court packing. Sitting on nominations to gain tactical advantage might be a sneaky. But it’s something that’s been done forever. Expanding the Supreme Court for political purposes would be unprecedented and breaking a huge taboo. It is not at all a proportional response.
Refusing to vote on a nominee is also unprecedented. You've yet to acknowledge that in every other case the Senate voted. This time they refused to even put it to a vote. (And some senators considered continuing it through the entire clinton presidency, were she elected, I might add)
That's also a huge taboo, and for good reason. It prevents voters from making politically informed decisions because their representatives don't have actions on which to judge.
That's also a huge taboo, and for good reason. It prevents voters from making politically informed decisions because their representatives don't have actions on which to judge.
Supreme Court nominations were allowed to expire without action 14 times (out of 37 unsuccessful nominations) before Garland.
Indeed, but to find one in an election year you have to jump back to 1881, where Hayes proposed a Justice after the election had already happened. The confirmation lapsed. President Grant proposed the same justice and he was confirmed. Worth noting, Hayes also had a justice confirmed as a lame duck (William Burnham Woods).
[Edit: I missed lame-duck Millard Filmore in 1852 the first time around also]
Prior to that you had John Tyler in 1844, who had two vacancies in the court open up in his election year. He made 9 proposals of 5 different people, one (John C. Spencer) was rejected and then later re-proposed and withdrawn, one (Reuben Walworth) was proposed 3 times, withdrawn once and postponed or lapsed twice. One was confirmed. Another was proposed twice. So this whole thing was a complete circus, but even still congress did their duty and confirmed one of Tyler's picks.
Prior to that there was John Quincey Adams who, also as a lame-duck, proposed a nominee who was tabled. In 1828.
So the precedent, insofar as there is one, is that when an election has already happened, the other party can table it. Except that more often than not, that doesn't happen. In fact, it's really only happened twice, in 1828, and 1852, and then not in 1880 despite similar circumstances. And then 2016.
And again those cases were different: Adams had already lost the election, when he made the nomination. Fillmore is maybe the closest, even though it happened later in the year the election hadn't happened yet, but Fillmore also failed to be re-nominated, so in a sense he'd lost the election in the primary.
[To be extra clear, in most of the cases where a nomination expired, the same president had a nominee confirmed later (Eisenhower, Harding, Cleveland), so it wasn't a flat out refusal to entertain candidates.
[Edit: I missed lame-duck Millard Filmore in 1852 the first time around also]
Prior to that you had John Tyler in 1844, who had two vacancies in the court open up in his election year. He made 9 proposals of 5 different people, one (John C. Spencer) was rejected and then later re-proposed and withdrawn, one (Reuben Walworth) was proposed 3 times, withdrawn once and postponed or lapsed twice. One was confirmed. Another was proposed twice. So this whole thing was a complete circus, but even still congress did their duty and confirmed one of Tyler's picks.
Prior to that there was John Quincey Adams who, also as a lame-duck, proposed a nominee who was tabled. In 1828.
So the precedent, insofar as there is one, is that when an election has already happened, the other party can table it. Except that more often than not, that doesn't happen. In fact, it's really only happened twice, in 1828, and 1852, and then not in 1880 despite similar circumstances. And then 2016.
And again those cases were different: Adams had already lost the election, when he made the nomination. Fillmore is maybe the closest, even though it happened later in the year the election hadn't happened yet, but Fillmore also failed to be re-nominated, so in a sense he'd lost the election in the primary.
[To be extra clear, in most of the cases where a nomination expired, the same president had a nominee confirmed later (Eisenhower, Harding, Cleveland), so it wasn't a flat out refusal to entertain candidates.
If your claim is supported by that article you linked down below, it seems like a big stretch to refer to Democrats as a unified whole ("believe Democrats ... after they") when you're referring to three people, two of whom were engaged in ultimately failed campaigns for the presidency.
It might be more constructive to speak with precision about a claim of such import.
It might be more constructive to speak with precision about a claim of such import.
Possibly. There is a level of accountability that seems to happen with the Democratic party. Not to say absolutely but it has happened.
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusation...
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusation...
Throwing one of your own under the bus for political reasons isn’t what I’d call accountability.
And here's the example comment that highlights the varying moral compass that seems to exist in defining what one perceives as "thrown under the bus" vs "holding accountable". What are your political leanings, if you don't mind me asking?
My leanings are complicated. I’d boil it down to a mix of pragmatism and pro-rights. I’m pro choice, pro 2nd amendment, pro gay marriage, mostly for a small government, etc. I usually lean republican nowdays due to the democratic side of the aisle being more likely to actually take rights away.
I don’t think what we know he did deserved the punishment, especially the picture where he was pretend groping. Nobody would have batted an eye at it at the time.
I don’t think what we know he did deserved the punishment, especially the picture where he was pretend groping. Nobody would have batted an eye at it at the time.
Maybe not as what we hope accountability really means but it is slightly better than protecting your own knowing they did wrong.
McConnell has already stated that he will put someone up even though his logic would apply to this year.
In a normal government, precedent would likely be followed.
This is not a normal government.
This is not a normal government.
The precedent set was that the Senate can overrule the president. That precedent will be followed.
I don't think anyone misunderstands the situation - McConnell is going to do whatever is most expedient to get a Supreme Court composition that he likes. Any specific justification is mostly cosmetic - Senate has the power, and the controller of the Senate uses the power.
I don't think anyone misunderstands the situation - McConnell is going to do whatever is most expedient to get a Supreme Court composition that he likes. Any specific justification is mostly cosmetic - Senate has the power, and the controller of the Senate uses the power.
That was not the precedent. The precedent was to “allow the country to decide.” Drop the pretext. His side won. Screw the other side. Just have some integrity and own it.
Precedent means nothing. There's no law. Mcconnell just abused his power and will do so again with no regard for his past position.
It was hardly an abuse. It was business as usual.
It was a new rule, concocted at a moments notice, and discarded the moment it outlived its usefulness. That latter moment was today. It was the definition of abuse.
Please tell me the last time a democrat-controlled senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice for a republican president in an election year.
You are right, and shouldn’t be downvoted for pointing out a simple truth.
People are upset because the media played it up as such a miscarriage of justice, but the truth is the senate wouldn’t have confirmed him and so they didn’t vote for a hearing.
The Democrats of course can and obviously will do the same the next time they have opposition in the senate - and would have done the same, I’d bet, if the situation was flipped then.
I actually think many don’t understand this as it was really propagandized on Twitter, etc as some massive deal, but having the hearing wouldn’t have changed anything.
People are upset because the media played it up as such a miscarriage of justice, but the truth is the senate wouldn’t have confirmed him and so they didn’t vote for a hearing.
The Democrats of course can and obviously will do the same the next time they have opposition in the senate - and would have done the same, I’d bet, if the situation was flipped then.
I actually think many don’t understand this as it was really propagandized on Twitter, etc as some massive deal, but having the hearing wouldn’t have changed anything.
> but the truth is the senate wouldn’t have confirmed him and so they didn’t vote for a hearing.
This is not necessarily true. McConnell does this to protect his fellow senators from having to decide between party and state, potentially hurting their re-election chances if they side with the party. Majority leaders regularly stop things going to vote not because they wouldn't pass, but rather because it can create strife and bad feelings within the party.
This is not necessarily true. McConnell does this to protect his fellow senators from having to decide between party and state, potentially hurting their re-election chances if they side with the party. Majority leaders regularly stop things going to vote not because they wouldn't pass, but rather because it can create strife and bad feelings within the party.
Has an opposition senate ever elected a Supreme Court nominee in an election year?
I'm not sure this is really as relevant a question as whether an opposition senate has ever blocked a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. I don't have the answer to that, but it appears the last time a Democratic president made a Supreme Court appointment while Republicans held the Senate was in 1895, whereas the last time the reverse happened was 1987. So while we may not be able to say "the Democrats clearly wouldn't have done the same thing McConnell did" with surety, I don't think we can say that they clearly would have, either.
1987 wasnt the final year of the presidency.
Yes, i know. Neither was 1895. That was kind of my point. Let me try to frame this a hopefully better way.
People keep trying to argue that McConnell isn't being a hypocrite, he's just following precedent. But for that to be true, we need to (a) find a time before 2016 when the Senate prevented a Supreme Court nominee from even getting a vote on the Senate floor in an election year, and (b) the Senate needs to specifically cite the upcoming election as a reason. So far, no one seems to be able to point to that supposedly precedent-setting case. And that's before we throw in McConnell's new claim as of yesterday that such a precedent only applies when the Senate majority and the President are from two different parties, a condition which, it's worth noting, was never mentioned by him or any of his supporters in 2016.
In strictly legal terms, McConnell gets to do what he wants. But the claim that he was following some previously established norm by denying Garland a vote in 2016 but not denying a new nominee a vote in 2020 is simply a lie.
And that was my point.
People keep trying to argue that McConnell isn't being a hypocrite, he's just following precedent. But for that to be true, we need to (a) find a time before 2016 when the Senate prevented a Supreme Court nominee from even getting a vote on the Senate floor in an election year, and (b) the Senate needs to specifically cite the upcoming election as a reason. So far, no one seems to be able to point to that supposedly precedent-setting case. And that's before we throw in McConnell's new claim as of yesterday that such a precedent only applies when the Senate majority and the President are from two different parties, a condition which, it's worth noting, was never mentioned by him or any of his supporters in 2016.
In strictly legal terms, McConnell gets to do what he wants. But the claim that he was following some previously established norm by denying Garland a vote in 2016 but not denying a new nominee a vote in 2020 is simply a lie.
And that was my point.
Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan nominee, was confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 1988.
Anthony Kennedy was nominated in 1987. The spot was vacant for 18 months. Dems unanimously confirmed him.
Nominated in November 1987 and confirmed in February 1988. The spot wasn't vacant for 18 months once a reasonable candidate was nominated.
Sure, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed Reagan's appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1988.
Except the vacancy opened up in 1987, not an election year, and it was Reagan's third attempt to appoint someone to that seat.
I was responding to the request, "Please tell me the last time a democrat-controlled senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice for a republican president in an election year."
If you're trying to be thorough, though, you should probably mention that Reagan's first selection for that seat was controversial because of his involvement in the the post-Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre," as well as the general suspicion that he would try to reverse Roe v. Wade and other civil rights-related rulings of preceding decades. Reagan's second selection withdrew his name from consideration before even being nominated, so I'm not sure why he's even relevant here.
I get that you're trying to make a political point, but there's simply no evidence that Democrats would have behaved like McConnell's GOP (perhaps more aptly described as the post-Gingrich GOP) did in 2016.
If you're trying to be thorough, though, you should probably mention that Reagan's first selection for that seat was controversial because of his involvement in the the post-Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre," as well as the general suspicion that he would try to reverse Roe v. Wade and other civil rights-related rulings of preceding decades. Reagan's second selection withdrew his name from consideration before even being nominated, so I'm not sure why he's even relevant here.
I get that you're trying to make a political point, but there's simply no evidence that Democrats would have behaved like McConnell's GOP (perhaps more aptly described as the post-Gingrich GOP) did in 2016.
Democrats blocked Bork for an article he wrote 25 years before, which raised the libertarian argument of whether Congress should be able to regulate racial discrimination by private parties. It is to this day a challenging topic for even liberal libertarians, because those laws rest on a sweeping interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. But Democrats used that article to defame Bork as a segregationist. The second nominee withdraw his nomination after it came out he used marijuana, after what happened to Bork. So yes, Democrats were not in a position to play that cars a third time against a wildly popular sitting President.
There is ample evidence that Democrats would have behaved like McConnell did. For example, their threats to pack the Supreme Court in 2019. (After their threats to pack the Supreme Court under FDR gutted large parts of the constitution.) The fact is that Democrats don’t perceive conservatives as legitimate players in the political process. That’s why they continually raise alarm about conservative Supreme Court nominees, even though in 40 years of a conservative majority on the court, not a single major liberal precedent has been overturned.
There is ample evidence that Democrats would have behaved like McConnell did. For example, their threats to pack the Supreme Court in 2019. (After their threats to pack the Supreme Court under FDR gutted large parts of the constitution.) The fact is that Democrats don’t perceive conservatives as legitimate players in the political process. That’s why they continually raise alarm about conservative Supreme Court nominees, even though in 40 years of a conservative majority on the court, not a single major liberal precedent has been overturned.
The Democrats didn’t block Bork for writing an article.
Democratic “threats” made in 2019, post-Merrick Garland, have zero bearing on their hypothetical behavior in 2016, pre-Merrick Garland and the shattering of norms that his (non)hearings represented.
I’m not a Democrat, but, from the outside looking in, it doesn’t seem like they have a real problem with right-leaning politicians or judges. I can understand why they might not view those who seem to be pursuing a return to the pre-Civil Rights era as wholly legitimate, but they’ve adopted plenty of relatively conservative positions over the years (just look at the record of their current presidential candidate!). The American Left has only recently begun to show its face again, for example, after decades of absence, and the Democratic Party has long seemed to harbor more resentment toward that group than moderate conservatives.
I’m also not a demographer, but I don’t think many would consider a potential 6-3 conservative majority on the SC to be at all representative of the US population. To me, that seems like the real legitimacy crisis here, not whether Democrats think of conservatives as legitimate political actors (spoiler alert: I think it’s safe to say they view conservatives about as favorably as conservatives view them).
Democratic “threats” made in 2019, post-Merrick Garland, have zero bearing on their hypothetical behavior in 2016, pre-Merrick Garland and the shattering of norms that his (non)hearings represented.
I’m not a Democrat, but, from the outside looking in, it doesn’t seem like they have a real problem with right-leaning politicians or judges. I can understand why they might not view those who seem to be pursuing a return to the pre-Civil Rights era as wholly legitimate, but they’ve adopted plenty of relatively conservative positions over the years (just look at the record of their current presidential candidate!). The American Left has only recently begun to show its face again, for example, after decades of absence, and the Democratic Party has long seemed to harbor more resentment toward that group than moderate conservatives.
I’m also not a demographer, but I don’t think many would consider a potential 6-3 conservative majority on the SC to be at all representative of the US population. To me, that seems like the real legitimacy crisis here, not whether Democrats think of conservatives as legitimate political actors (spoiler alert: I think it’s safe to say they view conservatives about as favorably as conservatives view them).
You’re mixing up legal versus political conservatism, which are two very different things. I agree Biden is very moderate politically. But no Democratic Justice is meaningfully conservative legally (though Kagan displays a streak of it). In close decisions, the conservative justices routinely break ranks. (Roberts in the ACA case, Kennedy in Obergefell, Gorsuch in Bostock, Scalia in many 4th amendment cases, and in the video game first amendment case.) The Democratic appointees always vote as a block.
You’re wrong to say that Republicans hate democrats as much as democrats hate republicans. There is pretty much no liberal opinion you could say that would get you personally attacked at a federalist society meeting. There are a wide range of mainstream conservative views you’d best not say in a similar context among liberals.
You’re wrong to say that Republicans hate democrats as much as democrats hate republicans. There is pretty much no liberal opinion you could say that would get you personally attacked at a federalist society meeting. There are a wide range of mainstream conservative views you’d best not say in a similar context among liberals.
>third attempt to appoint someone to that seat.
That's called compromise, and it is how a government should function, but Republicans have lost all ability to do that and so we have stalemate after stalemate, no covid stimulus, no attempt to compromise on anything. Democrats are fine with compromise, to a point, but the republicans have to meet in the middle, not take their ball and go home like they always fucking do.
That's called compromise, and it is how a government should function, but Republicans have lost all ability to do that and so we have stalemate after stalemate, no covid stimulus, no attempt to compromise on anything. Democrats are fine with compromise, to a point, but the republicans have to meet in the middle, not take their ball and go home like they always fucking do.
Compromise? Democrats are still trying to delegitimize the election they lost 4 years ago.
Impeaching the president for an alleged offense committed while in office is not "trying to delegitimize the election," unless you're prepared to say Republicans were "trying to delegitimize the election" of Bill Clinton. Conversely, it is absolutely without question that there are Republican officials, like the president himself, trying very, very hard to delegitimize the 2020 election before it happens. And I would dearly like to see more Republicans, who used to be so damn concerned about preserving the rule of law, upset about that.
Oh I’m not even talking about the impeachment.
So the issue was that Reagan put up an acceptable, suitable candidate finally.
Whereas Mitch's philosophy is "no candidate will be entertained as being possibly acceptable or suitable".
Trying to drawn parallels between the two is grasping at best, disingenuous at worst.
Whereas Mitch's philosophy is "no candidate will be entertained as being possibly acceptable or suitable".
Trying to drawn parallels between the two is grasping at best, disingenuous at worst.
Did you view it as an abuse of power when Harry Reid invoked the 'nuclear option' on filibuster?
Did you view it as an abuse of power when Republicans filibustered Obama's nominees, making the nuclear option the only option?
No, and No. This is how the Senate works. What people are crying about right now is a standard of proceduralism that is completely made up and has never, ever been what either party believed in. Do you want to win? Good, welcome to democracy.
It's not. Mcconnell in 2016 declared it improper to vote on a nominee in an election year and now he says it can be done less than 6 weeks before an election. Yes it is within his authority and breaks no laws but the US Senate has traditions of decorum and fairness that he is trading for a short term win to the detriment of the country. We can't send him to jail but we can certainly be upset.
In 2016 the senate and the White House were held by different parties. Since SCOTUS nominations come from the executive, and are seated with advice and consent of the Senate, what McConnell did is not only normal it’s perfectly in line with a century of precedent. The idea that it was out of line, or against some nonexistent norm, is a narrative invented to make people feel better and discredit the court in the eyes of the public.
Prior to this Senate session, SC nominees could be filibustered. And every nomination prior to Brett Kavanaugh had bipartisan votes. The Senate is as responsible as the President for keeping the SC staffed with competent jurists. The role is meant to be apolitical. The first salvo was the nomination of Robert Bork by Reagan. He was a terrible choice but was replaced by Kennedy who was confirmed 97-0. Even Clarence Thomas got 11 Dems to vote for him. Mcconnell refused to even hold hearings for Garland or take a committee vote. That's an abdication of his duty.
Again, there is no "duty" here. The Senate is not subservient to the executive branch. This "norm" has been invented out of thin air.
Since the Senate was held by a different party, senators could have voted against Obama's candidate, couldn't they? But they didn't; rather, Garland wasn't ever brought to the Senate for a confirmation vote.
Because McConnell didn't care a bit about the people expressing the next Justice, he was more simply scared as fuck of losing that vote despite theoretically having a majority.
Since this is HN I will paraphrase Bryan Cantrill: "Do not fall into the trap of trying to anthropomorphize McConnell. You need to think of him the way you think of a lawnmower".
Because McConnell didn't care a bit about the people expressing the next Justice, he was more simply scared as fuck of losing that vote despite theoretically having a majority.
Since this is HN I will paraphrase Bryan Cantrill: "Do not fall into the trap of trying to anthropomorphize McConnell. You need to think of him the way you think of a lawnmower".
McConnell was given the power to do that by the rest of the Senators who put him in that position.
The narrative that Garland would have been confirmed if only he’d gotten a vote assumes that McConnell didn’t have the support of his caucus in what he did. That’s an incorrect assumption. They could have removed him and done what they wanted to do if there was some groundswell of support for Garland in the Republican Party. There wasn’t, they supported McConnell, and Garland wasn’t brought to a vote. That’s just how politics works.
The narrative that Garland would have been confirmed if only he’d gotten a vote assumes that McConnell didn’t have the support of his caucus in what he did. That’s an incorrect assumption. They could have removed him and done what they wanted to do if there was some groundswell of support for Garland in the Republican Party. There wasn’t, they supported McConnell, and Garland wasn’t brought to a vote. That’s just how politics works.
If you think McConnell has a shred of honor or cares one whiff about not being a hypocrite I have a bridge to sell you.
His point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time.
That's the way he's reframing the point now. There was no mention from 2016 that I can find where he mentioned anything about opposite parties: his argument was entirely "it's too close to the election and the next president should be the one who gets to appoint the next Justice."
That's what was given to him in 2016 by the Senate which holds the power of giving or not giving a vote to the WH nominee according to the constitution:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SC...
Also:
1. Don't impeach a president in an election year.
2. If dems wanted their adversaries to respect unwritten norms, maybe they should have refrained from baselessly accusing the nominees of gang rape (Justice Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas).
3. A SC Judge vote needs BOTH WH and Senate. That was not the case in 2016 regardless of who said what. That is the case this time. It's the President's prerogative to nominate, and the Senate's prerogative to confirm.
4. This time, it would also most likely be a contested election. So not having a full supreme count will be a disaster.
Btw, I am NOT a fan of McConnell. But this case is very different.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SC...
Also:
1. Don't impeach a president in an election year.
2. If dems wanted their adversaries to respect unwritten norms, maybe they should have refrained from baselessly accusing the nominees of gang rape (Justice Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas).
3. A SC Judge vote needs BOTH WH and Senate. That was not the case in 2016 regardless of who said what. That is the case this time. It's the President's prerogative to nominate, and the Senate's prerogative to confirm.
4. This time, it would also most likely be a contested election. So not having a full supreme count will be a disaster.
Btw, I am NOT a fan of McConnell. But this case is very different.
If you think McConnell has a monopoly on hypocrisy I have a bridge to sell you as well. McConnell took both sides of the argument (delay when convenient, expedite when convenient), the democrats opposed him on both occasions. If this was a moral discussion, then both parties are equally guilty of hypocrisy.
Now if you think that political appointments are a moral matter rather than a balance of power within the constitution matter, it's not a bridge that I have to sell you, it's a planet.
Now if you think that political appointments are a moral matter rather than a balance of power within the constitution matter, it's not a bridge that I have to sell you, it's a planet.
I think the problem is that you cannot use one strategy one time, and another the next. If he’d elected to delay like before, nobody would have complained. If he’d not sabotaged the last nomination, nobody would have complained now either.
The democrats would have complained if it was under a democrat president. I don’t believe a single second that this is about principles.
Using hypotheticals to rebut actual history and facts is very 21st century GOP.
McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.
Honest at least.
And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...
Biden didn’t just suggest the idea, he was also citing historical practice!
Biden's speech was just saying that the nomination shouldn't happen during an election. I don't think he ever said it couldn't happen during a lame duck session of the Senate.
Let’s be clear. A lame duck is one that has been shot, is still in flight, but is headed down. In politics, it refers to after a sitting representative loses an election (or term limit ends) but before before the term ends.
Obama was not a lame duck when Scalia died. McConnell et al redefined the term to suit their needs. As they will no doubt redefine it now.
Obama was not a lame duck when Scalia died. McConnell et al redefined the term to suit their needs. As they will no doubt redefine it now.
He was just saying that the nomination should not happen during an election year and then he expands that he won't consider conservative nominees from the conservative i.e. different party president. It's just 4 minute video of several speech fragments, does not take long to watch and be informed.
So we are in agreement. Trump should not appoint.
June 1992, quite a bit ways past February.
There's always another election coming up.
There's always another election coming up.
Source?
(Not saying you're wrong. If I repeat something, I like to have direct sources)
(Not saying you're wrong. If I repeat something, I like to have direct sources)
https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea...
He’s basically that the partisan makeup of the Senate as of the most recent election should be the controlling factor.
It has the veneer of a neutral rule, and that’s all they need.
He’s basically that the partisan makeup of the Senate as of the most recent election should be the controlling factor.
It has the veneer of a neutral rule, and that’s all they need.
you forgot "and is after 1890" since he is ignoring the contradictory cases before then.
He tweeted it today
https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516...
https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516...
That is, in fact, the actual practice. The constitution splits the appointment between the presidency and the senate. When the same party controls both, vacancies are filled immediately. Otherwise, the party controlling the senate can exercise its heckler’s veto: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid...
What happened with Garland had happened numerous times before:
> In short: There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election.
By contrast, if Trump doesn’t put up a nominee, it will be literally unprecedented.
What happened with Garland had happened numerous times before:
> In short: There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election.
By contrast, if Trump doesn’t put up a nominee, it will be literally unprecedented.
The proper response to this cynical argument is to pack the court.
How is it “cynical” to point out that where a split senate/presidency exists in an election year, the senate has historically used its confirmation authority to postpone filling the vacancy?
And the response is to demand something that actually would be unprecedented: packing the senate? Which only Democrats have done before, under circumstances where it was obviously to coerce the Supreme Court into deciding cases differently. Acting like Democrats hold the moral high ground here is utterly absurd.
And the response is to demand something that actually would be unprecedented: packing the senate? Which only Democrats have done before, under circumstances where it was obviously to coerce the Supreme Court into deciding cases differently. Acting like Democrats hold the moral high ground here is utterly absurd.
So if norms don't matter (as you, McConnel, and Trump seem to argue), the Democrats ought to pack the court, no?
"the senate has historically" means that is literally the "norms"
There are lots of things to argue but that isn't one of them.
There are lots of things to argue but that isn't one of them.
So would you be ok if Republicans won this election and then packed the Supreme Court?
No. I would not be happy about it. But I fully expect them to do it. There are no longer norms. Screw the country. It is every man for himself.
The republicans had the opportunity to do it, and haven’t...
Why would they need to pack the court? They already have a political majority, do they not? No need to break a norm when it confers no additional benefits (as the breaking of the previous norms did).
They didn’t have majority until recently, and according to Vox and many left leaning sites, they’ve voted quite liberally since.
Further, there’s this: https://thehill.com/regulation/454463-ginsburg-dismisses-cou...
Further, there’s this: https://thehill.com/regulation/454463-ginsburg-dismisses-cou...
If the Democrats don't hold the moral high ground, why is McConnell lying about his rationale? He didn't say "The majority can do what ever it wants, and that's moral", he made up rationales that change to as the facts do.
The idea that a Supreme Court opening should never be filled when the President and Senate are opposing parties is utterly absurd.
It's true that the Constitution wasn't written like Ethereum to preclude all attempts to undermine it with bullshittery like refusing to even put matters up to a vote. That doesn't mean it's at all moral to ignore it.
Also, was "Packing the Senate" a typo? FDR threatened but did not pack the Court. "Packing the Senate" is a Republican tradition (not that the parties mean much consistently, going back centuries), which even a blatant partisan couldn't avoid admitting:
https://www.newsmax.com/michaeldorstewitz/democracy-republic...
And slaveholders (the spiritual inspiration of modern Republicans) had manipulated the Court to themselves since the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Circuits_Act
The idea that a Supreme Court opening should never be filled when the President and Senate are opposing parties is utterly absurd.
It's true that the Constitution wasn't written like Ethereum to preclude all attempts to undermine it with bullshittery like refusing to even put matters up to a vote. That doesn't mean it's at all moral to ignore it.
Also, was "Packing the Senate" a typo? FDR threatened but did not pack the Court. "Packing the Senate" is a Republican tradition (not that the parties mean much consistently, going back centuries), which even a blatant partisan couldn't avoid admitting:
https://www.newsmax.com/michaeldorstewitz/democracy-republic...
And slaveholders (the spiritual inspiration of modern Republicans) had manipulated the Court to themselves since the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Circuits_Act
rayiner(2)
Any Democrat who accepts a lecture about the "moral high ground" on the subject of the Supreme Court is the Republicans' useful idiot.
The Roberts Court disenfranchised millions of Democratic voters by gutting the Civil Rights Act. The fight over the Supreme Court's composition is a fight over pure electoral power.
It shouldn't be this way, but it is.
The Roberts Court disenfranchised millions of Democratic voters by gutting the Civil Rights Act. The fight over the Supreme Court's composition is a fight over pure electoral power.
It shouldn't be this way, but it is.
I totally concur. Double the seats on the bench.
Can we please stop talking about "precedent" when the last time was over 150 years ago?
For some perspective, there were only 31 states at the time.
For some perspective, there were only 31 states at the time.
[deleted]
What happened with Garland was new in that the Republicans refused to hold any hearing or vote on the matter. They did not violate any laws with their refusal, only norms. I don’t know why no nominations were made before Election Day in 4/10 cases; that may have been another lesser norm, or the vacancies may have been closer to the elections, or both.
In any case, the refusal was a further erosion of any semblance of working towards the good of the country with people of opposing ideologies. The same goes for the increased frequency of government shutdown threats and occurrences.
Really, if those practices had stood for so long on norms, they should have been codified into law already. But the Congress, regardless of party, doesn’t like to cede any power. It’s equally unlikely that if the Democrats take control they’ll do anything about it either. I’m vague on what it would entail—it’s been a while since I read up on it—but another hurdle might be that it would take an amendment rather than a law. Regulating what the Congress does is explicitly harder than making laws for the rest of us.
In any case, the refusal was a further erosion of any semblance of working towards the good of the country with people of opposing ideologies. The same goes for the increased frequency of government shutdown threats and occurrences.
Really, if those practices had stood for so long on norms, they should have been codified into law already. But the Congress, regardless of party, doesn’t like to cede any power. It’s equally unlikely that if the Democrats take control they’ll do anything about it either. I’m vague on what it would entail—it’s been a while since I read up on it—but another hurdle might be that it would take an amendment rather than a law. Regulating what the Congress does is explicitly harder than making laws for the rest of us.
Congress can't meaningfully restrict its own actions by passing laws: any law passed can be repealed by a future Congress by the same procedure as long as there are majorities.
Which isn't to say that there's no point in purporting to do so: you may hope to require a politically costly public vote (avoidance of which was a significant feature of the Garland no-hearing: with nobody else "on the record," outrage focused solely on the politically-safe McConnell). How effective this is isn't really clear though: voters seem to usually want "their side" to take full, uncompromising advantage when they are on top, and increased polarization means that the fear of alienating independents/moderates isn't as much of an issue, because there aren't any of them left.
Rules and procedures such as the filibuster are weaker still, as they require only a majority of a single house, and no cooperation from the President. We've seen that borne out as the parties out of power became more likely to use the Senate's procedures to stall the party in power, and the fairly quick recent dismantling of those procedures in a bipartisan fashion.
Constitutional amendments can do all sorts of things and their high barriers to passage make them solidly entrenched, but it's very difficult to imagine any issue commanding the necessary supermajorities to pass an amendment on any subject in today's America.
As for Democrats or Republicans in power after the election curbing this kind of partisanship, I wouldn't bet on it. There may be some pushes to try to codify
Which isn't to say that there's no point in purporting to do so: you may hope to require a politically costly public vote (avoidance of which was a significant feature of the Garland no-hearing: with nobody else "on the record," outrage focused solely on the politically-safe McConnell). How effective this is isn't really clear though: voters seem to usually want "their side" to take full, uncompromising advantage when they are on top, and increased polarization means that the fear of alienating independents/moderates isn't as much of an issue, because there aren't any of them left.
Rules and procedures such as the filibuster are weaker still, as they require only a majority of a single house, and no cooperation from the President. We've seen that borne out as the parties out of power became more likely to use the Senate's procedures to stall the party in power, and the fairly quick recent dismantling of those procedures in a bipartisan fashion.
Constitutional amendments can do all sorts of things and their high barriers to passage make them solidly entrenched, but it's very difficult to imagine any issue commanding the necessary supermajorities to pass an amendment on any subject in today's America.
As for Democrats or Republicans in power after the election curbing this kind of partisanship, I wouldn't bet on it. There may be some pushes to try to codify
The link does not support your claim (or its own). The Senate did not consider and reject Merrick Garland, it refused to consider any Supreme Court nominee by Obama.
Of course, I'm splitting hairs between "refused to consider" and "voted against". But it's similarly splitting hairs to say that the party of the president makes meaningful difference as well.
Frankly, there's no good faith interpretation of McConnell's stance here as anything other than (ab)using his power to shape the judiciary.
Of course, I'm splitting hairs between "refused to consider" and "voted against". But it's similarly splitting hairs to say that the party of the president makes meaningful difference as well.
Frankly, there's no good faith interpretation of McConnell's stance here as anything other than (ab)using his power to shape the judiciary.
> But it's similarly splitting hairs to say that the party of the president makes meaningful difference as well.
Of course it does! The Constitution splits the nomination/confirmation process between two political branches. The process is supposed to be political!
Of course it does! The Constitution splits the nomination/confirmation process between two political branches. The process is supposed to be political!
You have really insightful legal comments here most of the time but anyone supporting Mitch's 100% hypocritical stance on this is laughable.
He will do whatever it takes to hold on to his minority power. He did it with Obama and has already hinted ~2 hours after RBG died he'll happily do a 180 on his previous position this time around when he has the chance.
He will do whatever it takes to hold on to his minority power. He did it with Obama and has already hinted ~2 hours after RBG died he'll happily do a 180 on his previous position this time around when he has the chance.
It’s absolutely hypocritical, and if the Democrats has been in the same position they’d do the exact same thing.
Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't - time will tell.
But the argument that "it's OK for us to do it, because they would" seems a bit thin.
It's OK to loot this store because if I don't someone else will...
And it's OK to do anything I like as long as I can point a finger and say "but he'd do it too"
So, yeah, this is a textbook case of hipocrasy, but being hipocratic doesn't matter as long as we win.
But the argument that "it's OK for us to do it, because they would" seems a bit thin.
It's OK to loot this store because if I don't someone else will...
And it's OK to do anything I like as long as I can point a finger and say "but he'd do it too"
So, yeah, this is a textbook case of hipocrasy, but being hipocratic doesn't matter as long as we win.
In this situation in 2020, I agree, they would. In 2016? I don’t see the reasoning that they would have.
The reality of the situation is that in the US one party constantly pushes boundaries and test limits. The other party then adjusts to attempt to counteract that. Yet it’s sold as “both sides are just as bad as each other”
The reality of the situation is that in the US one party constantly pushes boundaries and test limits. The other party then adjusts to attempt to counteract that. Yet it’s sold as “both sides are just as bad as each other”
Democrats literally threatened to pack the Supreme Court so they could get expansive interpretations of the Constitution to push through the new deal. They are constantly attacking structural features of our government and institutions, whether it’s chipping away at federalism or creating fourth branches of government out of whole cloth.
The fact that you have to go back nearly 100 years to come up with an example kind of proves my point.
This is complete nonsense. Your comments on this subject seem to be 100% ideological not based in reality unlike most of your other grounded legal arguments on other subjects.
> Democrats literally threatened to pack the Supreme Court so they could get expansive interpretations of the Constitution to push through the new deal. They are constantly attacking structural features of our government and institutions ...
Court expansion hasn't happened yet, but if it does:
1. Them's the rules; sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. (Or: Live by the rules, die by the rules.) (Or: Karma's a bitch, ain't it?)
2. What you call the "structural features of our government and institutions" are meant to serve the people, not vice versa. It's idolatry to put those features on a pedestal and declare them to be immutable. Presuming adequate protection of genuine minority rights, it's not illegitimate for a democratically-elected government to use lawful means to try to restructure existing institutions in pursuit of the majority's felt political needs.
Court expansion hasn't happened yet, but if it does:
1. Them's the rules; sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. (Or: Live by the rules, die by the rules.) (Or: Karma's a bitch, ain't it?)
2. What you call the "structural features of our government and institutions" are meant to serve the people, not vice versa. It's idolatry to put those features on a pedestal and declare them to be immutable. Presuming adequate protection of genuine minority rights, it's not illegitimate for a democratically-elected government to use lawful means to try to restructure existing institutions in pursuit of the majority's felt political needs.
I’m curious which parties you’re referring to. Conservatives are called that literally because they want to conserve something from the past.
In this case, the left is marching forward with all sorts of new policies—often ostensibly to deal with a societal problem, but causing more problems because the policy does not derive from first principles.
In this case, the left is marching forward with all sorts of new policies—often ostensibly to deal with a societal problem, but causing more problems because the policy does not derive from first principles.
They wouldn't, because they never would have blocked a GOP nominee in the first place for 293 days.
> The Constitution splits the nomination/confirmation process between two political branches. The process is supposed to be political!
The founders explicitly said that they didn't intend the system to be partisan, and indeed warned against the dangers of partisanship.
Of course they themselves formed parties a few years later. They weren't as wise as everyone seems to think.
The founders explicitly said that they didn't intend the system to be partisan, and indeed warned against the dangers of partisanship.
Of course they themselves formed parties a few years later. They weren't as wise as everyone seems to think.
The power is split across branches, not political parties. And I think you're forgetting that Senators are elected in by the people.
I see a common irrational theme of "let's change the rules because they didn't work out in my favor this time". I don't understand the logic behind this.
I see a common irrational theme of "let's change the rules because they didn't work out in my favor this time". I don't understand the logic behind this.
Senators originally (prior to 1914) were not directly elected by their constituents... the founders set up the Senate to be the more "responsible" "Upper House"and were set to represent the interests of each state and appointed by each state's democratically elected Governor. The intention of senators having longer terms (6 years vs 2 years for House members) in addition to being appointed by each state's Governor and state legislature was so Senators would not be as directly affected by electoral politics and would be forced to actually work together. I think the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was in retrospect a pretty horrible decision that has not added much democratic value to our system.
Well look at how governors have been handling the pandemic. Most of them seem completely one sided in terms of their response, unwilling to compromise and stretching the limits of their power. There isn't a "let's see how it's working and adapt based on new information" mindset, it's a "my way or the highway" mindset. For example, I live in PA and our governor's orders were recently found to be unconstitutional[1].
If anything, governors should have less power, not more. Decisions should be made on a smaller scale, states are too big for a one-size-fits-all model. And I certainly wouldn't want governors hand picking our senators.
[1] - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/14/pennsylvania-j...
If anything, governors should have less power, not more. Decisions should be made on a smaller scale, states are too big for a one-size-fits-all model. And I certainly wouldn't want governors hand picking our senators.
[1] - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/14/pennsylvania-j...
Unsurprising, given the judge who found the orders unconstitutional was a Trump appointee. The past three and a half years Republicans have spent packing the courts seriously hurts the credibility of the legislative branch.
As an aside, Breitbart is one of the least trustworthy sources, and citing it does not help your argument.
As an aside, Breitbart is one of the least trustworthy sources, and citing it does not help your argument.
Do you think the orders aren't unconstitutional?
Details on why you don't like the judge and which media outlet I referenced (i honestly just googled the story and grabbed the first one I saw) digresses from my point. And fyi once you digress from the main topic and shift to sub-aspects (without actually addressing the main point), it usually means you're arguing in bad faith, or your cognitive dissonance is kicking in. It's a mechanism used by closed-minded and stubborn people...Food for thought.
Details on why you don't like the judge and which media outlet I referenced (i honestly just googled the story and grabbed the first one I saw) digresses from my point. And fyi once you digress from the main topic and shift to sub-aspects (without actually addressing the main point), it usually means you're arguing in bad faith, or your cognitive dissonance is kicking in. It's a mechanism used by closed-minded and stubborn people...Food for thought.
> I see a common irrational theme of "let's change the rules because they didn't work out in my favor this time".
IMO they didn't work out in anyone's favor. Our country is a mess, and the majority of people dislike both of the 2 major ruling parties.
IMO they didn't work out in anyone's favor. Our country is a mess, and the majority of people dislike both of the 2 major ruling parties.
Branch, not party. Executive and Legislative.
> Branch, not party.
I can read. I was referring to "The process is supposed to be political!" And by political, the implication is partisan, because otherwise it would be true by definition, and thus an uninteresting claim not worthy of ending in an exclamation point.
I can read. I was referring to "The process is supposed to be political!" And by political, the implication is partisan, because otherwise it would be true by definition, and thus an uninteresting claim not worthy of ending in an exclamation point.
Political doesn’t mean partisan. It means characterized by political considerations, rather than rules. Partisanship is one aspect of politics which the founders wanted to avoid. But they always contemplated that the Senate majority and Presidency might disagree for political reasons.
Sure — and if the Mitch McConnell's objection to Merrick Garland's nomination had been political, it would have been one thing. But it was nakedly partisan: he refused to consider any justice that Obama would nominate, with no real reasoning beyond "we want a Republican to have a chance to fill this vacancy".
> they always contemplated that the Senate majority and Presidency might disagree for political reasons.
They did. The danger to the country is actually when they agree.
What happened here is that the Senate refused to compromise, and simply put the government in a holding pattern until they could get a more "agreeable" executive in office. Is that the way separation of powers was intended to work? I think not.
They did. The danger to the country is actually when they agree.
What happened here is that the Senate refused to compromise, and simply put the government in a holding pattern until they could get a more "agreeable" executive in office. Is that the way separation of powers was intended to work? I think not.
The National Review became dishonest propaganda some time ago. They are going back 150 years to find a precedent and ignoring many more recent precedents.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-i...
https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-i...
Explain to me what’s “dishonest propaganda” about the National Review article?
1) Going back to the 1800s is routine in the legal world to understand what is accepted practice in our system. After all, the relevant rules haven’t changed since 1789. Aren’t examples from people who created this system particularly relevant to understanding how it’s supposed to work?
2) The SCOTUSblog article goes through the exact same examples as the National Review article for the 20th century. The only difference is that the National Review article looks at whether different parties control the Presidency/Senate. What is “propaganda” about that? The Senate and Presidency are political branches that are supposed to be at odds, potentially. Is there any reason to assert that this political rivalry shouldn’t extend to Supreme Court appointments? Is it “propaganda” to even posit the idea?
1) Going back to the 1800s is routine in the legal world to understand what is accepted practice in our system. After all, the relevant rules haven’t changed since 1789. Aren’t examples from people who created this system particularly relevant to understanding how it’s supposed to work?
2) The SCOTUSblog article goes through the exact same examples as the National Review article for the 20th century. The only difference is that the National Review article looks at whether different parties control the Presidency/Senate. What is “propaganda” about that? The Senate and Presidency are political branches that are supposed to be at odds, potentially. Is there any reason to assert that this political rivalry shouldn’t extend to Supreme Court appointments? Is it “propaganda” to even posit the idea?
The article I posted also looked at what parties controlled the Senate and Presidency and quoted more recent precedents where the parties were split, and the president got to appoint.
Moreover, stopping a vote entirely? That's unprecedented. Had there been a vote on Garland, he almost certainly would have been appointed. Many of the moderate Republicans in the senate, facing elections, would not have been able to justify voting him down to their constituents.
For the National Review to leave those pieces out is dishonest. I'm also not just referring to that article. The National Review has been dishonest propaganda for a while, making dishonest arguments that manipulate the facts (usually by omission or careful selections as here, but occasionally outright lying) to justify the actions of what has become a fascist party.
Moreover, stopping a vote entirely? That's unprecedented. Had there been a vote on Garland, he almost certainly would have been appointed. Many of the moderate Republicans in the senate, facing elections, would not have been able to justify voting him down to their constituents.
For the National Review to leave those pieces out is dishonest. I'm also not just referring to that article. The National Review has been dishonest propaganda for a while, making dishonest arguments that manipulate the facts (usually by omission or careful selections as here, but occasionally outright lying) to justify the actions of what has become a fascist party.
The National Review has been nothing short of reactionary propaganda from its outset. They vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Movement in its era, including running unsigned editorials with such lovely sentiments as “In the Deep South the Negroes are, by comparison with the Whites, retarded”
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-review...
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-review...
Democrats were literally the party of segregation when Buckley wrote that (there would have been no New Deal coalition without the support of segregationists). He was vastly out of step with Republicans at the time, and he did a 180 by 1965, the year after LBJ flipped the Democratic Party on the civil rights act. It’s a shameful period of American history, but unless you’re going to stop voting Democrat over what some Democrats said in 1957...
I’m not a Democrat and we weren’t talking about voting anyway. And these are the kind of sentiments Buckley continued on with after 1965, so please spare me the “different times”’pleading:
> In a 1986 New York Times op-ed (3/18/86), Buckley urged that ‘everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.”
https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/
> In a 1986 New York Times op-ed (3/18/86), Buckley urged that ‘everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.”
https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/
> the party controlling the senate can exercise its heckler’s veto
I'm trying to think of a plausible vehicle for arguing that if the Senate refuses to vote on a nomination within a reasonable time, then that refusal (i) constitutes a waiver of the right to withhold consent and therefore (ii) is deemed consent.
I'm trying to think of a plausible vehicle for arguing that if the Senate refuses to vote on a nomination within a reasonable time, then that refusal (i) constitutes a waiver of the right to withhold consent and therefore (ii) is deemed consent.
[deleted]
[deleted]
At least he's honest about it.
What's so surprising about that? It's not so much a "rule" as a statement of political fact. Now that Supreme Court has become a de facto legislative body, no nominee has a chance of getting through when the presidency and Senate are not controlled by the same party.
The reality is that if we had a Democratic President and Senate, nobody on the left would be arguing that we have to hold off until the election. Chuck Schumer would no doubt be insisting that the Senate "do [its] job", as he did in 2016. [1]
It's hard to fault McConnell for doing precisely what he was elected to do -- confirm conservative judges and justices.
[1] https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/701953299268902912
The reality is that if we had a Democratic President and Senate, nobody on the left would be arguing that we have to hold off until the election. Chuck Schumer would no doubt be insisting that the Senate "do [its] job", as he did in 2016. [1]
It's hard to fault McConnell for doing precisely what he was elected to do -- confirm conservative judges and justices.
[1] https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/701953299268902912
I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White House.
Lately I see a lot of people saying things like “this particular example of real behavior is bad and conflicts with my values so should be electorally punished, but my mental model of the other side tells me that they would probably do the same thing if they hypothetically got the opportunity, and so I’m not going to uphold my values.”
I’m surprised that most people in america didn’t see this coming. It’s been clear that “winning” has been the strategy for the republicans and they’ve been doing it consistently for decades now.
They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter.
Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players.
The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either.
Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,
They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter.
Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players.
The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either.
Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,
I don’t disagree with your characterisation, but I do disagree with the idea that it is republicans alone. Unfortunately this has been the way both parties have operated for a long time. The democrats have also done their fair share of abuse of power just in the last 4 years.
Sure, i don’t doubt there’s work on the Dem side when it comes to abuse of power.
>in the last 4 years
I’m talking 30 years. The last 4 years are just end results of other forces.
Also - america has never produced an event like the trump presidency. Does that feature when we discuss abuse of power in the last 4 years?
I know of no Democrat action that is comparable.
>in the last 4 years
I’m talking 30 years. The last 4 years are just end results of other forces.
Also - america has never produced an event like the trump presidency. Does that feature when we discuss abuse of power in the last 4 years?
I know of no Democrat action that is comparable.
The use by Obama of the FBI to investigate his political opponent during a presidential campaign, on a basis of an improbable opposition research report is unprecedented and to say the least, controversial. Imagine the outrage if any republican president had done that.
Not saying this is only the last 4 years. I agree, at least 30 years. But no, it is not the action of a single party.
Not saying this is only the last 4 years. I agree, at least 30 years. But no, it is not the action of a single party.
Was there any indication this was Obama directing the FBI to behave this way, or that this was an established pattern of behavior? There’s a very important difference between a mistake or an error in judgement vs an established pattern of behavior and engagement of illicit behavior by the president himself (as with Trump offering a pardon to Assange to deny ties to Russia in the DNC hack after failing to have Ukraine fallaciously smear Biden).
"You can't prove it" isn't a terribly convincing defense.
[deleted]
Making insinuations and accusations without any kind of evidence is even less convincing, no?
Sure, but the argument that the Senate shouldn't approve or even consider a Supreme Court nomination in election years because voters should have a voice was made by Mitch McConnell, at a time when not approving a presidential nominee suited him.
I don't think anybody can argue in good faith that it is equally incumbent upon the Democrats to act in a manner consistent with principles argued for and precedents set by Mitch McConnell.
I don't think anybody can argue in good faith that it is equally incumbent upon the Democrats to act in a manner consistent with principles argued for and precedents set by Mitch McConnell.
I don’t think anyone could argue that the democrats are acting in good faith pushing for delay now while having pushed for expedition in 2016. Both parties want to shape the supreme court.
I am more annoyed by the fact that the supreme court has become a political arena. Making laws should be the responsibility of the elected legislator. A court, any court, should merely arbitrate on the conformity of legal disputes to these laws. If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court. It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations.
I see the same power grab happening in Europe and am equally worried about it. No power should be given without accountability.
I am more annoyed by the fact that the supreme court has become a political arena. Making laws should be the responsibility of the elected legislator. A court, any court, should merely arbitrate on the conformity of legal disputes to these laws. If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court. It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations.
I see the same power grab happening in Europe and am equally worried about it. No power should be given without accountability.
>while having pushed for expedition in 2016.
That's a weird way of saying "nominated a candidate via the regular process".
That's a weird way of saying "nominated a candidate via the regular process".
> If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court.
How could this be done? Political issues are in front of the court every day and minute. This makes it immensely political. How could then those mere arbitrators be non-political?
It was always political. It will always be.
> It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations.
Uhm. You know this is also something that has been going on forever, especially in every "common law" system.
How could this be done? Political issues are in front of the court every day and minute. This makes it immensely political. How could then those mere arbitrators be non-political?
It was always political. It will always be.
> It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations.
Uhm. You know this is also something that has been going on forever, especially in every "common law" system.
Possibly refuse to rule. In France they introduced a mechanism to throw the ball back to the parliament.
They do that too, a lot in fact. Most of the cases that request a certiorari are denied.
https://supremecourtpress.com/chance_of_success.html
And in the majority of those cases the SC does only instruct the lower court on that specific case, refraining from creating new law as much as possible.
France is a "civil law" country. Courts there cannot "make new laws", they can only invalidate them. (And as far as I know this applies in general to all civil law countries.)
https://supremecourtpress.com/chance_of_success.html
And in the majority of those cases the SC does only instruct the lower court on that specific case, refraining from creating new law as much as possible.
France is a "civil law" country. Courts there cannot "make new laws", they can only invalidate them. (And as far as I know this applies in general to all civil law countries.)
> France is a "civil law" country. Courts there cannot "make new laws", they can only invalidate them. (And as far as I know this applies in general to all civil law countries.)
The German Supreme Court has, on two occasions, declared new constitutional rights: the right to informational self-determination (when deliberating a census process law) and the right to integrity of data processing systems (when outlaying voting computers). I don't know if that counts though since technically they argued that other constitutional rights implied these rights (but weren't mentioned explicitly because the German Basic Law was drafted in 1949).
The German Supreme Court has, on two occasions, declared new constitutional rights: the right to informational self-determination (when deliberating a census process law) and the right to integrity of data processing systems (when outlaying voting computers). I don't know if that counts though since technically they argued that other constitutional rights implied these rights (but weren't mentioned explicitly because the German Basic Law was drafted in 1949).
Well, clearly both parties seem to have expectations that the court will rule on controversial matters like abortion. The fact that it also declines to examine many other cases doesn’t really change that.
Sure, and controversial laws were submitted for constitutional review everywhere around the world (where there are constitutional courts). And picking judges was always a political thing. Just as picking the top prosecutor. And so on.
[deleted]
From the article:
> Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: "Oh, we'd fill it." [the supreme court seat]
> Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: "Oh, we'd fill it." [the supreme court seat]
Mitch McConnell and Trump will have a replacement confirmed by the end of October.
Absolutely not. Why would Trump eliminate one of the biggest draws to electing him? If he pushes someone through before November, he absolutely loses the senate (assuming you believe the polls). No way those purple states with senators up for election are going to carry Republicans who went from "we don't vote for the USSC during final term years" to "RUSH THROUGH THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NOMINEE!" in 4 years.
The move is to have everything set and ready to go during the lame duck and push hard then if you lose or wait until Jan if you win. Removes the election math from the process.
The move is to have everything set and ready to go during the lame duck and push hard then if you lose or wait until Jan if you win. Removes the election math from the process.
Interesting point. Trump and McConnell's interests aren't actually aligned, here. McConnell is up for reelection, ahead in the polls, and wants an inoffsensive conservative justice. Trump's behind, is more interested in his reelection than in getting a conservative justice on the court. He can't drag his feet too long or it will look like he's stalling, and he'd have to nominate a judicial version of Judy Shelton so he's playing to his base, but it's someone the Senate wouldn't approve. Or if they have someone they already vetted with skeletons in the closet that just haven't come out yet.
Trump wants to skate from state (NY) let alone federal charges after the election if he loses. The Democrats should use this leverage for all it’s worth. If he’s going to act like a mob boss let’s turn him like one.
Why would he give up virtually guaranteed victory in exchange for something that only matters if he loses?
Getting a conservative justice on the court is a massive draw for Trump's reelection. That's why he released a list of candidates before both elections.
I don't get this theory. There are a lot of people out there who want to see a conservative justice elected, but prefer Biden over Trump in the White House? Or a lot of conservative voters who are apathetic about the presidency and might not vote, but would be convinced to come to the polls if a Supreme Court spot was at stake?
I mean I can believe both of those sets of people exist, but hardly that they're numerous enough to dictate the election strategy.
I mean I can believe both of those sets of people exist, but hardly that they're numerous enough to dictate the election strategy.
It's not so much that they prefer Biden over Trump. But they dislike Trump. I know people who cannot stand his antics on Twitter or the way he disrespects women or his blatant infidelity to his wives. However they strongly believe in conservative and Christian values and will hold their nose while the vote for him to try to ensure the supreme court votes their way on issues such as abortion. Trump knows this and uses it as a carrot to encourage these people to vote for him.
Yes, there are lots of people who will tell you how much they dislike Trump, then vote for him. I'm saying that those people still exist even if the Supreme Court spot isn't at stake: a Republican White House still gives them a better chance of legislation upholding conservative values in the future.
I bet there are a lot of independents who would prefer Trump to nominate a Justice and then lose the election.
there are zero people who fit this description
A lot of right libertarians are in this boat, actually.
Why? Trump is never going to appoint a justice who will legitimately advance any cause of liberty. He’s going to appoint someone who will protect his power and the power of the Republican Party. Trump making more appointments is exactly the same as him getting another 4 years, except it will last decades.
I'm not a right libertarian, so I can't really argue with you. But you have to understand that your perspective on Trump is not necessarily shared by them, regardless of how objective it may be.
Gorsuch is the most libertarian-leaning Justice we’ve had in decades. Others on the short list, such as Barrett or Kethledge, also have significant records of originalism with respect to the scope of the administrative state.
I don’t think libertarians realize where we are in 2020. Lots of culture war stuff from the last few decades where libertarians sided with liberals (abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage) has now flipped and then battleground is keeping the government from forcing people to participate in those things: Catholics being forced to perform elective abortions, nuns being forced to pay for contraception, people being forced to participate in same-sex weddings as bakers (and presumably caterers, etc.)
I don’t think libertarians realize where we are in 2020. Lots of culture war stuff from the last few decades where libertarians sided with liberals (abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage) has now flipped and then battleground is keeping the government from forcing people to participate in those things: Catholics being forced to perform elective abortions, nuns being forced to pay for contraception, people being forced to participate in same-sex weddings as bakers (and presumably caterers, etc.)
Trump's got a 96% approval amongst conservatives.
There are a lot of evangelical Christians who reluctantly voted for Trump because he'd pack the court (and they like Pence). With one more conservative justice, they might decide the court is adequately packed.
He can still nominate after the election even if he loses it - his term doesn't end immediately. It's not really like the other two times - not like 2018 because there was no vacancy on the court then, and not like 2016 because the president and the Senate were deadlocked then.
Agree, but worth noting that they can nominate/seat someone after the election. They have their POTUS and majority until the end of January.
This logic might apply during less polarized times.
American politics right now is full-on us-versus-them, and who has the biggest numbers. McConnell is in Kentucky and ahead in the polls, and he’s smart enough not to full-on troll the left with a flat-out fascist.
The left will respond as if he did anyway, but they’ll have a lot less success in convincing conservatives it’s a bad move if the judge is not beyond what most conservatives will support. That line has shifted far to the right (or, to the far right) over the past 30 years.
I guess I’m saying that opinions on an “inoffensive conservative justice” is a bimodal distribution, and McConnell’s right hump is higher.
American politics right now is full-on us-versus-them, and who has the biggest numbers. McConnell is in Kentucky and ahead in the polls, and he’s smart enough not to full-on troll the left with a flat-out fascist.
The left will respond as if he did anyway, but they’ll have a lot less success in convincing conservatives it’s a bad move if the judge is not beyond what most conservatives will support. That line has shifted far to the right (or, to the far right) over the past 30 years.
I guess I’m saying that opinions on an “inoffensive conservative justice” is a bimodal distribution, and McConnell’s right hump is higher.
> American politics right now is full-on us-versus-them
Among voters, but Trump would/did(?) throw the GOP under the bus to get elected.
Among voters, but Trump would/did(?) throw the GOP under the bus to get elected.
With Supreme Court supremacy Republicans don’t have to get re-elected by voters anymore, they just have to dispute the results, lose, and appeal up to the nearest friendly court.
And trump has appointed a huge amount of federal judges, including appeals court judges. With this he'd have appointed 3 supreme court judges as well.
It's apocalypse for the democrats.
It's apocalypse for the democrats.
The court seat matters more than the Senate and more than the presidency to Mitch McConnell. He’d give up his own senate seat to confirm this justice.
You can have your cake and eat it too by waiting, though.
The looming court seat was a very effective driver of votes for Trump in the previous election, at least that's the conventional wisdom. So have a go at seeing if that will work again. You can also spin it as being respectful, serious, and considered by waiting.
Even if you end up losing the Presidency, and even the Senate, you're still in power for enough time afterward to make an appointment.
The only things I could think of working against that would be: the idea that you just make the appointment immediately and tout it as another success to your base, or perhaps a fear that since it's Ginsburg's seat that's vacant, having it open is actually a more mobilizing force for Democrats. There's also, I suppose, the possibility that you make the move right away on the theory that this upcoming election is likely to be contested and could reach the Supreme Court.
The looming court seat was a very effective driver of votes for Trump in the previous election, at least that's the conventional wisdom. So have a go at seeing if that will work again. You can also spin it as being respectful, serious, and considered by waiting.
Even if you end up losing the Presidency, and even the Senate, you're still in power for enough time afterward to make an appointment.
The only things I could think of working against that would be: the idea that you just make the appointment immediately and tout it as another success to your base, or perhaps a fear that since it's Ginsburg's seat that's vacant, having it open is actually a more mobilizing force for Democrats. There's also, I suppose, the possibility that you make the move right away on the theory that this upcoming election is likely to be contested and could reach the Supreme Court.
> You can have your cake and eat it too by waiting, though.
The risk of not winning either is too much. They'd rather get the "win" and campaign on the win.
The risk of not winning either is too much. They'd rather get the "win" and campaign on the win.
OP is saying that there's no risk, because you can wait until after the election, but before the new term begins (i.e. before January, 3). Trump could still nominate then, and the current Senate could confirm.
But this is also exactly why this gambit doesn't really work - because the voters know that whatever happens at the polls, the end result is the same. They could hold voters hostage to the Supreme Court nomination back in 2016 because there was a split between the president and the Senate that blocked either side from getting what they really wanted until the next term.
But this is also exactly why this gambit doesn't really work - because the voters know that whatever happens at the polls, the end result is the same. They could hold voters hostage to the Supreme Court nomination back in 2016 because there was a split between the president and the Senate that blocked either side from getting what they really wanted until the next term.
Trump and the GOP plan to steal the electrion via the Supreme Court, just like GW Bush did in 2000, except this time they will need SCOTUS a lot more because it won't be as easy for them to justify nulling a landslide for Biden - but they will do it anyway because they have no shame, and if they have power, and they have SCOTUS to do their dirty work, then so be it.
Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
This is probably the most toxicity I've ever seen in an HN story's comments. Thanks for everything you do... I imagine you've got your work cut out for you tonight.
TIL. I use underscores for italics (as my normal applications work that way), and have just been accepting that my emphasis looks like _emphasis_, instead of emphasis. Thank you.
Thanks for moderating this thread dang, you’re a saint.
Of all the fouls you could call...
There's no implication about relative importance.
Also, if it isn't consistent, that's because we only see a portion of what gets posted here, often rather randomly. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [email protected].
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Also, if it isn't consistent, that's because we only see a portion of what gets posted here, often rather randomly. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at [email protected].
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
I definitely would expect Trump to calculate whether it is more in his interests to do it before or after election day.
I don't think it's possible to remove the election math, though. Whatever he does, it could influence voter turnout for both sides.
There's also the possibility that something about the election will be disputed and go to the Supreme Court (as happened with vote counting with Bush v. Gore in 2000). So Trump might decide he wants his appointee to already be serving before election day if he thinks that would be more in his favor.
I don't think it's possible to remove the election math, though. Whatever he does, it could influence voter turnout for both sides.
There's also the possibility that something about the election will be disputed and go to the Supreme Court (as happened with vote counting with Bush v. Gore in 2000). So Trump might decide he wants his appointee to already be serving before election day if he thinks that would be more in his favor.
With the large mail in vote, an appointee before election day seems likely.
Yep. It's pretty much needed as if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, not having a justice will be a disaster. Also presidency ends on January 20th - you can't go without a justice for 4 months.
Why can't we go without a justice for 4 months? After Scalia died we lacked a justice for nearly a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
Because this time, most likely there will be a contested election. And because this time it's different because both the WH and Senate are held by the same party unlike 2016. SC judge needs both Senate and WH and that was not the case in 2016.
Either way, it takes 5 justices to make a majority.
I know it doesn't mean much, but I filled out a plea to both my Republican senators and Mitch McConnell's contact forms to respect the McConnell / Merrick Garland precedent in 2016. Obviously they've explicitly said they wouldn't, but it doesn't hurt to try.
That is not the precedent: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid...
> History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.
The linked article actually goes on to describe every situation where there was an election year Supreme Court vacancy. Please read.
> History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.
The linked article actually goes on to describe every situation where there was an election year Supreme Court vacancy. Please read.
Just curious: does dem-controlled senate behave differently?
[deleted]
Can you cite something other than the conservative National Review?
The "conservative" National Review went back to every Supreme Court appointment in history and made charts showing exactly what happened to answer your question. The New York Times, with its "moral clarity" performed no such analysis and presented no such charts.
So no, I won't cite something else.
So no, I won't cite something else.
Why put ‘conservative’ in quotes? If you Google the name of the magazine their own meta description says conservative as the second word, so they consider themselves a partisan source.
In English quotes can be ambiguous, in this case they mean it is a direct quote from the parent comment (for emphasis, basically), not that it's under suspicion.
Your bias is showing.
The National Review article links to the source data, data from CRS and data from senate.gov. CRS is the Congressional Research Service.
The National Review article links to the source data, data from CRS and data from senate.gov. CRS is the Congressional Research Service.
It's amazing how if someone shared NYTimes, WaPo, VOX, VICE etc, then everyone's cool. But if someone shares a slightly right leaning source, people start asking for "non-conservative" source.
Honestly you won't get a clear picture from reading a single source, or even multiple sources that lean a particular way. You have to read multiple sources from both political leanings.
Think of it as a trial. Liberal leaning media is the prosecutor and conservative media is the defendant. Depending on the topic, these roles are reversed.
Think of it as a trial. Liberal leaning media is the prosecutor and conservative media is the defendant. Depending on the topic, these roles are reversed.
Fair point. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I read it. The last time was over 150 years ago. Stop pretending this is a common occurrence.
It's not "common" because election-year Supreme Court vacancies where different parties control the Senate and Presidency are "not common." Republicans filibustered the nominee when LBJ sought to appoint Warren's replacement, leading to Warren not retiring. Then before that, Eisenhower, a Republican, got an election year nomination through by nominating a Democrat.
Then you're back in the 1800s. But we routinely look back to the 1800s to establish what is accepted practice in our government.
Then you're back in the 1800s. But we routinely look back to the 1800s to establish what is accepted practice in our government.
> It's not "common" because election-year Supreme Court vacancies where different parties control the Senate and Presidency are "not common."
The number of qualifications needed in order to establish this "precedent" should tip you off that it's manufactured expressly to gain a political advantage.
The number of qualifications needed in order to establish this "precedent" should tip you off that it's manufactured expressly to gain a political advantage.
The "qualifications" come from the appointment and confirmation process itself. The Constitution splits the job of filling Supreme Court vacancies between the two political branches of government. The fact that the process can become political where different parties control those two branches in an election year is utterly unsurprising.
> The fact that the process can become political where different parties control those two branches in an election year is utterly unsurprising.
Correct, no one is actually surprised that Mitch McConnell abandoned the flimsy justification for his power grab the instant it outlived its use to him.
Correct, no one is actually surprised that Mitch McConnell abandoned the flimsy justification for his power grab the instant it outlived its use to him.
How is doing something exactly as it’s spelled out in the Constitution a “power grab”?
Alternatively, McConnell could have called the vote and the Republican majority in the Senate could have just voted it down.
Pre-nuclear option (an actual example of a power grab) even a minority of Senators could stop a nominee from getting through. The Republicans had a majority.
Alternatively, McConnell could have called the vote and the Republican majority in the Senate could have just voted it down.
Pre-nuclear option (an actual example of a power grab) even a minority of Senators could stop a nominee from getting through. The Republicans had a majority.
They should have voted on it!
> Alternatively, McConnell could have called the vote and the Republican majority in the Senate could have just voted it down.
It can't be assumed that there wouldn't be Republican defections on a Garland confirmation. This is exactly the reason the majority leader refused to allow a vote. Even now, a number of Republican Senators have already "defected" and declared they won't vote on a nominee before the 2021 inauguration.
It can't be assumed that there wouldn't be Republican defections on a Garland confirmation. This is exactly the reason the majority leader refused to allow a vote. Even now, a number of Republican Senators have already "defected" and declared they won't vote on a nominee before the 2021 inauguration.
> But we routinely look back to the 1800s to establish what is accepted practice in our government.
Routinely?
Routinely?
Yes. In fact, the usual presumption is the opposite. The closer in time to the adoption of the constitution we can trace some pattern (or in the case of a law to enactment of the law) that is more persuasive. If the generation that wrote the constitution engaged in this political gamesmanship (and they did) that strongly suggests they understood such conduct was permissible within the framework they created.
> The closer in time to the adoption of the constitution we can trace some pattern (or in the case of a law to enactment of the law) that is more persuasive.
This sounds a lot like "originalism", which is controversial at best.
This sounds a lot like "originalism", which is controversial at best.
You, I and everyone else knows that this was a pretext, not a precedent. You can dress it up however you like, but the fact is that McConnell was going to do whatever he wanted no matter what.
[deleted]
This is America there is literally nothing stopping anything from happening if you wield power.
The Democrats wanted the nomination to go through, but the Republicans blocked it. There's no real precedent unless both parties are for it.
McConnell is on the record saying he would seat a justice during Trump's reelection.
There are no principles, just power struggles.
If HRC was president, McConnell would follow his 2016 policy. With Trump president he'll make a new policy.
There are no repercussions for bringing home the bacon to your constituents at any cost.
There are no principles, just power struggles.
If HRC was president, McConnell would follow his 2016 policy. With Trump president he'll make a new policy.
There are no repercussions for bringing home the bacon to your constituents at any cost.
Mcconnell's stated policy was that he wouldn't confirm any Clinton nomination, regardless of the year.
stjohnswarts(2)
McConnell has already publicly stated that he's bringing a nominee to the senate floor. You didn't think he'd have consistency and integrity even with his own precedent did you?
Mcconnell has already said he confirm a nominees without delay. He can even confirm after losing my the election in a lame duck session if he wants.
The Senate wasn't setting a precedent, they were simply blocking the nomination from the opposite political party....as is their right.
Would have played out the exact same way if political tables were turned.
Would have played out the exact same way if political tables were turned.
I think the political tables have been turned that way quite a few times, but it never happened until that time.
Any references and/or dates?
Or just gonna stop there since that's what you'd like to believe?
Or just gonna stop there since that's what you'd like to believe?
Not really, just an inference from there being some 150 years of election.
If there was an instance where the other party did this the GOP would be slapping them around the ears with it. So since they’re not doing that, I assume there’s no instance they can use.
If there was an instance where the other party did this the GOP would be slapping them around the ears with it. So since they’re not doing that, I assume there’s no instance they can use.
That does not form a legal precedent. What you refer to was a political move and not a legal action. The Constitution governs this, not how people previously voted or blocked votes.
I believe the first time a SC nominee was blocked was Roger Taney in 1835. This is politics and happens, as a general principle, regularly by both parties.
I believe the first time a SC nominee was blocked was Roger Taney in 1835. This is politics and happens, as a general principle, regularly by both parties.
You don't have to agree with it but his point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time.
Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th.
Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th.
> Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th.
Strangely enough that same Supreme Court spent most of 2016 without a justice with no issue.
Also, in what world the Supreme Court deciding on the validity of an election with a deciding member having been appointed to it just before that same election by one of the participants does not consist of a massive conflict of interest?
Strangely enough that same Supreme Court spent most of 2016 without a justice with no issue.
Also, in what world the Supreme Court deciding on the validity of an election with a deciding member having been appointed to it just before that same election by one of the participants does not consist of a massive conflict of interest?
As much as I respected and admired RBG, even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.
If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.
If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.
[deleted]
I'm somewhat curious how much deference and respect the administration will grant her. Basically how many days before they start pitching their nominee.
Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.
Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.
They already pitched nominees because they knew she was dying. So zero respect.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-suprem...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-suprem...
I suppose, but the number of days before they bring a nominee to the floor seems a more direct measure.
It isn't about respect. The upcoming election may be disputed in court and the Administration wants to have as many judges on its side as possible. Even if there is no election related court challenge, there are many investigations of the current administration ongoing and it would be helpful to have more conservative justices for insurance.
The upcoming election will only be disputed by one side, because the other side will have such a clear majority that a dispute is practically impossible.
Both sides have lists for judges not just for the supreme court but all federal courts. Its easier to keep a up to date list then to try to figure out a list when there is a vacancy. They will also often reveal the list or parts of it to get other people's opinions.
You know they dont respect her at all and they'll replace her as soon as feasible. This is a political win they can't ignore and people being offended won't change that in the least
You are completely right, I don't know why people are downvoting you.I predict they'll have someone nominated and approved and sitting on the seat within a month. All legistlation will be dropped until this matter is complete. No stimulus checks, no help for businesses, everything else just dropped to Ring2 and getting a new SCOTUS judge is in Ring 0
> All legistlation will be dropped until this matter is complete. No stimulus checks, no help for businesses, everything else just dropped to Ring2 and getting a new SCOTUS judge is in Ring 0
All that stuff is held up in congress - they need the senate judiciary committee and the senate to approve a judge. That's it.
People are downvoting because they're unhappy with the situation but my stating it gives them a target. But on the other hand, I'm not super worried about internet points.
There's a possibility of a block of republicans who are anti trump (romney, collins, murkowski at least) might try to spike it, but McConnell has already said Trump's nominee will get a vote. I guess we'll see if they can cooperate enough to push it through.
Grassley, Murkowski, Collins, and Graham have said they oppose a vote, but that might be lip service and there's a difference between "opposing a vote" and not voting. And pence gets a tie breaker if its a tie.
All that stuff is held up in congress - they need the senate judiciary committee and the senate to approve a judge. That's it.
People are downvoting because they're unhappy with the situation but my stating it gives them a target. But on the other hand, I'm not super worried about internet points.
There's a possibility of a block of republicans who are anti trump (romney, collins, murkowski at least) might try to spike it, but McConnell has already said Trump's nominee will get a vote. I guess we'll see if they can cooperate enough to push it through.
Grassley, Murkowski, Collins, and Graham have said they oppose a vote, but that might be lip service and there's a difference between "opposing a vote" and not voting. And pence gets a tie breaker if its a tie.
"romney, collins, murkowski" ... appreciate the hint. Researching that now. My humble apologies for HN blindly downvoting you. Is asked because I don't have a hard preconceived notion, and wanted replies like yours.
Honest curiosity and debate is tricky business here.
Honest curiosity and debate is tricky business here.
People read intention and emotion into statements of fact or opinion based on their own mental situation, and there are a lot of people who are unhappy about this right now and downvoting something you don't want to happen is a way to 'vent'.
But I think Trump will nominate someone and they'll be approved by Senate, perhaps making Trump the most impactful president in terms of the judiciary in recent history.
Three supreme Court judges, roughly a quurter of all federal judges(194) of which 50 something are appeals court judges,and a hundred something district judges (that's not that many). They're fairly young for judges as well.
It's dark times for democrats as a conservative judiciary is going to be around for a while now.
If Trump wins another term and they republicans hold the Senate conservative judges being appointed will continue for another 4 years.
But I think Trump will nominate someone and they'll be approved by Senate, perhaps making Trump the most impactful president in terms of the judiciary in recent history.
Three supreme Court judges, roughly a quurter of all federal judges(194) of which 50 something are appeals court judges,and a hundred something district judges (that's not that many). They're fairly young for judges as well.
It's dark times for democrats as a conservative judiciary is going to be around for a while now.
If Trump wins another term and they republicans hold the Senate conservative judges being appointed will continue for another 4 years.
[deleted]
McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year.
Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...
Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...
> Mr. McConnell and his allies say the two situations are different. Where one party controls the Senate and the other the presidency, as in 2016, they say, vacancies should not be filled in a presidential election year. Where the same party controls both the Senate and presidency, they argue, confirmations may proceed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-gin...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-gin...
It's a terrible argument. If the senate is not controlled by the same party as the president and they dislike the president's choice for supreme court, they can vote not to confirm him/her. It also encourages the president to choose a nominee who can appeal to both parties. McConnell refused to allow Garland to even have hearings in the Senate let alone a vote because he feared that some of his republican colleagues may have been persuaded. If there are two controlling parties in two parts of the government then the solution is compromise. This is a philosophy totally abhorrent to McConnell whose views can only be supported by an authoritarian minority.
Wait it takes two to compromise, and a Supreme Court pick is really important . What did the Democrats offer McConnell in exchange for Garland hearings?
He already has, in a talk at the Federalist Society last year, where he said that if given the chance to replace a SCOTUS justice in 2020 he would not hesitate.
EDIT: And again, just over an hour ago, McConnell promised that he would have a vote on a new justice within a week of receiving the nomination.
Meanwhile, Murkowski of Alaska announced she would not support confirmation hearings until after the election.
And in other related news, Senate Democrats have promised to add seats to the Supreme Court if they win the Presidency and Senate in November and McConnell goes ahead with his plans...
The next few months are going to be exciting.
EDIT: And again, just over an hour ago, McConnell promised that he would have a vote on a new justice within a week of receiving the nomination.
Meanwhile, Murkowski of Alaska announced she would not support confirmation hearings until after the election.
And in other related news, Senate Democrats have promised to add seats to the Supreme Court if they win the Presidency and Senate in November and McConnell goes ahead with his plans...
The next few months are going to be exciting.
[deleted]
He did make such a statement months ago.
Well, it's not like this flip-flop would be in the top 10 of his list of shameless actions... From his point of view, the majority of the country already hates him anyway, and sure, it's a few weeks of bad press from the predictable wing, but in the end he'll (hopefully for him) have pushed his cause (making the conservative grip more concrete) forward.
The progressives will rage on Twitter, but on the day he goes back on what he said in 2016, Mitch is going to have a pleasant dinner with company that will agree with him, and he's going to fall asleep just fine, because he's convinced (or twisted the truth to convince himself) he's doing the right thing, and those who disagree with him are the ones who are un-American...
The progressives will rage on Twitter, but on the day he goes back on what he said in 2016, Mitch is going to have a pleasant dinner with company that will agree with him, and he's going to fall asleep just fine, because he's convinced (or twisted the truth to convince himself) he's doing the right thing, and those who disagree with him are the ones who are un-American...
I think he's probably making calls and planning meetings for tomorrow with the R's on the wall about nominating a SCOTUS judge this soon, as we discuss here on HN. I have no doubt he's had this planned for years and is ready to execute his plan.
What do you mean "even she"? She literally said it was a wish!
Yep a wish. Like magic. I mean to say that even she knows that our constitution isn’t written for wishes.
I say this as a completely dejected person knowing that the Republicans will fill that seat with another solidly conservative judge, not out of glee.
I say this as a completely dejected person knowing that the Republicans will fill that seat with another solidly conservative judge, not out of glee.
[deleted]
> even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.
It's specifically her dying wish. IMO she's giving Senators who still support democracy something they can say to the press when they decline to vote to fill her seat.
It's specifically her dying wish. IMO she's giving Senators who still support democracy something they can say to the press when they decline to vote to fill her seat.
[deleted]
I wouldn't count on any politicians in our current government caring one little whit about that… :(
[removed] It will be tough, but maybe they could
They've already started. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-suprem...
He released the list back before Kavanaugh. He recently updated it.
Yes... the article is about the new, updated list as of last week.
Trump released a list before he was even elected.
Why would they wait for the things you think are more important that don't have anything to do with it?
Republicans have a majority of the Senate judiciary committee and the Senate. They have it if they want it without involving stimulus or anything to do with Congress.
Republicans have a majority of the Senate judiciary committee and the Senate. They have it if they want it without involving stimulus or anything to do with Congress.
Note that "until a new president is installed" means until 2024 if Trump is reelected.
[deleted]
Can you imagine a 4-4 Supreme Court deadlock in a Bush v Gore type situation?
Then we would defer to the ruling of the lower court.
Also reported by NPR in the original post:
Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
[deleted]
For as worthless as this comment will ultimately be: my thoughts go to her family.
I hate that it's become bad to send people your thoughts and prayers. It may not do anything, but to have meant so much to so many people is something worth thinking about.
It's not bad to send thoughts and prayers! It is only considered hypocritical when someone offers those thoughts and prayers despite protecting/enshrining/supporting/etc. the thing which directly resulted in the tragedy. For example, strong supporters of gun rights and those who suffer from gun violence. I also extend my deepest sympathies to her family and those who she was close with. It is hard to lose someone, and I am sure it is even worse when a lot of people will be disgustingly cheering the death.
The fact that we're so fast to assign these values to people we don't know on the internet makes me sad at times. I get it, it's just how people are.
You bring up a good example, but I'd probably be in the category of believing guns are good for a democratic society (or at least so deeply entrenched that they can't get pulled out at this point). However, I also believe in some pretty strong gun controls and requirements for a more modern society. I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons, I also don't think it's the most important civil liberty to protect for a free society. But it's a political pressure that can do some good, and there are very few practical means of getting rid of it, and I'd rather we focus on global warming while making reasonable changes to gun laws to minimize deaths where we can.
Every reader of this paragraph will have a different reaction to my personal level of hypocrisy when I send thoughts and take a moment of silence for the victims of any shooting. It's subjective, but without that context I assume a lot more would find my thoughts and prayers objectionable. I get your stance, there's a lot of the never my guns people on the internet, and a lot among politicians.
I've just personally been pushed by tribalism to not be able to talk to many people on the internet over my personal beliefs and share ideas. I enjoy the other side of every argument, but when people get attacked for their ideas they tend to shutdown and look for others who agree more.
You bring up a good example, but I'd probably be in the category of believing guns are good for a democratic society (or at least so deeply entrenched that they can't get pulled out at this point). However, I also believe in some pretty strong gun controls and requirements for a more modern society. I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons, I also don't think it's the most important civil liberty to protect for a free society. But it's a political pressure that can do some good, and there are very few practical means of getting rid of it, and I'd rather we focus on global warming while making reasonable changes to gun laws to minimize deaths where we can.
Every reader of this paragraph will have a different reaction to my personal level of hypocrisy when I send thoughts and take a moment of silence for the victims of any shooting. It's subjective, but without that context I assume a lot more would find my thoughts and prayers objectionable. I get your stance, there's a lot of the never my guns people on the internet, and a lot among politicians.
I've just personally been pushed by tribalism to not be able to talk to many people on the internet over my personal beliefs and share ideas. I enjoy the other side of every argument, but when people get attacked for their ideas they tend to shutdown and look for others who agree more.
> I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons
I know HN hates opinions like this, but I'm a very staunch 2a supporter. My position is that citizens should have so-called "weapons of war", the same automatic weapons that the military carries with tons of ammunition. Joe six-pack should be able to walk to his local gun store and buy an M60 if he so pleases. In such a case, there's a very good chance that civilians could win a civil war.
I know HN hates opinions like this, but I'm a very staunch 2a supporter. My position is that citizens should have so-called "weapons of war", the same automatic weapons that the military carries with tons of ammunition. Joe six-pack should be able to walk to his local gun store and buy an M60 if he so pleases. In such a case, there's a very good chance that civilians could win a civil war.
Do you also believe Joe six-pack should be in any way trained to be able to use that M60? Should be held to some standards, be they ethical or professional? Maybe require a license? Or does the 2A mean all bets are off?
I'll be honest - after the last few months I don't know if I trust an armed American populace any more than an armed government. Simply putting guns into the hands of vigilantes doesn't necessarily lead to a freer state. I certainly don't want idiots like that couple in St. Louis to have even more firepower.
I'll be honest - after the last few months I don't know if I trust an armed American populace any more than an armed government. Simply putting guns into the hands of vigilantes doesn't necessarily lead to a freer state. I certainly don't want idiots like that couple in St. Louis to have even more firepower.
Sure, but I don't particularly trust the gov't to enforce those standards. FWIW I think an idiot is much more likely to do something stupid with a handgun than with a twenty pound belt-fed.
I see nothing principally wrong with what the couple in St. Louis did (i.e. defending one's property), though the wife was an absolute dumbass to point her handgun at the crowd. Anyone competent knows not to do that without serious intent to fire.
I understand your position: moron with automatic is possibly more dangerous than moron with semi-auto. But I think there are risks and downsides to living in a free society, and that's one.
I see nothing principally wrong with what the couple in St. Louis did (i.e. defending one's property), though the wife was an absolute dumbass to point her handgun at the crowd. Anyone competent knows not to do that without serious intent to fire.
I understand your position: moron with automatic is possibly more dangerous than moron with semi-auto. But I think there are risks and downsides to living in a free society, and that's one.
Given that there's a relevant situation, how do you feel about BLM doing peaceful protests, rather than grabbing some guns and killing the cops/politicians that defend them?
I think a civil war over the murder of a few people is not yet warranted. We've still gpt the ballot and jury boxes before we get there. And it is worth noting that not all protests have been peaceful, though it only takes a few bad actors to classify one as violent. I do think that a heavily-armed populace could reduce the rates of police brutality.
It's only bad if you're doing it when you have the option of doing something helpful. Like politicians offering prayers for tragedies that are the result of bad public policy.
I've seen people who follow this line, and I respect it. It's when it bleeds over into the followers of those politicians that I get frustrated.
Guess the republican SCOTUS replacement.
Squee. (WTDVs).
Tom Cotton
Amy Barrett.
Probably the most realistic choice. She's backed by the Federalist Society, rather than Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz.
Plus, she's a woman. She'll get branded as the 'RBG of the right'
Plus, she's a woman. She'll get branded as the 'RBG of the right'
I thought that was Sandra Day O’Conner? You know, the first woman on the Supreme Court and nominated by Reagan.
Amy Barrett, a hard-right ideologue.
Edit: sorry to all of you Amy Barrett fans out there.
Edit: sorry to all of you Amy Barrett fans out there.
Here are some guesses I've heard from various news sources: Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and William Barr.
Holy fucking hell. You're in for a ride if this is the short list. As an European I really really hope that y'all can turn this shit around in November, otherwise it's good bye US.
Donald J. Trump
For anyone interested in a serious analysis: https://reason.com/2020/09/09/two-cheers-for-president-trump...
Does Trump have enough time to get a new justice nominated and confirmed?
koolba(2)
They only need 50 votes and the Republican Senate will 100% confirm somebody, especially since they have the lame duck session too.
Time? absolutely. It only takes an hour or two.
Will they do it? maybe? probably.
Will they do it? maybe? probably.
The Republicans will absolutely do it.
This is their chance to mold our country's sociopolitical landscape for decades.
This is their chance to mold our country's sociopolitical landscape for decades.
I think it hinges on their (Trump, really) confidence on winning in November. No reason to do it now if you're sure you're going to win. No reason to worry about possible repercussions in the form of lost voters if you're sure you're going to lose.
What lost votes? Trump's base is going to eat this up. They would only be mad if he didn't ram through an appointment as fast as possible.
exactly. the search for a replacement SCOTUS is going to further unite the republicans for Trump.
Trump's chances of winning will drastically increase with another Republican Supreme Court Justice.
The election will likely be contested. When some strategically selected counties in Florida start anulling mail-in votes the Republicans will be glad to have a person who will dispute in their favour.
The election will likely be contested. When some strategically selected counties in Florida start anulling mail-in votes the Republicans will be glad to have a person who will dispute in their favour.
Depress your opponents base and deny them a divisive issue to campaign on.
It would be a perfect game theory move to do it, no merit in holding out.
It would be a perfect game theory move to do it, no merit in holding out.
Realistically, they have until the last day of the current congress which runs until January 3rd, 2021. The Senate has 37 working days remaining in 2020. It would be an amazing feat if they manage to do it, but you bet if only as an animating fight for the party faithful who are historically depressed right now, they're going to try.
How would it be an amazing feat? Trump already has a list of candidates, and all it takes is 50 Senators to say yes (plus Pence breaking a tie if they somehow don't get 51). There's no requirement to allow any but the most perfunctory of floor debates, and the filibuster has been eliminated for SCOTUS justices.
Guaranteed McConnell will ram this through with plenty of time to spare.
Guaranteed McConnell will ram this through with plenty of time to spare.
Trump's campaign has been blasting SCOTUS picks to their email list for weeks. From the latest one:
> Did you hear the news? President Trump has released his shortlist for candidates for the Supreme Court. Here is a sneak preview of a few of the names on the list:
> Senator Tom Cotton
> Senator Josh Hawley
> Senator Ted Cruz
> And more…Wow Hawley and Cotton have risen meteorically. I would have half-expected Hawley's crypto-unionist populism to have kept him off such a list, but he'd surely be better than the others mentioned. Somehow, he ran for MO Attorney General without promising to further brutalize minorities. Within two years he was in the Senate and now within two more years he would be on the Supreme Court? Wow.
He could have it done by Wednesday if he wants. Just pick the youngest and most ideological from the Federalist society's list and give them an up/down vote and the President can sign off in no time.
The cynic in me says they will leave the seat open through the election, with full intent of filling it in the lame duck sessions, to keep it as a drive for GOP votes. "Don't let the Democrats fill the seat!"
Justice Harold Hitz Burton is tied for the record: 0 days. There was less than 24 hours between nomination and confirmation. He was at least the 10th to achieve this feat. McConnell will require exactly as many days as he deems most politically expedient.
Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?
Why? Should I stop writing code if I think I'm leaving this job in a year? Why should the president stop doing his job?
Because Mitch said so.
What one person said about some other issue years ago is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Not when he's been the senate majority leader in both situations
Doesn't matter. His statements do not modify the powers of the President, or the duties of the Senate.
Just for fun, here's another irrelevant quote:
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
- Ruth Bader, on whether the Senate should hold hearings and a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland
Just for fun, here's another irrelevant quote:
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
- Ruth Bader, on whether the Senate should hold hearings and a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland
I think most people agree that it should be the case that we nominate and vote on a justice regardless of the term, however for years ago Mitch set a precedent. He claimed it was because we should wait for an election, when really he was being purely obstructionist and his position now is hypocritical.
In short, it’s not the President’s fault. He should nominate someone. Mitch is the one who said the Senate should not vote. The Majority Leader does have some say over the duties of the Senate as it’s up to him to bring the vote. If it doesn’t change the duties and he was derelict of his 4 years ago then I would have hoped to see some repercussions.
In short, it’s not the President’s fault. He should nominate someone. Mitch is the one who said the Senate should not vote. The Majority Leader does have some say over the duties of the Senate as it’s up to him to bring the vote. If it doesn’t change the duties and he was derelict of his 4 years ago then I would have hoped to see some repercussions.
He absolutely should it is his job.
Do you recall when the republican party blocked Obama's ability to appoint in the run-up to the last election? (parent commenter is referencing this)
Biden Rule!
It wasn't even in the "run up" to the election - Scalia died in early February. Garland was nominated in mid March. Obama had 10 more months in the Presidency (~23% of his presidency left when Scalia died and McConnell said we shouldn't fill a vacancy in an election year).
"In the run up" meaning that Scalia died in February 2016, nine months before the election, and the very solemnly contemplative senator from Kentucky announced “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
I believe the parent comment was mocking the exact stance that Republicans took four years ago, and the fact that they will very certainly not take that stance this time.
True, but we’re talking politics and politicians. Compare Biden before and New Biden on issues. They ALL would do that. There is no real holier than thou politician.
[deleted]
cool.
where's Justice Merrick Garland, then?
where's Justice Merrick Garland, then?
Since you clearly don’t get the context, the Republicans made this a giant issue when Obama had an open Supreme Court seat towards the end of his term. Let’s call a spade a spade: the republicans have no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it. They will now ignore the precedent they set and place a new Supreme Court justice.
Obama had more time left than Trump so the hypocrisy coming out of the Senate will be that much richer.
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said
> “You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House,” McConnell said in March 2016
> “We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election, which is raging, is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who’s going to make this decision,” McConnell said
> Speaking in his home state of Kentucky on Tuesday, McConnell was asked what he would do about a high court vacancy if a seat were to open up [in 2020]. “Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell said
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said
> “You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House,” McConnell said in March 2016
> “We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election, which is raging, is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who’s going to make this decision,” McConnell said
> Speaking in his home state of Kentucky on Tuesday, McConnell was asked what he would do about a high court vacancy if a seat were to open up [in 2020]. “Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell said
I think the law of the land is probably “whoever controls the Senate decides whether the Senate confirms a nominee”, but I guess we’ll find out soon.
I mean legally it's always been this the Supreme Court has been very clear on every cases regarding confirmation that Congress is free to act or not act at it's leisure.
This wasn't always the case, here's an excerpt from the wiki on recent changes making this the case:
"Senate cloture rules historically required a two-thirds affirmative vote to advance nominations to a vote; this was changed to a three-fifths supermajority in 1975. In November 2013, the then-Democratic Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees by invoking the so-called nuclear option. In April 2017, the Republican Senate majority applied the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations as well,[2] enabling the nominations of Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to proceed to a vote.[3][4] "
Interesting, so if Trump can nominate and pass another judge, it'll be by using the rule that the Democrats changed in 2013 to benefit themselves.
To be fair, they passed the ruling for non-supreme court justices. Republicans extended it to include them in 2017. Still, an example of terrible governance and foresight on both sides.
That would be incorrect, unless you are talking about a regular federal judge and not a Supreme Court justice. In the latter case, it was a rule the Republicans changed in 2017 to benefit themselves.
The filibuster has always seemed anti-democratic - it’s not in the constitution, and I’m pretty sure that historically it was a way to make give the minority senators more power at the expense of the people.
That’s just the Senate deciding internally what its procedures are. Either way, the Senate is making the choice.
There's no probably about it or thinking required. That is literally the law. The President nominates a replacement, and the Senate votes to confirm it or not. There are plenty of layers of politics, posturing, and pomp added on, but the law is simple and clear.
But it hasn't been followed in some time. The last president did nominate a replacement, and the Senate elected not to vote at all.
I'm still surprised the Democrats try to discuss compromise at this point. You can't compromise with someone running a madman strategy, realistically I don't know any true independents on the political spectrum at this point.
The Democratic Party legislates as if it represents all Americans. Which means compromise.
Rarely has the Democratic Party held all three branches recently. Holding the senate is a huge win for the republicans - they can be as obstinate and block things and only need a barest majority to do appointments and many other procedural shenanigans.
Like what the fuck is the house supposed to negotiate with? “We won’t pass bills”: the republican senate is entirely happy not to have bills passed. Now what?
The Republican Party is entirely devoted to debasing government and spoiling the notion of governance.
Rarely has the Democratic Party held all three branches recently. Holding the senate is a huge win for the republicans - they can be as obstinate and block things and only need a barest majority to do appointments and many other procedural shenanigans.
Like what the fuck is the house supposed to negotiate with? “We won’t pass bills”: the republican senate is entirely happy not to have bills passed. Now what?
The Republican Party is entirely devoted to debasing government and spoiling the notion of governance.
Well, the house explicitly has financial powers, and they can impeach officials. If the house was republican and the senate was democratic, you would see much more financing for projects Trump wanted. Like, just to make up the most ridiculous example we could think of, a giant wall...
Unless I am out of date with my civics knowledge, the House may have a bit of financial power, but legislation still has to pass through the Senate.
The upside of being the anti-government party is that you don't have to worry about being judged by how well you govern. It's a much easier position.
The upside of being the anti-government party is that you don't have to worry about being judged by how well you govern. It's a much easier position.
Respectfully, you probably do know independents. We just don't often talk about our political views to people who say compromise is dead and you have to be on one side or the other.
gilrain(3)
Do you think Obama asked the Republicans in the Senate for their advice on who to nominate when he nominated Merrick Garland?
Merrick was a pretty moderate choice who had been praised by many Republicans. Since they never voted on him, we don’t really know if they would have changed their minds and voted against him.
Time for some history. The GOP senators never expected a moderate like Merrick Garland, who was named by senators in the news before Obama announced his confirmation.
Obama is more of a realist than many in his party. He knew going in that no one would make it through the Senate, and that's why he nominated Garland. Why waste a quality Democrat jurist on a lost cause? I bet he was tempted to nominate Kavanaugh...
It's more like the congress exercised there constitution power to do fuck all if they wanted. Just cause it's a shitty thing doesn't make it un-constitution. What happened to Obama was his party didn't have the votes to approve someone so it didn't happen that's it.
If they hold hearing for a 45 nominee before the election, they prove they were acting in bad faith. The expectation is that the president gets to appoint judges during his term, unless there is a reason to deny the nominee. By denying that they challenge the power of the executive branch. I.e. Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?
> Does the president only get to pick a judge if the senate is a majority from the same party?
This is the next logical step.
This is the next logical step.
[deleted]
Who is paying attention to politics and thinks they are not acting in bad faith?
It's a bad faith enforcement of the constitution. In democracies like the US, precedents are as powerful as laws. This was not literally breaking any laws, but this was as bad as breaking a law.
Following the constitution is “bad faith”?
But they didn't follow it. They had no duty to consent, but they had a duty to advise, even if in the negative.
Doing things that are so obviously destructive to the whole institution of government that the Founders thought it wasn't worth writing down in the era of quill pens on sheepskins, because they couldn't imagine anyone being evil enough to do it? Yes, that's what bad faith is. It's things you can technically create a justification for that contradict all decency.
The Senate, not congress.
"[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the [...] Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court"
https://www.senate.gov/history/powers.htm
"[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the [...] Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court"
https://www.senate.gov/history/powers.htm
Yes and there is tons of case law on what the Senate actually needs to do and the result is "fuck all". The Federal government is designed to gridlock rather then forcing things to happen.
[deleted]
No, what happened is that Mitch McConnell refused to even allow a vote, and even Republican senators wouldn't have been able to vote for the centrist proposed by Obama.
Ultimately, a President with a friendly Senate will always fill the seat. An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it. Any rhetoric around that is pretty much just noise. They will send someone through as they've published a couple of lists and have been filling the lower courts pretty quickly. It is not like people weren't aware Justice Ginsburg was very sick.
Frankly, given the President, I would bet it will occur within the next week or two. I do wonder what the polling will be like on this issue. I can actually see a couple of scenarios where Democrats would want to run on a filled seat.
Frankly, given the President, I would bet it will occur within the next week or two. I do wonder what the polling will be like on this issue. I can actually see a couple of scenarios where Democrats would want to run on a filled seat.
Early noise on Twitter is that Biden’s response to a filled seat is an expansion of the court to 11 seats.
Not sure what the calculus is. If it’s unfilled, Biden will fill it. If it’s filled, he’ll expand the court. Not sure if that also depends on a senate flip, but I have a hard time believing the senate doesn’t flip during a Biden win.
Not sure what the calculus is. If it’s unfilled, Biden will fill it. If it’s filled, he’ll expand the court. Not sure if that also depends on a senate flip, but I have a hard time believing the senate doesn’t flip during a Biden win.
Sure. It’s just not very likely Biden will win, since Trump is a better campaigner with the EC arithmetic tilted in his favor.
It would be a proportionate and appropriate response, and hopefully restore an equilibrium in response to a constitutional crisis provoked by McConnell.
It would be a disaster and escalate beyond reason. What one side does, the other side will do harder.
Far from a disaster, it will be something approaching mandatory to restore faith in the institution. The disaster already came. But because this response would come in the future and the disaster happened in the past, some people have the psychological reaction of thinking that a new thing is unacceptable while uncritically accepting bad things that have already happened, which is called shifting baseline syndrome.
The Republicans already take everything to 11, as a matter of stated policy, since 2008, regardless of whether the Democrats go to 10.
Note that Trump and McConnell are rushing to fill the Supreme Court, despite 4 years of leaving about half the government posts vacant.
Note that Trump and McConnell are rushing to fill the Supreme Court, despite 4 years of leaving about half the government posts vacant.
If that were true they had plenty of time to pack the court themselves, but they haven’t.
It is correct to say that they have had plenty of time to provoke a constitutional crisis. It is also correct to note that they could have resorted to abusive procedure even worse than the one they already did. Which is like saying they created a category four hurricane instead of a category five.
> An unfriendly Senate is going to delay the heck out of it.
You hit on the problem without seeming to realize it. The Senate didn't delay the heck out of anything. McDonnell flat out refused to do anything about Garland's nomination. He declared the nomination "null and void" based on no precedence, case law, and certainly not any interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate majority leader should not be able to shut down the Senate and prevent it from performing its Constitutionally mandated tasks. If the Senate didn't want to confirm Garland they should have held all the appropriate hearings and held an approval vote. If it's the Senate's will that Garland not be approved that's fine. It was singularly McConnell's will that Garland not be approved so he just never allowed hearings. No matter your political leanings that should be seen as abhorrent if you profess to want law and order.
You hit on the problem without seeming to realize it. The Senate didn't delay the heck out of anything. McDonnell flat out refused to do anything about Garland's nomination. He declared the nomination "null and void" based on no precedence, case law, and certainly not any interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate majority leader should not be able to shut down the Senate and prevent it from performing its Constitutionally mandated tasks. If the Senate didn't want to confirm Garland they should have held all the appropriate hearings and held an approval vote. If it's the Senate's will that Garland not be approved that's fine. It was singularly McConnell's will that Garland not be approved so he just never allowed hearings. No matter your political leanings that should be seen as abhorrent if you profess to want law and order.
You hit on the problem without seeming to realize it.
Wow, being a bit insulting there. I am stating how it works. The Senate Majority leader can do it. That's how it works. Supposed to doesn't really matter when talking about what will happen.
Wow, being a bit insulting there. I am stating how it works. The Senate Majority leader can do it. That's how it works. Supposed to doesn't really matter when talking about what will happen.
> He declared the nomination "null and void" based on no precedence, case law, and certainly not any interpretation of the Constitution.
Ultimately a legislator's job isn't to respect precedence or case law. It's to create new law (and presumably precedent).
I don't think your point is unfounded, I just think arguing for a legislator to behave like a judge takes away from that point (unless you have a good argument why they should, but I think including that argument would be good at that point).
Ultimately a legislator's job isn't to respect precedence or case law. It's to create new law (and presumably precedent).
I don't think your point is unfounded, I just think arguing for a legislator to behave like a judge takes away from that point (unless you have a good argument why they should, but I think including that argument would be good at that point).
This is a laughable inability to distinguish between 'I don't like it' and 'it's unconstitutional and illegal', mixed with obvious massive hypocrisy.
When the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, they did it fully within the processes laid out in the constitution.
If the Democrats had the senate now, we can guarantee they would have blocked every Trump nominee past and future. Or do you think they would have allowed Kavanaugh through? Of course not, they tried everything to stop him, inside and outside the process. And I know you cheered their efforts.
You're just being massively hypocritical. You want the Dems to block Trump nominees by any means necessary, but if elected Republicans simply use established processes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution".
EDIT: Clarify garland situation, doesn't change the point.
When the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, they did it fully within the processes laid out in the constitution.
If the Democrats had the senate now, we can guarantee they would have blocked every Trump nominee past and future. Or do you think they would have allowed Kavanaugh through? Of course not, they tried everything to stop him, inside and outside the process. And I know you cheered their efforts.
You're just being massively hypocritical. You want the Dems to block Trump nominees by any means necessary, but if elected Republicans simply use established processes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution".
EDIT: Clarify garland situation, doesn't change the point.
Do you know how laws are often interpreted? It's asking what is the faith and meaning of the law, NOT what is literally written in paper. This means past precedents are incredibly important for defining what a law is. Refusing to hold a vote for a nomination of a qualified supreme court justice is not against the law on paper, but it is against the meaning of the laws and the precedents of how the president interacts with the supreme court.
It is not the senates job to decide if a nominee is worthy of being nominated, or if the president should make a nomination. It is their job to vote on the nominee. They did not do that.
It is not the senates job to decide if a nominee is worthy of being nominated, or if the president should make a nomination. It is their job to vote on the nominee. They did not do that.
The word you're looking for is 'norms' not 'precedent' (since this wasn't a court case).
And yes, I agree, the norms have gotten way shittier over recent decades. Both sides participated in this, back to the character assassination of Robert Bork, and the dems reneging on their promises around the Reagan migrant amnesty and probably before.
It is hypocritical and childish to put that all on one side.
And yes, I agree, the norms have gotten way shittier over recent decades. Both sides participated in this, back to the character assassination of Robert Bork, and the dems reneging on their promises around the Reagan migrant amnesty and probably before.
It is hypocritical and childish to put that all on one side.
> but if elected Republicans simply use votes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution".
They didn’t use votes. If it had gone to vote, Garland would have been confirmed. McConnell refused to bring it to vote.
They didn’t use votes. If it had gone to vote, Garland would have been confirmed. McConnell refused to bring it to vote.
> no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it
Any American politician who appears to have such a regard 9 times out of 10 is a manipulative psychopath who is stringing you along.
Any American politician who appears to have such a regard 9 times out of 10 is a manipulative psychopath who is stringing you along.
The decision to not fill a seat in an election year has nothing to do with the constitution or laws.
The president nominates and senate confirms.
The president nominates and senate confirms.
I find this “thems the laws” theme in this thread pretty outrageous. Congress used run on decorum, arcane rules, and norms. Those norms were thrown out the window when the Senate refused to even have a hearing on Merrick Garland. Arguably, they had a legal requirement to do at least that. But now we’re supposed to pretend that “rules are rules”, and this is all totally normal.
I was specifically replying to the comment "they aren't following the constitution or laws".
Sure, it may be very hypocritical to fill the seat before the election, but has politics not been hypocritical? And in "norms", the refusal to have a hearing on Merrick Garland is not the first example. Congress flouting "norms" goes back centuries.
Sure, it may be very hypocritical to fill the seat before the election, but has politics not been hypocritical? And in "norms", the refusal to have a hearing on Merrick Garland is not the first example. Congress flouting "norms" goes back centuries.
Precedent doesn't mean anything because what happened wasn't a legal ruling. None of the rules changed. Senate acted the way it was allowed to and will act the way it is allowed to now as well to get our guy in and keep their guy out.
Not sure why you are downvoted, this is correct. What the R's did to Merrick Garland was a disgrace. What kind of wink and a nod agreement is that? They should codify this into law, not keep perpetuating it forever. How long until it's 'oh, he's only got 3 more years left...lame duck!'
[deleted]
He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Republicans, however, set the precedent by not allowing Obama to appoint one in his last year in office. My money, however, is on them ramming someone through anyways.
McConnell is pretty transparent about his hypocritical political bullshit:
> "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said it would handle this?
edit #2: Individual Republicans are declaring they're against rushing an appointment before the election (https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1307113546136784897).
> "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said it would handle this?
edit #2: Individual Republicans are declaring they're against rushing an appointment before the election (https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1307113546136784897).
McConnell has done more harm to the USA than any other politician I can think of in recent memory.
This.
Seeing trump as a cause and not a symptom or as the leading disaster for American democracy is a very common distraction.
McConnell is the heart of all of it. He is nothing but an appetite for power. He’ll do anything. No morals whatsoever (and I say that neutrally, as a fact and not a moral judgement.)
And he wins.
Seeing trump as a cause and not a symptom or as the leading disaster for American democracy is a very common distraction.
McConnell is the heart of all of it. He is nothing but an appetite for power. He’ll do anything. No morals whatsoever (and I say that neutrally, as a fact and not a moral judgement.)
And he wins.
McConnell is just doing what his constituents want. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voted for him repeatedly since 1984.
EDIT: One might argue that Mr. McConnell correctly anticipated the desires of the USA electorate because in November of 2016 they expressed a wish for more conservative judges in federal courts. If the voting public was outraged by McConnell's actions, one might expect they'd vote accordingly.
EDIT: One might argue that Mr. McConnell correctly anticipated the desires of the USA electorate because in November of 2016 they expressed a wish for more conservative judges in federal courts. If the voting public was outraged by McConnell's actions, one might expect they'd vote accordingly.
McConnell's constituents = half of Kentucky, so ~2 million people. Meanwhile ~40 million Californians have zero say in the process.
That is because the people of the USA don't want the ~40e6 people in California to be able to dictate policy for the ~2 million people in Kentucky. Most Americans are perfectly okay with this because there hasn't been any serious effort at an Amendment to grant each citizen with similar amounts of power in the Senate.
> Most Americans are perfectly okay with this because there hasn't been any serious effort at an Amendment to grant each citizen with similar amounts of power in the Senate.
This doesn't follow. There is no way to amend the Constitution by a national popular vote so the opinion of the majority of Americans is irrelevant to the question of any Amendment's passage.
A more likely reason such an Amendment wouldn't exist is that a majority of states favor the status quo, because most states are small and benefit from their current outsized representation in government.
This doesn't follow. There is no way to amend the Constitution by a national popular vote so the opinion of the majority of Americans is irrelevant to the question of any Amendment's passage.
A more likely reason such an Amendment wouldn't exist is that a majority of states favor the status quo, because most states are small and benefit from their current outsized representation in government.
One of the mechanisms for beginning the amending of the USA constitution is via a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. The USA House of Representatives assigns political power approximately proportionally to population and it has never passed any proposed amendment to proportionally elect Senators or delegates of the Electoral College.
Source: Article V
Edit: Corrected 3/4 -> 2/3
Edit2: I stand corrected. The Bayh-Celler proposal was passed by the House and filibustered in the Senate in 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_am...
Source: Article V
Edit: Corrected 3/4 -> 2/3
Edit2: I stand corrected. The Bayh-Celler proposal was passed by the House and filibustered in the Senate in 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_am...
> One of the mechanisms for amending the USA constitution is via a 3/4 vote of both houses of Congress.
I believe this is factually incorrect. I'll offer Article V of the Constitution as my citation. Do you have a contrary citation to support this claim?
I believe this is factually incorrect. I'll offer Article V of the Constitution as my citation. Do you have a contrary citation to support this claim?
40e6 people in California aren't a bloc. The blueness/redness of a state is nothing more than the arbitrary balance of urban vs rural population. States are "purple" in actuality.
The major geographic divide in US politics is urban vs rural, not state vs state
The major geographic divide in US politics is urban vs rural, not state vs state
It’s not like Mitch can singlehandedly control the whole senate.
> It’s not like Mitch can singlehandedly control the whole senate.
He's Senate Majority Leader. That's literally exactly what he does.
Besides, he's whipped his party so hard they basically never break rank. Even Mitt "I'm not like the others" Romney votes with him nearly 100% of the time.
He's Senate Majority Leader. That's literally exactly what he does.
Besides, he's whipped his party so hard they basically never break rank. Even Mitt "I'm not like the others" Romney votes with him nearly 100% of the time.
His power as whip is not absolute. It's not like a parliamentary system where they are actual consequences for not voting the party line.
Take a look at any number of votes in the past year. There are plenty of Republicans who don't vote on party line (Republican and Democratic)
Take a look at any number of votes in the past year. There are plenty of Republicans who don't vote on party line (Republican and Democratic)
> It's not like [there] are actual consequences for not voting the party line.
There absolutely are, they just happen to be a side-channel in this particular system.
There absolutely are, they just happen to be a side-channel in this particular system.
If you don't vote the party line then you get shown the door during your next election. They turn off the money spigot and nominations stop coming and they help your opponents (same party) get the R nomination. None of the current R senators have the backbone to go against that. Oh they say they will but when the day comes to vote, it's all just hot air.
Yes...that’s how the government works. I’d recommend taking a civics course.
We thankfully don’t (yet) live in a country where New York, LA, and Chicago control everything.
We thankfully don’t (yet) live in a country where New York, LA, and Chicago control everything.
Yes, instead we live in a country where a few small rural states wield vastly outsized influence.
So much better!
So much better!
Of the ten least-populous states, half are solidly Republican and half are solidly Democratic.
Why should the vote for president of someone in Wyoming be worth 5.5 times as much as a voter in California?
Because that's the only way there would be a federal government in America.
What choice would you have made in 1787?
What choice would you have made in 1787?
We're way beyond 1787.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 is the cause of the worst distortions.
It fixes the HoR at 435, and is the main cause of the gross imbalance of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 is the cause of the worst distortions.
It fixes the HoR at 435, and is the main cause of the gross imbalance of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
His constituency is all of Kentucky. Senators do not split their states, they represent it as a whole.
McConnell rules through the consent of half the senate, not alone.
This is literally the purpose of the senate. We are a union of states, and the senate is where each state is granted equal power. One could argue that states should have been defined differently, but the point was that large states should not have absolute control over small states.
Edit: I'm loving the downvotes without comments. They're clear indication that some people are either not arguing in good faith or that they simply do not understand how and why the us is set up the way it is.
McConnell rules through the consent of half the senate, not alone.
This is literally the purpose of the senate. We are a union of states, and the senate is where each state is granted equal power. One could argue that states should have been defined differently, but the point was that large states should not have absolute control over small states.
Edit: I'm loving the downvotes without comments. They're clear indication that some people are either not arguing in good faith or that they simply do not understand how and why the us is set up the way it is.
sukilot(1)
The only reason Mitch Connell withheld the nomination was to prevent a vote he would lose. Kentucky's representative prevented a vote where California's representatives would have had a say. Kentucky decided that California did not need to be consulted on this matter. This sort of behavior is hostile to representative government.
They do have a say. They're free to contact their senators just like citizens from all the other states (on either side of the issue).
There is the chance that his constituent's mostly just vote for a Republican and would still vote for him either way.
Harry Reid, he's the one that ruined congress by changing the rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
Harry Reid was warned of the long-term consequences and he ignored them.
Had Reid not pulled the 'nuclear option' the filibuster from the minority would stop the confirmation.
Had Reid not pulled the 'nuclear option' the filibuster from the minority would stop the confirmation.
That's a fantastical interpretation. Reid pulled the nuclear option to stop Republicans from refusing to do their job (approve judges). McConnell would have pulled the nuclear option himself as soon as he got the majority, regardless of what Reid did.
More than Trump? McConnell is at least a professional politician and not a washed-up reality TV heir.
[deleted]
It's beautiful to see someone like McConnell, who understands political power and is able to use it fully and legally w/o overstepping. If Democrats had someone his equal then they would be pleased too.
Please remember that luck (chance) is an important and sometimes decisive component in conflict. Today it seems the Republicans are lucky; who knows what the future will bring.
Please remember that luck (chance) is an important and sometimes decisive component in conflict. Today it seems the Republicans are lucky; who knows what the future will bring.
> It's beautiful to see someone like McConnell, who understands political power and is able to use it fully and legally w/o overstepping. If Democrats had someone his equal then they would be pleased too.
Regardless of which side you're on - I don't think that's a worthwhile basis for political discourse and shouldn't be the modus operandi for what basically determines the development of a country.
Then again, you're right of course - the fact that McConnell and other don't actually overstep in legal terms just shows that the rule set isn't suitable for the current political climate in a time which is shaped by disregard of norms and mutual respect.
Regardless of which side you're on - I don't think that's a worthwhile basis for political discourse and shouldn't be the modus operandi for what basically determines the development of a country.
Then again, you're right of course - the fact that McConnell and other don't actually overstep in legal terms just shows that the rule set isn't suitable for the current political climate in a time which is shaped by disregard of norms and mutual respect.
People are probably reacting to some combination of unnecessary partisanship and the false equivalency. McConnell stated that appointments should not be made near the end of term while the White House and Senate are split between different parties. That is not the case now, so it's hard to see how you can call him hypocritical. You can disagree, but I think you could find a more constructive way to disagree than that post.
What's more "unnecessary partisanship" then refusing to follow the Constitution because the President is of a different Party (a concept which is not part of the Constitution)?
Are you arguing that the Constitution requires judicial appointments to be made within a certain time frame? Where in the Constitution are you getting that from? It's certainly not in the appointments clause, or anywhere else that I can see.
> (a concept which is not part of the Constitution)?
And which was very much worried about and warned against by the founders, even if they immediately fell into it themselves.
And which was very much worried about and warned against by the founders, even if they immediately fell into it themselves.
koolba(5)
But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.
McConnel also ended the filibuster on nominees to freeze democrats out of the process completely.
Tit-for-tat. Harry Reid had exercised the “nuclear option” to exclude most Presidential appointments from being filibustered a few years previous.
We’re in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma and we’re still in the “last turn sets the new norm” phase. I’m hoping there’s a way out before too long.
We’re in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma and we’re still in the “last turn sets the new norm” phase. I’m hoping there’s a way out before too long.
The above comment is currently:
- Factually correct. Reid did end multiple filibusters.
- Unbiased - this is an iterated prisoners dilemma in that each side is forced to assume the other will make a worse action given the opportunity.
Why is this being downvoted?
- Factually correct. Reid did end multiple filibusters.
- Unbiased - this is an iterated prisoners dilemma in that each side is forced to assume the other will make a worse action given the opportunity.
Why is this being downvoted?
I think the simple distinction is that McConnel upset decades of detente and will reap enormous rewards and pay no price. Compare this to Joe Biden helping confirm Clarence Thomas because he believed it was the Senate's duty to give nominees a fair hearing and that the favor would be returned. That is over now and we're in a game of beggar thy neighbor. The salt in the wound is that Trump is only president due to antiquated rules that are set in law despite being a truly pointless tradition.
I think it misses the mark in that:
1. The supreme Court is not comparable to any other appointment 2. There's no guarantee that McConnell wouldn't have done this regardless
1. The supreme Court is not comparable to any other appointment 2. There's no guarantee that McConnell wouldn't have done this regardless
[deleted]
I upvoted and agree with the GP comment, but some might be mad that he didn't go one more step back and explain that the Republicans had already decided to block nearly all of Obama's appointees for purely political reasons. So Reid was just responding to a prior escalation.
[deleted]
They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year.
If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.
If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I would not be entirely surprised. There was a time when Democrats seemed to be intimidated by threats over nuclear options and such. Now that they know the truth, maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost, just like their opposition.
> maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost
Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.
Well, this is how you become what you're fighting against.
Or how we get a long overdue new constitution.
That's really just the "end of the Supreme Court" argument. If you pack the Supreme Court once, it'll happen every time a new party has the senate and the white house.
Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years.
Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.
Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years.
Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.
That depends on how the court is packed, and how it functions after. It's possible that court packing could be seen as a success, even if each side alternates at packing, just because having many justices can minimize some of the court's current limitations.
https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/
To put it another way, the size of the House, Senate, and Presidency are determined by the constitution. The Judiciary is the only branch where it's size can be increased without a constitutional amendment, which could favor populism, regardless of who is in power, if it's expanded significantly.
Being as small as it is could speak to how the government has a tendency to concentrate/centralize power, even if it's relatively easy to spread that power out.
https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/
To put it another way, the size of the House, Senate, and Presidency are determined by the constitution. The Judiciary is the only branch where it's size can be increased without a constitutional amendment, which could favor populism, regardless of who is in power, if it's expanded significantly.
Being as small as it is could speak to how the government has a tendency to concentrate/centralize power, even if it's relatively easy to spread that power out.
You are incorrect on one thing. The size of the House is not determined by constitution. The only things it guarantees are that there’s a census and that each state gets at least one.
Thank you for the correction.
It also demands that apportionment of representatives be according to the population of the states.
So, yes, the total number isn't fixed but the apportionment is.
So, yes, the total number isn't fixed but the apportionment is.
if I recall correctly the specific rules for apportionment aren’t part of the constitution either are they?
I look forward to the day when SCOTUS has hundreds of justices...
The next logical step is that the Democrats will flatly refuse to confirm any future Republican nominee for SCOTUS, regardless of what year of the President's term it is.
Partisan politics is tiring. The US is steadily becoming more and more mediocre while the rest of the industrialized world improves, because we are focused more on winning petty battles than improving our nation.
Partisan politics is tiring. The US is steadily becoming more and more mediocre while the rest of the industrialized world improves, because we are focused more on winning petty battles than improving our nation.
This is hardly about petty. its about power, and always has been. and the sides are in no way equal.
In this case, it's about the preservation of our democracy (Trump has already indicated he will contest the election), so I don't think "petty" is the appropriate term.
There's no democracy to preserve. The Supreme Court is inherently anti-democratic. As is the electoral college, the Senate, etc.
The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.
The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.
Can you explain how the US Constitution is anti-democratic? Or I guess, what you mean by democratic?
I would define it as continual majority rule.
The anti-majority aspect should be obvious at this point: the President lost the popular vote (and indeed got the votes of only 26% of eligible voters), and the majority of the Senate represents a minority of voters.
The continual part is also essential. The less frequent the votes and/or elections, the less the public is able to express their wishes (and hold representatives accountable). Lifetime terms on the Supreme Court are the worst aspect of this. A member of the Supreme Court may be nominated by a President who lost the popular vote, confirmed by the Senate controlled by a minority of voters and whose members are only up for election once in 6 years. The Supreme Court justice then may hold power for decades, even as the "political winds" shift underneath the Court.
It's also important to note how difficult it is to change the laws, especially the Constitution itself. The Constitution was amended relatively frequently in the past, but now it's almost unthinkable. Separation of powers, checks and balances, mean that a determined minority can prevent pretty much anything from happening. They can completely thwart the majority from acting or changing the existing laws (which unfortunately have no expiration date).
The anti-majority aspect should be obvious at this point: the President lost the popular vote (and indeed got the votes of only 26% of eligible voters), and the majority of the Senate represents a minority of voters.
The continual part is also essential. The less frequent the votes and/or elections, the less the public is able to express their wishes (and hold representatives accountable). Lifetime terms on the Supreme Court are the worst aspect of this. A member of the Supreme Court may be nominated by a President who lost the popular vote, confirmed by the Senate controlled by a minority of voters and whose members are only up for election once in 6 years. The Supreme Court justice then may hold power for decades, even as the "political winds" shift underneath the Court.
It's also important to note how difficult it is to change the laws, especially the Constitution itself. The Constitution was amended relatively frequently in the past, but now it's almost unthinkable. Separation of powers, checks and balances, mean that a determined minority can prevent pretty much anything from happening. They can completely thwart the majority from acting or changing the existing laws (which unfortunately have no expiration date).
Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic.
You are talking about direct democracy, which is but one kind of democracy. Representative democracy is still democracy.
Remember that Plato defined democracy in opposition to monarchy and aristocracy. Universal suffrage, freedom to form parties and to manifest against the government are (part of) what defines modern democracies. Even Switzerland only resorts to referendums in relatively rare cases.
Remember that Plato defined democracy in opposition to monarchy and aristocracy. Universal suffrage, freedom to form parties and to manifest against the government are (part of) what defines modern democracies. Even Switzerland only resorts to referendums in relatively rare cases.
> Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic.
Limited ≠ Anti
Representative democracy is also limited compared to direct democracy, for example.
Limited ≠ Anti
Representative democracy is also limited compared to direct democracy, for example.
I don't think anyone disputing that they can do it, the point is that it's hypocritical. And the Republican Senate didn't "not confirm" Obama's pick, they refused to consider him at all, arguably a dereliction of their duty under Article 2 of the US Constitution.
> it's hypocritical
If Obama had a Democratic Senate majority in 2016, Merrick Garland would have been confirmed. That's the precedent.
If Obama had a Democratic Senate majority in 2016, Merrick Garland would have been confirmed. That's the precedent.
That's literally not what the word precedent means. We're not talking about historical counterfactuals, we're talking about the specific defenses and reasoning that's given for a specific decision. When the Supreme Court makes a decision on the basis of precedent, they're saying that the way a previous case was decided should dictate how this case is decided. Likewise, McConnell's claimed "reasoning" in 2016 was that a supposedly controversial president should not be able to elect a new Supreme Court justice in an election year. If that precedent stands, Trump should not be able to in 2020.
Mitch McConnell has been consistent on this since 2016, and he just made the following statement today regarding RBG's death:
> The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life.
> Justice Ginsburg overcame one personal challenge and professional barrier after another. She climbed from a modest Brooklyn upbringing to a seat on our nation’s highest court and into the pages of American history. Justice Ginsburg was thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession and to her 27 years of service on the Supreme Court. Her intelligence and determination earned her respect and admiration throughout the legal world, and indeed throughout the entire nation, which now grieves alongside her family, friends, and colleagues.
> In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
> By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.
> President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.
> The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life.
> Justice Ginsburg overcame one personal challenge and professional barrier after another. She climbed from a modest Brooklyn upbringing to a seat on our nation’s highest court and into the pages of American history. Justice Ginsburg was thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession and to her 27 years of service on the Supreme Court. Her intelligence and determination earned her respect and admiration throughout the legal world, and indeed throughout the entire nation, which now grieves alongside her family, friends, and colleagues.
> In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
> By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.
> President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.
He has absolutely not been consistent. For example, here's the Washington Post claiming he did "a 180" on the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
> It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.
Again, you're responding to some point I haven't made. I'm not claiming there's any way to stop it, I'm claiming McConnell is a man without honor or even decency and that the United States is headed into the toilet.
> It's happening whether we like it or not, and there's no "precedent" we can appeal to in order to stop it.
Again, you're responding to some point I haven't made. I'm not claiming there's any way to stop it, I'm claiming McConnell is a man without honor or even decency and that the United States is headed into the toilet.
> I'm claiming McConnell is a man without honor or even decency and that the United States is headed into the toilet.
Sure, but it doesn't really matter. The issue is whether or not McConnell can confirm a Trump nomination this year, and he absolutely can.
Sure, but it doesn't really matter. The issue is whether or not McConnell can confirm a Trump nomination this year, and he absolutely can.
I don't know why this is confusing to you. Absolutely no one says he can't.
To quote a great comment:
> McConnell had serious doubts that Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, would _fail_ to get a majority in the senate, so he forbade the nomination to come to a vote. So it’s a little different than you pose: you a pretending that Obama’s nomination came to a vote and lost (which would be entirely legitimate). The majority leader prevented that from even happening.
To quote a great comment:
> McConnell had serious doubts that Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, would _fail_ to get a majority in the senate, so he forbade the nomination to come to a vote. So it’s a little different than you pose: you a pretending that Obama’s nomination came to a vote and lost (which would be entirely legitimate). The majority leader prevented that from even happening.
Where did he say he has serious doubts?
To be fair, he’s right. The constitution says the senate gets to approve the judiciary, and the senate is comprised of state-weighted representatives. If the majority of states don’t want a judge, they won’t be appointed. This is basic constitutional law.
It’s the constitution, particularly the election process of the senate that’s wrong: There’s no reason every state, regardless of their population, should have equal say in who gets to decide the judiciary (among other things).
It’s the constitution, particularly the election process of the senate that’s wrong: There’s no reason every state, regardless of their population, should have equal say in who gets to decide the judiciary (among other things).
1/3 to 2/3 of the Senate is lame ducks. They are only in power because the utter devastation of the Trump era won't hit their ballot until 2020 or 2022. The "blue wave" of 2018 didn't wash over the Senate, only by mere luck of the random distribution of election years across Republican Senators.
The Republicans are on the way out of the Senate, and McConnell knows it, which is why he's trying to ram this through now. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/...
The Republicans are on the way out of the Senate, and McConnell knows it, which is why he's trying to ram this through now. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/...
However when the democrats win the election (president and senate) this fall then democrats will be able to add 3 more members to the Supreme court in order to counteract the Republicans heavily slanting the SCOTUS with Roe v Wade advocates.
tigershark(1)
> He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed.
Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That's on Obama (and Democrats more generally).
Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed whether Trump wins the upcoming election or not.
I am 100% certain that if Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland, his nominee also would have been confirmed. (As a registered Democrat myself, I would have demanded it.)
There is no other precedent here: you accomplish in office what you can (procedurally) accomplish. Trump lucked out here; Obama didn't.
Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That's on Obama (and Democrats more generally).
Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed whether Trump wins the upcoming election or not.
I am 100% certain that if Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland, his nominee also would have been confirmed. (As a registered Democrat myself, I would have demanded it.)
There is no other precedent here: you accomplish in office what you can (procedurally) accomplish. Trump lucked out here; Obama didn't.
McConnel had serious doubts that Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, would _fail_ to get a majority in the senate, so he forbade the nomination to come to a vote. So it’s a little different than you pose: you a pretending that Obama’s nomination came to a vote and lost (which would be entirely legitimate). The majority leader prevented that from even happening.
That is not what happened at all, he didn't hold a vote because he didn't want to and used an excuse that "Presidents shouldn't be able to nominate a SCOTUS judge in their last year". Now he's changing it to "majority party situation" and that is not what he said when he refused to hold any confirmations. He is a sneaky snakey weasel and has been for decades.
Re-read the comment.
[deleted]
Sorry, if that were true, then obama could've nominated someone else.
Why would you need to block a vote you know you will win?
Why would you need to block a vote you know you will win?
[deleted]
[deleted]
> [if] Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland…
With a Democratic majority, Garland would have been confirmed. It's exactly because no Democratic majority in the Senate existed that Garland wasn't even voted on (and actually didn't even get a hearing).
With a Democratic majority, Garland would have been confirmed. It's exactly because no Democratic majority in the Senate existed that Garland wasn't even voted on (and actually didn't even get a hearing).
[deleted]
> he simply could not get him confirmed
That's hardly the whole truth. McConnell refused to even hold hearings.
That's hardly the whole truth. McConnell refused to even hold hearings.
Legislative leadership at all levels of US government often do not allow hearings, floor debates, or floor votes when they know the issue will fail.
Sure, but the fundamental issue isn't McConnell, it's that Obama seriously weakened Democratic control of both the House and Senate during his time as President. As a result, his party lost a Supreme Court pick.
"Elections have consequences" and all that.
"Elections have consequences" and all that.
No, the fundamental issue is that McConnell was the first and only Senate Leader to ever prevent a vote on a SCOTUS nominee, so there were no confirmation hearings at all.
> There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress.
Note: 15 nominations were not voted on by the Senate, including Merrick Garland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...
Note: 15 nominations were not voted on by the Senate, including Merrick Garland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...
In all of those 15 they had hearings. They simply didn't get to the point of voting on confirmation.
McConnell prevented senators from voting on a candidate they would have approved. This is hijacking representatives' voice because you're afraid to hear it.
Ah yes, the good old "should have been so weak", "deserved it" victim-blaming.
[deleted]
Where does this end? What keeps this principle from extending to a President's entire term, as opposed to just the last year? If Democrats ever retake the Senate, why should they ever hold hearings for a single Republican judicial appointment, let alone confirm one? Should judicial appointments just sit vacant until president and Senate are from the same party?
I think it's a perversion of the "advice and consent" language from the Constitution for the Senate to simply stonewall a nomination process until they get the President they want.
I think it's a perversion of the "advice and consent" language from the Constitution for the Senate to simply stonewall a nomination process until they get the President they want.
You're right. Unfortunately this is a natural result of having so many different veto points in this process and in the US governmental system in general.
I was just thinking today about why Canada's Supreme Court isn't remotely politicized in the same way as the US. Part of it may be that we're just not as partisan, but I think the main thing is that with our parliamentary system, if the party in power has a majority—which they do the majority of the time—they can basically pass what laws they want. Of course, they generally refrain from doing deeply unpopular things since they'll pay for it at the next election, although even that does happen: eg. the Mulroney (conservative!) government implementing a 7% goods and services tax. Probably played a large part of them being out of power for a decade+ immediately following, but was great for the country fiscally from there forward.
Anyway, since the government can largely do what they want, there's much less need or reason to essentially try to enact 'legislation from the bench'. I couldn't even tell you the political leanings of our SC justices.
There are still plenty of downsides to this system of course (lack of proportional representation comes to mind), but it does appear to be more functional in a lot of ways than the US. And probably not by accident—the Canadian system was developed almost a hundred years after the US, and had it and other more recent governments as models; it was also soon after the US Civil War, which played a part in Canada adopting a strong federal system with less provincial power, relatively speaking.
Of course, it's easy to say all that. Much harder to actually enact significant reform!
I was just thinking today about why Canada's Supreme Court isn't remotely politicized in the same way as the US. Part of it may be that we're just not as partisan, but I think the main thing is that with our parliamentary system, if the party in power has a majority—which they do the majority of the time—they can basically pass what laws they want. Of course, they generally refrain from doing deeply unpopular things since they'll pay for it at the next election, although even that does happen: eg. the Mulroney (conservative!) government implementing a 7% goods and services tax. Probably played a large part of them being out of power for a decade+ immediately following, but was great for the country fiscally from there forward.
Anyway, since the government can largely do what they want, there's much less need or reason to essentially try to enact 'legislation from the bench'. I couldn't even tell you the political leanings of our SC justices.
There are still plenty of downsides to this system of course (lack of proportional representation comes to mind), but it does appear to be more functional in a lot of ways than the US. And probably not by accident—the Canadian system was developed almost a hundred years after the US, and had it and other more recent governments as models; it was also soon after the US Civil War, which played a part in Canada adopting a strong federal system with less provincial power, relatively speaking.
Of course, it's easy to say all that. Much harder to actually enact significant reform!
As Republican Senator Richard Burr said in 2016, after Scalia died, "...And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."
[deleted]
At first I read your comment as “What keeps this principle from extending to a President’s entire team” and I recalled that Trump’s cabinet appointments were notoriously slow to get through the Senate, held up even by a Democratic minority.
[deleted]
What’s it worth? Ishtar lose the majority and possibly a couple seats? I think they take that, they have no ground to stand on the social issues alone.
It’s sad how many justices will be on the court, appointed by men that didn’t win the popular vote
It’s sad how many justices will be on the court, appointed by men that didn’t win the popular vote
> appointed by men that didn’t win the popular vote
or even the Electoral Vote. Remember that Bush v Gore was decided by the (Republican leaning) Supreme Court, not the electoral college.
or even the Electoral Vote. Remember that Bush v Gore was decided by the (Republican leaning) Supreme Court, not the electoral college.
From back in 2019: ‘Oh, we’d fill it’: How McConnell is doing a 180 on Supreme Court vacancies in an election year
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
Because it's not about consistency, it's about winning. And McConnell sure is doing a lot of that in terms of his agenda to stuff courts full of conservative justices.
Why not? What's the cutoff?
The Senate majority leader.
I imagine it's closer to a year.
If the Senate confirms the President's nomination then I don't see why the President wouldn't follow through with the appointment.
One possible strategy for Trump (which would be very much out of character) would be to wait out of respect for RBG and/or the Garland precedent. Meanwhile, he uses the empty seat as a campaign issue to keep reluctant conservatives from jumping ship.
And if he loses the election, he still has time to push through a quick nomination before he gets booted out and a new Democratic Senate is sworn in.
And if the Democrats dangle a sweetheart plea deal in front of him as inducement to leave it be?
This Would be so beyond the pale that it could lead to honest to goodness civil disorder.
Yep. This is what I fully expect to happen. It's despicable, but it makes way too much sense. You motivate moderate conservatives, and if you win you get to claim the moral high ground. If you lose, you push a lame duck justice through anyway. This is a gift from a campaign strategy point of view.
I feel terrible focusing on the political maelstrom and not RBG's legacy, but these are also important conversations to have.
I feel terrible focusing on the political maelstrom and not RBG's legacy, but these are also important conversations to have.
A 4-4 deadlocked vote in a “Bush v Gore” type of situation would be a constitutional nightmare. It’s absolutely in his interest to fill that seat.
Trump may try, but it will be interesting to hear the reasoning to rush it before November 4. If Trump is going to win, as he says he is, there is no need to rush.
I believe there is no precedent for the Senate confirming a Supreme Court justice in a lame duck session. If Trump loses to Biden and the Senate then confirms a Trump nominee in a lame duck session, that will probably be the end of the Supreme Court. I’d expect Biden and Harris to just stack the Court, and it to devolve from there.
Remember, there is no law requiring nine justices. Just a handshake agreement and precedent. FDR threatened the stack the Court unless he got his way. And who would ultimately determine the legality of stacking the Court? You guessed it, the Supreme Court.
I believe there is no precedent for the Senate confirming a Supreme Court justice in a lame duck session. If Trump loses to Biden and the Senate then confirms a Trump nominee in a lame duck session, that will probably be the end of the Supreme Court. I’d expect Biden and Harris to just stack the Court, and it to devolve from there.
Remember, there is no law requiring nine justices. Just a handshake agreement and precedent. FDR threatened the stack the Court unless he got his way. And who would ultimately determine the legality of stacking the Court? You guessed it, the Supreme Court.
[deleted]
At what point should a President, especially in their first term running for re-election, stop being able to fulfill parts of their duties?
Declaring war? Responding to an attack? Talking to other world leaders? Advocating Congress to act on matters? Signing bills into laws? Naming post offices? Being allowed into the Oval Office?
Independent of this specific situation, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. And that line is Inauguration Day. (A case could be made that some powers cease on Election Day for a lame duck President.)
Declaring war? Responding to an attack? Talking to other world leaders? Advocating Congress to act on matters? Signing bills into laws? Naming post offices? Being allowed into the Oval Office?
Independent of this specific situation, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. And that line is Inauguration Day. (A case could be made that some powers cease on Election Day for a lame duck President.)
Yes, the point is that Republicans violated the principles you are laying out here under the exact same situation. So violating this principle again in the exact same way would be the only non-hypocritical way to handle this situation.
Trump most likely has had plans for this for months and knows who he's going to pick, expect a choice by the end of next week and confirmation within a month. They don't have much time to get a new person in there so they've had a plan for this for months, if not years.
If only he had similar plans for healthcare, like he told people. They'd still be terrible plans, but he obviously has absolutely no plan whatsoever.
This is awful for multiple reasons.
Worked right to the end even with her health challenges. What a role model.
Hmm, I’m ambivalent about people who do this. I think if you know your time is near, you should take it easy. Do some mundane things. Yes, I know “but it’s the only thing I love doing”. I disagree with that choice.
It's different when you're a member of the US SUPREME COURT
Yeah, right, most people don't have that kind of commitment so their job. It's not a good match for most people. Probably not something everyone should emulate.
Not really. It's just Weekend at Bernies with higher stakes.
She should have retired before 2016 and let someone step up. Occupying the seat of power until you keel over at the age of 85 is a peculiar expression of ego and selfishness.
Clearly the congress at that time was acting in bad faith and would have delayed her successor being appointed, as they did with Merrick Garland.
True, but in 2009 the congress was acting in a fairly reasonable way, and Ginsburg had already been on the bench for 29 years at that point. It was major failure of Democratic leadership that at a time when they controlled all branches of government they failed to make any significant reforms, such as admitting new states, expanding the size of the House of Representatives, or appointing judges.
Hindsight 20/20.
Hubris and poor leadership. It was always rare to have control of all three.you use it when you have it.
Instead of acting on key agenda, there was hardly anything done given the power they had.
Say what you will about the republicans with similar control they will absolutely enact a lot of changes in their agenda. I may not like their agenda at all, but I can appreciate how they go about it.
Instead of acting on key agenda, there was hardly anything done given the power they had.
Say what you will about the republicans with similar control they will absolutely enact a lot of changes in their agenda. I may not like their agenda at all, but I can appreciate how they go about it.
From up here in Canada it was weird to watch. Obama spoke really loud about his agenda and desires and was extremely popular and they controlled all three and then turned around and didn't really get much done for fear of the moderates in their own party, or something, I don't know. The ACA looks really... like... huh? Neo-Feudal health care.
Or they weren't really interested in doing the things they said they were going to do and in fact the Democratic party is in general far more to the right than it claims to be to win elections. And I think that's the more likely and more concerning aspect of American politics is this "ratcheting effect" towards the right; the Republicans come in with a fairly extreme agenda (in the context of the rest of the western world's politics), do a bunch of fairly extreme things, then the Democrats gain some modicum of power and do very little to reverse it, and the cycle continues.
It doesn't bode well for the upcoming election.
Or they weren't really interested in doing the things they said they were going to do and in fact the Democratic party is in general far more to the right than it claims to be to win elections. And I think that's the more likely and more concerning aspect of American politics is this "ratcheting effect" towards the right; the Republicans come in with a fairly extreme agenda (in the context of the rest of the western world's politics), do a bunch of fairly extreme things, then the Democrats gain some modicum of power and do very little to reverse it, and the cycle continues.
It doesn't bode well for the upcoming election.
Spot on. Bernie's rise in 2016 was partly in response to that . The actual left is powerless despite the response Bernie got in both his runs without large contributions.
Joe Biden is very much in the centre at best, given the new focus on trying to woo republican voters the party is shifting to the right.
Joe Biden is very much in the centre at best, given the new focus on trying to woo republican voters the party is shifting to the right.
Unfortunately the Obama era (or maybe the coming Biden gov't) reminds me of another prominent historical liberal/social democratic gov't that came to power in a declining but powerful imperialist country with huge promises of ending war, resolving social and economic injustices, etc. but then governed weakly with poor compromises and bad leadership...
That gov't I'm thinking of would be the Weimar Republic.
That gov't I'm thinking of would be the Weimar Republic.
2013 then
It's also completely orthogonal to her life's work. Why would you spend a lifetime dedicating yourself to democratic ideals, when you know that, if you pass, you would be replaced not only by someone who doesn't share those ideals, but by an individual whom would change the tilt of the court.
I am not American and I am not familiar with the legacy of justice Ginsburg. Looking at it from a non-American perspective, I would find it very odd for a supreme court judge, who is supposed to be non-partisan and neutral, to favour one party over another, even just in the matter of choosing a successor. Wasn't justice Ginsburg of the same mind?
What has become clear over the past 100 years or so is that people have ideas, and they work to find logic to support them working backwards. Laws all need interpretation, there's no way around it. And by ideas, it appears to mean ethical frameworks these days. The interpretation of laws is very much based on the ethical framework of a person even if they possess the same logic.
The proxy for the parties then become the judicial versions of literal constitutionalism (Republicans today, more literal typically means more conservative) and statutory interpretation (liberals), which then cause a clear split in conclusion for many cases, increasingly so.
This is a natural reflection of American society slowly drifting and polarizing into two groups of thought, and judges are human minds, not computers.
The proxy for the parties then become the judicial versions of literal constitutionalism (Republicans today, more literal typically means more conservative) and statutory interpretation (liberals), which then cause a clear split in conclusion for many cases, increasingly so.
This is a natural reflection of American society slowly drifting and polarizing into two groups of thought, and judges are human minds, not computers.
Unsure: are you being sarcastic?
Death comes for all, soon or late
And how can one die better, than holding powerful rank
For the envy of your peers, and the bounty of your bank?
I disagree entirely and in fact most of the rest of the world have laws against Supreme Court Justices serving well into old age like this. Her health problems were known during President Obama's term and it was nothing more than hubris on her part to continue serving.
It's fairly irresponsible to work until the day you die if a sudden death can have absolutely devastating and life changing consequences for a significant number of people.
It's fairly irresponsible to work until the day you die if a sudden death can have absolutely devastating and life changing consequences for a significant number of people.
> It's fairly irresponsible...
It shows poor judgement.
I think it shows she was as hungry for power as anyone else.
"In 1999, she underwent major surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to treat colon cancer. Ten years later, she was diagnosed with early stage pancreatic cancer, for which she also had surgery. In 2014, she went to the hospital after suffering chest pains during one of her famous workouts and discovered she had a blocked artery. [1]
She had been a supreme court justice for almost 20 years by then. Regardless of whether Obama's pick would have been watered down by lack of congressional control, her vanity has made things much worse and tarnishes her entire career.
Edit: So I don’t regret this entirely, she is deserving of great respect even if she made a possibly grave miscalculation.
We do not know the outcome yet, and whether intended or not this could result in something bigger working out in the same way WeWork’s failure could turn out to be a boon to RISC V.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/what-cult-ruth-...
It shows poor judgement.
I think it shows she was as hungry for power as anyone else.
"In 1999, she underwent major surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to treat colon cancer. Ten years later, she was diagnosed with early stage pancreatic cancer, for which she also had surgery. In 2014, she went to the hospital after suffering chest pains during one of her famous workouts and discovered she had a blocked artery. [1]
She had been a supreme court justice for almost 20 years by then. Regardless of whether Obama's pick would have been watered down by lack of congressional control, her vanity has made things much worse and tarnishes her entire career.
Edit: So I don’t regret this entirely, she is deserving of great respect even if she made a possibly grave miscalculation.
We do not know the outcome yet, and whether intended or not this could result in something bigger working out in the same way WeWork’s failure could turn out to be a boon to RISC V.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/what-cult-ruth-...
[deleted]
She lived well from conception to a natural death.
A great lady.
And so it ends.
I weep for those without, you will not have the recourse those of the last half century had.
I weep for those without, you will not have the recourse those of the last half century had.
Sad day, she was a champion of the people - a fighter for both women's rights and civil rights. Her iconic status was earned. Would recommend the 2018 documentary "RBG" for anyone interested in her life and career.
Rest in Peace Justice RBG.
Considering the effect that lawyer hours must have put on her for decades she seemed reasonably okay in the last few years.
I mourn her loss. She’s done more for my life and the average americans life than quite a significant many.
Extremism in any shape breeds further extremism. I hope society is about to do a “big blink”.
It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS or a state to the union.
Extremism in any shape breeds further extremism. I hope society is about to do a “big blink”.
It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS or a state to the union.
> It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS
Exactly. If Biden wins and the senate flips, they'll just add two justices (for 11 total) to get a majority. The right will scream bloody murder, but won't be able to do anything about it.
Exactly. If Biden wins and the senate flips, they'll just add two justices (for 11 total) to get a majority. The right will scream bloody murder, but won't be able to do anything about it.
Four. Whatever trump got plus one for Garland. Also make DC a state on day 1.
You're really expecting a landslide, aren't you? Democrats are doing the exact same thing this time they did last time, and they're expecting the virus to save them. It might not happen...
It wouldn't take anything close to a landslide for the senate to flip.
My point is: if the Democrats win the senate and the presidency, it doesn't really matter if Trump fills this vacancy. There is zero doubt they will stack the court when in power if he does.
My point is: if the Democrats win the senate and the presidency, it doesn't really matter if Trump fills this vacancy. There is zero doubt they will stack the court when in power if he does.
There is plenty of doubt about whether a Democratic majority in the Senate would add seats to the Supreme Court. It would only take a couple of holdouts to stop any bill that does this, and a lot of Senators are really reluctant to do anything that might be construed as rocking the boat.
I absolutely think that Democrats should expand the court, but (along with substantially reforming the filibuster) I don't have great confidence in Senate Democrats to actually do it if the opportunity presents itself.
I absolutely think that Democrats should expand the court, but (along with substantially reforming the filibuster) I don't have great confidence in Senate Democrats to actually do it if the opportunity presents itself.
Write your senators and do your civic duties!
I hope you're right. Stacking the court with a certain sort of justice would convince a lot of people to give up on this polity. The sooner this threat to humanity can be broken up in smaller parts, the better.
I for one, hope to all hell, this doesn't happen. It would make the supreme court just an extension of any party in power of presidency and senate.
This is also, not to say I want freaking TRUMP to appoint the next justice. I just don't want to see it become a game of who's got the most votes.
I was very opposed to Obama losing his appointment.
I just don't want the precedent of 9 to change.
This is also, not to say I want freaking TRUMP to appoint the next justice. I just don't want to see it become a game of who's got the most votes.
I was very opposed to Obama losing his appointment.
I just don't want the precedent of 9 to change.
> I for one, hope to all hell, this doesn't happen. It would make the supreme court just an extension of any party in power of presidency and senate.
I completely agree, but at this point I think it's inevitable.
I completely agree, but at this point I think it's inevitable.
I, for one, am tired of "precedent" being broken benefiting Republicans and Democrats continually being expected to "take the high road".
The precedent for 9 did change. Republicans changed it to 8 justices in 2016, and then back to 9 again in 2017 because it suited them politically. I don't see why Democrats should be shy about changing the number of justices this point.
The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court
There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme Court. Tah dah. This is how democracy falls apart.
> and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court
There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme Court. Tah dah. This is how democracy falls apart.
Proposed patch: in cases like this where all of SCOTUS has an obvious conflict of interest, the decision is made by a single judge who is elected to an N year term by a national popular vote for only this purpose. Democracy saves the day?
I think the patch including a general election is good. But I think say every 5 or 10 years a justice is given an approval vote-have it rotate across the bench and one or two per year, not many. I’d they get less than 67% approval then they’re removed until after the next general election-no fillers until then. Give a time lag to let people consider their first choice before the second choice is made.
See, I actually See a lot to be recommended by adopting a much more proactive management of policy makers through a vote of no confidence than this "get in, blank check til next election" system we have. Though I'd still want to timebox the change to the fundamental political process and only affirm it as permanent until say 15 years of it's successful exercise.
"Advice and Consent". I'm pretty sure "consent" is where we get the need for Senate confirmation, and you'd have to strike that word to allow a direct appointment.
You can lawyer consent to mean a lot of things. Many legal scholars and lawyers argued that the Senate did consent in 2016 when Obama made his nomination. He sent his nomination to the Senate, and they thought about it for 9 months without rejecting, and therefore they consented.
It’s way more open to interpretation than you’re suggesting. It has never been challenged.
It’s way more open to interpretation than you’re suggesting. It has never been challenged.
Yes, it is not hard to imagine how Trump would have interpreted that precedent if the situation were reversed and the Senate was under Democrat control
That word consent means something...
Like I said, it’s never actually been challenged. Consent can mean a lot of things. For example, if I tell you what I’m going to do, and you don’t say not to do it, did you consent? I could argue yes. You could argue no. This has never been litigated on the subject of a Supreme Court nominee.
And my overall point here is that the Supreme Court would decide whether the move was legal. If the court is now stacked, well that’s just tough shit. There is no other immediate remedy except to amend the constitution. Good luck.
And my overall point here is that the Supreme Court would decide whether the move was legal. If the court is now stacked, well that’s just tough shit. There is no other immediate remedy except to amend the constitution. Good luck.
> I hope society is about to do a “big blink”.
Oh yeah? What does that take the form of? Does it take the form of people who have ideas that you don't like not being there when you open your eyes back up again?
Oh yeah? What does that take the form of? Does it take the form of people who have ideas that you don't like not being there when you open your eyes back up again?
I'm not OP, but to me that means:
1- Ideas don't make people - actions do. If someone is a good neighbor, citizen, friend and father/mother, a valuable and contributing member of their community, that their beliefs on abortion/politics/gay marriage/etc carry little weight compared to the years of actions and toil that they put in to make our society better.
2- The person who has the ideas you don't like shares more ideas that you do like than you don't. Most people want to see America grow, they want to see their children live free, avoid unnecessary harm, etc. The sliver of disagreement is small compared to the pie of agreement.
3- That we are all inherently flawed and primitive and therefore will be wrong 99% of the time. This means that even if you believe with all your conviction you are right on a point, you can remember you are probably just as wrong on more points than you are right on. It's called practicing thoughts of humility, it's a virtue we should all strive for.
Among others.
1- Ideas don't make people - actions do. If someone is a good neighbor, citizen, friend and father/mother, a valuable and contributing member of their community, that their beliefs on abortion/politics/gay marriage/etc carry little weight compared to the years of actions and toil that they put in to make our society better.
2- The person who has the ideas you don't like shares more ideas that you do like than you don't. Most people want to see America grow, they want to see their children live free, avoid unnecessary harm, etc. The sliver of disagreement is small compared to the pie of agreement.
3- That we are all inherently flawed and primitive and therefore will be wrong 99% of the time. This means that even if you believe with all your conviction you are right on a point, you can remember you are probably just as wrong on more points than you are right on. It's called practicing thoughts of humility, it's a virtue we should all strive for.
Among others.
DC, Puerto Rico statehood please! Guam too?
I wish the US were thinking bigger than just those.
what did you have in mind?! split california? something with new jersey / long island?
tus88(2)
I mean, holy sh. This election is going to be insane.
Even if Trump loses, they will seat a Federalist ideologue who is as young as they can possibly find so that the effects will be felt for 30+ years.
So... Tom Cotton?
I think reading about Ruth and Antonin Scalia's friendship was the most wholesome political reading I've ever done. Hearing people divided in opinion, but not bitterly so, working together to figure out the best framework to construct American society from was inspirational. I hope the two halves of the political world can become friends in the way they were.
Rest in peace Ruth. I hope if there's an after you and Antonin are living it up.
Rest in peace Ruth. I hope if there's an after you and Antonin are living it up.
Seems like that sort of thing is becoming rarer every day. RIP Ruth and Antonin.
The relationship between RBG and Scalia served as inspiration for one of the most beloved post-Sorkin episodes of The West Wing. The Supremes, 5x17.
For all the crap the non-Sorkin episodes get, that episode should be in the Hall of Fame for TV. Both the script and acting are of the highest caliber.
Since the parent link is to an NPR piece, here's NPR's coverage of Ginsburg's memorial tribute to Scalia: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466848775/scalia-ginsburg-ope...
I'll also link a video of her eulogy to Scalia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb_2GgE564A
Although the justices being friends is inevitable, it is not desirable. The justices would be more representative of the people - and probably dispense better justice - if there was an uneasy compromise between them based on basic principles of precedent and law.
That isn't a very fun vision of life on the bench - and any system is imperfect - so I don't really advocate that. But the idea that these people are asserting their preferences over 300 million people and then getting all chummy in their spare time isn't a good thing. It is unavoidable though.
That isn't a very fun vision of life on the bench - and any system is imperfect - so I don't really advocate that. But the idea that these people are asserting their preferences over 300 million people and then getting all chummy in their spare time isn't a good thing. It is unavoidable though.
This is the most insane comment I've read in a long time, no offense to you personally. Being friends is orthogonal, and should be orthogonal to one's judgement and their duty as a judge.
The entire world would be a better place if they do not follow the argument presented here.
The entire world would be a better place if they do not follow the argument presented here.
You're not going to like the rest of the American political and justice system. The entire process is based on purposefully creating opposing and disagreeable forces.
The whole thing was clearly created on a principle of opposing friendships between powerful forces.
The whole thing was clearly created on a principle of opposing friendships between powerful forces.
A true friendship is not necessarily based on mutually-beneficial backroom deals. A sound friendship would have each party seeking to uphold and maintain the integrity of one another. To do otherwise is to reveal that it is not friendship, but rather opportunism, cronyism, or convenience - none of which have the stability or moral foundation of true friendship.
The Supreme Court is not just another legislative branch.
But that being said, have you seen how many decisions are 5-4? Or 6-3, 7-2? It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court.
It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that. It's how we stay one cohesive nation, instead of warring factions.
But that being said, have you seen how many decisions are 5-4? Or 6-3, 7-2? It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court.
It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that. It's how we stay one cohesive nation, instead of warring factions.
Possible, yes. Preferable, sure. Most likely outcome, no.
The Supreme Court isn't a coffee club. The justices being on their toes and constantly being challenged by opposing ideas will lead to better outcomes. Friendship is a process of synchronisation, it sits in opposition to the best outcome for the system.
And yes, I pay a lot of attention to Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court isn't a coffee club. The justices being on their toes and constantly being challenged by opposing ideas will lead to better outcomes. Friendship is a process of synchronisation, it sits in opposition to the best outcome for the system.
And yes, I pay a lot of attention to Supreme Court decisions.
Friendship is the process of learning about and recognizing the value of a human being that usually leads to a greater comprehension of that persons life and views not a synchronizing of those views.
"since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases"
-Washington Post
-Washington Post
This is likely due to law getting far more specific over the decades, with less room for interpretation.
Having followed a lot of the recent SCOTUS cases, I can say that if you think the law is leaving less room for interpretation nowadays, you are sorely mistaken. Look up the "Armed Career Criminal Act"--it's an example of what seems like it ought to be a simple matter of interpretation (look! it defines "violent felon"!) into a headache (okay, the person has to have committed a crime whose state-level common-law interpretation in 1984 had to have required at least this much force, and I'm sure I'm still missing some details there).
Here's the complete breakdown for the most recent term: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Merits...
Most cases tend to be unanimous or nearly so (0-1 dissenters), and only about ⅓ of cases are contentious (5-4/6-3/5-3). This has been decently stable over the past few decades.
36% 9-0
10% 8-1
20% 7-2
11% 6-3
23% 5-4
Most cases tend to be unanimous or nearly so (0-1 dissenters), and only about ⅓ of cases are contentious (5-4/6-3/5-3). This has been decently stable over the past few decades.
That jibes with my impression of the decisions I’ve seen. You and a sibling comment are giving me these stats and I’m not sure if that’s to refute or support my point? 1/3 of decisions being split like that is quite a bit. 1/3 being unanimous is also significant.
I guess my point is that their friendship didn’t seem to have impaired either justice’s ability to do their job with faith to their respective judicial philosophies.
I guess my point is that their friendship didn’t seem to have impaired either justice’s ability to do their job with faith to their respective judicial philosophies.
gybes ?
I get confused with all the sailing terms in common vernacular, but generally the sayings go
"I like the cut of your jib"
"That gybes well with me"
Noting that none of them make sense, I think leeway is possibly the worst
I get confused with all the sailing terms in common vernacular, but generally the sayings go
"I like the cut of your jib"
"That gybes well with me"
Noting that none of them make sense, I think leeway is possibly the worst
In this case, "jibes" is correct[1] and is not a borrowed nautical term. In this context "jibes with" means "agrees with".
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jibe
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jibe
You made me look it up, and it turns out I was using it correctly. But it's funny, because I had originally written "jives", then second-guessed myself and changed it to "jibes."
I had never seen the "gybes" spelling before. Is it like tire/tyre? Looks Welsh to me!
I had never seen the "gybes" spelling before. Is it like tire/tyre? Looks Welsh to me!
>It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that.
Disagree.
The system is confrontational; it's shaped this way so as to reduce the chance of buddy-buddy underdealings and negotiation.
The system is confrontational so as to promote fairness and prevent bias.
Creating yet another environment by which the judges can exert control over the law by winning personal favors among each other must be avoided. That's exactly why things are set up such way within the US government, Supreme Court not-withstanding.
All that said : I have never considered the supreme court to be fair and unbiased. Compromising for the sake of cooperation, sure. Effective, definitely.
> It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court.
You'd never really know. That's why it should probably be well avoided.
Disagree.
The system is confrontational; it's shaped this way so as to reduce the chance of buddy-buddy underdealings and negotiation.
The system is confrontational so as to promote fairness and prevent bias.
Creating yet another environment by which the judges can exert control over the law by winning personal favors among each other must be avoided. That's exactly why things are set up such way within the US government, Supreme Court not-withstanding.
All that said : I have never considered the supreme court to be fair and unbiased. Compromising for the sake of cooperation, sure. Effective, definitely.
> It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court.
You'd never really know. That's why it should probably be well avoided.
You seem to be conflating political/Facebook "Friend"ship with respecting and accepting a fellow human being.
Your argument seems beside the point. Confrontation does not preclude friendship.
> It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that. It's how we stay one cohesive nation, instead of warring factions.
This works as long as both sides are acting in good faith, and everyone involved (i.e. everyone in a society) is on more or less equal footing. If either of those conditions don't exist, fixing them is more important than maintaining the civil discourse. That's true for many reasons, and one important reason is that in those situations, insisting on the equality of reasonable political positions with unreasonable ones is an effective defense of the status quo, which makes the problems harder to fix.
Neither of these conditions exist in the USA right now, for the record.
This works as long as both sides are acting in good faith, and everyone involved (i.e. everyone in a society) is on more or less equal footing. If either of those conditions don't exist, fixing them is more important than maintaining the civil discourse. That's true for many reasons, and one important reason is that in those situations, insisting on the equality of reasonable political positions with unreasonable ones is an effective defense of the status quo, which makes the problems harder to fix.
Neither of these conditions exist in the USA right now, for the record.
It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views
SC justices are appointed for life for the very reason to help ensure they are not political but instead apply the standards of legality.
It's not perfect, but it's less politics than when people campaign for constant election/re-election to a position.
SC justices are appointed for life for the very reason to help ensure they are not political but instead apply the standards of legality.
It's not perfect, but it's less politics than when people campaign for constant election/re-election to a position.
I don't think this is true. In the past people have reached across the aisle to compromise and collaborate successfully.
If your position is right, doesn't that contradict the continued existence of the United States? What's "United" about the US if it breaks down into a bunch of hostile warring tribes?
If your position is right, doesn't that contradict the continued existence of the United States? What's "United" about the US if it breaks down into a bunch of hostile warring tribes?
Are you trying to say that you don't believe in integrity?
Sure. And they hopefully do their best. But it sits in tension with friendship. That is why there are all sorts of principles against it for high-integrity systems.
Well, props for sticking with a truly unpopular opinion.
I’d like to change your mind one day though. My friendship with Scott was instructive here. He was a former HN mod. I looked to him as a mentor and a friend, though I’m not sure it went both ways. Regardless, we worked together on Lumen for years. When I was banned for a year from HN, he never once allowed our friendship (such as it was) to affect his duty to the site. The decision wasn’t his, and he wasn’t going to pull strings internally just because we occasionally wrote code together.
I get what you’re saying. And I agree that in the long term, it’s extremely important to set up incentive structures in the right way. But friendship — a word quite hard to define, if you think about it — is a part of the human experience.
The point here is that there are people with integrity. They do exist. And they can be friends regardless of other duties — sometimes unpleasant ones.
Now, my little story isn’t quite related. I wasn’t an adversarial peer, which is what you’re talking about. But your reasoning seems to be: if the incentive structure permits friendship, it compromises integrity. It’s a reasonable concern, especially over the course of decades. But the word “professional” reflects the fact that business comes before friendship.
It’s a fundamental truth that people will try to form friendships regardless of their occupation. Rather than change the incentive structure, as you propose, shouldn’t we recognize that truth?
The reason I related to your comment so much is, for a time, I felt exactly the same way: if business was any indication, it was a web of insider deals, “friendships”, and favors behind closed doors. I wanted nothing to do with that world. But two people with integrity can sidestep all of those concerns and simply... be friends. Even in the highest court of the land, which determines our fate.
(As a sidenote, you seem like an interesting person. If you happen to want a friend, or to debate hypothetical political structures, feel free to DM me on Twitter.)
I’d like to change your mind one day though. My friendship with Scott was instructive here. He was a former HN mod. I looked to him as a mentor and a friend, though I’m not sure it went both ways. Regardless, we worked together on Lumen for years. When I was banned for a year from HN, he never once allowed our friendship (such as it was) to affect his duty to the site. The decision wasn’t his, and he wasn’t going to pull strings internally just because we occasionally wrote code together.
I get what you’re saying. And I agree that in the long term, it’s extremely important to set up incentive structures in the right way. But friendship — a word quite hard to define, if you think about it — is a part of the human experience.
The point here is that there are people with integrity. They do exist. And they can be friends regardless of other duties — sometimes unpleasant ones.
Now, my little story isn’t quite related. I wasn’t an adversarial peer, which is what you’re talking about. But your reasoning seems to be: if the incentive structure permits friendship, it compromises integrity. It’s a reasonable concern, especially over the course of decades. But the word “professional” reflects the fact that business comes before friendship.
It’s a fundamental truth that people will try to form friendships regardless of their occupation. Rather than change the incentive structure, as you propose, shouldn’t we recognize that truth?
The reason I related to your comment so much is, for a time, I felt exactly the same way: if business was any indication, it was a web of insider deals, “friendships”, and favors behind closed doors. I wanted nothing to do with that world. But two people with integrity can sidestep all of those concerns and simply... be friends. Even in the highest court of the land, which determines our fate.
(As a sidenote, you seem like an interesting person. If you happen to want a friend, or to debate hypothetical political structures, feel free to DM me on Twitter.)
It not because you can isolate your friendship from duty that other people can do the same.
What may seem natural for you isn't for others.
Thus system are designed considering that.
What may seem natural for you isn't for others.
Thus system are designed considering that.
>The point here is that there are people with integrity. They do exist. And they can be friends regardless of other duties — sometimes unpleasant ones.
Sure. There are fantastic individuals out there.
The key to fair systems is to structure the system in such a way that does not rely on the recruitment of extraordinary individuals who are filled to the brim with integrity.
The key is to create a system of checks and balances that disallows obvious unfairness by means of liability isolation and personal separation, etc.
I'm glad your friendship with whoever Scott is worked out despite whatever problems on HN, but all the example tells me is that Scott (and to a smaller degree, yourself) have some level of personal integrity; but facts and statistics generally say that systems that can be gamed, will be -- and that's without a motivating factor other than a personal win; include motivation like money and power and the scales tip much more radically against those with integrity.
For every 'Scott' there are 10 folks without any integrity that'd have gladly re-instantiated their friends' accounts that had been banned AS LONG AS it didn't mean hurting their own position.
That's exactly why 'fair' systems are generally built in such an isolated fashion so as to reduce inclusion of bias and personal feelings.
Sure. There are fantastic individuals out there.
The key to fair systems is to structure the system in such a way that does not rely on the recruitment of extraordinary individuals who are filled to the brim with integrity.
The key is to create a system of checks and balances that disallows obvious unfairness by means of liability isolation and personal separation, etc.
I'm glad your friendship with whoever Scott is worked out despite whatever problems on HN, but all the example tells me is that Scott (and to a smaller degree, yourself) have some level of personal integrity; but facts and statistics generally say that systems that can be gamed, will be -- and that's without a motivating factor other than a personal win; include motivation like money and power and the scales tip much more radically against those with integrity.
For every 'Scott' there are 10 folks without any integrity that'd have gladly re-instantiated their friends' accounts that had been banned AS LONG AS it didn't mean hurting their own position.
That's exactly why 'fair' systems are generally built in such an isolated fashion so as to reduce inclusion of bias and personal feelings.
If we can't find people of integrity for the Supreme Court, the Republic is lost regardless of the official policies.
Exactly! Which is why this conversation is so interesting – and why it seemed they were unfairly downvoted. The question of "does friendship compromise integrity of systems over time?" is quite fascinating, and there are many examples across many countries that show "yes, yes it does." So it seemed entirely legitimate to say that perhaps a system should penalize friendships, somehow.
But, after watching Scalia, how can you not like him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0&ab_channel=Ameri...
https://youtu.be/TRS-jdgHok4?t=105
He was witty, charming, and a master orator. So when people hear "can't have a friendship with Scalia, even though you work with him," it's kind of like "can't breathe, even though you're human." It's a logical contradiction. And it's not even a well-defined problem: what is a "friendship," anyway?
But, after watching Scalia, how can you not like him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0&ab_channel=Ameri...
https://youtu.be/TRS-jdgHok4?t=105
He was witty, charming, and a master orator. So when people hear "can't have a friendship with Scalia, even though you work with him," it's kind of like "can't breathe, even though you're human." It's a logical contradiction. And it's not even a well-defined problem: what is a "friendship," anyway?
> The question of "does friendship compromise integrity of systems over time?" is quite fascinating, and there are many examples across many countries that show "yes, yes it does."
I think this is probably true in legislative bodies and in government agencies - for the same reason: both promote deal making because there's something to be gained.
One of the reasons the SC Justices are seated for life is precisely to blunt that effect. They can be friends without needing to make deals because they really don't get anything out of a deal - and one hopes they fully appreciate the gravity of their position.
The Court is a sort of unique entity in that it doesn't need (I don't think) to be confrontational in order to be effective. It is the one place where one would think, true wisdom reigns. And by and large, that is what I see from SCOTUS' decisions.
It's a sign of an intelligent, mature mind to be able to contain contradictory ideas without losing your identity. Being friends with someone on the other side of the political aisle, in a group as small as the supreme court, I would think has the effect of improving the quality of their deliberations and little else.
I think this is probably true in legislative bodies and in government agencies - for the same reason: both promote deal making because there's something to be gained.
One of the reasons the SC Justices are seated for life is precisely to blunt that effect. They can be friends without needing to make deals because they really don't get anything out of a deal - and one hopes they fully appreciate the gravity of their position.
The Court is a sort of unique entity in that it doesn't need (I don't think) to be confrontational in order to be effective. It is the one place where one would think, true wisdom reigns. And by and large, that is what I see from SCOTUS' decisions.
It's a sign of an intelligent, mature mind to be able to contain contradictory ideas without losing your identity. Being friends with someone on the other side of the political aisle, in a group as small as the supreme court, I would think has the effect of improving the quality of their deliberations and little else.
How can I not like him? Real easily, turns out! Scalia wanted to deny basic human dignities to people I care about. Scalia perpetuated a system that grinds your everyday citizen into the dirt because it made his moneyed interests a speck wealthier. To hell with that, and worse words besides.
A competent rhetorician is only "hard to hate" when you don't look at what they do. Keeping one's eye on the ball is not that difficult when you have a set of principles.
A competent rhetorician is only "hard to hate" when you don't look at what they do. Keeping one's eye on the ball is not that difficult when you have a set of principles.
You should watch that second youtube link. His whole point was that judges shouldn't be in a position to deny anyone anything. It's a policy preference, and should not be left to seven unelected judges.
If you disagree with that, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. It was sort of incredible that Scalia basically straight-up says "You gave me the power to decide whether abortion is permitted nationwide? Really? Who thought this was a good idea?" (Not an actual quote; the talk is quite good.)
Apparently it wasn't always so, and Scalia explains the history too. The concept of the constitution as a "living document" was manufactured, along with the idea that morals mature over time. "Societies only mature, they never rot! /s"
What you're talking about is a matter of business. There are certainly some individuals that it would be quite difficult to be friends with in spite of what they've done. But if Scalia is one of them, well... Everyone has their preferences, I guess.
If you disagree with that, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. It was sort of incredible that Scalia basically straight-up says "You gave me the power to decide whether abortion is permitted nationwide? Really? Who thought this was a good idea?" (Not an actual quote; the talk is quite good.)
Apparently it wasn't always so, and Scalia explains the history too. The concept of the constitution as a "living document" was manufactured, along with the idea that morals mature over time. "Societies only mature, they never rot! /s"
What you're talking about is a matter of business. There are certainly some individuals that it would be quite difficult to be friends with in spite of what they've done. But if Scalia is one of them, well... Everyone has their preferences, I guess.
I am entirely already familiar with Scalia's approach to jurisprudence. I spent most of my youth thinking it was just such a great idea. I also grew up affluent, white, male, and cis; to no surprise, these are contributing factors. Having since grown up and built for myself some facility for basic human empathy I do disagree with that, because not everyone can pick up states and leave Alabama or whatever because their judiciary decides that they can stuff gay kids in conversion therapy or can relegate abortions to back alleys. It privileges me to have such a society because I can go wherever the hell I want because I have money.
Antonin Scalia's entire worldview was built because he knew he was a rear-guard for regressive thought and maybe, just maybe, a broken country with an impotent federal government could allow people like him to continue to kick the shit out of the weak a little longer. He was never going to get to punish women with an abortion ban (and today, would never get to fuck over trans people) nationally--so the natural outgrowth of this is to punish women and fuck of trans people where they can. All in the name of "letting people choose", so they can choose to vote on the basic humanity of others.
I reject the idea that one can "be friends" with the people who want to bring the long dark back. They will break civil society on the anvil of a supremacism that exists to benefit me, and I refuse it.
Antonin Scalia's entire worldview was built because he knew he was a rear-guard for regressive thought and maybe, just maybe, a broken country with an impotent federal government could allow people like him to continue to kick the shit out of the weak a little longer. He was never going to get to punish women with an abortion ban (and today, would never get to fuck over trans people) nationally--so the natural outgrowth of this is to punish women and fuck of trans people where they can. All in the name of "letting people choose", so they can choose to vote on the basic humanity of others.
I reject the idea that one can "be friends" with the people who want to bring the long dark back. They will break civil society on the anvil of a supremacism that exists to benefit me, and I refuse it.
It's quite possible to be friends who have strong, contrasting opinions. I'd argue the oppose that it is a desirable state for highly powerful people making decisions for the whole country because you're less likely be blinded by mindless us-vs them and give the benefit of the doubt the arguments and beliefs contrary to yours.
The inability to disagree in a mature way is why we have such a mess of identity politics, name calling and all sorts of division in many counties IMO.
The inability to disagree in a mature way is why we have such a mess of identity politics, name calling and all sorts of division in many counties IMO.
This is true, but it depends on the topic. If I have a very strong opinion about the ineffectiveness of the Laffer curve when setting tax policy, I can probably be pretty good friends with somebody who believes the opposite. But I think it probably is important that we don't remain friends with people who deny other people's essential humanity, or who support political policies that have no effect other than to hurt people, and so on. Just because an opinion can be described as political doesn't mean that it's automatically coequal with others, and we don't have an obligation of deference.
Daryl Davis has converted a lot of KKK members away from racism by risking his life to befriend them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis
How many people have you seen converted from dangerous beliefs by isolating them away from dissimilar thinkers?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis
How many people have you seen converted from dangerous beliefs by isolating them away from dissimilar thinkers?
Davis is a brilliant man that understands something about humans that far too many people don’t. He came to that understanding by engaging and asking questions.
This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else. Contrast to the extremists of today like BLM who are having the opposite effect and pushing more people to racism. We’re going backwards. Then again, it’s not like BLM is actually motivated by their clever branding, so this is unsurprising.
This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else. Contrast to the extremists of today like BLM who are having the opposite effect and pushing more people to racism. We’re going backwards. Then again, it’s not like BLM is actually motivated by their clever branding, so this is unsurprising.
> This strategy single handedly abolished more KKK members than anything else.
Obviously this is not true.
Obviously this is not true.
OP's claim is quite bold and they did not offer evidence. I would describe it as 'unsubstantiated'.
To correctly say it is untrue, you must show another strategy actually converted at least hundreds of KKK members (perhaps more, as it's possible people beyond just Daryl got results from this strategy).
To correctly say it is untrue, you must show another strategy actually converted at least hundreds of KKK members (perhaps more, as it's possible people beyond just Daryl got results from this strategy).
That's a nice story and I'm sure he's a great guy but it's not an effective policy at the macro scale and that's what matters.
Daryl's approach works, at least for him. I suspect others can learn to do it, too.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that refusing to interact with people deradicalizes them. The filter bubble phenomenon suggests the opposite.
I'll take a strategy that's known to work with unclear scalability over a scalable one with no evidence it works, every time.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that refusing to interact with people deradicalizes them. The filter bubble phenomenon suggests the opposite.
I'll take a strategy that's known to work with unclear scalability over a scalable one with no evidence it works, every time.
I don't really care so much about the individual voter, I care about how far their voice reaches on the Internet, I care about the people they influence, I care about their children, I care about higher-level things.
I don't understand how that relates to what I said.
Would you mind explaining further?
Would you mind explaining further?
What do you think is a more effective way to deradicalize white nationalists as measured on a societal level: engaging them on the merits of their arguments and having a good-faith debate, or deplatforming them?
I missed your response days ago, but happened to see it just now scrolling through my comment history.
It seems obvious to me that deplatforming them will further radicalize them. It fits perfectly into their narrative as I understand it.
Engaging them as (deeply flawed, very wrong) humans and having a good-faith debate seems to have worked shockingly well for Daryl. I suspect it could for others, too (though Daryl is obviously a rare breed).
It seems obvious to me that deplatforming them will further radicalize them. It fits perfectly into their narrative as I understand it.
Engaging them as (deeply flawed, very wrong) humans and having a good-faith debate seems to have worked shockingly well for Daryl. I suspect it could for others, too (though Daryl is obviously a rare breed).
building personal relationships with individuals in order to deradicalize them one by one is not a viable strategy at the macro level. It's efficacy is irrelevant to me.
When has it ever been tried at the macro scale?
You seem pretty confident, why do you think it would not work at macro scale? If you are saying that empathy doesn’t scale, that’s a pretty dark view that requires some evidence.
Are people born racist? Does education an outreach not work? I really don’t see why you’d be so certain.
Are people born racist? Does education an outreach not work? I really don’t see why you’d be so certain.
Republicans and moderates are not denying anyone’s humanity, nor do they support political policies that have no other effect than to hurt people. Nobody does. Arriving at that conclusion should tell you loud and clear that your model is incomplete and you don’t understand your opponent.
Republicans in 2020 are absolutely and inarguably doing those things.
Every vote for that party in our zeitgeist is motivated in no small part by active malignancy. It's the defining characteristic of their leader, unavoidable and undeniable, and as of the convention the party literally has no platform except to serve and support his whims. So there is absolutely a right and a wrong side to things right now.
Every vote for that party in our zeitgeist is motivated in no small part by active malignancy. It's the defining characteristic of their leader, unavoidable and undeniable, and as of the convention the party literally has no platform except to serve and support his whims. So there is absolutely a right and a wrong side to things right now.
Absolutely and inarguably? A vote for a Republican is a vote for "active malignancy"? How could anyone even approach a conversation with you about this? Isn't this the exact opposite of RBG and Scalia's friendship, which is the actual topic of this comment thread?
That's the whole point: I'm not interested in a "conversation" on the topic because there isn't one to be had.
Friendship is an even stronger signal of tacit endorsement and there are situations, positions where it's inappropriate, even morally unjustifiable, to deploy. Scalia would certainly qualify for me.
Friendship is an even stronger signal of tacit endorsement and there are situations, positions where it's inappropriate, even morally unjustifiable, to deploy. Scalia would certainly qualify for me.
Are you talking about the party that spent decades motivating turnout by making their base hate gay people? They denied the humanity of gay people, fought to deny them basic human rights and all for what? Just to cynically win elections?
If you didn’t know this or chose to ignore it, your model is incomplete and you don’t understand one side.
If you didn’t know this or chose to ignore it, your model is incomplete and you don’t understand one side.
Remind me who voted for DOMA? You need to study a little history.
You're not acting in good faith here, and it's both obvious and hilarious. You respond to someone summarizing decades of malignant propagandizing with, literally, a Whataboutism dredging up a single minor procedural issue, out of context, from like 23 years ago, and pretend that single disingenuous statement disarms the thing it's responding to. This is -- you are -- exactly what I'm talking about.
"Democrats aren't people anymore as far as I'm concerned"
"It's time to stop arresting these filth only to have them released the next day and start just putting them down"
--seen literally yesterday in a popular politics IRC chatroom, to general agreement. I think many people don't entirely realize how bad it's gotten.
"It's time to stop arresting these filth only to have them released the next day and start just putting them down"
--seen literally yesterday in a popular politics IRC chatroom, to general agreement. I think many people don't entirely realize how bad it's gotten.
Republicans are absolutely working to roll back legal protections for the LGBT community and have been engaged in a decades-long fight to reduce women's access to health care.
They're also fully in support of the immigration policies that have led to things like the very well-documented child separation.
In what ways are those not denying someone's humanity?
They're also fully in support of the immigration policies that have led to things like the very well-documented child separation.
In what ways are those not denying someone's humanity?
First, those are lies. Second, in no way is that denying humanity.
I think you are wrong. The mutual respect that grows out of friendship makes it easier to consider the other side of an argumen more seriously. And if there is one thing that is needed now it is more common ground being sought - not less.
The idea that one ought not fraternize with those who disagree with one’s opinion is unproductive and leads to unnecessary division and ultimately a weaker system. Ultimately it is a brutish and uncivilized idea.
I wish your post wasn’t downvoted. Bad ideas require discussion to be understood. And they can’t be discussed if they are removed from discourse.
The idea that one ought not fraternize with those who disagree with one’s opinion is unproductive and leads to unnecessary division and ultimately a weaker system. Ultimately it is a brutish and uncivilized idea.
I wish your post wasn’t downvoted. Bad ideas require discussion to be understood. And they can’t be discussed if they are removed from discourse.
I upvoted (hopefully to preserve the OP) but don't think "It's a bad idea"
If anybody from ycombinator is reading - it seems insane what a post can be down-voted into grey and then the void, whilst it has active commentary beneath it.
"Posts" can have a status applied to them, but the far more important thing is the "thread" where different views collide.
Pulling posts, breaks the thread.
If anybody from ycombinator is reading - it seems insane what a post can be down-voted into grey and then the void, whilst it has active commentary beneath it.
"Posts" can have a status applied to them, but the far more important thing is the "thread" where different views collide.
Pulling posts, breaks the thread.
I agree that it's a shame when unpopular but reasonable and well-stated posts attract a lot of downvotes. Even if you assume that most such positions will be wrong, some won't be, and if they all get downvoted to oblivion, it encourages group-think.
No, being friends with contrasting opinions can be a good thing. Once in a while the guard slips off and one can see in the other's yard. Whoever's story has more flaws is likely to suffer a slight change in perception if not a downright 180 turn.
No, it’s a beautiful thing. The country would be far better off if we treated each other this way. In many other countries, this is the norm. Maybe you can learn something from your elders.
In what democratic country is this the case nowadays? I‘ve lived in a buch of places in Europe and have friends in many more. The divide might not be as pronounced as in the US but it‘s certainly there.
Using me as an anecdotal example, I have acquaintances and a few (loose) friends that are fiscally conservative. I have exactly zero (known) acquaintances or friends that are conservative/regressive with regards to social issues. After all I‘ve seen and experienced in my life I just cannot emphasize with someone that can justify denying women health care or discriminate against race or sexual orientation, for example.
I suppose you could start solving these entrenchments by having millions of desert islands in order to force small groups of people with diametrically opposed viewpoints to endure hardships on them.
On the internet there is no chance. Without seeing the actual person and talking with them for hours it wouldn‘t work. The problem with this method is that it‘s terribly inefficient.
What we need is a sort of enlightened six sense for empathy that makes large groups of people feel the state of mind of other large groups. But barring large scale psychedelic treatments I don‘t see that happening.
Using me as an anecdotal example, I have acquaintances and a few (loose) friends that are fiscally conservative. I have exactly zero (known) acquaintances or friends that are conservative/regressive with regards to social issues. After all I‘ve seen and experienced in my life I just cannot emphasize with someone that can justify denying women health care or discriminate against race or sexual orientation, for example.
I suppose you could start solving these entrenchments by having millions of desert islands in order to force small groups of people with diametrically opposed viewpoints to endure hardships on them.
On the internet there is no chance. Without seeing the actual person and talking with them for hours it wouldn‘t work. The problem with this method is that it‘s terribly inefficient.
What we need is a sort of enlightened six sense for empathy that makes large groups of people feel the state of mind of other large groups. But barring large scale psychedelic treatments I don‘t see that happening.
Who hurt you? Why discount their friendship? I'd say it would make little difference with people of the caliber of RBG or Scalia.
I wonder how friendly they would have been if Scalia had managed to overturn abortion.
Lol. Why are you downvoted here? It’s like some people want to constantly paint the world like the end of a Disney movie where it turns out every character was really good deep down inside.
I mean they both seemed to have good sportsmanship. Is life not but a game?
Having been poor once and now being not-poor, this mentality of life being a game comes from a position of security. When I was poor, it wasn't a game but a struggle and a significant source of stress. If I thought of it as a game, it seemed rigged.
Now that I feel secure, I can see where you're coming from when you call it a game though.
Now that I feel secure, I can see where you're coming from when you call it a game though.
A thoroughly uninformed or malicious comment
Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top.
Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for.
~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward "
As I typed that, I could hear the happy-clappy sounds of some mocking-utopia ringing in my ears - but goddamnit, it doesn't sound too hard for us to each put it into action. I'm as guilty as the next person, but I'm going to try going forward.
Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for.
~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward "
As I typed that, I could hear the happy-clappy sounds of some mocking-utopia ringing in my ears - but goddamnit, it doesn't sound too hard for us to each put it into action. I'm as guilty as the next person, but I'm going to try going forward.
This is a key aspect of the struggle of civilization and not utopian at all. If we hope to change anyone's mind and reach a level of social consensus on anything then it's imperative we make a safe space for everyone to think and have civil discourse. Knee jerk recriminations for essentially thinking is the recipe for entrenchment of positions and pushing people to the margins where they are more likely to mix with extremists. RBG and Scalia were a great example of how to disagree respectfully and not treat ideas as a personal threat but to engage with them with enthusiasm. I am with you in your quest to listen and give ideas their due and all people respect.
it's not just about listening to ideas. if it were that easy, we'd already be more socially cohesive. it's about subtler things like real empathy, where you can actually see and follow the chain of reason someone takes to get to a position, however outlandish you think that is at the outset. it's about holding contradictory ideas in your head at the same time, constantly, about everything, rather than retreating into your warm and cozy ideological corner at every dissonance.
but it's also about not simply giving in to the outlandish because you want to create a safe space. that means calling someone out for what is usually some form of aggression without alienating or offending, putting real social capital on the line, and requiring self-restraint, courage, a bit of charisma, and more.
and then you have media organizations like npr itself, nytimes, and twitter actively trying to play both sides, instigating while also trying to claim the moral high ground, feeding divisiveness.
it's hard, and takes active, willful effort from (nearly) everyone.
but it's also about not simply giving in to the outlandish because you want to create a safe space. that means calling someone out for what is usually some form of aggression without alienating or offending, putting real social capital on the line, and requiring self-restraint, courage, a bit of charisma, and more.
and then you have media organizations like npr itself, nytimes, and twitter actively trying to play both sides, instigating while also trying to claim the moral high ground, feeding divisiveness.
it's hard, and takes active, willful effort from (nearly) everyone.
If you really want to find a compelling starting point for the state of our current public political discourse, you may find it in the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Rush Limbaugh's first radio broadcast airs in 1988 which introduced "anger-tainment" as a very profitable political news model. As time passes, this new business model affected every news organization in one way or another, to various degrees, willingly or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
i'm not sure the (repeal of the) fairness doctrine is a prime culprit, but i'm open to hearing a fuller perspective.
more to the point, i just heard a real example of the kind of empathy and compassion we need by nba hall-of-famer isaiah thomas on tnt's "the arena" airing right now, of all places.
it was in relation to LA county sheriff alex villanueva calling out lebron james to put up money for the recent shooting of two sheriff deputies in compton. this is a powder-keg issue here in LA right now. the knee-jerk reaction would have been to put down the sheriff for an unreasonable emotional outburst, but isaiah basically extended his hand and narrated how he understood where the sheriff was coming from, even if the demand was not exactly well thought out.
that's really hard to do in the moment, and my respect for isaiah just rose significantly because of it.
more to the point, i just heard a real example of the kind of empathy and compassion we need by nba hall-of-famer isaiah thomas on tnt's "the arena" airing right now, of all places.
it was in relation to LA county sheriff alex villanueva calling out lebron james to put up money for the recent shooting of two sheriff deputies in compton. this is a powder-keg issue here in LA right now. the knee-jerk reaction would have been to put down the sheriff for an unreasonable emotional outburst, but isaiah basically extended his hand and narrated how he understood where the sheriff was coming from, even if the demand was not exactly well thought out.
that's really hard to do in the moment, and my respect for isaiah just rose significantly because of it.
I'm not sure how old you are, but think about what you saw on that political / news show then imagine how Walter Cronkite would have reported those events. I haven't seen the show you're talking about, but I would imagine the difference would be stark.
Point being, what you saw sells ads better than if Walker Cronkite reported it because it's emotionally charged. All this really kicked into gear with Rush Limbaugh because he was allowed to sit there and just rant for 3 hours and get people riled up. When you consume any news, look for clues that they are trying to get you riled up. Look for emotional words like "obliterated," "destroyed," etc. particularly in the headline (which reporters don't control). News is a business and are bound by the same profit/loss laws as any other business.
Point being, what you saw sells ads better than if Walker Cronkite reported it because it's emotionally charged. All this really kicked into gear with Rush Limbaugh because he was allowed to sit there and just rant for 3 hours and get people riled up. When you consume any news, look for clues that they are trying to get you riled up. Look for emotional words like "obliterated," "destroyed," etc. particularly in the headline (which reporters don't control). News is a business and are bound by the same profit/loss laws as any other business.
"the arena" is a sports talk show that happened to be on in the background after watching the lakers game (in which lebron and his crew won). it's relatively unique in that it's anchored by a black woman (cari champion), but it's squarely a sports opinion show, and incidentally political, for instance, due to the intertwining issue of black folks being disproportionately targeted by police and the legal system.
it's not meant to be fact-rich/low-opinion news, and they make that obvious by not mimicking a news format, unlike many other "news"-like shows, which is entirely acceptable. there is room for a few opinion shows in the mix. but it's the opinion shows disguised as news shows that are insidiously problematic, and that's increasingly all of them.
we're entirely in agreement that the profit motive drives news and news-like organizations in a race to the bottom toward attention-grabbing infotainment rather than staid factual news.
it's almost as if we need to break off high-value, low-engagement news organizations into fully independent non-profits that are funded by a pool of income from the infotainment industry for the right to continue delivering low-value, high-engagement infotainment, rather than intermixing the two.
it's not meant to be fact-rich/low-opinion news, and they make that obvious by not mimicking a news format, unlike many other "news"-like shows, which is entirely acceptable. there is room for a few opinion shows in the mix. but it's the opinion shows disguised as news shows that are insidiously problematic, and that's increasingly all of them.
we're entirely in agreement that the profit motive drives news and news-like organizations in a race to the bottom toward attention-grabbing infotainment rather than staid factual news.
it's almost as if we need to break off high-value, low-engagement news organizations into fully independent non-profits that are funded by a pool of income from the infotainment industry for the right to continue delivering low-value, high-engagement infotainment, rather than intermixing the two.
It just occurred to me that our political news discourse has gotten so bad, it was easy to assume "the arena" could be the name of a news / opinion show, but my mistake.
>it's almost as if we need to break off high-value, low-engagement news organizations into fully independent non-profits that are funded by a pool of income from the infotainment industry for the right to continue delivering low-value, high-engagement infotainment, rather than intermixing the two.
We absolutely do, and I think there is a demand for it, just not sure how it would ever get funded because the investors would always want the higher return the anger-tainment style would bring. I try to focus on individual / independent journalism when available. I'm just starting to (audio)read Woodward's new book, and it seems pretty fair so far. I thought his last book seemed fair also. The difference of the new book is quite stark compared to the media's take on it recently.
I remember early in his presidency, watching a Trump speech. A short while later I saw news coverage on that same speech and it was like they weren't even talking about the same event.
>it's almost as if we need to break off high-value, low-engagement news organizations into fully independent non-profits that are funded by a pool of income from the infotainment industry for the right to continue delivering low-value, high-engagement infotainment, rather than intermixing the two.
We absolutely do, and I think there is a demand for it, just not sure how it would ever get funded because the investors would always want the higher return the anger-tainment style would bring. I try to focus on individual / independent journalism when available. I'm just starting to (audio)read Woodward's new book, and it seems pretty fair so far. I thought his last book seemed fair also. The difference of the new book is quite stark compared to the media's take on it recently.
I remember early in his presidency, watching a Trump speech. A short while later I saw news coverage on that same speech and it was like they weren't even talking about the same event.
This makes so much sense, I mean Chris Cuomo, Maddow, Brian Williams, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, doesn't matter - they all use very emotional language to describe things.
I long for the good ole Walter Cronkite news casts. (I didn't mention fox commentators because that's beyond the beyond, they're way worse).
I long for the good ole Walter Cronkite news casts. (I didn't mention fox commentators because that's beyond the beyond, they're way worse).
Could you elaborate how fox is worse?
Is this because you disagree politically or because they’re “beyond the beyond, they’re way worse” or whatever thoughtless, meaningless comment Was typed?
Is this because you disagree politically or because they’re “beyond the beyond, they’re way worse” or whatever thoughtless, meaningless comment Was typed?
Fox News was conceived as and currently is a propaganda network for the Republican Party. Roger Ailes, a Nixon advisor, saw how the media caused the public opinion to really sour during the Watergate scandal and impeachment and he had the foresight to counteract it. He was the first CEO for Fox News, which was funded by Rupert Murdoch, founder of SkyNews in Australia, another network with not the best reputation.
Judy Woodruff, and to a lesser extent Chris Hayes avoid inflammatory language.
Can't echo this enough. It feels over the last decade that we really have lost this. You see so little actual discussion taking place any longer. Everything is rhetoric, it is tiring.
> It feels over the last decade that we really have lost this.
Polarization has been increasing in the US for longer than that. Many of these tendrils stretch all the way back to the founding days of the US, but I think the real uptick of this modern flavor is hate started with Newt Gingrich:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Role_in_politica...
Polarization has been increasing in the US for longer than that. Many of these tendrils stretch all the way back to the founding days of the US, but I think the real uptick of this modern flavor is hate started with Newt Gingrich:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Role_in_politica...
Ralph Reed: toxic as a kid at University of Georgia, still toxic today.
My judgement may not move the conversation any further. I'm too emotionally wound up. I could do without the personal experience of the community which spawned this artificial divide. But then again, it's all I have, so I might as well use the hard lessons as well as the good times.
Never been in the same room as the founder of the (so-called) Christian Coalition. I hope. Grew up in Athens Georgia around that time, it was considered a small town. It wasn't all bad, but it took thousands of miles and decades of years before I could enter a Christian Church without wanting to run away.
My judgement may not move the conversation any further. I'm too emotionally wound up. I could do without the personal experience of the community which spawned this artificial divide. But then again, it's all I have, so I might as well use the hard lessons as well as the good times.
Never been in the same room as the founder of the (so-called) Christian Coalition. I hope. Grew up in Athens Georgia around that time, it was considered a small town. It wasn't all bad, but it took thousands of miles and decades of years before I could enter a Christian Church without wanting to run away.
It's John McCain's fault.
Not because he was bad - he wasn't. He was an honorable man. So honorable he got rid of earmarks, the allocation of funding to particular projects.
The result of this being that there is very little reason for people to cross the aisle. Previously, you had to keep working with the other party to keep the gravy train on schedule. Now?
For bonus points, ask if the cost of gridlock are higher or lower than the cost of the earmarks.
Not because he was bad - he wasn't. He was an honorable man. So honorable he got rid of earmarks, the allocation of funding to particular projects.
The result of this being that there is very little reason for people to cross the aisle. Previously, you had to keep working with the other party to keep the gravy train on schedule. Now?
For bonus points, ask if the cost of gridlock are higher or lower than the cost of the earmarks.
Disclaimer: this is my perception. Many will disagree and many will downvoted, but I want to put it out there in case it resonates with anyone and generates good, enlightening conversation. I hope people read and respond in the same spirit of good faith.
Perhaps Newt was a catalyst in Washington, but I think the broader cultural change was less related. Even as a lifelong liberal, I recall the 2000s as being a period of liberal snark toward conservatives, especially in the media and on the emerging Internet (I know some will argue that conservative policies are horrible so they deserved to be treated this way, but such arguments miss the point of civility: you debate bad ideas; you don’t attack people). It wasn’t the sort of ruthless display we see today, but it was relentless and it went on for more than a decade. Conservatives generally maintained decorum, but eventually the dam burst and the resentment cascaded over and Trump arrived on the scene to personify the middle finger that many on the right wanted to give to those they felt mistreated them for so long.
None of this is meant to impute blame or innocence on anyone, but to serve as a framework for understanding how we got here as that is prerequisite for getting black to a healthier state.
Perhaps Newt was a catalyst in Washington, but I think the broader cultural change was less related. Even as a lifelong liberal, I recall the 2000s as being a period of liberal snark toward conservatives, especially in the media and on the emerging Internet (I know some will argue that conservative policies are horrible so they deserved to be treated this way, but such arguments miss the point of civility: you debate bad ideas; you don’t attack people). It wasn’t the sort of ruthless display we see today, but it was relentless and it went on for more than a decade. Conservatives generally maintained decorum, but eventually the dam burst and the resentment cascaded over and Trump arrived on the scene to personify the middle finger that many on the right wanted to give to those they felt mistreated them for so long.
None of this is meant to impute blame or innocence on anyone, but to serve as a framework for understanding how we got here as that is prerequisite for getting black to a healthier state.
None of this is controversial or offtopic. Looks like the downvotes just proved your point. Folks don’t even respect a fellow liberal try to engage in a completely reasonable and civil way, forget any hope of them respecting a conservative.
The ironic part is that you allow a partial pass due to bad conservative policies, but during the time period to which you refer, the liberals were anti-gay marriage (DOMA anyone?) and ramming through “tough on crime” laws that they now decry as racist.
The ironic part is that you allow a partial pass due to bad conservative policies, but during the time period to which you refer, the liberals were anti-gay marriage (DOMA anyone?) and ramming through “tough on crime” laws that they now decry as racist.
The clearest example of this that I have personally experienced was in a discussion a few days ago about the fires in Oregon. A state senator had his house burned down, and my suggestion that we shouldn't be celebrating this guy's misery brought a level of vicious attack I was completely unprepared for.
Like, I get it, it's ironic- he opposed a climate change and wildfire bill and his house burned down. What really scared me though was realizing I don't think the reaction would have been much different if he himself had burned to death in the fire.
Like, I get it, it's ironic- he opposed a climate change and wildfire bill and his house burned down. What really scared me though was realizing I don't think the reaction would have been much different if he himself had burned to death in the fire.
Ouch. I have so many complicated thoughts trying to process the implications of that story, which I won’t try to sort out here. People are in denial about this, especially younger people with a fairly narrow view of both history and global politics, but what we are seeing is foreshadowing a civil war, and it’s getting increasingly difficult to see what might avert that outcome. There’s no question in my mind that we haven’t seen the worst of the riots and the violence yet. With the police forces being neutered all over the country, the inevitable response will be federal forces, and I think that is by design. Once that happens, we face a major escalation that will be very hard to unwind. We’ve learned now that these events are not rooted in any principle of justice (despite their clever PR that still appears to be fooling most) which means they can’t actually be avoided. They’re going to continue to capture any event they can to advance. I’m not even sure they realize what they are doing. Honestly, you can see the same ideological possession in so many of the comments in this thread.
Every time the police shoot a black man, unarmed and possibly in the back, there's a huge outpouring from the conservative media about why they deserved it and the police were right to murder them.
That, more than anything else, has contributed to the coarseness of the discourse. Well, that and the 4chanisation of everything. Maybe the right could rein in the "libtard" and "cuck" discourse a bit too? Oh, and the death threats that prominent women get.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ocasio-cor...
That, more than anything else, has contributed to the coarseness of the discourse. Well, that and the 4chanisation of everything. Maybe the right could rein in the "libtard" and "cuck" discourse a bit too? Oh, and the death threats that prominent women get.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ocasio-cor...
That’s not the case at all. There is an attempt to explain why the shooting was justified, and it nearly always is justified, which is an important analysis. It’s not as though there is a pattern of unarmed killings.
> It’s not as though there is a pattern of unarmed killings.
There's at least one a month that makes international news? And several thousand demonstrators in the streets for hundreds of days that think they're not justified? And it turns out that the police lie about events unless there's footage, and sometimes even then?
Here's the latest one: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/police-shooting...
There's at least one a month that makes international news? And several thousand demonstrators in the streets for hundreds of days that think they're not justified? And it turns out that the police lie about events unless there's footage, and sometimes even then?
Here's the latest one: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/police-shooting...
One a month spread around different individuals in the country with over 700,000 cops and a total of over 50 million interactions a year, which includes dealing with all of the violent criminals who usually don’t want to go to go willingly and are often armed, then yes, one a month is incredibly low and indicates that this isn’t a pattern.
Even basic statistics knowledge should make this obvious.
It doesn’t matter that people are rioting. It turns out they routinely lie about events until there is footage too. Crowds riot about dumb/wrong things all the time. Sports games come to mind.
You just linked to an example where a wanted violent criminal was reported to police for violating a restraining order against a woman he previously allegedly raped, who then disregarded the cops orders, decided to fight with them and put them in a headlock, refused to comply again after being shot with tasers, refused to comply again when the gun was drawn, and instead reached for a deadly weapon while in lethal striking distance of an officer. I think you proved my point, not yours.
Even basic statistics knowledge should make this obvious.
It doesn’t matter that people are rioting. It turns out they routinely lie about events until there is footage too. Crowds riot about dumb/wrong things all the time. Sports games come to mind.
You just linked to an example where a wanted violent criminal was reported to police for violating a restraining order against a woman he previously allegedly raped, who then disregarded the cops orders, decided to fight with them and put them in a headlock, refused to comply again after being shot with tasers, refused to comply again when the gun was drawn, and instead reached for a deadly weapon while in lethal striking distance of an officer. I think you proved my point, not yours.
sofixa(1)
I am a liberal as well and had a similar perception and that bothered me a bit. But, as fair as I want to be I couldn't help but notice the Republicans always favored the irrational, the fearmongering, and their discourse wasn't simply the other side of things but crooked perverted politics. Maybe the liberal snark was a reaction in the first place. And what we're witnessing now is the reaction to that reaction.
“Republicans always”
This is the language and thought pattern that is the problem. It is not okay to use this kind of language.
This is the language and thought pattern that is the problem. It is not okay to use this kind of language.
I'd wager you're getting voted down for "conservatives generally mainted decorum" in the decade after the Clinton impeachment, which included wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fox News's rise to prominence, the Drudge Report setting the 24/7 alarmist tone that still domiantes online political content, McConnell growing into his now trademark do-nothing leadership, Ann Coulter moving from print to TV and showing everyone else that going weirder and crueler wins now. Hell, Orrin Hatch was literally censured _by Senate Republicans_ in the 2000s for how quickly he dropped his frenemy decorum with Democrats, especially Ted Kennedy.
The 2000s were absolutely not a decade of decorum, for conservatives or anyone in politics. The 2004 election was a massive turning point toward where we are today, and the 2008 election meltdown culminated the Republican party turning itself inside out in ways Gingrich really did directly catalyze a decade and a half prior.
We wound up with the Tea Party at the end of the 2000s and American political discourse went from an already slippery slope to a freefall.
The 2000s were absolutely not a decade of decorum, for conservatives or anyone in politics. The 2004 election was a massive turning point toward where we are today, and the 2008 election meltdown culminated the Republican party turning itself inside out in ways Gingrich really did directly catalyze a decade and a half prior.
We wound up with the Tea Party at the end of the 2000s and American political discourse went from an already slippery slope to a freefall.
As a New England liberal going back generations, for me it was very clear: conservatives were not simply wrong, but bafflingly, astoundingly, inconceivably wrong. The only logical explanation was that as individuals they were misguided: either evil, or dumb, or maybe just crazy.
I didn't understand this at the time, but everything I saw or read supported this worldview. Newspapers, magazines, schools, academics. Since I was left of them generally, I thought the world was too conservative. When conservatives complained about the mainstream media, it was always in context of mainstream journalists mocking them. For me, I saw it as conservatives mocking their extremists.
Fast forward to today, and I cannot imagine how frustrating it must have been to be a conservative then. That idea, that conservatives are bad, evil or crazy, was pervasive and all encompassing and smug.
Nowadays, for me, it's not about agreeing, but about listening. Hearing what people actually say rather than what a journalist says they say is quite enlightening.
I didn't understand this at the time, but everything I saw or read supported this worldview. Newspapers, magazines, schools, academics. Since I was left of them generally, I thought the world was too conservative. When conservatives complained about the mainstream media, it was always in context of mainstream journalists mocking them. For me, I saw it as conservatives mocking their extremists.
Fast forward to today, and I cannot imagine how frustrating it must have been to be a conservative then. That idea, that conservatives are bad, evil or crazy, was pervasive and all encompassing and smug.
Nowadays, for me, it's not about agreeing, but about listening. Hearing what people actually say rather than what a journalist says they say is quite enlightening.
I mean... weren't they?
Look at where it's got them - conspiracy theories about pedophile pizza parlours. I'm struggling to frame the events of the last two decades as "the story of how we realized that conservatives were reasonable people after all".
Look at where it's got them - conspiracy theories about pedophile pizza parlours. I'm struggling to frame the events of the last two decades as "the story of how we realized that conservatives were reasonable people after all".
We tend to be biased towards those we identify with and against those we disagree with, and this will color how we receive and interpret facts themselves, nevermimd simple opinion
Ongoimg anti-racist riots for example: are they a long overdue correction to a deeply flawed and misguided nation that oppresses a large fraction of its own citizens? Or are they a symptom of post-modernist moral relativism run amok, whereby political leaders have abandoned their responsibility to maintain public safety and order? Or perhaps they are a minor local dust up, blown out of proportion by a greedy, cynical media? Perhaps some combination of those?
If one skews left, one will be inclined to dismiss the concerns of the right as unreasonable, perhaps even hypocritical. Do that habitually enough, and conservatives will come off as entirely out of touch; and so will you, to them.
I recommend really striving to understand the point of view of your political opponents, not by reading leftist think-pieces about what the right thinks for example, but reading reasonable presentations of conservative arguments. So, more National Review and less Breitbart, for example. Less focus on "qanon pedo-pizza" who are the black block anarchists of the right, and more on people who makes sense even if you ultimately disagree.
Ongoimg anti-racist riots for example: are they a long overdue correction to a deeply flawed and misguided nation that oppresses a large fraction of its own citizens? Or are they a symptom of post-modernist moral relativism run amok, whereby political leaders have abandoned their responsibility to maintain public safety and order? Or perhaps they are a minor local dust up, blown out of proportion by a greedy, cynical media? Perhaps some combination of those?
If one skews left, one will be inclined to dismiss the concerns of the right as unreasonable, perhaps even hypocritical. Do that habitually enough, and conservatives will come off as entirely out of touch; and so will you, to them.
I recommend really striving to understand the point of view of your political opponents, not by reading leftist think-pieces about what the right thinks for example, but reading reasonable presentations of conservative arguments. So, more National Review and less Breitbart, for example. Less focus on "qanon pedo-pizza" who are the black block anarchists of the right, and more on people who makes sense even if you ultimately disagree.
“ Fast forward to today, and I cannot imagine how frustrating it must have been to be a conservative then. That idea, that conservatives are bad, evil or crazy, was pervasive and all encompassing and smug.”
I think this explains a big chunk of the Trump vote. Many voters saw in him someone who would not take the smug mockery without a fight.
I think this explains a big chunk of the Trump vote. Many voters saw in him someone who would not take the smug mockery without a fight.
This.
It's also why there is such a disconnect with respect to the Russian collusion allegations. To those inclined to trust the mainstream media, it is a settled question: of course Trump colluded, and anyone who can't see that is crazy, evil or dumb.
Those who feel misrepresented by the mainstream media, don't see how that allegation isn't just more of the same egregious lying they have experienced first-hand for decades
It is such a wide gap in outlook
It's also why there is such a disconnect with respect to the Russian collusion allegations. To those inclined to trust the mainstream media, it is a settled question: of course Trump colluded, and anyone who can't see that is crazy, evil or dumb.
Those who feel misrepresented by the mainstream media, don't see how that allegation isn't just more of the same egregious lying they have experienced first-hand for decades
It is such a wide gap in outlook
Yes, the Russia collusion thing was particularly egregious. It turns out that it wasn’t just the media, but also trusted Federal bureaucrats who were willing to abuse their office for political gain.
The media completely discredited themselves by supporting a largely false narrative, and yet they never really came clean about it, and many who furthered that narrative are still working in the media.
I hope that one day the US can come to agree on the facts. But many situations seem to be like Scott Adams says: two people watch the same movie and see two different narratives.
I hope that one day the US can come to agree on the facts. But many situations seem to be like Scott Adams says: two people watch the same movie and see two different narratives.
As a lefty, I feel those of us breaking for the Green Party are treated the exact same way. In a way our ideas aren't validated even in the party we called home, so we're leaving for greener pastures.
Great point upvoted for balance. Remember those Dubya cartoons, even before he became a war criminal.
[deleted]
Your thesis is that conservatives "lost their cool" and elected someone clearly unfit for office in 2016 because... George W Bush got made fun of a lot until 2008?
I'm sorry, but I just don't think this is a helpful or accurate framework. Liberals spent 8 years snarking about conservatives because Bush was president, doing all his Bushy things. What about the following 8 years, when Obama was president? Can you specify at what point exactly you think conservatives lost their sense of decorum?
I'm sorry, but I just don't think this is a helpful or accurate framework. Liberals spent 8 years snarking about conservatives because Bush was president, doing all his Bushy things. What about the following 8 years, when Obama was president? Can you specify at what point exactly you think conservatives lost their sense of decorum?
It started with Goldwater, with Nixon and then Gingrich being two major milestones as it developed.
Specifically Newt around Vince Foster's death. You can trace the roots of a lot, a _lot_, of today's utter partisan obstructionism and foolishness — mainstreaming fringe conspiracy theories with the explicit and openly espoused purpose of wedging the other party regardless of its goals — to Gingrich making Vince Foster's death an unending headline news story.
I mean christ, Trump _still_ brings up Vince Foster.
I mean christ, Trump _still_ brings up Vince Foster.
I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence.
Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively emotionally harmful for marginalized people to be listening to toxic opinions that they are worth nothing.
(EDIT: To be clear I think listening to opinions I disagree with in good faith is a good thing that we need more of in society. However, I also believe marginalized voices are, by sake of being marginalized, are forced to engage in a significantly higher volume of significantly more emotionally taxing opinions, and therefore may need to protect themselves, and that isn't wrong.)
Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively emotionally harmful for marginalized people to be listening to toxic opinions that they are worth nothing.
(EDIT: To be clear I think listening to opinions I disagree with in good faith is a good thing that we need more of in society. However, I also believe marginalized voices are, by sake of being marginalized, are forced to engage in a significantly higher volume of significantly more emotionally taxing opinions, and therefore may need to protect themselves, and that isn't wrong.)
It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion, you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform, that's a life and death issue and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you. If we disagree about a military intervention, that's a life and death issue and I shouldn't have to be civil with you.
Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia disagreed on just about all of these issues and got along fine. I don't think that's because they didn't care about their respective principles and about the issues that were at stake. I think it's because, as a point of fact, we have to live in a society with each other regardless of our differences. And most of those differences are genuinely rooted in good or at least understandable intentions in the first place.
Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia disagreed on just about all of these issues and got along fine. I don't think that's because they didn't care about their respective principles and about the issues that were at stake. I think it's because, as a point of fact, we have to live in a society with each other regardless of our differences. And most of those differences are genuinely rooted in good or at least understandable intentions in the first place.
There's a factor not considered here: to what extent were Scalia & Ginsberg able to get along because of other material conditions?
As supreme court justices we can assume that they had a basic foundation of psychological and material security - a position of prestige, a job for life, healthcare and so on.
I believe it is a lot easier to summon the "higher thoughts" necessary to be civil when ones personal position is more secure, so to achieve a more civil society it may help to work to make more insecure people secure.
As supreme court justices we can assume that they had a basic foundation of psychological and material security - a position of prestige, a job for life, healthcare and so on.
I believe it is a lot easier to summon the "higher thoughts" necessary to be civil when ones personal position is more secure, so to achieve a more civil society it may help to work to make more insecure people secure.
I enjoy John Cleese’s speech making the same point ( https://youtu.be/wXCkxlqFd90 ).
This is amazing. Thanks.
Timeless!
If I believed in one true (God/Truth/...) why I do not kill you all/crusade into/suppress all/burn you in stake/ Spanish ...
It is so hard to accept others and let them articulate their view.
It is so hard to accept others and let them articulate their view.
Because a lot of times those others want to remove liberties from me or from people I care about, like women or non-straight people.
I think this is an easy handwave to ignore that some people get more disagreement than others about whether or not they deserve civil rights, life, etc. While you espouse a need to listen, you’re not really listening at all here or even trying to understand what is being said.
It's not a handwave and it's not even remotely easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't have taken centuries of bloodshed for humanity to develop the basic concept of peacefully tolerating disagreements over fundamental values.
> It's not a handwave and it's not even remotely easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't have taken centuries of bloodshed for humanity to develop the basic concept of peacefully tolerating disagreements over fundamental values.
As a general principle, sure.
BUT.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect anyone to peacefully[0] tolerate fundamental values that fundamentally challenge their right to exist.
We may admire genuine saintliness, but expecting it (and taking people to task when they don't measure up) is a bridge too far.
You may have the right to say that you think I and my extended family should be exterminated, but I damn well have the right to — at the very least — get in your face about it.
After all, the solution to bad speech is more speech, right?
[0] Note that one can be non-violent without being peaceful.
As a general principle, sure.
BUT.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect anyone to peacefully[0] tolerate fundamental values that fundamentally challenge their right to exist.
We may admire genuine saintliness, but expecting it (and taking people to task when they don't measure up) is a bridge too far.
You may have the right to say that you think I and my extended family should be exterminated, but I damn well have the right to — at the very least — get in your face about it.
After all, the solution to bad speech is more speech, right?
[0] Note that one can be non-violent without being peaceful.
I don’t think you need to be friends with people who explicitly and literally advocate for genocide. If you are just making that point to introduce that particular nuance for the sake of completeness, I think I can agree with everything you said.
My reservation is that most of the time this kind of argument is made, it’s because someone wants to take the most extreme cases and use them to construct some dubiously over-generalized argument. For instance, over a hundred years ago the Supreme Court themselves did this, notoriously stating “but certainly there isn’t the freedom of speech to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater!” and then using that to construct an argument to justify throwing someone into prison for distributing pamphlets about resisting the draft.
In the here and now, there is a far bigger problem with people taking normal political disagreements and catastrophizing them into excuses to break friendships and disown family members than there is with people literally advocating for genocide.
My reservation is that most of the time this kind of argument is made, it’s because someone wants to take the most extreme cases and use them to construct some dubiously over-generalized argument. For instance, over a hundred years ago the Supreme Court themselves did this, notoriously stating “but certainly there isn’t the freedom of speech to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater!” and then using that to construct an argument to justify throwing someone into prison for distributing pamphlets about resisting the draft.
In the here and now, there is a far bigger problem with people taking normal political disagreements and catastrophizing them into excuses to break friendships and disown family members than there is with people literally advocating for genocide.
> My reservation is that most of the time this kind of argument is made, it’s because someone wants to take the most extreme cases and use them to construct some dubiously over-generalized argument.
This is literally the opposite of the original claim which is to try and understand where people are coming from and to listen to them as if they’re reasonable actors. You are doing the exact shit you’re accusing others of- assuming bad faith in their intentions and arguing against the bad faith intentions in a discussion about how to take good faith intent in arguments.
This is literally the opposite of the original claim which is to try and understand where people are coming from and to listen to them as if they’re reasonable actors. You are doing the exact shit you’re accusing others of- assuming bad faith in their intentions and arguing against the bad faith intentions in a discussion about how to take good faith intent in arguments.
I’m certainly trying not to do that. Did you read the first paragraph of my comment? I think that’s what you’re trying to do, though.
If you are not trying to do that then why even bring it up as a concern you have? Why ask if I read the first paragraph and not assume in good faith I read the whole post and respond to relevant portions I have a response to, just like any other reasonable human being?
> If you are not trying to do that then why even bring it up as a concern you have?
Because webmaven's comment was slightly ambiguous. While I don't think he meant to imply the specific connotations that I have concerns with, this is a public forum where it's possible that the audience could certainly infer those connotations, which makes it relevant to address them. Especially because it's a central part to the issues that we're discussing.
I tried to be conscientious about this and went out of my way to strongly imply that I didn't think webmaven meant to imply these connotations. Note, for instance, how I transition from using the second-person pronoun in the first paragraph ("If you are just making that point...to introduce nuance...", "I think I can agree with everything you said") to the passive voice and third person in the second paragraph ("most of the time this kind of argument is made", "someone wants to take the most extreme edge cases"). Maybe I should have been more clear about it, but that's what I was going for.
> Why ask if I read the first paragraph and not assume in good faith I read the whole post and respond to relevant portions I have a response to, just like any other reasonable human being?
You have contributed nothing to the discussion other than to make personal accusations that I am "not really listening at all here" or "doing the exact shit you’re accusing others of". In that light, I am assuming good faith by assuming that you're sinking to that level not because you're a troll or a jerk, but because you're genuinely misunderstanding me. That's why I asked if you read the first paragraph--because I thought that if you understood what I was trying to convey with it and read the rest of my comment with it in context, that would clear up your misunderstanding. Apparently that wasn't enough. I hope this comment is.
Because webmaven's comment was slightly ambiguous. While I don't think he meant to imply the specific connotations that I have concerns with, this is a public forum where it's possible that the audience could certainly infer those connotations, which makes it relevant to address them. Especially because it's a central part to the issues that we're discussing.
I tried to be conscientious about this and went out of my way to strongly imply that I didn't think webmaven meant to imply these connotations. Note, for instance, how I transition from using the second-person pronoun in the first paragraph ("If you are just making that point...to introduce nuance...", "I think I can agree with everything you said") to the passive voice and third person in the second paragraph ("most of the time this kind of argument is made", "someone wants to take the most extreme edge cases"). Maybe I should have been more clear about it, but that's what I was going for.
> Why ask if I read the first paragraph and not assume in good faith I read the whole post and respond to relevant portions I have a response to, just like any other reasonable human being?
You have contributed nothing to the discussion other than to make personal accusations that I am "not really listening at all here" or "doing the exact shit you’re accusing others of". In that light, I am assuming good faith by assuming that you're sinking to that level not because you're a troll or a jerk, but because you're genuinely misunderstanding me. That's why I asked if you read the first paragraph--because I thought that if you understood what I was trying to convey with it and read the rest of my comment with it in context, that would clear up your misunderstanding. Apparently that wasn't enough. I hope this comment is.
Millenia, not centuries. Living in relative peace is a novel and stunning development in world history.
I really don't think that's objectively true. The "relative peace" is quite relative after all, depending a lot on where you live, and at best it's less than a century old (75 years since the end of WWII). I think there have been many other societies that have passed an occasional century or so in relative peace throughout history. It's just that the wars are more prominent in the history books than the boring peaceful years between them.
I'm not saying we haven't achieved anything... wide-spread recognition of basic human rights, near abolishment of slavery, valuing democracy and self-determination have all been taking to new heights over the last few generations. But at the moment all this is looking pretty fragile.
And personally, RBG's death today left me feeling more than ever that we're on a knife's edge, and that we could fall right back into those millennia-old patterns that are only occasionally interrupted by a century or so of "relative peace". Or worse.
And I'm not even an American nor live in the US!
I'm not saying we haven't achieved anything... wide-spread recognition of basic human rights, near abolishment of slavery, valuing democracy and self-determination have all been taking to new heights over the last few generations. But at the moment all this is looking pretty fragile.
And personally, RBG's death today left me feeling more than ever that we're on a knife's edge, and that we could fall right back into those millennia-old patterns that are only occasionally interrupted by a century or so of "relative peace". Or worse.
And I'm not even an American nor live in the US!
Classical liberalism/the open society/the Enlightenment all came about centuries before WWII. There were wars (WWII included) fought against people who explicitly rejected these principles, but coming up with those principles in the first place was the part I was referring to.
If someone is expressing a good-faith opinion then you shouldn't write them off just because you disagree. Of course, "good faith" is a subjective judgement.
Over time I've come to realize that usually there's a legitimate reason why someone believes what they do. Often they are either optimizing for different things, or view the matter differently.
If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them. But I worry very much about the rise in offense-taking. Perhaps it's an illusion but I've felt it's become incredibly difficult to talk to people with different [political, etc] opinions than my own: not because of me, but because of their attitude towards dissent.
Over time I've come to realize that usually there's a legitimate reason why someone believes what they do. Often they are either optimizing for different things, or view the matter differently.
If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them. But I worry very much about the rise in offense-taking. Perhaps it's an illusion but I've felt it's become incredibly difficult to talk to people with different [political, etc] opinions than my own: not because of me, but because of their attitude towards dissent.
> If listening to someone's opinion is actively causing emotional harm, then sure, don't listen to them.
I think that might be the most important time to listen to them. If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. Engage with painful ideas, break your own models down and reformulate them into something more robust. I think the unwillingness to do this is what leads to the problems you mention.
I’m reminded of “The Coddling of the American Mind”
I think that might be the most important time to listen to them. If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them. Engage with painful ideas, break your own models down and reformulate them into something more robust. I think the unwillingness to do this is what leads to the problems you mention.
I’m reminded of “The Coddling of the American Mind”
> If merely hearing an opinion threatens your model, that’s probably a warning sign indicating that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable, and they need to be exposed to ideas that challenge them.
This doesn't strike me as a universal truth. It's good as a general principle to test your ideas against ones that challenge them and make sure they're as robust as possible -- but if that "challenging idea" is "your group has no right to exist," then it's not reasonable to argue "if merely hearing that you have no right to exist threatens your model, that's a warning sign that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable," is it?
This doesn't strike me as a universal truth. It's good as a general principle to test your ideas against ones that challenge them and make sure they're as robust as possible -- but if that "challenging idea" is "your group has no right to exist," then it's not reasonable to argue "if merely hearing that you have no right to exist threatens your model, that's a warning sign that your own ideas are fragile and unsustainable," is it?
So, my own philosophy is 100% listen to them, I don’t believe in closing off my mind due to fear of “emotional harm” etc.
My point was more like, if person X really does feel that way, then sure they can retract themselves from discussion. But they should do so knowing it’s their own failing/weakness and not blame it on the other person being “toxic”.
My point was more like, if person X really does feel that way, then sure they can retract themselves from discussion. But they should do so knowing it’s their own failing/weakness and not blame it on the other person being “toxic”.
I agree it has become difficult to talk to people with different political opinions than my own. I just think the statement suggested was logically too strong, and entirely non applicable in very important failure modes. There are often legitimate reasons why someone believes what they do, but sometimes the belief is "I think there should be no consequences to murdering someone like you, because you're not worth the social resources you take with your disability", which was a belief expressed to me, and I need to protect myself emotionally from people who genuinely believe I should be dead.
I have no idea what your point it, but you may want to add one more example. Let's say I am a Trump supporter and the opinion is that I am a scum and should die before the election, then it may be ethically correct not keep myself in their presence.
I mean, honestly, yes, if someone wishes your death I don't know if it is healthy to expose yourself continually to their opinions that you should die. That's emotional abuse.
> If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal
That’s not the opinion though. That’s exactly what the parent is referring to. You need to listen, understand, and empathize before assuming that people who don’t agree with you must be racist.
That’s not the opinion though. That’s exactly what the parent is referring to. You need to listen, understand, and empathize before assuming that people who don’t agree with you must be racist.
But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"
I had a much longer response typed - but deleted it when it stopped even making sense to me.
"white silence is violence"
googles
Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts.
So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bit shitty that I entertain the cognitive-dissonance of being "anti-racist" and "not having ever done anything that was anti-racist"
Then if I cookie-cutter myself out to everybody else - I now see how racism flourishes, whilst the majority tut-tuts.
Was that your point?
"white silence is violence"
googles
Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts.
So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bit shitty that I entertain the cognitive-dissonance of being "anti-racist" and "not having ever done anything that was anti-racist"
Then if I cookie-cutter myself out to everybody else - I now see how racism flourishes, whilst the majority tut-tuts.
Was that your point?
This — suspension of judgement long enough to engage in genuine introspection, followed by a return to the conversation with humility — is something we so rarely see, and each need to engage in more.
Kudos to you for leading by example.
Kudos to you for leading by example.
I am so not a good example of anything.
But genuinely do appreciate your reply - makes that little voice in my head feel "less alone"
What was interesting/depressing was my "how about a creed" post was getting a few up-votes, then the moment I replied below saying maybe I was a "crap anti-rascist", my OP started to get down-votes.
Text hadn't changed, but by putting some context around it, it was read differently.
But genuinely do appreciate your reply - makes that little voice in my head feel "less alone"
What was interesting/depressing was my "how about a creed" post was getting a few up-votes, then the moment I replied below saying maybe I was a "crap anti-rascist", my OP started to get down-votes.
Text hadn't changed, but by putting some context around it, it was read differently.
Very consistently I’ve found engaging with replies to your own comment will get the original (even high ranking comment) downvoted.
It could be just a reflexive thing to seeing a given username show up too often. I wouldn’t presume it was any deeper than that.
It could be just a reflexive thing to seeing a given username show up too often. I wouldn’t presume it was any deeper than that.
I think it's more than that.
In my OP I very deliberately stuck to abstracts that I'd hoped "nobody could disagree with".
And nobody seemed to - until I put more words beneath it.
You're right though - engaging with your own posts is perceived as negative. People read the platitude and hit 'like' - the more you put beneath it, the greater the opportunity for something to annoy somebody (and scroll up to try to kill the thread)
In my OP I very deliberately stuck to abstracts that I'd hoped "nobody could disagree with".
And nobody seemed to - until I put more words beneath it.
You're right though - engaging with your own posts is perceived as negative. People read the platitude and hit 'like' - the more you put beneath it, the greater the opportunity for something to annoy somebody (and scroll up to try to kill the thread)
> I entertain the cognitive-dissonance of being "anti-racist" and "not having ever done anything that was anti-racist"
The systems and histories in place we battle with are much bigger, and much older, than we are. Unless your explicit goal is to set out to change the world (which frankly is a shitty goal and usually leads to some kind of genocide), literally the best advice is "think globally, act locally", as "outdated" as that saying I suppose now is.
Except that it is especially true when what you want is positive social change. Think about the implications of someone who first implements your initial original post ("just stop and think for a sec"), and then also implements your second ("is there anything I can do here?"). That's enough. Literally that, when applied on a large scale, would change the world, in a way far more positive than riots and social justice movements.
See, humans are really terrible creatures. We have a bad habit of overcorrecting and, you know, killing millions of people in the name of an ideal. We've done it what, dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of times.
It's the difference between water carving a river, and a nuke carving a crater. The first one takes longer but is alot less destructive.
The systems and histories in place we battle with are much bigger, and much older, than we are. Unless your explicit goal is to set out to change the world (which frankly is a shitty goal and usually leads to some kind of genocide), literally the best advice is "think globally, act locally", as "outdated" as that saying I suppose now is.
Except that it is especially true when what you want is positive social change. Think about the implications of someone who first implements your initial original post ("just stop and think for a sec"), and then also implements your second ("is there anything I can do here?"). That's enough. Literally that, when applied on a large scale, would change the world, in a way far more positive than riots and social justice movements.
See, humans are really terrible creatures. We have a bad habit of overcorrecting and, you know, killing millions of people in the name of an ideal. We've done it what, dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of times.
It's the difference between water carving a river, and a nuke carving a crater. The first one takes longer but is alot less destructive.
Woah - I'd love to change the world (and why wouldn't you?)
Then I lost your thread.
Then I agreed with you, "we're terrible"
Then I lost your thread.
Then I agreed with you, "we're terrible"
Imagine what a planet full of people all changing the world would look like. Absolute, unabashed chaos. We all love to think we are the hero of our own story, but we aren't, and most of the time, shouldn't be.
We should do what we can do, what fate and hard work have placed in front of us.
"Change the world" as a cause in and of itself has killed far too many people to be considered a valid goal. We all believe our vision for the world is the right or best one, except it seems we're actually pretty bad at forcing the world to look like us.
You were berating yourself for believing in anti-racism, while not actually physically doing anything about it. My point was this: These are not contradictory things, and don't let emotional blackmailers convince you otherwise. You do what is in front of you to do, and only that. If there's not actually anything in front of you to do, that's it. Is there or isn't there? That's 100% up to you. I can't say there is or there isn't. But it is important to question even the statement that there is something to do because otherwise you get caught in a Kafka trap of never actually living in a just world (tilting at smaller and smaller windmills until you're swinging at air).
We should do what we can do, what fate and hard work have placed in front of us.
"Change the world" as a cause in and of itself has killed far too many people to be considered a valid goal. We all believe our vision for the world is the right or best one, except it seems we're actually pretty bad at forcing the world to look like us.
You were berating yourself for believing in anti-racism, while not actually physically doing anything about it. My point was this: These are not contradictory things, and don't let emotional blackmailers convince you otherwise. You do what is in front of you to do, and only that. If there's not actually anything in front of you to do, that's it. Is there or isn't there? That's 100% up to you. I can't say there is or there isn't. But it is important to question even the statement that there is something to do because otherwise you get caught in a Kafka trap of never actually living in a just world (tilting at smaller and smaller windmills until you're swinging at air).
Here's the line of thinking:
The idea is that ineffectual discourse without actual efforts towards reform is a method of signalling that one wants change while benefiting from the status quo of oppression.
Discussion is great, but the discussion is supposed to result in change, not a vortex of words which have no connection to reality.
When people advocate for lofty civility above all else when the status quo is violent, aggressive, demeaning and unjust, it shows that the priority is not justice; it is the maintenance of the current order.
Is this position accurate? I don't know. There's obviously countervailing concerns regarding having a chilling effect on the market of ideas, but like all tough questions, it's likely a difficult situation with no clear cut answer and two virtues being traded-off against each other. This seems to be borne out by the fairly dramatic spectrum of positions adopted on the issue across the globe.
The idea is that ineffectual discourse without actual efforts towards reform is a method of signalling that one wants change while benefiting from the status quo of oppression.
Discussion is great, but the discussion is supposed to result in change, not a vortex of words which have no connection to reality.
When people advocate for lofty civility above all else when the status quo is violent, aggressive, demeaning and unjust, it shows that the priority is not justice; it is the maintenance of the current order.
Is this position accurate? I don't know. There's obviously countervailing concerns regarding having a chilling effect on the market of ideas, but like all tough questions, it's likely a difficult situation with no clear cut answer and two virtues being traded-off against each other. This seems to be borne out by the fairly dramatic spectrum of positions adopted on the issue across the globe.
No, the statement is nonsensical abusive rhetoric. Silence is literally not violence. It substitutes an argument that stands on its merits with a rather shameful and racist manipulation technique that is unfortunately quite effective, as evidenced by your apparent guilt. You obviously did nothing wrong. When racism flourishes is when we allow phrases like that to enter the discourse.
Did he do nothing wrong? If I see a child being beaten in the street, look at it and say "that's horrible" and continue with my day, have I done nothing wrong? I certainly didn't beat the child, but my inaction allowed the abuse to continue.
So question comes down to, did I have the moral obligation to act?
Personally I lean towards yes, but can at least understand where the people who say no might be coming from.
While I agree that silence is violence at its face is literally false, that's the general principal it's meant to invoke, that injustice can only be stopped when bystanders cease to tolerate it. The victim cannot stop it, and the perpetrator won't. Thus those who tut tut and move on with their day become complicit in allowing it to continue.
That is what the commenter is feeling vaguely guilty about, and it's a healthy thing to feel. I know I have guilt in my past where I have failed to help someone when I had the opportunity, and that guilt that comes from recognition of that has driven me to be less of a bystander later in life.
So question comes down to, did I have the moral obligation to act?
Personally I lean towards yes, but can at least understand where the people who say no might be coming from.
While I agree that silence is violence at its face is literally false, that's the general principal it's meant to invoke, that injustice can only be stopped when bystanders cease to tolerate it. The victim cannot stop it, and the perpetrator won't. Thus those who tut tut and move on with their day become complicit in allowing it to continue.
That is what the commenter is feeling vaguely guilty about, and it's a healthy thing to feel. I know I have guilt in my past where I have failed to help someone when I had the opportunity, and that guilt that comes from recognition of that has driven me to be less of a bystander later in life.
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with what I said and is an extremely important distinction. Serious allegations should not be made casually with artistic license to bend the truth. If you witness a beating and do not intervene, then no, you did not commit an act of violence.
You could debate what the morally correct thing is or isn’t if you want, but you can’t debate that you committed an act of violence.
You could debate what the morally correct thing is or isn’t if you want, but you can’t debate that you committed an act of violence.
This seems like a debate over semantics to me. Silence doesn't mean violence, but silence can enable violence or be worse than violence if the consequence of staying silent are worse than those of violence:
http://www.openculture.com/2016/03/edmund-burkeon-in-action....
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my reply which was short and poorly written considering how it has a very powerful phrase. I'm not implying your post was racist but was responding to the quote you provided:
We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavor to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward
I was trying to explain that because the internet has increased the visibility of ones opinions to a global scale, and a recent increase in the use of both public shaming as well as punitive financial measures (fired from job, boycott) it could be dangerous to opine about anything.
We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavor to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward
I was trying to explain that because the internet has increased the visibility of ones opinions to a global scale, and a recent increase in the use of both public shaming as well as punitive financial measures (fired from job, boycott) it could be dangerous to opine about anything.
Speech isn't violence. Lack of speech isn't violence. People lazily regurgitate these postmodernist bumper sticker phrases and consider themselves informed activists.
I would politely disagree (and happy to talk about it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I think speech can definitely lead to violence - and speech can also counteract it. Neither directly, but the delta has real-world repercussions.
Or to look at it the other way - can you come up with an example of violence, that wasn't preceded by rhetoric?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I think speech can definitely lead to violence - and speech can also counteract it. Neither directly, but the delta has real-world repercussions.
Or to look at it the other way - can you come up with an example of violence, that wasn't preceded by rhetoric?
> speech can definitely lead to violence - and speech can also counteract it
I don't disagree with you on that. We can say "A can lead to B" and "A can counteract B".
I'm lost at the leap to "A is B" and "NOT(A) by COLOR = B".
I could speak or not speak, and even do so out of negligence or spite. My choices may have effects and consequences, but violence does not mean "anything with effects and consequences".
It feels too much like the missing piece is "this is what we say the word means now, QED". It's all too convenient that a conversation can be shut down by calling it violence. Implicating people is divisive. By it's own logic, redefining violence to include speech is itself a form of violent speech because it causes conflict.
I don't disagree with you on that. We can say "A can lead to B" and "A can counteract B".
I'm lost at the leap to "A is B" and "NOT(A) by COLOR = B".
I could speak or not speak, and even do so out of negligence or spite. My choices may have effects and consequences, but violence does not mean "anything with effects and consequences".
It feels too much like the missing piece is "this is what we say the word means now, QED". It's all too convenient that a conversation can be shut down by calling it violence. Implicating people is divisive. By it's own logic, redefining violence to include speech is itself a form of violent speech because it causes conflict.
Speech is most definitely capable of being violence. Just ask most anyone who was bullied as a child.
"Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for"
That's me! I'm in that creed.
People associating their identity with their politics is when trouble starts. That's when it becomes really threatening for them to even consider alternate perspectives, because if they change their mind, they will change who they are and who they can be friends with.
It's possible to separate the two, whereby an idea on how society should be organized is just that: an idea, to be considered, adopted, discussed, and abandoned as new information becomes available.
One really poisonous idea I see circulating is "either you are for <some thing> or you are a <bad person>" Either you support riots or you are a fascist Either you punch Nazis or you are one Related, just as terrible, "Time for discussion is over. If you're on the fence at this point, you are <bad person>" These kinds of memes increase polarization, and stop discussion. A person who says something like that can no longer have a calm exchange of ideas with their grandma
That's me! I'm in that creed.
People associating their identity with their politics is when trouble starts. That's when it becomes really threatening for them to even consider alternate perspectives, because if they change their mind, they will change who they are and who they can be friends with.
It's possible to separate the two, whereby an idea on how society should be organized is just that: an idea, to be considered, adopted, discussed, and abandoned as new information becomes available.
One really poisonous idea I see circulating is "either you are for <some thing> or you are a <bad person>" Either you support riots or you are a fascist Either you punch Nazis or you are one Related, just as terrible, "Time for discussion is over. If you're on the fence at this point, you are <bad person>" These kinds of memes increase polarization, and stop discussion. A person who says something like that can no longer have a calm exchange of ideas with their grandma
I think you hit it right on the head. What I'm wondering now is: What leads to this association of politics and identity? Is it a product of our culture, upbringing, is it human nature? Is it that modern life has so little avenue for people individuating? Maybe it is filling a void.
One thing that strikes me as key to this polarization is how pervasive are some generalizations we make today and how the individual is lost when we make them. I've seen racists make the comment "Black people are ...." (won't repeat that here) but then I see activist say "Black people are (ex. disadvantaged.)" Are there no quite privileged black people? (millionaires, billionaires, etc) Don't lower class people face a pretty similar set of challenges no matter their skin tone? When you look at it, both arguments are generalizing equally as aggressive. My question then is: are all generalizations wrong or only some?
I think this process of grouping people has ome currents of thought tend to generalize two aspects to it, people who group other people when making statements and people who in some search of uniqueness, group themselves into it? As a non-American, coming from a very heterogeneous country I find it hard to follow how many people will self-identify so readily with a group and in the process lose some of their individuality. Maybe I speak from "privilege" as someone who due to upbringing and origin, felt a quite distinct individual, so I cannot say for sure. I just think this currents of thought harm more by dividing into groups and with many individuals satisfying their need of identity there.
One thing that strikes me as key to this polarization is how pervasive are some generalizations we make today and how the individual is lost when we make them. I've seen racists make the comment "Black people are ...." (won't repeat that here) but then I see activist say "Black people are (ex. disadvantaged.)" Are there no quite privileged black people? (millionaires, billionaires, etc) Don't lower class people face a pretty similar set of challenges no matter their skin tone? When you look at it, both arguments are generalizing equally as aggressive. My question then is: are all generalizations wrong or only some?
I think this process of grouping people has ome currents of thought tend to generalize two aspects to it, people who group other people when making statements and people who in some search of uniqueness, group themselves into it? As a non-American, coming from a very heterogeneous country I find it hard to follow how many people will self-identify so readily with a group and in the process lose some of their individuality. Maybe I speak from "privilege" as someone who due to upbringing and origin, felt a quite distinct individual, so I cannot say for sure. I just think this currents of thought harm more by dividing into groups and with many individuals satisfying their need of identity there.
Personally, I think the US in particular is prone to this kind of thinking because the winner-take-all system incentives a dualistic, all-in approach. Thoughtful reflection does not win elections: riling up the rank and file does, including demonizing the opponent. More parliamentary, proportional systems encourage cooperation and collaboration among opponents
As for generalizations, the English language has an unfortunate construction that allows speakers to be ambiguous about their intent when making a generalizing statement. For example, "Men are violent" is a misleadingly meaningless statement. Does it refer to some men? To all men? Is it referring to the fact that men tend to be more violent, statistically, as a group? That assertion is ambiguous, but the always-truthful qualification "some" sits uncomfortably close to the always-unfair and bigoted "all". Bigots of all stripes rely on this ambiguity.
I don't think generalizations are bad necessarily, but to honor the dignity and diversity of individuals, it's vital to avoid this ambiguity, and to always be explicit about the generalization that you're making, and then your statement can be evaluated for what it is, pro or con. E.g. Instead of a Men are violent say what is meant, clearly: Some men are violent. In general men are violent. Most men are violent. All men are violent. Now at least we have a statement that can be agreed with or disputed, instead of motte-and-baileyed
As for generalizations, the English language has an unfortunate construction that allows speakers to be ambiguous about their intent when making a generalizing statement. For example, "Men are violent" is a misleadingly meaningless statement. Does it refer to some men? To all men? Is it referring to the fact that men tend to be more violent, statistically, as a group? That assertion is ambiguous, but the always-truthful qualification "some" sits uncomfortably close to the always-unfair and bigoted "all". Bigots of all stripes rely on this ambiguity.
I don't think generalizations are bad necessarily, but to honor the dignity and diversity of individuals, it's vital to avoid this ambiguity, and to always be explicit about the generalization that you're making, and then your statement can be evaluated for what it is, pro or con. E.g. Instead of a Men are violent say what is meant, clearly: Some men are violent. In general men are violent. Most men are violent. All men are violent. Now at least we have a statement that can be agreed with or disputed, instead of motte-and-baileyed
Good leadership involves the sort of thinking where you are prepared to listen to a diverse set of opinions and be prepared to change your mind - especially if there is data that tells you you are wrong.
The political discourse across the globe has taken a sharp turn away from this over the last 40 years in particular. There was a brief window between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 where many had hope this was going to be the new normal. I remember feeling that sliver of optimism as I entered adulthood. No more.
Vote for people who are called "flip-floppers", by their opponents. Change your own opinions when the data changes. Be the change you want to see.
The political discourse across the globe has taken a sharp turn away from this over the last 40 years in particular. There was a brief window between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 where many had hope this was going to be the new normal. I remember feeling that sliver of optimism as I entered adulthood. No more.
Vote for people who are called "flip-floppers", by their opponents. Change your own opinions when the data changes. Be the change you want to see.
I’m probably gonna do it. I’m not sure I could do the other thing... if the world burns, at least I burn in her camp. I’m ok with that. I’m excited you might be there too!
If people are willing to die for the cause then conversation or listening is not going to accomplish anything.
I’m afraid you do not understand the fire with which you are playing.
I’m afraid you do not understand the fire with which you are playing.
offers a marshmallow
I think my problem with statements like this, is that while I can totally imagine the liberals I know taking this viewpoint, there are very few conservatives I know that do. The response will be something like:
“Why would I listen to these whiners? I already know what I want.”
“Why would I listen to these whiners? I already know what I want.”
That type of response may result more from lack of education than from political ideology. Where I live, there are a fair amount of educated liberals and conservatives. I run into liberals and conservatives alike who give a similar response to what you listed; I also run into liberals and conservatives alike who have wonderful conversations about politics without getting riled up. From my observations, there doesn't seem to be a correlation with political ideology.
I'm curious to know how frequently you have encountered one of your liberal friends debating with an educated conservative. Likewise, I'm curious to know how frequently you've encountered one of your conservative friends debating with an educated liberal. Over the past couple of years, I've run into a number of people who simply couldn't believe that an educated liberal/conservative existed, primarily because they grew up in an area where there weren't many people with differing political views. It's a dangerous trap to fall into, because it allows you to categorize the other political party based on only the rhetoric of elected officials and on the interpretation from media. I have yet to meet a conservative or progressive who matches the caricature of either portrayed by politicians or entertainers.
I'm curious to know how frequently you have encountered one of your liberal friends debating with an educated conservative. Likewise, I'm curious to know how frequently you've encountered one of your conservative friends debating with an educated liberal. Over the past couple of years, I've run into a number of people who simply couldn't believe that an educated liberal/conservative existed, primarily because they grew up in an area where there weren't many people with differing political views. It's a dangerous trap to fall into, because it allows you to categorize the other political party based on only the rhetoric of elected officials and on the interpretation from media. I have yet to meet a conservative or progressive who matches the caricature of either portrayed by politicians or entertainers.
All the educated conservatives I’ve met have been pleasant people. It’s just that the far majority have not been educated (as opposed to liberals, which seem to be pretty much all educated, to the point where I feel education and liberalism might as well be the same thing :/).
Yeah, the reality is that "listening and respecting the opinions of people whom you disagree with" (or not) is an ideology in its own right.
One would hope that it'd be orthogonal to conservatism/liberalism or any other political spectrum, but I suspect it's not.
One would hope that it'd be orthogonal to conservatism/liberalism or any other political spectrum, but I suspect it's not.
In some respects it is, it’s just correlated I’d say.
That kind of collaboration can’t exist if there are two sides who believe that most issues are zero sum.
I have no evidence for the following statement, but as someone who grew up just before social media was a thing (I became a legal adult about a decade before Facebook), I truly feel that the zero-sum thinking, while present before social media, really took on a new form because of it. It is much more vehement than before. You don't get the same kind of interaction on a forum or a bulletin board that you do on Twitter or FB or [modern social network].
When I was growing up, there was no Fox News channel nor any of the cable news channels (I remember when MSNBC was a brand new thing). News was something you watched for 1 hour in the evening.
24 hours news + trench digging/tribalism have done a horrible number on modern discourse.
Thing is, I think that that's because before, there WAS no discourse, not really. It was slower. Most of the conversation was had by those you watched on TV. Alot fewer people participated. The internet DID democratize that, with frankly predictable results.
Not saying we should have done differently but I do think we need to come to terms with what that means (e.g. realizing it's forcing us into zero-sum thinking and consciously choosing something else).
When I was growing up, there was no Fox News channel nor any of the cable news channels (I remember when MSNBC was a brand new thing). News was something you watched for 1 hour in the evening.
24 hours news + trench digging/tribalism have done a horrible number on modern discourse.
Thing is, I think that that's because before, there WAS no discourse, not really. It was slower. Most of the conversation was had by those you watched on TV. Alot fewer people participated. The internet DID democratize that, with frankly predictable results.
Not saying we should have done differently but I do think we need to come to terms with what that means (e.g. realizing it's forcing us into zero-sum thinking and consciously choosing something else).
I'm close to your age I think.
Don't forget that well before Fox News there was a AM radio, and Rush Limbaugh was national in the 80's. I definitely remember how his talking point impacted my high school's debate team's rhetoric.
Agree that zero-sum thinking is a net-negative.
Don't forget that well before Fox News there was a AM radio, and Rush Limbaugh was national in the 80's. I definitely remember how his talking point impacted my high school's debate team's rhetoric.
Agree that zero-sum thinking is a net-negative.
inspirational? it was her greatest weakness, there was not any other single judge working harder against her
I'm not going for the nazi reference, he wasn't that evil but Scalia was literally trying to drag the United States back to the 1950s if not even further, decision after decision he never found an expanding right he didn't want to slaughter
I'm not going for the nazi reference, he wasn't that evil but Scalia was literally trying to drag the United States back to the 1950s if not even further, decision after decision he never found an expanding right he didn't want to slaughter
[deleted]
She also worked well with and has been complementary of Justice Roberts.
I thought that was remarkable in a positive sense as well
I thought that was remarkable in a positive sense as well
I think we can all be certain that whoever is appointed by the Federalist Society and approved by Mitch McConnell will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) term.
The American experiment as a free and democratic country is over.
Unless you want to live in a real world version of The Handmaid's Tale, get the fsck out if you still can.
The American experiment as a free and democratic country is over.
Unless you want to live in a real world version of The Handmaid's Tale, get the fsck out if you still can.
It really does seem the cosmos has decided that America's time of greatness (however broad the meaning of that word is) is at an end. I hope my comment turns out to be another "who needs dropbox". Edit0:s/this/my.
Based on what? A justice dying and a terrible president who will be voted out of office in 7 weeks? Quit with the sensationalist “the world is ending” comments that aren’t based on anything but you’re pessimistic gut feeling.
You accuse me of pessimistic gut feeling while laying out yours. The election outcome is far far far from certain. I used to deal with coworkers who were similarly smug in 2016 and they were proven to be equally wrong.
Yes, people are wrong every election, that’s what happens when someone wins and someone loses. The same thing will happen in 7 weeks as well.
Have you just awoken from a four year slumber?
Have you? Yes, Trump is terrible, there have been other Presidents as terrible as him in US history (Buchanan, Johnson, Harding) and the ship has always righted itself. He also hasn’t fundamentally altered the American political system. Congress still makes laws, Supreme Court still rules on their legality, President still signs them into law. The comments on here act like Trump has become a Francisco Franco when the fact is he’s likely to be voted out of office in 7 weeks and gone from politics on January 20th.
Congress makes laws, Supreme Court rules on their legality, President signs them into law. This is just procedure. It could describe a well functioning fascist regime or it could describe a rights-based democracy. I don't think Trump will be around forever but the problem is bigger than Trump.
I think you’re underestimating the independence that justices feel when they’re appointed. The new appointee would owe nothing to Trump. Look at Roberts ruling for Oabamacare and Kavanaughs recent rulings.
You're ignoring the kompromat. It's presumably why most of these Republican senators have given up all shreds of conservatism and stand by watching Trump turn our country into a dumpster fire.
Do you think kompromat exists only for Republican senators? How would this happen?
I'd guess it exists for most politicians. I'm just specifically calling out Republican senators as it seems they're no longer beholden to the US power structure. It's a novel position for me to be hoping the US establishment retakes control, instead of succumbing to whatever external powers are working to disrupt it. Freedom has to arise from the people via technological progress, a collapse will merely drag us backwards.
As for how the creation of compromising material happens - people lust after power to obtain things that money can't buy. Epstein's island wasn't merely for recreation.
As for how the creation of compromising material happens - people lust after power to obtain things that money can't buy. Epstein's island wasn't merely for recreation.
Politically charged appointees to the Supreme Court have on occasion surprised naysayers and showed independence or at least made it a point to not be outright impartial.
Stop with these kind of comments. Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? “We can all be certain” should be translated to “I feel like making a crazy rant here”. “Experiment is over” - the election is in 7 weeks, let’s hold off on the “get out while you can” comments until it’s over.
How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
Read: don’t say “I told you so” until it’s absolutely too late
> Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term?
Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to gain from opposing it, and much to lose.
I mean, do you honestly think the United States Postal Service would dismantle its own machinery and send out misinformation about elections?
Why wouldn't they? They have nothing to gain from opposing it, and much to lose.
I mean, do you honestly think the United States Postal Service would dismantle its own machinery and send out misinformation about elections?
They have lifetime appointments, what would they have to gain by ruling against a Constitutional Amendment??
They don't have lifetime appointments - they have appointments during "good behavior." Who's going to determine when they've started behaving badly?
I mean, the history of basically every country that has fallen into single-party rule is the story of good intentions, including the belief that people will listen to the constitution, not counting for much in the face of real-world political power. I'm not saying it will happen to the US; I'm saying it's naive to believe it can't happen.
I mean, the history of basically every country that has fallen into single-party rule is the story of good intentions, including the belief that people will listen to the constitution, not counting for much in the face of real-world political power. I'm not saying it will happen to the US; I'm saying it's naive to believe it can't happen.
The More-Stupid-Wars Party has ruled USA for at least a couple of decades by now.
If you mean that you're treating the Democrats and Republicans as a single party, sure, there's a decent argument for it, but also, it's a "party" that permits significant internal dissent and debate. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union remained a single party until the end, but the country started on its path towards becoming freer and less authoritarian when they became open to internal dissent.
Frankly, independent of actual political goals, the most concerning thing about the state of US politics is the extent to which the Republican Party does not tolerate internal dissent. There was a lot of it in early 2016, and it all evaporated as people fell in line behind a cult of personality (a term introduced at the start of the above process in the CPSU, incidentally). Regardless of whether you're left or right or center or anywhere else, if you're at a place where disagreement with the leader is a reason to question your loyalty and good faith, you're at a place where there's far less pressure for the leader to serve the country than for the country to serve the leader. (This is why it's not particularly helpful that the leader isn't super competent or even that the leader is not on team More-Stupid-Wars - a position that, by itself, I agree with. I also enjoy it when trains run on time.)
Frankly, independent of actual political goals, the most concerning thing about the state of US politics is the extent to which the Republican Party does not tolerate internal dissent. There was a lot of it in early 2016, and it all evaporated as people fell in line behind a cult of personality (a term introduced at the start of the above process in the CPSU, incidentally). Regardless of whether you're left or right or center or anywhere else, if you're at a place where disagreement with the leader is a reason to question your loyalty and good faith, you're at a place where there's far less pressure for the leader to serve the country than for the country to serve the leader. (This is why it's not particularly helpful that the leader isn't super competent or even that the leader is not on team More-Stupid-Wars - a position that, by itself, I agree with. I also enjoy it when trains run on time.)
What's crazy about that rant? Trump already has his reasoning for wanting a third term.
Two remaining lines of defense for the American people were (1) Elections and (2) the Supreme Court.
2 is now gone. Republicans (Aka trump) are working hard on 1.
By the way, what happens when election results are contested? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Two remaining lines of defense for the American people were (1) Elections and (2) the Supreme Court.
2 is now gone. Republicans (Aka trump) are working hard on 1.
By the way, what happens when election results are contested? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
I’ll extend my $10k wager to you as well then. Will Trump get a 3rd term? I’ll get “no” and you can have “yes”.
I am an immigrant who relied on the Supreme Court to stay in the US legally. I don't think it'll do you much good to have a 10k wager with me, lol.
Understanding how modern societies fail was my professional field.
The United States is following in the footsteps of many countries that transitioned from democracy to authoritarianism. The judiciary was the last remaining bulwark that had been slightly slowing the erosion of democratic rights. With the judicial balance of power now in the hands of a president who has both taken steps to conduct an unfair election and has repeatedly expressed desires for extra-constitutional powers, it is naive in the extreme to imagine that American democracy is not mortally wounded.
America is turning itself into a cross between apartheid-era South Africa and Putin's Russia. While Trump has accelerated this trend, it is a trend far larger than him and it will not be stopped even if Biden somehow becomes the next president. Even if there is a Biden victory and some solution in the Senate, there must be no doubt that a 6-3 GOP USSC will overturn any pro-democratic, or anti-authoritarian, reforms that might be approved by Congress.
I reiterate, the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society and it is time for anyone who doesn't want to live in The Handmaid's Tale to get out because things aren't going to get any better.
The United States is following in the footsteps of many countries that transitioned from democracy to authoritarianism. The judiciary was the last remaining bulwark that had been slightly slowing the erosion of democratic rights. With the judicial balance of power now in the hands of a president who has both taken steps to conduct an unfair election and has repeatedly expressed desires for extra-constitutional powers, it is naive in the extreme to imagine that American democracy is not mortally wounded.
America is turning itself into a cross between apartheid-era South Africa and Putin's Russia. While Trump has accelerated this trend, it is a trend far larger than him and it will not be stopped even if Biden somehow becomes the next president. Even if there is a Biden victory and some solution in the Senate, there must be no doubt that a 6-3 GOP USSC will overturn any pro-democratic, or anti-authoritarian, reforms that might be approved by Congress.
I reiterate, the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society and it is time for anyone who doesn't want to live in The Handmaid's Tale to get out because things aren't going to get any better.
What do your studies say about creating new states to gain more votes in the senate? Something that's already been introduced in the house.
Worse even its being created by shrinking the zone that was purposefully created to not be a state. Puerto Rico would undoubtedly also give 2 more democratic seats, but at least it's a large American territory, not something we're artificially creating for more votes.
Worse even its being created by shrinking the zone that was purposefully created to not be a state. Puerto Rico would undoubtedly also give 2 more democratic seats, but at least it's a large American territory, not something we're artificially creating for more votes.
The general problem with any kind of pro-democracy reforms is that the people who need to approve reforms are precisely the people who benefit from current antidemocratic policies. No one will approve reforms that will end their careers.
Some of the US' democratic problems could be helped by splitting up the more populous states so their populations have more representation in the Senate and Electoral College, but any such plan would need to be approved by flyover state Republican Senators who benefit handsomely from the status quo.
Given that the GOP party line--echoed by both McConnell and Trump--is that fixing US democracy would be a Democratic power grab, meaningful reforms are dead on arrival. This is especially true as any meaningful reforms would, by definition, remove the Republican party's disproportionate hold on power.
Sadly, I don't see a way out of this. With no route for peaceful reform, the usual escape route for irreconcilable differences within a country is civil war, but the human geography of the United States makes another civil war very unlikely. An inexorable slide into deepening authoritarian oligarchy/kleptocracy seems unavoidable.
Some of the US' democratic problems could be helped by splitting up the more populous states so their populations have more representation in the Senate and Electoral College, but any such plan would need to be approved by flyover state Republican Senators who benefit handsomely from the status quo.
Given that the GOP party line--echoed by both McConnell and Trump--is that fixing US democracy would be a Democratic power grab, meaningful reforms are dead on arrival. This is especially true as any meaningful reforms would, by definition, remove the Republican party's disproportionate hold on power.
Sadly, I don't see a way out of this. With no route for peaceful reform, the usual escape route for irreconcilable differences within a country is civil war, but the human geography of the United States makes another civil war very unlikely. An inexorable slide into deepening authoritarian oligarchy/kleptocracy seems unavoidable.
>Some of the US' democratic problems could be helped by splitting up the more populous states so their populations have more representation in the Senate and Electoral College, but any such plan would need to be approved by flyover state Republican Senators who benefit handsomely from the status quo.
Do you not see how this could be done by the republican party as well? Split Texas up into 4 parts, make 1 part primarily Democrat, the rest republican?
Besides, I guess your studies are more focused around theory, and not the actual legal government structure in the US. I miss understood. The whole point of the senate was to avoid tyranny of the majority, otherwise 3 states could control the other 47.
Do you not see how this could be done by the republican party as well? Split Texas up into 4 parts, make 1 part primarily Democrat, the rest republican?
Besides, I guess your studies are more focused around theory, and not the actual legal government structure in the US. I miss understood. The whole point of the senate was to avoid tyranny of the majority, otherwise 3 states could control the other 47.
The functional manifestation of the American democratic deficit is that the Republican party is able to maintain a near-permanent lockhold on power despite commanding only the support of a minority of the population. Any reform that maintains the status quo by protecting the tyranny of the Republican minority is not beneficial.
Notwithstanding the original purpose of the Senate, shifting population demographics mean that, by 2040, 70% of the Senate will represent the interests of only 1/3rd of Americans. The other 2/3rds of the US population will be forced to live with control over 30% of the Senate[1]. This is not avoiding tyranny of the majority; it is allowing the (Republican) flyover states to dictate to (Democratic) urban areas how they should organize their societies and live their lives.
Meaningful democratic reforms in America mean making its institutions reflect the makeup of America, and that means less representation for rural areas and fewer Republican in power.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...
Notwithstanding the original purpose of the Senate, shifting population demographics mean that, by 2040, 70% of the Senate will represent the interests of only 1/3rd of Americans. The other 2/3rds of the US population will be forced to live with control over 30% of the Senate[1]. This is not avoiding tyranny of the majority; it is allowing the (Republican) flyover states to dictate to (Democratic) urban areas how they should organize their societies and live their lives.
Meaningful democratic reforms in America mean making its institutions reflect the makeup of America, and that means less representation for rural areas and fewer Republican in power.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...
Near permanent?
Obama was president 4 years ago.
Your comments also call into question if you understand that the house is determined by popular vote. The senate alone can not force anyone to live their lives differently. It would require control of both the house and the senate to do that.
And you said near permanent control while being the minority, when Republicans last had won the popular vote for control of the house in 2016.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_...
Obama was president 4 years ago.
Your comments also call into question if you understand that the house is determined by popular vote. The senate alone can not force anyone to live their lives differently. It would require control of both the house and the senate to do that.
And you said near permanent control while being the minority, when Republicans last had won the popular vote for control of the house in 2016.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_...
> the erosion of democratic rights.
Can you name which rights have eroded in the recent years? Like, 70, 15, 4 years?
Can you name which rights have eroded in the recent years? Like, 70, 15, 4 years?
In terms of erosion of democratic rights by the Supreme Court, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act is the most literal example, as is the decision to prevent Al Gore from taking the White House in 2000 despite being the legitimate electoral victor. A more peripheral example is Citizens' United.
Non-judicial examples include sabotage of the USPS to prevent mail-in voting, the last state election in Georgia (where the then-secretary of state supervised an election in which he was a candidate; needless to say, he won), removal of polling stations in Democratic areas, targeted disenfranchisement of demographic groups that traditionally vote Democratic, Mitch McConnell rejecting measures to increase voter turnout on the grounds that making it easier to vote would be a "Democratic power grab," Republican use of big data to jerrymander safe districts to maintain GOP control of states despite losing the popular vote, FBI interference in the 2016 election by releasing unsubstantiated accusations (the Comey Memo) against Clinton shortly before the election, and, finally, the Republican party soliciting foreign help to illegally acquire and spread disinformation against Democrats.
These are not signs of a healthy democracy.
I can provide sources if you would like but this stuff is everywhere and simple DDG/Google searches about these examples should lead to plenty of information.
Non-judicial examples include sabotage of the USPS to prevent mail-in voting, the last state election in Georgia (where the then-secretary of state supervised an election in which he was a candidate; needless to say, he won), removal of polling stations in Democratic areas, targeted disenfranchisement of demographic groups that traditionally vote Democratic, Mitch McConnell rejecting measures to increase voter turnout on the grounds that making it easier to vote would be a "Democratic power grab," Republican use of big data to jerrymander safe districts to maintain GOP control of states despite losing the popular vote, FBI interference in the 2016 election by releasing unsubstantiated accusations (the Comey Memo) against Clinton shortly before the election, and, finally, the Republican party soliciting foreign help to illegally acquire and spread disinformation against Democrats.
These are not signs of a healthy democracy.
I can provide sources if you would like but this stuff is everywhere and simple DDG/Google searches about these examples should lead to plenty of information.
I'll grant you "the gutting of the Voting Rights Act". It's both a well-defined target for me read and it seems like a legitimate erosion of rights. Still I would like to read the majority opinion before I make up mind completely. Thanks for bringing it up.
Aside from the Voting Rights Act various voter-suppression activities were going on for decades and I don't see a change there. Wrong? Certainly. But not erosion.
Citizens' United seems like a legitimate court decision to me. I'm not sure I am a fan of the outcome, but the law is what it is. The Congress can make new law if they do not like it, and I might support this change.
Everything else you posted is a grab-bag of complains rather that an actual erosion of rights. I'm sorry. "FBI interference" swings both ways - some of it against dems, other against reps. I would rather they stayed out altogether, but we're far from Hoover days. In any case it's more dirty political infighting and pretty much nothing to do with citizen rights.
So end of the day Voting Rights Act is the only thing I can agree with. Meanwhile we've have also gained significant rights, e.g. gay rights, healthcare rights, women's participation in society, free speech (in particular "indecent" speech).
Bottom line is that I am not buying the "the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society".
Aside from the Voting Rights Act various voter-suppression activities were going on for decades and I don't see a change there. Wrong? Certainly. But not erosion.
Citizens' United seems like a legitimate court decision to me. I'm not sure I am a fan of the outcome, but the law is what it is. The Congress can make new law if they do not like it, and I might support this change.
Everything else you posted is a grab-bag of complains rather that an actual erosion of rights. I'm sorry. "FBI interference" swings both ways - some of it against dems, other against reps. I would rather they stayed out altogether, but we're far from Hoover days. In any case it's more dirty political infighting and pretty much nothing to do with citizen rights.
So end of the day Voting Rights Act is the only thing I can agree with. Meanwhile we've have also gained significant rights, e.g. gay rights, healthcare rights, women's participation in society, free speech (in particular "indecent" speech).
Bottom line is that I am not buying the "the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society".
> Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term?
Do I think a Supreme Court starting with the current one, with Ginsberg’s empty seat and probably Justice Breyer’s replaced by the kind of people the current Republican Party would appoint and confirm (assuming Trump gets a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate) would allow Trump to serve beyond the end of his second term with a fig leaf of an excuse of emergency preventing normal process, even with the 22nd Amendment in place?
Probably not, but I don't see it as outside the realm of possibility.
> Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
No one who has publicly expressed concern about an incipient authoritarian regime can expect to be able to collect and enjoy their winnings if the answer is no, so that's never going to be a bet they'll accept no matter how certain they are of the outcome.
Do I think a Supreme Court starting with the current one, with Ginsberg’s empty seat and probably Justice Breyer’s replaced by the kind of people the current Republican Party would appoint and confirm (assuming Trump gets a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate) would allow Trump to serve beyond the end of his second term with a fig leaf of an excuse of emergency preventing normal process, even with the 22nd Amendment in place?
Probably not, but I don't see it as outside the realm of possibility.
> Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
No one who has publicly expressed concern about an incipient authoritarian regime can expect to be able to collect and enjoy their winnings if the answer is no, so that's never going to be a bet they'll accept no matter how certain they are of the outcome.
So now we’re claiming the entire US monetary system is going to collapse (and as a result most likely the worlds monetary system)? The more levels down we go in the comments here, the crazier the conspiracies.
> So now we’re claiming the entire US monetary system is going to collapse (and as a result most likely the worlds monetary system)?
No, that's not why outspoken critics of an incipient authoritarian regime would not be likely to be able to collect or enjoy their winnings if the regime was successful in establishing itself. The monetary system is in no way part of the issue.
No, that's not why outspoken critics of an incipient authoritarian regime would not be likely to be able to collect or enjoy their winnings if the regime was successful in establishing itself. The monetary system is in no way part of the issue.
> Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
Coming back to this because we don't have free and fair elections today: https://twitter.com/AnthonyTilghman/status/13073605445597061...
And the Electoral Integrity Project gave North Carolina's 2016 elections the rating you'd give if it didn't have free and fair elections, and more people were wrongly denied the ability to vote in Georgia's gubernatorial election (overseen by the eventual winner) than decided the election, and so forth.
So, I'm interested in potentially taking this bet. Can you define what you mean by "a free and fair election"? (The EIP's conclusions were widely contested, so I'm not saying we should accept them as a standard, but I would like to set an objective standard.)
Coming back to this because we don't have free and fair elections today: https://twitter.com/AnthonyTilghman/status/13073605445597061...
And the Electoral Integrity Project gave North Carolina's 2016 elections the rating you'd give if it didn't have free and fair elections, and more people were wrongly denied the ability to vote in Georgia's gubernatorial election (overseen by the eventual winner) than decided the election, and so forth.
So, I'm interested in potentially taking this bet. Can you define what you mean by "a free and fair election"? (The EIP's conclusions were widely contested, so I'm not saying we should accept them as a standard, but I would like to set an objective standard.)
> will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) term
How would a Supreme Court Justice do this? A third and fourth term would require a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
How would a Supreme Court Justice do this? A third and fourth term would require a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
The constitution means what the Supreme court says it means. Doesn't have to make sense.
A Supreme Court ruling directly against the 22nd Amendment seems even less likely to me than somehow getting enough votes in Congress and then 38 states to ratify a new amendment to nullify it. Which also seems incredibly unlikely.
Ok, are you honestly saying that you think a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule against a direct and clear Constitutional Amendment just to help a President that has no control over them or their jobs?
Has this post really gotten to this point, that we’re just posting crazy claims without any merit or knowledge or research at all? Isn’t HN better than this?
Has this post really gotten to this point, that we’re just posting crazy claims without any merit or knowledge or research at all? Isn’t HN better than this?
It's like Reddit, where people have been claiming for a year that Trump would just cancel the election, despite him having to power to do so.
I expect a lot more fuckery to happen, but cancelled elections and the Supreme Court nullifying the 22nd amendment won't be included.
I expect a lot more fuckery to happen, but cancelled elections and the Supreme Court nullifying the 22nd amendment won't be included.
A Republican USSC throwing out the constitution, and the principle of democratic fairness, to put a Republican in the White House is not without precedent.
Al Gore legitimately won the 2000 election. The USSC prevented him from taking office.
Al Gore legitimately won the 2000 election. The USSC prevented him from taking office.
Parent asked how they could do it, not why. So I told how. Never said I thought they would do it. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me as much as it should though.
Wow the MSM media sure has filled you with propaganda. Talk about overdoing it jesus.
Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha'olam, dayan ha-emet.
i pray for peace and rest to her and her family, and grace and mercy, wisdom and forebearance for us.
i pray for peace and rest to her and her family, and grace and mercy, wisdom and forebearance for us.
The potential ramifications of this are chilling. If the Republicans mishandle this, it could drastically increase the chances of widespread conflict around the time of the elections.
I figure it was already pretty high to begin with.
jagger27(2)
Widespread conflict will get Trump elected, this is already proving the case as people see 'violence' instead of 'protesting' Trump is getting momentum. Don Lemon on CNN literally asking for people to calm down due to this fact.
Edit: Trump's support grew consistently as public support for BLM waned in face of the 'perception of violence' [1] - which Trump's team sees and is why he's pushing a 'law and order' message. The risk of BLM is that 'empathy' will easily be overwhelmed by 'concern' if pictures of violence play out on their TV screens every night. People will always chose public order over almost anything else.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/trump-black-lives-m...
Edit: Trump's support grew consistently as public support for BLM waned in face of the 'perception of violence' [1] - which Trump's team sees and is why he's pushing a 'law and order' message. The risk of BLM is that 'empathy' will easily be overwhelmed by 'concern' if pictures of violence play out on their TV screens every night. People will always chose public order over almost anything else.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/trump-black-lives-m...
> this is already proving the case
Except it doesn't seem like the violence and rioting so far has actually helped Trump:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-me...
Except it doesn't seem like the violence and rioting so far has actually helped Trump:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-me...
Your reference doesn't support your point.
Trump's 'Law and Justice' messaging may not be helping, but his approval ratings have improved as the protests have continued and none of the data in the article diminishes that.
It doesn't surprise me that many people support Biden as the mostly likely to 'quell tensions' etc. - however - that's not the same thing as the instinctive response to seeing widespread violence on TV.
Listen to Lemon [1]:
"“It’s showing up in the polling. It’s showing up in focus groups. It is the only thing right now that is sticking,” Lemon said ahead of "CNN Tonight" on Tuesday. “The riots and the protests have become indistinguishable."
This I believe.
More directly from Nate Silver here [2] where he is unsure there is a correlation, but since that article, the meme has continued and Trump has drifted up for no other apparent reason along the same trend line.
I don't like the man, the 'trend' is not good. Just a few weeks ago it looked like this would be over, now, there are many paths for him to come to win.
A showdown over Ginsberg replacement may be the decisive battle.
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513742-cnns-lemon-warns-o...
[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-a-backlash-agains...
Trump's 'Law and Justice' messaging may not be helping, but his approval ratings have improved as the protests have continued and none of the data in the article diminishes that.
It doesn't surprise me that many people support Biden as the mostly likely to 'quell tensions' etc. - however - that's not the same thing as the instinctive response to seeing widespread violence on TV.
Listen to Lemon [1]:
"“It’s showing up in the polling. It’s showing up in focus groups. It is the only thing right now that is sticking,” Lemon said ahead of "CNN Tonight" on Tuesday. “The riots and the protests have become indistinguishable."
This I believe.
More directly from Nate Silver here [2] where he is unsure there is a correlation, but since that article, the meme has continued and Trump has drifted up for no other apparent reason along the same trend line.
I don't like the man, the 'trend' is not good. Just a few weeks ago it looked like this would be over, now, there are many paths for him to come to win.
A showdown over Ginsberg replacement may be the decisive battle.
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513742-cnns-lemon-warns-o...
[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-a-backlash-agains...
Vote
Too late. 2016 was the time to vote.
Also, why bother? Electoral College means my vote counts for shit and half the Presidents since I’ve been able to vote were elected by losing the popular vote. It’s tyranNy of the minority and it sucks. I still vote, but it feels more and more Sisyphean as time goes on.
Also, why bother? Electoral College means my vote counts for shit and half the Presidents since I’ve been able to vote were elected by losing the popular vote. It’s tyranNy of the minority and it sucks. I still vote, but it feels more and more Sisyphean as time goes on.
Move to a small red state and vote
I saw her speak at West Point about a year and a half ago. In a room including colonels, generals, and cadets, she riveted the audience with humor, stories, wit, and insight. My favorite insight was her sharing her friendship with Scalia. Their nearly opposite politics didn't stop them from things like he would secretly pass her notes while hearing cases to try to make her laugh.
Her sharing contributed to my befriending a few people with opposite political views, against this nation's tide of increasing polarization and beating opponents without trying to understand (Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind contributed too). Among the results: less anger, more understanding, more self-awareness, though also more confusion among friends and family to why I would talk to someone who voted that way.
Her sharing contributed to my befriending a few people with opposite political views, against this nation's tide of increasing polarization and beating opponents without trying to understand (Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind contributed too). Among the results: less anger, more understanding, more self-awareness, though also more confusion among friends and family to why I would talk to someone who voted that way.
Old people lowkey flirting is so wholesome.
This is Trump's chance to score some points. If he defers the appointment he will score some points with people and have a better chance of re-election. If they ram it through his chances of winning will be worse than they already are. This is at most a 2d chess move. They'll probably still screw it up.
No, you have it backwards. He increases his chances by appointing another conservative, pro life judge.
For every one of the coming takes that Republicans will be hypocrites to appoint and confirm a justice (which they will)
They do not give a fuck.
That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate.
This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.
They do not give a fuck.
That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate.
This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.
> They do not give a fuck
Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP.
You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.
Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP.
You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.
Precisely.
There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of change.
For example:
What should be the first acts and priorities be of a democratic administration?
Healthcare? Nope.
Climate change? Nope.
A federal holiday for election days? Yes.
Passing legislation mandating mail-in ballots? Yes.
That’s how you think about politics. About power. Lock in any advantage and expand it. Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically.
There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of change.
For example:
What should be the first acts and priorities be of a democratic administration?
Healthcare? Nope.
Climate change? Nope.
A federal holiday for election days? Yes.
Passing legislation mandating mail-in ballots? Yes.
That’s how you think about politics. About power. Lock in any advantage and expand it. Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically.
Being embarrassed about wanting to be in power is a perpetual problem for leftism (It's understandable - it involves saying yes to the institutions you probably want to reform).
Consider Corbyn in the UK - Awful polling from day 1, doesn't help much with Brexit, loses 2 elections (One meh, one disaster) but the lessons learned is that they won the "argument" and it's all good?
Consider Corbyn in the UK - Awful polling from day 1, doesn't help much with Brexit, loses 2 elections (One meh, one disaster) but the lessons learned is that they won the "argument" and it's all good?
To be fair, most American "left" politicians are hardly left, with the exception of Sanders and the handful of DSA-affiliated Congressmen. Although popular support for more-left policies seems to be forcing them (reluctantly) farther leftward.
To be fair, it is hypothetically possible that Corbyn did the best he could have done, considering he was being terribly smeared, even vilified, by all the big media organizations in UK AFAIK.
Field a candidate with a riposte then.
The Corbyn fans love to talk abut media smears but they neglect to mention that he never polled above 0% net approval in his entire term as leader.
Starmer, his replacement, is a man of intellect, principle, and service to the public - he is already doing better than Corbyn ever did - i.e. the media who didn't like Corbyn were writing amicable praise of Sir Keir (the mail love a nickname) even when he was making a mockery of their man (Boris)
The Corbyn fans love to talk abut media smears but they neglect to mention that he never polled above 0% net approval in his entire term as leader.
Starmer, his replacement, is a man of intellect, principle, and service to the public - he is already doing better than Corbyn ever did - i.e. the media who didn't like Corbyn were writing amicable praise of Sir Keir (the mail love a nickname) even when he was making a mockery of their man (Boris)
The reason for that is that Starmer is a corporate stooge who doesn't present any threat to the merciless extraction of value from the working class. Of course they have no objection to the kind of competition which would have no adverse effect on their interests if it prevailed; their praise is evidence of Starner's complete lack of merit.
The media besmirched Corbyn BECAUSE he was a decent man with the interests of the public at heart, which is unacceptable to the owners of the media apparatus.
The media besmirched Corbyn BECAUSE he was a decent man with the interests of the public at heart, which is unacceptable to the owners of the media apparatus.
> Starmer is a corporate stooge
Now, now. Starmer might not be a militant marxist, but he spent a good chunk of his life fighting for workers' rights in court. He also served faithfully in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn - are you saying that Corbyn chose a "corporate stooge" as his shadow minister, and on the hottest issue of the day at that (brexit)?
One of Corbyn's lackings was that he was unable to make friends in his own party, to the point that half of his own rank & file literally sabotaged him at the last election. By calling good people all sorts of unwarranted names we're only going to see a repeat, and $deity knows this country deserves better than yet another Tory government.
Now, now. Starmer might not be a militant marxist, but he spent a good chunk of his life fighting for workers' rights in court. He also served faithfully in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn - are you saying that Corbyn chose a "corporate stooge" as his shadow minister, and on the hottest issue of the day at that (brexit)?
One of Corbyn's lackings was that he was unable to make friends in his own party, to the point that half of his own rank & file literally sabotaged him at the last election. By calling good people all sorts of unwarranted names we're only going to see a repeat, and $deity knows this country deserves better than yet another Tory government.
The section of the rank and file that sabotaged him did so because they are possessed by a vile ideology that virulently opposes any concession by the powerful to the mass of the people. Being unable to befriend any of that metastatic species redounds greatly to Mr Corbyn's credit. They are not "good people".
Now Starmer may not be ideologically committed to the ruthless exploitation of the public like they are, but at the very least he harbours delusions about the possibility of compromising with a right wing, both within his party and in the media, that is implacably and rabidly opposed to any project of positive reform. They will never relent in their shameless calumny and perfidy until Labour's program has been completely neutered.
Now Starmer may not be ideologically committed to the ruthless exploitation of the public like they are, but at the very least he harbours delusions about the possibility of compromising with a right wing, both within his party and in the media, that is implacably and rabidly opposed to any project of positive reform. They will never relent in their shameless calumny and perfidy until Labour's program has been completely neutered.
Voting and gerrymandering are the metagame.
We should pay people to vote, that would help turnout (up to about as much as it would ever get).
We should pay people to vote, that would help turnout (up to about as much as it would ever get).
Controversial view: no, we shouldn't. Have you see how stupid people are? How easily they're manipulated? How little they understand about how government works? Any you want politicians pandering to these people?
If it weren't to the stigma of "literacy" tests and how the were historically used, I'd be fully in favor of "licensing" voters.
If it weren't to the stigma of "literacy" tests and how the were historically used, I'd be fully in favor of "licensing" voters.
Paying people to vote is pretty out there. I think we should at least put election day on a weekend. Spread it over both days, even. This feels to me like a relatively easy small step that would really help make voting easier in a way that doesn't open itself up to voter fraud arguments (as far as I know).
> Spread it over both days, even.
Early voting (in several states already?) does a good job of this IMO.
Early voting (in several states already?) does a good job of this IMO.
The literacy test that I took wasn't even controversial. Back in middle school my civics teacher actually had us take one of these literacy tests. While very few people in the class passed the test (I think just myself and one other person), anyone actually familiar with the text of the US Constitution should be able to pass it. Sadly almost no one in our class was familiar with the US Constitution.
I'm totally okay with a test where the only document you need to study from is the US Constitution.
I'm totally okay with a test where the only document you need to study from is the US Constitution.
"We should pay people to vote"
Reminds of me of 3rd grade when kids would make a christmas tree out of their scantron tests. That is what we need -- randomness added to voting.
Reminds of me of 3rd grade when kids would make a christmas tree out of their scantron tests. That is what we need -- randomness added to voting.
Having more people able to vote in winner-takes-all elections in gerrymandered districts won't help as much as you'd like.
I am under no delusions about what I mentioned as panaceas.
But in terms of direct action that democrats could pass in the first week (the bills exist already), those are my picks.
Gerrymandering would take a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would help more, but that’s a moot point if the people we’re talking about can’t do it.
But in terms of direct action that democrats could pass in the first week (the bills exist already), those are my picks.
Gerrymandering would take a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would help more, but that’s a moot point if the people we’re talking about can’t do it.
Sure. I was pointing out that there's up-and-down fundamental issues with the American voting system that would take a massive reform to fix as mere tweaks alone won't suffice. I think we'd agree on this.
The whole electoral college is non-intentional gerrymandering. The candidate with fewer votes has been winning since 2000, and winning with a wider and wider vote margin. A major political goal should be getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact done.
Obama won both elections in electoral votes and actual votes.
Yes, and was very centrist.
I don't think the changing media landscape can be disentangled from this, which is a trend happening for unrelated reasons. If the only thing happening was urban concentration, then the mathematical predicted response of politicians would be that the liberal part becomes political-center and the conservative part skews further right.
I don't think the changing media landscape can be disentangled from this, which is a trend happening for unrelated reasons. If the only thing happening was urban concentration, then the mathematical predicted response of politicians would be that the liberal part becomes political-center and the conservative part skews further right.
The Electoral College is specifically intended not to line up with the popular vote. It is the final chance for the conscience of the people of the United States, unfettered by anything, to weigh in on the merit of those the masses have chosen as candidates for the highest office. The Faithless Elector was a feature; not a bug.
Or at least it was until it was perverted by the two major National Conventions. As mentioned earlier, read the Federalist papers for more context; but be prepared for a let down when it starts to sink in how much care was put into the system just for things to go off the rails, and I don't mean because of things like suffrage or the Civil Rights Movement either; but by the slow degeneration of the integrity of the system through the death by 1000 cuts of self-centered legislation, dismantling and delegation of Legislative authority to the executive, excessive politicization of the Judiciary, non-mandating of sunset dates for legislation, and the cancerous taint that is the lack of House or Senate limits on consecutive terms.
Or at least it was until it was perverted by the two major National Conventions. As mentioned earlier, read the Federalist papers for more context; but be prepared for a let down when it starts to sink in how much care was put into the system just for things to go off the rails, and I don't mean because of things like suffrage or the Civil Rights Movement either; but by the slow degeneration of the integrity of the system through the death by 1000 cuts of self-centered legislation, dismantling and delegation of Legislative authority to the executive, excessive politicization of the Judiciary, non-mandating of sunset dates for legislation, and the cancerous taint that is the lack of House or Senate limits on consecutive terms.
To me, the most relevant difference between then and now is the looseness of the union. It makes sense that all states get an equal vote... only when the votes don't really matter. If California broke up into 5 states, they would get 5x the power by the holy virtue of making that administrative decision.
An alliance of states can make sense. Everyone at the table knows they're not equal, because they're representing totally different entities. However, they all have a voice because they all have decision power. In an alliance, votes don't make sense as a decision-making apparatus with power. The gathering is for the purpose of international diplomacy, and freedom of action is determined by the real capabilities of each sovereign.
An alliance of states can make sense. Everyone at the table knows they're not equal, because they're representing totally different entities. However, they all have a voice because they all have decision power. In an alliance, votes don't make sense as a decision-making apparatus with power. The gathering is for the purpose of international diplomacy, and freedom of action is determined by the real capabilities of each sovereign.
>To me, the most relevant difference between then and now is the looseness of the union.
To me, it is the terrifying ease with which instantaneous information/sentiment propagation can be utilized to sever one from a rational ground state and whip up a furor with which to push through an carve up of the Nation's civil liberties that truly sets us apart now.
Even reading literature from the time, it factors heavily in that to prevent misbehavior and oppression by a majority, there must be a realistic point of view taken as to the weakness of such a large mass to chaos and lack of coordination to operate in concert. This is a point that I don't think many truly appreciate that the Founder's understood and accounted for. To them, the majority was not always right. In fact, it would be accurate to state that the structure of government they settled on was designed to effectively serve the purposes for which it was intended, and no more; so great was the risk represented by such an edifice. The amount of Liberty preserved so great, and the sacrifice of civil freedoms was meant to be as minimal as possible, leads me to believe they saw legislation as more of a failure state than as a desirable State of affairs. At least in as much as said legislation did not tend to reinforce and preserve the Unity of the Nation as a whole.
>If California broke up into 5 states, they would get 5x the power by the holy virtue of making that administrative decision.
That is dead on point. By the way, Federalist Papers 6-10 touch on the ills of factionalism, and the delicate balance that must be struck between the number of representatives, and the population they represent. It was a conscious decision at the time to try to satisfy suffrage in order to safeguard the liberties of the Nation as a whole.
To me, it is the terrifying ease with which instantaneous information/sentiment propagation can be utilized to sever one from a rational ground state and whip up a furor with which to push through an carve up of the Nation's civil liberties that truly sets us apart now.
Even reading literature from the time, it factors heavily in that to prevent misbehavior and oppression by a majority, there must be a realistic point of view taken as to the weakness of such a large mass to chaos and lack of coordination to operate in concert. This is a point that I don't think many truly appreciate that the Founder's understood and accounted for. To them, the majority was not always right. In fact, it would be accurate to state that the structure of government they settled on was designed to effectively serve the purposes for which it was intended, and no more; so great was the risk represented by such an edifice. The amount of Liberty preserved so great, and the sacrifice of civil freedoms was meant to be as minimal as possible, leads me to believe they saw legislation as more of a failure state than as a desirable State of affairs. At least in as much as said legislation did not tend to reinforce and preserve the Unity of the Nation as a whole.
>If California broke up into 5 states, they would get 5x the power by the holy virtue of making that administrative decision.
That is dead on point. By the way, Federalist Papers 6-10 touch on the ills of factionalism, and the delicate balance that must be struck between the number of representatives, and the population they represent. It was a conscious decision at the time to try to satisfy suffrage in order to safeguard the liberties of the Nation as a whole.
User23(2)
Gerrymandering is at the top of my list. Solve that problem and it is easier to attack the other problems.
That would take a constitutional amendment.
The top three amendments (in my opinion) that the US needs most:
- ending gerrymandering
- taking money out of politics (federally financed elections)
- forcing votes on nominees within a certain time period, otherwise they are assumed confirmed
The top three amendments (in my opinion) that the US needs most:
- ending gerrymandering
- taking money out of politics (federally financed elections)
- forcing votes on nominees within a certain time period, otherwise they are assumed confirmed
Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically.
You think they don't understand this stuff? Democrats have been deliberately "failing" to get shit done for 20 years. They keep holding out progressive and populist policies, tantalizingly close to enacting meaningful change -- but nope, somehow it always seems to be a matter of political strategy, badly run campaigns, and bad messaging that derails things.
Surely the Republicans haven't somehow had the better political strategists for decades. They aren't always better funded and they aren't always better organized. And certainly they don't have access to some kind of magic politics potion that the Democrats lack.
The only plausible scenario that I can see is that the Democratic party leadership has no interest in actually getting policy enacted, as long as they keep their cozy niche in power. Another 4 years of Trump will help them do very well in the 2022 midterms, and it will help keep their friends at the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC in business.
It would also explain why they hated Sanders and the DSA candidates so much. Liberals (not to mention leftists) who actually wanted to take power at the national level and actually do something? That would fuck up the whole game.
Basically you'd have to show me some actual evidence that Democratic party leadership actually wants to do anything other than campaign on a progressive platform and consistently almost-win. The whole thing seems worked to me.
You think they don't understand this stuff? Democrats have been deliberately "failing" to get shit done for 20 years. They keep holding out progressive and populist policies, tantalizingly close to enacting meaningful change -- but nope, somehow it always seems to be a matter of political strategy, badly run campaigns, and bad messaging that derails things.
Surely the Republicans haven't somehow had the better political strategists for decades. They aren't always better funded and they aren't always better organized. And certainly they don't have access to some kind of magic politics potion that the Democrats lack.
The only plausible scenario that I can see is that the Democratic party leadership has no interest in actually getting policy enacted, as long as they keep their cozy niche in power. Another 4 years of Trump will help them do very well in the 2022 midterms, and it will help keep their friends at the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC in business.
It would also explain why they hated Sanders and the DSA candidates so much. Liberals (not to mention leftists) who actually wanted to take power at the national level and actually do something? That would fuck up the whole game.
Basically you'd have to show me some actual evidence that Democratic party leadership actually wants to do anything other than campaign on a progressive platform and consistently almost-win. The whole thing seems worked to me.
I don't think you need anything that conspiratorial, it's not that centrist Democrats really don't want to get anything done, it's just that they really are basically okay with the current neoliberal consensus.
The difference is that it goes beyond being okay with a policy consensus. The current presidency is an exercise is dismantling the checks and balances in the US government and an experiment in pushing the limits of propaganda and keeping the public complacent in the face of crimes committed against them by their government.
For example, they had to have known that McConnell would kill the Trump impeachment. But they went ahead with it anyway. The only explanation I can see for this is that they wanted to somehow signal their opposition to Trump with their core voter base, while wasting and effectively discrediting the usefulness of a last-resort tool for asserting their authority.
And what is Biden campaigning on? What is his campaign even doing [0]? Where are the attack ads branding Trump as an anti-American grifter? This feels like 2016 all over again, except with the added danger that we already know how dangerous Trump is, and if he wins again he'll have nothing to lose -- and his handlers in the halls of power will take full advantage of it. They know they are ruining America and they simply don't care, they'll just run to the bunker when shit gets bad for normal people [1].
[0]: https://sirota.substack.com/p/where-is-bidens-ground-game
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2020/03/27/billionair...
For example, they had to have known that McConnell would kill the Trump impeachment. But they went ahead with it anyway. The only explanation I can see for this is that they wanted to somehow signal their opposition to Trump with their core voter base, while wasting and effectively discrediting the usefulness of a last-resort tool for asserting their authority.
And what is Biden campaigning on? What is his campaign even doing [0]? Where are the attack ads branding Trump as an anti-American grifter? This feels like 2016 all over again, except with the added danger that we already know how dangerous Trump is, and if he wins again he'll have nothing to lose -- and his handlers in the halls of power will take full advantage of it. They know they are ruining America and they simply don't care, they'll just run to the bunker when shit gets bad for normal people [1].
[0]: https://sirota.substack.com/p/where-is-bidens-ground-game
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2020/03/27/billionair...
What's the distinction?
Well, one is the claim that Democrats don't get anything done because they have a secret commitment to keep things the way they are so that voters have a reason to come back to the polls for them, and I'm saying maybe the reason is simply that Democrats are mostly fine with the way things are. Maybe your point is that this is a distinction without a difference, which I guess I'd mostly have to agree with.
Doing those changes is also against their interest, making them as hypocritical as republicans when they talk policy.
This kind of thinking assumes that the ruling party can unilaterally make policy changes, which is not possible in the American system currently (e.g. fillibuster).
w.r.t Sanders: he lost in a small d democratic primary. It wasn't the leadership: it was the voters that chose Biden over Sanders.
w.r.t Sanders: he lost in a small d democratic primary. It wasn't the leadership: it was the voters that chose Biden over Sanders.
I don't know about head kicks. I think you just need to be a political realist. The reality is that you need (edit: cooperation of the) Senate and Presidency to get a Justice nominated. Obama didn't have the Senate and didn't get his pick for Justice. Trump does, and will get his pick.
The whole "Republicans are hypocrites" thing is true - but obviously so. Whatever was said about not doing it in election year was simply a political lie they felt they had to say to avoid the "We are doing this because we can" reality.
The whole "Republicans are hypocrites" thing is true - but obviously so. Whatever was said about not doing it in election year was simply a political lie they felt they had to say to avoid the "We are doing this because we can" reality.
Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas were all approved by a senate of an opposing party. Apparently you have to go back to the 1800s though to find a case where a Democratic president had a nominee appointed by a Republican Senate.
You have to have the cooperation of the Senate I meant. Obviously, in cases where a President of one party has a nominee appointed by a Senate of another, the cooperation of the Senate was there.
Looking earlier than the 60s or so seems irrelevant for comparing the republicans and democrats
Merrick Garland was recommended to Obama by Republican senator Orrin Hatch as a reasonable candidate, before the death of Scalia.
Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid first introduced a filibuster for judicial nominees, and then ending the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was politically convenient for them.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconn...
Do you think that might have affected the ability of the current president to successfully appoint a supreme court justice now?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconn...
Do you think that might have affected the ability of the current president to successfully appoint a supreme court justice now?
> Democrat
Childish. Come on.
Childish. Come on.
Do you think the republicans would not have ended it for Kavanaugh?
There are so many unpacked assumptions and unevaluated arguments here it would take a book to work through them all.
To give a short version - if you oppose a filibuster, then don't use it to prevent Merrick Garland from being on the court.
Nothing about Schumer's position on the filibuster in 2002 can be used to argue that the trajectory of court appointments since then is a culmination of any logically consistent argument in response to it.
To give a short version - if you oppose a filibuster, then don't use it to prevent Merrick Garland from being on the court.
Nothing about Schumer's position on the filibuster in 2002 can be used to argue that the trajectory of court appointments since then is a culmination of any logically consistent argument in response to it.
> Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid ...
*Democratic
Chuck Shumer, a Democrat, is a member of the Democratic Party.
When used as an adjective the correct usage is “Democratic”
*Democratic
Chuck Shumer, a Democrat, is a member of the Democratic Party.
When used as an adjective the correct usage is “Democratic”
The useful thing about seeing 'Democrat' in a comment is that it is immediately obvious which way their bias leans.
What's wrong with "democratic" and why would it tell someone's political leanings? Isn't it just a different way to say "democratic"?
You must not be from around here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
In this case I don't see why it needs to be an adjective.
By analogy, you'll more often hear "Texas senator Mr Bean" (using the singular noun) vs "Texan senator Mr Bean" (using the adjective).
In any case, it's not something anyone should get worked up over.
By analogy, you'll more often hear "Texas senator Mr Bean" (using the singular noun) vs "Texan senator Mr Bean" (using the adjective).
In any case, it's not something anyone should get worked up over.
I'm well aware... but in this particular sentence he or she is talking about specific Democrat, not the Democratic Party, and as such, seems grammatical.
Let's ask Google.
"democratic senators"
> About 969,000 results (0.52 seconds)
"democrat senators"
> About 92,800 results (0.42 seconds)
"democratic senators" site:breitbart.com
> About 1,010 results (0.32 seconds)
"democrat senators" site:breitbart.com
> About 2,300 results (0.27 seconds)
"Democrat" is a Trump-speak signifier and chosen on purpose.
Obama didn't assume anything. He was a senator for 12 years (federally for 4) and had plenty of experience by that point to know how partisan legislative bodies are and how members will die for their parties perceived glory. I don't believe for a second that in the aftermath of Clinton's impeachment & Gore's 500 vote loss in the state being governed by his opponents brother with tens of thousands of votes lost or miscounted that any prospective politician anywhere in the US would expect good faith from their opposition.
He was a great orator and liked using that come together message as an attempted bait to push popular support in his favor, though. It was also a great excuse for pushing an extremely conservative healthcare bill through congress as if it were some major achievement for his more progressive supporters.
He was a great orator and liked using that come together message as an attempted bait to push popular support in his favor, though. It was also a great excuse for pushing an extremely conservative healthcare bill through congress as if it were some major achievement for his more progressive supporters.
I agree on Obama. Biden played a large part as well.
Remember that they got rid of a public option in negotiations to win Republicans over. And got zero Republican votes.
Obama was many things, but he was not good at congressional politics. He saw himself as about the fray, and it showed.
Remember that they got rid of a public option in negotiations to win Republicans over. And got zero Republican votes.
Obama was many things, but he was not good at congressional politics. He saw himself as about the fray, and it showed.
Joe Lieberman killed the public option in Obamacare. He threatened to vote against the bill if a public option was included.
You mean Joe Lieberman, who was Al Gore's choice for Vice President when he won the Democratic nomination for president in 2000, and went on to endorse Republican John McCain for president only 8 years later?
The facts are that Democratic Senator Max Baucus, Chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee and Obama's pointman in the Senate who was responsible for writing the language of Obamacare (Romneycare) invited a cabal of insurance industry lobbyists into the negotiating room to write the bill and specifically excluded all single-payer advocates from the negotiating table. Its pure revisionist history to suggest that Obama and his minions did everything they could to push a public option (let alone single-payer or even a Medicare-for-all type provision). The facts are that Obama and the Democratic leadership caucus were determined to pass a bill that enshrined the predominance of the for-profit, employer-based health insurance industry. Obamacare (Romneycare) was designed from the beginning as an effort to preclude real, substantive change and improvements to our healthcare system by implementing some very minor improvements (such as the pre-existing conditions clause) and some cosmetic changes. This was abundantly clear to everyone who was paying close attention at the time and not getting their information from corporate news outlets.
https://pnhp.org/news/max-baucus-should-not-be-deciding-heal...
The facts are that Democratic Senator Max Baucus, Chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee and Obama's pointman in the Senate who was responsible for writing the language of Obamacare (Romneycare) invited a cabal of insurance industry lobbyists into the negotiating room to write the bill and specifically excluded all single-payer advocates from the negotiating table. Its pure revisionist history to suggest that Obama and his minions did everything they could to push a public option (let alone single-payer or even a Medicare-for-all type provision). The facts are that Obama and the Democratic leadership caucus were determined to pass a bill that enshrined the predominance of the for-profit, employer-based health insurance industry. Obamacare (Romneycare) was designed from the beginning as an effort to preclude real, substantive change and improvements to our healthcare system by implementing some very minor improvements (such as the pre-existing conditions clause) and some cosmetic changes. This was abundantly clear to everyone who was paying close attention at the time and not getting their information from corporate news outlets.
https://pnhp.org/news/max-baucus-should-not-be-deciding-heal...
This idea that either the Republicans or Democrats have faith or principles is absurd. The Democratic brand is one of principles and altruism, but their actions do not reflect this.
Wrong. Democrats are principled to a fault.
Oh, the old "the reason my party can't get anything done is because they are too principled".
Everything is relative. Obviously politicians aren't principled in an absolute way. But democrats absolutely are more principled than republicans. They have failed to lie like republicans do. They don't gerrymander as effectively. They refuse to utilize fake news to energize their base like republicans do.
They did all of that during the primary against Bernie Sanders. They went so far as to call him a Russian plant. And the rigging of the Iowa caucus result reporting was unconscionable. They only reported districts that Sanders was not leading in, making it look like he lost. It took a week to report results districts he was popular in and he ended up winning the popular vote.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nDO2kHGEoY0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nDO2kHGEoY0
This is literally republican propaganda. Hillary won the primary by 3.7 million votes.
I'm talking about the 2019 primaries. Watch the link instead of being reactionary and commenting from your gut.
He lost the 2019 primaries even worse. Minorities see class reductionist for what is is, racism from privileged middle class whites. It's clear that Bernie doesn't give a fuck about black people and they killed him for it.
Rachel Maddow is the queen of the fake news. Come on Man!
The only people I've seen principled is Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and Ben Sasse. Beyond those few, everyone else is pretty much playing power games.
Very very few people in Congress do anything but vote along party lines on pretty much everything.
I don't know how you can democrats are principled to a fault with a straight face when you have Nancy Pelosi who is just the Democrat's McConnell.
Very very few people in Congress do anything but vote along party lines on pretty much everything.
I don't know how you can democrats are principled to a fault with a straight face when you have Nancy Pelosi who is just the Democrat's McConnell.
Lmao at thinking anyone who names their kid after Ayn rand could be principled. All the libertarians in congress are fine with raising the deficit when the republicans are in power but cry about fiscal responsibility when democrats are. The democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility.
Rand is short for Randal. He was not named after Ayn Rand.
His full name is Randal Howard Paul.
Also, which libertarians have been fine raising the deficit? They are pretty much the only ones that consistently argue against it whether the budget increase comes from Republicans or Democrats.
His full name is Randal Howard Paul.
Also, which libertarians have been fine raising the deficit? They are pretty much the only ones that consistently argue against it whether the budget increase comes from Republicans or Democrats.
Lmao at actually believing Randal paul isn't named after Ayn Rand. I see you've fully embraced the cognitive dissonance that has made republicans so successful. I hope democrats can do the same. I'll give credit to Ron though. That was a very principled thing to do, respect.
[deleted]
Or maybe present a better alternative that gets people to vote for your side?
Your party aggressively screwed over a candidate who could have energized the base and still would have captured 99.99% of the center in a trade for a principle-less barely coherent snooze fest of a human being who would toe the old party line and then you claim the only remedy is to play as dirty as the other side?
Excuse me for not buying it.
I voted for Obama but the democratic party is bordering on as repulsive as the republicans these days and this type of thinking is to blame.
Your party aggressively screwed over a candidate who could have energized the base and still would have captured 99.99% of the center in a trade for a principle-less barely coherent snooze fest of a human being who would toe the old party line and then you claim the only remedy is to play as dirty as the other side?
Excuse me for not buying it.
I voted for Obama but the democratic party is bordering on as repulsive as the republicans these days and this type of thinking is to blame.
Bernie? He lost to Hillary by almost 4 million votes, then lost to Biden by 9 million votes (The largest margin since 2004) - how is that motivating the base.
He's a protectionist idealist who the republicans were dying to run against because they knew he'd be easier than Biden.
He's a protectionist idealist who the republicans were dying to run against because they knew he'd be easier than Biden.
I'm not a Bernie supporter. Just pointing out that the party repeatedly screws itself over.
Also just because a person loses a primary does not mean they are they weaker candidate in the general election. The math can easily go the other way.
Also just because a person loses a primary does not mean they are they weaker candidate in the general election. The math can easily go the other way.
At the same time, from the Republican perspective... They won "fair and square", and then largely liberal-staffed agencies and other organizations delayed and resisted the implementation of Republican policies as much as possible. The other side wasn't playing fair, why should they?
Then it's time to fight back.
Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS.
McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you're right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.
Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS.
McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you're right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.
I can’t see Dems doing that. They don’t have the popular support for something like that, let alone the courage.
What they should do is physically barricade the Capitol. I’m not really joking. It will come to that.
My first guess of the most action they will take:
Staging a walk-out of the vote.
What they should do is physically barricade the Capitol. I’m not really joking. It will come to that.
My first guess of the most action they will take:
Staging a walk-out of the vote.
They will.
I think we're about to see some of the more arcane rules of debate in the Senate take center stage: repeated quorum calls, filibuster, cloture, etc. I suspect this will not go down without a fight.
Filibuster was abolished for SCOTUS nominations.
There was nothing procedurally that Democrats could have done to stop Kavanaugh. If there were, they would have.
They cannot stop this nomination by traditional means.
There was nothing procedurally that Democrats could have done to stop Kavanaugh. If there were, they would have.
They cannot stop this nomination by traditional means.
A walkout? That wouldn't do anything. There's 53 sitting Republicans. That's enough to confirm a nomination.
There's no reprisal that would intimidate him into not taking every opportunity to claim more power.
You want to split McConnell and Trump starting now. McConnell will throw Trump under the bus the moment he loses and has done the nomination. If Trump holds out he can bargain with the Democrats during the lame duck session on immunity.
Trump will leverage his lame duck session to contest the loss in the courts.
So why wouldn’t the Republicans do the same thing next time they win an election? Or would the Democrats somehow guarantee that never happens again?
If the Supreme Court becomes a more partisan institution that shifts in viewpoints every 4 years, that's not ideal, but I think it's quite a bit better than the status quo where so many people see every appointment as an existential threat.
They will. The SCOTUS as a nonpartisan institution that isn't a political football is 100% dead if McConnell confirms a nominee before the election.
It's time Democrats recognize that, and play offense when they have the ball.
It's sad to see the institution end as a non-political body, but it's been happening for the last couple of decades. This will be the absolute end of it.
It's time Democrats recognize that, and play offense when they have the ball.
It's sad to see the institution end as a non-political body, but it's been happening for the last couple of decades. This will be the absolute end of it.
SCOTUS is already clearly partisan if the newly departed justice's final wish is for a different president to appoint her replacement. Playing politics up until the end.
Ah yes, wishing for a successor that does not undo your life's work is definitely what I would call "playing politics up until the end".
Damn right it is. Once she passes the President and Senate get to nominate a replacement. RBG isn't somehow deserving of a candidate that maintains her legacy. In fact, she has zero say in who her replacement is.
Genuine question for anyone following Supreme Court decisions since the inclusion of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. How have either of those two nominations contributed to decisions in a way that undes RBG's life work? If they haven't, on what basis are you coming to the conclusion that the third nominee to SCOTUS would somehow be radically different than the first two?
I personally haven't read an opinion from either that most democrats would be disappointed with. Most people actually don't follow what the supreme court does and the extent of the attention they pay is just making sure that the president they support gets to pick SCOTUS justices.
I personally haven't read an opinion from either that most democrats would be disappointed with. Most people actually don't follow what the supreme court does and the extent of the attention they pay is just making sure that the president they support gets to pick SCOTUS justices.
We can compare the stated philosophies of RBG against those of the two most recent nominees and the shortlisted candidates put forth in the past week and see that they're very different. It seems very plausible to guess that, given a large majority, these people will enact these philosophies. No?
SCOTUS is dead
The current status quo is that SCOTUS is staffed based on who happens to die and who happens to be President at that time. That's a terrible design: Roe v. Wade should not hang on whether there was an economic recession two years ago.
So if there's a court-packing arms race, that may not be a bad thing. It would bring this anachronism to a head.
Maybe we have LOTS MORE justices. Then each appointment would not be so politicized because their influence would be lessened. See https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/academic-highlight-epps-a...
So if there's a court-packing arms race, that may not be a bad thing. It would bring this anachronism to a head.
Maybe we have LOTS MORE justices. Then each appointment would not be so politicized because their influence would be lessened. See https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/academic-highlight-epps-a...
Nothing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
One party coalition has demonstrated they will do ANYTHING for power, and now there are very few good choices available.
Either respond in kind, or face permanent defeat
One party coalition has demonstrated they will do ANYTHING for power, and now there are very few good choices available.
Either respond in kind, or face permanent defeat
They don't have the support there own party will turn on.
You can expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court via a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So we'd need the presidency, a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate to invoke cloture to end the inevitable legislative filibuster from the Republicans. So even with a blue wave in November, that's not possible because it is extraordinarily unlikely that we gain a supermajority in the Senate.
The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways. With the filibuster out of the way, we'd just need the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.
The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways. With the filibuster out of the way, we'd just need the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.
> The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways.
This is what I call for in another comment. There's no way to get a supermajority in the Senate, so the legislative filibuster would have to die.
This is what I call for in another comment. There's no way to get a supermajority in the Senate, so the legislative filibuster would have to die.
But then get rid of the legislature filibuster after they've used it. The Senate will probably tend GOP, so make sure it is weaker.
Who is "we" in this comment? Democrats? Not Republicans? Progressives?
While your comment is both technically and strategically correct, this sort of binary "us vs them" mentality has caused america such harm and always strikes me as somewhat reductionist. I wish more focus would be on policies and individuals instead of D vs R (as if greens, libertarians, socialists, etc simply do not exist in america's 300M+). Perhaps i am just romanticizing an impossible future, though.
While your comment is both technically and strategically correct, this sort of binary "us vs them" mentality has caused america such harm and always strikes me as somewhat reductionist. I wish more focus would be on policies and individuals instead of D vs R (as if greens, libertarians, socialists, etc simply do not exist in america's 300M+). Perhaps i am just romanticizing an impossible future, though.
I strongly agree with your desires, but I've also been sucked into the D vs R world lately. While I've always been politically left, I despise the 2 party system.
I'm of the opinion that a first past the post and winner take all voting system will almost always produce a 2 party outcome. As such, until we change the voting system I've decided to stop considering myself independent and throw in with the party most closely aligned with my views.
I don't think your imagined future is impossible, though! I just think it's heavily discouraged by our voting system. We can change our voting systems, though. I'd really strongly encourage you to check out and support Ranked Choice Voting (or other proposed voting systems). I don't think it's a silver bullet, but I think RCV would go a long way to breaking down the 2 party system
I'm of the opinion that a first past the post and winner take all voting system will almost always produce a 2 party outcome. As such, until we change the voting system I've decided to stop considering myself independent and throw in with the party most closely aligned with my views.
I don't think your imagined future is impossible, though! I just think it's heavily discouraged by our voting system. We can change our voting systems, though. I'd really strongly encourage you to check out and support Ranked Choice Voting (or other proposed voting systems). I don't think it's a silver bullet, but I think RCV would go a long way to breaking down the 2 party system
I think I’ve seen that movie before; Gaining control of two branches and then using that power to cement absolute control by seizing the third is what the bad guys do.
Uhhh, the Senate confirms nominees. Expanding the court would just allow Republicans to name more justices...
The Democrats would not be able to expand the size of the court until they could pass legislation.
This threat assumes that Democrats would take this action once they control the House and Senate.
This threat assumes that Democrats would take this action once they control the House and Senate.
> This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.
Sounds about right.
> the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Sounds about right.
> the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
They will 100% fill that seat before Jan 20th. The outcome of the election does not matter. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn't understand McConnell and the gang. They'll let Romney dissent, it'll be the impeachment vote v2.
I saw some interviews with her, pretty amazing lady. Sad to see her go.
I saw some interviews with her, pretty amazing lady. Sad to see her go.
Yes, she a wonderful human and a brilliant thinker and writer. He take on Roe is nuanced and thoughtful and no bullshit (she doesn’t love it.)
I’m curious if they wait until after the election. Dangle it in front of their base as “we have to save this seat”.
Or maybe it’s actually a dis-incentive for republican turnout because RBG dying was a strong selling point for next term.
It will be interesting for sure.
EDIT:
I take that back. They will confirm before Election Day. They need a fifth judge for Trump to contest the election.
I’m curious if they wait until after the election. Dangle it in front of their base as “we have to save this seat”.
Or maybe it’s actually a dis-incentive for republican turnout because RBG dying was a strong selling point for next term.
It will be interesting for sure.
EDIT:
I take that back. They will confirm before Election Day. They need a fifth judge for Trump to contest the election.
Hillary won the popular vote by 1.1% and currently the Republicans hold a razor thin Senate majority and have been substantially outpaced by Democrats in the House, so I'm not really sure where you get the idea that there's a "far disproportionate share of power/representation". It seems pretty proportionate to me.
65,853,514 to 62,984,828, about 2.1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
Proportionality isn't one to one because half of Americans aren't republican and half aren't democrat. The problem is that polling data is absolutely awful at showing absolute support for the individual parties platforms and membership numbers are largely biased compared to what the electorate actually wants, but there are plenty of articles about GOP tactics to hold power from a minority bloc position.[1]
I wish I bookmarked the statistics on this because they were eye opening to me, but 2016 polls were showing about 40% democrat to 35% republican leaning in the country. So if the public at large is 5% more blue than red, but Republicans hold near-even seats in government, thats a bias in their favor. And as this and many other articles show this isn't the product of random swings of popular support but structurally orchestrated power grabs meant to keep a minority party in power.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/gop-man...
Edit: And to be fair the Senate isn't a democratic institution whatsoever to begin with. Its going to naturally lean red because there are many states with low urbanization and population that produce permanent seat Republican senators. Because the distribution of states has nothing to do with the distribution of people that lends the senate to be hugely incongruent with the actual ideological makeup of the populace at large.
I wish I bookmarked the statistics on this because they were eye opening to me, but 2016 polls were showing about 40% democrat to 35% republican leaning in the country. So if the public at large is 5% more blue than red, but Republicans hold near-even seats in government, thats a bias in their favor. And as this and many other articles show this isn't the product of random swings of popular support but structurally orchestrated power grabs meant to keep a minority party in power.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/gop-man...
Edit: And to be fair the Senate isn't a democratic institution whatsoever to begin with. Its going to naturally lean red because there are many states with low urbanization and population that produce permanent seat Republican senators. Because the distribution of states has nothing to do with the distribution of people that lends the senate to be hugely incongruent with the actual ideological makeup of the populace at large.
You look at the core beliefs of the Republican Party:
Anti-Abortion: about or above sixty percent of Americans support legal abortions
Climate change: two thirds of Americans view it as a top priority and that the benefits of action outweigh the costs
Guns: sixty percent to two-thirds of Americans support stricter gun control. 90–92% support mandatory background checks
Taxing Wealthy: again, sixty percent to two thirds support higher taxes on the wealthy.
Those are the pillars. Those are the core propositions.
Americans do not support them or not by a margin of 1.1%
Anti-Abortion: about or above sixty percent of Americans support legal abortions
Climate change: two thirds of Americans view it as a top priority and that the benefits of action outweigh the costs
Guns: sixty percent to two-thirds of Americans support stricter gun control. 90–92% support mandatory background checks
Taxing Wealthy: again, sixty percent to two thirds support higher taxes on the wealthy.
Those are the pillars. Those are the core propositions.
Americans do not support them or not by a margin of 1.1%
Polls are notoriously unreliable and easy to manipulate. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". I'm not even saying that you're wrong -- I'm saying that we have no way to know whether you're correct or not based on the numbers you threw out. We would need some good sources to even begin to evaluate the truth of these assertions.
The assertions themselves are so unbelievably vague that they could easily go either way with cherry-picked polling. Most people support abortion in cases of rape, so if you do a poll asking if people think some abortion should be legal, you will easily get a majority. If you ask about easy access to abortion in the 9th month, you get far lower levels of support. Saying "most support legal abortions" is practically meaningless without specifying what type of abortion they support.
The assertions themselves are so unbelievably vague that they could easily go either way with cherry-picked polling. Most people support abortion in cases of rape, so if you do a poll asking if people think some abortion should be legal, you will easily get a majority. If you ask about easy access to abortion in the 9th month, you get far lower levels of support. Saying "most support legal abortions" is practically meaningless without specifying what type of abortion they support.
If people voted for any of those things, there would be quite a different margin. So then, what DO people vote for?
People do vote for these things, but if you split voters is a particular way you can ensure that the minority hold on to power (Gerrymandering and the Electoral College).
If you're looking at a 60/40 split though, even the extreme levels of gerrymandering can't override it. So what are the other things that people vote for - they must have a large rightward split if people keep voting right wing, in the face of all those left-leaning polls on policies.
That’s not how elections work in the US, 60/40 is not a big enough divide to undo a gerrymander. The majority of the liberal population lives in dense urban areas and thus their votes get “wasted” as they’re reliably Democrats, while sparser regions which consist of the minority view get more representation compared to their actual numbers.
Add to that the fact that many voters are single issue voters, so their opinions on different policies don’t end up amounting to much.
So even if some policies are popular overall, they need to be popular enough to overcome these things to form a durable coalition that advocates for them in the halls of power.
Add to that the fact that many voters are single issue voters, so their opinions on different policies don’t end up amounting to much.
So even if some policies are popular overall, they need to be popular enough to overcome these things to form a durable coalition that advocates for them in the halls of power.
Is it relevant what people do vote for?
Getting the most votes isn't what translates to forming a government in the US. The big things are: having your family members run state governments, setting district lines, and setting up laws to prevent people that disagree with you from voting. Not to mention just having a lot of money to bribe already elected politicians.
Getting the most votes isn't what translates to forming a government in the US. The big things are: having your family members run state governments, setting district lines, and setting up laws to prevent people that disagree with you from voting. Not to mention just having a lot of money to bribe already elected politicians.
As an absolute leftist, I think you're overstating the effects of gerrymandering. State gerrymandering cannot win statewide seats, nor the electoral college.
Anti-voting regulations, while frankly absolutely despicable, I've not yet seen any studies regarding a significant effect. Do you have any data on that?
Anti-voting regulations, while frankly absolutely despicable, I've not yet seen any studies regarding a significant effect. Do you have any data on that?
The first two are accurate because they are relatively clear.
The other two depend very much on how you ask the question. It’s nowhere near as simple as you make out.
The other two depend very much on how you ask the question. It’s nowhere near as simple as you make out.
Did you just make those numbers up out of thin air?
I know many people who vote Republican only because of abortion. The fact is that pro-life people see this as the greatest injustice of our society by a wide margin. The left is motivated by BLM and the right is by pro-life.
That is revisionist history at best Harry Reid (D) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid changed the rules and Congress have been fucked ever since.
Why is this downvoted? Harry Reid literally eliminated the ability of the minority party to filibuster a presidential nominee.[1]
So the Democrats are basically complaining that they can't stop a Trump nomination, but only because they changed the rules themselves.
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-sen...
So the Democrats are basically complaining that they can't stop a Trump nomination, but only because they changed the rules themselves.
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-sen...
You can’t possibly argue in good faith that the republicans would not have changed it anyway.
Perhaps not, however democrats should not complain when they set precedent knowing full well they will end up regretting it later.
Democrats need to be ready to use the Nuclear Option. It's still on the table. They should have someone right now getting in shape for it.
Can you explain what you mean? The nuclear option [1] is used by the majority party in the Senate to end a filibuster by the minority party. Democrats are the minority party in the Senate and hence have no such option available to them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
The nuclear option is that the next time they win an election, they add 9 more supreme court seats.
Do not make the mistake of thinking the politicians who represent you are particularly principled people.
The left has been talking about stacking the supreme court since Kavanaugh. Democratic senators played games with the filibuster. There are plenty of other examples of weaponizing politics that I could cite (from both sides).
I would like to see Senate Republicans show some fair play and wait for after the election, though there is some wisdom in wanting to avoid the possibility of a split decision should this election go to the supreme court.
The left has been talking about stacking the supreme court since Kavanaugh. Democratic senators played games with the filibuster. There are plenty of other examples of weaponizing politics that I could cite (from both sides).
I would like to see Senate Republicans show some fair play and wait for after the election, though there is some wisdom in wanting to avoid the possibility of a split decision should this election go to the supreme court.
Seems highly unlikely that John Roberts would let any decision on the election be that close. He's too much of an institutionalist to not find some way to bring along most, if not all, of the Justices. Given that, it's really quite preferable that the seat go unfilled, eliminating the possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts writing the dissent, a situation that really would spell doom for American democracy.
I think that's pretty reasonable.
>The left has been talking about stacking the supreme court since Kavanaugh.
Considering the court has had a Republican majority since 1989, I don't blame them.
Considering the court has had a Republican majority since 1989, I don't blame them.
You don't think making the court an explicitly partisan institution by just stacking it whenever you are in power is going to be a bad idea? You don't think it will destroy the collegial attitude of the court that allowed Ginsburg and Scalia to be friends? You don't think Republicans will just do the same thing in response?
Judging by the wikipedia page on judicial leanings[1], Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorusch are all fairly moderate, whereas Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are (relatively) more ideological. Only Alito and Thomas are particularly conservative.
And it's not like rulings have always been one-sided. I know plenty of conservatives have their gripes with Roberts.
Democratic appointees even held all nine seats during the 40's, and Republicans didn't stack the court.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United...
Judging by the wikipedia page on judicial leanings[1], Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorusch are all fairly moderate, whereas Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are (relatively) more ideological. Only Alito and Thomas are particularly conservative.
And it's not like rulings have always been one-sided. I know plenty of conservatives have their gripes with Roberts.
Democratic appointees even held all nine seats during the 40's, and Republicans didn't stack the court.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United...
Stacking is a bad idea, but the GOP would do it if they controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House. The GOP of the 1940s is not the GOP today. That political party is gone off the rails. The last time they were fiscally responsible, Eisenhower was in the White House.
The Supreme Court does need to be expanded though. It hears half the cases it did fifty years ago. While they are at it, split the Ninth Circuit. Give California its own circuit since the majority cases originate from that state.
The Supreme Court does need to be expanded though. It hears half the cases it did fifty years ago. While they are at it, split the Ninth Circuit. Give California its own circuit since the majority cases originate from that state.
Legitimacy matters.
> They do not give a fuck.
Why would they? There are no consequences to bad behavior!
Republicans push tax cuts through for the wealthy, leaving the country deeper in debt. So what do Democrats do when they get back in power? Let those cuts stand!
Imagine, if, for every Republican shenanigan, their price to pay would be much higher than any potential gains. They would think twice about being assholes then. But as things stand, they suffer no consequences! So why would they ever change??
Why would they? There are no consequences to bad behavior!
Republicans push tax cuts through for the wealthy, leaving the country deeper in debt. So what do Democrats do when they get back in power? Let those cuts stand!
Imagine, if, for every Republican shenanigan, their price to pay would be much higher than any potential gains. They would think twice about being assholes then. But as things stand, they suffer no consequences! So why would they ever change??
> disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate.
Both the democratic party and the republican party only represent a small fraction of the electorate, for your information.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/25/american-pol...
"As they go to the polls in a historic presidential election, more than six in 10 Americans say neither major political party represents their views any longer, a survey has found."
Both the democratic party and the republican party only represent a small fraction of the electorate, for your information.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/25/american-pol...
"As they go to the polls in a historic presidential election, more than six in 10 Americans say neither major political party represents their views any longer, a survey has found."
disown(4)
[deleted]
This is really depressing, even for a non-American. The only question is whether they appoint a new justice before election or after.
Eternal rest grant to her, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon her. May her soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
If Trump and the Republicans confirm a new Justice, Democrats have indicated they will pack the Supreme Court, appointing as many Justices as they feel necessary to get the rulings they want.
"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."
-- Tim Kaine, D-Va, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-war...
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are interpreted through the Supreme Court. If you pack the court, you have essentially destroyed the legitimacy of Constitutional government. The consequences of this cannot be overstated.
All Constitutional rights will be up for reinterpretation and elimination. This is a very precarious moment in history. Perhaps the end of American history as we have known it. That's a grandiose statement, but it's not an incorrect one.
"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."
-- Tim Kaine, D-Va, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-war...
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are interpreted through the Supreme Court. If you pack the court, you have essentially destroyed the legitimacy of Constitutional government. The consequences of this cannot be overstated.
All Constitutional rights will be up for reinterpretation and elimination. This is a very precarious moment in history. Perhaps the end of American history as we have known it. That's a grandiose statement, but it's not an incorrect one.
This is amusingly silly. Changing the composition of the Court is not unheard of and FDR, not exactly known as the poster child of "destroying the legitimacy of Constitutional government," nearly did it in 1937 (and likely would have if not for another untimely death.) https://today.law.harvard.edu/if-democrats-win-in-november-s...
[deleted]
FDR can absolutely shit on by his own party for the idea. He ended up backing down.
Consider Maduro (Venezuela). He and his government are enduring all kinds of enormous attacks from all around the ("Western") world and horrible malicious interference by USA, but the only thing that we know of that Maduro's side did wrong (arguably) was packing the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?...
"Venezuela: UN report urges accountability for crimes against humanity"
“The Mission found reasonable grounds to believe that Venezuelan authorities and security forces have since 2014 planned and executed serious human rights violations, some of which – including arbitrary killings and the systematic use of torture – amount to crimes against humanity,” said Marta Valiñas, chairperson of the Mission.
“Far from being isolated acts, these crimes were coordinated and committed pursuant to State policies, with the knowledge or direct support of commanding officers and senior government officials.”
"Venezuela: UN report urges accountability for crimes against humanity"
“The Mission found reasonable grounds to believe that Venezuelan authorities and security forces have since 2014 planned and executed serious human rights violations, some of which – including arbitrary killings and the systematic use of torture – amount to crimes against humanity,” said Marta Valiñas, chairperson of the Mission.
“Far from being isolated acts, these crimes were coordinated and committed pursuant to State policies, with the knowledge or direct support of commanding officers and senior government officials.”
I appreciate the link to the UN's press release for the new report, but note that my point stands: the attacks on Maduro happened long before this report, so long before they could have been justified.
Furthemore, considering the attacks on Maduro included a smearing campaign from media and governments all around the "Western" world, I will read the Mission's report with a heavy dose of skepticism. (Of course, on the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if the Mission's report was honest.) An example warning sign: it seems strange to entrust the Mission to only three people. Another example, the Mission relied heavily on blogs and similar for the report.
Furthemore, considering the attacks on Maduro included a smearing campaign from media and governments all around the "Western" world, I will read the Mission's report with a heavy dose of skepticism. (Of course, on the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if the Mission's report was honest.) An example warning sign: it seems strange to entrust the Mission to only three people. Another example, the Mission relied heavily on blogs and similar for the report.
I could have just as easily pointed out that Maduro didn't allow the opposition to run in 2018, or that Venezuela has been starving since 2012, etc, but the your comment coupled with news of the recent report was too much of a contrast not to point it out.
I'm not going to keep commenting about this though. Ultimately, I can't convince people who do not want to be convinced. The Western far Left supports murderous clients much like the governments it condemns - probably moreso. But the West's governments are actually elected, and they operate in the real-politick world. The far Left does its support for tyrants voluntarily as part as its struggle against other Western factions - treating the locals as pawns even more than the Western governments do.
I'm not going to keep commenting about this though. Ultimately, I can't convince people who do not want to be convinced. The Western far Left supports murderous clients much like the governments it condemns - probably moreso. But the West's governments are actually elected, and they operate in the real-politick world. The far Left does its support for tyrants voluntarily as part as its struggle against other Western factions - treating the locals as pawns even more than the Western governments do.
I am not in any way invested in the Maduro regime, but it would be simply stupid to "want to be convinced" of something like this. When I saw a lot of journalistic coverage of Maduro that is not just non-neutral in the presentation, but even uninterested in presenting facts (at least in manner that the reader could verify); so basically just Maduro-bashing - of course I am going to be skeptical.
The uncertainty with the Venezuela-related facts is not the only thing that raises suspicion; the other thing is how deficiencies of democracy (even when the issues are much more clear cut) in non-socialist South America are under-reported compared to Venezuela (take, e.g., the coup in Bolivia, or how the former Brazilian president was seemingly framed, or the Pegasus spyware). One has to wonder why is it that all the big media organizations and most Western governments try to intervene in Venezuelan politics, and not, e.g. in such problems in some Indian state or in, e.g., some ex-USSR republic. I'm not claiming I know the answer, but it seems that some powerful but hidden motivations do exist. (I guess the simplest answer for the journalism part is that journalists need something sensational to write about and it's easy and acceptable to bash on some socialist government.)
The uncertainty with the Venezuela-related facts is not the only thing that raises suspicion; the other thing is how deficiencies of democracy (even when the issues are much more clear cut) in non-socialist South America are under-reported compared to Venezuela (take, e.g., the coup in Bolivia, or how the former Brazilian president was seemingly framed, or the Pegasus spyware). One has to wonder why is it that all the big media organizations and most Western governments try to intervene in Venezuelan politics, and not, e.g. in such problems in some Indian state or in, e.g., some ex-USSR republic. I'm not claiming I know the answer, but it seems that some powerful but hidden motivations do exist. (I guess the simplest answer for the journalism part is that journalists need something sensational to write about and it's easy and acceptable to bash on some socialist government.)
From my cursory readings over the last few years, there has been far more coverage of Brazil than of Venezuela, and inasmuch there has been coverage of Venezuela it focused on the US-Venezuela relations angle (which is comfortable to the regime) rather than the 'Venezuelans are dying' issue (which isn't).
But again, this is a distraction. There will always been some excuse by the far Left which is basically 'look over there!'. The issue is not press coverage, but the crimes of the 'socialist' regime (that's how they call themselves, but not the practice, which is why Chavez's daughter's wealth is estimated in the billions).
But again, this is a distraction. There will always been some excuse by the far Left which is basically 'look over there!'. The issue is not press coverage, but the crimes of the 'socialist' regime (that's how they call themselves, but not the practice, which is why Chavez's daughter's wealth is estimated in the billions).
A lot of what FDR did was overturned as unconstitutional, though.
The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988. They have no politically legitimate claim to those seats.
They wouldn't in a direct democracy, but the US is intentionally not a direct democracy. So, no.
The popular vote means jack shit. They do have a politically legitimate claim to those seats.
Power isn’t decided by popular vote so I’m not sure what you mean?
The legitimacy of the court is long-gone--its nothing more than a political body. Don't like the precedent? Just overrule it and claim it was 'poorly argued'.
Especially funny, considering that Ginsburg was perhaps the most likely to vote based on how she thought the country should operate, and not on stare decisis or leaving issue to congress.
Especially funny, considering that Ginsburg was perhaps the most likely to vote based on how she thought the country should operate, and not on stare decisis or leaving issue to congress.
Tell that to Merrick Garland.
I hope that RBG's replacement will be selected and sworn after Inauguration Day – but I have a chilling feeling that it will happen before.
Unfortunately modern activists and politicians want to make it seem like no reasonable person could disagree with them. This makes it impossible to engage in a dialogue and bridge a gap.
The problem is that those activists and politicians you refer to are a reflection of what way too many voters genuinely want.
In general, though, it's been seen as a core responsibility for activists and politicians to channel their constituents' passions towards productive ends. There've always been a lot of toxic people in the world - that doesn't have to lead to toxic politics.
Is it though? Most people are more politically center and the extremes of the political spectrum keep trying to pull politicians towards the extremes. When that failed to work, they started pulling out the "you're either with us or against us" card forcing people to pick sides or be ostracized if they risked being nuanced.
Politics and media have become extreme because they are dying "industries." The internet has (pardon me) disrupted both of them. Severely. They crank up the hyperbole in order to try to justify the need for their existence. That cycle can't go on forever. In fact we see the results weekly. For example, politicians aren't moving the needle so more and more people resort to protesting (and yes, rioting).
I'm not an advocate of violence. But it's easy to see the level of frustration and disgust wasn't being addressed.
I'm not an advocate of violence. But it's easy to see the level of frustration and disgust wasn't being addressed.
I started agreeing with you when you said politicians were failing people.
I disagree sharply about the riots, though. I think bad actors use things like social media (and even traditional media) to whip people into a frenzy. That's where the violence comes from, and it is rooted in politics more than a reaction to it.
I disagree sharply about the riots, though. I think bad actors use things like social media (and even traditional media) to whip people into a frenzy. That's where the violence comes from, and it is rooted in politics more than a reaction to it.
But those bad actors are the result of what? Satisfaction with the system? They recruit who? Otherswho are satisfied?
I agree. Those violent events are complicated. But bad actors are the sole cause is an over-simplication.
I agree. Those violent events are complicated. But bad actors are the sole cause is an over-simplication.
We should come to some agreement and maybe give some people 3/5ths of their rights, as has been done prior. That should solve these "extreme" positions with some much needed compromise.
But perhaps it's the other way around? That the voters are led to believe there are extremes? And only extremes? Most reasonable people understand few things in the world are truly binary.
But when everything is framed as red v blue, what choice is there? That paradigm is topped with confirmation bias, media hyperbole and social media misinformation.
I have a diverse group of friends and colleagues. No one I know wants this.
But when everything is framed as red v blue, what choice is there? That paradigm is topped with confirmation bias, media hyperbole and social media misinformation.
I have a diverse group of friends and colleagues. No one I know wants this.
Some things have no gap.
Your either want the right to your own body, or a crusade to stop the murder of millions of babies.
This drives most other politics.
Your either want the right to your own body, or a crusade to stop the murder of millions of babies.
This drives most other politics.
That's a very western philosophical way of viewing it. Many eastern philosophies believe the best answer lies between the opposing positions.
even western philosophies try to steer clear of excluding the middle without justification
So half dead babies?
Right to your own body every other week? Last name starts A-H get abortions, rest don’t?
Or maybe by race, undesirable races get genocide? Or maybe the rich ones?
It’s not a topic with much “in between”
Right to your own body every other week? Last name starts A-H get abortions, rest don’t?
Or maybe by race, undesirable races get genocide? Or maybe the rich ones?
It’s not a topic with much “in between”
So if you have it so figured out, answer me these two questions from an objective, philosophical standpoint.
1. What defines a human life?
2. When is it acceptable to take a human life?
1. What defines a human life?
2. When is it acceptable to take a human life?
You’re missing the point, and will argue against anything I toss up.
Advocating for a middle ground is often good. But sometimes it’s fruitless.
Someone decides the want your stuff. Halfway is giving them half your stuff. Tomorrow they want the other half.
So your left with, give up everything or nothing. Take a stand or don’t.
Advocating for a middle ground is often good. But sometimes it’s fruitless.
Someone decides the want your stuff. Halfway is giving them half your stuff. Tomorrow they want the other half.
So your left with, give up everything or nothing. Take a stand or don’t.
I can see your point, but you have yet to support it with a valid example. I would not argue with you if you had valid examples.
I never said half or halfway. I said the best answer often lies between opposing positions. You are continually changing the subject and creating strawman arguments which do not reflect what I'm actually saying.
The example of someone wanting your things does not have enough background about the circumstances to fully explore. In the context of taxes, there could be a middle ground. In the context of a lawsuit, there very often is a middle ground. In the context of a robbery, the situation does not reflect two arguments in a venue that promotes discussion and it involves someone breaking the law and widely established societal structure, so it doesn't meet the elements of a philosophical discussion.
Your second to last sentence is a slippery slope fallacy unless you can support it with data.
Your last sentence illustrates my original premise - western thinking tends to pick one side or the other rather than meaningfully evaluate thwboptions that lie between the opposing positions.
I never said half or halfway. I said the best answer often lies between opposing positions. You are continually changing the subject and creating strawman arguments which do not reflect what I'm actually saying.
The example of someone wanting your things does not have enough background about the circumstances to fully explore. In the context of taxes, there could be a middle ground. In the context of a lawsuit, there very often is a middle ground. In the context of a robbery, the situation does not reflect two arguments in a venue that promotes discussion and it involves someone breaking the law and widely established societal structure, so it doesn't meet the elements of a philosophical discussion.
Your second to last sentence is a slippery slope fallacy unless you can support it with data.
Your last sentence illustrates my original premise - western thinking tends to pick one side or the other rather than meaningfully evaluate thwboptions that lie between the opposing positions.
Bill Clinton tried to thread that needle with the safe, legal, rare triad. I wish we could try that again.
I grew up in high school with abstinence-only sex ed, rare access to birth control and a bunch of rumors about "pulling out" and period sex preventing pregnancy. No condom lessons at all, just scare videos on STIs. A number of teen pregnancies happened in that school, though I only knew the ones carrying to term.
I am not sure what they has to do with Safe, Legal and Rare.
This motto that was the foundation of the Pro-Choice movement has nothing to do with abstinence-only sex ed.
One of the things that has been losing support and making the issue more polarizing is the fact that many in the Pro-Choice movement have moved to a Pro-Abortion movement wanting to celebrate abortion, and to use abortion as a primary means of birth control instead of a rare occurrence when other methods failed or were not an options.
Also the raise in support for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions has not helped the Pro-Choice movement, the public when surveyed have an almost (something like 80%) distaste for 3rd trimester and only a slightly more favorable view of 2nd trimester abortions. While they are medically rare, extremely rare, politics is about optics and perception, the Pro-Choice movement is not winning any hearts and minds by supporting those.
//For the record I am very much in the "Safe, Legal and Rare" camp, I oppose celebrating abortion or making it something that should be viewed as a primarily birth control method, I also define life as starting "when the fetus could medically survive outside the womb with normal feeding and care" at which point only medically necessarily abortions should be legal as decided by a medical professional
This motto that was the foundation of the Pro-Choice movement has nothing to do with abstinence-only sex ed.
One of the things that has been losing support and making the issue more polarizing is the fact that many in the Pro-Choice movement have moved to a Pro-Abortion movement wanting to celebrate abortion, and to use abortion as a primary means of birth control instead of a rare occurrence when other methods failed or were not an options.
Also the raise in support for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions has not helped the Pro-Choice movement, the public when surveyed have an almost (something like 80%) distaste for 3rd trimester and only a slightly more favorable view of 2nd trimester abortions. While they are medically rare, extremely rare, politics is about optics and perception, the Pro-Choice movement is not winning any hearts and minds by supporting those.
//For the record I am very much in the "Safe, Legal and Rare" camp, I oppose celebrating abortion or making it something that should be viewed as a primarily birth control method, I also define life as starting "when the fetus could medically survive outside the womb with normal feeding and care" at which point only medically necessarily abortions should be legal as decided by a medical professional
My wife had to abort due to an etopic pregnancy. Nothing to due about it, would have killed them both. Still bothers us.
My daughter was supposed to be a twin, the other didn’t make it. That really hurts.
I can understand arguments about first few weeks.
People that support giving birth to the baby then killing it. Well, they are the worst sort of killer imaginable.
I can understand arguments about first few weeks.
People that support giving birth to the baby then killing it. Well, they are the worst sort of killer imaginable.
The "rare" part. Due to bad sex ed and hurdles to get birth control, there were a lot of teen pregnancies. It's not Clinton's fault, it was bad state policy.
I am in the same camp as you.
I am in the same camp as you.
I've tried, but I can't respond without ranting in rage. The system is terribly broken.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24523014.
I'd like very much to see a black bar for her on Hacker News. She did as much to promote gender equality as any American ever.
Alright, it's finally time for a court packing. Let's be real, NO ONE is expecting Trump not to fill her seat.
Also why we need to win the Senate as well.
I'm also curious about how John Roberts is going to react to what comes after her seat's filled.
Also why we need to win the Senate as well.
I'm also curious about how John Roberts is going to react to what comes after her seat's filled.
theshadowknows(12)
Remove the Publicly visible Like Count and those kind of conversations and connections are easy.
The Like count makes people defensive or aggressive especially when they are called out in public leading to never ending reaction and counter reaction cycles.
Without that dumb random signal interfering in conversations all kinds of strange connections are possible.
I see it at work meetings between highly competitive people who dont have anything in common with each other. I see it on whatsapp chat groups.
But I don't see it happening on FB, Twitter and on the News. These mediums favor reaction-counter reaction over solutions.
Connection takes time and the right environment. Anyone who wants connection and solutions to trump reactions, please have those conversation in an environment without random signals interfering with the process.
The Like count makes people defensive or aggressive especially when they are called out in public leading to never ending reaction and counter reaction cycles.
Without that dumb random signal interfering in conversations all kinds of strange connections are possible.
I see it at work meetings between highly competitive people who dont have anything in common with each other. I see it on whatsapp chat groups.
But I don't see it happening on FB, Twitter and on the News. These mediums favor reaction-counter reaction over solutions.
Connection takes time and the right environment. Anyone who wants connection and solutions to trump reactions, please have those conversation in an environment without random signals interfering with the process.
What. People were acrimonious in the medieval ages. They didn't have like counts. This is such total bullshit.
I have seen it with friends busy bashing each other on Twitter/FB but being able to reconcile on a Whatsapp group or a private meeting.
Its not that on Whatsapp groups some members of the group aren't entertained by a good fight and goad/encourage both sides. Its that when its private and social status and social signaling is less of a priority and people you trust/respect can step in and cool things down and refocus the conversation on solutions.
In the public square there are thousands of retards who will show up to encourage both sides to keep fighting. It benefits the platforms. Conflict is much more engaging than a boring conversation on lets work out the details.
Its not that on Whatsapp groups some members of the group aren't entertained by a good fight and goad/encourage both sides. Its that when its private and social status and social signaling is less of a priority and people you trust/respect can step in and cool things down and refocus the conversation on solutions.
In the public square there are thousands of retards who will show up to encourage both sides to keep fighting. It benefits the platforms. Conflict is much more engaging than a boring conversation on lets work out the details.
Maybe people are now, more often than not, talking to Human nodes in a network, and the network outperforms you in presenting data that will match a confirmation bias.
So it would imply that you can reason with an individual who isn’t acting as node.
So it would imply that you can reason with an individual who isn’t acting as node.
Just because there was a bad thing in the medieval ages doesn't mean it can't be much worse now that it's turned into a point-scoring spectacle sport.
The like button is my performative social stupidity amplified. My stupid is loud enough already.
In all those generations of horrendous behaviour there are predictable patterns. At our best we are wonderful curious intelligent and kind, but in the heat of the moment, most of us don't have a lot of emotional self control, so we need to plan ahead to make better behaviour effortless and stupid behaviour effortful.
The like button is a mini version of the gun control debate, of course guns don't kill people on their own (actually... says boston robotics in the corner). I have close friend, a well respected law graduate now working in another field who said this week he'd love to have a weapon to wave at people who cut him off in traffic. This is a man who has worked for years to build a life and career, and he lacks the judgement to not escalate a trivial tiff with a stranger to a life or career ending act of stupidity.
In all those generations of horrendous behaviour there are predictable patterns. At our best we are wonderful curious intelligent and kind, but in the heat of the moment, most of us don't have a lot of emotional self control, so we need to plan ahead to make better behaviour effortless and stupid behaviour effortful.
The like button is a mini version of the gun control debate, of course guns don't kill people on their own (actually... says boston robotics in the corner). I have close friend, a well respected law graduate now working in another field who said this week he'd love to have a weapon to wave at people who cut him off in traffic. This is a man who has worked for years to build a life and career, and he lacks the judgement to not escalate a trivial tiff with a stranger to a life or career ending act of stupidity.
Yeah, but now acrimony’s at webscale.
Shameless plug: this is why my co-founders and I built https://letter.wiki
Are the author's writing for your site, are you aggregating, or both? Either way, I bookmarked it. Seems like a very interesting product!
[deleted]
People were horrible to each other online long before modern social media, and indeed in print and in person long before that. While some people do indeed pursue likes for their own sake, it's not the root cause of social aggression.
It's not the catalyst, it's the accelerant - when you have 1000 points for your troll post you're sure as heck gonna do more of them.
[deleted]
That's the basic problem. All the motivation and encourgement is towards extreme, attention grabbing content.
Rebbitor(1)
To me it seems like an extremely solvable problem. Facebook could do an A/B test right now of removing all likes and see what happens. You'll get an answer as to some of the effects in a week. The question is what metrics you decide on determines "moderate" as opposed to "extreme".
To anyone at facebook - please dissuade me if I'm being naive here - I'm always looking to update my mental model of this.
To anyone at facebook - please dissuade me if I'm being naive here - I'm always looking to update my mental model of this.
I suspect the only naivety is with respect to what that would do to facebook's revenue.
Sure, if you have a network of troll buddies to upvote you. But you're assuming that everyone is motivated by the same incentives, in this case popularity. This is necessarily true, and one reason we know this is because some people keep trolling even when their accounts are banned or they're recognizable enough to be rejected by the community.
A lot of trolls are 'salt collectors' - saying obnoxious things to garner offended reactions and then screenshotting the comments of upset people to share with frens on a different platform. They don't care about popularity, only engagement. In organized influence operations, the goals of troll groups are to steal time or resources, or disrupt the cohesion of target groups.
All these negative behaviors existed before social media; they're well known to operators of fora, usenet discussion groups and so on, as well in the multiplayer game space. This taxonomy of motivators for 'griefer' gamers might also broaden you understanding of what drives trolling behavior: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1306109
A lot of trolls are 'salt collectors' - saying obnoxious things to garner offended reactions and then screenshotting the comments of upset people to share with frens on a different platform. They don't care about popularity, only engagement. In organized influence operations, the goals of troll groups are to steal time or resources, or disrupt the cohesion of target groups.
All these negative behaviors existed before social media; they're well known to operators of fora, usenet discussion groups and so on, as well in the multiplayer game space. This taxonomy of motivators for 'griefer' gamers might also broaden you understanding of what drives trolling behavior: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1306109
I don't know if Likes are the root of the issue, but they certainly don't help. Newsgroups had no such signaling and they could get really toxic.
I like how Slashdot handles it. Posts and comments do have counts, but the range is reasonably narrow, from -2 to +5. This allows for modding down noise, and modding up the signal, but this excludes the comparative phallometry typical for FB and twitter threads with hundreds and thousands on upvote counters.
“comparative phallometry” XD
And not everyone can vote. As a casual but everyday user, I was issued mod points one time in over 20 years. (Though lately I rarely read or comment there anymore.)
I'm sorry, but this is wildly naive. It isn't "likes" that are causing the problem. It is things like the fact that one side appears to be in the early stages[1] of a UN defined genocide[2]. I'm not going to be friendly to you if you think lower taxes or some other excuse is more important than the human and civil rights abuses that party supports.
[1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/17/hyster...
[2] - https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
[1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/17/hyster...
[2] - https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Both sides abuse civil rights when it suits them.
Uninformed sterilization has happened in the past in this country too. Look at doctors at some Native American reservations. It's quite abhorrent to stereotype an entire of party based on the sensationalism of an extremely small subset of actors.
Also the 'band wagon' effect is a widely documented cognitive bias - so there is merit to the idea that "likes" can create bias.
Uninformed sterilization has happened in the past in this country too. Look at doctors at some Native American reservations. It's quite abhorrent to stereotype an entire of party based on the sensationalism of an extremely small subset of actors.
Also the 'band wagon' effect is a widely documented cognitive bias - so there is merit to the idea that "likes" can create bias.
>It's quite abhorrent to stereotype an entire of party based on the sensationalism of an extremely small subset of actors.
Meanwhile the president was just on a stage in Minnesota talking about "racehorse theory"[1]. His biographer has previously described it as follows: "The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development. They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring."[2]
I don't know where I would get the idea that he is in support of eugenics.
[1] - https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307124621389463553
[2] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-tru...
Meanwhile the president was just on a stage in Minnesota talking about "racehorse theory"[1]. His biographer has previously described it as follows: "The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development. They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring."[2]
I don't know where I would get the idea that he is in support of eugenics.
[1] - https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307124621389463553
[2] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-tru...
Again, you are using the statements/actions of an extremely small subset to stereotype an entire party (tens or hundreds of millions of people).
I am using the words of the president and leader of the party. The party that abandoned precedent a refused to draft a platform in 2020, instead choosing to just support the president.
So did he say it while in office? Did he create a policy or direct agencies to engage in eugenics? Please tell me where there is any evidence of a state-sanctioned offense of this nature.
Using your logic, we should label the Democrat party the same because under Carter's watch Native Americans were sterilized and the party supports an organization started by a eugenics advocate (Planned Parenthood). Don't forget Biden's comments on race while in office...
Hold the perpetrating individuals accountable and stop stereotyping entire classes of people.
Using your logic, we should label the Democrat party the same because under Carter's watch Native Americans were sterilized and the party supports an organization started by a eugenics advocate (Planned Parenthood). Don't forget Biden's comments on race while in office...
Hold the perpetrating individuals accountable and stop stereotyping entire classes of people.
The whole reason most people join that side is that it’s no longer safe to publicly express any opinion that isn’t either anodyne or extreme. This generates constant, subtle pressure which - over years - drives increasingly extreme behaviour.
Yes, I think the far right have gone much further than the far left in that regard; however, IMO its a question of when, rather than if, social progressives take up arms (given the path I see social media taking).
We need to get off public-by-default platforms that feel semiprivate. Everyone gets bad/wrong ideas; talking about them with our friends is how we stop them before they become part of our identity, but it’s no longer safe to do that.
Yes, I think the far right have gone much further than the far left in that regard; however, IMO its a question of when, rather than if, social progressives take up arms (given the path I see social media taking).
We need to get off public-by-default platforms that feel semiprivate. Everyone gets bad/wrong ideas; talking about them with our friends is how we stop them before they become part of our identity, but it’s no longer safe to do that.
If you think being asked to be more PC is such an affront that you turn your back on literal genocide, then I'm not going to be your friend.
If a government moves forward with literal genocide, I won't blame any person who takes up arms against it.
If a government moves forward with literal genocide, I won't blame any person who takes up arms against it.
This doesn't make sense to me. There absolutely was a "like count". There were votes for decisions and there were citations for opinions. Academia is bitter for that reason. Yet, with the same incentives and much higher stakes they remained friends.
Even if the counts are private, counters create an ulterior motive beyond substantive discourse in the desire to collect likes. Their signals constrain speech as posts are authored. Just like the profit motive, the like motive greatly skews reality from beneath the surface of what is being said.
And to disagree with someone, you should have to at least open your mouth. That's a conversation. To just be able to dislike or downvote let alone anonymously is harmful for everyone, even the person downvoting. Instead of exercising speech, it's a slap on the wrist response.
Removing context removes nuance, and removing nuance removes intellect.
And to disagree with someone, you should have to at least open your mouth. That's a conversation. To just be able to dislike or downvote let alone anonymously is harmful for everyone, even the person downvoting. Instead of exercising speech, it's a slap on the wrist response.
Removing context removes nuance, and removing nuance removes intellect.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24523014.
Good luck Mr. Dan. I don't envy you right now.
The other problem with most online communities is that there's almost no limit on output. All else being equal, someone with an active offline life is going to have a smaller presence than someone who's terminally online, someone who spends more time listening to others is going to have a smaller presence than someone who spends more time talking, someone who puts more effort into their posts (proofreading, look up evidence) is going to have a smaller presence than someone who haphazardly shoots off comments, and someone who reserves comments for when they have something important to contribute is going to have less of a presence than someone who comments on things they don't know anything about.
Things like mods (most people don't have the time commitment), voting (terminally online people will be able to vote earlier and more often, driving the conversation), front page thresholds (a small group of people acting as filters for new submissions), and time limited submissions (the longer you wait to comment the more likely the conversation will have died) just skews things even more.
For all the discussion about the low quality of online conversations, there seems to be very little discussion about the environments we've created and what kind of discussion these environments encourage.
Things like mods (most people don't have the time commitment), voting (terminally online people will be able to vote earlier and more often, driving the conversation), front page thresholds (a small group of people acting as filters for new submissions), and time limited submissions (the longer you wait to comment the more likely the conversation will have died) just skews things even more.
For all the discussion about the low quality of online conversations, there seems to be very little discussion about the environments we've created and what kind of discussion these environments encourage.
Here's my prediction:
Trump will nominate a successor in the next couple weeks. McConnell will start the process, but delay the vote until after the November election. This way:
If Trump wins, McConnell can say that he was entirely reasonable and consistent, and he waited until after the election to ensure that the people really wanted Trump's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed.
If Trump loses, McConnell still has the option say hell with it, and ram Trump's nomination through anyway. Any Republican Senators who might be worried about re-election chances will already have kept or lost their seats. I expect election results won't be final enough to call by the end of election day like they usually are, but even if it takes a couple weeks, that still leaves over a month for the Senate to vote on the nomination before their session ends at the beginning of January.
The other possibility is that McConnell will just get it all done immediately. He likely has the numbers now -- I doubt any of the fence-sitting Republican Senators would vote no, even those who are up for re-election this year -- and it's not clear that he actually gives a damn about appearances at this point. Waiting could also have a downside: it's possible that enough Republican Senators who have lost their seats in the election could feel too uncomfortable confirming a nomination of this magnitude during their own lame-duck session. But again, not sure how much these people will care about fairness when the chips are down.
Trump will nominate a successor in the next couple weeks. McConnell will start the process, but delay the vote until after the November election. This way:
If Trump wins, McConnell can say that he was entirely reasonable and consistent, and he waited until after the election to ensure that the people really wanted Trump's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed.
If Trump loses, McConnell still has the option say hell with it, and ram Trump's nomination through anyway. Any Republican Senators who might be worried about re-election chances will already have kept or lost their seats. I expect election results won't be final enough to call by the end of election day like they usually are, but even if it takes a couple weeks, that still leaves over a month for the Senate to vote on the nomination before their session ends at the beginning of January.
The other possibility is that McConnell will just get it all done immediately. He likely has the numbers now -- I doubt any of the fence-sitting Republican Senators would vote no, even those who are up for re-election this year -- and it's not clear that he actually gives a damn about appearances at this point. Waiting could also have a downside: it's possible that enough Republican Senators who have lost their seats in the election could feel too uncomfortable confirming a nomination of this magnitude during their own lame-duck session. But again, not sure how much these people will care about fairness when the chips are down.
High information Republican voters will know what he did and why, and will probably support his decision. Low information Republican voters will not know about his hypocrisy. Non-Republican voters won't vote for him regardless.
I expect McConnel to just create some reason why things are different this time, or, if he wants to be a troll, to say "I was wrong in 2016" or just to not address the hypocrisy and go right on ahead nominating a new Justice.
I expect McConnel to just create some reason why things are different this time, or, if he wants to be a troll, to say "I was wrong in 2016" or just to not address the hypocrisy and go right on ahead nominating a new Justice.
> I expect McConnel to just create some reason why things are different this time
I believe he already has. I read something a few months ago (can't find it now) where he was asked about replacing a hypothetical vacancy before the end of this year, and he hand-waved his way around the hypocrisy.
I believe he already has. I read something a few months ago (can't find it now) where he was asked about replacing a hypothetical vacancy before the end of this year, and he hand-waved his way around the hypocrisy.
I've just discovered that he's already made a statement regarding RBG's death:
"President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea...
"President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-relea...
Why shouldn’t the Democrats goad Trump into waiting after the election to nominate by a) implying he’s afraid he’ll lose and b) whispering about sweetheart plea deals via Schumer or someone
because neither of those things are meaningful to him? He doesn’t think he will lose, obviously, so saying he does is meaningless- and because he doesn’t plan to lose, a “sweetheart deal” is similarly meaningless.
A political showdown over the nominee would very well be the decisive moment of this campaign and determine the presidency.
The Dems took a huge risk with Kavanaugh going after the way they did (allegations against an 18 year old at a party where technically nothing happened???) but were saved by a a deeply emotive testimony by a woman who pulled a lot of heartstrings and came off credibly.
That was an incredible risk because if that performance was not across the line ... it would have completely backfired.
Also - merely making a nomination makes Trump look strong.
Winning a competition against Dems - which I think he can because he has the votes - looks strong.
I don't see any way for the Dems to win with this unless Trump nominates a total fool.
Trump is flirting with the same poll numbers Hillary had las time and Biden is not a strong candidate ... this is not a good position for the Dems to be in.
The Dems took a huge risk with Kavanaugh going after the way they did (allegations against an 18 year old at a party where technically nothing happened???) but were saved by a a deeply emotive testimony by a woman who pulled a lot of heartstrings and came off credibly.
That was an incredible risk because if that performance was not across the line ... it would have completely backfired.
Also - merely making a nomination makes Trump look strong.
Winning a competition against Dems - which I think he can because he has the votes - looks strong.
I don't see any way for the Dems to win with this unless Trump nominates a total fool.
Trump is flirting with the same poll numbers Hillary had las time and Biden is not a strong candidate ... this is not a good position for the Dems to be in.
> Also - merely making a nomination makes Trump look strong. Winning a competition against Dems - which I think he can because he has the votes - looks strong. I don't see any way for the Dems to win with this unless Trump nominates a total fool.
The conventional political wisdom after Kavanaugh was that Democrats would be demoralized for the 2018 election and would fail to retake the House. What actually happened was one of their biggest House wins ever.
> Trump is flirting with the same poll numbers Hillary had las time and Biden is not a strong candidate ... this is not a good position for the Dems to be in.
Kind of? There's no Johnson this time getting 8% of the vote (at this point in the race), so that group is dispersed between Trump and Biden. So while Trump is about where Hillary was at this point, Biden is cracking 50% in national polling on average, which is much higher than Clinton in 2016 and definitely not good for Trump.
Biden is much stronger than Hillary at this point, especially in swing states like Florida, where he is polling well with older voters (a complete flip from 2016, where older voters in Florida went decisively for Trump). If you look at Clinton's support in Florida it looks like a sine wave over the race. Biden's support is much more steady, so that is a difference. Biden wins Florida and it's over.
The conventional political wisdom after Kavanaugh was that Democrats would be demoralized for the 2018 election and would fail to retake the House. What actually happened was one of their biggest House wins ever.
> Trump is flirting with the same poll numbers Hillary had las time and Biden is not a strong candidate ... this is not a good position for the Dems to be in.
Kind of? There's no Johnson this time getting 8% of the vote (at this point in the race), so that group is dispersed between Trump and Biden. So while Trump is about where Hillary was at this point, Biden is cracking 50% in national polling on average, which is much higher than Clinton in 2016 and definitely not good for Trump.
Biden is much stronger than Hillary at this point, especially in swing states like Florida, where he is polling well with older voters (a complete flip from 2016, where older voters in Florida went decisively for Trump). If you look at Clinton's support in Florida it looks like a sine wave over the race. Biden's support is much more steady, so that is a difference. Biden wins Florida and it's over.
Rest in Peace RGB
Rest in Peace American Republic
Rest in Peace American Republic
There is no more fitting of an eulogy than what she stated for herself,
"Q. When the time comes, what would you like to be remembered for?
RBG: Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability, and to help repair tears in her society. ‘To do something,' as my colleague David Souter would say, ‘outside myself.’ Because I’ve gotten much more satisfaction for the things that I’ve done for which I was not paid."
I made this in her honor, https://i.imgur.com/3OlCIum.png
"Q. When the time comes, what would you like to be remembered for?
RBG: Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability, and to help repair tears in her society. ‘To do something,' as my colleague David Souter would say, ‘outside myself.’ Because I’ve gotten much more satisfaction for the things that I’ve done for which I was not paid."
I made this in her honor, https://i.imgur.com/3OlCIum.png
This will probably be downvoted, but I think it was incredibly arrogant and selfish of RBG not to retire when Obama was in office so that he could pick her successor. She knew she was getting old and had already had brushes with cancer. If she really cared about feminism and liberalism, why not let Obama appoint a younger justice to the court, someone who would fight for those values for years to come? It's not like there is a shortage of great choices.
It's sad to me that people like you think it's more important that your politics are represented in the Supreme Court than that the justices do a good job working together and holding a consistent integral legal standard for the country to follow.
As a fan of the Supreme Court, I think it's one of our least-political institutions. It's certainly the least political branch of government, especially if you compare it to the Legislature (extremely political) and the President (extremely political). It's the only piece of sanity we have left.
And here you call her selfish for not playing politics. Please, consider the value of having a part of government without politics. Consider how rare it is for someone to put other ideals above their political party!
As a fan of the Supreme Court, I think it's one of our least-political institutions. It's certainly the least political branch of government, especially if you compare it to the Legislature (extremely political) and the President (extremely political). It's the only piece of sanity we have left.
And here you call her selfish for not playing politics. Please, consider the value of having a part of government without politics. Consider how rare it is for someone to put other ideals above their political party!
Ginsburg herself tarnished the legacy of the supreme court by becoming political
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsb...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/ruth-bader-ginsb...
[deleted]
kwhat4(6)
Due to a really old technicality in our electoral system, we keep putting people in the presidency that the American people didn't actually vote for. Both Bush and Trump were not elected by a popular vote.
The majority of American are being held hostage by a minority of voters with a disproportionate amount of political power.
These un-elected presidents have had such incredibly far-reaching influences on the American political landscape, economy, and infrastructure (setting aside the fallout of the neocon's foreign military adventures).
The majority of American are being held hostage by a minority of voters with a disproportionate amount of political power.
These un-elected presidents have had such incredibly far-reaching influences on the American political landscape, economy, and infrastructure (setting aside the fallout of the neocon's foreign military adventures).
I agree with you that presidents who lose the popular vote have questionable legitimacy. But Bush did actually win the popular vote in 2004 (a majority even) for his second term, which is when he appointed Roberts and Alito.
Bush likely wouldn't have won 2004 without 2000 though.
It's not a technicality. It's the law. The popular vote means nothing in regards to the Presidential election.
* The House is voted in by the people.
* The Senate is voted in by the states.
* The President is voted in by both.
No one is being held hostage. This system was created purposefully, and has been the same since its inception.
Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.
* The House is voted in by the people.
* The Senate is voted in by the states.
* The President is voted in by both.
No one is being held hostage. This system was created purposefully, and has been the same since its inception.
Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.
The majority of Americans did not want either as president. It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the majority of American voters.
However, the law does not elect a president according to whether or not the American people wish them to be president.
Seems like a technicality to me.
However, the law does not elect a president according to whether or not the American people wish them to be president.
Seems like a technicality to me.
> Both Bush and Trump were not elected by a popular vote.
Neither was Clinton. Sometimes it goes your direction, too.
Neither was Clinton. Sometimes it goes your direction, too.
Clinton carried the popular vote in both 1992 and 1996.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidentia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
If you're talking about Hilary, the majority of Americans did vote for her, not Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
Edit: As erichocean pointed out, I am incorrect. Although Hilary received the most votes of any candidate, the majority of Americans did not vote for her. I think that my point still stands, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidentia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
If you're talking about Hilary, the majority of Americans did vote for her, not Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
Edit: As erichocean pointed out, I am incorrect. Although Hilary received the most votes of any candidate, the majority of Americans did not vote for her. I think that my point still stands, however.
43.0% is a plurality; a majority (57%) of people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992.
But you knew that.
Clinton also failed to get a majority of the votes in 1996, as did both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016.
But you knew that.
Clinton also failed to get a majority of the votes in 1996, as did both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016.
Which candidate received the most votes from American voters in both 1992 and 1996?
Based on the definition I understand, the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote.
You are correct that the majority of voters did not vote for Clinton in 2016. I misspoke. However, she did win the popular vote. More Americans voted for her than voted for Trump. However, against the wishes of the voting public, Trump was elected president.
The American people are being held hostage.
Based on the definition I understand, the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote.
You are correct that the majority of voters did not vote for Clinton in 2016. I misspoke. However, she did win the popular vote. More Americans voted for her than voted for Trump. However, against the wishes of the voting public, Trump was elected president.
The American people are being held hostage.
In general, I don't think popular vote totals for President are relevant because they don't produce a winner, so people don't vote in states where their candidate will easily win. This is true for both "red" and "blue" states.
I frequently don't vote here in CA because my choices win whether I vote or not. I can't be the only one who makes the same choice.
I frequently don't vote here in CA because my choices win whether I vote or not. I can't be the only one who makes the same choice.
I also live in California, and often feel as though my vote does not matter.
This is sort of the crux of my argument. Our system has reached a point where individual Americans can feel as if their vote doesn't matter because......well, it doesn't. That's a very unhealthy point for a democracy to be at.
I don't believe that is the intention behind our Democratic system (unfortunately maybe it was originally, but I'm working off of our 21st century interpretation of what the democratic system is for, not that of the slaveholding founders).
It was engineered to avoid the tyranny of the majority, not to facilitate the tyranny of the minority (again, ignoring the actions of the original founders).
Some of the most significant policy decisions of my lifetime (from the Iraq war to the present scuffles) have been enacted by presidents who did not even receive the popular vote (with, as you pointed out a popular vote not being a majority vote). That seems to me to be a problem.
This is sort of the crux of my argument. Our system has reached a point where individual Americans can feel as if their vote doesn't matter because......well, it doesn't. That's a very unhealthy point for a democracy to be at.
I don't believe that is the intention behind our Democratic system (unfortunately maybe it was originally, but I'm working off of our 21st century interpretation of what the democratic system is for, not that of the slaveholding founders).
It was engineered to avoid the tyranny of the majority, not to facilitate the tyranny of the minority (again, ignoring the actions of the original founders).
Some of the most significant policy decisions of my lifetime (from the Iraq war to the present scuffles) have been enacted by presidents who did not even receive the popular vote (with, as you pointed out a popular vote not being a majority vote). That seems to me to be a problem.
One thing I like to point out is between Johnson and Clinton, Republican presidents placed 11 Supreme Court justices in a row (Nixon 4, Ford 1, Carter 0, Reagan 4, GW Bush 2), though the picks were usually not extreme because Democrats controlled the Senate except during six of Reagan's years.
After Bill Clinton seated two liberal justices there has been an unending cry about how liberal the court is.
After Bill Clinton seated two liberal justices there has been an unending cry about how liberal the court is.
Why are there life-terms on the Supreme Court? Doesn't that incentivize the justices to hold on past their prime, dying waiting for a new president or resigning in a politically motivated fashion? And don't life terms create a race to the bottom where younger justices are favored for longer remaining life?
Why not 20 year limits?
Why not 20 year limits?
Most likely because the founding fathers didn't expect the justices to be split on party lines. They were intended to be impartial judges ruling on a limited set of federal laws.
I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then. Life was in general a 20 year term. Average life span in 1800 of 50 years. Today it's 78.6.
https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expec...
Those probably aren't the best places for me to get numbers, but I think they're good enough for a rough example of what I mean.
https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expec...
Those probably aren't the best places for me to get numbers, but I think they're good enough for a rough example of what I mean.
The average adult life span may be a better metric if child mortality rates were high.
Life expectancy at birth was low because many people died in childhood, bringing down the average. Those who survived childhood lived much longer lives.
I used the historical list of US Supreme Court justices [0] and averaged the lifespan of the first 20 justices. The average was 67 years. Maximum was 91 [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Suprem...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Duvall
I used the historical list of US Supreme Court justices [0] and averaged the lifespan of the first 20 justices. The average was 67 years. Maximum was 91 [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Suprem...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Duvall
I knew of this happening, but I wasn't sure to what extent it did not know it was that drastic.
>I would assume also because people also just didn't live as long back then.
This is false. The statistic doesn't imply this. Longevity has not increased significantly, it's that life expectancy from birth has increased because childhood illness became less of a concern. Once at adult age people generally still lived long, ignoring accidents which really wouldn't be a concern for the type of people who would be justices.
This is false. The statistic doesn't imply this. Longevity has not increased significantly, it's that life expectancy from birth has increased because childhood illness became less of a concern. Once at adult age people generally still lived long, ignoring accidents which really wouldn't be a concern for the type of people who would be justices.
I'm sure the founding fathers expected Supreme Court justices to be rich, white, landowning men. What was the average age of that demographic back then?
Average life expectancy is really a bad metric .
It is not like people dropped dead at 50. People who survived usually hit their 70s even when the expectancy was in 30s and 40s. The average is low because lot of kids and people died young.
The proper metric here would be life expectancy of active lawyers/judges in their 30s and 40s . They have double advantage of both generally surviving all the diseases till then and wealthy and educated enough to afford medical care available.
Even if the idea was that people may not survive long, it is a unpredictable and inconsistent way to set policy.
It is not like people dropped dead at 50. People who survived usually hit their 70s even when the expectancy was in 30s and 40s. The average is low because lot of kids and people died young.
The proper metric here would be life expectancy of active lawyers/judges in their 30s and 40s . They have double advantage of both generally surviving all the diseases till then and wealthy and educated enough to afford medical care available.
Even if the idea was that people may not survive long, it is a unpredictable and inconsistent way to set policy.
Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much different. Furthermore, lots of justices resign a couple years before death. RBG was practically begged to resign, but alternately believed Hillary would win and/or thought she could outlast Trump.
The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddling preparing for leaving office. For example, in the defense department, officials will make recommendations and then leave office and profit from those same companies. If you're in office for life, this common (and almost impossible to prevent) kind of corruption becomes basically a non issue.
The federalist papers would shed light on such things, but actually reading them (and the wealth of nations)is likely to turn you into an independent who dislikes both parties.
The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddling preparing for leaving office. For example, in the defense department, officials will make recommendations and then leave office and profit from those same companies. If you're in office for life, this common (and almost impossible to prevent) kind of corruption becomes basically a non issue.
The federalist papers would shed light on such things, but actually reading them (and the wealth of nations)is likely to turn you into an independent who dislikes both parties.
Can confirm. Read source material, completely changed my perspective on the American System and what it was intended to be.
Both parties are a blight that should never have gotten enshrined the way they are.
Both parties are a blight that should never have gotten enshrined the way they are.
Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much different.
The last 4+ justices appointed were in their 50s. Gorsuch was 50. A top name on the short list both times was Amy Coney Barett, 48. They've been grooming a 38 year-old, Justin Walker, for the court. He went from a few months of litigation experience to the federal bench to the DC circuit in a year.
Notice how all these people also look very healthy? They're trying to get people who will last a lot longer than 20 years.
The last 4+ justices appointed were in their 50s. Gorsuch was 50. A top name on the short list both times was Amy Coney Barett, 48. They've been grooming a 38 year-old, Justin Walker, for the court. He went from a few months of litigation experience to the federal bench to the DC circuit in a year.
Notice how all these people also look very healthy? They're trying to get people who will last a lot longer than 20 years.
In India we have a fixed retirement age. Of course extensions can be granted on an exceptional basis, But in general you serve till a fixed retirement age and retire.
It also makes sense. Cognitive ability deteriorates with age. And you don't want very old, with illness to rule on important things.
It also makes sense. Cognitive ability deteriorates with age. And you don't want very old, with illness to rule on important things.
The supreme court structure is very different for india. The strength of court currently is 34 judges and keeps increasing. Any single case goes to a bench of typically 2-3 judges . The largest ever bench was 13 when the 1973 constitution amendment case had come .
The idea behind no term limits is, the judge can choose to retire doesn't have to.
You have invested a lot of effort in getting a judge to the top as a country. you don't necessarily need a arbitrary date to retire.
Each individual has a capacity to serve upto different age unique to them. Setting a common age for all is not efficient, plenty of judges for example are employed in india post 65, in arbitration and government commissions.
It makes sense not have term limits when the court size is small.
The problem for america is that everything is political: judges and their retirement . In a 2 party first past the post/ winner takes all system that is inevitable.
The idea behind no term limits is, the judge can choose to retire doesn't have to.
You have invested a lot of effort in getting a judge to the top as a country. you don't necessarily need a arbitrary date to retire.
Each individual has a capacity to serve upto different age unique to them. Setting a common age for all is not efficient, plenty of judges for example are employed in india post 65, in arbitration and government commissions.
It makes sense not have term limits when the court size is small.
The problem for america is that everything is political: judges and their retirement . In a 2 party first past the post/ winner takes all system that is inevitable.
SC Justices were not expected to be so powerful.
The founding fathers thought that the US constitution would look like the UK. President = King, Congress = Parliament. The judiciary was practically an afterthought, and like UK courts, would be subordinate to Congress. “ In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Note the “such exceptions and under such regulations”.
As history turned out, Congress has barely used this power to rein in the courts and in the mid-19th century on the courts grew more and more powerful and have become a sort of mini-legislature.
James Madison already recognized this, writing in 1788 that he realized a mistake had been made in the constitution: “ as the Courts are generally the last in making their decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary Dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper ... ” (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s25...)
The founding fathers thought that the US constitution would look like the UK. President = King, Congress = Parliament. The judiciary was practically an afterthought, and like UK courts, would be subordinate to Congress. “ In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Note the “such exceptions and under such regulations”.
As history turned out, Congress has barely used this power to rein in the courts and in the mid-19th century on the courts grew more and more powerful and have become a sort of mini-legislature.
James Madison already recognized this, writing in 1788 that he realized a mistake had been made in the constitution: “ as the Courts are generally the last in making their decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary Dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper ... ” (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s25...)
Lifetime tenure is supposed to make them impartial and free from political pressure.
I suggest the 15 year limit and other requirements in Mexico:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_th...
I'd add the requirement of at least a year of criminal defense experience since this is almost completely lacking currently and it shows in the horrible decisions the court makes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_th...
I'd add the requirement of at least a year of criminal defense experience since this is almost completely lacking currently and it shows in the horrible decisions the court makes.
The constitution doesn't specify how many justices there are. Or what the criteria should be for appointment. It isn't even clear who appoints/confirms them.
There are a lot of unplugged holes in the constitution. This is just another issue...
There are a lot of unplugged holes in the constitution. This is just another issue...
"BREAKING: Trump will quickly pick a replacement for Justice Ginsburg, and Sen. Mitch McConnell & the Republican-controlled Senate will move to confirm his nominee,creating a new political flashpoint in election while firing up evangelicals & shoring up GOP base and vote for Trump"
Senate Leader McCconnell has said as much: https://apnews.com/84003fe2f5c8d910afda84d2b33f19be
A man literally arguing against himself.
The frustrating thing about the center is the propensity to take things at face value, no matter how bad faith. It has been patently obvious for decades that the Republican party plays by a thoroughly cynical playbook. A credulous centrist elite accepts each new plot twist as the status quo, after a genteel interval of whining.
Enough is enough. People in favor of good governance need to end a system that allows a minority of voters to elect a President. That allows a minority of voters to elect a Senate majority that represents a minority of citizens. That allows a minority of voters to elect House majorities. That refuses the franchise to largely minoritized citizens of DC, Puerto Rico, and the other teritories. That does not allow the present and formerly incarcerated to vote. That allows unaccountable moneyed interests to blast the electorate with propaganda. That has, as a final check, a court of 9 life appointees.
For a long time, the country managed to float by on tradition, but our refusal to build a modern government is presently our downfall.
Enough is enough. People in favor of good governance need to end a system that allows a minority of voters to elect a President. That allows a minority of voters to elect a Senate majority that represents a minority of citizens. That allows a minority of voters to elect House majorities. That refuses the franchise to largely minoritized citizens of DC, Puerto Rico, and the other teritories. That does not allow the present and formerly incarcerated to vote. That allows unaccountable moneyed interests to blast the electorate with propaganda. That has, as a final check, a court of 9 life appointees.
For a long time, the country managed to float by on tradition, but our refusal to build a modern government is presently our downfall.
The frustrating thing about the center is the propensity to take things at face value, no matter how bad faith.
The far, far worse problem is the extremists propensity to take everything as bad faith, no matter how genuine.
The far, far worse problem is the extremists propensity to take everything as bad faith, no matter how genuine.
> The frustrating thing about the center is the propensity to take things at face value, no matter how bad faith. It has been patently obvious for decades that the Republican party plays by a thoroughly cynical playbook. A credulous centrist elite accepts each new plot twist as the status quo, after a genteel interval of whining.
It took me a long time to realize this, but I don't think "bad faith" or "cynicism" is the right way to look at how these Republican politicians are behaving. Both of those terms still imply a certain level of respect for the humanity of the other party and a desire to create some consensus, even if through subterfuge.
No, the Republicans are acting like Democratic politicians are enemies in war. It's not "cynical" to hide information from or mislead the enemy. It's just battle tactics. They aren't trying to reach consensus, they are trying to destroy.
It took me a long time to realize this, but I don't think "bad faith" or "cynicism" is the right way to look at how these Republican politicians are behaving. Both of those terms still imply a certain level of respect for the humanity of the other party and a desire to create some consensus, even if through subterfuge.
No, the Republicans are acting like Democratic politicians are enemies in war. It's not "cynical" to hide information from or mislead the enemy. It's just battle tactics. They aren't trying to reach consensus, they are trying to destroy.
I don't think war even describes it. Wars have rules. This is total war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war).
Flipping through news channels I hear talk about “Biden packing the court” casually suggested as if it’s a totally reasonable option.
FDR threatened the very same thing when parts of his New Deal were getting overturned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bil...
It was tactical move and it worked; not unlike what McConnell did to Obama's Supreme Court pick in 2016 when the GOP controlled the House and the Senate. Politics is hardball, always has been.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bil...
It was tactical move and it worked; not unlike what McConnell did to Obama's Supreme Court pick in 2016 when the GOP controlled the House and the Senate. Politics is hardball, always has been.
This is ridiculous. It’s also what the republicans believe the democrats are doing. Both sides are absolutely certain they are right. Funny how that works.
I don't think it's a "new" political flashpoint. RBG was 87, with cancer, it's not a surprise.
McConnell has certainly laid plans for an attempt to force a crony through as quickly as possible before the election. Hopefully it won't happen before Trump gets flushed.
McConnell has certainly laid plans for an attempt to force a crony through as quickly as possible before the election. Hopefully it won't happen before Trump gets flushed.
Just in case it becomes relevant in the next few days:
"'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,''
-Senator Mitch McConnell in 2016
"'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,''
-Senator Mitch McConnell in 2016
He’s already said this year is different. He made that comment months ago.
I’m sure he realizes how outraged people were by that decision and to not make the same mistake this time.
hahahaha
His words mean nothing. Unfortunately, he does what he wants, not what he's said. His past proclamations are merely inconvenient distractions.
His words mean nothing. Unfortunately, he does what he wants, not what he's said. His past proclamations are merely inconvenient distractions.
I wonder if he will go down in American history as a more poisonous senator than McCarthy.
He was just playing the incredible hand dealt him.
I don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.
> with integrity.
What exactly do you think politics is?
What exactly do you think politics is?
A non violent process through which differences are settled, ideally with at least a veil of integrity, or you’re likely to get the violence it was aimed to prevent.
That's not helpful. There are "rules", and there are "norms".
People follow the rules assuming that everyone is operating in good faith, and that everyone agrees the rules exist for the benefit of everyone. If rules are only there to be exploited, you end up with a disaster.
I mean, sure, you can force through a nomination now and produce a wildly lopsided court. But then the democrats might just win the senate and presidency and decide that they can add four more justices. The rules allow that, too. Is that the world you want to live in?
I mean, sure, you can force through a nomination now and produce a wildly lopsided court. But then the democrats might just win the senate and presidency and decide that they can add four more justices. The rules allow that, too. Is that the world you want to live in?
Yeah sorry, do you want fascism? Cause that's how you get fascism.
It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies.
You may think it’s immoral or gross, but it’s in no way fascism. I hate how much that word gets thrown around nowadays.
You may think it’s immoral or gross, but it’s in no way fascism. I hate how much that word gets thrown around nowadays.
> It’s not fascism to do things the way the rules/law specifies.
That's not a workable definition. At many points in history fascists were literally the ones writing the rules and laws.
Also, it's not like the law is software proved with formal methods to prevent fascism. There are bugs and exploits that are only prevented from being problems by the integrity of political actors, and some of those can be pretty trivially discovered. The more integrity you remove, the higher the chance you end up with a configuration that results in something like fascism.
That's not a workable definition. At many points in history fascists were literally the ones writing the rules and laws.
Also, it's not like the law is software proved with formal methods to prevent fascism. There are bugs and exploits that are only prevented from being problems by the integrity of political actors, and some of those can be pretty trivially discovered. The more integrity you remove, the higher the chance you end up with a configuration that results in something like fascism.
Oh no, fascism is always completely legal. Just morally wrong.
You attempt to prevent a literal war of all against all by making various alliances and deals that please all but all small rump of violent extremists.
The victors write the history books, and McCarthy didn't hang on to power long enough to do so.
I think American history will be rewritten very soon, probably by McConnell.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24523218.
[deleted]
After watching a 2018 documentary on Ruth Bader Ginsburg and seeing her work as a lawyer in the 70's, fighting and making and winning cases for pure social justice in the highest court of the land, RBG became an instant hero to me.
She will always inspire me, here or not, to fight for justice and what my conscience tells me is right. I have a great deal to say and a great deal to fight for. When it gets tough, she will be there to keep me standing.
Thank you, Ruth, for being such a fully self-actualised individual. You have shown the way. I am forever grateful.
A giant has fallen.
She will always inspire me, here or not, to fight for justice and what my conscience tells me is right. I have a great deal to say and a great deal to fight for. When it gets tough, she will be there to keep me standing.
Thank you, Ruth, for being such a fully self-actualised individual. You have shown the way. I am forever grateful.
A giant has fallen.
RIP. 2020 just keeps getting worse.
Also, the US needs a maximum age limit for SCOTUS justices.
Also, the US needs a maximum age limit for SCOTUS justices.
Unsurprising. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/reaction-...
> Breaking: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who refused to consider President Obama’s choice months before the 2016 election, said in a statement Friday hours after Ginsburg’s death: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
> Breaking: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who refused to consider President Obama’s choice months before the 2016 election, said in a statement Friday hours after Ginsburg’s death: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Such a lack of empathy from him.
I am deeply disappointed at anyone celebrating her loss.
I am deeply disappointed at anyone celebrating her loss.
RBG was also the voice of reason when Justice Kavanaugh was under attack by an unhinged mob.
She truly could see beyond politics, and will be missed by both sides of the aisle.
She truly could see beyond politics, and will be missed by both sides of the aisle.
I really don't believe legitimate criticism is problematic and it is very problematic to call people who speak out an "unhinged mob"
Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.
Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.
>Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.
Source?
Source?
Easy to search for.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-bret...
These are fairly clear cut lies to congress.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-bret...
These are fairly clear cut lies to congress.
I mean I will take RBG's opinion over the unhinged mob's any day. If you admire her, why not try to understand why she defended him?
Why would we be obliged to take her opinion on him in place of deriving our own opinion from his dishonesty and prior behavior?
Probably best to not dig into the details too much since this thread isn't about that, but I personally absolutely understand why they characterized it as an "unhinged mob", given you had a very transparent attempt to fabricate a life-altering rape claim in order to hold up a nomination.
I watched every minute of the hearing, read the memo released by Rachel Mitchell (the lawyer hired by the Republicans to ask questions in their stead), and did a bunch of other research around the issue, and it became clear to me that the story was completely fabricated, given that even close friends of the accuser could not corroborate her story, let alone the party itself ever having existed, and Kavanaugh produced a (weirdly) meticulous calendar that showed that he wasn't in the area whatsoever.
Personally, I am a strong believer that sexual assault is a criminal matter. It's not the kind of thing you stay silent about for decades, having never stored any memorandums of the alleged crime (the therapist notes did not name Kavanaugh specifically and were relatively recent), and then try to spring on someone to prevent their appointment. If you really think someone is a rapist, you should try to put them in jail, not just stop them from taking a political position. (And yes, I understand that often victims do not want to bring up criminal charges and I understand why. But if you haven't documented any real evidence, trying to bring up an issue 3-4 decades later is just totally absurd. These are life-destroying claims being made here. Ford (the accuser) had NO EVIDENCE (the "therapist's notes" did not identify Kavanaugh, or go into any detail into the supposed act)).
Anyway, I've rambled enough. Sorry for the wall of text, but I really hate how so many friends of mine to this day still think Kavanaugh is a rapist without a shred of evidence; indeed, it's worse than that because all the evidence makes me personally feel that this was a case of outright deceit rather than false memory or a simple mixup. There were just too many contradictions and changes to the story and lack of detail where it really mattered to make the allegation even remotely credible, even if we use a "there's reasonable cause to believe he was a rapist" standard. That is to say that I don't think Blasey Ford met even an incredibly weak standard of evidence.
I watched every minute of the hearing, read the memo released by Rachel Mitchell (the lawyer hired by the Republicans to ask questions in their stead), and did a bunch of other research around the issue, and it became clear to me that the story was completely fabricated, given that even close friends of the accuser could not corroborate her story, let alone the party itself ever having existed, and Kavanaugh produced a (weirdly) meticulous calendar that showed that he wasn't in the area whatsoever.
Personally, I am a strong believer that sexual assault is a criminal matter. It's not the kind of thing you stay silent about for decades, having never stored any memorandums of the alleged crime (the therapist notes did not name Kavanaugh specifically and were relatively recent), and then try to spring on someone to prevent their appointment. If you really think someone is a rapist, you should try to put them in jail, not just stop them from taking a political position. (And yes, I understand that often victims do not want to bring up criminal charges and I understand why. But if you haven't documented any real evidence, trying to bring up an issue 3-4 decades later is just totally absurd. These are life-destroying claims being made here. Ford (the accuser) had NO EVIDENCE (the "therapist's notes" did not identify Kavanaugh, or go into any detail into the supposed act)).
Anyway, I've rambled enough. Sorry for the wall of text, but I really hate how so many friends of mine to this day still think Kavanaugh is a rapist without a shred of evidence; indeed, it's worse than that because all the evidence makes me personally feel that this was a case of outright deceit rather than false memory or a simple mixup. There were just too many contradictions and changes to the story and lack of detail where it really mattered to make the allegation even remotely credible, even if we use a "there's reasonable cause to believe he was a rapist" standard. That is to say that I don't think Blasey Ford met even an incredibly weak standard of evidence.
>[sexual assault is] not the kind of thing you stay silent about for decades, having never stored any memorandums of the alleged crime
I'm not going to get into any specifics about Kavanaugh, but this is flatly untrue. Plenty of people stay silent about being assaulted. One reason is people like you who will call them liars whenever they come forward.
I'm not going to get into any specifics about Kavanaugh, but this is flatly untrue. Plenty of people stay silent about being assaulted. One reason is people like you who will call them liars whenever they come forward.
I literally addressed that concern immediately after. You misunderstand my words.
No I understood your words. You misunderstand the damage your words could cause. There is little in the way of proof that could possibly exist for a 35+ year old rape. You are not only calling this woman a liar because she can't provide something that doesn't exist, but you are also saying she shouldn't even come forward unless she has enough proof to put this man in jail. That shows a total lack of knowledge of these type of crimes and a total lack of empathy towards the victims of these crimes. The end result is that people with your mindset continue to discourage victims from coming forward.
> not the kind of thing you stay silent about for decades
It is precisely that kind of thing. I know several women who have done exactly this, even including hiding abuse from their parents.
It is precisely that kind of thing. I know several women who have done exactly this, even including hiding abuse from their parents.
I am aware of that, thus why I immediately followed my statement up with this:
> And yes, I understand that often victims do not want to bring up criminal charges and I understand why. But if you haven't documented any real evidence, trying to bring up an issue 3-4 decades later is just totally absurd. These are life-destroying claims being made here. Ford (the accuser) had NO EVIDENCE
My point is, if you wait 30 years to come forward, you should have evidence. If you don’t have evidence then don’t expect someone to not be confirmed. Again this case was worse than no evidence because the “evidence” presented was mutually contradictory
> And yes, I understand that often victims do not want to bring up criminal charges and I understand why. But if you haven't documented any real evidence, trying to bring up an issue 3-4 decades later is just totally absurd. These are life-destroying claims being made here. Ford (the accuser) had NO EVIDENCE
My point is, if you wait 30 years to come forward, you should have evidence. If you don’t have evidence then don’t expect someone to not be confirmed. Again this case was worse than no evidence because the “evidence” presented was mutually contradictory
> If you don’t have evidence then don’t expect someone to not be confirmed.
Basically everybody went into this process expecting Kav to be confirmed, since there is a long history of ignoring these sorts of claims.
"You shouldn't expect justice without evidence" and "people who come forward after decades are liars because nobody does that" are very very very different claims.
Basically everybody went into this process expecting Kav to be confirmed, since there is a long history of ignoring these sorts of claims.
"You shouldn't expect justice without evidence" and "people who come forward after decades are liars because nobody does that" are very very very different claims.
I still don't understand how, putting aside the rape allegations, kavanaugh's outbursts about Clinton conspiracy theories, "I like beer", and flat out lies about things like "Devil's triangle" being a drinking game didn't disqualify him.
You can say that the rape wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that the outbursts were him having a bad day (it's not like SCOTUS is a very exclusive position /s).
But that lie about devil's triangle being a game of quarters is so blatant. It's an incredibly common term that I am sure the average person has heard and can say that was an obvious lie.
You can say that the rape wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that the outbursts were him having a bad day (it's not like SCOTUS is a very exclusive position /s).
But that lie about devil's triangle being a game of quarters is so blatant. It's an incredibly common term that I am sure the average person has heard and can say that was an obvious lie.
I didn't follow the controversy, but I've never heard of a devil's triangle.
[deleted]
The voice? I think there were many voices of reason that had his back. It was very enlightening to see what extremes people will go to at times.
There wasn't any credible evidence that he had attended any such party, let alone done the things Blasey Ford claimed he did. Or even that Blasey Ford knew him then. That's why it fell apart. So, yes, "unhinged mob" is a completely appropriate description of the clown car attempt to disqualify him.
If Amy Coney Barrett is the nominee, expect random men to come out of the woodwork claiming that she raped them in college. Recall how hard the left had to reach to dredge up dirt in the Kavanaugh circus but now having to do it against a woman with even less actual material to work with. Still, I wouldn't put it past the wokies to attempt it. Nothing from these people surprises me anymore.
If Amy Coney Barrett is the nominee, expect random men to come out of the woodwork claiming that she raped them in college. Recall how hard the left had to reach to dredge up dirt in the Kavanaugh circus but now having to do it against a woman with even less actual material to work with. Still, I wouldn't put it past the wokies to attempt it. Nothing from these people surprises me anymore.
For those so certain that the Republican Senate is going to ram though someone, there are a few moderates left, and they've already decided thing can wait until after the election:
"So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration.
Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski"
[0]:https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580807
The Senate is currently split 53/47, I don't believe Romney has addressed the issue yet. No one should get too bitter and divisive just yet.
"So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration.
Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski"
[0]:https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580807
The Senate is currently split 53/47, I don't believe Romney has addressed the issue yet. No one should get too bitter and divisive just yet.
When push comes to shove, republicans fall in line.
Susan Collins will go on record saying she thinks trump jr is just too good of a candidate to not accept the nomination, and that'll be the end of it
Susan Collins will go on record saying she thinks trump jr is just too good of a candidate to not accept the nomination, and that'll be the end of it
As the glib aphorism goes, Democrats want to fall in love, and Republicans want to fall in line.
Hope you're right: https://www.axios.com/trump-ginsburg-supreme-court-10bf5f37-... . The threat of withholding money if they don't comply has got to be pretty effective to bring any independent thinkers in line.
Another case for removing big money from politics
Huge caveat: of those 3, only Murkowski actually made her statement after RBG passed. Collins made her statement hypothetically earlier in the campaign, and Grassley made his hypothetical statement back in 2018 during that election cycle.
So far, Murkowski is the only confirmed GOP defector, and 4 total defectors are needed to prevent nomination hearings before the election.
So far, Murkowski is the only confirmed GOP defector, and 4 total defectors are needed to prevent nomination hearings before the election.
3 will be allowed to defect and Pence will be the tie breaking vote.
All of this is coordinated, all of this is staged.
All of this is coordinated, all of this is staged.
Do you have a source for such a direct claim?
It's just how these things work. A few senators are allowed to defect and make a hoopla, but nobody wants to be the final defector that changes the actual outcome, because his or her political career would be over.
McCain famously did it during his last vote, because he knew he was going to die shortly thereafter.
McCain famously did it during his last vote, because he knew he was going to die shortly thereafter.
There's a bit of difference between what you're outlining and "coordinated" as the GP mentions. One seems far less nefarious and just in line with the realities of certain democracies and re-election.
It's my prediction of the future.
Like anyone can take Collins at her word anymore.
She’s going to furrow her brow and try to explain why flip flopping and selling her vote in exchange for McConnell not killing her post-senate career (she’s down by ~12 points to her democratic challenger) is fine because McConnell had already learned his lesson.
Most of these statements were made in 2018. A lot has changed since then, and these statements where made when Samuel Alito's retirement was being floated. RBG is a totally different ball game.
Yeah I wouldn't bet too long on that. McConnell knows how to twist arms, they will crack to pressure and get a solid conservative in there before the election. Of that I'm sure.
I’d say he could also wait until after. Last time, the vacancy motivated Republican more than Democratic turnout — and if Republicans don’t win the Senate again, there’s still time after the election to do the appointment.
There are almost a dozen GOP Senate seats up at risk. A vote before the election gives them a solid victory to campaign on to their base, which might be enough to keep those seats in the GOP in November.
Waiting until after the election does nothing to improve their electoral prospects, so for McConnell there's no point in waiting.
Waiting until after the election does nothing to improve their electoral prospects, so for McConnell there's no point in waiting.
If those senators stall their own party on the highest visibility vote of their careers, then they're done.
50/50 split means the Vice President decides. Game over.
The sensible side of me would deem this blind optimism but… Maybe, just maybe, senators respecting Justice Ginsburg’s last wish will be the first step on a long road towards healing our toxic political polarization.
[deleted]
This won’t happen. I’m a reasonable person and happy to change my mind with evidence, and don’t say this lightly, but the republicans do not give a crud about any of this. They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist. This is coming from a recent former republican. I miss George Will’s Republican party.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24523984.
godzulu(2)
stagehn(1)
There is no reason to 'other' people like this. Parties are things that people adhere to, some for a season, some for a lifetime, but they reflect very little about their worth as human beings.
I come from a large family and we represent the whole spectrum of political beliefs, in a single generation, and all my sibs are equally kind and selfless, regardless of their political affiliation.
I come from a large family and we represent the whole spectrum of political beliefs, in a single generation, and all my sibs are equally kind and selfless, regardless of their political affiliation.
I think they were referring to the elected Republicans, not lay people. I'd be curious to know which elected (R) Senator/Congressperson you would consider kind and selfless.
Yes, that’s what I meant, I should have been more clear.
Politicians as a class aren't well known for their kindness, but Senator Romney, Jeb Bush, Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander and Will Hurd come to mind.
I'd be curious which (D) representative you think would fit that criteria either.
Politicians are egomaniacs almost by definition.
Politicians are egomaniacs almost by definition.
> They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist
The Trump Republicans are far better in terms of war crimes. Not "better in terms of war crimes" is some sort of crowning achievement, but its hard to get much lower than srone striking Americans on foreign soil. To say Trump isn't an improvement over Busch just boggles my mind.
The Trump Republicans are far better in terms of war crimes. Not "better in terms of war crimes" is some sort of crowning achievement, but its hard to get much lower than srone striking Americans on foreign soil. To say Trump isn't an improvement over Busch just boggles my mind.
He revoked the transparency surrounding drone strikes, so you don't know how often they happen.
He pardoned war criminals found guilty by our own military courts.
He is setting up companies to steal oil from Syria and has always stated that we would be fools not to take those military earned resources.
The state kills unarmed people in the US everyday, I see drone strikes in war zones as as far tinier issue than all of the above.
He pardoned war criminals found guilty by our own military courts.
He is setting up companies to steal oil from Syria and has always stated that we would be fools not to take those military earned resources.
The state kills unarmed people in the US everyday, I see drone strikes in war zones as as far tinier issue than all of the above.
> its hard to get much lower than srone striking Americans on foreign soil.
Trump killed this American on foreign soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawar_al-Awlaki
Trump killed this American on foreign soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawar_al-Awlaki
There's a lot more horrible things happening in Yemen and absolutely nobody in the West cares. But everything is political nowadays, anything that's related to Trump gets high coverage, while there's probably somewhere like 200 000 people who have died so far in this ongoing conflict and it barely gets noticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%9...
You gotta love the journalistic bias out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%9...
You gotta love the journalistic bias out there.
The war wasn’t started by Obama so I’m not sure what your point is. In fact the current administration has been supplying the Saudis with all the armaments they need making the situation even worse.
Check your facts before posting blindly about media bias.
Check your facts before posting blindly about media bias.
> The war wasn’t started by Obama so I’m not sure what your point is
Never said anywhere Obama started this war. I am talking about the media constantly ignoring Yemen, except when a drone strike kills a civilian and the drone strike happens to be from a President they despise. How strange!
I can't remember Obama strikes causing so much embarrassment during the last administration. Surely there is absolutely no journalistic bias at play.
Never said anywhere Obama started this war. I am talking about the media constantly ignoring Yemen, except when a drone strike kills a civilian and the drone strike happens to be from a President they despise. How strange!
I can't remember Obama strikes causing so much embarrassment during the last administration. Surely there is absolutely no journalistic bias at play.
If a president is actively supporting a side in an ongoing bloody war, that president will most certainly get more coverage. No bias.
Trump killed a US citizen with a drone strike and then simply banned the military from reporting on drone strikes.
It's very possible that more US citizens were killed during the Trump administration, and we won't know for decades until the records are unsealed.
It's very possible that more US citizens were killed during the Trump administration, and we won't know for decades until the records are unsealed.
R.I.P. Notorious R.B.G.
Presumably post-election, Biden can appoint, and the new democrat senate can confirm, 2 justices.
Go back 10 years and as apathetic as voters were in much of the developed world, I had a hard time envisioning how these democracies/republics could fall. Boy was I naive.
There was a time in the US that as bitter as partisan politics could be there seemed to be a level of decency on both sides and a higher loyalty to the institutions of our government.
Nixon resigned in disgrace because it became clear even his own party would not support him. I honestly think that if Watergate happened today, the president's party would defend the president regardless of what happened.
You see active and organized voter suppression, politicization of the election process itself and gerrymandering on a massive yet accurate scale.
The attitude seems to have set in that the ends justify the means. "Look at what the other side does." Abortion in particular seems to be one of those issues where self-described moral voters seem to view anything as justified. Like how anyone can justify to thsmselves bombing an abortion clinic or a church is in any way justifiable is beyond me.
The level of GOP obstruction in the Obama era was utterly unprecedented. The filibuster was defended until it was politically expedient to get rid of it. A simple majority for Supreme Court justices is unprecedented, at least in the modern era. Refusing to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented and everyone knew that too would be abandoned if ever convenient.
Take Kavanaugh's confirmation. Of course a conservative president is going to nominate a conservative justice. Kavanaugh I believe was on the Federalist Society's list of 25 potential nominees where they expressed no preference among the 25.
The hearings produced some pretty serious baggage for Kavanaugh (ie Ford's accusations). He could've had his nomination withdrawn (or he could've withdrawn himself) and been replaced with another conservative justice with no such baggage but that didn't happen.
What you have is privileged white men, in particular Trump and McConnell, who didn't want to lose face by backing down. Arguably they didn't like the idea that Kavanaugh, another white man, would be held accountable for something that he simply wouldn't have been 20 years ago. So getting him confirmed became a way of rubbing this victory in the face of opponents.
This is what I find utterly unfathomable: so much of Trump's support is essentially religious. By any objective measure, Trump is a reprehensible human being. How any "moral voters" can look passed that because abortion I would never have predicted. It's utterly indefensible.
And this is what concerns me the most: it seems like Trump can do nothing that will rock his base. Arguably colluding with foreign governments, his love affair with despots and tyrants, the political scapegoating of the poor and immigrants and the dog-whistle (some would say steam-whistle) politics of white supremacism. It's so depressing.
So yeah, it's weeks until the election and the standard used to stall Merrick Garland's nomination is completely forgotten (of course). That seat will be filled by the election. McConnell has already come up and said Trump's nominee would get a vote on the Senate floor.
Personally I don't generally have an issue with conservative jurisprudence. At its core, it's a belief the the Constitution is literal. It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. If you want it to say something else, there's a process for that (ie a constitutional amendment). Personally I find the "living document" interpretation of the Constitution to be nothing more than populism.
This can be taken too far. Constitutional literalism was used in the post-Civil War era (ie the Redeemer era) to dismantle the rights of former slaves.
As you see in this thread, Scalia is scapegoated by some of the Left as a hater but this is (IMHO) an ignorant view. Read the man's opinions.
What does sadden me is the utterly self-serving, completely hypocritical and utterly inconsistent "the ends justify the means", institution-eroding and obstructionist approach that will inevitably lead us there.
There was a time in the US that as bitter as partisan politics could be there seemed to be a level of decency on both sides and a higher loyalty to the institutions of our government.
Nixon resigned in disgrace because it became clear even his own party would not support him. I honestly think that if Watergate happened today, the president's party would defend the president regardless of what happened.
You see active and organized voter suppression, politicization of the election process itself and gerrymandering on a massive yet accurate scale.
The attitude seems to have set in that the ends justify the means. "Look at what the other side does." Abortion in particular seems to be one of those issues where self-described moral voters seem to view anything as justified. Like how anyone can justify to thsmselves bombing an abortion clinic or a church is in any way justifiable is beyond me.
The level of GOP obstruction in the Obama era was utterly unprecedented. The filibuster was defended until it was politically expedient to get rid of it. A simple majority for Supreme Court justices is unprecedented, at least in the modern era. Refusing to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented and everyone knew that too would be abandoned if ever convenient.
Take Kavanaugh's confirmation. Of course a conservative president is going to nominate a conservative justice. Kavanaugh I believe was on the Federalist Society's list of 25 potential nominees where they expressed no preference among the 25.
The hearings produced some pretty serious baggage for Kavanaugh (ie Ford's accusations). He could've had his nomination withdrawn (or he could've withdrawn himself) and been replaced with another conservative justice with no such baggage but that didn't happen.
What you have is privileged white men, in particular Trump and McConnell, who didn't want to lose face by backing down. Arguably they didn't like the idea that Kavanaugh, another white man, would be held accountable for something that he simply wouldn't have been 20 years ago. So getting him confirmed became a way of rubbing this victory in the face of opponents.
This is what I find utterly unfathomable: so much of Trump's support is essentially religious. By any objective measure, Trump is a reprehensible human being. How any "moral voters" can look passed that because abortion I would never have predicted. It's utterly indefensible.
And this is what concerns me the most: it seems like Trump can do nothing that will rock his base. Arguably colluding with foreign governments, his love affair with despots and tyrants, the political scapegoating of the poor and immigrants and the dog-whistle (some would say steam-whistle) politics of white supremacism. It's so depressing.
So yeah, it's weeks until the election and the standard used to stall Merrick Garland's nomination is completely forgotten (of course). That seat will be filled by the election. McConnell has already come up and said Trump's nominee would get a vote on the Senate floor.
Personally I don't generally have an issue with conservative jurisprudence. At its core, it's a belief the the Constitution is literal. It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. If you want it to say something else, there's a process for that (ie a constitutional amendment). Personally I find the "living document" interpretation of the Constitution to be nothing more than populism.
This can be taken too far. Constitutional literalism was used in the post-Civil War era (ie the Redeemer era) to dismantle the rights of former slaves.
As you see in this thread, Scalia is scapegoated by some of the Left as a hater but this is (IMHO) an ignorant view. Read the man's opinions.
What does sadden me is the utterly self-serving, completely hypocritical and utterly inconsistent "the ends justify the means", institution-eroding and obstructionist approach that will inevitably lead us there.
All the baggage you speak of was entirely unproven, and unprovable since they were 30 year old accusations.
All this in an election year where there was hope that maybe Republicans wouldn't have the votes afterwards.
That seems more towards corruption than legal proceedings to me.
Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so it's not really a fair comparison (what McConnell did would have been impossible otherwise). But still, this is a norm, not a law, in the same way that, with or without another Trump nomination, Biden could legally appoint justices until he has the majority. There's no law unfortunately setting the size to 9.
All this in an election year where there was hope that maybe Republicans wouldn't have the votes afterwards.
That seems more towards corruption than legal proceedings to me.
Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so it's not really a fair comparison (what McConnell did would have been impossible otherwise). But still, this is a norm, not a law, in the same way that, with or without another Trump nomination, Biden could legally appoint justices until he has the majority. There's no law unfortunately setting the size to 9.
> All the baggage you speak of was entirely unproven
The best any reasonable person can argue is that Kavanaugh was being less than forthright. His demeanour resonated for many with what a guilty man would do if caught. Worse, he seemed to think he was above these proceedings. Consider this exchange [1].
> Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so it's not really a fair comparison
Sure it is. If hearings were held and a vote held on the Senate floor where the nominee failed to secure nomination then that's that.
The problem was that McConnell wasn't sure he could defeat the nomination. Having a vote would put a number of GOP senators in a difficult position to vote down the nomination. So rather than risk a vote he might lose, which would have a political cost, he simply refused to hold hearings let alone a vote.
If you think that's the same thing because the Democrats didn't have a majority you're at best delusional and at worst intellectually dishonest.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autkkRE2GhA
The best any reasonable person can argue is that Kavanaugh was being less than forthright. His demeanour resonated for many with what a guilty man would do if caught. Worse, he seemed to think he was above these proceedings. Consider this exchange [1].
> Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so it's not really a fair comparison
Sure it is. If hearings were held and a vote held on the Senate floor where the nominee failed to secure nomination then that's that.
The problem was that McConnell wasn't sure he could defeat the nomination. Having a vote would put a number of GOP senators in a difficult position to vote down the nomination. So rather than risk a vote he might lose, which would have a political cost, he simply refused to hold hearings let alone a vote.
If you think that's the same thing because the Democrats didn't have a majority you're at best delusional and at worst intellectually dishonest.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=autkkRE2GhA
Only after reading about this did I realise that RBG was Catholic. There would have been a lot of familiarity of thought and philosophy in their backgrounds.
In some part, it makes it easier to disagree. Some of the arguments have been going on for centuries.
In some part, it makes it easier to disagree. Some of the arguments have been going on for centuries.
RBG was notably Jewish. I don't know where you got that she was Catholic. Scalia was Catholic if that is the cause of the confusion.
Thanks for the corrections all.
I misread an article; her client was Catholic.
https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/
I misread an article; her client was Catholic.
https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/
Only after reading about this did I realise that RBG was Catholic
RBC was raised Jewish. Later, after her mother passed, she became non-observant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#:~:text=Al....
RBC was raised Jewish. Later, after her mother passed, she became non-observant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#:~:text=Al....
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24523014.
Reading what??
Trump will win! sorry.
293 days the Senate didn’t vote on Merrick Garland because it was an election year. Can they wait 45 now?
If it was controlled by Democrats I 100% guarantee they would.
[deleted]
There is nothing good left in this world. I don’t plan to kill myself, but I don’t see much value in living.
Sounds like you are depressed. You should talk to someone about it.
Thank you. I concluded the same and have begun to look for a therapist. RBG has been a hero of mine for 15 years. The impact of her death was my first thought when Trump won. For me, at this time, the glass has 10% of its capacity. But I will find help to see that as 10% full.
I am pleased you are looking for a therapist.
Always keep in mind you are not responsible for, nor could you change, RBG's lifespan. You are not responsible for the outcome of an election. If Trump is reelected it is not because of you, if Biden wins it is not because of you.
Always keep in mind you are not responsible for, nor could you change, RBG's lifespan. You are not responsible for the outcome of an election. If Trump is reelected it is not because of you, if Biden wins it is not because of you.
The last 4 years have been very dark but I hope the following quote gives you a better perspective:
"Take a moment. Breathe.
And then we fight for our country the way she always did for us. Or we will lose everything."
https://twitter.com/MaryLTrump/status/1307109748744114177?s=...
"Take a moment. Breathe.
And then we fight for our country the way she always did for us. Or we will lose everything."
https://twitter.com/MaryLTrump/status/1307109748744114177?s=...
The other quote that pairs really well with this one:
“We don’t inherent the world (our country) from our parents. We have it on loan from our children.”
“We don’t inherent the world (our country) from our parents. We have it on loan from our children.”
It is for this reason I have chosen not to have children.
There might be some miscommunication.
The quote isn't literal about your children. Weather we as individuals choose to participate or not, our lives aren't an end, the story continues with the royal our children.
Either we: (1) set them up for success at our expense; (2) set them up for success at no expense to us; or (3) set them up for failure to benefit ourselves.
Sadly so far, too many of us as individuals have been choosing (3). Hopefully enough of us as individuals have been choosing (1) and overall it balances to (2). However, currently its looking more and more like in aggregate we are ending up with (3).
The quote isn't literal about your children. Weather we as individuals choose to participate or not, our lives aren't an end, the story continues with the royal our children.
Either we: (1) set them up for success at our expense; (2) set them up for success at no expense to us; or (3) set them up for failure to benefit ourselves.
Sadly so far, too many of us as individuals have been choosing (3). Hopefully enough of us as individuals have been choosing (1) and overall it balances to (2). However, currently its looking more and more like in aggregate we are ending up with (3).
Sure. I agree.
But, with the looming threats of AI and climate change, I believe (1) and (2) are off the table. I don’t want to bring people into a failed system where they are (on average) doomed to failure. I wish I didn’t see things as so dire, but these ate the conclusions to which zi have come.
But, with the looming threats of AI and climate change, I believe (1) and (2) are off the table. I don’t want to bring people into a failed system where they are (on average) doomed to failure. I wish I didn’t see things as so dire, but these ate the conclusions to which zi have come.
Have you read “Mans search for meaning”?
It's depressing how much better Republicans are at politics than Democrats are.
Because of that, they will get their way.
Because of that, they will get their way.
It's past time for Democrats to stop "taking the high ground" and acting like their policies actually matter. Moral victories are hollow when your democracy is being gutted.
Sometimes I read comment sections on conservative websites. They say the exact same thing except with the parties reversed.
Yes, because it's the Democratic party who said that we cannot vote on a Supreme Court nominee during an election year only to 180 four years later. Please, show me all these relevant examples of Democrats being such brazen and open hypocrites. This pseudo intellectual "both sides" non-sense has done as much damage to this country as Republicans slide into fascism has.
I said nothing about both sides being equally wrong, that’s something you projected around my comment. I was sharing a completely true observation. It’s a really common sentiment for people everywhere.
To me, it’s a separate and unrelated idea that partisans on “both sides” have similar thoughts about strategy. It has nothing to do with which side is right about an issue. Don’t you think it’s interesting that there are people who have the exact mirror image of your thoughts? It doesn’t make you curious, or reflective?
Personally, for any sort of meme like this, I’m automatically skeptical of the idea behind it, just because of how often I see it thoughtlessly repeated.
To me, it’s a separate and unrelated idea that partisans on “both sides” have similar thoughts about strategy. It has nothing to do with which side is right about an issue. Don’t you think it’s interesting that there are people who have the exact mirror image of your thoughts? It doesn’t make you curious, or reflective?
Personally, for any sort of meme like this, I’m automatically skeptical of the idea behind it, just because of how often I see it thoughtlessly repeated.
I've been a conservative. My whole family is conservative. There is no secret I just haven't clued in on in their platform that's holding me back from understanding them. I understand them and their motivations just fine. They are largely just wrong and ignorant on so many issues. There is a reason that it was found Fox News viewers know less about current events than people who don't watch any news at all. It was designed to be that way to build an electorate which refuses to hold their politicians responsible for anything. This level of misinformation was specifically designed by Republicans (Roger Ailes) to prevent Republicans from ever turning on Republicans again regardless of their conduct or behavior. It's all recent history. It's all documented. I don't know why we have to pretend their plan to subvert the democratic process has been anything but a terrific success for them. I don't know why so many people are interested in pretending that both sides are the same.
This doesn't even get into the damage that Republican Newt Gingrich has done to our legislative process, or the unprecedented obstruction put forth from Republican McConnell. Republicans are literally destroying our democracy, and it's right there in plain sight for everyone who isn't a Fox News addict to see.
https://www.psypost.org/2020/07/consuming-content-from-foxne...
https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-ailes-blueprint-fox-ne...
This doesn't even get into the damage that Republican Newt Gingrich has done to our legislative process, or the unprecedented obstruction put forth from Republican McConnell. Republicans are literally destroying our democracy, and it's right there in plain sight for everyone who isn't a Fox News addict to see.
https://www.psypost.org/2020/07/consuming-content-from-foxne...
https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-ailes-blueprint-fox-ne...
Yeah, again, we’re not talking about the same thing.
[deleted]
I can't believe the amount of hate and flaming and demonization of a lady I've seen online as this one, she cared about people and the poor and the abused, I think our country is losing its way, and I don't know when we'll ever see her kind of compassion on the bench again.
Long term I think we're good, eventually somehow things will settle. Short term it's going to be horrible no matter what outcome in the November elections, the country appears divided beyond repair. Two steps forward one backwards as the saying goes but it appears we're now taking more like ten backwards.
These justices should be appointed by 2/3 majority in both chambers. That way we’d be talking about RBG now rather than the replacement.
Damn.
Time to watch “The Supremes” episode of West Wing and cry.
Time to watch “The Supremes” episode of West Wing and cry.
I’m pretty sure that if this was a D congress and a conservative dying then Republicans would simply not acknowledge the death until January. The weekend at Bernie’s solution.
I really liked her and her opinion was often something I learned from.
I do think there should be a mandatory retirement age in the Supreme Court.
I also think so for being president or governor.
I think that RBG was laser sharp till the end but I can think of many presidents and wannabes that are and were not.
I don’t want that to devolve into a political debate over specific candidates. It is just a fact that on average health and cognitive abilities and flexibility decline with age. An for one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in the world you need to try and ensure someone who is still on top of their game.
For POTUS we have a law stating the minimum age for the president. Since we already have that imposing a maximum age is reasonable and not ageist
Or I would support doing away with both and define a series of physical, cognitive tests as well as knowledge of the world and general knowledge. All of which would score a candidates suitability for the job. To be administered by a non partisan agency that is aggressively independent from new or old administrations. That would have weeded out some horrific presidents we have had. And will have.
I do think there should be a mandatory retirement age in the Supreme Court.
I also think so for being president or governor.
I think that RBG was laser sharp till the end but I can think of many presidents and wannabes that are and were not.
I don’t want that to devolve into a political debate over specific candidates. It is just a fact that on average health and cognitive abilities and flexibility decline with age. An for one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in the world you need to try and ensure someone who is still on top of their game.
For POTUS we have a law stating the minimum age for the president. Since we already have that imposing a maximum age is reasonable and not ageist
Or I would support doing away with both and define a series of physical, cognitive tests as well as knowledge of the world and general knowledge. All of which would score a candidates suitability for the job. To be administered by a non partisan agency that is aggressively independent from new or old administrations. That would have weeded out some horrific presidents we have had. And will have.
McConnell has already released a statement saying there WILL be a vote on a Trump nomination.
https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...