Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Hey! Teachers! Leave Them Kids Alone

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

You pretty much have to attempt to pack the courts once a conservative court starts torpedoing all major liberal legislation, as happened to FDR.

I was just about to post the very same thing!

They'll find a way to justify it. Not to mention the fact that they'll protect gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement.
If the Democrats truly want to be able to do anything in the future, they'll have to play hardball. If they don't try, then it means they're actually complicit in whatever the Republicans want to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I was just about to post the very same thing!

They'll find a way to justify it. Not to mention the fact that they'll protect gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement.
If the Democrats truly want to be able to do anything in the future, they'll have to play hardball. If they don't try, then it means they're actually complicit in whatever the Republicans want to do.

Well, it depends on what they do. Packing the courts should not be done lightly. If they struck down Obamacare, that'd be a good reason. If say Dems further expanded Medaid/Medicare and they struck that down, that'd be a good reason. I mean, if a conservative court can stop all legislation, we basically have new rulers for the next 30 years or more. And if that's the case, then not only is court packing on the table, other things may be as well.

It's been a good run guys as a liberal atheist, but I do not want to be sent to the camps. I'm now a conservative Christian. Heil orange Hitler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

For the past two months, a handful of immigration hawks from across the government have assembled in Stephen Miller’s West Wing office on a weekly basis to chart the course of the Trump administration’s immigration policy.

Led by Miller, President Donald Trump’s senior policy adviser and the architect of his hard-line approach to immigration, the meetings have replaced the usual interagency process involving key agency officials and remained largely out of view to the rest of the administration.


The gatherings, described by a half-dozen administration officials and Republicans close to the administration, have taken shape over time, from loosely structured meetings and conference calls among like-minded officials early in the administration to more formal meetings in recent months. And they have produced the president’s two most controversial policies — the January 2017 travel ban, which the Supreme Court let stand Tuesday, and the more recent decision to send adults caught crossing the border illegally for criminal prosecution, which resulted in thousands of children being separated from their parents and warehoused in government shelters.

 

Stephen Miller roiling nation with back-channel immigration meetings
The president’s senior policy adviser owns immigration. And he isn’t interested in sharing it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/stephen-miller-trump-immigration-win-678720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

declining to have hearings for a year is completely different than adding justices to the court. 

Declining to have hearings for a year had no historical precedent.  Changing the size of the Court does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Why do we know that? I'd speculate that if we could pack the courts and get partisan gerrymandered ruled unconstitutional as a result, that the GOP would not win enough elections long term to "outdo" us with respect to court packing. 

First, Republicans are much better and more willing to engage in hardball politics. That puts Democrats at a natural disadvantage. Second, while I would love to see the practice of partisan gerrymandering come to end, it wouldn't matter here. The only chamber that matters is the Senate, and Republicans will always be competitive there. You have to keep in mind that the 22 least populated states have a combined population that's the size of California. There are more red states than blue states in that grouping, giving Republicans a natural advantage in the Senate. I see packing the courts as an inevitable constitutional crisis with Republicans benefiting more along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Zorral said:

They are NEVER satiated, never satisfied, and they never stop.  When WILL YOU LEARN?  Which is why moaning about civility toward them is just effing stupid.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I agree that they'll never be satisfied in the long run until they turn this place into a theocracy. But voting is as much or more about turnout and motivation as it is about policy. I guarantee you that right now, Jesus-freaks are sending out hundreds of thousands of calls and emails about telling their Senator to vote for Trump's replacement to overturn Roe. 

If they get that victory in early fall, and then bad news comes in regarding Obamacare premiums (which that front is looking dreadful for Republicans) then I'm saying there could be a possibility their motivation is sapped because they'll have won a victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

It's been a good run guys as a liberal atheist, but I do not want to be sent to the camps. I'm now a conservative Christian. Heil orange Hitler. 

It's not as bad as you make it out to be. As was pointed out, Kennedy's swing vote label is more narrative than reality. He was really only good for a random vote on a social issue here and there. His loss will be bad for women, minorities and the poor, but it's not the end of the Republic. What you should fear is if and when one of the older liberal justices either retires or dies while Trump is in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Declining to have hearings for a year had no historical precedent.  Changing the size of the Court does.

But but but the Biden Rule.......

*vomits* 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I think it's admirable as a consideration, but short term gain for long term pain is tragically myopic, TGU.

I think this is more of a long-term strategy and less myopic than you think. Even if this particular nominee is blocked, and hell I'll even be generous and say Dems force Trump to institute a pro-choice nominee, it doesn't really change anything if Dems don't retake the Senate. Trump will most likely get one or even two more nominations because of Ginsberg and Breyer (both 80 or older). He could get as many as 4. Imagine a 7-2 court packed with 4 Trump nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It's not as bad as you make it out to be. As was pointed out, Kennedy's swing vote label is more narrative than reality. He was really only good for a random vote on a social issue here and there. His loss will be bad for women, minorities and the poor, but it's not the end of the Republic. What you should fear is if and when one of the older liberal justices either retires or dies while Trump is in office.

Dude. Glib privilege like this, while arguably right in its conclusion is still very, very wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I think this is more of a long-term strategy and less myopic than you think. Even if this particular nominee is blocked, and hell I'll even be generous and say Dems force Trump to institute a pro-choice nominee, it doesn't really change anything if Dems don't retake the Senate. Trump will most likely get one or even two more nominations because of Ginsberg and Breyer (both 80 or older). He could get as many as 4. Imagine a 7-2 court packed with 4 Trump nominees.

Ginsberg and Breyer aren't retiring with Trump in office. Breyer is only 79 and as far as I know in decent health, so 6 more years should be pretty reasonable. But Ginsberg fucked up royally by not retiring during Obama's second term. Honestly not sure what she was thinking. 80 year olds shouldn't be serving on the court in the first place, much less now that if Trump gets re-elected, any hope of a somewhat balanced court rests on her making it past 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost in the scrum of a busy news day, House Republicans wet the bed on immigration:

Quote

The House rejected a Republican compromise bill on immigration Wednesday in a worse-than-expected 121-300 vote, effectively ending a months-long GOP drama that had put the conference’s internal politics on display.

The measure won far fewer GOP votes than a more hard-line measure rejected last week in a 193-231 vote.

Only 121 Republicans backed it, compared to 193 for the earlier measure. Two Republicans did not cast votes on Wednesday, while 112 Republicans voted against it.

Votes on the bill were twice postponed to give Republicans more time to win support for the measure, which was opposed by Democrats.

But conservatives never really warmed to it, and President Trump put down the effort on Twitter, at one point saying that Republicans should stop wasting their time since the bill was seen as dead on arrival in the Senate.

The compromise bill would have provided a pathway to citizenship for so-called Dreamers, the issue that led centrist Republicans to launch a discharge petition to force a series of votes on immigration.

Discharge petitions are a way of getting around the House leadership to force a vote and are rarely used by members in the majority. Democrats backed those Republicans pushing the discharge petition to raise pressure on GOP leaders.

The decision to vote on the hard-line immigration measure last week and the compromise bill on Wednesday was part of a deal within the GOP conference that effectively quashed the petition.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/394437-house-rejects-second-gop-immigration-bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Dude. Glib privilege like this, while arguably right in its conclusion is still very, very wrong. 

Not really when everyone is running around with their hair on fire. It's terrible for certain groups who've historically been mistreated, but this isn't the end of the country or anything close to it. Frankly, crying wolf about the end of the country numbs people to the concept and makes them less likely to fight for it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I don't see why you think Roberts wouldn't vote to overturn Roe. He already voted to ignore stare decisis and Abood in order to fuck over public sector unions, why would precedent stop him with Roe?

Same reason he voted to save the ACA (Kennedy wanted to strike it down remember) and often punts on high profile issues even though there are usually 5 conservative votes available, he wants to preserve the court's legitimacy with a wide swath of the public. There are tons of cases where he is okay with 5-4 decisions, but they are usually fairly technical or at least explainable away. Even the union case today has wiggle room. Something like striking down roe v. wade, or rolling back gray marriage, is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I think this is more of a long-term strategy and less myopic than you think. Even if this particular nominee is blocked, and hell I'll even be generous and say Dems force Trump to institute a pro-choice nominee, it doesn't really change anything if Dems don't retake the Senate. Trump will most likely get one or even two more nominations because of Ginsberg and Breyer (both 80 or older). He could get as many as 4. Imagine a 7-2 court packed with 4 Trump nominees.

Perhaps. But as a recourse, if you can't count on the 'impartiality' [I know] of the highest court in the land to be a bulwark against legal challenges to your then 'just' legislation, you're effectively spinning your wheels no? Stacking the positive probability of the courts having your back would be the better long term strategy, imo. You can get the Senate back eventually [one would hope] but the scotus... [spreads hands] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chiKanery et al. said:

Not really when everyone is running around with their hair on fire. It's terrible for certain groups who've historically been mistreated, but this isn't the end of the country or anything close to it. Frankly, crying wolf about the end of the country numbs people to the concept and makes them less likely to fight for it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Fair enough, but dude children were just sent to camps. The SC will rule on similar things in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Not really when everyone is running around with their hair on fire. It's terrible for certain groups who've historically been mistreated, but this isn't the end of the country or anything close to it. Frankly, crying wolf about the end of the country numbs people to the concept and makes them less likely to fight for it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chiKanery et al. said:

By 1%. Whoopty doo! The point is that other female subgroups went overwhelming for Hillary while a majority of white women went for Trump. They did this to themselves. 

Well, my point is they voted just as they usually did.  Placing the blame on them for not voting at the rates minority women (or minority men, for that matter) really seems to be a great way to shirk responsibility of white males - which are undeniably the most responsible demographic based on support for Trump and the GOP in general.

2 hours ago, كالدب said:

The senate only. The House is not actually part of this in any way. And now you simply need a simple majority. 

 

24 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

The only chamber that matters is the Senate, and Republicans will always be competitive there. You have to keep in mind that the 22 least populated states have a combined population that's the size of California. There are more red states than blue states in that grouping, giving Republicans a natural advantage in the Senate. I see packing the courts as an inevitable constitutional crisis with Republicans benefiting more along the way.

I'm not sure where you guys are getting this that only the Senate is needed to change the size of the courts, but it's wrong.  From Article III Section 1:

Quote

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Congress, not the Senate.  Be careful not to conflate the Senate's sole advise and consent powers in Article II with Congress' overall ability to "ordain and establish" Article III courts.

As can be seen here, every expansion/change in the makeup of the federal judiciary has been a regular statute passed by both chambers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Same reason he voted to save the ACA (Kennedy wanted to strike it down remember) and often punts on high profile issues even though there are usually 5 conservative votes available, he wants to preserve the court's legitimacy with a wide swath of the public. There are tons of cases where he is okay with 5-4 decisions, but they are usually fairly technical or at least explainable away. Even the union case today has wiggle room. Something like striking down roe v. wade, or rolling back gray marriage, is not.

Regarding abortion, they will just let states put more and more restrictions on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

I'm not sure where you guys are getting this that only the Senate is needed to change the size of the courts, but it's wrong.  From Article III Section 1:

Congress, not the Senate.  Be careful not to conflate the Senate's sole advise and consent powers in Article II with Congress' overall ability to "ordain and establish" Article III courts.

I was conflating it. My bad. So...that's good. Only the Republicans can do it now, and the only time dems will be able to do it is when they have a massive wave election after a horrible economy. Lovely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×