Jump to content

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


Martell Spy

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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] 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, كالدب said:

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. 

Right - definitely wasn't saying it's a "good" thing - controlling two chambers (and the presidency) is certainly harder than controlling just one.  Like, twice as harder or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, I think it's a fair assumption that the reason SCOTUS punted on the gerrymandering cases is Kennedy knew he was retiring and didn't wanna overturn something that may very well be overturned right back once his replacement was confirmed.  Which, is another gut punch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...