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

11 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

There is no path to victory. Hence the anger.

That's fine. But it seems like some people are still looking for that path, and at the same time burning bridges. Your fatalism is distressing, but arguably more rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bonnot OG said:

There is no clear path to victory when one side gets pissy about people calling a group of neo nazis assholes like they are inthe same ball park, and then the other side that sides with the klan, the neo nazis, and highly corrupt fucks to fund them and give them some extra money to look the other way when they want to do some shady shit, or so they can get judges in place that will be more favorable to their greedy ways.

Violence is going to look like the only out if things continue to go the way they are going.

That seems to be likely. When democracy isn't working for you, it seems illogical to continue to try to use democracy to get the things you want. The USA, and probably many/most other democracies, and possibly in a weekend at Bernie's situation, where the dead body is the democratic institutions that people like to believe is still alive and functional, but it's really a rotting corpse that has been liberally sprinkled with perfume to hide the stink.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's fine. But it seems like some people are still looking for that path, and at the same time burning bridges. You fatalism is distressing, but arguably more rational.

They're just lost and confused. They'll give up eventually, but denying them their targets of grievance is a decidedly unfriendly endeavor. 

I mean just look at poor Tywin. He's actually trying to talk himself into believing in Collins and Murkowski. That's just not healthy. And even the suggestion that lashing out at the complicit is counterproductive gives false hope that something else might be, furthering the cycle of self delusional abuse.

Share this post


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

No, it didn't.  It precipitated the "switch in time that saved nine" in West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish.  That rendered the plan moot as FDR already had won strategically.

Whether the switch was politically motivated is debatable (and debated at considerable length), but "winning strategically" did not stop FDR from continuing the fight to pack the court long after that case -- and he not only lost that fight, but it caused considerable division within his own party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Altherion said:

Whether the switch was politically motivated is debatable (and debated at considerable length)

It's debated by proponents of legalism in terms of judicial decision making, which is adorably naive but as an empiricist the facts don't change that the Court was blocking many New Deal provisions until FDR began planning the court packing initiative - at which point Roberts miraculously shifted course in Parrish and beyond.  I don't know what exactly happened and neither does anybody else, but that's all that matters.

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

"winning strategically" did not stop FDR from continuing the fight to pack the court long after that case -- and he not only lost that fight, but it caused considerable division within his own party.

Well, I never said FDR accepted the win - the bill was further undermined with the retirement of Van Devanter which allowed FDR to appoint (his first) justice, but yes, it remained in committee for a few more months before Democrats themselves killed it. 

Anyway, I think FDR recovered just fine.  Plus I'm curious why the court changes in 1807, 1837, 1863, or 1869 were so "controversial" in your view (albeit the 1801/2 ones certainly were).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

They're just lost and confused. They'll give up eventually, but denying them their targets of grievance is a decidedly unfriendly endeavor. 

I mean just look at poor Tywin. He's actually trying to talk himself into believing in Collins and Murkowski. That's just not healthy. And even the suggestion that lashing out at the complicit is counterproductive gives false hope that something else might be, furthering the cycle of self delusional abuse.

Some people say that we really do live in the Hunger Games. If that's the case then the world is waiting for its Katniss. The question is, will we recognise our Katniss when she appears?

Most of us here live in District 1, 2, 3 or 4. But most of use still feel like shit about the state of the world and our own lives. So does that mean we're worse than the Hunger Games even?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's fine. But it seems like some people are still looking for that path, and at the same time burning bridges. Your fatalism is distressing, but arguably more rational.

What we live with is a situation where 2 of the last 3 Presidents got in as the minority.

In a 2 party system.

Where the vast majority want gun laws that will never be seriously considered in our lifetimes. Where people from certain states’ votes matter far more than people from other states votes. By design. Where people will talk about imprisoning children, threatening the victims of gun violence, and religious bans on entering the country as being of equal concern as heckling or uncivil language. Where there is an active, ongoing and completely understood practice of politically tailored news presentation by a specific company that literally sends out prepared news and ideological tenets the stations must read...literally the definition of propaganda...at the exact same time as one side still somehow thinks the media are left wing propagandists. Where Christians represent a greater majority of lawmakers than in some overt theocracies and still think they’re the ones under attack. Etc.

So maybe some lack of faith in the system is a bit understandable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Some people say that we really do live in the Hunger Games. If that's the case then the world is waiting for its Katniss. The question is, will we recognise our Katniss when she appears?

Most of us here live in District 1, 2, 3 or 4. But most of use still feel like shit about the state of the world and our own lives. So does that mean we're worse than the Hunger Games even?

 

What? Hunger Games? Is a long haired Woody Harrelson about to capture me and put my people to work building a wall?

Our situation is far simpler than that silly tale. We've completely reverted to an oligarchy. So much so that it's impossible to pretend otherwise.

That's what's upsetting people, that they can't pretend that things like 'truth, justice, and the American way' will triumph.

So no, we're not in danger of a third annual quarter quell. But our people are also so functionally brainwashed that there will be no revolution against President Snow.

Does that satisfy? I'm having a little trouble parsing the thrust of your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 If you want to win legitimately through elections you can't afford to alienate anyone who is nominally in your camp.

Again, you assume things like 'legitimate wins' are going to be something that happens. Bush v. Gore was decided when SCOTUS said 'fuck it, this is taking too long', and that was 18 years ago, and a much less sketchy time. You think that things are going to go better than that? You think gerrymandering is bad now? Or voter registration 'losses'? 

This is how authoritarians work. They simply make it pointless to vote, because nothing's going to change and everyone knows who is going to win. You still get to vote, it just doesn't matter. Putin got 80% of the vote - think that was 'legitimate'?

35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I can understand the rage, but where's the strategic thinking and the clear mapping of a pathway to victory? I'm not seeing it.

You seem to misunderstand the position that liberals are now in. There is very little value in strategizing to gain the electoral power any more. There are very few other steps available outside of rage and violence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Altherion said:

There is precedent for both. Millard Fillmore nominated 3 different guys to fill an open Supreme Court seat and the Senate basically ignored him for 8 months (Garland was nominated in March so he was ignored for very nearly the same amount of time). Andrew Johnson nominated one and the Senate actually eliminated the seat and kept eliminating seats until Johnson was gone. There were a few other lame ducks who were ignored, but for significantly shorter time periods.

That said, ignoring a lame duck has historically been a much less contentious issue than packing the court. The last time the latter was tried, the President's party had 69 out of 96 Senate seats and 334 out of 445 Representatives which is way more than any party is likely to see in the foreseeable future... but the court packing still failed.

I disagree.  Congress has the express power to alter the size of the SCOTUS.  Sitting upon a nomination to attempt to compel the President to change the nomination or to attempt to wait the nominee out, that’s filibustering at its worst.  If they don’t like the nominee just vote the nominee down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Altherion said:

There is precedent for both. Millard Fillmore nominated 3 different guys to fill an open Supreme Court seat and the Senate basically ignored him for 8 months (Garland was nominated in March so he was ignored for very nearly the same amount of time). Andrew Johnson nominated one and the Senate actually eliminated the seat and kept eliminating seats until Johnson was gone. There were a few other lame ducks who were ignored, but for significantly shorter time periods.

This is inaccurate. "Justice John McKinley's death in 1852 led to repeated, fruitless attempts by the president to fill the vacancy. The Senate took no action on the nomination of New Orleans attorney Edward A. Bradford. Fillmore's second choice, George Edmund Badger, asked that his name be withdrawn. Senator-elect Judah P. Benjamin declined to serve. The nomination of William C. Micou, a New Orleans lawyer recommended by Benjamin, was not acted on by the Senate. The vacancy was finally filled after Fillmore's term, when President Franklin Pierce nominated John Archibald Campbell, who was confirmed by the Senate."

The time between Bradford and Badger wasn't 8 months (it was all of 2 weeks of no action and then they adjourned), and this was before the senate normally heard these cases anyway, so it's hardly comparable. 

 

Share this post


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

The time between Bradford and Badger wasn't 8 months (it was all of 2 weeks of no action and then they adjourned), and this was before the senate normally heard these cases anyway, so it's hardly comparable. 

The Senate's page lists Bradford's nomination on August 16, 1852 and Badger's on January 3, 1853 so that's a little over four and a half months. Then there was another month and a half between Badger and Micou and another month and change of Micou before Pierce nominated Campbell who was confirmed in a single day. The total is closer to 7 months than to 8 (I miscounted), but given that confirmations were a whole lot faster back then, it's still pretty comparable and there is no doubt that waited out Fillmore (your link says the same).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Altherion said:

The Senate's page lists Bradford's nomination on August 16, 1852 and Badger's on January 3, 1853 so that's a little over four and a half months. Then there was another month and a half between Badger and Micou and another month and change of Micou before Pierce nominated Campbell who was confirmed in a single day. The total is closer to 7 months than to 8 (I miscounted), but given that confirmations were a whole lot faster back then, it's still pretty comparable and there is no doubt that waited out Fillmore (your link says the same).

The senate did wait out the first nomination, but it wasn't 8 months. Again, they waited 2 weeks and then adjourned until the next year, which was again a typical behavior that had nothing to do with the nomination. Badger was denied in hearing and Micou simply said 'no' to being nominated - but both were going to get a hearing (and Badger did actually). The idea that this is the same when it didn't even have standard hearings on SCOTUS nominees, and ya know it was 180 years ago is ludicrous on its face. Hell, how many justices were there at the time? As it turned out it happened to be 9 - and then went up to 10, then down to 7, then back up to 9 because not enough retired. 

There's a HELL of a lot more historical credence for changing the SCOTUS count than there is obstructing a pick and refusing to even consider a nomination while conducting other business for 8 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm also curious as to why we're accepting the premise that the reaction to events that happened 80 to 180 years ago matter at all in discussing politics today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMBouazizi said:

...I'm also curious as to why we're accepting the premise that the reaction to events that happened 80 to 180 years ago matter at all in discussing politics today.

BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN WHO FREED SLAVES AND THUS CANNOT EVER BE RACIST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, كالدب said:

BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN WHO FREED SLAVES AND THUS CANNOT EVER BE RACIST

You forgot CAN'T BE HYPOCRITICAL BECAUSE THEY'RE ENDORSED BY THEMSELVES

Share this post


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

...I'm also curious as to why we're accepting the premise that the reaction to events that happened 80 to 180 years ago matter at all in discussing politics today.

Because the precedent for either waiting out a Supreme Court appointment or altering the number of seats is that far back. In fact, successfully changing the size of the court (which is the more frequent and more recent of the two) has not been done in very nearly a century and a half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But you won't win any electoral majorities without them. So it's in your interests, if you still think trying to win elections is going to get you anywhere, to at least be a bit civil to that particular white demographic.

I agree, too, that democrats need to quit cannibalizing themselves. White democrats are hardly the problem. If a progressive wins, that's great--I'm a socialist! I love it. But we don't need to demonize an entire group of people. 

Share this post


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

Because the precedent for either waiting out a Supreme Court appointment or altering the number of seats is that far back. In fact, successfully changing the size of the court (which is the more frequent and more recent of the two) has not been done in very nearly a century and a half.

Right, which is why the reaction that happened at those times is entirely irrelevant to the reaction such efforts elicit today.  I mean, I know about FDR's court packing plan because I teach it in the intro gov't course.  But that's because it's an important part in history and shift in the power of the federal government (and even then, it's just a fun anecdote that I don't really test them on).  The other things mentioned aren't even taught in any poly sci course outside of the first few Judiciary Acts and how 1801's specifically led to Marbury v. Madison.

If someone asked me "in what ways would you approach the question of how the public would react if the Dems tried to add two two justices in 2021," one of the last things I'd do is say "hm, let's consult what happened in 1937 for guidance!"  Because the parties were entirely different, the American public was entirely different, and the circumstances are entirely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those on their 12th whiskey with perhaps an oak tree in their way, here's an encouraging article on the increased turnout among Dem voters during the primary season thus far:

Quote

Democrats have appeared to be more enthusiastic than Republicans about the 2018 elections, showing up in massive numbers to protest President Trump and volunteer for campaigns.

But to win the midterms, Democrats still have to translate that energy into votes. The still-unfolding season of primary elections has been encouraging to Democrats on that front.

Democratic turnout has risen more sharply than Republican turnout in at least 123 congressional districts, including districts where Republican incumbents are most vulnerable, in states like California and New Jersey.

 

Share this post


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

×