US Politics: Make Thread Titles Great Again

[Jace, Extat]

'people of faith'

Is this a fucking joke?

[Ser Reptitious]

14 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Also, historically speaking leftists, when they get into power, have been as aggressive at suppressing all religion as any other ideology that has a hard time tolerating a competing point of authority for individuals and society.

Unless you imply that "leftists = communists", can you provide some examples of this? Off the top of my head I don't recall elected social democrat/socialist parties that came into power aggressively suppressing all religion.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Pack the Courts executive director Aaron Belkin, a political science professor at San Francisco State University, said that he thinks norms are important but “in this moment, only one side is honoring norms meaning they aren’t really norms anymore.” He said that adding justices to the Supreme Court, which has been pegged at nine since 1869, could “restore democracy to our democracy” with decisions on issues like voting rights and gerrymandering.

Progressive activists push 2020 Dems to pack Supreme Court

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/progressive-activists-pack-supreme-court-1182792

[lokisnow]

Mighty white of Harris!

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-tearful-drama-of-north-carolinas-election-fraud-hearings

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Progressive activists push 2020 Dems to pack Supreme Court

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/progressive-activists-pack-supreme-court-1182792

And where will it end? I've said it before, and I'll continue to argue, that this idea is incredibly dangerous. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, aceluby said:

Anyone else getting Harris (and only Harris) campaign emails?  I never signed up for them and she is constantly emailing me for money.  It's curious to me that she got my email when no other candidate has sent me anything.

Come on now.... those people are shitty in church too

Check out this NPR podcast on tech in politics. Some of the new tactics being used sound horrifying. Geo-fencing in particular, and it's possible you got caught in one. 

[Martell Spy]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And where will it end? I've said it before, and I'll continue to argue, that this idea is incredibly dangerous. 

Yes, it definitely could be dangerous. There are also perils of simply allowing a conservative SC to decide how our elections are run, or even strike down all liberal legislation for the next 20 years. I think it's a good thing to keep maximum pressure on Roberts. There isn't enough Democratic party support for this type of thing to happen yet, but the more reactionary and horrible the decisions, and the longer this goes on, the more support for these type of measures will grow. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

that this idea is incredibly dangerous. 

Not nearly as dangerous as a Republican Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Yes, it definitely could be dangerous. There are also perils of simply allowing a conservative SC to decide how our elections are run, or even strike down all liberal legislation for the next 20 years. I think it's a good thing to keep maximum pressure on Roberts. There isn't enough Democratic party support for this type of thing to happen yet, but the more reactionary and horrible the decisions, and the longer this goes on, the more support for these type of measures will grow. 

What there is is more support among Republicans to play dirty, and if Liberals do this they'll lose the following election and Republicans will pack the hell out of the courts at all levels. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

if Liberals do this they'll lose the following election and Republicans will pack the hell out of the courts at all levels. 

So?  This is a silly warning.  Look how many nominations are being delayed right now at the Circuit and District level.  You think more nominations is gonna speed up the glacial speed of filling vacancies?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not nearly as dangerous as a Republican Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years.

How would packing the court change that? You'd have a liberal court for a short amount of time and then everything would eventually be undone. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

So?  This is a silly warning.  Look how many nominations are being delayed right now at the Circuit and District level.  You think more nominations is gonna speed up the glacial speed of filling vacancies?

I think even more norms would be thrown out the window to speed up the process. 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

How would packing the court change that? You'd have a liberal court for a short amount of time and then everything would eventually be undone.

Because the only way to do it is with unified government, and unified government is not that frequent for either party.

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think even more norms would be thrown out the window to speed up the process. 

There's a difference between norms and archaic parliamentary tactics to delay votes allowed in the Senate.  Those delays are as much about fucking around in committees and even floor tactics as they are the blue slip.

[Gertrude]

I agree that packing the courts is a dangerous precedent and probably will not end well. What I hope they do is seriously look at term limits for SC positions and stagger them so there is a regular interval and people know when these nominations are coming up. I wouldn't even care if the judges could be up for nomination again once their term is over, I just want a regular and stable turn over. Saw a stat that SC justices average term before 1965 was 15 yrs - after 65 it is 24 years. I think the model I saw has an 18 year rotation - I think that's completely fair.

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Unless you imply that "leftists = communists", can you provide some examples of this? Off the top of my head I don't recall elected social democrat/socialist parties that came into power aggressively suppressing all religion.

Tommy Douglas, was a socialist and the Premier of Saskatchewan, Canada, and a Baptist minister.  He also brought in single payer universal health care.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Gertrude said:

I agree that packing the courts is a dangerous precedent and probably will not end well. What I hope they do is seriously look at term limits for SC positions and stagger them so there is a regular interval and people know when these nominations are coming up. I wouldn't even care if the judges could be up for nomination again once their term is over, I just want a regular and stable turn over. Saw a stat that SC justices average term before 1965 was 15 yrs - after 65 it is 24 years. I think the model I saw has an 18 year rotation - I think that's completely fair.

The problem is, there is zero way to instigate SC term limits without first having two-three cycles of court packing. We’re never going to get a constitutional amendment fix without first a little chaos.

when they expanded the lower courts in the late 70s and Carter got 200+ judges appointed all at once, was it called court packing?

 

[Altherion]

15 hours ago, mormont said:

It's true that many on the left are atheist and that many have issues with organised religion, even with evangelicals who weaponise their faith to oppress minorities. But where are these instances of people of faith 'being regarded as a lesser human'? Perhaps by a few in the extreme rationalist atheist community, but to be quite honest, those guys (and it is almost all guys) tend to be libertarians rather than leftists.

Isn't it nice when you ask for something and an example is provided for you almost immediately? In case you missed it, I'm quoting Ice Queen's post below. It not only occurs here (and this is hardly an extreme rationalist atheist community), but it's tolerated: imagine what would happen if somebody wrote "Maybe they should be regarded as subhuman" meaning practically any one of the groups favored by the left...

10 hours ago, Ice Queen said:

I regard them as horrible human beings because they ARE horrible human beings. Going to church on Sundays and getting absolution doesn't give you an excuse to be evil and rotten the other six days. 

Maybe they should be regarded as subhuman. I love a good comeuppance and they'd be getting a dose of their own medicine.

Next time the issue of the Second Amendment comes up and people are asking why we need such a thing at all, remember this post and also remember the fact that the people being regarded know you feel this way.

[lokisnow]

If democrats want to play with fire they will get burned but they also have to weigh whether or not they want to relegate every single policy they care about to total defeat? (Because Trumps judges care about political victories and obstruction and veto via dilatory judicial inaction and implementation, they do not care about the letter of the law nor precedent). 

And democrats have to weigh the far more important question of whether or not they will chose to NOT do everything in their power to protect the vulnerable and the powerless and the multitudes that democrats defend and advocate for from the depredations of the trump judges.

that is to say:

Is the inaction on this issue a great enough moral failing that it outweighs the political risk concerns? 

(and to a certain extent inaction is a political failing as well, a failure of representation and a betrayal of trust).

so, if answered in the affirmative: If democrats have a moral obligation to pursue court packing, democrats will need tactical boldness not tactical timidity.

Republicans are counting on timidity because they know their counter attack will be bold. And will easily crush the predicted democrat timidity.

What do I mean by tactical timidity?

Namely, I would expect democrats to propose adding two judges to the Supreme Court (timidity!) But with no commensurate expansion in the lower courts. :-( 

something that timid could hardly be called court packing!

Republicans will respond by adding eleven judges to the Supreme Court and 150 and 350 judges to the lower courts (tactical boldness).

republicans make this jump in scale because strategically republicans know democrats are far too timid to ever take the necessary step of escalation and respond with an addition of 25 Supreme Court judges and a thousand lower court judges—republicans will ultimately win because democrats will never try to beat them, and took a timid first move, creating the guaranteed victory for republicans.

And republicans also know that the only people who care how many judges are on the Supreme Court are the 0.05% of voters who know there are nine people on the court to begin with, republicans know this isn’t an issue that will agitate people. Your average people cares so little for the details of the numbers they will not be outraged by adding two nor by adding eleven to the court.

(Fox News will of course take totally different positions on the issue depending which party is doing the packing)

So democrats have to go bold and fast out of the gate if they want to pursue a court packing strategy (because just gaming out two moves ahead shows that a timid first strategy is doomed to fail)

what does that entail:

Win the presidency, retain the house, win every senate seat except Wyoming and Oklahoma in 2020.

make some changes to senate procedure regarding confirming judges in batches that have been reported out of committee to the full senate 

Fill and confirm all the current vacancies in a single batch.

now that there are no vacancies:

Write and pass legislation authorizing the much needed expansion of the federal court system, add circuits and courts of appeals, add about 750 and 250 judges respectively, index the circuits and courts of appeals to population and provide for automatic increases in the numbers of judges and courts every year, based on census population growth estimates, and make sure the drawing of court boundaries is done by independent commission.

You've now baked in future court expansions into the system regardless of who is in power.

(Let us assume the legislation chooses a population number for each court of appeal that it will result in six new courts of appeals since it has been so long since the federal court system grew).

Fill and confirm the new judge positions created, in one big batch, like carter did.

There are now no vacancies, again.

now, big surprise, the president appoints eight new justices to the Supreme Court.

Go through the dog and pony show for all of them but confirm all of them. You’re better off just doing it one batch because time is the enemy in the court of public opinion, but bread and circuses must be kept up or the media gnomes will get restive and fractious  ;-)

write and pass legislation that ties the number of supreme court justices to the number of courts of appeals (not including dc). we now have seventeen justices on the supreme court!

Having done a whole lot of court reform, and baked future expansion into the court system, regardless of who is in power, people are rather angry about a congress run amok, so write restrictions on congress in doing what congress just did:

write and pass a constitutional amendment establishing term limits for all article 3 federal judges:

11 year terms,

three terms total as a judge that can be used in combination of any of the courts,

but a one term max for any person on the Supreme Court,

an age minimum of 40 year old,

an age (at appointment) maximum of 62 years old.

Provide a grandfathering clause exception for how to allocate sitting justices on the current court into the term limited system so that you’re creating a staggered seniority for the current justices with about one vacancy per year going forward.

The big majority democrats would currently have would be vulnerable to fading away when those eight will come up down the line in consecutive years, but that’s kind of the point, to create a system either side can win.

republicans now have to decide between ratifying the amendment and giving themselves guaranteed vacancies for all courts in the future or regaining all three branches and further escalating with their own round of court packing.  But the bigger court packing gets the more overhead expense it adds to the bottom line, democrats like big government, republicans allegedly hate it, so if we’re going to force them to escalate, let’s at least make it a bitter pill for them to swallow by going big in the first place, republicans are not going to want to have to add 2000 federal judges to the system (and 25 supreme court justices)

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

12 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I dunno if I personally think that, but I've met quite a few people who do, especially on the left as regard religion. Saying people are "lesser humans" is a bit strong, but there are plenty of people who will say that believing in God in 2019 means you're a bit dumb and/or compare faith-inspired policies to very bad stuff.

Remember this case?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/04/gay-cake-ruling-supreme-court-same-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest

So as regard to what was the original exchange, it is perfectly possible to have religious members of minorities drawn away from the Democratic Party if they feel (correctly or incorrectly) that Democrats/liberals are overly hostile to religion. The words used may not be wholly correct, but I concur with @The Anti-Targ's original point.

Still it seems to miss the underlying aspect of what they’re saying is oppression or an attack on Christianity; people not being allowed to use government as a tool promote their religious beliefs. which is far being treated as subhuman they're just losing/ not being granted a special status. “Why can’t Mr. John preach his Christian religious beliefs in a public school’s class? Religious oppression!” “You want to take god off the currency? Religious oppression!" I understand you personally just agree that they're is sentimetn of among non-white christians being attacked. But I think it should be acknowledged that they really aren't. . 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's there in the left no doubt about it, and not a rarely held view, IMO. Oddly enough frequently expressed by left-leaning comedians as part of their act. Comedians don't always express their honestly held views as part of their act, and indeed often express a view they oppose as if they agreed with it. But there are more than a few who aggressively rip into religion and the ridiculousness of faith. Artists (at least good ones) reflect and shape the views of people, and comedians are artists just as much as any other artist.

It's even expressed often enough right here (not just in the US politics thread) that one would have to willfully ignore it not to notice. Like most people who are not part of a group that gets belittled, one often glosses over statements that are hurtful, especially when you broadly agree with the sentiment: having faith is kinda dumb in an age of rationality.

Also, historically speaking leftists, when they get into power, have been as aggressive at suppressing all religion as any other ideology that has a hard time tolerating a competing point of authority for individuals and society.

Yeah maybe look at which actual positions of governmental power are held by which religious group in most places across the US instead of some comedians poking fun at religion. They're mostly people who say they' believe in god. And the Democratic are still overwhelmingly comprised of theists. -http://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/

 

It's not comedians telling jokes about Christianity them that gets screamed as an attack-well most of the time at least-it's merely not giving Christians special treatment because their faith. For example Star bucks not giving out Christmas themed cups and school districs changing their calenders from having Christmas break to having Winter break. 

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Still it seems to miss the underlying aspect of what they’re saying is oppression or an attack on Christianity; people not being allowed to use government as a tool promote their religious beliefs. which is far being treated as subhuman they're just losing/ not being granted a special status. “Why can’t Mr. John preach his Christian religious beliefs in a public school’s class? Religious oppression!” “You want to take god off the currency? Religious oppression!" I understand you personally just agree that they're is sentimetn of among non-white christians being attacked. But I think it should be acknowledged that they really aren't. . 

They certainly aren't, and I did mention conservative victimization in my initial remarks to Mormont.

But beyond this conversation there's a troubling question about the very nature of religion that was briefly touched upon in another thread a while back (like, a year or so ago): can you be deeply religious and *not* seek to impose your faith on others on some level or the other? A different way to put it is that the vision of religion as an individual relationship between the individual and God(s) may be liberal in nature, and that one shouldn't be overly surprised if it is not shared by most conservatives. Again, I may be playing devil's advocate here, but if one genuinely believes that their religion offers truth to humanity, wouldn't one want to actively promote faith-based policies?
I guess what I'm getting at is that secularism (even American style) is in fact fundamentally opposed to religion. It's not that it limits individual religious freedom or that it oppresses the faithful (although a case can be made against French-style secularism here), but it certainly robs them of their claim to holding *the* truth and forces them to question their belief system. It's not oppression, but state-enforced secularism does place reason above faith, something that can easily be perceived as blasphemy for a true believer.