Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I think that we still have a lot of folks who are ideologically attached to some aspects of the third way movement. Pay-Go shit, obsessing about the deficit, this idea that we can't have a 3.4 trillion dollar messaging bill so just go for 3 trillion, allowing the health insurance companies to have a say in healthcare reform (which they then tried to torpedo), free trade. Also I'm pretty sure that the other two ways were socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Well, I think you have a point on the pay-go, that shit has to go-go.  In terms of the relics that are deficit hawks, I don't think that's liberals anymore at all (if it every really was), but I do agree Biden has way too many on his team that still have somewhat of such a mindset for my liking.  The messaging bill would've been pointless.  The current message - that Pelosi went down a billion to try to meet Mnuchin and the GOP in the middle and the Senate GOP responded by offering less funding - is a much better message.  Health insurance, as far as MFA goes, I think you know my thoughts on that by now.  As for trade, there's a fine line between free trade and fair trade, that's a very nuanced subject that has always elicited strange ideological bedfellows. 

And, no, socialism was not one of the two ways when Clinton and co. adopted the third way.  It was explicitly a strategy to move away from the liberal paradigm that dominated Democratic politics since FDR and appeared to be losing since Reagan.  I suppose you could substitute "laissez-faire capitalism" for conservatism, but economically they too are coterminous.

18 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Saying that the terms are ideologically interchangeable is ignoring the change in usage that we have seen in the last four years.

Right, that's my problem.  I reject this change of usage that is primarily driven by malcontents on social media because it's bollocks.  As for delineating progressives from centrist or moderates - then just accurately describe the difference is between those two, NOT liberals.  There's a difference between centrists/moderates and liberals just as there is between centrist/moderates and progressives.

21 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

As for how different the strategy and tactics are, "liberals" tend to favor technocratic, incremental solutions (no need to start that discussion up again since it will just go in circles, again) where as "progressives" tend to be more populist in how they approach the electorate and favor bolder and more sweeping reforms. I think that is a considerable difference.

Again, this may be the perception at the elite level, but I'm not aware of any evidence of such strong conflicting tendencies among the electorate between liberal and progressive - and I doubt you are either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Your way or no way. Purity politics rears it's head again.

You're (again) parroting some far right talking points here.

This argument is the exact same argument the way far right religious social conservatives use when the left tries to make them respect others' rights. Basically this is their whole you're-being-tyrannical-because-you're-limiting-my-right-to-be-tyrannical bullshit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this seems bad. 

As a Brit, there's not really much I can (or should) do respecting the upcoming election, but this issue (and more broadly, far right corruption of the US justice system) is something that really interests and worries me and many other international lookers-on. 

What I have done is become a patron of a legal/political podcast I quite like, Opening Arguments. I recommend you all give it a try. Not that patronising a legal podcast is going to sway an election, but it's good information for people who do have a say.

I do think it's better than a lot of it's competitors in that field as well, like Talking Feds, Stay Tuned with Preet, Mueller She Wrote/DB, etc. They tend to cover more niche issues as well as the headlines, and because they are smaller they don't have the issue of having pointless guests doing the rounds just to sell their new book. More content, more betterer.

 

 

 

ETA: Side note, the shoddiness of the first paragraph of Mitch's memo is fucking disgusting.

Edited by Leap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole "liberal" Vs "progressive" thing. Seems like there would be a lot less confusion if you guys would just adopt the same terminology as the rest of the world and recognise the distinction between liberalism and socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Seems like there would be a lot less confusion if you guys would just adopt the same terminology as the rest of the world and recognise the distinction between liberalism and socialism.

Yep, that's what it used to be here too.  "Liberalism" effectively started with FDR here, which was a fight against unfettered capitalism yes, but also the emergent socialist movement at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actblue has processed over $27 million in donations to Biden and other Democrats in the past 9 hours. Which has been mostly over night for most of the country. Could be that for once the electoral politics of a SCOTUS vacancy favor us. Cold comfort for the longterm judicial ramifications (barring major action in January), but I wouldn't worry just yet about this somehow throwing the election to Trump at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Democrats don't get serious about using power to its maximum extent if and when they're back in control of the Senate and Presidency, we are doomed. Abolish the filibuster, pack the court, admit DC and Puerto Rico (if they want it) as states. Voters do not understand and will not punish these types of procedural power grabs, which is why Republicans always get away with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

If Democrats don't get serious about using power to its maximum extent if and when they're back in control of the Senate and Presidency, we are doomed. Abolish the filibuster, pack the court, admit DC and Puerto Rico (if they want it) as states. Voters do not understand and will not punish these types of procedural power grabs, which is why Republicans always get away with them. 

The Dems want the filibuster when they have it though.  It’s like the line item veto.  Didn’t want it when Bush Sr was there, wanted it for Clinton.

And there is an argument that they have packed the courts over the years.  Unless you are arguing to expand the SC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Triskele said:

on that note: I find it baffling that Trump can't/won't push the GOP Senate on more stimulus pre-election.

Mostly pointless without the House.  They floated some proposals IIRC that were going no where in the House so Trump tried some phone and pen stuff.  I didn't qualify any relief myself, but since my buddy Fern hasn't bought me a beer in the last month or so, I'm guessing that didn't go anywhere either.

Share this post


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

Cold comfort for the longterm judicial ramifications (barring major action in January), but I wouldn't worry just yet about this somehow throwing the election to Trump at least.

Could not disagree more, unless you only mean winning fairly.

Yesterday I would have said the chances of Trump winning we're like 20 percent, 20 percent at Trump losing but somehow stealing the election, 60 Biden wins.  Now?  It's like 20/50/30.  

I feel like Biden needs to win the election on election night or he doesn't win at all.  PA, MI, WI and AZ won't be called on election night, so Biden needs to win 2 of 4 of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Texas.  Ugh.

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Liffguard said:

On the whole "liberal" Vs "progressive" thing. Seems like there would be a lot less confusion if you guys would just adopt the same terminology as the rest of the world and recognise the distinction between liberalism and socialism.

I think this is it. while Bernie and Biden may be advocating to very similar places,, I suspect a lot of self identified progressives would be for the abolishment of capitalism altogether while most self identified liberals wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Your way or no way. Purity politics rears it's head again.

This is simply moronic. Are you even trying? Just because I have broken down, at length, why your way will fail doesn't mean mine is the only other option.

And you have still yet to counter and explain why it won't fail. You never even try. Just like your boy Bernie. AOC even admitted it won't work, but still, you just have to believe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats have to make it clear to Mitch McConnell that they will pack the Supreme Court if he replaces Ginsburg with a Trump nominee.  That's the only thing that might give him pause.  Packing the Court would undo everything he's done to stack the Supreme Court with conservative Justices, and it would ruin his legacy.  There needs to be outrage and agreement among the Democrat voters and politicians, that is reflected in the polls, to scare McConnell off. 

I think there's just too little time for them to nominate, vet, and confirm a justice in 45 days, so if McConnell wants to do it this term it will likely happen after the election.  Trump will have to nominate someone next week or so for this to work.  It's going to be a huge election issue for both parties.  Would threats to pack the Court rally Republicans to show up to vote?  Probably, but I have no idea how this issue will balance out right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to say “the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court”, but that’s absolutely useless to say unless the Democrats win both the Congress and the Senate. And Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the Senate.

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been removed? What would have to be the circumstances to do that?

And how could a retirement age be set? Is the term-for-life thing in the Constitution? In Canada, btw, SC judges have to retire at 75. There have been some remarkable opinions given by US judges when they were older than 75, so perhaps you’d lose some of that, but retired justices in Canada have gone on to lead important investigations and commissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Nice to say “the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court”, but that’s absolutely useless to say unless the Democrats win both the Congress and the Senate. And Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the Senate.

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been removed? What would have to be the circumstances to do that?

And how could a retirement age be set? Is the term-for-life thing in the Constitution? In Canada, btw, SC judges have to retire at 75. There have been some remarkable opinions given by US judges when they were older than 75, so perhaps you’d lose some of that, but retired justices in Canada have gone on to lead important investigations and commissions.

No, Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804 but not removed. You would need a constitutional amendment for age requirements

Edited by Freshwater Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Democrats have to make it clear to Mitch McConnell that they will pack the Supreme Court if he replaces Ginsburg with a Trump nominee.  That's the only thing that might give him pause.  Packing the Court would undo everything he's done to stack the Supreme Court with conservative Justices, and it would ruin his legacy.  There needs to be outrage and agreement among the Democrat voters and politicians, that is reflected in the polls, to scare McConnell off. 

Packing the SC is thinking too small. Threaten to pack every federal court with liberal justices who will destroy all their attempts at voter suppression. And thus destroy their last thread to power. 

Quote

I think there's just too little time for them to nominate, vet, and confirm a justice in 45 days, so if McConnell wants to do it this term it will likely happen after the election.  Trump will have to nominate someone next week or so for this to work.  It's going to be a huge election issue for both parties.  Would threats to pack the Court rally Republicans to show up to vote?  Probably, but I have no idea how this issue will balance out right now.

45 days doesn't matter in this game. Idk if they'll try to fill the seat before or after the election, but if the deadline was next Friday, Mitch would find a way. We're dealing with the strange political leader who doesn't care about his reputation and overall legacy, so long as he gets what he wants. It's cynical politics at its worst. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all knew this was likely to happen, the fact that it happened 6 weeks before the election doesn't change that much I think.  Anyone who was voting on the court already had skin in the game.  

The court situation is entirely election dependant and this hasn't changed that.

I don't see it even making a difference in a Biden v Trump election case, even if Roberts flipped you'd have a 4-4 situation reaffirming a lower court ruling, sure there are scenarios where it could but this isn't the sky is falling moment everyone is making it out to be.  Pack the court, race to nuke the filibuster once you have united government, this was already the path forward.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WaPo reporter Robert Barnes has just pointed out something that hadn’t occurred to me.

Chief Justice Roberts has been a powerful figure on the Supreme Court, sitting at the pivot position with 4 justices more conservative than him and 4 more liberal than him. He could shape the court’s direction by moving from one side to the other.

If there are 5 conservative judges, Roberts loses control of the Court. He could vote with the more liberal side when he agrees with them and always be overruled. A SCOTUS that is out of control can’t be a good thing, can it?

And I’m watching Smerconish on CNN and he did a poll about whether or not hearings should be held or if the Senate should just ram through an appointment. Not surprisingly, the vote was 97 to 3. But, Marquette University Law School, as it happens, was conducting a national poll this past week asking what the Senate should do in the event Trump nominated a Justice, should the Senate hold hearings? The results were 67% for hold hearings v 32% for don’t hold hearings.

That 32% sounds like the hardcore base only.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...