Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Killjoybear

US Politics: Ruthless ambition

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The former obviously. I mean a chimp does not take up as much space as full grown gorilla.

I could see Obama just carrying Trisk on his shoulder like Thor does with Rocket in Infinity War below (and War Machine does in Endgame):

 

Share this post


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

This suggests a vast overestimation in the differences between John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch.

I dont' think they're particularly different. I think Roberts is bound more with being CJ compared to Gorsuch, and that means a couple things. It means he's less likely to want to do major 5-4 decisions where he will go down in history as the really bad dude, and it also means that he's not going to be part of the minority decision in these cases either. 

I think both are pretty much the same in their viewpoints. I think Roberts is a smidgen less likely to exercise that power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

I think Roberts is a smidgen less likely to exercise that power. 

Completely agree, but like I said the other day talking to Maith, I think that means Gorsuch increases the likelihood the SC gives Trump the election by maybe 15-20%.  Hardly "ensuring" the election.  Unless you already had Trump's likelihood of prevailing at 80-85%.

Share this post


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

Completely agree, but like I said the other day talking to Maith, I think that means Gorsuch increases the likelihood the SC gives Trump the election by maybe 15-20%.  Hardly "ensuring" the election.  Unless you already had Trump's likelihood of prevailing at 80-85%.

I think that it is one more  thing that is 100% in the pocket of Republicans now. We had police, we had several states, we had the federal executive branch and now we have the entire judicial branch. I had already thought that his chances were likely to be around 80% or better - but I think this is the absolute nail in the coffin, because I think most dems will simply accept whatever shitty choice is handed down from SCOTUS like they continually have.

Share this post


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

I had already thought that his chances were likely to be around 80% or better

Of Trump winning in whatever manner?  Fair enough, but I just think that's silly.

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

Do you think that GOP Senators are making calculations like this at all, and do you think there are a few that actually prefer Trump gone and might factor that in?  Saw something the other day (maybe here?) that's reaffirms that privately the vast majority know that Trump is horrible and want him gone.  ETA:  meaning in their decision on the SCOTUS vacancy

Well, I think many if not most GOP Senators privately would not be too sad if Trump was gone, yes.  But, as we've seen, that does not matter in the slightest irt their public position-taking, so no I don't think it weighs much in calculations on filling the vacancy.  I mean even Alexander, who's retiring and has zero electoral self-interest, is already backing McConnell/Trump cuz he's good buds with the former.

Share this post


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

Of Trump winning in whatever manner?  Fair enough, but I just think that's silly.

Yes. I've said repeatedly that I expect Trump was going to win. That people's faith in polls and fair elections and people turning out for Biden are all very much misplaced. I don't know how this is particularly surprising.

The other thing this changes is the calculus in how the US will be post-2020. With a 5-4 decision setting I was expecting similar slow unravelling of laws for the next 4 years that might be survivable. With 6-3 decisions I don't see that as the case; I see it being very fast, very abrupt, and massively damaging to the point where democracy cannot recover.

 

Share this post


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

That people's faith in polls and fair elections and people turning out for Biden are all very much misplaced. I don't know how this is particularly surprising.

 

Oh I didn't say surprising.  Just silly.

1 minute ago, Kalibear said:

With a 5-4 decision setting I was expecting similar slow unravelling of laws for the next 4 years that might be survivable.

Well, if you were assuming Trump was almost certainly gonna win already, I don't see how this should change that much in terms of the shift from 5-4 to 6-3.  With all the health problems/amount of times Ginsburg has been hospitalized the past couple years I think we all knew she wasn't gonna last much longer if Trump got a second term.  I guess you could've hoped the Dems would take back the Senate, but if you're assuming Biden was gonna lose I don't see how you'd concurrently think they'd have a chance of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh I didn't say surprising.  Just silly.

Well, if you were assuming Trump was almost certainly gonna win already, I don't see how this should change that much in terms of the shift from 5-4 to 6-3.  With all the health problems/amount of times Ginsburg has been hospitalized the past couple years I think we all knew she wasn't gonna last much longer if Trump got a second term.  I guess you could've hoped the Dems would take back the Senate, but if you're assuming Biden was gonna lose I don't see how you'd concurrently think they'd have a chance of doing so.

I honestly assumed that she could hold on for another few years. Not until 2024, but probably 2022. 

Share this post


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

The darkest thought I've had in a while is that the reports of what's happening at the border are a warm-up for the rest of the country.  Hope I'm overthinking it.  

I know its super paranoid, but I'm planning on getting together a suitcase of important papers and personal items before November in case things get bad quick and I have to get out of the US while I still can. Again, paranoid... but with things as volatile as they seem to be I don't want to wait until its too late. 

 

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if you were assuming Trump was almost certainly gonna win already, I don't see how this should change that much in terms of the shift from 5-4 to 6-3.

I'm mostly worried about the shift in narrative. Between COVID, the economy, and natural disasters I was pretty confident the current polls would hold and Trump would loose by a comfortable margin. Now I'm very worried that trump will be able to use the SC to dominate almost every news cycle between now and the election and potentially turn a blowout defeat into a narrow win/loss that will certainly end up before the courts. 

Edited by tzanth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tzanth said:

Now I'm very worried that trump will be able to use the SC to dominate almost every news cycle between now and the election and potentially turn a blowout defeat into a narrow win/loss that will certainly end up before the courts. 

I agree that the nomination/confirmation process will help Trump in terms of it dominating the news cycle rather than the (often self-inflicted) damaging news stories for him that tend to be the major headlines, but I'm not sure that actually moves the needle much in terms of vote share given how few true undecideds there are for this contest.

Share this post


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

Completely agree, but like I said the other day talking to Maith, I think that means Gorsuch increases the likelihood the SC gives Trump the election by maybe 15-20%.  Hardly "ensuring" the election.  Unless you already had Trump's likelihood of prevailing at 80-85%.

I feel like if the election were to go to the SC, even before Ginsberg's passing, we were already fucked.  

Share this post


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

I feel like if the election were to go to the SC, even before Ginsberg's passing, we were already fucked.  

I think you'd need a bit more context than that. Roberts does want to protect the court's validity. 

Share this post


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

sologdin will be here soon to tell you all not to despair.

Are Dems not in an odd spot of sort of retro-endorsing Turtle's 2016 logic?

I think this is a truly fair point. By endorsing that BS, we're now saying what McConnell did is okay. It's not okay, and his act was the first big signal that they weren't going to play by any rules. This is what I mean when I criticize Dems. They are constantly reacting and not looking at the big picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you'd need a bit more context than that. Roberts does want to protect the court's validity. 

Of course you would, since it's a hypothetical!  Only situation I see him flipping would be like a Sec State burning boxes of ballots on camera, combined with Trump's legal team arguing they spontaneously combusted.  He's already demonstrated that voting rights are more or less up to the states.  In another Florida 2000 situation he was never going to decide for Gore.

Anything that gives him the slightest amount of plausible deniability and he's going with the conservatives: 2 million registered voters in FL, GA, and OH are told they aren't registered?  Oh well!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Of course you would, since it's a hypothetical!  Only situation I see him flipping would be like a Sec State burning boxes of ballots on camera, combined with Trump's legal team arguing they spontaneously combusted.  He's already demonstrated that voting rights are more or less up to the states.  In another Florida 2000 situation he was never going to decide for Gore.

Anything that gives him the slightest amount of plausible deniability and he's going with the conservatives: 2 million registered voters in FL, GA, and OH are told they aren't registered?  Oh well!  

Yeah, that's a really good point. It was already hard to deal with incompetence from states being overturned. But when you have an executive branch that is completely cool with and possibly facilitating external attacks, the chances that the judiciary is going to somehow say 'oh wait, sorry, nope' is less than none. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Anything that gives him the slightest amount of plausible deniability and he's going with the conservatives

I kind of agree, but I still think there's a significant difference between how Roberts would rule if the case was blatantly stealing the election for Trump and the likelihood that Gorsuch will vote for such cases.  And that difference in requiring plausible deniability between the two is pretty much entirely due to Roberts' demonstrable self-interest in preserving the legitimacy of the court, something I don't think places as highly simply due to the former being the CJ and the latter not.

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

Really feel like folks in this thread need to dial-back the abject panic and fear a bit.

Well, have you discussed politics on any internet message board the past 20 years?  My reaction to overreaction and panic when talking politics in such venues is basically this:

20 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think this is a truly fair point. By endorsing that BS, we're now saying what McConnell did is okay. It's not okay, and his act was the first big signal that they weren't going to play by any rules. This is what I mean when I criticize Dems. They are constantly reacting and not looking at the big picture. 

Entirely agreed.  Tom Scocca at Slate had a good post on this the other day:

Quote

What’s wrong with Donald Trump plotting to name his third Supreme Court justice is not that he is doing it in an election year, nor that it violates the consistency with which our rules ought to be applied. It’s that thanks to McConnell’s ruthlessness and shamelessness, Trump got to pick justices in a five-year window for his four-year term.

The “legitimacy of our courts” that Obama invoked was gone the moment Neil Gorsuch presented himself to the Senate for confirmation. The challenge for the Democrats isn’t to fight to preserve and extend a temporary and fictitious procedural norm from four years ago. It’s to seize back that stolen year, and that stolen seat, and control of the entire court. That, not any principle, is what Mitch McConnell was fighting for in 2016, and it’s the only thing worth copying from him now.

 

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's controlling the voting machines/ software?

Anyway, here's a little pep talk/ optimistic outlook:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DMC said:

I kind of agree, but I still think there's a significant difference between how Roberts would rule if the case was blatantly stealing the election for Trump and the likelihood that Gorsuch will vote for such cases.  And that difference in requiring plausible deniability between the two is pretty much entirely due to Roberts' demonstrable self-interest in preserving the legitimacy of the court, something I don't think places as highly simply due to the former being the CJ and the latter not.

Well, have you discussed politics on any internet message board the past 20 years?  My reaction to overreaction and panic when talking politics in such venues is basically this:

Entirely agreed.  Tom Scocca at Slate had a good post on this the other day:

 

I guess it's all in the details and specific situation, I just can't imagine that many (not that this signifies anything beyond my own lack of imagination) where this would change things.  

I mean, if Roberts was concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court, maybe he would have had a different opinion on Citizens United.

eta: the part I bolded is where the details matter, and I think, are largely irrelevant.  If it had gone to the SC, even with RBG there it was already fucked.  

I really don't think that much has changed in the court balance, strictly election wise

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


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

Really feel like folks in this thread need to dial-back the abject panic and fear a bit.

When there are as many people with the background or credentials to claim some level of authority or experience on states falling into authoritarianism sounding the alarm this is at least a little condescending.

Your government is locking literal children in cages and sterilising asylum seekers and that hasn't moved the needle at all. Your government has deployed federal agents and snatched people off the streets against the wish of the local government and again there hasn't been any real consequences for them doing that. Your government has signalled loud and clear that it's going after people like me, your governments supporters have clearly signalled other groups they'd also like their government to go after. 

It's not fucking alarmist to be afraid that they'll continue down the path they're already on if they succeed at dismantling democracy, steal the election and demonstrate there are no further judicial checks on their power. It's having your head in the sand to presume they won't.

Maybe what you're intending to downplay the chance they succeed at stealing the election, rather than the fear of what they'll do if they succeed but that's really not clear.

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...