US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.

[JGP]

@DMC

It's terrifying, frankly. A balanced court, gutting it here, would likely err on the side of it being constitutional, that such measures weren't overreach and within the Federal purview. But this court? I'm going to be glued to Twitter Monday [it'll drop there first, with details fastest] but I don't... I don't even know what to swear to. If the SC swings the wrong way, Morgan's Jesusland or facsimile thereof isn't outside the realm of possibility. And the geopolitical implications are fucking staggering.  

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, JGP said:

It's terrifying, frankly. A balanced court, gutting it here, would likely err on the side of it being constitutional, that such measures weren't overreach and within the Federal purview. But this court?

It would basically take us back to the Lochner era wherein (at the end) the Court struck down a bunch of New Deal measures, making incredibly difficult for FDR to respond to the depression.  That is what prompted his court packing plan, which was how he got the court to back down and stop using the doctrine in West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish (1937).

Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are clearly on board.  It's difficult to tell how far Kavanaugh and Barrett are willing to go on this.

[JGP]

Hmn. 

So if the Dems had balls [they don't, but the populace might hand them to them] they could quash the filibuster and 51 it to pack the court? Part Deux? Would that give now-Republicans pause? Or would even the SC be undermined at that point? 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, JGP said:

So if the Dems had balls [they don't, but the populace might hand them to them] they could quash the filibuster and 51 it to pack the court? Part Deux?

I mean overturning Roe is already almost certainly going to increase sentiment for increasing the number of justices on the SC among Democrats - both voters and officeholders alike.  Depending on the decision, this should even more so for the latter (hard to see voters responding much to it though).  Still, you're not gonna get Manchin and Sinema on board with abolishing the filibuster (and at least Manchin will definitely be against any courts bill too), so...

Pushing a bill could have the same effect as it did with FDR, sure - getting the court to reverse course on this.  But it's going to have to be a credible threat, which would mean they'd need at least 52 Senators as long as Manchin and Sinema are two of them.

[JGP]

You'd think States more or less carving out their own little kingdoms [a bit of hyperbole] might be threatening enough. Pubs are still hawkish, they'd still want to swing their proverbial star spangled dicks around the world. I don't know if that would be possible a decade, even five years from now if they just let it ride.  

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, JGP said:

Pubs are still hawkish, they'd still want to swing their proverbial star spangled dicks around the world.

Yes reviving the nondelegation doctrine very much contradicts the GOP's general views on the power of the presidency.  I can't imagine Trump would be particularly thrilled with ceding that much power to the court (if he actually understands the ramifications, that is).

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It would basically take us back to the Lochner era wherein (at the end) the Court struck down a bunch of New Deal measures, making incredibly difficult for FDR to respond to the depression.  That is what prompted his court packing plan, which was how he got the court to back down and stop using the doctrine in West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish (1937).

Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are clearly on board.  It's difficult to tell how far Kavanaugh and Barrett are willing to go on this.

Some of those New Deal cases were pretty dodgy.  Wickard v. Filburn comes to mind. 

[James Arryn]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes reviving the nondelegation doctrine very much contradicts the GOP's general views on the power of the presidency.  I can't imagine Trump would be particularly thrilled with ceding that much power to the court (if he actually understands the ramifications, that is).

He will be made to understand that this would not apply to him. Someone will mention that the court is not the media and ergo loves him. Someone else will mention Andrew Jackson. Someone else will mention XOs. Everyone will mention Article 2. 

 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

He will be made to understand that this would not apply to him.

Sure, I suppose proponents of the decision (especially Bannon) could lie to him and convince him of this.

[James Arryn]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, I suppose proponents of the decision (especially Bannon) could lie to him and convince him of this.

Being serious for a moment, and tangential, Trump’s primary lever and objective seem to both be related to attention/approval and a sense of power*. He’s kind of a man-child that way…adults usually develop differentiated pushes and pulls if you get me…meaning he’d be relatively easy to manipulate IF you could somehow drown out his other sources of/targets for these sensations. That’s a lot harder to do than say, obviously, especially if he’s back in the WH, but it’s an unusual profile that could be exploited if you could monopolize his attention long enough. 

*as one clear example, look at the conversations where he’s desperately trying to persuade people to find him the votes in Georgia or similar. He makes it clear that this is about how beloved he is, how anything else must be wrong…and at the same time he offers as the ultimate inducement to these potential vote-finders the assurance that if they give him what they will be praised. He repeats that many times. Then when that stalls he gives up on carrots and threatens them with future prosecution. This is basically the understanding of others typical of a late pre-teen, but more importantly by depicting what he thinks motivates others while he’s under serious duress, he reveals what ultimately motivates himself. 

[Fragile Bird]

What pisses me off is that if the US guts the EPA, conservatives here in Canada will go nuts and rev up the “how the hell can we compete against US companies that are so unregulated, we hafta ditch our regs or we will get slaughtered!” bandwagon.

And people will worry about their jobs disappearing.

We need to make the word “conservative” as foul and disgusting a word as Americans have made the word “liberal”.

[LongRider]

I want to decode this:

17 hours ago, Zorral said:

Again, tonight, npr infested w/ interviews with exultant Oklahomians etc. crowing about how now they were free (?) to provide diapers what was stopping them from providing diapers to needy mothers before this  to the beautiful new white babies  who  will not be murdered, and help to the white moms, though no specifications there, other than, well, maternal health will go up no it won't  because marriage will be more valued, will they try to force marriage? and there will be um, contraception more abstinence education.  Just one after another spouting this bullshit. Even after Alito already said contraceptives are in his sights. They clearly had their oily, soothing snake oil talking points in place for today.

They really said the latter, with presumably not straight faces, since this is radio.

 

  Utter bullshit.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

but it’s an unusual profile that could be exploited if you could monopolize his attention long enough. 

So you're saying Twitter should let him back? 

I don't like psychologizing Trump too much, but I do agree with your point that his lack of attention span makes it difficult for any one person (or small group of people) to consistently manipulate him.  I mean, at the political level.  Seems pretty clear Melania and Ivanka have figured out how to consistently manipulate him.

[JGP]

I dislike the psychologizing, though I'm not immune, but the man plays himself. It may be ableist, or ageist, but my 12yo could play fiddle with that fucking fool.

I'm trying hard to avoid ghoulish extrapolations right now. 

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah this is the one that's really worried me (not that Roe didn't worry me, just, I already accepted it was dead).  Reviving the nondelegation doctrine is absolutely insane and a huge power grab by the Court.  Here's a good article that breaks down why:

Manufacturing circumstances that will cause a bunch of states to have to set up their own administrative agencies and bureaucracy seems like it would substantially lower what they'd need to do in the event of trying to split off from the US. Feels like this could really be starting things on the road to the country outright splintering. Which I guess would be better than the entire country going Gilead.

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

So you're saying Twitter should let him back? 

And Twitter for Drumpf is a given if Musk forgets to pull out.

 

edit: holy, not intentional. Very sorry. I'll let it ride and submit myself to the judgment of the board. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Manufacturing circumstances that will cause a bunch of states to have to set up their own administrative agencies and bureaucracy seems like it would substantially lower what they'd need to do in the event of trying to split off from the US.

Honestly it's giving this Court effective veto power over a huge portion of how the federal government carries out its functions/laws that worries me the most.  And again, any Republican that wants to be president should understand that is not going to be good for them either.

3 minutes ago, JGP said:

And Twitter for Drumpf is a given if Musk forgets to pull out.

Yeah.  OTOH, I'd say Musk is pretty good at pulling out, but he does have eight kids (that we know about)...

[JGP]

14 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Manufacturing circumstances that will cause a bunch of states to have to set up their own administrative agencies and bureaucracy seems like it would substantially lower what they'd need to do in the event of trying to split off from the US. Feels like this could really be starting things on the road to the country outright splintering. Which I guess would be better than the entire country going Gilead.

If California opts out, that's the ballgame. But yes, as awful as it is, I agree with you. Let's hope those craven bastards on the SC bow to their vanity and wish to remain paramount over the entire judicial system.

[James Arryn]

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

So you're saying Twitter should let him back? 

I don't like psychologizing Trump too much, but I do agree with your point that his lack of attention span makes it difficult for any one person (or small group of people) to consistently manipulate him.  I mean, at the political level.  Seems pretty clear Melania and Ivanka have figured out how to consistently manipulate him.

I get it, I normally think Goldwater applies, but we’ve never seen a President show so much of himself day after day through many means with such consistent data, as well as the consistency in descriptions from people around him. Well, at least not concurrent with their political life; the Nixon tapes obviously gave us a lot after the fact. Not even necessarily talking enough for an actual diagnosis, imo, but probably enough to see clear patterns. 

Ironically I don’t feel as comfortable on having enough data about his interactions with his wife and daughter, though I agree they seem the most likely to be able to cut through the noise and arrest his attention.  

[Madame deVenoge]

On 6/25/2022 at 10:00 AM, Ormond said:

I don't think this is bizarre at all when you realize how much the right-wing has demonized the Democrats and the "liberal media" over the last 30 years.

Many Republican voters now really believe that it is the Democrats and the media who are the greatest threats to democracy and that they are plotting to put us under a socialistic authoritarian dictatorship which will outlaw religion and control all aspects of our lives. In order to convince people who believe that to vote for a Democrat, you have to convince them not only that Trump is a "serious threat to democracy" but that he is a GREATER "threat to democracy" than they believe the Democrats are, and that's really difficult given the number of years they've been exposed to anti-left propaganda. 

This is so true. My ex-boyfriend was 100% firmly in this camp. It was very painful. He was a hardcore Fox viewer. He also seriously believed that “socialist Democrats” were FAR more of a threat to democracy than Trump’s authoritarianism.

I have only know a few Republican voters who are not hardcore Republicans - one of them is a swing voter (yes, they still exist). These are people who do NOT watch Fox News or watch it only infrequently and balance it out with CNN. They voted for Trump because he had an “R” next to his name, not because they were MAGA-cult members.

This is not common anymore, and it’s pretty sad because we really do need two viable political parties in the US, not the “moderates vs the crazies”. We need to be able to have constructive conversations.

Sadly, we are so polarized, and I don’t see it changing any time soon.