I think we all wish it was different, but we’re competing with people that have no morals, no social code, no shame, and follow no rules. That’s a powerful combo. We have to do something to stop them right now, even if it might "backfire"down the road, because to do nothing is to ensure our own destruction.
3 Likes
Shit you’re right. Maxine Waters too.
Maybe California does have 5 of the top 10.
My point on Feinstein stands though.
2 Likes
When I get 20 likes, I tell both my wives.
3 Likes
Republicans escalate, breaking norms and consolidating power
Dems: Well, we better not do anything because Republicans might escalate in retaliation
Republicans escalate, breaking norms and consolidating power
Dems: Shit. Well, we better not do anything because Republicans might escalate in retaliation.
Republicans escalate, breaking norms and consolidating power
Rinse and repeat until we’re a one party state. I know it’s uncomfortable, but when one side is hellbent on gaining power at the expense of democracy, there’s no alternative but to fight back and try to use the power to fix the system before it’s too late.
26 Likes
They may try to ram it through before election even if it could be a bit better to do it after due to the chance that an R senator dies from covid. That changes the calculus a little.
If you actually look at the court-packing proposal clearly, what it really amounts to is the idea that the Supreme Court majority should always reflect the party that simultaneously controls the presidency and the senate. Put more explicitly, this proposal says that the Supreme Court’s sorting of laws into allowed or disallowed buckets should always accord with the views of the party that controls the presidency and the senate. This is not a formal abolition of the Supreme Court’s power of constitutional review, but it is a near complete effective abolition of that power.
I don’t have a problem necessarily with abolishing constitutional review, but court-packing is a strange and very complicated way to do it. If you want to get rid of constitutional review, that can be done unilaterally by the president. All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power. You don’t need a constitutional amendment. You don’t need to pass a law. And you don’t need to appoint any judges. This is a completely reasonable position that also reflects the kind of power top courts have in other countries.
I need to stop reading these
https://twitter.com/chiIIum/status/1308134618642747394?s=20
All of this is great to hear because it shows that the GOP Senate is taking this seriously. The leadership sees how unique of an opportunity this is, and they aren’t going to punt for the sake of trying to hold out a meaningless olive branch to a party that wants to burn the system down no matter what. The time to strike is now and the strike will be carried out. The only questions that remain are who the nominee will be and whether Mitt Romney will go ahead and fully end his political career by voting no.
Lol amead, jfc
2 Likes
Democrats being down huge in the supreme court 6-3 can’t risk packing the court, otherwise their might be massive blow back like… checks notes…
The GOP packing the court and taking the advantage back?
WTF are you guys even talking about and how has nobody pointed this out. There is zero risk or downside. The best the GOP could do is get back to even lol
Then when you add on the other arguments made and the fact that the liberal supreme court striking down gerrymandering, voter suppression, and all the GOP dirty tricks and making elections fair they will effectively dead as a political party even before the next 10 years. They aren’t winning the house after that until they get their shit together and pick up a ton of new voters.
3 Likes
The GOP is 100% packing the court the next time (if) they ever get the senate, presidency and don’t have a SCOTUS majority. 100%.
7 Likes
I think Parlay is right that it has little impact. Everyone that cares about this is already deeply partisan. Also parlay is great and I’m glad he made it over here
2 Likes
I hope you guys are right - I’d support adding liberal justices to SCOTUS and DC/PR statehood. It didn’t happen the last time the Dems had full control of the presidency and congress (2009-2011), and I’d expect some significant blowback from the voters if it happened, but these are tough times so I respect the fantasy.
Hard to use the filibuster when McConnell never puts a bill on the floor.
It’ll be so tilting when we get 50 Dems and go for it and she’s the one holdout. Like 5 million Californians call her offices, but she makes a principled stand. McConnell cackles, GJGE eDems.
Perhaps but a Dem Senate that packs the courts also gives PR and DC statehood, passes HR1, etc and suddenly the GOP needs to actually win fair elections. By the time they adapt their positions to do so, hopefully there is more respect for norms and the two sides can come to some sort of a truce on that.
At the risk of going full West Wing, what if the Dems did something like this to pack the court:
The soon to be 9 (5 shitty ones, Roberts, 3 liberals)
4 Liberals as payback for norm busting
6 additional: GOP picks two, Dems pick two, a bipartisan committee picks two - must be unanimous.
Pros: You can spin it as a reform, not a packing, and you can try to fade some of the blowback by giving them two. You can perhaps stop the escalating norm-busting too.
You could also do some sort of term limit structure on it to ensure that each president is guaranteed a minimum fixed number of justices. While there’s certainly a problem when the court is this radical, there’s also a problem if half to two thirds the court is super old and out of touch with society. By forcing them out fairly often you can ensure that they are not too out of touch.
They can’t take it to 1 - the current justices have lifetime appointments and would have to rule that they can be removed by a simple majority as opposed to impeachment. Good luck getting them to rule to fire themselves.
Yeah it’s uncomfortable being in a knife fight but that doesn’t mean you should keep trying to shake hands while getting stabbed. Eventually one party will decimate the other for a period of time. Either it’s Dems by forcing fair elections and somewhat proportional representation, in which case the GOP will have to regain contact with reality, or it’s them via minority authoritarian rule.
Power won’t wildly swing back and forth forever.
2 Likes
Remember if we can pass a new VRA as part of HR1, we’ll be competing in Senate races in GA, FL, TX, SC, etc. Voter suppression is killing us right now. So while there will be blow back we’ll have gained so much for it that it’ll still net out ahead. Especially with PR+DC.
2 Likes
I just tell people to stop begging evil people not to be evil. They thrive on this. Start volunteering in your community. It’s quite clear we will need new institutions to support people that arise independently from the broken ones that exist now. And it’s only going to get worse.
Just LOL at wasting any time on this. Beyond posting on UP, of course.
7 Likes
The country is being radicalized. We we were doing ok with this for most of the country’s history. Now people are less tolerant of the other side’s views. Even during periods of conflict like Vietnam, there was a solid majority that believed in the rule of law. Civil society can’t survive if people are willing to destroy democracy to win their fight about racism or abortion or whatever.
That’s some wisdom 
1 Like
So much this.
The refusal to seat Garland is going to be looked back on as a turning point in American “democracy.” Probably moreso than the election of Trump.
Games are only valid to the extent that the players respect the rules of the game. If you have no respect for the game, and just try to angleshoot rules to win, then you fall back on the integrity of the design of the game itself. That’s why online multiplayer games are constantly updated and revised. You can’t expect participants to play it in good faith, and they don’t.
American democracy is not a robustly designed game. It cannot withstand one or both sides completely disregarding the idea of good faith. They actually have to believe in the game. Failing that, it’s just an ever-escalating power struggle, and will inevitably end in ruin.
There were plenty of signs this was the way it was going–for instance, Bush v Gore was dismissed as a one-off. But Garland made it overt. That was the point of no return.
14 Likes
The thing is, if you are in a position to pack the court, you are also in a position to pass a bunch of key laws that will cripple the GOP’s ability to regain meaningful power for a long time. Gotta do it all if you get the opportunity. No half-measures.
1 Like