-
-
Remember all the arrows the Democrats had in their quiver?Comment
-
For me, the only question is whether Biden should wait for a series of outrageous rulings to justify expanding the court and get popular opinion on-side, or whether it should be literally the first thing he does if he has control of both houses.Comment
-
With all the givens (i.e. Biden/Dems are not going to be reading the OTF script) what are the chances that Biden, if elected and especially if Dems have Congress, will say something like ... "The Republicans have acted within the rules, but without integrity, without a mandate. So I shall also act within the rules, but with integrity and with a mandate, and between now and inauguration day the Republicans will have to decide how they behave, and their choices will have consequences, created by themselves" .... ? (I assume asking a new Supreme Court judge to be honourable and step down is pointless). In other words, are any options like packing, constitutional but radical, at all realistic?
Or will it just be "it's happened, too bad, we move on, no action beyond waiting for the grim reaper" (who will probably take Biden before the next judge)?Comment
-
Hasn't Biden already said what he's going to do, with this "commission" thing?Comment
-
kill Roe v Wade, then act? The outrageous rulings would be law, of course, and the more outrageous the rulings the worse the consequences.Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View PostComment
-
US courts need to be depoliticised in general. The idea of a conservative or liberal judge is bizarre. And there needs to be a retirement age. The basic freedoms of people should not be resting upon the health of an 87 year old.
So, retirement age of 70? All new appointments must be approved unanimously by existing members of the court? The latter would be difficult in the current situation with lunatic judges.
Republicans got greedy. If they had just allowed Garland, they'd still have a conservative court locked in for a few years, and the Democrats wouldn't be complaining.
Comment
-
-
Or they sized up their opponents, realized that speeches and op-eds would be the extent of the resistance, and made their move to lock it in anyway. Sure, I hope the complaints turn into action post-election, and the Republicans have made a strategic mistake, but I doubt it. Even if Barrett's confirmation loses votes for Trump, it's a bargain price worth paying for the Right (Trump was never the long term plan anyway).Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
That picture in Nef's post sums it up. They can't do that, it's not done, it's outrageous ... repeat for last 4 years, while they kept on doing it because they can. In return, they'll have to put up with payback hands across the aisle and talk of healing.Comment
-
I'm not sure Biden would get court packing through a Democrat-controlled Senate. Too many Dems in red states shitting themselves. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try but it might explain the caution. The constitution is a red herring and any norms of party decency have been destroyed by McConnell.
I'm not sure if Roe v Wade is the Barrett wing's main priority as opposed to crippling federal protections completely in all walks of life: race, gender, sexuality, any remaining labor rights, environment, cultural identity, etc. Abortion might be the totemic issue (by which the conservative right identifies itself) but the substantive wrecking ball is aimed at social justice generally.Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 27-10-2020, 10:44.Comment
-
Well if the voter suppression don't get you the gerrymandering will.Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
Comment
-
Roe v Wade doesn't need formal over-turning as such does it, to make abortion even more horrifically restricted in the US?
Allowing the opposition to label adding seats as "court-packing" is a pretty big mistake, and an indication that the Democrats are weak on it.Comment
-
Yeah wake me when the Dems do anything remotely ballsy.Comment
-
Indeed.
They lay down and took Bush v Gore.
They didn't introduce public option when they had trifecta in 2008-2010 because Obama wanted filibuster-proof "consensus". Republicans then proceeded to filibuster the fuck out of Obama anyway on every single tiny thing.
They've spent the last 20 years being outraged, and doing nothing about it. And now the Supreme Court is filled with Bush's election lawyers.Comment
-
If the Republicans had any sense - which the last 30 years says they do - they'll never quite overturn Roe vs Wade, as keeping it on the books motivates the base, but in the meantime they can gut the fuck out of the post-New Deal legislative landscape.Comment
-
The “public option” wasn’t ever going to be much anyway.Originally posted by anton pulisov View PostComment
-
-
In part because of the current Administration's incompetence, there still is quite a bit, but more importantly a reactionary Court can block any attempt by a Democratic majority to re-establish that which has been lostComment
-
Maybe this is how America breaks up. If the Federal government just doesn't do anything, the states will have to try. The supreme court will block that for a while, but something will eventually have to give.
Of course, all of this just helps Russia and China and anyone else who might take advantage of the US not really having a state department.
We're getting what we deserve, to some extent.
Things will eventually mellow out. It's just a question of how violent it will get between now and then. I suppose that's always the case.Comment
-
That's at the core of the Administration's attacks on the California automobile emission standards.
If a single state or group of states with market power decides to regulate an industry, it can make economic sense for that industry to adopt the more stringent standards nationwide.Comment
-
Eventually Texas will go permanently Democratic and the Republicans will be forced to move to the centre or split.
Nobody is moving to California any more because it is too expensive.
https://www.macrotrends.net/states/c...nia/population
Texas is becoming the warm weather affordable state with jobs growth.
https://www.macrotrends.net/states/texas/population
All the migration means two things. Texas will go left and Texas will continue to be worth more and more electoral votes.Comment
-
Even should that happen (I don't consider it inevitable), while it would help considerably with Presidential elections, its impact in the Senate would be relatively marginal.
A Democrat hasn't won a statewide election in Texas since 1994. Something north of 150 straight contests (lots of judges and commissioners, in addition to the more standard offices).Comment
-
Yeah. Texas going Democrat helps presidentially, but it would actually reinforce the D problem of having Senators from giant states.Comment
- If you are currently locked out of OTF due to not being able to remember/reset your password, password reset emails are now working.
Comment