Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Remember, the Dems had control of the Senate until the 2014 midterms. She should have retired after Obama was re-elected, along with Stephan Bayer.
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
I think RBG said once that she has no intention of EVER retiring, and she is fully commited to working until she dies.
I'm sorry, but I just can't respect that stance. Not when the stakes are so high.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Disasturbator
Even though she doesn't want to retire I could her effectively taking a 'leave of absence' which would basically be the same thing for her
Edited by Ultimatum on Aug 23rd 2019 at 9:17:19 AM
New theme music also a box
Would that prompt a replacement if she did that?
Let's see, the five year survival rate for pancreatic cancer seems to be... Holy shit, only 8.2%! That means that the Democrats need to win the 2020 election even more, if they value the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Life is unfair...
Would that it were so simple.
Ginsberg should have planned for retirement the moment Obama was inaugurated. He had 57 senators for God's sake, and spent more than five months with 60! What an opportunity she threw away! She was ancient even then. The republic cannot survive reactionary takeover for long if all that stands in its way is the ability of an 80 year old woman to repeatedly, and miraculously beat cancer. Frankly, she deliberately endangered the country by not stepping aside when an ideological ally was around to select her successor.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 23rd 2019 at 7:05:19 AM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
I think that's a dumb way of looking at it, bluntly. Remember that Obama DID have a Supreme Court appointment before shenanigans by Moscow Mitch delayed appointment until Trump could do it.
Ginsburg retiring could have put another Republican in charge.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Would that it were so simple.
Obama had one vacancy when both Chambers were Republican and two when both were Democratic. The 111th was strongly Democratic, and at one point had enough Senate seats for cloture. Were you asleep in 2009, my dude? It was the best time for her to have left.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 23rd 2019 at 7:39:53 AM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
First, if the Democrats decide to court-pack, the Republicans will not be restrained from doing so next time they have a trifecta.
Second, court-packing is blatant partisanship and under ordinary circumstances would be a direct attack on the constitutional system of checks and balances. Even under these circumstances, packing the court with rainbow-flag-waving justices would likely irritate a lot of moderates. Furthermore, this would signal to the Court that their job is no longer to look at the law on its merits but to vote as the party commands, which isn't really a good thing.
Third, this would eliminate the Court's ability to act as a check and balance against the other branches. It's a necessary function and one I'd rather not see lost.
Yup, but in the time we'd have we could push electoral reform and make it so they couldn't do what they wanted without consequeunces.
Yes, there would be a political cost. But, it would be worth it if the alternative was decades of Conservative domination.
And it's not like it hasn't happened before.
The court's size has been adjusted multiple times in the past, and if it's dominated by Conservatives then its role as a check against the other branches is worthless.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Industrious Incisors
Well, in the situation I was thinking of when I made that proposal, we’d already be past the point where the court is no longer acting as a check or balance. But, I do get your point.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Aug 23rd 2019 at 9:18:05 AM
SoundCloud
The main problem with all this "she should have retired" crap is that it's subject very much to the hindsight is twenty/twenty problem. Who the hell was thinking that Trump would be a problem in 2009? Let alone that Mc Connell would stonewall the nomination process as hard as he did? So maybe let's not throw blame at someone who's dedicated basically their whole life to worthy causes for simply not being all knowing. It's extremely unhelpful.
Would that it were so simple.
"Who the hell was thinking that Trump would be a problem in 2009? Let alone that Mc Connell would stonewall the nomination process as hard as he did?"
One would have to be a moron to think another Republican would never be elected president, though. She was already old and in poor health when Obama came to power and had served through four terms, included eight years of Dubya. In 2009 there was a Democrat in the White House and a solidly Democratic Senate, a perfect opportunity, and it was wasted. Obama even had sixty senators at one point; Mc Connell couldn't have done a goddamn thing about it. That was 2016 when he had a solid GOP majority.
American liberalism shouldn't be put at risk because RBG's playing Russian Roulette with the future of the left's legal legacy. It's not "hindsight is 20/20," it's "what the fuck was she thinking?!" That everything important hinges on whether a frail, cancer-prone 86-year old can survive to Jan 20, 2021 is beyond insane.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 23rd 2019 at 10:46:24 AM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Let's not overstate, for the lack of a better word, what's at stake.
There have been hostile Supreme Courts before, and they haven't stopped progress.
Obviously, that doesn't mean that the Supreme Court is irrelevant but its power lies in its legitimacy and if they did choose to shut down all reform then they'd be faced with an angry public. And then things like court-packing would become viable.
There is cause for concern, but everything is not being risked.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 23rd 2019 at 7:45:29 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Brightness
Loathe as I am to quote the genocidal piece of shit, I recall Andrew Jackson had some words to say about the Supreme Court.
In any event, we're not at doomsday yet. RBG's career choices in the past aren't what matter right now. What matters now, is that the cancer was caught early, she is still alive and fighting, and we have the most important election of our lives just over a year away.
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/They
I agree, but I was pointing out that there were valid reasons why court-packing for the purpose of breaking conservative votes hasn't been done before, was rejected in FDR's day, and why we should be very careful before taking that step and make sure that there aren't other options first. OTOH, as you hinted at, neutering them if they get in the way of electoral reform might be necessary.
I would argue that was 3 years ago, some of the damage done, even if we start imediatly, won't be fixed for decades. :/
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/08/23/day-946/
2/ China will retaliate with tariffs on $75 billion more of U.S. goods in two batches effective Sept. 1st and Dec. 15th, which match with 10% tariff the Trump administration said would go into effect on $300 billion worth of imports from China. Beijing will also impose 25% tariffs on U.S. cars and a 5% on auto parts and components, which will go into effect on Dec. 15th. China paused the tariffs in April. (ABC News / Bloomberg / CNBC / Axios)
3/ Trump "hereby ordered" U.S. companies via Twitter to leave China "immediately" after Beijing said it would impose tariffs on $75 billion worth of additional U.S. products. In a series of tweets, Trump demanded that U.S. companies "start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing our companies HOME and making your products in the USA," because "Our Country has lost, stupidly, Trillions of Dollars with China over many years." Trump also "ordered" the United States Postal Service and private American companies like FedEx, Amazon, and UPS to search packages from China for Fentanyl and refuse delivery. The White House does not have the authority to force companies to follow these "orders." Trump also promised to escalate the trade war, saying he would be "responding to China's Tariffs this afternoon" because "This is a GREAT opportunity for the United States." (Washington Post / New York Times / Wall Street Journal / Associated Press / Bloomberg)
https://apnews.com/84c8781157484f8ebb4c3f462f38e30d
4/ The Dow dropped more than 600 points after Trump ordered U.S. manufacturers to find alternatives to China. The spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and the 2-year Treasury yield also inverted following Trump's tweets. A yield curve inversion is considered one of the most reliable leading indicators that recession is coming. (CNN / CNBC / Wall Street Journal / Bloomberg / New York Times)
5/ Trump tweeted that he'll raise tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods from 25% to 30% on Oct. 1. Trump also announced that the 10% tariffs on $300 billion in Chinese goods set to go into effect on Sept. 1st would be raised to 15%. Trump capped off his tweetstorm with: "Thank you for your attention to this matter!" (CNBC / Politico / Bloomberg / Axios / New York Times)
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/trump-scotus-gay-workers
The Trump administration promoted six judges to the immigration appeals court who all have high rates of denying immigrants' asylum claims. All six were named by Attorney General William Barr. The immigration appeals court is responsible for setting binding policy for deportation cases. (San Francisco Chronicle)
Trump claimed that 94% of Republicans approve of the way he is handling his job. Trump's job approval among Republicans in recent nationally representative polls, however, found that his approval stands at 84% (Monmouth University), 79% (AP-NORC), and 88% (Fox News). (Washington Post)
Nice zinger, Moulton.
Can those immigration judges be demoted later?
Pancreatic cancer has such a short life expectancy because it is usually diagnosed quite lately when it's already spread. Ginsburg's case isn't the normal one, since it was found long before.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
In a good news, weird news bit:
- A Florida man who was claiming self-defense in a "Stand Your Ground" situation was convicted of manslaughter, as he shot and killed a man that had pushed him down but then backed away when the convicted pointed a gun at him, contradicting the story that he was being charged at.
- The Biden campaign is accusing Trump's campaign of trying to siphon donors, as Google's first link upon searching "donate Joe Biden" is an ad for donating to Trump's campaign. No confirmation as to who paid for that, but all I can think is that - with it being a pay-per-click ad - maybe we can cost them a shitload of money by continually clicking the ad without putting a penny into the campaign coffers?
Did he also 'order' his daughter to get her business out of China?
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Disasturbator
> maybe we can cost them a shitload of money by continually clicking the ad without putting a penny into the campaign coffers?
two words: Click fraud
Edited by Ultimatum on Aug 24th 2019 at 1:26:55 PM
New theme music also a box
Thought,if Trump loses his first term could it start a pattern with future Presidents?It has happened in past,but not too often,and I was thinking if it happens at least once this century it could happen again,especially since Trump's election has proved people like him can win elections
New theme music also a box