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
Asgore Adopts Noelle
Gov. Matt Bevin (R-KY) insults Primary challenger, Robert Goforth, by 'forgetting' (or forgetting) his name. Goforth got 40% of the Republican vote during the Primary, and according to him and his former Campaign Manager, a lot of Goforth voters are calling in and complaining about Bevin's disrespect for even his fellow Republicans.
This will definitely help Candidate Andy Beshear (D) take the Governorship later this year.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Looking it up, I was right (though I didn't say out loud): I knew clicking on Ads still generated revenue for the Ad-Supplier. Even if this weren't a crime, would we really want to give the Trump Campaign any kind of finances, even if it's literal pennies?
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Aug 24th 2019 at 9:36:13 AM
Best Ogre
With a name like “Goforth”, I can just imagine all the jokes made in a religious setting.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Aug 24th 2019 at 9:44:52 AM
SoundCloud
I think a man who shoots another man dead for pushing him should be found guilty of murder.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Disasturbator
I was thinking Gofourth come fourth really,the jokes just write themselves
New theme music also a box
Brightness
Well yes, but I wasn’t allowed to vote in that one. Apparently the state of Kansas didn’t want college students studying abroad to have a voice.
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/They
If you want a genocidal tyrant, sure.
Dearborn, Michigan has decided to break their contract to house detainees by ICE after a decade of working with them.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Student of Story
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.
First, I see the Republicans as already having done a version of court packing with blocking Obama's appointment, and furthermore saying that in a potential Clinton administration they would have kept on blocking any appointment made by Clinton. To me, that says everything that needs to be said, and indicates they don't need permission to act in bad faith or against the interest of the institution.
Second, if we want to talk about blatant partisanship. It's already going on. You have to be completely unplugged from reality to think that Republicans will ever vote fro a nominee that will champion certain liberal values (for example, being pro-choice) and while Democrats are slightly more flexible they're not going to put a conservative ideologue on the court. Partisanship is already part of the process.
Shit, the Federalist Society and other conservative groups are LITERALLY approaching law students while they are in college, recruiting them into these groups, and molding them into future Supreme Court candidates who will rule the way these groups want purely in order to make sure that they never have to deal with the unpleasant surprise of a Republican president nominating a justice who turns out to be more liberal than expected. The only question is whether liberals want to live with that status quo forever or want to strike back at it.
The third point is legit in that we don't want the SC to become a rubber stamp for Congress, not even for the side you believe in... but again, reality right now says that the Court is not living up to its ideal function either. I mean shit, we've got Justices who have centered their whole careers around "religious liberty" and then signed off without hesitation to a president unilaterally banning people from majority Muslim countries (and North Korea) from entering the country. There's a lot of bending over backwards to justify what "their side" wants to do, and I think it's safe to say that everyone knows that most people who are paying attention know that.
Personally, in pure wish fulfillment fantasy territory, if I was doing strategy for the Democrats I'd say that if they ever get 60 Senators again (as they did when all the smoke eventually settled down in various contested elections in 2008) the first thing they should do is name about 50 new Justices to the Court. Every time anyone in the press objects, replay the footage of Cruz and McCain saying how there's nothing in the Constitution saying what size the Court should be, and how after refusing to seat anyone for Obama's last year, they might refuse to seat anyone in a hypothetical Clinton admin too. If possible, make one of the 50 nominees Obama himself, just to twist the knife in a little deeper.
Then make it a law that from that point forward no one can be seated on the Court without 60 votes. You see, currently the procedure for seating someone on the court is just a Senate custom, which can be changed anytime with a bare majority of votes. (Which is why the Republicans could change the number of votes needed to seat a Justice from 60 to 51 for Trump's nominations.) On the other hand, a law needs to be repealed, ruled unconstitutional, etc, which takes a lot more work. (Note: I don't actually know for sure if applying a law to this procedure could work, but you never know until you try.)
After that, turn around and negotiate with Republicans to reform the process, preferably to the rotating nominations every couple of years system that we've occasionally discussed in this thread in the past. Either this works or both sides continue escalating the packing until either the two sides or the public in general forces a truce and a new way forward.
It beats bending over for Conservatives for decades before seeing if the timing and membership of the Senate and all work out at the same time to give the liberals a shot at taking it all back. In my opinion, anyway.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
A procrastination in of itself
To emphasise this point I’d ask, does anyone honestly think that if Trump had inherited a liberal majority Supreme Court, the Republicans wouldn’t have added a couple of seats so as to give themselves a majority?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Unashamed, Maduro style rigging of an institution to pass whatever your party wants, I see. Not even close to the blocking of a judge like Mc Connell did. The democrats would deserve everything that would come to them if they ever tried that.
Asgore Adopts Noelle
x2 Honestly, yes, I don't think McConnell would be in favor of packing the courts, even if Trump really really wanted to. Garland getting in would've made the Court 5-4 with a Democratic slant. That would've reversed back to a Republican Slant the minute one of the Liberal Justices retires or dies, and McConnell would've known this and simply bided his time knowing at least one Justice typically leaves during every Presidency.
My solution to the Political problems of the court would be to just have 3-5 Liberal Justices, 3-5 Conservative Justices and 3-5 Independent Justices, that the President, regardless of Party, would have to respect, which gives everyone what they want and ends the impartiality and political nature of it.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Aug 25th 2019 at 2:26:14 PM
Something like that or really, arrange any system in which the judges are not elected by Congress or the President, so the judiciary branch can get the impartiality it deserves.
Life is unfair...
Professional Forum Ninja
Joe Walsh has officially thrown his hat in to attempt to primary Trump next year.
Any court packing attempt by the Evil Turtle could have been filibustered, and we already know that Evil Turtle wants to preserve the filibuster and why he wants to preserve the filibuster. That's why it didn't happen.
If on the other hand Democrats court-pack and scrap the filibuster, Evil Turtle almost certainly will do it as well as soon as he's gotten a trifecta to do so.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I've said before that I feel supreme court justices should be required to not have been a member of a political party for X years prior to nomination.
I would personally say X should be infinite (IE - they may never have been a member of a political party), but I would not expect wide support for that.
Oh please, you really shouldn't compare people to Maduro when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Fact 1: The Supreme Court has been modified before, it did not end our democracy then and it wouldn't now.
Fact 2: The Supreme Court is actively hostile to our democracy and any hope to improve it, either you accept drastic means to stop them from killing our progress or you accept that nothing should change and our nation should further approach the precipice.
What "our party wants" is dearly needed reform to address the issues endemic to our system. If the Supreme Court stops that then there is nothing moral with throwing up your hands and declaring crass norms to be more important then the lives of actual living people.
I would personally say X should be infinite (IE - they may never have been a member of a political party), but I would not expect wide support for that.
There is zero chance that this would be effective.
You cannot escape partisanship, people don't need to be the members of a party to have idealogical opinions.
Mc Connel wouldn't be in favor of packing the courts for the same reason he isn't in favor of removing the filibuster, because the status-quo benefits his party and he knows it.
Which is why we should do both. Unlike the Republicans, we are benefited by the status-quo changing and the filibuster and Supreme Court stand in the way of that.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 25th 2019 at 12:31:53 PM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
To be fair, that rules out a lot of people, and it also should be noted that someone not having a party does not make them apolitical necessarily.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
Case in point: There are a more independents than registered Republicans in California, but it doesn't stop a lot of those same people from voting along partisan lines anyway.
Steve King Is Broke And Has Been Abandoned by His Colleagues as He Runs for Re-Election
It turns out that there are some actual political consequences for a congressman sounding off repeatedly about white supremacy and abortion.
King has not received a single contribution this year from a political action committee associated with a sitting member of Congress. Corporate PA Cs and interest groups have also completely shunned him. Through the first six months of the year, King received just two contributions from third party political entities: $2,000 donations from PA Cs associated with two former members of Congress, Lamar Smith (R-TX) and the infamous Todd Akin (R-MO).
It is a remarkable though not entirely unpredictable abandonment of a sitting member of Congress. Though he was always controversial and further to the right than most of his colleagues, King has burned virtually all his bridges in the party this year with outlandish comments about white supremacy and abortion.
But while those comments have made King a pariah in the party—with House Republican leaders stripping him of his committee assignments—King has refused to leave office. Now, as he faces the toughest campaign since he was first elected in 2002, he is doing so with a potentially catastrophic lack of resources. The $18,365 that King’s campaign had in the bank at the end of June was the least cash on hand he’s ever reported after the first six months of a cycle.
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 25th 2019 at 2:03:47 AM
@Fourthspartan: I've been on this forum talking about U.S politics for at least two years now, what I've said is my informed opinion. Not saying packing the courts will end democracy, but it goes completely against the principles of democracy and I disapprove.
Life is unfair...
Disasturbator
His Democrat challenger is called called J.D. Scholten,and if King is out of funds (publicly mind you,he might be crying wolf to squeeze money out Republian doners)
New theme music also a box
King is also facing a primary challenge, so if he loses it's not a given that the seat will go blue.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
A procrastination in of itself
King is exactly the kind of scum I could see failing upwards into a senate run.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Huh... never knew that "Click Fraud" was a thing, let alone illegal.
Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 24th 2019 at 9:30:43 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"