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
That might just further politicize the court-packing. It creates a clear political motive for appointing new Justices.
- "I'm passing this law."
- "This law is unconstitutional."
- "Fine, then! I'm going to fill your court with Justices until there's a majority that says you're wrong!"
If the motive for adding a new Justice is specifically to undo a decision they just made on a law we passed, then that becomes a 100% obvious, totally indefensible power play. I don't think that will fly with the moderates as well as you might think.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 14th 2018 at 4:31:34 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
We were both misunderstood then. (^_^;;
That's the concern. Remember, most of the voters aren't going to care to much if it was for a just cause - as far as they'll be concerned, one of the parties just tried to take a branch of Government by force to pass a piece of legislation. Human rights be damned, they only will care that you just tried a legislative coup. All the newspapers will be upset, you'll be voted out, and the Republicans will no longer hesitate to pack it themselves.
Since Republicans have already ran on "We'll appoint a SC judge to revse Woe v Wade/the ACA/various regulations" I think that ship has already sailed.
It's already completely political and frankly I doubt that it could become more political.
You think that undoing a decision for a widely popular piece of legislation would be a "totally indefensible power play"? I would think that's called supporting democracy, Republicans can barely win popular elections and yet for the last decade the Supreme Court is still heavily biased in their favor.
Still we shall see, maybe people will agree with you or maybe they won't.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Ultimately, it will boil down to how much outrage the court causes on a ruling. Remember, the SC has had MAJOR bad decisions and decisions that many people opposed. Still no one has succeeded in packing it. I think it would take, like, the criminalization of the Free Press to get that level of outrage.
I kinda agree with the whole "politicization of the court", though. We're well past Plausible Deniability on that (even if people insist otherwise).
![]()
![]()
![]()
Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 14th 2018 at 6:52:06 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerSure if you ignore the fact that "our way" is public opinion and "when it doesn't go our way" refers to the system ignoring the actual will of the people.
We can argue about whether or not it's the strategically wise but please don't pretend there is anything democratic about letting a undemocratic body who is chosen primarily by random chance decide that beneficial and popular legislation goes against their arbitrary and biased view of the Constitution.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
I agree with your assessment of the Court. However, don't forget, "Will of the People" has been used to justify Dictatorships and "Democracies" the world over.
I doubt that was your intent, but its good to keep in mind.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 14th 2018 at 6:54:52 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerYes and it has also been used to justify literally every democracy, just because terms can be abused does not mean that they cannot be used properly.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe point of court packing and passing progressive voter laws isn’t the block Republicans from power, but blocking republicans from power is a positive side effect.
Black people wernt given the right to vote in South Africa so as to stop Apartheid party’s from winning elections, but that was an obvious side effect and it was a good one.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
I'm saying that we don't give said neo-conservatives more tools to tighten control.
![]()
I say we pass more Progressive voter legislation regardless. If SC denies it, you'd have a good case the SC is subverting Democracy. (I'm aware they already did that when they struck down parts of the Civil Rights Act, I'm saying we try again so people remember)
We also happened to outright be in the middle of Civil War. And note in that example the Radical Republicans didn't manage to pack the court either, they just did the whole "Blocking Justices" routine. As they should have, at that time.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 14th 2018 at 7:36:10 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerThe Republicans War on the disabled and Woman continue.
’’’Texas board votes to eliminate Hillary Clinton, Helen Keller from history curriculum’’’
As part of an effort to "streamline" the social studies curriculum in Texas, the State Board of Education voted on Friday to change what students in every grade are required to learn in the classroom. They approved the removal of several historical figures, including Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller.
The board also voted to add back into the curriculum a reference to the "heroism" of the defenders of the Alamo, which had been recommended for elimination, as well as Moses' influence on the writing of the founding documents, multiple references to "Judeo-Christian" values and a requirement that students explain how the "Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict" in the Middle East.
The vote Friday was preliminary. The board can amend the curriculum changes further before taking a final vote in November. Barbara Cargill, a Republican board member from Houston and former chairwoman, said work groups recommended removing Clinton and Keller, and the board agreed. "In speaking to teachers and testifiers, they did not mention these specific deletions," she said.
Wow. Stay classy, Republican Party. Stay classy. Oh, how I will miss you when you slide into irrelevance..
Seriously, though, those are obviously less "historical" changes and more just outright propaganda. "Judeo-Christian values"..."Separation of Church and State? Where?".
I think M84's signature perfectly encapsulates my feelings on the subject.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 14th 2018 at 8:40:46 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer![]()
"But you can't erase history!" they cry, when you try to remove their stupid confederate monuments.
Here's a list of some of the changes they made:
- Replace San Jacinto Day with Constitution Day in a section on "the origins of customs, holidays, and celebrations of the community, state, and nation" (the Battle of San Jacinto is taught in Grade 4 social studies and high school U.S. History).
Grade 3
- Remove Helen Keller from section on "citizenship."
Grade 4
- Remove Poteet Strawberry Festival from a section on "customs, celebrations, and traditions of various cultural, regional, and local groups in Texas."
- Remove the phrase "such as holding public officials to their word" from a requirement that students learn "how individuals can participate voluntarily in civic affairs at state and local levels" (this phrase was removed from Grade 4 for "not being grade appropriate" and from Grade 3 for "redundancy." However, it is still included in the Grade 1 social studies curriculum).
Grade 5
- Amend section on the Civil War to recognize the "central role of the expansion of slavery in causing the Civil War and other contributing factors including sectionalism and states' rights." Previous language included a list of factors, among them slavery and states' rights.
Grade 7
- Reinsert requirement to learn the William B. Travis letter and reference to "the heroism of the diverse defenders who gave their lives" at the Alamo. (The work group had recommended cutting it.)
US Government: High School
- Reinsert references to "Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law)," in section on "major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious traditions that informed the American founding."
- Reinsert the Biblical figure of Moses and remove Thomas Hobbes from section on "individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding."
World History: High School
- Reinsert reference to "German invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union, the Holocaust, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Normandy landings, and the dropping of the atomic bombs," from section on "the major causes and events of World War II." Remove "Japanese imperialism" from that list.
- Reinsert "Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict" in section on "the rise of independence movements in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia and reasons for ongoing conflicts."
- Reinsert reference to "the Judeo-Christian legal tradition," in section on "the development of democratic-republican government from its beginnings."
U.S. History from 1877 (High School)
- Remove the phrase "describe the optimism of the many immigrants who sought a better life in America," in a section on "social issues affecting women, minorities, children, immigrants, and urbanization."
- Reinsert a reference to "eugenics" in a section on "causes and effects of events and social issues such as immigration, Social Darwinism, the Scopes Trial, race relations, nativism, the Red Scare, Prohibition, and the changing role of women."
- Add Dolores Huerta to a section on "significant leaders who supported various rights movements, including Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez" and more.
- Remove Hillary Clinton from a section on "the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham" and more.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 14th 2018 at 8:52:47 AM
That's just not how this works, Republicans don't pack the courts because they don't have to.
The courts are already on their side, especially now.
Then we agree.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 14th 2018 at 8:54:37 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
![]()
Okay then. Thank's for talking.
![]()
![]()
Well, I guess make sure they're aware of the changes made and why they're important, right?

I believe I have been misunderstood as well.
I am well aware that most people are not going to hear "Democrats packing the Supreme Court" and jump for joy, but that's why we give the Supreme Court a good faith opportunity to behave decently.
So we pass legislation that is well liked by the general public such as single payer healthcare or workers rights and then we see what they do, if the Supreme Court decides to rule it unconstitutional and spit on democracy and the good of the nation then I think then packing the court will be viable not to mention fair.
The Supreme Court's power is based on its prestige and legitimacy and if they stand in the way of progress then they have neither.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 14th 2018 at 6:21:25 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang