TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Steven (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#254826: Sep 14th 2018 at 6:34:27 PM

Will have to keep a close eye on him. Hopefully my sister also helps him out. And I already knew about how much Texas controls the textbook industry.

Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#254827: Sep 14th 2018 at 6:37:49 PM

What amount of people, do you think, would view adding more people to the supreme court as unconstitutional or against some actual written rule rather than "well, we happened to settle on 9 and have implicitly agreed to not fiddle with the number since"?

If it gets that wildly out of sync with the executive and legislative branches, that's the point of having no fixed limit.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#254828: Sep 14th 2018 at 7:06:14 PM

It might be easier to impeach a justice than to add more than nine. Which is to say, it’s very unlikely to happen.

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#254829: Sep 14th 2018 at 7:12:56 PM

[up]: Pretty much. If, for instance, Trump won the election though outright fraud and espionage rather than merely manipulation, Democrats could try and make the case that Gorsuch was illegitimate. I don't personally think it'd work, but would be more likely to work than stacking it (as well as being a lot less bitter a pill to swallow for Independents).

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
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#254830: Sep 14th 2018 at 7:13:37 PM

This is going to affect my niece and nephew learning history. My little nephew just started Kindergarten so I wouldn't be surprised if the changes to the history books reaches him at some point.

If I were a Texas parent I'd seriously consider homeschooling if moving out of state wasn't an option.

i'm tired, my friend
singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#254831: Sep 14th 2018 at 7:23:04 PM

It's been mentioned that the Democrats see the Supreme Court as being less partisan than it is. I suppose the question becomes:

  1. Do we want a less partisan court as opposed to a Democrat controlled court?
  2. If we want a less partisan court, how do we achieve that above and beyond nominating those kind of judges?

My gut feeling says yes to the first, as trying to restore the apolitical nature of the court should reduce the chances of the courts being used to undo progress. I think the second would only be achieved if a precedent got set saying that the Supreme Court doesn't get involved in legislation less than 10 years old and publicly referred it back to Congress.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#254832: Sep 14th 2018 at 7:28:44 PM

If you want a less partisan court, it needs to not be based entirely on when they retire.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#254833: Sep 14th 2018 at 7:34:23 PM

[up][up]Just set a hard limit of one twelve year term per justice. Without the near guarantee of an ogre like Scalia or Thomas on the bench for thirty years, a lot of the partisanship is immediately removed.

Honestly, as a republic, none of our magistrates should have lifetime appointments.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Sep 14th 2018 at 10:37:06 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."
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#254834: Sep 14th 2018 at 7:54:46 PM

That's just not how this works, Republicans don't pack the courts because they don't have to.

Oh, I think it's totally fair to say they have already packed the courts. Maybe you can say it's a soft packing so far, but they denied a sitting, twice elected president a nomination for a year, then talked about denying another president a nomination for 4 years or more for no other reason than to make sure the balance of power would favor them.

    Some text from the linked article 
With just days until the election, some Senate Republicans are suggesting that when it comes to the Supreme Court, eight is enough. Eight justices, that is.

For the first time, some Senate Republicans are saying that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the GOP should prevent anyone she nominates from being confirmed to fill the current court vacancy, or any future vacancy.

...

Now some Republicans are suggesting the wait for Scalia's replacement could last much longer, perhaps an entire presidential term, or two. Three Republican senators have said directly that they would consider leaving Scalia's seat empty as long as Clinton is in office.

Sen. John Mc Cain was the first. Appearing on a conservative radio talk show, he said that if Clinton is elected, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee [that] she would put up." His press secretary quickly tried to backpedal, but Mc Cain himself has not.

Since then, Sens. Ted Cruz and Richard Burr have upped the ante, while other Republican senators have dodged and weaved on the question. The Senate's No. 2 Republican, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, said he didn't want to "speculate" on the question.

But Burr, in a tough re-election battle in North Carolina, said in a tape-recorded meeting with Republican volunteers last weekend, "If Hillary becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."

They already opened the door when they denied Obama, talked about denying a potential President Hillary Clinton, and smugly reminded us all that it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court.

Opening that door was their choice. If the door gets smashed into their faces when someone else comes barreling through, I won't shed any tears. In fact, I'll be enjoying a good long sip from a glass of delicious schadenfreude that I keep on hand for just such an occasion.

Edited by TheWanderer on Sep 14th 2018 at 11:08:30 AM

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#254835: Sep 14th 2018 at 8:02:00 PM

[up][up] [awesome] I really like that idea. That prevents the SC from being a game of chance and makes it more likely that bad decisions can be overturned. It also lets partisan hacks like Thomas or Gorsuch get out much quicker and stop getting in the way of helping people.

If John Oliver was calling the Primary arguments like Groundhogs Day, then the Supreme Court appointments are fricken Russian Roulette.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 14th 2018 at 11:14:37 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
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#254836: Sep 14th 2018 at 9:07:45 PM

Court packing is already occurring, arguably. Mc Connell kept a lot of District Court and appellate court judge positions open by refusing to confirm anyone during the last few years of Obama‘s term. Consequently, Trump has gotten to nominate quite a lot of federal judges in his first two years of his term, at least one of whom the American Bar Association (a non-partisan group which oversees accreditation of law schools and licensure for lawyers) explicitly said was unqualified and should not be nominated or confirmed.

The Republicans confirmed him.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#254837: Sep 14th 2018 at 9:29:21 PM

I wonder if, instead of court-packing, Congress should jurisdiction-strip the Supreme Court instead? Essentially, Congress can just pass laws that strip out the Supreme Court's authority to hear appellate cases regarding new voting rights legislation, or even establish special voting rights administrative courts to handle violations of a new VRA. (Canadian tropers may consider this move comparable to invoking the notwithstanding clause.)

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#254838: Sep 14th 2018 at 9:30:18 PM

I just hope that, if opportunities present themselves, the next Democratic president packs the Court with the most liberal, diverse, and (relatively, this is the Supreme Court we're talking about here) young mofos they can find.

Do not obey in advance.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#254840: Sep 15th 2018 at 6:31:34 AM

Sure 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.

By that logic, though, Loving v. Virginia stood a decent chance of getting overturned, as support for interracial relationships in 1967 wasn't even 20%, only hitting 50% support in the '90s. That is the hazard of using public opinion as a gauge for what should or shouldn't be held as Constitutional.

[up]

Better than my Rep's offer to Dana Balter is. John Katko is offering 4 debates in the week before the election, while Balter wants 7 held over the course of 6 weeks, along with 4 town hall meetings, one for each County in the District.

So not only would that hamstring the possibility of getting the message out to those sending in mail-in ballots, the agreement as-worded (to my understanding) would preclude the possibility of adding any joint appearances to the schedule.

Edited by ironballs16 on Sep 15th 2018 at 8:06:35 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#254841: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:26:54 AM

By that logic, though, Loving v. Virginia stood a decent chance of getting overturned, as support for interracial relationships in 1967 wasn't even 20%, only hitting 50% support in the '90s. That is the hazard of using public opinion as a gauge for what should or shouldn't be held as Constitutional.

Ah yes because people were wrong previously then clearly there's nothing wrong with the Supreme Court blocking popular and beneficial legislation.

Either you support democracy or you don't, not to mention that if we're going to advocate for nondemocratic government then I would want one that is at-least somewhat meritocratic unlike the Supreme Court whose primary selector is random chance.

Furthermore the idea that a heavily biased reactionary court is somehow a better metric of what is or isn't Constitutional is ridiculous.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#254842: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:29:33 AM

[up]

You're missing my point there. The Supreme Court held that bans on miscegenation were unconstitutional in clear defiance of public opinion because public opinion was wrong - but under the ruleset you're proposing, that public opinion could be used to override the decision of the SC by packing it with judges who would agree with the public even when it's wrong. That is the inherent danger of such a thing.

Edited by ironballs16 on Sep 15th 2018 at 8:32:14 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#254843: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:33:33 AM

You're missing my point there. The Supreme Court held that bans on miscegenation were unconstitutional in clear defiance of public opinion because public opinion was wrong - but under the ruleset you're proposing, that public opinion could be used to override the decision of the SC by packing it with judges who would agree with the public. That is the inherent danger of such a thing.

And public opinion matters, but I did not say it was the only thing that matters.

The legislation in question are also good, thus there is no inherent danger and you're just advocating for us to do nothing and allow the deep issues to infest our nation to get worse.

I see nothing rational or moral about that, whinging about other times the public has been wrong has no reasonable relevance in that I am not claiming that public will is the only thing that matters.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#254844: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:39:00 AM

[up] I don't think anyone here WANTS conservative control over the SC, Fourthspartan. We're saying that of all the solutions, attempting what WILL BE SEEN as a power grab is not the way to go. Its fun to fantasize about, but unfortunately, on this issue the Democrats really are Slaves to PR. And, as mentioned, such an obvious loophole is easily abusable. Something like turn limits would be a much easier sell and allow for conservative control to end much faster, in a way that will look less like a power grab and more an appeal against aristocracy and for democracy.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 15th 2018 at 11:41:26 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
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#254845: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:45:41 AM

I don't think anyone here WANTS conservative control over the SC, Fourthspartan. We're saying that of all the solutions, attempting what WILL BE SEEN as a power grab is not the way to go. Its fun to fantasize about, but unfortunately, on this issue the Democrats really are Slaves to PR. And, as mentioned, such an obvious loophole is easily abusable. Something like turn limits would be a much easier sell and allow for conservative control to end much faster, in a way that will look less like a power grab and more an appeal against aristocracy and for democracy.

Firstly it doesn't matter what anyone wants, they have control of the court and doing nothing is a choice itself.

Furthermore I am not "fantasizing", my suggestions are quite serious not to mention possible.

Furthermore the assumption that court packing must be nonviable from a PR perspective is not rational, maybe the public will oppose it but at the same time if the Supreme Court shoots down something strongly supported then I see no reason that support for court packing couldn't appear.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#254846: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:47:11 AM

I just think that we need to be cognizant of the fact that the wheel always turns. CNN is not "Liberal Fox News" despite the right-wing's attempt to paint it as such. Neither are any of the other news networks. Nor are the comedy shows like Colbert or Noah. Their job is to get ratings, not to advance our agenda. It's one of the reasons we lost 2016.

The media is not our ally. It never has been. It never will be.

As soon as we take power in Washington, the news cycle will shift from enthusiastic reporting on Republican corruption to enthusiastic reporting on Democrat corruption. There will be an effort to paint our next Presidency as being just as exciting as the current one, because the current one is getting ratings. "HOLY SHIT DID YOU SEE WHAT [Politician] DID TODAY?!" is a very effective attention-grabber, and I'm not optimistic enough to assume that this will cease to be true once we've retaken some positions of power.

We might be able to get away with adding one Supreme Court Justice if and only if that Justice is Merrick Garland, due to the widely-known fact that his seat was stolen from him. Any further attempt to pack the court will likely be painted through the most sensationalist rhetoric possible.

The last thing we need is to march into office and then, within weeks, have headlines surfacing about Democrats "crossing lines even Trump never dreamed of!". Winning 2020 only counts for so much if we lose 2022.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 15th 2018 at 9:48:32 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#254847: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:51:00 AM

The last thing we need is to march into office and then, within weeks, have headlines surfacing about Democrats "crossing lines even Trump never dreamed of!".

Since I specifically said that we should give the SC a good faith chance to not block our legislation this does not address my point in the slightest.

Yes if we immediately started packing the court then that would be unpopular but that's stupid and I'm not aware of any one supporting it, the situation would be completely different if we tried to pass Medicare for All and the Supreme Court shoots it down.

Thus the media's sensationalism does not need to stop court packing.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#254848: Sep 15th 2018 at 8:53:47 AM

[up] Except they still would. As previously mentioned, the narrative would go from "They're crossing lines" to "They're seizing the SC for political ends!" Democrats are not going to look good either way. More moderate ones in Red and Purple States would likely vote against it in an attempt to stay in office, too.

Which do you think is going to be a more attractive headline: "Democrats Swear in New Justices After Controversial SC Decision" or "Democrats Attempt to Pack the SC for their own Ends!"

Also for the record, I know you're serious. I'm saying its fun for ME to fantasize about.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 15th 2018 at 12:03:00 PM

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
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#254849: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:07:26 AM

Except they still would. As previously mentioned, the narrative would go from "They're crossing lines" to "They're seizing the SC for political ends!" Democrats are not going to look good either way. More moderate ones in Red and Purple States would likely vote against it in an attempt to stay in office, too.

Which do you think is going to be a more attractive headline: "Democrats Swear in New Justices After Controversial SC Decision" or "Democrats Attempt to Pack the SC for their own Ends!"

And once again your assumptions are unfounded, just because the media will sensationalize it does not mean that it cannot be done or that it can't be a net-positive.

Fundamentally we just don't know how people will react, the assumption that "moderates" will absolutely reject it is just as unfounded as the assumption they must have no problem with it.

I think it's perfectly plausible that if the Supreme Court shoots down Single Payer (which I must remind you has 70% support) that enough people will be outraged that court packing will become viable.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#254850: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:15:27 AM

The legislation in question are also good, thus there is no inherent danger and you're just advocating for us to do nothing and allow the deep issues to infest our nation to get worse.

Again, by that metric, legislation banning miscegenation was also good because the populace was in favor of it. Acting in a short-sighted manner can cause some drastic long-term consequences, as we've seen time and again through the US' actions during the Cold War (e.g. Iranian coup in 1953 leading to the Iranian Revolution in '79, teaching South American dictatorships how to be Torture Technicians to stamp out communism, etc.).

[up]

And again, the same metric as applied to anti-miscegenation legislation back in 1967 would have been supported by 80% of the US population. Just because it's popular doesn't make it "right", just as being unpopular doesn't mean it's "wrong", and vice-versa.

Edited by ironballs16 on Sep 15th 2018 at 9:16:10 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

Total posts: 417,856
Top