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

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#254851: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:16:50 AM

I just think that's wishful thinking.

When the SC shot down Trump's anti-immigration order, even the Trump team knew better than to retaliate with court-packing. They reworded the order to try and address the specific criticisms that the SC had with it, then made another pass. After a few tries, they finally got one that the SC couldn't poke holes in.

In the hypothetical scenario where the SC shoots down a Single-Payer law, that's what the public will expect us to do. Retool the law and try again until we have something that the SC can't take down. Any action further than that will be seen as more extreme than Trump.

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!
#254852: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:17:13 AM

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.)

Excuse me?

I said that the legislation was good itself, not to mention that I also specifically said that I'm not saying that popularity is itself evidence of goodness.

Simply that if some legislation is popular and good then we should not allow it to be shot down by a biased Supreme Court.

I just think that's wishful thinking.

And I think you're projecting your feelings onto the public, you may feel that the Supreme Court shooting down beneficial and popular legislation isn't enough reason to court pack but I see no reason to assume that the public must think the same thing.

Furthermore "just re-tool the legislation" makes no sense in that the Supreme Court will just shoot it down again, you don't seem to be acknowledging how ideological they are. Anything that supports workers rights, regulates businesses, or gives healthcare to people will very likely be opposed period.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 15th 2018 at 12:20:12 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#254853: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:17:57 AM

Honestly, there probably is a significant sect of people, on either side of the political spectrum, that will see court-packing by the Dems as a power grab, because said sect has long decided to see Dems as the bad guys no matter what. If I were in such a position, knowing I was going to be admonished either way, I would just go ahead and do it.

i'm tired, my friend
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#254854: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:18:53 AM

I feel like it's less that Trump knew better than to try court packing, and more that the idea never occurred to him.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#254855: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:19:59 AM

I feel like it's less that Trump knew better than to try court packing, and more that the idea never occurred to him.

Exactly, not to mention that they already control the court so it makes little sense for them to take the risk of court packing.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#254856: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:21:27 AM

Putting a time limit on SCJ tenure would probably be an easier sell than court-packing. Simply adding new justices whenever it's deemed necessary would make judicial review a volatile process simply because an ideological majority could be produced by each successive administration pretty much at will. It's simply too open to abuse and it generally gives voters the wrong vibes.

You put limits on judicial tenure, and you rake in a lot of the "strict term limits" advocates among the libertarian left, and it's just easier to sell as a good proposal. Nobody likes unassailable, entrenched political authority, so you could conceivably make this pitch to anyone who isn't ideologically invested in the SCOTUS being the maintainer of reactionary policy.

"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."
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#254857: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:22:27 AM

[up][up][up][up][up]

To you single-payer legislation would be viewed as good, as it would to many others. For others, though, it would be seen as a gateway to Communism and the downfall of the US, just as permitting interracial marriages to happen was a slippery-slope to the US losing its values.

Even if something is "good and popular", it does not justify upending the way our legal system works just to make an end-run around the courts blocking it, as it taints the legacy of that legislation because it would be forever marred by "They had to go to extreme lengths just to get this to pass". Kind of similar to the Republicans invoking the Nuclear Option when it came to Supreme Court nominations, and they pointed to Democrats invoking it on regular court appointees when the GOP was stonewalling Obama. It's why I'm very-much looking forward to seeing their bastardry with Garland coming back to bite them hard on the ass.

Edited by ironballs16 on Sep 15th 2018 at 9:25:58 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#254858: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:22:39 AM

[up][up][up][up][up] ...No, you cannot reduce opposition to this idea to "extremists don't like me because they don't". Do you not understand how this will come off to the public?

[up][up][awesome][awesome][awesome][awesome][awesome]

Pack the SC, you have to justify it as not actually being a power grab. Set term limits, now the Republicans have to defend life-time unelected civil servants with far too much power.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 15th 2018 at 12:26:34 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!
#254859: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:28:29 AM

To you single-payer legislation would be viewed as good, as it would to many others. For others, though, it would be seen as a gateway to Communism and the downfall of the US, just as permitting interracial marriages to happen was a slippery-slope to the US losing its values.

Ok now I know you're either not paying attention to my posts or are actively ignoring them.

Single payer has 70% support amongst the American public and a slight majority of Republicans support it, the fact that a minority of people have delusions about it does not make it any less supported or beneficial.

So no you're completely wrong, it's not just me.

Even if something is "good and popular", it does not justify upending the way our legal system works just to make an end-run around the courts blocking it, as it taints the legacy of that legislation because it would be forever marred by "They had to go to extreme lengths just to get this to pass". Kind of similar to the Republicans invoking the Nuclear Option when it came to Supreme Court nominations, and they pointed to Democrats invoking it on regular court appointees when the GOP was stonewalling Obama. It's why I'm very-much looking forward to seeing their bastardry with Garland coming back to bite them hard on the ass.

This is completely unfounded, people could just as easily look back and say that "they had to use extreme measures to overcome their unreasonable opposition".

Not to mention that a "tainted legacy" is nothing compared to the improving our dysfunctional and inefficient healthcare system.

.No, you cannot reduce opposition to this idea to "extremists don't like me because they don't". Do you not understand how this will come off to the public?

In this entire discussion you have made unfounded assumptions like this, you can't just say that the public will absolutely oppose something without providing some evidence to support your claim.

Furthermore of course there are extremists, if the public as a whole can at-least tolerate it then the opinions of extremists are irrelevant.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 15th 2018 at 12:34:55 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#254860: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:37:31 AM

Striking down miscgenation laws fundamentally didn't cause anyone harm, though. Striking down a Single Payer option would have effects BEYOND moral outrage.

Just as a reminder of the main difference in these scenarios.

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#254861: Sep 15th 2018 at 9:40:13 AM

[up] [up] I think you misunderstood. I did not say there are no extremists, I said it would be fallacious to reduce opposition to it. Moreover, you have not provided any evidence either that people are going to just accept such a move without complaint.

Look, this conversation has gone on for several days now. I think I'm going to have to back out for now and take a break. I don't think anyone's convinced anyone of anything, and this ultimately is only putting bad blood in the water.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 15th 2018 at 12:44:17 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
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#254862: Sep 15th 2018 at 10:15:19 AM

...No, you cannot reduce opposition to this idea to "extremists don't like me because they don't".

Good to know, because that's not what I was doing.

i'm tired, my friend
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#254863: Sep 15th 2018 at 12:42:26 PM

You will receive a text message from Trump at 2:18 pm EDT on Thursday, September 20th as FEMA tests its the Wireless Alert System.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#254864: Sep 15th 2018 at 12:59:37 PM

Thousands dead in Puerto Rico from hurricanes. Two new hurricanes on their way. But okay, FEMA. You can spend your money making it possible for Trump to text Americans directly if he gets banned from Twitter. That's fine.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#254865: Sep 15th 2018 at 1:59:17 PM

Is it actually coming from Trump himself, or someone in his administration?

Because I don't really want a text ostensibly about emergencies that also contains references to witch hunts, Crooked Hillary, and fake news.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#254866: Sep 15th 2018 at 2:27:05 PM

[up] It’s coming from FEMA, the system is just named “Presidental Alert” for whatever reason.

From the article:

On Sept. 20, FEMA will test its WEA system by sending out a text with the header "Presidential Alert" and the message, "THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed."

I almost wonder if it isn’t named “Presidental Alert” as some half-ass attempt to stroke Trump’s ego. It makes sense for emergency alerts to go to cell phones, but there’s no reason for it to be called that.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 15th 2018 at 2:40:08 AM

They should have sent a poet.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#254867: Sep 15th 2018 at 2:30:31 PM

Speaking of, Alarm grows inside FEMA as administrator Brock Long fights for his job.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#254868: Sep 15th 2018 at 2:43:25 PM

[up]Paywall. And Private Window doesn't work. Can someone quote it?

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#254869: Sep 15th 2018 at 3:20:22 PM

As the Federal Emergency Management Agency heads into peak hurricane season, an internal investigation has imperiled its top official, sparking a growing backlash within the agency where career officials and even some political appointees are worried there is no proven disaster manager on hand to replace him.

FEMA Administrator William “Brock” Long is said to be resisting an effort by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to replace him over his alleged misuse of government vehicles. The feud among senior Trump administration officials surfaced publicly in recent days as FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security raced to prepare for the arrival of Hurricane Florence.

The prospect of Long’s dismissal has alarmed current and former staff at FEMA and DHS, and it has captured the attention of officials on Capitol Hill, who note that the agency’s No. 2 position has been vacant for nearly two years and that Trump’s current nominee, Peter Gaynor, still awaits Senate confirmation. Trump’s original nominee for the post, Daniel Craig, withdrew from consideration a year ago after reports surfaced that the DHS inspector general found he had falsified work and travel records while working for the George W. Bush administration. ADVERTISING

FEMA’s third in command, Daniel Kaniewski, could take over, at least on an interim basis, if Long were to leave. But his background in policy and academia ­— and his lack of hands-on emergency management experience ­— has generated concern that an internal shake-up would unsettle the agency at the worst possible time.

This account of the power struggle and internal strife at FEMA and DHS is based on interviews with 14 current and former government officials and congressional aides. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer their candid assessment of the matter.

“Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea to try to take out the FEMA administrator in the middle of a storm?” said one former top FEMA official, angry that the infighting spilled into public view with millions of Americans under threat from Florence. “Even if that’s your objective, save it for after the hurricane.”

Long, a veteran emergency manager whom staffers described as highly respected throughout the agency, is under investigation by the DHS inspector general for his use of government vehicles during weekend travel between Washington and his home in North Carolina to see his wife and young children. Investigators have surveilled Long during those trips, which were said to include other FEMA staffers, raising questions internally about his use of government resources, a senior administration official said Saturday.

The inspector general’s surveillance of Long was first reported Friday by the Wall Street Journal.

An official with knowledge of Long’s schedule said that while Long has traveled home often, the demands of his job have also meant large blocks of time away from his family. During one stretch from late August to early December — at the height of last year’s hurricane season — Long did not return to North Carolina once while traveling to Texas for Hurricane Harvey, to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for Hurricane Maria, to Florida for Hurricane Irma, and to California to assess FEMA’s response to wildfires.

Long has told colleagues he has no intention of stepping down and remains focused on coordinating FEMA’s response to Florence, which has killed at least five and triggered widespread flooding in the Carolinas. At a briefing Thursday, Long denied doing anything improper, saying that’s “not part of my DNA.”

DHS and White House officials, including Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, have discussed replacing Long but decided to wait until Florence passes and the inspector general’s team completes its investigation, the senior administration official said. They acknowledge Long is highly competent and that the allegations against him present a dilemma.

In a statement, deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said: “We are aware of the allegations and will review the IG Report when it is complete. However, right now the Administration is working nonstop to prepare and implement a massive federal government support effort for those impacted by hurricane Florence.”

DHS officials have said that Nielsen denies asking Long to leave and that she is “confident in the leadership at FEMA and their proven disaster management ability.”

Long has kept a low profile since news of the probe was disclosed to the media, last speaking with Trump by phone on Friday, FEMA Associate Administrator Jeff Byard told reporters during a media briefing Saturday. Asked if Long would remain in the job, Byard said: “Our administrator’s our administrator. He’s given our team very clear guidance that the focus is Florence.”

Nielsen’s alleged desire to remove Long dates back months, according to people familiar with the matter who believe the inspector general’s investigation of Long is part of Nielsen’s effort to make a change at FEMA. She and Kaniewski are close friends and onetime housemates, according to three current and former colleagues.

Current and former FEMA officials said there would be alarm within the agency if Nielsen were to install Kaniewski into the top job, if only on a temporary basis while a new permanent administrator is vetted.

Kaniewski was confirmed by the Senate unanimously in September 2017 for the role of FEMA’s deputy administrator for preparedness. His title has since changed to deputy administrator for “resilience.” In that role, he oversees areas such as insurance, preparedness and grants, according to FEMA officials.

Kaniewski holds a doctorate in public policy from George Washington University, taught as an adjunct at Georgetown University, and has worked at a university think tank, a catastrophe risk-modeling firm and a federally funded research center. Yet despite his academic pedigree and policy background, he has little experience directing disaster response.

Jessica Nalepa, a spokeswoman for FEMA, said Kanieswki is “highly regarded in the emergency management community and has been an invaluable member of the Administration’s leadership team through multiple major disasters.”

“He is currently actively involved in the agency’s response to Hurricane Florence,” she said in a statement.

The top job at FEMA has been held by an official with ample leadership experience in disaster management ever since the botched federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which left more than 1,800 dead. Legislation passed in the wake of that storm mandates that FEMA’s administrator have at least five years’ experience, though the law’s vague wording allows for that experience to come from related fields beyond crisis management.

“After Katrina, the qualification to be FEMA administrator drastically changed. No more ‘Brownies,’ ” explained a current DHS official, referring to ex-FEMA administrator Michael Brown, who became the symbol of government ineptitude when critics latched on to Bush’s now-infamous declaration amid the fallout, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”

The bitter memories of that episode could make it difficult for a policy expert like Kaniewski to step into the top job if Long departs.

“I have a lot of confidence in his ability, but at the same time I don’t want to see anyone have to replace Brock,” said former administrator R. David Paulison, who took over FEMA in 2005 after Brown’s resignation.

But Kaniewski has a powerful advocate in Nielsen, with whom he worked as a homeland security adviser to Bush and later at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security. Last year, while Nielsen served as the DHS chief of staff, she lobbied for Kaniewski’s nomination to the deputy administrator position at FEMA but was overruled, according to a congressional staffer with knowledge of the process.

A DHS official who works closely with Nielsen denied that account and said Kaniewski was always intended to be head of preparedness at FEMA, not deputy administrator.

Those who’ve worked with Long describe him as “revered” among FEMA staff and state-level disaster management officials. He was emergency management director for the state of Alabama and, before that, a FEMA regional hurricane program manager.

“It’s concerning because I don’t know that you can find many others with that level of experience,” said Mark Cooper, who has worked in disaster response for three decades and is now chief of staff for Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards. Cooper worked closely with Long during hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, when they led response efforts for the states of Alabama and Louisiana, respectively.

“He took in thousands of our residents when not a lot of other states were willing to do that,” Cooper said. “And since he’s been at FEMA, he’s been on 24/7. There’s not a time we’ve reached out, whether on Sunday or late at night, when he’s not been responsive to us.”

Current and former FEMA officials also noted that Long has filled several key political appointee jobs with experienced emergency officials. They worry that if he is forced out, those seasoned veterans may leave with him or be replaced with less-experienced ones.

Others worry that even if Long survives, the frayed relationship with Nielsen could exacerbate existing issues between FEMA and DHS. “There’s problems baked into that relationship that predate them,” explained one FEMA staffer. “During disasters, the FEMA administrator is the principal adviser to the president. They’re the ones in front of the camera and leading the charge, even though they ostensibly report to DHS. That’s always been a source of friction.”

However, one former FEMA official said a leadership change now, even though it’s hurricane season, may have less impact than some fear. “The reality is the career folks who have been working at the agency for years could run FEMA for a while just fine,” the former official said, “but that’s only true if the political folks stay out of their way.”

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#254870: Sep 15th 2018 at 5:17:18 PM

Single payer has 70% support amongst the American public and a slight majority of Republicans support it, the fact that a minority of people have delusions about it does not make it any less supported or beneficial.

And what I'm saying is that, in the eyes of those living at the time of the Loving v. Virginia decision, that ruling would be considered "harmful" because those laws were meant to "protect" against intermingling of the races. It's easy, courtesy of Captain Hindsight, to consider their views backward and petty now, but as I mentioned before, it took until the '90s to finally get the country to 50% support for interracial marriages. Under the precedent you want to set, they would have been able to pack the courts enough to reverse that decision before 1968, let alone 1998. It's shortsighted even if it's well-intentioned.

And to completely change the subject, I stumbled across an episode of Becker today, "Chock Full o' Nuts", that was eerily prescient regarding the pushback on tax cuts considering it aired in 2003. Here's the YouTube link, and the text for it can be found on the Awesome and YMMV pages for the show itself.

    Text for the scene 
Beleaguered Bureaucrat: You're not listening! I can't help! Nobody can help. That facility is not going to reopen, and I'll tell you why: there is no money! There's no money because the federal government cut taxes, which is all anybody seems to care about anymore. That means less money for the state, which means less money for the city, which means we had to cut services, which means fewer cops, fewer firemen, bad air, bad water and crappy schools which will turn out yet another generation of voters too stupid and greedy to care about anything else besides cutting taxes! So don't you come in here and tell me to fix your problem, because there's not a DAMN THING I CAN DO ABOUT IT!... Where did that come from?

Edited by ironballs16 on Sep 15th 2018 at 11:35:27 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Ludlow Since: Apr, 2013
#254871: Sep 15th 2018 at 11:13:49 PM

[up] I hate to say this, but reading your posts leaves me with the impression that you believe, like many politicians, that any great change that benefits millions of people or rights an injustice but is opposed by a significant entrenched minority simply should not be done. Leaving behind your modern opinions and the benefit of hindsight for a second, if you were politician or a supreme court justice but in the day, and the issue of interracial marriage came up, would you hem and haw about how "well I agree that laws against interracial marriages are wrong, but its too controversial, it would require unpopular decisions, there are more important things to care about."

Because if thats the case, you might want to rethink your stances on issues, if people like you ruled the country back in the 50s and 60s, then none of the gains of the civil rights movement would ever have been made.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#254872: Sep 15th 2018 at 11:34:44 PM

[up]

I think you may be misreading my post, because my intended argument is the opposite. Something that has widespread support should be able to pass Constitutional muster without resorting to cheap tricks like packing the courts. By doing so, you might wind up jeopardizing something that's unpopular but right (e.g. repealing anti-miscegenation laws) because you've opened the door to altering the court just to match what the majority think should be the case.

And yes, this has the unfortunate side-effect of leaving shit like the Citizens United ruling stand until the legislature gets their collective heads out of their asses, but it also means protecting unpopular rulings that bore out in the long-term, e.g. Loving v. Virginia.

Edited by ironballs16 on Sep 15th 2018 at 11:39:13 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#254873: Sep 16th 2018 at 12:31:25 AM

I'm still wondering why packing the courts is such a topic of debate here when it doesn't seem like anyone in an actual position of power appears to be considering it. I mean, even if we manage wins like getting both houses of congress and getting the presidency I don't think that plan is feasible. Hell, it wasn't really feasible when FDR did it.

(And frankly a lot of people probably don't know that the whole nine judges thing is also a tradition rather than a hard rule/law. I certainly didn't for the longest time. This is one of those things that doesn't really get discussed a lot because people are just used to there being nine judges.)

Ludlow Since: Apr, 2013
#254874: Sep 16th 2018 at 1:16:05 AM

[up][up] I see, I apologize then.

I've just had a lot of experience with people who thought like that, especially before same-sex marriage was legalized. I can certainly understand being cautious, but some people I've met seem to believe that injustice can be tolerated until "the right time" which is usually either never or decades in the future.

Its personal sore spot for me, sorry about assuming things.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#254875: Sep 16th 2018 at 3:43:52 AM

[up]x3 Then what, exactly, is your proposal if a partisan Supreme Court starts striking down the entire principle of any mass government-funded healthcare, to use the main example? You can't "go back and rewrite it" if they make some idiotic conclusion based on a 200 year old piece of paper that invalidates the entire premise. Do you just say "oh, well, it's not that important anyway?"

Because if I recall correctly, the last time the court tried to complete stonewall legislation along those lines, threatening to pack it was the only thing that got it to actually comply with the other two branches of government. And there's no point to an empty threat.


Total posts: 417,856
Top