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
I understand Redmess's point that court packing on it's own leaves the door open for Republicans to do the same.
While it is very true that a lot of Republican's advantage comes from gerrymandering/voter suppression and so forth, there is no guarantee that the GOP cannot hold power again. The current viable reforms don't address the red slant of the Senate nor the problems of the Electoral College, the red state legislatures, etc.
Democrats can't do nothing, democracy is on the line, which is why I think court packing is needed. I guess my question is, what sort of reforms can we put on the courts, in addition to adding members, that can prevent this sort of politicization/blatant cheating and prevents Republicans from applying a tit-for-tat?
Edited by nova92 on Sep 19th 2020 at 4:19:04 AM
That is what I mean, Democrats can't do nothing, but what they can do at the moment is a big risk in itself.
What the US really needs is reform of its electoral system, not just the electoral college, but also in how presidential candidates are chosen, for instance (see the mess with the primaries).
This can't just be packing the courts and be done with it. If the Democrats are going to go that route, they practically commit themselves to those other things as well. Simply recovering from Trump would not be enough in that case.
Which ultimately means Biden really needs to step up and take charge. I think just being a "return to normal" president would be disastrous in such a situation.
Edited by Redmess on Sep 19th 2020 at 1:25:33 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Which ultimately means Biden really needs to step up and take charge. I think just being a "return to normal" president would be disastrous in such a situation.
But should Biden win this November, how much can he do in four years (if assuming he doesn't want another four-year term)? Not only that, it isn't just the White House. Senate's another prize that shouldn't fall into Republican hands and should the Democrats get the Senate too, only then can we get to reforming.
Edited by HallowHawk on Sep 19th 2020 at 8:02:02 PM
DC statehood would move the senate in a positive direction, the Wyoming rule could have a huge impact on the electoral college, reinstating the Voting Rights Act could well change things in multiple states at a state level, hell a packed court could throw out Citizens United and dramatically cut the ability of the uber-rich to buy elections.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
And that's the danger, I think. If the Democrats pack the court but can't get anything else done, the danger is that Republicans will be able to retake the senate and presidency (assuming they lose both in the election, of course), and then pack the court right back in their favour. Then we will be worse off in the end.
That is assuming that already sitting Democratic judges will be willing to go along with Democratic reforms. Is their support really such a given?
Edited by Redmess on Sep 19th 2020 at 2:17:54 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesThis your friendly reminder that Nixon got to appoint FOUR conservatives justices
. . . who ruled against his interests anyways
when push came to shove.
![]()
![]()
@Silasw All the things you mentioned are important, but the Wyoming Rule would not have had a meaningful effect on Electoral College results, DC must be made into a state, but it wouldn't have actually affected Senate majority, Voting Rights Act is also vital but most red states would still be blood red and keep Republicans in power there.
Not to dismiss the importance of these reforms! They are some of the most important things a Democratic Congress should do and will move to shore up US democracy. I just think it's overly optimistic to think that they will render the GOP obsolete.
Edit:
Gorsuch has broken from Trump on a few key votes (and even Kavanaugh has, once or twice), but US democracy and people's rights should not have to rest on the ability of Trump appointed justices to not be raging far-right ideologues. They have still done far more damage than they have mitigated it and a few votes should not suddenly whitewash their record.
Edited by nova92 on Sep 19th 2020 at 5:24:48 AM
Yeah the likelihood is that even a 6-3 Conservative court would rule against Trump if he attempts to blatantly steal the election, if for no other reason than the fact that the court is physically located in DC and it’s a bad idea to start a civil war when you’re based in what would be enemy territory.
Ending felon disenfranchisement (which exists to stop black people voting) could flip several states overnight, we don’t know what fair US election results look like, with fair elections we could see regular blue Arizona and regular blue South Carolina.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 19th 2020 at 12:25:22 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranA lot of damage can be done even without helping Trump cheat the election. Roe v Wade is just one ruling that is at stake.
My musician page![]()
I'm sorry to be quibbling over numbers, but South Carolina wouldn't go blue even with outlawing felon disenfranchisement - there are approx. 50,000 disenfranchised voters in S. C. Margins of Republican wins are over 200,000 votes. Where it would help is as you said, Arizona, and Florida. It might (not certain) make states like Mississippi, even Wyoming or Tennessee less red.
The point I'm trying to make is that these things are treated as the definitive end of the GOP, but that isn't the case. (Of course, giving people the right to vote is important, regardless)
Edited by nova92 on Sep 19th 2020 at 5:39:52 AM
This is the most dangerous line of thought there is, no even with all that they WILL be back in power, not an if a win.
Trump lost by less then 2% of the popular vote, right wing ideology has almost half of the population backing it, and none of those will change that... you can pretend they will all you want, but they wont... there is a reason right wing politicians are on the rise the world over, and why the uk is fimly under the Tories thumbs... that many shitty people exist
So any plan that relies on "well the shitty people will just never get back in power" is doomed to fail from the start and harm you with it.
One solution posed by an Op-Ed in the LA Times - threaten to pack the court if the GOP tries this stunt. Make it abundantly clear that, if they do such a quick 180 from their refusal to even hold a vote for Garland in order to hastily confirm a Trump appointee, the Democrats will have no option but to increase the court size in order to counteract their chicanery. Just the threat of it may be enough for a few waffly members to opt not to do it, and hope instead that the prospect of a Supreme Court seat might drive up conservative voter outlook.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
Right wing ideology has lost a lot of supporters the past four years. Everybody Has Standards results in lines being crossed that will remove voters. Attacking and refusing to defend the military is one such standard for some Republican voters around here in SC. Look at every heinous thing Trump and the Republicans have done the past 4 years, a LOT of lines have been crossed. A vocal minority does not make a majority.
I know I’m like 10 pages late, but just so everyone knows, RBG was Jewish, and the correct way of speaking about our dead is not “rest in peace”, as we don’t exactly share the christian concept of an afterlife. It’d be more respectable to say “may her memory be a blessing”, which is what we say instead.
I don’t really have anything to add besides that. I’ve got a lot of concerns, but nothing that hasn’t been said already.
![]()
And that is why there ssuport numbers have remained steady? Why we lost every big name state in 2018 that we "actualy had a chance" to win, why more and more Trunp supporters and Qanon fanatics get elected to congreas every election?
No that's just something that you tell your self to comfort yourself, they arent going away, this fight is never going to end, and we need to quit pretending if we just do X it will be over it wont...
This is a fucking war, not a battle, kantai kessen failed in wwii and it will fail in politics... there is never a decisive moment just a long drawn out slog where you have to dig in.... as such we cant aford to give the enemy any more weapons then they already have when they make there counterattack.
Methods to force them to play by the same rules they forcedon Garland are better since its turning there own rules agianst them... if that fails there needs to be digging into figuring out how to term limit judges, so that it's not a damnation for life but also not something the Republiciansl can turn around and use thrmselfs
There are options besides just handing them a loaded gun to use on us next time they get power themselfs.
Edited by Imca on Sep 19th 2020 at 7:20:55 AM
A steady number of Republicans polled. If you do a poll to 10K people in a party of 1 million, but you lost 900K of them who now no longer consider themselves part of that party, that doesn't show up in such a poll. The winners of Republican primaries will be done by those remaining, so of course crazies will show up when the remaining people in the party are crazy.
We also WON the House in several Republican states, if I recall right. Your doomsaying is counteracting your ability to think logically.
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"Let's not assume that there's a mythical crop of Republicans 10x the size of Trump's voter base who are still going to vote, just not for him. I understand you're exaggerating for effect, but that's not the kind of magical thought we can entertain for even a moment. The situation is bad and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Edited by RedSavant on Sep 19th 2020 at 10:31:53 AM
It's been fun.@Imca: Trump and the Republican's dedicated support is closer to 1/3 of the population then 1/2, but given how much the electoral system favors that population your point still stands.
Unfortunately I do not think that the Democrats are willing to commit to dismantling the Republicans systemic advantages, and I also don't think they grasp how deeply the political situation has been destabilized by the Right. They still want to be seen as "the adults in the room" capable of fair and responsible procedural governance even in the face of abject contempt and incompetence from their fellows in the Republican Party, but the political conflict is escalating well past that point and no amount of "going high" is going to stop that.

If we do manage to pack the courts and get some major gerrymandering/voting rights decisions made, I do think it's actually pretty reasonable that the GOP as we know it will literally never be in power again. They only have a chance in the first place because they stacked the deck by cheating.
I also agree that they don't give a shit about precedent and would stack the courts themselves in a heartbeat if they needed to (so far they haven't).