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

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#327851: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:03:57 AM

Lots of people seem to think Amy Coney Barrett will be the pick, but I don't know much about her.

According to her Wikipedia page, Barrett is another Antonin Scalia wannabe, similar to both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh; an Originalist who believes the Constitution should be interpreted only as it was written. She's also an extreme Catholic, and one of her opinion pieces during her law school tenure was that Catholic Judges should recuse themselves from cases that may result in the Death Penalty due to their Religious Beliefs (which was one of the many things Democratic Senators pointed out at her hearing for the 7th Circuit Court).

There is one silver lining; while she has made her Anti-Abortion opinions well known, she has also conceded that the fundamental right to an Abortion is most likely going to stay, which would most likely indicate she would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately that does not rule out making getting an Abortion a lot more difficult, and it's also possible if she gets on the court she would try her hardest to actively end Abortion on the Federal Level.

Edited by DingoWalley1 on Sep 19th 2020 at 12:04:40 PM

TyeDyeWildebeest Unreasonably Quirky from Big Rock Candy Mountain Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: How does it feel to treat me like you do?
Unreasonably Quirky
#327852: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:14:40 AM

With the Senate we could realistically either add more Supreme Court Justices

I've heard this brought up as a possibility a few times, and I'm curious how exactly we'd do it. Would it be done via a constitutional amendment or something else?

No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#327853: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:15:25 AM

IIRC there's no constitutional limit to a number of SC Justices. The Senate can just...appoint more.

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
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#327854: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:18:35 AM

[up]x2 What [up] said. The Constitution intentionally left the Court part of the Constitution vague; the only stipulations in there about Courts is that there must be a Supreme Court and that Congress is the one who determines all Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court (plus the rules about how Judges are appointed at the Federal Level). So Congress through simple vote can just say "We're adding 399 Justices" and 399 Justices would be added to the Supreme Court.

Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#327855: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:18:43 AM

It's a pretty blatant powergrab, though, and unlike the Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't be able to pretend to be playing by the rules.

I honestly think it would be the best option, but it won't go over quietly.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327856: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:24:07 AM

"the Democrats wouldn't be able to pretend to be playing by the rules. "

Of course they can. There are no rules. The Republicans make it clear every time that they change and make up the rules to suit them as it goes along. The Supreme Court has not always had nine members, nor has this not been brought up before when they made their purpose in life to obstruct every single thing Congress and the President passed.

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#327857: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:25:57 AM

[up][up] To be honest, I agree with this. A few years ago, I was convinced this would backfire, but honestly we're at "desperate last stand" mode, caution can go to the wind.

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
Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#327858: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:29:35 AM

[up][up]Yes, because the Republicans have a giant propaganda television network that regurgitates whatever justification they give with no no question. If no justification is given, they'll think of one themselves. That helps a lot in smoothing over Public Relations.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327859: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:32:23 AM

You're conceding ground and even a chance to defend actions before doing anything, which is just... silly.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327860: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:37:55 AM

Another danger of a Democratic grab for power by packing the courts is that it will play right into Republican/alt-right/Qanon propaganda about the Democrats wanting to take over the country and oppress conservatives.

I think it will inevitably widen divisions if they go that route. It could end up a very pyrrhic victory.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#327861: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:39:22 AM

We try it, we succeed, we safeguard at least some semblance of safety for millions of very vulnerable people. We try it, we fail, the Republicans run rampant. We do nothing, the Republicans run rampant.

What else are we supposed to do?

It's been fun.
megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#327862: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:40:27 AM

At this point, though, I do not see any better options.

BTW, the relevant legislation for the current size of the Supreme Court is the Judiciary Act of 1869.

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#327863: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:42:00 AM

There's gonna be no way around it; We have to pack the Supreme Court (and we should probably restructure the Federal court system too). My thinking is that the next Democratic Majority Government (which I hope is 2021) should pack the Court with 5-7 new Justices, then towards the end of their Term (Mid-Late 2022) they should write rules on how future Justices can get into the Court; for instance, a Court Justice can't be elected during a Presidential Election year, they have to have Federal Court Experience but they can't be nominated by the President who put them in (which would've barred Kavanaugh and now Barrett, as both were promoted by Trump to Circuit Courts), etc.

So that even though the Court Packing move will look bad, the new rules would almost certainly be approved by the majority of Americans and it'd look bad for Republicans to try to do away with those new measures.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#327864: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:42:15 AM

The problem with appointing more is twofold: the court can decide you can't and the next president can add more themselves.

This is a bad situation. It's possible the Democrats pull off a delay, get enough defections, but we need to buckle down and focus on taking the Senate

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#327865: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:44:23 AM

[up] Except there is nothing in the Constitution that determines the number of Justices; the Originalists would have to have major ass pulls in order to say "Congress can't change our size even though the Constitution says Congress can change our size", and the Liberalists certainly won't oppose.

TyeDyeWildebeest Unreasonably Quirky from Big Rock Candy Mountain Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: How does it feel to treat me like you do?
Unreasonably Quirky
#327866: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:45:31 AM

It's a pretty blatant powergrab, though, and unlike the Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't be able to pretend to be playing by the rules.

After years of Republicans blatantly cheating while Democrats try to take the moral high ground... I think it's time we bite back.

Let Fox News and OANN screech about the Dems abusing their power. I don't care. I'm sick of watching Mitch and his cronies flout established customs, obstruct us at every turn and then thumb their noses at us.

No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327867: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:46:21 AM

The problem with appointing more is twofold: the court can decide you can't and the next president can add more themselves.

No they can't.

They would have to strike down a law that enlarges the court, when the Constitution explicitly gives this power to Congress and the President (the president appoints, Congress confirms). Which would rely on getting anyone just added to the court to recuse themselves from a case where the rest of the court is nakedly partisan. Which wouldn't happen, as everyone would have to recuse themselves.

The SC cannot objectively take a case on its own composition so it would come down to a simple majority after it's been expanded.

[up][up] And after the court has had its size changed before. Constitution AND precedent.

Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 19th 2020 at 5:47:21 PM

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327868: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:51:32 AM

Oh yes, pack the courts, then quickly change the rules. That will go over well with the public...

That would be a power grab on top of a power grab, basically.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327869: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:53:34 AM

You do realise that the size of the court is set in a law, therefore changing the law is how you pack the court?

And as this does not seem to have sunk in: fretting about the public reaction is saying the conservatives get a court majority for the next forty years and can negate any remotely positive legislation.

I'm sure so many people want you to consider their lives inferior to popularity.

Zarastro Since: Sep, 2010
#327870: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:55:03 AM

I understand that RBG was an incredible woman with a very strong sense of duty.

However I wonder if she deserves some criticism for her decision to carry on as judge until her death. Of course nobody can predict the future and it is understandable that she did not want to give up her position. But every SCJ must be aware on how the composition of the court may change after his/her death. In Obama's second term, she was already in her 80s and battling with cancer. This should have been the time for her to retire.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327871: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:55:55 AM

Sure, but we don't have a time machine to go back and change that, so there's no point in thinking about it.

ShinyCottonCandy Everyone's friend Malamar from Lumiose City (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Everyone's friend Malamar
#327872: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:56:10 AM

[up][up]No justices were able to be appointed during Obama's second term, so her retirement would have only made things worse.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Sep 19th 2020 at 12:56:25 PM

My musician page
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327873: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:58:10 AM

You know full well that's not what I mean.

If you pack the courts, then make another law that makes it impossible for anyone to pack them ever again, then that is a blatant power grab. And sure, you as a Democrat can justify it, but Republican voters are going to see that differently. They will see it as an abuse of power, and it will only end up dividing the country even more.

I mean, I agree that all these things need to be done, but I just think the consequences down the road will be bad for the US.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
ShinyCottonCandy Everyone's friend Malamar from Lumiose City (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Everyone's friend Malamar
#327874: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:59:22 AM

[up]How can republicans divide the country more than they already have?

My musician page
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327875: Sep 19th 2020 at 9:59:55 AM

The consequences of relying on an honour system are even worse. Which is the only thing you're proposing instead.


Total posts: 417,856
Top