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

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#327926: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:06:58 PM

Spartan: You should read my post again. I want to add more justices. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't cost us electorally because all that stuff we want to do or protect won't come to fruition if we lose Congress two years from now. Half a term isn't long enough to get everything we want done.

I don't think the Democrats would do it in a way that's electorally suboptimal, it's not like they're fanatics who would put it in the most extreme way possible after all.

Still, that's a fair correction.

"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
#327927: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:07:54 PM

Sure, let's put trust in the conservative judges, when they're appointing the most conservative members they can find, to not overturn every piece of progressive legislation or every legal protection for anyone that comes before them.

It would be worse than pointless to add to the court but not take a majority.

Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#327928: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:16:33 PM

Can I ask where the idea that Dems packing the courts will cause significant chunks of their base to turn on them in the first place? Because it seems more likely that looking like they aren't doing enough to the wake of this vacancy would do more than less in that regard.

It's less the base and more the moderates, centrists, and otherwise undecided voters that we have to worry about. The Democrats are more dependent on moderate votes than the Republicans are for a variety of reasons, not least of which being that the Dems' base has more structural obstacles to voting in the first place than the Reps', and moderates are far more susceptible to optics than base voters are. After all, a lot of undecided voters wouldn't be undecided if they paid attention to anything more than the surface level of politics to begin with.

This is a big part of why the double standard held by our media and culture against the Left is so crippling.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327929: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:19:48 PM

I think just two would be easier to sell than four. With two, Democrats can convincingly argue that they are simply balancing the court against a supermajority, rather than holding their thumb on the scale for their own benefit. And if they keep it to two, no Republican can argue that they are just abusing the system to grab power. Or at least, that argument will sound less credible to Democrats.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#327930: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:21:03 PM

'Optics' is another word for 'what you are capable of selling'. Inaction based on 'bad optics' is admitting the limitations of your salesmanship. We should be very worried if a huge, incredibly rich political party is unwilling to take necessary actions because of 'bad optics' - it suggests a fundamental incompetence on the part of the leadership at their primary job - or, at least, an admittance that they cannot out-sell the other guys.

Political parties are collective campaigning organisations. They are not and have never been passive actors who simply act according to public opinion, and the parties who choose to behave like that tend to get rolled hard by opponents who see public opinion as something to be shaped according to their political agenda.

This is especially important in the US, where baseline civic/political education is weak, giving any large, well-funded political organisation a great deal of potential power over voters' political education and therefore their political behaviour. The Republicans creating a dedicated propaganda channel in the form of Fox News and then successfully deterring competition by screeching about 'liberal brainwashing' was an enormous political victory, and illustrative of the difficulties that light-touch, free-market liberalism has with dealing with right-authoritarians (who will use the money, power, and freedom from regulation that free-market liberalism grants them for aggressively political ends).

What's precedent ever done for us?
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#327931: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:21:32 PM

I could see an argument for balancing it so that Roberts remains the swing vote, it might well be an easier sell, unlike some of the others Roberts cares about his legacy and the reputation of the court, he’s not likely to undo gay marriage, explicitly outlaw abortion, ban public healthcare or reinstate Jim Crow, unlike a number of his colleagues.

Adding two seats would effectively reset the court to how it was before RB Gs death, that might well be an easier sell.

but it's not like they could take every bit of Democrat legislation all the way to the SC, right?

Sure they can, they almost got Obamacare thrown out and would have if Roberts wasn’t trying to preserve his reputation. They already threw out half the Voting Rights Act and with a 6-3 majority might well throw out the other half (that’s the half that ban Jim Crow laws and thus lets black people vote).

Starting to be outright unlawful for the greater good is a very slippery slope.

We’ve avoided unlawful suggestions so far and I don’t believe they’ve even entered the online discourse. Which I guess is a good thing, but not addressing this situation does run the risk of such ideas spreading out.

If thousands start dying because abortion is outlawed across multiple states we could see radicalisation happen.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 19th 2020 at 9:24:50 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327932: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:25:26 PM

Specifically, they asserted it's no longer necessary to prevent racist voting laws, because anti-racist voting laws had lead to parity in voting. Also I think they buggered up the test so that you're back to needing to prove racist intent in drafting a law, then in another decision gave lawmakers presumptive innocence of any racist intent when drafting a law.

Imca (Veteran)
#327933: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:27:27 PM

I am 100% agianst court packing and feel that every other option needs to be explored first since otherwise biden will be a one term president, and we will loose the house and Senate until the Republicans pack the court thenselfs. seriously people the AHCA was seen as partisian overreach and has cost us senet for 8 fucking years, do you really think court packing wont do worse?

However... I cant agree with just 2, if you have absolutely committed to deplying nuclear option and costing yourself all foreseeable future elections... well at that point you might as well just go all fucking in, pack with a majority, change the rules and accept that you have cost your self power for the next decade at least, because your going to have to accept that with a half assed mesure that any way.

Edited by Imca on Sep 19th 2020 at 2:28:29 AM

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#327934: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:28:23 PM

So former members of the Confederacy used to have to run new voting laws past the federal government, because duh. The Supreme Court said that while making certain states run their laws past the feds was okay it wasn’t fair to use membership of the Confederacy as the criteria for what states get subject to federal checks for racism, saying that congress has to come up with a new criteria, which it hasn’t been able to do while divided.

the AHCA was seen as partisian overreach and has cost us senet for 8 fucking years

Democrats lost their senate majority 6 years ago...

Edited by Silasw on Sep 19th 2020 at 9:29:52 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327935: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:28:55 PM

I also think being elected for life makes even Republican judges less likely to kowtow to party politics. We are already seeing this with Kavanaugh, who will go against Trump on occasion, regardless of how he got there.

In that sense, just adding two judges could perhaps already be enough. That would mean there would be five Republicans, any one of which could swing a partisan tie.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327936: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:30:11 PM

every other option needs to be explored first

You just said that "passing any legislation" counts as enough to cost the Senate.

Actually suggest something, not "don't do this until we've tried other things".

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327937: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:31:27 PM

[up][up][up][up] So what you are basically saying is, potentially sacrifice everything else for several decades as long as Democrats can keep the court?

[up] Democrats should absolutely explore all options available to them. To do otherwise would be naive.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 19th 2020 at 11:33:17 AM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Imca (Veteran)
#327938: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:34:48 PM

I am saying that any attempt to pack the court is already going to do that, there is no way to sell it to the public that wont.

So if your going to die any way you might as well go down with glory rather then half assing it.

Because there is absolutely no way to pack the courts without loosing every thing for at least 8 years, it wont mater if its 2 or 4 or the rules are changed afterwords... the result is the same on election chances, there done that's it, its the final and end to that.

[up][up] I have half a dozen times, change the system so the court rotates and isnt reliant on a judge dieing it's a much, much easier sell.

It's not blatantly partisian.

Edited by Imca on Sep 19th 2020 at 2:38:17 AM

Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#327939: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:37:16 PM

I am 100% agianst court packing and feel that every other option needs to be explored first since otherwise biden will be a one term president, and we will loose the house and Senate until the Republicans pack the court thenselfs. seriously people the AHCA was seen as partisian overreach and has cost us senet for 8 fucking years, do you really think court packing wont do worse?

See, this seems like just saying that Republicans are more capable of selling their norm violations in order to secure power. If the Democrats can't sell the reforms they need in order to secure meaningful change and reverse the damage the Republicans have done, what's the point of them? Do you honestly think a modern Republican president would hesitate to pack a court stacked against them, regardless of whether the Democrats had done it first?

The big question is 'will this course of action meaningfully help the country?' If you believe the answer is 'yes', but you think it would be 'bad optics' that would alienate the electorate, then you're basically saying that you're incapable of convincing the public that something that's good for them is good for them. That's not a reassuring admission from a professional politician.

What's precedent ever done for us?
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#327940: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:38:02 PM

@Imca: There are really are no other less bad options.

Impeaching any of the justices will probably be seen as an even more blatant partisan attack and would probably have more far ranging consequences, trying to legislate as normal will just see rights and programs more explicitly eroded as conservative states and organizations are chomping at the bit to launch lawsuits, and I doubt anyone on the Democrats side would be willing to go full Andrew Jackson and just ignore the court.

Unless you are ok with the Democrats essentially just becoming a permanent lame duck party, we can not be afraid of electoral optics.

I have half a dozen times, change the system so the court rotates and isnt reliant on a judge dieing it's a much, much easier sell.

That would require a constitutional amendment, which is effectively impossible in this political environment.

Edited by Mio on Sep 19th 2020 at 5:40:10 AM

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#327941: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:38:25 PM

You probably do a combination of both packing and reforms of the way the system works.

So maybe change is so that each presidential term a president gets to make three appointments (the number Trump will have appointed), with appointments that would make the court even numbered being held on pause and not actually being seated until there are 2 in the queue or someone dies/retires.

I have half a dozen times, change the system so the court rotates and isnt reliant on a judge dieing it's a much, much easier sell.

That is literally court packing, which is what you’ve been arguing against...

Edited by Silasw on Sep 19th 2020 at 9:47:52 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#327942: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:38:37 PM

Are there any other options that prevent Republicans from controlling the SC? All this talk about "other options", but what the hell else can they do?

potential [nja]

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Sep 19th 2020 at 5:39:13 AM

i'm tired, my friend
Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#327943: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:39:05 PM

One strategy might be for the Dems to start by passing new rules and restrictions on who is eligible to be nominated for the Supreme Court, like minimum experience levels. Codify some common sense guidelines on who's suitable for the position into law (as they're going to have to do a lot of anyway, after the Republicans have spent the last four years showing us just how flimsy unwritten rules really are). This should give them a buffer for their soon-to-follow series of appointments, as they themselves were the ones to raise the bar on who is allowed to be nominated in the first place. This entrenches their brand as the party of responsible governance.

Spreading out the appointments a bit would help, too. Instead of cramming multiple justices in at once, do, like, one a year through Biden's first term. This should dissipate backlash without letting the conservative super majority stand for more than a couple years, especially if the administration makes a big deal out of its need to restaff the federal government after Trump bled it dry of personnel, and can sell the extra justices along those lines.

DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#327944: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:39:22 PM

Whenever "bad optics" come up, I seriously wonder how good the optics of "we could do something to prevent harm from coming to you, but we won't" is supposed to look by comparison.

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
Imca (Veteran)
#327945: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:39:35 PM

@Mio Its a democracy, you always have to fear optics thats how you maintain power. Ignoring them just means the other guy comes in and undoes everyhong you just did.

@Silsaw: Yes, republicians are demonstrably better at selling there rules violations, that's not even an argument between there propaganda network and that being why people vote for them in the first place.

Also a rotation isnt packing, packing is partisan to get your own into court, rotation could be sold as a procedural change that benefits and harms every one equaly.

@Other options: Wryte just gave some more...

Edited by Imca on Sep 19th 2020 at 2:47:12 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327946: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:40:12 PM

[up][up] I have half a dozen times, change the system so the court rotates and isnt reliant on a judge dieing it's a much, much easier sell.

That would need a Constitutional amendment, it's not happening.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#327947: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:44:14 PM

[up][up] Power isn’t any good if you refuse to use it out of fear of loosing it.

You’re suggesting that democrats abandon women’s rights, gay rights and voting rights.

That or you’ve totally failed to understand that court packing means many different possible reforms, including suggested retirement ages that trigger a new appointee if retirement is not taken or other less blatantly partisan measures than writing a law that says “we get more seats, fuck you”.

@Silsaw

I think you meant this response for laculus, not me.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 19th 2020 at 9:46:23 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Imca (Veteran)
#327948: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:49:43 PM

I am not suggesting we abandon those, in fact the opposite, where I am sitting at trying to force the courts is the path that's abandoning them, since it just means AT LEAST 8 more years of this as soon as the next election happens.

Though it could drop to 4 if the republicians court pack back, but at that point you did nothing and just handed your opponent a free victory any way.

Also probaly, typing on the phone from work in a topic like this is kind of :/.

Edited by Imca on Sep 19th 2020 at 2:50:26 AM

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
#327949: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:51:06 PM

I am not suggesting we abandon those

And yet that's the inevitable conclusion if we don't pack the courts.

My musician page
GoldenKaos Captain of the Dead City from Cirith Ungol Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Captain of the Dead City
#327950: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:52:39 PM

The bad optics argument rests on the assumption that Dem voters would react badly enough to the Dems in office putting their collective foot down and accomplishing something that they'd take their vote elsewhere. And I just kinda don't see that happening.

Again, when your opponent is stabbing you with a knife, you don't worry about kicking them in the balls not exactly being sportsmanlike. We don't have the luxury of the most powerful country in the world's main progressive (just) party trying to fight off climate disaster and actual fascism with an arm tied behind their back.

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

Total posts: 417,856
Top