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 might have been a bit too narrow with my initial post - it basically depends what your definition/scope of "reeling in the states" is. For example, the For the People Act
I cited earlier includes things like requiring states to have automatic voter registration, restoring voting rights to felons not currently incarcerated, increasing accessibility of early voting/vote-by-mail, making independent redistricting commissions, among others.
Some of the things listed above have very specific guidelines, but others are along the lines of "states will create a commission to do such and such", with broad strokes rules but some of the more granular details left up to the individual states.
So I think Biden + Democratic Congress can increase federal oversight, and create limits for some of the more egregious things, but the actual administration will still be up to the states.
Edited by nova92 on Oct 20th 2020 at 6:36:18 AM
One of the Senate Republican's other plans... is to make a rule saying you need approval of two thirds of the Senate to increase the court size.
A rule which is about as effective as a proposed amendment, because it can promptly be rolled back by a bare majority.
Especially when you're trying to implement it using that same majority.
Vox has an article on how elections in the US could be improved.
It says that having the federal government oversee elections, as they do in Canada might not be possible in the US, but they could at least have each state's top election administrator be a non-partisan professional.
In a country as heavily divided and propaganda-filled as ours, "Maybe certain positions should be non-partisan!" is the kind of suggestion that sounds good on paper but good luck achieving it.
In theory, SCOTUS is a non-partisan institution. In theory.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Appointing such a position is an inherently political act regardless of how neutral the appointee is, and there's no way for that person to stay completely insulated from politics. Also, the harder it is made to fire or replace such a person, the greater the risk if they do become corrupt.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Aside from court-packing we really need term limits on Justices, letting them rule forever has an absolutely horrible effect. It just raises the stakes and ensures that an important position will be occupied by people who become quite behind the times. Not even mentioning the consequences of a reactionary dominated Court, as so often has been the case historically.
Edit: Oops, I realize that the non-partisan discussion wasn't about Supreme Court justices. Oh well, I'll leave my post anyway
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 20th 2020 at 7:06:20 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
![]()
While you are not wrong, it might have a negative impact on the neutrality (such as it is) of the court. The point of having supreme judges serve for life is that they no longer need to worry about the politics of their decisions, since they've already reached the tippetty top of their career. Instating term limits would make it so that the judges suddenly need to worry about what happens to them once their term is up.
They will almost certainly be tempted by being offered a cushy "job" in the private sector once they're done, if they were to look favourably on the company's interests while still on the bench. we see it all the time with the elected officials.
Edited by Kayeka on Oct 20th 2020 at 4:13:31 PM
While you are not wrong, it might have a negative impact on the neutrality (such as it is) of the court. The point of having supreme judges serve for life is that they no longer need to worry about the politics of their decisions, since they've already reached the tippetty top of their career. Instating term limits would make it so that the judges suddenly need to worry about what happens to them once their term is up.
They will almost certainly be tempted by being offered a cushy "job" in the private sector once they're done, if they were to look favourably on the company's interests while still on the bench. we see it all the time with the elected officials.
The neutrality of the Courts has always been a mirage. The Justices act upon their values with the inevitable consequences of that.
They may be tempted by cushy jobs but it's not like the current status quo hasn't involved very generous rulings for Big Bussiness, so fearing more plutocracy seems rather like closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 20th 2020 at 7:19:52 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yanghttps://mobile.twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1318343089031958533
“GOP MO Sen Hawley on if Senate GOPers could back a $1.8 trillion coroanvirus bill: "If it includes blue state bailout money then I'd say that's probably a hard no. That's probably a red line for this caucus including for me"“
My shitty junior senator, ladies and gentlemen, from the red state that’s done fuck-all to contain Covid.
Edited by Bur on Oct 20th 2020 at 9:19:34 AM
With electoral things Biden could do, he at a minimum could re-enable the Federal Election Commission by actually putting nominees forward, as it currently lacks the 4 members needed to function, having only one Democrat, one independent and one Republican (it meant to have 6 people). The FEC is responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws, so it’s pretty dam important.
Speaking of the high-low conundrum, the requirement for FEC nominees is that a single party can’t hold more than 3 seats, best I can tell there’s no requirement for them to be Democrats and Republicans. So theoretically Biden could have the committee have three democrats, two members of third-parties and the one current Republican.
Edit: Turns out one member is an independent and not a Democrat as I thought.
Edited by Silasw on Oct 20th 2020 at 2:36:30 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranLong appointments for court judges also make sense because they often have to take the long view. In theory, at least, the court is there so that there is a certain amount of stability to the law, and by extent the country, by reeling in overzealous lawmakers who tend to think short term thanks to their short term appointment.
We may be in a situation where we clamour for change, and rightly so, but there is a danger in too much change all at once, because it can destabilize the country, so that's why there is a supreme court to ensure changes are not too drastic. This also goes the other way, at least in theory, where the court is more forwards looking than conservative lawmakers, and can push the country forwards when lawmakers are clinging too much to the present and past.
That, I think, is the ideal, at least. The problem right now, aside for the specific politics, is that conservative lawmakers in Congress have too much power over the court, overly skewing it towards stagnation rather than progress, or even outright regression.
So the short term answer to this is court packing, and that will certainly work for the short term, but it is not a long term solution, and if not handle carefully will just destabilize the system even more.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
There is a major difference between long term view and lifetime appointments, our current situation shows exactly how terrible an idea the latter is.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 20th 2020 at 8:16:34 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWell, that's the question then, just how long do we want that long term view to be? And just how independent should those judges be?
If we say independence is critical (and I think it is), then an alternative could be a long term appointment, say 20 years, with a guaranteed pension afterwards so they feel less temptation from cushy job offers.
Edited by Redmess on Oct 20th 2020 at 5:19:45 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times

I feel Biden should probably reel in the states a bit on how they can organize their elections, and institute a more federal approach, where DC can set up clear guidelines for the states, at least for federal elections.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times