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
Term limits are good, but they're not a solution to our current problem. 18 years for the Conservative supermajority to fuck everything up is not acceptable. Court-packing will be necessary, hopefully, Dems are strong enough to recognize it and if we're fortunate the public can be convinced.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI think any meaningful change to the structure of the Supreme Court is going to require the Supreme Court to actually make a horrifically unpopular ruling.
Currently there's a perception that conservative justices "don't legislate from the bench", which is a relatively popular idea on the surface. The problem is of course is that people don't necessarily agree on what that actually means in practice, or exactly how restrained justices should be when it comes to actively striking down laws they deem out of line with the Constitution.
In order to change the court for the explicit purpose of curbing the power of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, this perception would have to be shattered. And this could only happen if the Court were to heavily intervene in the election after the fact, or if they do something on the level of striking down Medicare.
And this might never happened. Partly because enough of the conservative justices (Roberts and, oddly enough, both of Trump's appointees) recognize that overreach on their part could result in retaliation, and partly because there's a nonzero chance someone from the conservative wing won't outlast Biden's first term anyways.
The real issue with the system as it stands is that it's wildly undemocratic. Since 1969, Democrats have held the presidency for 5 terms and appointed only 4 SCOTUS justices (Carter got none in his single term, Clinton and Obama each had two terms and appointed two justices), while Republicans have had 8 terms as president but appointed 15 justices (Nixon had four in his one term and change, Ford had one in his not-quite two terms, Reagan had four in two terms, Bush Sr. had two in one term, Bush Jr. had two in two terms, and Trump has had two in his one term so far).
I haven't looked deeply enough into things to see if this is just straight luck of the draw or conservative justices are retiring during Republican administrations (which would result in a domino effect where more and more seats are essentially always appointed by Republicans), but either way, it's a problem with the system that has caused the SCOTUS to skew far more conservative than one would expect if the timing of nominees was essentially random, as was intended.
If Trump gets a third nomination through (which looks likely), then Republicans will have gotten four times as many appointments as Democrats despite only having 60% more time in office.
Edited by NativeJovian on Oct 24th 2020 at 5:04:02 AM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I think any meaningful change to the structure of the Supreme Court is going to require the Supreme Court to actually make a horrifically unpopular ruling.
Currently there's a perception that conservative justices "don't legislate from the bench", which is a relatively popular idea on the surface. The problem is of course is that people don't necessarily agree on what that actually means in practice, or exactly how restrained justices should be when it comes to actively striking down laws they deem out of line with the Constitution.
Of course, the Supreme Court would need to cause a legitimacy crisis for restructuring to become viable.
I don't think that's anywhere close to impossible, it's not like the Supreme Court hasn't stood against the popular will/elite will in the past. With predictably bad results for the Court. And with the Conservative supermajority, Roberts' vote would be less powerful which could lead to significantly more incautious rulings.
It's probably not inevitable, but I wouldn't assume that it's anywhere close to implausible.
(none of this is really meant to contradict you, just respond to your point and expand it)
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangOne possible reform is the court expanding each presidential term, so having each presidential term come with a fixed number of appointments to the Supreme Court either via expansion or via vacancies, vacancies occurring beyond the term’s appointment limit result in temporary court shrinkage.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMaine’s high court rules absentee ballots must be received by Election Day
Apparently there was an attempt to extend the deadline until the 13th, but the courts have upheld the requirement that all ballots must be received on election day.
Apparently, both North Carolina and Wisconsin are also in a limbo of whether they'll have extended dates or only count ballots received on election day. The Supreme Court is to decide on that soon...
Edited by LSBK on Oct 24th 2020 at 5:11:32 AM
Its not stupid its intended, Democrats aren't voting in person, so the Republicians are doing every thing in there power to make sure that only inperson votes count.
If you really care about making sure your vote counts you kinda have to just force yourself to do it in person even with the risks at this point, vote early if you can and minimize the line... because bluntly I have no faith that a large majority of mail in ballots won't be rendered invalid through every method they have at there disposal.
Edited by Imca on Oct 24th 2020 at 3:46:56 AM
Mail-in voting should be reliable as long as you do it early. Like, now. If you wait much longer than the chances of it not making it through the system or not having time to correct any problems before election day go way up. Some states/counties also have ways for you to track your ballot (to see if it's been received/accepted), which you can also take advantage of.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.They let you check the status of your ballot in many states, FYI.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Oct 24th 2020 at 4:17:11 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Isn’t impeachment of some of the justices also an option? Or is there some barrier that I’m missing?
As far as the Supreme Court goes: something I learned recently is that while FDR might have backed down on court-packing, after his attempt one of the conservative justices "mysteriously" suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was pretty much identical to stuff he'd previously voted to strike down. So it's not entirely unresponsive to "soft" pressure.
On a less positive note, though: it really looks like the polls are tightening again.
It's somewhat to be expected, AFAIK, but still, I don't see anybody talking about this anywhere, and it's giving me that whistling past the graveyard feeling again.
![]()
Both Thomas and Kavanaugh are at least suspected of criminal actions.
Is that two-thirds rigid, or can a fifty percent +1 majority decide to adjust it?
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Oct 24th 2020 at 9:21:37 AM
My musician page

Which would throw out a lot of conservative Justices.
That's a nonstarter, as it would require a Constitutional amendment. The relevant section says that SCOTUS justices shall hold offices "during good behavior", with no provision for term limits. This has generally taken to mean lifetime appointments, but they can be impeached, and there's plenty of precedent backing that up, so any law passed to the contrary would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional... by the SCOTUS, actually.
Edited by NativeJovian on Oct 24th 2020 at 4:20:33 AM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.