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

TheAirman Brightness from The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Historians will say we were good friends.
Brightness
#335176: Oct 24th 2020 at 8:09:47 PM

@De Marquis: Am I correct to assume that you are not somebody who's human rights are set to expire upon Amy Coney Barrett's swearing in? Because I am, and I'm fucking terrified of living under a theocratic extremist judicial system. It was the first fucking day of the new term after RBG died when Thomas and Alito started publicly salivating at the prospect of an imminent overturning of Obergefell v Hodges. Barrett couldn't even give a response when asked if she saw a possible future where the constitution permits the execution of women who seek abortion.

Anything the new SC decides to overrule, they can just declare unconstitutional if legislation is passed. Even in the best case scenario, we do not have the numbers in Congress to force an Amendment; the only hope that I, and millions of other humans, have of being treated as human beings is a rapid expansion and unpacking of the Court.

And on that note, I say unpacking for a reason: It is genuinely impossible for a Biden administration and Democrat Senate to pack the courts, because they first must rectify, either by impeachment or expansion, the last four years of packing that Trump and the Republican party have been doing.

Edited by TheAirman on Oct 24th 2020 at 10:42:17 AM

PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/They
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#335177: Oct 24th 2020 at 8:21:32 PM

Yeah, I find it rather optimistic to think that a conservative court won't see a way to find "obviously" constitutional things unconstitutional.

Anything the[y] overturn can be fixed with appropriate legislation.

But again, Congress can pass new legislation that places greater restrictions on what states can do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

The Supreme Court, could also, IIRC, say that it's not in Congress's purview to legislate on these issues and say that it's a states rights thing? Or they could strike down those new laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional in and of themselves. Also, there's no guarantee of a Democratic trifecta forever. Under a Republican trifecta (god forbid), things could be much more dire. This is about more than just the immediate future.

Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 8:21:51 AM

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#335178: Oct 24th 2020 at 8:27:22 PM

Distinct from that, the Senate/Electoral College are anti-democratic institutions and should be abolished, but the non-representative nature of them now shouldn't be the reason to deny any representation to the people living there.

You're ruling out structural amendments to the Supreme Court as impossible, but you want to abolish the Senate?

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#335179: Oct 24th 2020 at 8:36:34 PM

Editing this post because I think I've been all over the place this morning, so trying to be more clear on where I stand.

I feel like court-packing is terrible at being a solution rather than a band-aid, though. Something like term limits would be way better.
But it bothers me that the overwhelming majority of people talking about reform have defaulted to court-packing without even mentioning term limits.

I don't think it's a problem that people are focusing on the most doable, when talking about taking action. People are talking about term-limits less because, while popular, passing it is much much harder than changing the composition of the courts. Also, I'd like to note that court packing is one of the few things that actually addresses the current Republican-stacked nature of the courts. Most of the newest judges/justices are Republicans added to the courts during Trump's presidency. Term-limits would just mean that they could stay on the courts for the longest of the currently existing judges.


Distinct from that, the Senate/Electoral College are anti-democratic institutions and should be abolished, but the non-representative nature of them now shouldn't be the reason to deny any representation to the people living there.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "abolish" for the Senate (the Electoral College can be functionally abolished through the NPVIC), since it's even more of an impossibility than constitutional amendments (most Democrats, even, wouldn't go for it). It was more of an "in an ideal world" sort of thing, but I'm not going to be arguing that Democrats need to take it up as a core issue. There should be a move towards things like removing the filibuster and other reforms to rectify the unequalness of representation (not sure right now what would be feasible).


[down] Huh, good to know that - thanks for the information.

Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 9:38:31 AM

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#335180: Oct 24th 2020 at 8:39:39 PM

The Supreme Court, could also, IIRC, say that it's not in Congress's purview to legislate on these issues and say that it's a states rights thing?

Actually, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on most issues only exists on Congress' sufferance - if Congress strips their jurisdiction from something, they have no authority. The only exception (oversimplifying) is if a state has standing to sue the feds.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#335181: Oct 24th 2020 at 9:13:30 PM

That's right, pretty much. The right to legislate belongs to Congress, and the SC can only officiate if something rises up through the Federal Courts. They can't just declare anything they want unconstitutional, that's not how it works.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#335182: Oct 24th 2020 at 9:24:57 PM

Three of Pence's top advisors have tested positive for COVID-19.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#335183: Oct 24th 2020 at 9:35:20 PM

This is what democracy looks like

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#335184: Oct 24th 2020 at 9:41:34 PM

[up][up][up] Couldn't Republican AGs and state governments sue the federal government the same way they have for the ACA? The Supreme Court can't randomly declare laws unconstitutional, but IIRC, there are frequent challenges and lawsuits which could be used to strike down key provisions in Democrat-passed laws.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#335185: Oct 24th 2020 at 9:41:55 PM

[up][up] For context, Democracy looks like a video on Twitter of a suuuper long but socially distanced line at a polling place.

Edited by sgamer82 on Oct 24th 2020 at 9:43:58 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#335186: Oct 24th 2020 at 9:46:41 PM

The frustrating part of this is the Republicans will throw every law they can at the Democrats and break them equally, not having any care about the hypocrisy or destroying the law.

Because winning is all that matters.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
TheRoguePenguin Since: Jul, 2009
#335187: Oct 24th 2020 at 9:56:02 PM

[up][up][up]On the subject, Sheldon Whitehouse brought up in the confirmation hearing how Alito wanted to invalidate a union law (the name of which escapes me), so he brought it up in the context of a completely different law. The Republican machine then essentially made a case and lost on purpose. If the conservative Supreme Court wants to declare a law unconstitutional, they'll find a way to get there.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#335188: Oct 24th 2020 at 10:29:26 PM

It's basically just a matter of grinding a case through the courts.

  • Republicans: Gay marriage violates human rights.
  • State Courts: What? How? That's stupid. Denied.
  • Republicans: Appeal! Gay marriage violates human rights.
  • Federal: No, seriously, that's stupid as fuck. Denied.
  • Republicans: Appeal! Gay marriage violates human rights.
  • Circuit: Yeah, I don't see any reason why anybody would think this case has the slightest bit of legitimacy. Denied.
  • Republicans: Appeal! Gay marriage violates human rights.
  • Supreme Court: Whoops, looks like gay marriage violates human rights! Better put a stop to that shit.

I'll be honest, I don't even understand what the intent behind the appeal system was ever supposed to be in the first place anymore. The way it's used, every court besides SCOTUS is basically a practice round; court orders are basically just temporary measures until the next court up the ladder reviews the case and only SCOTUS is final.

Every case is always appealed again and again until it reaches SCOTUS. No other courts have any real authority, no other rulings actually matter. The court gives its decision and then that remains in effect until the next court delivers its decision. And I legit don't know if it was supposed to be that way.

Is the ability to grind bad cases through the courts until you finally reach SCOTUS for a final decision a bug or a feature? Given how fucky our system was by design, I honestly can't tell.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 24th 2020 at 10:32:13 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#335189: Oct 24th 2020 at 10:47:08 PM

Every case is always appealed again and again until it reaches SCOTUS.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. For example, the Circuit Courts hear 50,000 cases a year, but the Supreme Court is asked to hear ~7,000 and only gets to 100-150. [1] [2] Lots of decisions made at the state Supreme Court or District Court level are also final (which, of course, is why they're important).

Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 10:48:03 AM

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#335190: Oct 24th 2020 at 11:05:07 PM

Every case is always appealed again and again until it reaches SCOTUS. No other courts have any real authority, no other rulings actually matter.

This isn't true at all; the vast, vast majority of cases appealed up to the SCOTUS are not taken up. Lower courts' decisions are the final say on a huge number of issues, and every appeal is a chance for the appellate court to say "no, there's no reason for us to look at this case". Lower court decisions are also important even when an appeal is taken up, because the lower court decision becomes the default stance; in the case of a tie (if there's a vacant seat on the court or one justice has recused themselves for some reason) then the lower ruling stands, and in many cases the ruling issued by a full court is to send it back down to the lower court for clarification on some point or another.

Or tldr, just because SCOTUS decisions are the most important rulings doesn't mean that lower court rulings are unimportant.

Edited by NativeJovian on Oct 24th 2020 at 2:06:12 PM

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#335191: Oct 25th 2020 at 12:04:39 AM

I'll be honest, I don't even understand what the intent behind the appeal system was ever supposed to be in the first place anymore. The way it's used, every court besides SCOTUS is basically a practice round; court orders are basically just temporary measures until the next court up the ladder reviews the case and only SCOTUS is final.

The intent behind the appeal system was that if a lower court made an error with their judgement a higher court reviews it and can correct any errors. Also the lower courts are practice; the first trial is the only trial that covers the facts and evidence of the case, and you only get one shot at making your argument. for the appeals you're not allowed to make new arguments or bring in new evidence, you're solely trying to argue that the rules and laws weren't correctly applied, or that there was some error in the process (I.E the judge disallowed evidence that they should have allowed, the prosecution failed to instruct the jury on the charges and their responsibilities, etc.).

And as noted SCOTUS only listens to a handful of cases that appeal to it, the overwhelming bulk of cases never reach it.

Imca (Veteran)
#335192: Oct 25th 2020 at 12:28:03 AM

Republicans: Appeal! Gay marriage violates human rights. Supreme Court: Whoops, looks like gay marriage violates human rights! Better put a stop to that shit.

In addition to what the above posters have said, this has two major flaws, 1) You cant rule it violates human rights, only federal law.

leading to 2) the next step

Democratic Senate: Alright then we pass a new law legalizing same sex marriage.
Democratic President: I ratify this law
Supreme Court: Fuck not much we can do now

And that's the end of it it, the Supreme court can force rewrites, but they CAN'T stop a determined legislation from legislating, see the repeated strike downs of Trumps Muslim ban until it was wrote in such a way that the supreme court could not strike down.... its just a time buying measure/roadblock and cant stop a damn thing if it is rewrote.

Third, We have no reason even with how shitty they are to assume a conservative supreme court would rule that, a conservative supreme court only about a month ago ruled that LGBT is covered under employment protection because it counts as sexual discrimination.

Thats not to say they cant do a lot of damage, but they also have much less fangs then people think they do...

Abortion is probably the biggest issue in danger, LGBT issues and Public Healthcare would both have enough support under a democratic senate to take the legislative path through.

Couldn't Republican AGs and state governments sue the federal government the same way they have for the ACA? The Supreme Court can't randomly declare laws unconstitutional, but IIRC, there are frequent challenges and lawsuits which could be used to strike down key provisions in Democrat-passed laws.

No you cant, well kind of and also kind of not, you likely can once or twice because the US legal code is a complicated mess that gets contradictory at times, and you can grab onto one of those contradictions to make your case... but you cant just make up a reason and challenge a law because you don't like it, it has to run afoul of another law and then the courts legislate on which one rules out.

Once they do you just change it so it no longer runs afoul, or remove the other law through legislation and re-institute the one they just said no too, and the courts cant do any thing about that then.

They literally do not have the power to go "I don't like that so it cant happen", that's Sennate's job.

The ACA is actualy a sad victim of this, and not an example of the courts having the power to just go "no", had Obama maintained senate control post 2010, it could have just been rewrote in a way to nullify the complaints and had it called a day, but by that point republicans had taken control so it became a non-option.

Which is why I say its still a danger even when all they can do is stall.

Edited by Imca on Oct 25th 2020 at 12:44:59 PM

Robrecht Your friendly neighbourhood Regent from The Netherlands Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
#335193: Oct 25th 2020 at 12:43:05 AM

Also the lower courts are practice; the first trial is the only trial that covers the facts and evidence of the case, and you only get one shot at making your argument. for the appeals you're not allowed to make new arguments or bring in new evidence, you're solely trying to argue that the rules and laws weren't correctly applied, or that there was some error in the process

Although if new evidence exonerating someone has surfaced, that can be grounds for appeal under the notion that the prosecution didn't do their due diligence. Which is one of those cases where a higher court kicks things back to a lower court that Native Jovian mentioned.

Edited by Robrecht on Oct 25th 2020 at 8:43:21 PM

Angry gets shit done.
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#335194: Oct 25th 2020 at 1:09:46 AM

Also even when a higher appeals court makes a decision, that decision isn't the final verdict on the particular case, they just clarify the specific question of law that was being asked and then send the case back down to the original court to be heard again (presumably with a better understanding of the law).

Edited by Clarste on Oct 25th 2020 at 1:11:42 AM

Robrecht Your friendly neighbourhood Regent from The Netherlands Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
#335195: Oct 25th 2020 at 1:17:40 AM

[up] That actually depends on the type of appeal and the reason for it. Technically it's true, but in many cases where a higher court makes a ruling, the lower court doesn't resume trial, but instead just rubber stamps what the higher court says.

Angry gets shit done.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#335196: Oct 25th 2020 at 1:45:05 AM

Wow, no.

Abortion is not the biggest issue in danger.

Fair redistricting is.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#335197: Oct 25th 2020 at 2:28:34 AM

Just in case you needed more reasons to hate Ike Perlmutter of Marvel even more, he donated MILLIONS to a Trump-supporting Super PAC.

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marvels-perlmutter-gave-15m-to-pro-trump-super-pac-with-wwe-ties/

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#335198: Oct 25th 2020 at 2:32:31 AM

The article also notes that since Perlmutter is one of the biggest shareholders in Disney, he benefits whenever people buy Marvel and Disney stuff.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Imca (Veteran)
#335199: Oct 25th 2020 at 3:10:08 AM

Fair redistricting isn't going to happen regardless of how the court rules on any mater involving it, it can become more fair but at the end of the day the maps are drawn by biased humans who will use it to get any advantage they can get for there party.

Also its fairly easy to say an issue that affects you little isn't very big, but there is a reason that they kept Grilling Berret on Roe vs Wade... and thats because it is very much in danger, and unlike the other major civil issues, there isn't the legislative will to push it through that way.

[up] Honstly its easier to just assume that most major shareholders are republicians and note the exceptions, they do after all tend to be the party thats in favor of letting big buisneses fuck people over, and that is a thing shareholders love :/

Edited by Imca on Oct 25th 2020 at 3:12:56 AM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#335200: Oct 25th 2020 at 3:35:58 AM

It's also fairly easy to make assumptions about why someone who disagrees with you is disagreeing, but it's also rather presumptuous. Especially since with legislators drawing their own districts, it makes it easier to pass abortion legislation that makes it so difficult to obtain that the distinction between a total ban and a not-ban becomes largely academic.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Total posts: 417,856
Top