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
Senate votes to advance vote on Barrett SCOTUS nomination; confirmation expected tomorrow.
No, we aren't.
Biden and Harris repeatedly refused to rule out court-packing when pressured, and Schumer(!) said that "nothing is off the table".
I get being concerned but let's not immediately accept defeat shall we?
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 25th 2020 at 11:02:57 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAlso, rushing Barrett's nomination like this will probably cause Democrats to come out in droves not just for the next week, but also on Election Day. Democrats are already crushing it with early voting (in most States, looking at you Florida), there's no way Democrats are going to say "Well, they got their justice, so I am not voting".
If anything, pushing through the nomination will lead to the greatest reckoning the Republicans will ever experience. If I were the democrats, I'd be looking at not only court packing, but also the removal of certain Republican Justices for their personal actions over the past 4 years. Lines have been crossed, and it's time for them to pay their dues.
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"The Florida EV is actually closer than most people think. Democrats have a huge lead in mail-in voting, but Republicans have a decent lead in early in-person voting.
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!McConnell's been gloating
:
After the Senate voted to move forward with the final vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor, celebrating the lasting influence of the vote for posterity.
"By tomorrow night, we'll have a new member of the United States Supreme Court," he told the chamber.
McConnell acknowledged that this election could change the tide in Washington but said that not much could be done to change the nature of the court "for a long time to come".
It looks to me like he's deliberately baiting the Democrats into packing the courts.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Oct 25th 2020 at 6:47:23 PM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.I wouldn't count on Mc Connell losing. However the GOP might not have control of the senate if multiple others do.
He seems to forget that Viewers are Goldfish and Republicans probably wouldn't remember the fact Democrats did stack the court come 2024.
Edited by ScubaWolf on Oct 25th 2020 at 3:03:36 PM
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"I get we're in the mind of thinking of Mc Connell as this calculating Chess Master, but we shouldn't just disregard the chance that he's a Republican, basking in something that Republicans won't, without thinking about the larger potential consequences.
I'm not going to make any proclamations about how this will definitely help the Democrats or screw us over forever. I do have to wonder how damaging this woman is going to be, though, and don't blame anyone for being worried about it.
Edited by LSBK on Oct 25th 2020 at 2:06:20 PM
My boyfriend and I went to early vote yesterday. It only took about 15 to 30 minutes, luckily, but in the city nearby, where they have been deliberately restricting the number of voting sites, some people had to wait up to seven hours.
If you live in the US, please make sure you have a plan to vote ASAP!
My boyfriend and I went to early vote yesterday. It only took about 15 to 30 minutes, luckily, but in the city nearby, where they have been deliberately restricting the number of voting sites, some people had to wait up to seven hours.
If you live in the US, please make sure you have a plan to vote ASAP!
Nice, it was pretty fast for me too. It may have been less than 20 minutes.
I've also heard horror stories about long voting times, people definitely do need to make a voting plan if they're able to vote.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 25th 2020 at 12:38:35 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI sometimes wonder if Republicans don't care about losing the election as much as they care about getting their supreme court pick through,since they can try again in four years time ifd they lose but their supreme court pick can't simply be changed
Then again,that would require long term planning,so I dunno
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverHuh, it looks like I was wrong yesterday when I said that a constitutional amendment would be needed to apply term limits to Supreme Court Justices. According to Fix the Courts:
The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act (link
) - introduced Sept. 29 by Reps. Ro Khanna, Don Beyer and Joe Kennedy III - is the first-ever bill that would end life tenure at the high court for future justices in favor of an 18-year term, after which justices would serve on a lower court for as long as they wanted or would temporarily fill in at SCOTUS in case of an unexpected vacancy. Since introduction, the bill has picked up four additional co-sponsors.
The article itself is about 31 legal scholars (including Ted Kaufman, a Biden advisor and former Dem. Senator) who endorse the bill.
I still think term-limits on their own will be insufficient to undo the damage that the GOP have done to the courts and court-packing is still needed, but they are a long-term fix to address the politicization of the courts.
Edited by nova92 on Oct 25th 2020 at 1:59:02 AM
Moreso if you live in a Republican-controlled state.
It depends on where you live in a Republican state. Areas that are high Democrat/person of color? It will very likely be a nightmare, but if you're in a white area then they'll probably get good electoral funding. Or at least better.
I sometimes wonder if Republicans don't care about losing the election as much as they care about getting their supreme court pick through,since they can try again in four years time ifd they lose but their supreme court pick can't simply be changed
Then again,that would require long term planning,so I dunno
I imagine it's either 1) they're kool-aid drinkers who can't imagine losing or 2) they've written off the election and are focusing on the thing that has the best chance of entrenching of power.
Huh, it looks like I was wrong yesterday when I said that a constitutional amendment would be needed to apply term limits to Supreme Court Justices. According to Fix the Courts:
Niiice, I wasn't sure if it was or wasn't so it's nice to have confirmation.
Personally, I agree with you, we desperately need both court-packing and term limits.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 25th 2020 at 1:57:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

We don't work with districts at all. A vote for your party is a vote for your party no matter where you live, and your vote matters no matter how many seats your party has.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times