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

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#335751: Oct 28th 2020 at 2:19:13 AM

That's an equally dumb sentiment. The median US age is nearly 40 ffs; people over the age of 55 are nearly 30% of the population.

Also? You don't appoint young judges, because then we get something like this incompetent, with barely any practical law experience, no relevant decisions to her name, and no Supreme Court exposure before.

Fuck's sake, everyone always takes a look at the makeup of something and assumes slotting in inexperienced people or increasing turnover is the solution, not more structural problems.

Edited by RainehDaze on Oct 28th 2020 at 9:19:26 AM

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#335752: Oct 28th 2020 at 2:23:06 AM

Maybe we shouldn't be appointing super-young judges, but maybe we also shouldn't have senior citizens making rulings on stuff like gay marriage, equal rights for women, or abortion

This kind of stuff isn't really an issue in countries which follow the Civil Law system, as far as I know

Edited by Xopher001 on Oct 28th 2020 at 11:24:38 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#335753: Oct 28th 2020 at 2:33:41 AM

And... exactly what does their being old have to do with it? Go look at the age of the majority Justices when Oberfegell v Hodges was decided: 79, 82, 77, 61, 55. The single most relevant abortion-related case was decided 47 years ago and it's still being disputed and the newly appointed Justice is the exact type who wants to overturn it. The age of the judges and their relevant stances on issues are astonishingly disconnected!

Bringing up civil law is a complete non sequitur. It has no bearing on whether term limits or age requirements in a common law system make any sense, because you are not going to be able to overturn the entirety of the US legal system to change it.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#335754: Oct 28th 2020 at 2:36:37 AM

It's perhaps a mistake to assume that old people can't be progressive, just like how it's a mistake to assume that young people can't be reactionary.

Disgusted, but not surprised
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#335755: Oct 28th 2020 at 2:36:45 AM

Bernie is the most conservative Senator there is!

:)

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#335756: Oct 28th 2020 at 2:56:07 AM

Bernie is an exception. What I meant is that old people are less receptive to new ideas. It's not quite the same thing as being conservative, granted, but it does lend itself more towards preserving a status quo. If we want to be able to confront the many problems we will be facing in the near future with climate change and wealth inequality, we need people that are more flexible and willing to make necessary, radical changes.

As for my comment about Civil Law, what I meant was that in a lot of countries, when legislation is passed it is codified into law, and that is the final say on the matter until someone amends it in the future. Countries with this sort of system don't have this whole circus with nominating and blocking Supreme Court judges. Sometimes I find myself wondering whether the US government and how it is organized needs to be over-hauled. It's a pipedream I know but so far all these "checks and balances" aren't working

Edited by Xopher001 on Oct 28th 2020 at 11:58:03 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#335757: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:04:30 AM

Which is an irrelevant pipe dream. Whether or not civil law systems are better, or precisely which approach, is irrelevant in the face of the US having a written constitution which doesn't allow for such a thing.

And again: your first idea is completely unfounded in practical legal decisions.

Trump just appointed someone who was a baby when Roe v Wade was decided and is committed against anything that would be considered remotely progressive because of highly specific religious beliefs. This is not an age issue.

Edited by RainehDaze on Oct 28th 2020 at 10:06:07 AM

devak They call me.... Prophet Since: Jul, 2019 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
They call me.... Prophet
#335758: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:07:38 AM

The issue is that the SC has such power, not that it's not made of the right kind of person.

If the wrong kind of person cannot be trusted with the power, they shouldn't have it ik the first place

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#335759: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:08:59 AM

[up] Exactly. Also IIRC the Supreme Court did not always have the power it does now until John Marshall decided it did. And even if the Constitution as it is now does not allow for a Civil Law system, there's this thing called Amendments that let us change it.

Edited by Xopher001 on Oct 28th 2020 at 12:13:18 PM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#335760: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:12:13 AM

Which is not something that will be solved by fixating on term limits or how justices are old.

[up] Amendments need 2/3 of the states. If you could somehow amend the constitution with something progressive, there would be almost no need to amend the constitution.

Congress could, perhaps, use its ability to strip the SC of jurisdiction to strip it of jurisdiction over its own abilities, but that's probably a bad idea. On top of being in danger of invalidating 200 years of legal precedent that serve as the foundation for the entirety of US society.

Edited by RainehDaze on Oct 28th 2020 at 10:14:39 AM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#335761: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:16:24 AM

3/4 of all states, actually. Which is another reason why term limits are a crazy idea, they'll never pass. Frankly, at some point one would have to consider dumping the constitution altogether and make a new one. Most countries change 'em far more quickly than you.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#335762: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:17:20 AM

[up][up]I'm aware of that. My point is there are a lot of structural problems with the US Government. There's a limit to how much you can fix a system from within. At some point you need to start over. But that itself is also very tenuous and complicated

[up][nja]

Edited by Xopher001 on Oct 28th 2020 at 12:19:31 PM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#335763: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:19:55 AM

There's no point in saying that things should be fixed by doing something that's completely infeasible. And proposing stupid suggestions that don't work and take exactly as much effort at the same time.

Also, where do you get the idea I'm in the USA from? tongue

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#335764: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:25:02 AM

I guess because of the extent your defending US governmental institutions. It's actually a little weird - most of the time people outside the country mock our government.

And just because drafting a new constitution is hard and tenuous doesn't mean it's completely unfeasible, or that the idea should be dismissed out of hand. Make no mistake I am a pragmatist. I am aware that for the time being, the best we can do is elect Democrats to the Senate and stack the courts. But I would like to think that can be changed

Edited by Xopher001 on Oct 28th 2020 at 12:27:51 PM

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#335765: Oct 28th 2020 at 3:28:35 AM

RainehDaze, I think the math is a little off here. Clinton was a two-term president so he should have gotten 4 nominations, meaning Obama's term would have started with a 5-4 conservative majority Senate (1 Bush Sr. + Bush Jr. vs. 4 Clinton Justices).

Democrats held the Senate for the first 6 years of Obama's term, so he should have gotten his first 3 appointments (even if Mitch stole the fourth), putting the Supreme Court at a 5-4 liberal majority from 2009-2014.

MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
#335766: Oct 28th 2020 at 4:53:35 AM

most of the time people outside the country mock our government.
Yeah, and the rest of the time we feel sorry for the people who have to live like that. As in, genuine compassion for people who live in a country where the government tries to stop you from voting and where the health care is so horrible.

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
#335767: Oct 28th 2020 at 4:56:43 AM

TFW when you see what could be an interesting piece judging from its title from a generally quality source, but it’s full of bad takes instead. Just read an NPR article that looked like it would go into how to deal with relationships strained by political differences, but instead it was full of saying how both sides see their basic values in danger, giving specific values as examples, but not saying why the people felt that way. Very both-sidesy. For example, it mentioned how a gay man felt his republican brother was homophobic (seemingly with an exception for family, if I am to be as generous as the article) without saying how one might come to that conclusion, such as the republican brother’s vote being for a party which put “marriage should be one man and one woman” in their platform.

My musician page
Imca (Veteran)
#335768: Oct 28th 2020 at 5:19:19 AM

3/4 of all states, actually. Which is another reason why term limits are a crazy idea, they'll never pass.

Actually they dragged in the lawyers, and found a way to get it through without changing the constitution, "Good behavior" is not actually defined, and there is nothing that says you cant define it.

So, you define overstaying your 18 years as bad behavior, you now run afoul of how the appointment works once you hit it and your booted off, super simple stuff.

Remember that bill that was in Congress that would have prevented the Army from recruiting kids on Twitch, and how it didn't pass because most of the people there had no idea what Twitch was?

Its not that they didn't know what Twitch was, it wouldn't have mattered any way, as far as the goverment is concerned Army can recruit any where it damn well pleases... its part of them after all... Hell they literally recruit in schools with little booths they set up to grab highschoolers as soon as they can join, or even go get then to commit ti join when there legaly allowed too... and well the government signs off on it.

They were never going to say no to recruiting on Twitch, it works and there having pretty heavy manpower issues right now... so why would they ever say no?

Edited by Imca on Oct 28th 2020 at 5:40:47 AM

ciyinwanderer Since: Dec, 2018
#335769: Oct 28th 2020 at 5:37:09 AM

[up][up]I heard a promo for that story and was afraid that is what it would turn out to be.

I've heard people call NPR biased and it makes me laugh because they are so middle-of-the-road to avoid pissing people off.

Edited by ciyinwanderer on Oct 28th 2020 at 8:38:02 AM

This signature was thumped to preserve the dignity of the moderators.
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#335770: Oct 28th 2020 at 5:43:04 AM

Yeah, that sounded like Biden saying he is not going to pack the courts. Instead, he wants a bipartisan court commission.

I'm not holding my breath that court packing is going to actually happen.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#335771: Oct 28th 2020 at 5:47:14 AM

I think Biden is just holding off on any statements until he knows he COULD pack the courts.

Best case scenario: Biden has the Senate.

He could be limited to President of a GOP Senate.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#335772: Oct 28th 2020 at 5:48:13 AM

Biden is being very careful not to tread on any toes that might cost him the election. He's ahead enough to win. If he takes too many risks, he could lose critical support.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 28th 2020 at 8:49:22 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#335773: Oct 28th 2020 at 5:50:12 AM

And court packing has historical precedent as an idea that can cost dearly.

MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
#335774: Oct 28th 2020 at 6:02:53 AM

Could somebody please explain what "court packing" is? I did try to google it, but could make neither heads nor tails of it.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#335775: Oct 28th 2020 at 6:07:39 AM

In this context, it means legislatively increasing the number of justices on the Court so that Democrats may appoint enough to swing the balance of power away from the current conservative majority. It can only happen by act of Congress, so Democrats must hold the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate. They would probably also have to abolish the filibuster.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top