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
What remained of democracies abroad probably wrote off the USA as soon as Trump won, regardless of what they said for the benefit of diplomacy.
As for:
edited 31st Jan '17 6:56:25 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives![]()
If anything, we'd probably end up using a time machine for a "Days of Citrus Past" plotline where we have to stop Trump's assassination so that an even worse Nazi doesn't come to power afterward.
edited 31st Jan '17 6:56:09 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Here's what people still aren't worried enough about: what the SCOTUS pick means for voting rights.
You know, the thing we need to preserve some semblance of democracy.
The courtroom gasped audibly as Scalia spoke. The fact that he viewed the country's most important civil rights law as a "racial entitlement" was a textbook example of the radicalness of his views. Four months later, Scalia joined a 5-4 opinion gutting the law, ruling that states with a long history of voting discrimination no longer needed to approve their voting changes with the federal government.
The Roberts Court, with Scalia as a key influence, weakened voting rights protections, allowed corporations to spend unlimited secret money on US elections, overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban and ruled that businesses didn't have to pay for contraception care.
Merrick Garland should have been the one to fill Scalia's vacant Supreme Court seat. It was unprecedented and outrageous that a judge as qualified and mainstream as him didn't even get a hearing. And it's more than a little ironic that a president who won 5 million more votes than his opponent in 2012 couldn't make the selection but one who got 2.9 million fewer votes than his can.
But after Republicans stole the seat by denying President Obama his constitutional mandate, Donald Trump said he wanted to appoint a justice "as close to Scalia as I could find." Neil Gorsuch is that person.
Gorsuch has praised Scalia as a judicial role model. "Mark me down, too, as a believer that the traditional account of the judicial role Justice Scalia defended will endure," he said in a lecture last year. Like Scalia, as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch has been hostile to abortion rights and environmental regulations, and sympathetic to large corporations and the religious right. He has criticized liberals for challenging bans on gay marriage before the courts. Though his paper trail on civil rights cases is slim, he'll presumably be in sync with Scalia on these issues too.
Gorsuch could be the deciding vote on critical voting rights cases very soon. The Supreme Court will likely hear challenges to voter-ID laws and related voting restrictions from states like North Carolina and Texas in the near future. There are already indications the Trump Justice Department is preparing to switch sides in these cases, backing restrictive voting laws instead of minority voters facing disenfranchisement. In addition, conservatives could take aim at what's left of the Voting Rights Act—Section 2 of the law—which Chief Justice John Roberts challenged when he was a young lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department.
Another Scalia on the court is particularly concerning given that Trump's choice for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has a thirty-year history of opposition to civil rights. Trump's lie that millions voted illegally in 2016 is a near-certain prelude to massive voter suppression by the GOP, beginning with an executive order authorizing a broad DOJ investigation into non-existent voter fraud, which White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested will focus on "urban areas" in blue states like California and New York. The Trump Administration will perpetuate the myth of voter fraud to "strengthen up voting procedures!" as Trump tweeted, meaning more laws designed to make it harder to vote. (In written answers to Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, Sessions refused to say whether he agreed with Trump's lie that three to five million people voted illegally, saying "at this point, I do not know how many people voted illegally.")
These restrictions, which could include mandating strict voter-ID for federal elections or documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, will almost certainly be challenged before the Supreme Court. It's already clear that many of Trump's policies will be constitutionally suspect, beginning with his disastrous Muslim ban.
The recklessness of Trump's policies and the threat he poses to the very foundation of American democracy underscores the importance of an independent and thoughtful judiciary. Another Scalia on the Supreme Court is the last thing we need right now.
It also doesn't bode well for the upcoming Supreme Court cases on gerrymandering—the importance of which cannot be understated. So yeah, the Senate Democrats need to just do everything in their power to block this asshole. The GOP started it, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's high time for the Democrats to adopt the Combat Pragmatist attitude the GOP have had for years, at least until we have our country back.
Also, obligatory warning that President Bannon would be a fool to appoint a Supreme Court judge who he thought might rule against his interests. Don't ever count on Gorsuch standing up to the Trump regime.
edited 31st Jan '17 6:57:59 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Senate Dems Will Filibuster Supreme Court Pick
That'll be the last time the Democrats can Filibuster until at least 2018, then.
Honestly, the fact that the Filibuster could be revoked at all, by either Democrats or Republicans, is so stupid. The Filibuster should be a permanent feature of the Senate, regardless of who wields it for whatever reason, and it should not be 'nuclear optioned' ever again.
edited 31st Jan '17 7:04:28 PM by DingoWalley1
The Democrats need to learn to fight like Republicans while still holding on to their core principles. Difficult? Yes. Crucial? Also yes. If they keep backing down from every fight and trying to "negotiate" with every new horror, we're all screwed.note
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
![]()
At the moment, yes, but if there's a Tea Party-esque movement to Primary every Dems who goes 'well, this cabinet nominee might not be perfect, but he's preferable to leaving the office open' or 'this piece of legislation Trump proposed isn't actually all that bad' or even 'we should try to work together with the GOP'?
edited 31st Jan '17 7:08:15 PM by Gilphon
When I meant preventing the Supreme Court from becoming politicized, I wasn't talking about just Trump. The idea that the courts are divided into broadly liberal and conservative factions...makes my skin crawl. When did this start? Is it just inherit in the entire system?
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.People with disposable income: if you are looking for refugee-related causes, a few links I've picked up: Exodus
(they work mostly in Indiana, their federal funding has been frozen]], Save the Children
.
Also, if you shop regularly through Amazon, if you shop through smile.amazon.com you can have a portion of your purchases donated to the charity of your choice, including the various state-level ACLU chapters.
Any Democrat who's trying to "work with the GOP" at this point should absolutely be primaried. The GOP are a fascist party flaunting both the Constitution, the laws of society, and basic human decency. You can't work with them any more than you can work with the locusts devouring your crop.
'd by Draghinazzo.
edited 31st Jan '17 7:10:17 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
![]()
![]()
It's not inherent in the system. Up here, there was an incident fairly recently where something Harper wanted to do was shot down by Supreme Courts Justices he appointed.
My understanding is that it started when Andrew Jackson appointed five personal friends to the court.
![]()
Yeah, but, see, they're not going anywhere. One's option are 'try to negotiate with them' and 'do your best to ignore them, no matter how damage they do'.
edited 31st Jan '17 7:14:50 PM by Gilphon
@Rational Insanity: It probably started the same time Politics in America got divided into 2 Camps: When Hamilton and Jefferson decided to form 2 different Camps to convince Washington that their idea for America was better then the other.
In short, it's been a problem since the Founding of America.
Yeah, because the Dred Scott Case
and Plessy v. Ferguson
had nothing to do with Politics in Courts. (/sarcasm)
I feel so bad for Mr. Hagar's Family. My hopes and prayers go out for them.
edited 31st Jan '17 7:17:50 PM by DingoWalley1
Mother of U.S. military veteran dead, likely due to Muslim Ban.
His mother died just one day after being told she couldn't return to the United States.
Mike Hager fled Iraq with his family during the Gulf War, returned during the Iraq war and worked alongside United States Marines and Army forces. He now owns a business in Metro Detroit and said his mom would still be alive today if President Donald Trump had not instituted his travel ban on Muslim countries.
Mike Hager said he was returning home with his family that included his sick mom. They were returning home to the United States where his mother has lived since 1995. As they were waiting in line at the airport in Iraq on Friday, he was told that he could pass through because he was a U.S. citizen. But his family members - including his mom - weren't allowed, despite holding green cards.
Holy hell. I'd be fucking FURIOUS.
New Survey coming this weekend!
That's how you create terrorists, right there.
![]()
![]()
That's actually what I was getting at, judges in other democracies don't tend to be nearly as biased or polarized. Hell, a Canadian judge is probably getting fired for wearing a MAGA hat while court was in session.
edited 31st Jan '17 7:17:17 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.It's inherent. The Supreme Court may have once seemed like 9 benevolent autocrats dragging the USA into the future, but the Warren Court only happened once. 100 years before the voting rights act Congress passed civil rights acts and the Supreme Court struck them down.
Before "the right to privacy" that lead to Roe v. Wade, there was "freedom of contract" that tended to strike down workplace regulation. Even now, Thomas still wants to break essentially every federal program by reducing the commerce clause to its 19th century state.
It just depends on which way the wind blows.
The lines of dialog should at least be kept open, particularly with the Republicans that have been bullied onto the fence or at least have risked speaking out.
I can't shake the feeling that the Democratic lawmakers resorting to dig-your-heels-in resistance is a trap, yet one they can not now avoid. It is also likely to be fruitless, buying days at most.
edited 31st Jan '17 7:20:01 PM by Elle
Former acting Solicitor General under Obama on why liberals should be OK with Gorsuch
And why Democrats should want to oppose him
edited 31st Jan '17 7:22:41 PM by LinkToTheFuture
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison

They also care about the Court's reputation, and don't like voting for blatantly politicized stuff too often. Hence, why Roberts saved the ACA.
I'm not really familiar with the judicial history of the United States but....how strong of a time machine are we going to need to prevent the upper levels of the federal courts from becoming the politicized circus they evolved into in this timeline?
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.