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
Kennedy's conservative, and more amenable to Trump's politics than any of the liberal-appointed Justices, so it is in Trump's interests to replace Kennedy with someone more conservative, and in Kennedy's interests to help him.
None of the liberal justices would be persuaded because they know who will replace them.
Edited by Raptorslash on Jul 1st 2018 at 7:34:40 AM
https://www.salon.com/2018/06/29/did-anthony-kennedys-son-loan-donald-trump-1-billion/
Yes, it's not proven yet.
But people who shoot it down have already been called to task.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 1st 2018 at 5:00:36 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I’m not sure I really buy the blackmail angle, but this sort of backroom deal gladhanding type stuff is a serious problem in Washington. The number of politicians with low-key connections to industry and other parts of the government is pretty staggering, and it almost becomes an underhanded form of regulatory capture in some cases.
They should have sent a poet.Forgot if posted: Man arrested in Huntsville, Alabama after shouting "womp, womp" at yesterday's immigration protestors and then pulling a gun on them.
I wonder if it's the same person mentioned in the TV Tropes discord. Someone in our group went to one of the protest rallies and he said his group ran into someone who pulled a gun on them.
EDIT: Yep, same one.
Edited by Steven on Jul 1st 2018 at 11:18:53 AM
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.Yeah, as Steven said, I was there, and can confirm that he pulled the gun. I was at the front of the crowd, he looked me straight in the eyes at least twice, (as camera footage will confirm), and, if you notice, I was ready to bull rush him if things had gotten ugly. The guy arrested is the correct douchebag.
He also is a former teacher at my younger brother's Alma mater. According to one of the people at the protest, he would always show up to work tweaked, and actually quit his job because "he couldn't handle it." No idea what the it in question is.
In addition, he repeatedly yelled that he was from Alabama, and he was not the only Trump supporter to show up (I ran off two guys in MAGA hats by noticing them and then just talking to an organizer.) When they saw me talking to them and looking at them, they ran off.
Edited by GamesandTropes on Jul 1st 2018 at 8:32:37 AM
I am also hearing about a possible hit protester outside of the Baker County, Florida Sheriff's office, who was then taken into custody instead of the driver.
There are no news reports about it and only this one Twitter
thread about it with aftermath video.
I'm hoping something comes out of it, especially with that Orlando Sentinel reporter further down the Tweet thread.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."So long as the packed court wasn't just to put people in positions who would just rubber stamp anything Democrats/Progressives like, I wouldn't have an issue with it. It still makes things better than we can probably expect from anyone Trump would appoint.
Would you have an issue with it eight years later when the Republicans take the Presidency again and proceed to also pack the court?
Once you open that door, it gives everyone permission to appoint however many Justices they need to turn the tide in their party's favor as soon as they take office. If we let, I don't know, President Kamala Harris do it, then we have to let President Don Trump Jr. do it too. The last thing the Supreme Court needs is to turn into a tug-of-war for biased judges.
If we let our politics become a "Who can be more corrupt?" dance-off, the Nazis win.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 1st 2018 at 9:58:10 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.My comment was less about a power struggle and more about how I don't it would have to necessarily disrupt the democratic process. As long as you aren't putting partisan hacks on, I'd be good. The issue with Republicans/Conservatives is that we can't count on them to not do that. Really, a lot of Democrats/Progressives wouldn't have an issue with it either, as long as they agreed with the decisions.
Even assuming in a couple of years the Democrats are in a position to do this, I don't whether they should or shouldn't has a clear cut answer at this point.
I think the only way we can fix this mess with Court Packing is to make it a fair Court Packing: Have it that the new rule is 15 Justices, 5 with a Literalist/Traditionalist bent (which we will have with Trump's next Pick), 5 with a Liberal/Revisionist bent (which means 1 can be added), and 5 with a Moderate bent (which would add 5 more). This way the Court will be packed, but we make it that Republicans can't pack the court themselves without doing away with this balance.
It's a compromise that I honestly think might work. If the courts are forced to be balanced with 5 justices of each bent, then we will never have to worry about a too conservative or too liberal court again.
So now there is talk about the viability of Ocasio Cortez's policies in the Midwest. On one hand, some are upset since they feel that the Democratic party doesn't bother to appeal to nonwhite people in the Midwest. On the other hand, others are coming from the angle that different areas require differing strategies. I myself am still processing how I feel about it. All I am hoping is that people not be blinded by Ocasio's victory.
Don't catch you slippin' now.The entire argument is also based on a faulty premise too. Specifically, that Judges should be impartial interpreters of the law.
But they never have been.
I think the last time they were was when Andrew Jackson overruled them to deport the Cherokee.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
![]()
I'd like to say Congress...
Lets elaborate. Congress has to make and pass the bill that packs the court anyway, right? It would stand to reason that they'd have the authority to decide the terms. And therefore they could make it as strict and as literal as they need it to be.
The problem is that if the Democrats don't have a supermajority and a President sympathetic to them, then the Republicans could still have enough of a say, and enough clout to water it down.
On a related note, Something should be done so that the president isn't the sole arbiter of who gets nominated for a SC seat, perhaps granting a similar authority to the most powerful person from the opposing party would help (assuming its constitutional)?
The problem is that what happens in an ideal scenario is usually different from what happens in reality.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Jul 1st 2018 at 9:31:36 AM
Which has been a weakness of the Democrats for a long time. Which is part of why I'm so glad this Run for Something organization has been successful; they're providing support to people running at all levels, which is part of what's led to some victories. It's not just that different areas need different strategies, it's that some areas need Democrats trying in the first fucking place.
I don't know if this is still a thing people go on about, but I remember it used to be a thing for conservatives to boast about how conservatives report generally being more happy than liberals, as if that somehow said anything about the correctness of their ideology or policies.
But even so, I imagine that people who are more content and happy with their lives are more likely to vote. Anyone have any data on that?
If anything, I would imagine conservatives would have been miserable until fairly recently. They have a victimization complex par excellence and everything in the Obama administration just made them more and more bitter and spiteful about how things weren't going their own way. What I CAN say though is that this just made them more determined than ever to turn things around and do everything in their power to change the status quo, even if it seemed pointless. Which of course, sadly paid off and might pay off for a good while longer.

Yeah this isn’t blackmail or bribery, it’s one terrible person being friends with another terrible person and doing something they both agree on.
Kenedy wasn’t forced to retire, he chose to retire because he wants a Republican president and a Republican senate to pick an arch-reactionary to replace him.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran