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

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248201: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:36:52 PM

The idea that "the American people will hold them accountable" is some kind of response to reactionaries dominating the Supreme Court is a bizarre non-sequitur, what exactly are the American people supposed to do? In a hypothetical Democratic Congress+President they would've already have spoken, and yet you want to stop us from actually doing something to allow progress to continue.

By all means, if you think the American people would support this, then go ahead. Stand before the American people and say, as part of a campaign platform, "As President or Congressman, I intend to add more Supreme Court Justices until such a time as my party's influence over the court is greater than that of the Republicans." See how far you get.

Better yet, don't, because I actually want Democrats to win in November.

The only way this would ever happen would be by concealing the intention from voters until enough people are already in office to enact it, and that's as undemocratic as it gets. The fact that we're even having this conversation on a public enough stage that news sites are writing articles about it is in and of itself likely to have a damaging impact on our November turnout as it is.

Just wait until Fox News gets wind of that.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:38:31 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248202: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:39:30 PM

By all means, if you think the American people would support this, then go ahead. Stand before the American people and say, as part of a campaign platform, "As President or Congressman, I intend to add more Supreme Court Justices until such a time as my party's influence over the court is greater than that of the Republicans." See how far you get.

Better yet, don't, because I actually want Democrats to win in November.

Firstly you have not demonstrated that enough people are opposed to the idea of packing the supreme court to make it nonviable.

Secondly this doesn't answer my point in the slightest, how are the people supposed to stop a reactionary dominated supreme court? Your solution of doing nothing would fly directly in the face of the will of the people for the simple fact that if the Democratic Party is able to control Congress and the Presidency they can try all the popular policies they want it won't change anything because the Court will just declare them unconstitutional.

The only way this would ever happen would be by concealing the intention from voters until enough people are already in office to enact it, and that's as undemocratic as it gets. The fact that we're even having this conversation on a public enough stage that news sites are writing articles about it is in and of itself likely to have a damaging impact on our November turnout as it is.

Just wait until Fox News gets wind of that.

See above, you have given zero evidence to support the idea that it will be unpalatable to the voting public.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:41:53 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#248203: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:39:33 PM

@Tobias How does removing the anti-democratic advantages that the Republicans have gained destroy democracy? Becuse that’s all that’s being suggested, not packing the court with twenty democrats.

Stand before the American people and say, as part of a campaign platform, "As President or Congressman, I intend to add more Supreme Court Justices until such a time as my party's influence over the court is greater than that of the Republicans." See how far you get.

How about “the supreame court has been unbalanced by repeated anti-democratic actions by the Republican Party, they actively stole one supreame court seat from Obama and filled another by the actions fo an illegitimate president who was placed in the White House by a hostile foreign power, this imbalance must be addressed and cannot be allowed to stand”.

The America people didn’t give a shit when Mc Conell stole a supreme court seat for the Republicans, the evidence suggests that they don’t give a dam.

Edited by Silasw on Jul 2nd 2018 at 12:42:32 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#248204: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:41:09 PM

By the way, to stop with this uber depressing talk to another depressing talk in this boring as fuck Black-and-White Morality story.

Trump endorsed Mexican Leftist Trump. No surprises because populists tend to get along, but is quite funny to see that the Left and the Right can get over their difference thanks to Populism

By the way. As a Latin America, I will do the only answer that my Latino blood can imagine. Which means Coup d'état.

I am sincere, that is the only answer that I can imagine because is the one that I am used to.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:46:20 AM

Watch me destroying my country
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248205: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:44:49 PM

"Removing the anti-Democratic advantages" is spin. What you're talking about is adding to the Supreme Court to compensate for the fact that a Republican President got to pick two replacement Justices.

It's not the same thing and our voters aren't going to buy your line that because Democrats are breaking the norms, that makes it okay. You're not just proposing reducing us to the Republicans' level and proving the Both Siders right. You're proposing making us worse than them and proving Fox right.

At a time when we're already fighting against voter apathy to convince people that the Democrats aren't equally shitty to the Republicans, such a move would be political suicide. At best, we give the Republicans fuel to enact further undemocratic measures. At worst, we're standing here twenty years from now talking about that as the moment everyone lost faith in the Democrats forever, and the Republicans' control of the nation was solidified indefinitely.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:45:29 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248206: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:45:34 PM

By the way, to stop with this uber depressing talk to another depressing talk in this boring as fuck Black and White Morality story.
Well there is an extremely uncharitable view.

We are discussing the upcoming hostile Supreme Court which will have massive importance regarding the United State's future.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:46:01 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248207: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:54:17 PM

Republicans have long defended things like McConnell's Supreme Court theft by saying that if Democrats were in his shoes, they'd have done the same thing.

If we allow this to be a valid judgment, if we corroborate this sentiment and enshrine it as absolute fact that Democrats ARE, IN FACT, every bit as conniving, opportunistic, and scummy as Republicans, then to your average voter, what would be the point of even voting for a Democrat ever again?

After all. Both Sides are just as bad, right?

What gets me the most about this is that we're not having this conversation about Gorsuch. We're having it about Kennedy's retirement. Gorsuch's been in place for a year now and nobody called for packing the courts in retaliation then.

No. This is not about the stolen seat. We're having this conversation because the Supreme Court is turning from 4-4-1 to 5-4. We're having this conversation because Trump just exercised his right as President to nominate a replacement Justice for a retiring one, the very right that we're pissed off for having been denied to Obama.

This isn't about Gorsuch, this is about the conservative advantage in the Supreme Court. That is not a justifiable reason to dismantle our democratic norms. We should not be seeking to make what McConnell did look like amateur hour at Corruption Theater.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:58:48 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#248208: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:02:43 PM

You’re not wrong that it’s bad optics, but I also don’t see another solution, we just accept the end of Roe? We just accept the end of the Voting Rights Act? We just accept that healthcare can never progress further?

I don’t like it, but I don’t see another way to prevent a Republican Supreame Court from striking down every law democrats pass for the next 40 years.

Perhaps that’s the solution, we give them the rope to hang themselves. We wait until Roe has been struck down, an attempt to legislate away Citiens Untied has been struck down, a new Voting Rights Act has been struck down, new healthcare reform has been struck down, then we pack the court once it’s proven itself to be nothing but obstructionist partisans determined to stop the democrats no matter what.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#248209: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:22:24 PM

@Tobias-this particular issue has been front and center since May 2016, when Mc Connell all but stated the GOP intention to block any and all Dem nominations to the SCOTUS at the point when it looked like the GOP would lose complete control of Congress along with the White House-then followed through. We reached this point, where we were thrown back 140 years to the time of Grant in the wake of the Civil War, as a result of GOP actions.

Gorsuch was not ignored-he was taken as the final line already crossed by the GOP last year. The major networks are now openly discussing court packing procedures and history versus defending Gorsuch's stolen seat as justice; we have already moved past that point in the conversation.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248210: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:27:16 PM

Again: you're going to have a hard time convincing the American people that striking down laws deemed unconstitutional - which is their literal job, mind you - is in some way an assault against our democracy.

I hear what you're saying about Roe v. Wade, about gay marriage, about all kinds of issues the Supreme Court is at risk of reversing. But that's the cost. Democrats and moderates didn't turn out for Hillary Clinton and this is the price for that. Some of them voted for Trump, they voted for this to happen, and this is the price for that.

"The Supreme Court will make decisions that I do not agree with," is not grounds for undemocratically stacking the deck with Justices who have a more agreeable political agenda.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:27:31 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#248211: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:30:49 PM

[up]I am not advocating anything-just pointing out the norms are gone, the GOP has crossed every line and not been held accountable, and just about every path to fix that in my lifetime will require actions hewing dangerously close to Authoritarian. If anyone has suggestions about how to fix this, I am all ears.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#248212: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:33:22 PM

There's an easy enough solution if Democrats retake Congress.

Write laws that make them explict and unable to be subject to Loophole Abuse.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248213: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:33:26 PM

It's not going to be fixed in your lifetime. That's the answer. It's harsh but it's true. We can, as [up] proposes, take efforts to make it harder for them to do this again in the future. But we can't wave a magic wand and undo the damage that's been done.

We lost this one. We lost this one because people couldn't be arsed to stop Trump. Now people are trying to flip the board and punch the other team in the face, but that's not going to make anything better. That moderates are sitting there and watching us gleefully discuss how to f*ck the system even harder than the Republicans is only going to hurt us in the long run.

Because "Both sides are just as bad."

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:33:33 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#248214: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:35:00 PM

Probably have an easier time convincing people when their lives get increasingly worse and their rights are continually stripped away.

The Supreme Court has been due for a reckoning since Bush v. Gore.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#248215: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:35:02 PM

I mean, yeah, all problems are not going to be fixed in our lifetime, but that goes for everyone because life will never be perfect. That doesn't mean options to make it less sucky for ourselves and those who will be here after we're gone shouldn't be attempted.

Like, maybe this shouldn't be attempted, but your argument isn't particularly convincing right now.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#248216: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:37:34 PM

The Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act and is liable to strike down any attempt to bring it back, if you get enough cases like that I’d say there’s a solid argument.

The argument will be that they’re striking down constitutional laws because said laws don’t help the Republican Party, you make the case that the current justices aren’t fair or impartial but are infact partisan hacks who would rather turn the US into a dictatorship than let the Republican Party lose power.

Now maybe that’s less a case for court packing and more one for impeaching Republican justices for blatant partisan hackery, maybe that’s even the better way to do it, let them prove themselves to be partisan hacks then push for impeachment.

Fundamentally my worry is that this may be it, because we’re just one conservative justice retiring (Roberts) from a supreme court that wouldn’t just overturn Roe, but might well rule legal a return to literacy tests and Black people being deprived of the vote, there’s no coming back from that. We haven’t just lost the fight to modernise, we’ve already almost been set back to the civil-rights era, when does it become to far? When they relegalise segregation? Sodomy criminalisation?

Edited by Silasw on Jul 2nd 2018 at 1:42:40 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#248217: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:41:23 PM

The important thing is to NOT CARE what Republicans say or think. Don't give their optics the slightest bit of consideration because they no longer matter. When Huckabee was kicked out of a restraunt, they said, "Democrats hated when the government kicked out gay people, now they're hypocrites."

No, it's schadenfreude.

But they don't care about that.

So fuck em.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248218: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:41:36 PM

Now maybe that’s less a case for court packing and more one for impeaching Republican justices for blatant partisan hackery, maybe that’s even the better way to do it, let them prove themselves to be partisan hacks then push for impeachment.

That would be the democratic way to do it, yes.

It would mean letting this go on long enough to build a case. It's not a Quick Fix born of equal parts panic and "It's Okay If You're On My Side". But it would avoid establishing dangerous precedents and disemboweling the Judicial branch.

While at the same time, Congress can work on bills to prohibit the theft of a Justice in the future.

[up] You should, however, care what Moderates think. People who aren't invested in either party and won't give you the leeway of, "It's just because my party did it and my party is just."

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:42:39 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#248219: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:46:40 PM

I’ll just repost what I was editing in.

Fundamentally my worry is that this may be it, because we’re just one conservative justice retiring (Roberts) from a supreme court that wouldn’t just overturn Roe, but might well rule legal a return to literacy tests and Black people being deprived of the vote, there’s no coming back from that. We haven’t just lost the fight to modernise, we’ve already almost been set back to the civil-rights era, when does it become to far? When they allow the return of segregation? Sodomy criminalisation? When the Florida senate race gets hacked by Russia and 10,000 votes are added for the Republican and the Supreme Court rules that the votes must count? When they just strait up start taking away the right to vote from black people?

But I guess that may be what it comes down to, we let that desicion be handed down then use it as the driving argument behind removing every single one of them.

Edited by Silasw on Jul 2nd 2018 at 1:48:45 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248220: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:47:45 PM

That would be the democratic way to do it, yes.

It would mean letting this go on long enough to build a case. It's not a Quick Fix born of equal parts panic and "It's Okay If You're On My Side". But it would avoid establishing dangerous precedents and disemboweling the Judicial branch.

While at the same time, Congress can work on bills to prohibit the theft of a Justice in the future.

Ok, I mentioned it a few times but apparently it hasn't sunken in.

This has happened before

To quote the Vox article:

The existence of historical precedents for court-packing beyond FDR further bolsters the argument for it. In a 1968 article for the Baylor Law Review, political scientist JR Saylor detailed “seven occasions Congress has enlarged or diminished the size of the Supreme Court by one or two judges.” Each of these seven times, the changes were made either to “purge the Court of … justices making decisions objectionable to an incumbent of the White House or to a dominant party majority in Congress” or to “‘pack’ the Court in order that the policies of the government in power would be upheld as constitutional.”

Those seven times were:

  • In 1801, before the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, the outgoing Federalist Party passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, shrinking the court from six to five members by providing that the next member to die or resign would not be replaced. Saylor describes this as “undoubtedly an attempt made by the Federalists to keep the Court wholly Federalist.”

  • In 1802, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party repealed the 1801 law and returned the court to six members.

  • In 1807, the Jeffersonian-dominated Congress expanded the Court to even members, to accommodate a new judicial circuit covering Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio, then new additions to the union.

  • In 1837, two new circuits were created and the Court’s size increased to nine; Saylor credits this to the geographic pressures of America’s westward expansion, but notes that Andrew Jackson quickly took advantage and appointed two new justices the day before he left office.

  • In 1863, Congress increased the Supreme Court’s size to 10 members in the midst of the Civil War. Saylor explains, “There was a widespread suspicion that Lincoln wanted another man on the Court on whom he could depend lest the body invalidate some of the crucial and doubtful wartime legislation which was coming before it at that time.”

  • In 1866, as pro-Reconstruction Republicans in Congress did battle with President Andrew Johnson, Congress passed a law barring Johnson from filling vacancies until the Court shrank to eight members, which occurred the following year.

  • In 1869, with pro-Reconstruction President Ulysses S. Grant in office, Congress increased the court’s size to nine, where it’s stayed ever since.

That history is not one of politically disinterested policymakers negotiating impartially as to the Court’s size. It’s a history of political manipulation with an eye toward partisan advantage, and some of the most heroic figures in American history — Lincoln, Radical Republicans in Congress like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, Grant — engaged in the practice.

You have claimed that increasing the number of Supreme Court judges is some unacceptable violation of norms that makes us just as bad as Republicans and will inevitably result in destroying the judiciary, this evidence clearly shows that the case is not nearly as black and white as you seem to think (or at-least it's not black and white in the direction you think).

So I will repeat my original position, I will not support doing nothing and allowing progress to be reversed/destroyed for decades when we can do something about it.

The nation cannot afford that kind of incalculable damage.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:50:25 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248221: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:49:12 PM

[up][up]I'm scared of that too.

But there is no democratic way to say, "Our government has crossed the line and must be stopped now. They have gone too far and cannot be allowed to take one more step farther."

At that point, you're not talking about democratic measures anymore. You're talking about revolt. Democracy takes time. Only violence is immediate.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:52:23 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248222: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:50:32 PM

[up]What? Congress has the legal right to alter the size of the court and it has employed that legal right previously.

Not to mention that this is only possible if the American people vote the Democratic Party into office, argue against it if you want but it's objectively false to say this isn't democratic.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:50:46 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#248223: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:50:47 PM

[up][up] Most of people here already want revolt tho. So...your audience is not gonna hear you.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jul 2nd 2018 at 8:50:42 AM

Watch me destroying my country
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248224: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:57:52 PM

Not to mention that this is only possible if the American people vote the Democratic Party into office, argue against it if you want but it's objectively false to say this isn't democratic.

How many of those people do you think are actually going to run on the platform of stacking the court? The news networks are talking about it now, but how many actual candidates are saying, "If I win, I'm totally going to try and get biased Justices onto the Supreme Court to sway their political leaning in my favor!"

By all means, if you know of any campaigns that are boasting about such an agenda, I'd be happy to see them.

But if nobody's talking about doing it and then they get into office and just do it, then the fact that people voted for them doesn't mean shit.

And like I said before: the fact that news networks are talking about it in the first place is potentially damaging to our side. If people think the Democrats are going to try and pack the court if they win, they may be less inclined to vote for us in November.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:58:23 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#248225: Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:59:53 PM

If nothing else politicians like to know what's popular and what isn't. If doing so is popular enough, and the Democrats get in a position of where they're actually capable of doing it, moral and ethical questions aside they'd be stupid not to.


Total posts: 417,856
Top