Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

they're actually trying to parlay their intransigence about anything Obama into votes for the election.

... being fair(?), hasn't that been a notable chunk of... pretty much every meaningful republican candidate's campaign, this cycle?* It's sometimes hard to tell whether they're running against a potential clinton or sanders, or obama.

*Well, and probably last cycle, too. Since obama got elected/first ran, really...

[nenjin]

If they trotted out the 'ol "an Obama appointee will make your sons and daughters marry gay and declare the US a secular nation blah blah blah" I'd be unfazed. That's SOP for Conservative Republicans and would at least be honest in the context of their normal beliefs. But this "Americans have a right to choose the next SCJ (via the Presidential elections)" is trying to cast the Supreme Court appointee as something it's not: a popular election.

[sluissa]

Here's the big question... which would the Republican senate hate worse. An Obama Justice now, which they do have quite the political clout in forcing to be a moderate choice from Obama, or the potential of a Trump or Sanders justice next year? Or hell, just Obama himself as justice next year as Clinton has suggested.

Although thinking about it, they may just eat Obama on the court right up. It solidifies the right's long held political boogeyman as a permanent fixture in politics they can keep bringing up to scare their base to action for the foreseeable future. And certainly there's several other justices that are up for replacement any time now.

[smjjames]

I wouldn't mind a liberal Justice appointed by Sanders, really. As long as they're sensible anyway.

Besides, don't you guys think Obama would want a break for a while after his term is over? Not that he'll disappear from the political scene entirely.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Still have not heard a single disadvantage to Justice Snoop Dog, I'm glad we're all in agreement on this.

[smjjames]

Still have not heard a single disadvantage to Justice Snoop Dog, I'm glad we're all in agreement on this.

He's not a lawyer?

[nenjin]

Still have not heard a single disadvantage to Justice Snoop Dog, I'm glad we're all in agreement on this.

He's not a lawyer?

That's a bonus.

[Flying Dice]

I wouldn't mind a liberal Justice appointed by Sanders, really. As long as they're sensible anyway.

Besides, don't you guys think Obama would want a break for a while after his term is over? Not that he'll disappear from the political scene entirely.

A post on the SCOTUS is a break. He gets to start acting like a crotchety old man before he's even properly middle-aged. 

I, for one, want to see Sanders use his foul necromancy to bring Trotsky back from the grave, fuse him with Mao's ghost, and appoint him as the new Justice by executive order. :^)

[scriver]

I know I'm a bit late for the union discussion, but I have to say I don't see how anyone in favour of free trade and the capitalist system when in practice it just comes down the the workers making sure they get the most profit out of their capital and the product they are selling - their time and labour. The board and managers could always go down to the floor themselves if they don't think it's worth it - it's not like it's a god given right to have people do work for you.

[Bauglir]

I know I'm a bit late for the union discussion, but I have to say I don't see how anyone in favour of free trade and the capitalist system when in practice it just comes down the the workers making sure they get the most profit out of their capital and the product they are selling - their time and labour. The board and managers could always go down to the floor themselves if they don't think it's worth it - it's not like it's a god given right to have people do work for you.

Well, basically a union (or having such a weird skill set that you can't be replaced) works out to being a monopoly on the labor supply. There are lots of good reasons for people who like free trade to oppose monopolies. The biggest is that it upsets one of the major assumptions about what keeps folks honest - that if you're a dickbag, your customers can just go somewhere else. That said, I am not a capitalist, and feel this is an acceptable sacrifice in the current employment market.

[smjjames]

I thought unions were supposed to help protect against exploitative bosses or something and as a tool for workers rights and stuff.

I'm sure it's true that they can make things worse in other ways.

[Bauglir]

They are! And the way they do that is to establish a monopoly on labor so that employers have no choice but to be fair to their workers, or else they won't have any. Where this potentially becomes a problem is that it means you can't have a choice as to whether or not you're in the union.

[Lord Shonus]

That's only for specific employers. Even in areas with powerful trade unions, at least a third of the labor pool for those jobs is non-unionized. Of course, those non-union workers tend to do much shoddier work since they don't get the union training, and cost almost as much because the vast unemployement pool that employers depend on for their master/servant relationship doesn't exist in those fields, but it does exist.

[Frumple]

Besides, don't you guys think Obama would want a break for a while after his term is over? Not that he'll disappear from the political scene entirely.

A post on the SCOTUS is a break. He gets to start acting like a crotchety old man before he's even properly middle-aged. 

Just to kinda' nip this, so far as I'm aware Obama has already came out saying he doesn't want a SCOTUS seat (though finding the quote(s) on that have been a complete sumbitch, what with current events). Something about having a distinct disinterest in what the job entails, iirc.

[mainiac]

Where this potentially becomes a problem is that it means you can't have a choice as to whether or not you're in the union.

You just said that a worker who doesn't like a work arrangement with their employer is free to quit.  Why not apply the same standard to a union?  A worker who doesn't like a work arrangement with their union is free to quit.

Personally I think the second statement is a load of crock but that's just because I also think the first statement is a load of crock.  I think someone should believe both or neither.