Print

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

[LordBaal]

How funny would be to the guy declare it's rigged before the results and then end up actually winning? Would he go with his word and call for another election?

[None]

Nope- that actually happened in 2016, and we know how that went.

[Rolan7]

Exactly.  Trump claimed the vote was rigged, but happily accepted the win.  Then claimed the vote was rigged and lost, leading to the insurrection and a widespread collapse of American faith in the process.

I can appreciate what some accelerationists and anti-electoralists saw in the guy.  He's so brazenly and ineptly corrupt that he shatters the status quo.  I just don't think it was worth packing the Supreme Court with cronies, or showing fascists that the USA is prime for a power-mad dictator.

Like wow, can we step back and remember how absolutely disgusting the Kavanaugh appointment was?  The idea of appointing a moderate justice was never on the table, only whether to appoint a raging frat-boy and alleged rapist, or to appoint some other arch-conservative.  Trump could have just picked someone else but that would have looked "weak", and you can't look weak when your base is fascists.  So we got the Emperor's horse as a Justice literally because "fuck you, I can do whatever I want".

How about that court-packing, Joe?  Whatever happened to that?  God, the Democrats love losing so much.  People are going to DIE in Texas over abortion but for 90% of Democrats that just means more campaign donations.

[Frumple]

This is turning into like pre-2000s ad spam; only for actual elections. Giant buttons that say FRAUD websites want you to smash.

I've seen arguments that those websites, especially popping up prior to any possible supporting data and asking for money/donations, might actually constitute straight up wire fraud themselves.

It'll be interesting to see if more lawsuits over that horseshit start popping up. There's a point nonsense turns grounds for a civil or criminal suit, and the folks coming to prominence in conservative circles these days ain't exactly the sort to care about exactly where that point is...

[Lord Shonus]

How about that court-packing, Joe?  Whatever happened to that?  God, the Democrats love losing so much. 

Court packing has support from 30% of Americans, as per the most optimistic poll I can find. Not doing it isn't "they love losing", it is "If I try this it guarantees the other side will win".

[lemon10]

How about that court-packing, Joe?  Whatever happened to that?  God, the Democrats love losing so much.  People are going to DIE in Texas over abortion but for 90% of Democrats that just means more campaign donations.

The court packing is a terrible idea.

First off it just flat out wouldn't work. Biden lacks the votes in the senate to do *checks notes* basically anything. So if he seriously tried all that would happen is that it would fail while simultaneously pissing a massive amount of people off.

The second issue is that it would erase the idea of the court being free from blatant outside meddling. If the democrats were in power forever or were actually competent in politics it wouldn't matter... but they won't be, so the instant they lose an election the republicans (who don't suck at politics) would come in and flip the court even harder in the other direction.

Finally as Shonus says its just super unpopular. Even if the republicans cared about norms the very best case scenario is the democrats lose everything over the next four years and everything said court does gets thrown out.

That isn't too say that Biden isn't pathetic on a lot of stuff (*cough* letting trump appointees stay in power *cough*), but he really isn't to blame here.

[Micro102]

I thought that incredibly neat and small percentage of 30% sounded off, so I google it and find it split almost 50/50. Obviously the vast majority of "against" being republicans who just cheated partisan judges in.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/04/poll-public-opinion-of-supreme-court-sags-over-past-year-502309

Like.... Why make up a number?

[wierd]

I am against court packing on the simple principle that THAT IS NOT HOW THE COURTS SHOULD OPERATE.

EG, the court system is not something that one should treat as yet another political vehicle for their feels (presumably, the court system is about finding facts. How one FEELS about facts, has no validity whatsoever to objective reality.)-- the court system is an important component in a modern society for the derivation of justice in the face of wrongdoing, not a mechanism by which you get what you want all the time.

to me, that's like filling a safety council with lobbyists, because they represent your company's interests.  That is not what the safety council is for, and doing that thing is a gross abrogation of duty, done exclusively to "Get your way."


Did the Republicans do exactly that thing? (pack the bench with pundits, specifically so that they could 'get their way'?)  You bet your fucking ass they did.


Does that make it A-OK for the Democrats to do the same fucking thing?  FUCK NO IT DOES NOT.  2 wrongs does not make it right.

[Micro102]

I am against court packing on the simple principle that THAT IS NOT HOW THE COURTS SHOULD OPERATE.

EG, the court system is not something that one should treat as yet another political vehicle for their feels (presumably, the court system is about finding facts. How one FEELS about facts, has no validity whatsoever to objective reality.)-- the court system is an important component in a modern society for the derivation of justice in the face of wrongdoing, not a mechanism by which you get what you want all the time.

to me, that's like filling a safety council with lobbyists, because they represent your company's interests.  That is not what the safety council is for, and doing that thing is a gross abrogation of duty, done exclusively to "Get your way."


Did the Republicans do exactly that thing? (pack the bench with pundits, specifically so that they could 'get their way'?)  You bet your fucking ass they did.


Does that make it A-OK for the Democrats to do the same fucking thing?  FUCK NO IT DOES NOT.  2 wrongs does not make it right.

This is wrong for three reasons.

1) This assumes that democrats will be just as biased in their judge selections as republicans are, and they won't be. Biden isn't going to pick judges who will just go "oops, sorry, can't shut down this constitution defying law that violates Roe v Wade right now. maybe later". He will pick milk toast judges that dilute the GOP's treachery.

2) Even if he did pick partisan lefty judges, it would be a morally net good thing. Republican choices are bad because they are a fascist party trying to destroy democracy and take people's right away. What would a partisan left judge do? Help provide healthcare?

3) 2 wrongs can absolutely make a right. If the game if rigged, and people's well-being is relying on you winning the game, and your opponent cheats and you can see that they can cheat, you are morally obligated to cheat as well.

EDIT: and note, this isn't even cheating. This would be lawful and not the first time the court was expanded.

[wierd]

I am against court packing on the simple principle that THAT IS NOT HOW THE COURTS SHOULD OPERATE.

EG, the court system is not something that one should treat as yet another political vehicle for their feels (presumably, the court system is about finding facts. How one FEELS about facts, has no validity whatsoever to objective reality.)-- the court system is an important component in a modern society for the derivation of justice in the face of wrongdoing, not a mechanism by which you get what you want all the time.

to me, that's like filling a safety council with lobbyists, because they represent your company's interests.  That is not what the safety council is for, and doing that thing is a gross abrogation of duty, done exclusively to "Get your way."


Did the Republicans do exactly that thing? (pack the bench with pundits, specifically so that they could 'get their way'?)  You bet your fucking ass they did.


Does that make it A-OK for the Democrats to do the same fucking thing?  FUCK NO IT DOES NOT.  2 wrongs does not make it right.

This is wrong for three reasons.

1) This assumes that democrats will be just as biased in their judge selections as republicans are, and they won't be. Biden isn't going to pick judges who will just go "oops, sorry, can't shut down this constitution defying law that violates Roe v Wade right now. maybe later". He will pick milk toast judges that dilute the GOP's treachery.

2) Even if he did pick partisan lefty judges, it would be a morally net good thing. Republican choices are bad because they are a fascist party trying to destroy democracy and take people's right away. What would a partisan left judge do? Help provide healthcare?

3) 2 wrongs can absolutely make a right. If the game if rigged, and people's well-being is relying on you winning the game, and your opponent cheats and you can see that they can cheat, you are morally obligated to cheat as well.

EDIT: and note, this isn't even cheating. This would be lawful and not the first time the court was expanded.

NO.

1) That is not the correct response. The correct response is to recall the justices in question, and replace them, not add more just to counterbalance them.  You do that by calling them on their incorrect jurisprudence, and citing specific examples.  This recent snafu with the tx abortion law applies.

2) NO, IT IS NOT. THAT IS PUTTING PUNDITS IN TO GET YOUR WAY. FACTS DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR POLITICS.

3) The notion that this can be true does not fix a system, it makes it irredeemably broken. See also, how the current US legislature FAILS to operate.


As for the edit-- somebody get an oija board-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ghost must be making the most shrill of banshee screams at this point.

[delphonso]

At least on point 2, wierd, you have to admit that the two parties have clearly different views on "facts."

Republicans have proven themselves to be in opposition to truth - truth, here, qualified as "accepted scientific fact".
Democrats have proven themselves to be fact ambivalent, at least.

Assuming that the judges are similar in their skepticism, a fuckton of dem judges will be better by necessity.

I think the point of 3, we would all agree with - the US is broken, Republicans have figured out how to play the game, and Dems seem to be playing a different one that involves gathering donation money and then bombing their own campaigns.

[wierd]

My position is succinctly expressed as follows;

If Hermann Goering (of Nazi infamy) came out and said 'The sky is blue', it does not suddenly become a false statement, just because that fucking asshole said it.


Facts dont care one iota about your politics.

[Micro102]

NO.

1) That is not the correct response. The correct response is to recall the justices in question, and replace them, not add more just to counterbalance them.  You do that by calling them on their incorrect jurisprudence, and citing specific examples.  This recent snafu with the tx abortion law applies.

2) NO, IT IS NOT. THAT IS PUTTING PUNDITS IN TO GET YOUR WAY. FACTS DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR POLITICS.

3) The notion that this can be true does not fix a system, it makes it irredeemably broken. See also, how the current US legislature FAILS to operate.


As for the edit-- somebody get an oija board-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ghost must be making the most shrill of banshee screams at this point.

You can call for the fixing of the system all you want, but it takes 2/3 of congress to remove the corruption, and only a majority to nullify it. Republicans will not allow it to happen. You are basically just saying "well, I guess the republicans get to have no consequences *shrugs*" "rules for thee, not for GOP. *shrugs*".

And what is this screaming about facts? Say the fact if you want to make an argument. If you think that judges appointed by Biden will cause more damage then explain why. I'm not going to accept all caps spam as an argument.

The system IS broken. And it needs to be fixed. We have watched a fascist party install partisan judges who are preventing the supreme court from upholding the constitution. Can you get more broken than that? The best chance to fix the system is to remove the influence of the clearly corrupt judges put in by clearly malicious people. Not doing so is promoting the broken system, which goes right back to the moral obligation to take action against cheaters, even if that action would be morally questionable by itself. Refusing to do so, will, at the very least, hurt women in Texas every day it isn't done. It could potentially hurt democracy itself. I won't sell out democracy to play nice with the GOP.

As for the Ginsburg video, all she says is that it will set a precedent for partisan manipulation of the SCOTUS. That precedent is already set. The GOP will do it whenever they need more judges. It's like you think that if we just don't un-partisan the court, it will never become partisan again. That's nonsense. A new precedent needs to be set, and that is to expand the court when your opponents shit all over the law to pack it. There is no moral basis for what you are saying. Imagine if someone shot at you and others and you just go "killing people is wrong!" as you refuse to shoot back.

[anewaname]

There has to be some consideration that not all the Republicans are on the same side. If you treat them as a unified group, you cannot separate them into groups of "good for this reason, bad for that reason"; and you lose the ability to help some Republicans fight against other Republicans.

This applies to the Democrats as well, because there are plenty of rotten apples in that barrel.

[wierd]

NO.

1) That is not the correct response. The correct response is to recall the justices in question, and replace them, not add more just to counterbalance them.  You do that by calling them on their incorrect jurisprudence, and citing specific examples.  This recent snafu with the tx abortion law applies.

2) NO, IT IS NOT. THAT IS PUTTING PUNDITS IN TO GET YOUR WAY. FACTS DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR POLITICS.

3) The notion that this can be true does not fix a system, it makes it irredeemably broken. See also, how the current US legislature FAILS to operate.


As for the edit-- somebody get an oija board-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ghost must be making the most shrill of banshee screams at this point.

You can call for the fixing of the system all you want, but it takes 2/3 of congress to remove the corruption, and only a majority to nullify it. Republicans will not allow it to happen. You are basically just saying "well, I guess the republicans get to have no consequences *shrugs*".

And what is this screaming about facts? Say the fact if you want to make an argument. If you think that judges appointed by Biden will cause more damage then explain why. I'm not going to accept all caps spam as an argument.

The system IS broken. And it needs to be fixed. We have watched a fascist party install partisan judges who are preventing the supreme court from upholding the constitution. Can you get more broken than that? The best chance to fix the system is to remove the influence of the clearly corrupt judges put in by clearly malicious people. Not doing so is promoting the broken system, which goes right back to the moral obligation to take action against cheaters, even if that action would be morally questionable by itself. Refusing to do so, will, at the very least, hurt women in Texas every day it isn't done. It could potentially hurt democracy itself. I won't sell out democracy to play nice with the GOP.

As for the Ginsburg video, all she says is that it will set a precedent for partisan manipulation of the SCOTUS. That precedent is already set. The GOP will do it whenever they need more judges. It's like you think that if we just don't un-partisan the court, it will never become partisan again. That's nonsense. A new precedent needs to be set, and that is to expand the court when your opponents shit all over the law to pack it. There is no moral basis for what you are saying. Imagine if someone shot at you and others and you just go "killing people is wrong!" as you refuse to shoot back.

1) No, that is not what I am saying, that is what you want to believe I am saying, and the two are not the same thing at all.  I am saying that going whole hog into the same corrupt policies as the Republicans, only gives tacit approval to the corrupt practices they have engaged in.  That it is difficult to do it the correct way, does not make it stop being the correct way.  The correct way is the correct way for a reason, and the fact that it is hard to perform it that way is purposeful, specifically to prevent the politicization of the courts.

2) There are not open positions for judges in the current court.  Appointment of more, when none are (theoretically) needed, only promotes the false narrative that it is A-OK to appoint partisan justices, which it is not-- it is NEVER OK to do that.  It is not OK to even pretend that doing that is morally justifiable.  The court system MUST be non-partisan, MUST see cases on the principles of facts about law, and nothing else-- AND-- The courts MUST obey their own procedures and practices without fail, regardless of the political opinions of its justices.  FAILURE on any of those, results in Rule of Man, which is directly counter to the very notion of a fair, and properly operating court.  Instead, specific justices involved in very demonstrable breaches of the mandate they have accepted when they accepted positions on the bench, need to be held accountable for those breaches, within the rules and laws laid out.  That means the 2/3 majority route.  This is specifically because we are a rule of law nation, and not a rule of man nation.

3) Further breaking the system, because it is already broken, is not how you fix a broken system. That is just how you break it further.

4) Again, RBG's ghost must be screaming like a banshee right now;  Her position was founded on the principles I am laying down here.  The devolution of the courts into partisan bullshit is toxic to the very foundations of our nation.