RBG is dead

[riser4]

bernie was a great mayor for burlington and really takes care of issues if you call his office

besides veteran's issues he hasn't accomplished much legislatively but has moved the democratic party to the left in health care and education

he is a complicated hornery dude and I don't think he would have been a very good president

Mayor's youth office FTW!!! 242 Main Street!!! Screaming Broccoli!!! Those were some heady days.

[dan_pdx]

There's no evidence for this. But I know that won't stop you from saying it loudly and often. It just feels right and it's hard to disprove. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I believe this qualifies as evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/u...tisanship.html

FTA: Political science data tends to support the politicians rather than the justices when it comes to whether politics plays a part in judges’ decisions. The data demonstrates a significant correlation between judges’ political affiliations and their voting.

[DBdude]

Mayor's youth office FTW!!! 242 Main Street!!! Screaming Broccoli!!! Those were some heady days.

i know I am expanding the scope but you forgot nectars and phish you silly man - oh and dollar pints that were seconds from the production line of ice cream at ben and jerry's

[RootSkier]

There's no evidence for this. But I know that won't stop you from saying it loudly and often. It just feels right and it's hard to disprove. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You must not follow the Supreme Court very closely if this is your view.

[riser4]

i know I am expanding the scope but you forgot nectars and phish you silly man - oh and dollar pints that were seconds from the production line of ice cream at ben and jerry's

I am talking about things that directly flowed from Bernie. His now wife ran the youth office. All that other stuff was just Burlington in the 80s.

[Adolf Allerbush]

I note that you've brought this up a few times, and while this may not be the time or place I'm curious to hear your thoughts for such a position.

To me, it's one of two branches, of one branch of three branches, of the Federal Government that is there to act as a counter balance against pure mob rule of the House, and by further extension, less populous states being run over by the more populated states. Sure the gravity the Senate carries may appear a bit more pronounced when it's highlighted by things like their confirmation powers, but they are no more kings than the Supreme Court or the Executive Branch.

But, I'm always open to hearing another dentist's thoughts.

I'd be curious to hear RootSkiers take too, but here's my thoughts. First and foremost, just because someone lives in a less populated state shouldn't make their vote count more than someone else's. That's what is more pronounced now than ever before because of the combination of rural America having disproportionate influence in the senate compounded with our idiotic Electoral College. The result is that the majority of the population is being governed by the minority. That's not democratic (note, small "d") IMV.

Why would there be "mob rule" as you say in the House if the Senate went away? Maybe SC and other federal appointees should be confirmed by both the House and Senate?

Regardless, there's zero chance that the Senate will be abolished.

[DBdude]

yeah I know...

[neufox47]

If Roberts can’t convince some conservative justices to go with precedent and not lose all credibility, then the democrats have no choice but to pack the court at the next opportunity. I think this could become palatable to a majority of the populace by making sure the new judges were not partisan actors who went through a partisan purity test, but honest judges.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Adolf Allerbush]

If Roberts can’t convince some conservative justices to go with precedent and not lose all credibility, then the democrats have no choice but to pack the court at the next opportunity. I think this could become palatable to a majority of the populace by making sure the new judges were not partisan actors who went through a partisan purity test, but honest judges.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

How does that play out, specifically the "convince conservative justices to go with precedent"? They need to have a case come up where it's tested first, and I guess that's going to be this ACA case and pre-existing conditions. They dump ACA and that would I guess go against the precedent set in the last ACA challenge? If that happens and the dems take the presidency, senate, and keep the house then they should pack the court? how many judges? just two to offset the stolen seat and RBG's?

[ex-powderbroker]

This may be the first time Core Shot has ever been right about anything, but we have a poliass thread about the nomination here:

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...arts-NOW/page7

For everything else he says:

[RootSkier]

I note that you've brought this up a few times, and while this may not be the time or place I'm curious to hear your thoughts for such a position.

To me, it's one of two branches, of one branch of three branches, of the Federal Government that is there to act as a counter balance against pure mob rule of the House, and by further extension, less populous states being run over by the more populated states. Sure the gravity the Senate carries may appear a bit more pronounced when it's highlighted by things like their confirmation powers, but they are no more kings than the Supreme Court or the Executive Branch.

But, I'm always open to hearing another dentist's thoughts.

Becausing Senate malapportionment is only going to continue to increase (nobody is moving to ND and SD, ever). The 38 million people who live in the nation’s 22 least populous states are represented by 44 senators, while the 38 million residents of California are represented by two (pulled this from wikipedia, didn't double-check). More importantly, the Senate is obviously R-controlled right now but 15 million MORE people voted for D Senators than R Senators.

That is fucked up and it is not sustainable in the long term. Permanent minority rule is bad and leads to anti-democratic outcomes, which might be acceptable except those anti-democratic outcomes are, by virtue of the actual Republican party platform: racist, sexist, and all-around discriminatory against everyone who isn't straight, rich, and to a lesser extent, white.

[DBdude]

How does that play out, specifically the "convince conservative justices to go with precedent"? They need to have a case come up where it's tested first, and I guess that's going to be this ACA case and pre-existing conditions. They dump ACA and that would I guess go against the precedent set in the last ACA challenge? If that happens and the dems take the presidency, senate, and keep the house then they should pack the court? how many judges? just two to offset the stolen seat and RBG's?

well it has to be an odd number of judges - to state the obvious

[DBdude]

This may be the first time Core Shot has ever been right about anything, but we have a poliass thread about the nomination here:

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...arts-NOW/page7

For everything else he says:

because the vitriol and dumb in polyass is even too much for me

[Adolf Allerbush]

well it has to be an odd number of judges - to state the obvious

I don't think it "has to be an odd number of judges". In fact, I think it used to be 8 judges. That said, yeah, an even number doesn't work very well.

Here we go: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/h...nine-justices/

[hutash]

the democrats went down easy over garland. the republicans have always played the long game in regards to SCOTUS. the republicans can and will get a 6 - 3 majority on the court.

democrats please vote in the election. bernie bros - stop the butt hurt and vote for biden. this country can be a better place with trump gone and a democratic majority in the senate

move the fuck on everyone

This, while not the way it should, is they way it is, and we just have to deal with it. These are the times I wish I lived in a red state, so I can vote against these fuckers. Hopefully every mag in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, et al will be voting Democrat this election.

[fhw]

They dump ACA and that would I guess go against the precedent set in the last ACA challenge?

No it wouldn't. That's not the way the case was argued below nor is it how the lower courts ruled. In other words, that's not the issue before the USSC. Do you even read or do you just skim the WaPo headlines a few times a day and call it good? For a guy with such strong opinions, you don't appear to be very well informed.

[Deebased]

I grew up 3,000 miles away from NYC metro in an unincorporated town with no stoplights. I'll keep this post in mind the next time you complain about people stereotyping the South.



Honestly, what exactly are you arguing here? Half this post is arguing that people here live in liberal bubbles and the country is more conservative than they realize, while the other half seems to argue that people are overestimating how conservative the country actually is. Also, please explain what a "god fearing...heathen" is, because it appears that you don't understand what one or all of those words mean.

As to "your dogmatics beliefs are at best 50/50," if you look at Pew Research polls on almost every major social issue a substantial majority support the more liberal position:

-Two-thirds of Americans support marijuana legalization: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-legalization/
-61% said in a 2019 survey that abortion should be legal in all or most cases: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...te-in-america/
-60% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter and only 30% personally own a gun: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...united-states/
-60% of Americans say ensuring universal healthcare is government’s responsibility: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...esponsibility/

Certainly, there is substantial heterogeneity in those numbers based on geography and political affiliation. But, on national level, "at best 50/50" is demonstrably false (well, except for manual transmissions, you're probably right about that).

Regarding theocracy--theocracy is defined by the people in government writing and enforcing laws, not the populace. Minority rule by a theocratic party is still theocracy, and since 2/3's of Republicans believe the Bible should influence US laws (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...of-the-people/), Republicans are a theocratic party. Entire books have been written about this phenomenon: https://www.amazon.com/American-Theo.../dp/0143038281 (written in 2006, and his thesis has not become less true). Being an atheist is a death sentence in Republican politics. Hell, it's difficult for an atheist to win in a Democratic primary. On the SCOTUS, all five current members appointed by Republicans are conservative Catholics, as are all of Trump's front-runners for RGB's seat.

Given our penchant as a country to support/engage/promote or even create special classes for the smallest of individual classification ( ranging from .03 to 10% of the population) why would anyone ever try to qualify majority rule?

[DBdude]

i'm sorry dee i don't get your point. minority opinions have a right of protection from the tyranny of the majority

[fhw]

You must not follow the Supreme Court very closely if this is your view.

Huh?

[Deebased]

i'm sorry dee i don't get your point. minority opinions have a right of protection from the tyranny of the majority

That's exactly the point. We're all running around screaming thats not democratic and in reality the gen pop is more often wrong than right.

Ochlocracy is a recipe for disaster. As we're currently seeing with cancel culture eating its own.

I'll take checks and balances please and the dumbfucks advocating for abolishing the senate/EC/packing the SC should sign for the thunder dome.

[DBdude]

well there we go! vote in november boys and girls

[evdog]

How about changing the system so both sides have to agree on each Supreme Court candidate? It would force the president to nominate someone who is palatable to both sides and thus more moderate. This seems equitable considering the population is split fairly evenly blue/red.

[RootSkier]

Huh?

You said there's no evidence SCOTUS is partisan. That's absurd.

[fhw]

You said there's no evidence SCOTUS is partisan. That's absurd.

No I didn't. I said there's no evidence that it's as partisan as the legislative branch. I stand on that statement.

[::: :::]

Ochlocracy

well, i learned a new word today