RBG is dead

[CascadeLuke]

Just catching up but I’m curious where people are seeing that Bernie bro’s are not uniting to vote out the orange virus? I was a Bernie supporter mostly from the stand point of high character and his about the people nature. Better in those regards as anyone I can remember politically, in my lifetime. Exact opposite of what we have now. And how did that work out?
Anyhow, everyone of the people in my sphere that supported him vocally - are for Biden. Many of them are wearing out their fingers posting anti-Trump and pro Biden stuff. That what I’m seeing

[DBdude]

i know a few bernie bros that won't support him. his views on global warming don't meet their litmus test. most are thirty and under.

[BmillsSkier]

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.

Thanks for the reply. This will be my last question as this thread is already too polyass for the PR:

Given your response above, and take the D or R away from who holds what seat and what their issues or beliefs are, are you saying with your proposal to abolish the Senate that you're fine with one house of Congress where majority rules?

[Deebased]

well, i learned a new word today

Portlanders have to stick together

[neufox47]

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.

That’s pretty much what we had when it took 60 votes to get a nomination. And both sides used to approve or disapprove on a candidate in mostly good faith. Not just that they didn’t want them. Then McConnel came along.

[dan_pdx]

Thanks for the reply. This will be my last question as this thread is already too polyass for the PR:

Given your response above, and take the D or R away from who holds what seat and what their issues or beliefs are, are you saying with your proposal to abolish the Senate that you're fine with one house of Congress where majority rules?

You didn't ask me, but here's my unsolicited opinion. That might work as long as there's a filibuster or similar option, which might need to be limited by statute so not every bill can be filibustered. If we believe in democracy, that's democracy, right?

[schuss]

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.

Because the dominant strategy would be to reject every candidate that doesn't match your views. This is why Republicans blocked garland - they weren't interested in a good judge, they were interested in a shill for their interests.

[DBdude]

That’s pretty much what we had when it took 60 votes to get a nomination. And both sides used to approve or disapprove on a candidate in mostly good faith. Not just that they didn’t want them. The McConnel came along.

This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Before that was Harry Reid took the filibuster away for executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. That was engendered by the republicans not passing Obama appointments which was caused by Bork getting shot down and on and on.

[fhw]

You didn't ask me, but here's my unsolicited opinion. That might work as long as there's a filibuster or similar option, which might need to be limited by statute so not every bill can be filibustered. If we believe in democracy, that's democracy, right?

Frankly, if you want a pure democracy, we should all vote on every bill. Representative democracy is already a departure from the purest form of democracy.

I like what the Founding Fathers created. I think you should all keep your grubby hands off it.

[fhw]

This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Before that was Harry Reid took the filibuster away for executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. That was engendered by the republicans not passing Obama appointments which was caused by Bork getting shot down and on and on.

No no no! You're forgetting rule #1 in all political discussions that occur on the internet: Everything bad that ever happened is the other guys' fault!

[DBdude]

fuck... my bad

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I know there’s a lot of fear and anxiety over a Trump SC nominee but that doesn’t mean that the appointee will be a total partisan hack. I don’t know if I agree with all of Gorsuch’s opinions or dissents but I do in some cases and above all he seems to take a great deal of care in being pragmatic in his approach.

I guess I think it may not be the end of the world is what I would say. If you make it to the level where you are considered for an appointment to the SC you probably are pretty considerate in spite of your political stance. After all RBG and Scalia were best friends and a lot of people here were gleeful when he passed.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[RootSkier]

If you make it to the level where you are considered for an appointment to the SC you probably are pretty considerate in spite of your political stance.

Not even close.

[fhw]

After all RBG and Scalia were best friends and a lot of people here were gleeful when he passed.

They were? That's so fucked up. I don't know why it surprises me but it's sad to hear. I don't think I'd like to hang out with many that post in here.

[fhw]

Not even close.

Yeah, actually, probably pretty close.

[CascadeLuke]

This

[DBdude]

I know there’s a lot of fear and anxiety over a Trump SC nominee but that doesn’t mean that the appointee will be a total partisan hack. I don’t know if I agree with all of Gorsuch’s opinions or dissents but I do in some cases and above all he seems to take a great deal of care in being pragmatic in his approach.

I guess I think it may not be the end of the world is what I would say. If you make it to the level where you are considered for an appointment to the SC you probably are pretty considerate in spite of your political stance. After all RBG and Scalia were best friends and a lot of people here were gleeful when he passed.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

exactly - justices change, it's a life time appointment

Roberts hasn't been the disaster many claimed he would be. It's a fact that there are many conservative people in this country and Roe v Wade was a turning point for better or worse. Abortion is a polarizing issue as this thread illustrates

I still think term limits on scotus is not a bad idea. when they are done they can go back to the courts of appeal

that said I dislike thomas - maybe i'm a racist. I don't think so. what bothers me is his anti-affirmative action stance that is all about him. he can't separate the good that these statutes have done versus that it takes away from his achievements

[fhw]

Abortion is a polarizing issue as this thread illustrates

And I don't see any pro-lifers in here either. It's not good enough that you're pro-choice. You have to absolutely HATE people who aren't. Bonus points if demonstrate that you don't understand how the Constitution works.

[neufox47]

This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Before that was Harry Reid took the filibuster away for executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. That was engendered by the republicans not passing Obama appointments which was caused by Bork getting shot down and on and on.

Harry Reid taking the filibuster away was a reaction to McConnell refusing to seat any Obama judges. You can argue McConnell did that because Obama wasn’t putting forth qualified judges but that doesn’t really pass a casual investigation. McConnell basically just said no to any judges. Democrats responded but where would we be without it? Does anyone think the Republicans would have left the filibuster in for Federal judges if Democrats had done the same in 17 to today and refused to seat Trump nominations? Of course not.

[schuss]

Frankly, if you want a pure democracy, we should all vote on every bill. Representative democracy is already a departure from the purest form of democracy.

I like what the Founding Fathers created. I think you should all keep your grubby hands off it.

Tell that to McConnell and the hundreds of bills the house has passed that haven't been brought to a vote.

[old goat]

Lots of proposals but a system is only as good as the people in it. No matter how we tinker with the Constitution the results will be the same as long as we are locked in the hyperpartisan tribal death match.

We have become accustomed to accepting what Dr. King said about the arc of history, but history is not an arc--it's more like plate tectonics. For much of our history we have been a slave-holding, overtly sexist, overtly racist, genocidal people and there is nothing that will prevent us from going back some distance towards our roots. We cannot expect us to continue to make social progress unless we keep fighting for it.

The current fight over the Court is not about abortion or health care. If the Court rules narrowly that nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion--not a hard ruling to argue--it will be a terrible setback but it will put the battle back in the states where maybe it will galvanize progressive change at that level. If the Court throws out the ACA 20 million people or more losing their health insurance, if they haven't already lost it, may open the door for Medicare for all or a similar proposal.

What is at stake here is the rule of law. If the Court were to not only reverse Roe but ban abortion as infringement of the 14th Amendment against the rights of a fetus as a human being--a ruling that would necessarily ban it for any reason--rape, incest, fetal abnormality or even the life and health of the mother--it would imposing a particular religious view on the country, in violation of the 1st Amendment. If the Court were to prematurely stop vote counting if Trump is ahead on the morning of 11/4 that would be a gross violation of the Constitution--in the tradition of Bush v Gore, where the Court intervened in a case that was out of its jurisdiction--the running of elections being a state prerogative as long as the civil rights of voters are not infringed upon. If the Court upholds Executive branch budgeting, in defiance of the right of Congress to appropriate money and direct how it is spent, it would be violating the Constitution. These are the kinds of rulings that should really get us up in arms, as it would mean that we no longer have the rule of law.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Lots of proposals but a system is only as good as the people in it. No matter how we tinker with the Constitution the results will be the same as long as we are locked in the hyperpartisan tribal death match.

We have become accustomed to accepting what Dr. King said about the arc of history, but history is not an arc--it's more like plate tectonics. For much of our history we have been a slave-holding, overtly sexist, overtly racist, genocidal people and there is nothing that will prevent us from going back some distance towards our roots. We cannot expect us to continue to make social progress unless we keep fighting for it.

The current fight over the Court is not about abortion or health care. If the Court rules narrowly that nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion--not a hard ruling to argue--it will be a terrible setback but it will put the battle back in the states where maybe it will galvanize progressive change at that level. If the Court throws out the ACA 20 million people or more losing their health insurance, if they haven't already lost it, may open the door for Medicare for all or a similar proposal.

What is at stake here is the rule of law. If the Court were to not only reverse Roe but ban abortion as infringement of the 14th Amendment against the rights of a fetus as a human being--a ruling that would necessarily ban it for any reason--rape, incest, fetal abnormality or even the life and health of the mother--it would imposing a particular religious view on the country, in violation of the 1st Amendment. If the Court were to prematurely stop vote counting if Trump is ahead on the morning of 11/4 that would be a gross violation of the Constitution--in the tradition of Bush v Gore, where the Court intervened in a case that was out of its jurisdiction--the running of elections being a state prerogative as long as the civil rights of voters are not infringed upon. If the Court upholds Executive branch budgeting, in defiance of the right of Congress to appropriate money and direct how it is spent, it would be violating the Constitution. These are the kinds of rulings that should really get us up in arms, as it would mean that we no longer have the rule of law.

I don’t really see those scenarios playing out. There are certainly liberal and conservative SC justices but I think the thing a lot of people overlook, including the president that appoints them, is that these really are lifetime appointments and once confirmed they’re not beholden to their appointer or party. The party that appoints and confirms these justices can only hope they rule favorably.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[dan_pdx]

Frankly, if you want a pure democracy, we should all vote on every bill. Representative democracy is already a departure from the purest form of democracy.

I like what the Founding Fathers created. I think you should all keep your grubby hands off it.

I agree overall they did a good job, they couldn't have anticipated where we are today and much of it holds up well. On the other hand, they only gave the vote to white male landowners -- the document has to have room to evolve, and they had the foresight to allow that through amendments. Do amendments constitute me putting my grubby hands on it?

[Toadman]

I know there’s a lot of fear and anxiety over a Trump SC nominee but that doesn’t mean that the appointee will be a total partisan hack. I don’t know if I agree with all of Gorsuch’s opinions or dissents but I do in some cases and above all he seems to take a great deal of care in being pragmatic in his approach.

I guess I think it may not be the end of the world is what I would say. If you make it to the level where you are considered for an appointment to the SC you probably are pretty considerate in spite of your political stance. After all RBG and Scalia were best friends and a lot of people here were gleeful when he passed.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

It's like the frog in the water analogy. Just keep raising the temp. Before you know it, the right wing SCOTUS will chip away at past rulings that favored citizens rights. By the time you realize the water is boiling it will be too late. But the world won't end, just the once familiar world, where a US citizen had rights.

But remember this; Corporations are people too. Just ask Mitt Romney.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

It's like the frog in the water analogy. Just keep raising the temp. Before you know it, the right wing SCOTUS will chip away at past rulings that favored citizens rights. By the time you realize the water is boiling it will be too late. But the world won't end, just the once familiar world, where a US citizen had rights.

But remember this; Corporations are people too. Just ask Mitt Romney.

Reading through the opinions for and against rulings by all the justices is very surprising at times.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums