5 ms·

If any generation had the power to change things how things ended up today, it was yours. To pick one example: all the supreme court justices who presided over

by badsock 10y ago

If any generation had the power to change things how things ended up today, it was yours. To pick one example: all the supreme court justices who presided over the Citizens United case were appointed during your prime years. If a generation inherits a better world than they leave to their kids, I don't think they get to blame how hard it would have been to have done better. The buck's got to stop somewhere. And having failed to do little but enrich themselves, at the very least your generation can stop talking about lazy and entitled the younger generation is. The hypocrisy is staggering.

lawpoop 10y ago
If you're going to blame voters for the Supreme Court nominees of their presidential picks, then it's fair to say that the political class is completely disconnected from the common people. In other words, it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. Those nominated for the Supreme Court come from a short list of federal judges and other legal wonks. No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. Therefore, they cannot be said to be voting on a candidate based on their Supreme Court picks, except in the most liberal/conservative sense. Case in point: Merrick Garland. He was on everyone's short list, including mentions by Republican leaders as a candidate who could be confirmed by the Senate. But the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That's where the buck stops. It happened regardless of who was voted in. Both parties were captured, and 3rd parties are not a realistic option in our system. We are /not really/ a democracy.
- Roboprog 10y ago
  This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? Well, too bad!
  - Roboprog 10y ago
    Note: I still feel it's important to participate in local elections to try to have some counterbalance to the a-holes at the "Imperial" level of government.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? To the extent that's true, its the result of major party primary elections and other processes and the decisions voters made in those (including the decision to stay out of them.)
    - Roboprog 10y ago
      FWIW, I did vote in the primary, just not for either of the remaining candidates :-) I can understand that many people did not / would not show up, though. That's a problem...
- groby_b 10y ago
  > it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. "Whoever is responsible, it's not me and my friends!" > No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. "I would like to not do any research, because taking responsibility is hard" > the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. Which is fine. The average voter knew (or should have known) what Obama stood for. What Bush stood for. What Clinton stood for. And so on. They could've then reasonably inferred what kind of judges they'd pick. And by looking at the age of SCOTUS judges, you have a good guess when replacements happens. The only judge where you could've made the case is surprising given who nominated them is Scalia - he tipped a bit further on issues than Reagan. Merrick is right in line with everything Obama ever stood for. Nobody is surprised that Obama would nominate a centrist with slight liberal leanings. The particular name might be unknown, but the choice isn't. > It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That political class didn't come into life fully formed. People voted for them, and shaped the direction of politics. And they're there because of money in politics. Which points us right back at the Supreme court, via Buckley vs. Valeo. (and Citizens United vs. FEC) (Not to mention that many people liked the initial effects of globalization and privatization. It's not like nobody voted for NAFTA, e.g.)
a3n 10y ago
> at the very least your generation can stop talking about lazy and entitled the younger generation is That sounds like demonizing a whole anonymous group based on personal perceptions.
RobertoG 10y ago
The grandparent didn't say anything about how the younger generations are lazy and entitled. Her/his point was, I think, that, even people in a democracy, have very little control over what policies are followed. And that you will see that happening to you, too.
bmelton 10y ago
Because I feel it's necessary to challenge this... > If any generation had the power to change things how things ended up today, it was yours. To pick one example: all the supreme court justices who presided over the Citizens United case were appointed during your prime years. The laws overturned in Citizens United had only been on the books a scant few years, and those laws made exercises of free speech illegal. Whether or not big money in politics is a problem, the Citizens United decision was decided in favor of free speech moreso than in favor of dark money, and it's quite likely that if you voted for the presidents who appointed the majority justices in citizens united that you also voted for the guy whose law was overturned by it. Ergo, casting it as a one-side versus the other form of complicity does not work.

by badsock 10y ago

lawpoop 10y ago

If you're going to blame voters for the Supreme Court nominees of their presidential picks, then it's fair to say that the political class is completely disconnected from the common people. In other words, it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. Those nominated for the Supreme Court come from a short list of federal judges and other legal wonks. No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. Therefore, they cannot be said to be voting on a candidate based on their Supreme Court picks, except in the most liberal/conservative sense. Case in point: Merrick Garland. He was on everyone's short list, including mentions by Republican leaders as a candidate who could be confirmed by the Senate. But the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That's where the buck stops. It happened regardless of who was voted in. Both parties were captured, and 3rd parties are not a realistic option in our system. We are /not really/ a democracy.

Roboprog 10y ago
This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? Well, too bad!
- Roboprog 10y ago
  Note: I still feel it's important to participate in local elections to try to have some counterbalance to the a-holes at the "Imperial" level of government.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > This fall's upcoming presidential election so perfectly illustrates that: which Wall St friendly New Yorker would you like? Both suck? To the extent that's true, its the result of major party primary elections and other processes and the decisions voters made in those (including the decision to stay out of them.)
  - Roboprog 10y ago
    FWIW, I did vote in the primary, just not for either of the remaining candidates :-) I can understand that many people did not / would not show up, though. That's a problem...
groby_b 10y ago
> it's not their fault, but rather the Elites'. "Whoever is responsible, it's not me and my friends!" > No average voter has any idea of the name of any of these people. "I would like to not do any research, because taking responsibility is hard" > the average voted hadn't heard his name before he was nominated by Obama. Which is fine. The average voter knew (or should have known) what Obama stood for. What Bush stood for. What Clinton stood for. And so on. They could've then reasonably inferred what kind of judges they'd pick. And by looking at the age of SCOTUS judges, you have a good guess when replacements happens. The only judge where you could've made the case is surprising given who nominated them is Scalia - he tipped a bit further on issues than Reagan. Merrick is right in line with everything Obama ever stood for. Nobody is surprised that Obama would nominate a centrist with slight liberal leanings. The particular name might be unknown, but the choice isn't. > It's really the political class that sold us out to privatization and globalization. That political class didn't come into life fully formed. People voted for them, and shaped the direction of politics. And they're there because of money in politics. Which points us right back at the Supreme court, via Buckley vs. Valeo. (and Citizens United vs. FEC) (Not to mention that many people liked the initial effects of globalization and privatization. It's not like nobody voted for NAFTA, e.g.)

a3n 10y ago

> at the very least your generation can stop talking about lazy and entitled the younger generation is That sounds like demonizing a whole anonymous group based on personal perceptions.

RobertoG 10y ago

The grandparent didn't say anything about how the younger generations are lazy and entitled. Her/his point was, I think, that, even people in a democracy, have very little control over what policies are followed. And that you will see that happening to you, too.

bmelton 10y ago

Because I feel it's necessary to challenge this... > If any generation had the power to change things how things ended up today, it was yours. To pick one example: all the supreme court justices who presided over the Citizens United case were appointed during your prime years. The laws overturned in Citizens United had only been on the books a scant few years, and those laws made exercises of free speech illegal. Whether or not big money in politics is a problem, the Citizens United decision was decided in favor of free speech moreso than in favor of dark money, and it's quite likely that if you voted for the presidents who appointed the majority justices in citizens united that you also voted for the guy whose law was overturned by it. Ergo, casting it as a one-side versus the other form of complicity does not work.