5 ms·

The only re-assuring thing to me about this is: Pretty much anything ridiculous the Republicans accomplish in the next 2-4 years can almost certainly be reverse

by ceejay 10y ago

The only re-assuring thing to me about this is: Pretty much anything ridiculous the Republicans accomplish in the next 2-4 years can almost certainly be reversed once they (purposefully or not) knock some sense back into the American public.

ceejay 10y ago
I see that my comment is unpopular. For those who might care to explain (linked from the article): https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... Why do Republicans always appear to be the ones who want to burn the entire building down just because it has a leaky roof?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  He says "fairness doctrine" like it's a bad thing and "conservative media" like it's not synonymous with "my own personal propaganda rags".
matthewmcg 10y ago
The notable exception will be judicial appointments, especially Supreme Court appointments. Lifetime tenure is a hell of a thing.
- ceejay 10y ago
  Yes. Although it's not "that" bad if they replace Scalia with another Scalia. We can only hope that (a) No justices die for the next 2 years, and simultaneously (b) Republicans screw up so bad over the next 2 years the Democrats win Congress back so they can at least "moderate" the situation over the final 2.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    s\House\Senate. The Democrats have basically no chance at retaking the House in the foreseeable future... all the red states are gerrymandered to hell, plus you can expect voter suppression laws to keep popping up like weeds in all them as well, with decreasing chances of them being blocked... because the SCOTUS is tilting back to the right.
    - sfifs 10y ago
      Actually, in democracies, people do get out and vote and change rulers when they can be made to care sufficiently. In India where I live, I've seen time and again how state politicians who seemingly have the administration locked up, voters intimidated through outright thuggery, bribed with cash & liqor etc nevertheless go out and vote them out if only the opposition puts up a credible and trustworthy alternative who holds out a vision of improvement. Given the amount of voting booth capturing and thuggery going on, I used to be skeptical about the democratic process but have seen time amd again that in such situations when the opposition is able to put up a credible leader, nothing the incumbents can do can save them. Kind of like Obama did in the US 8 years back.
  - shuntress 10y ago
    Well, we just set the precedent this year that allows us to not confirm judicial appointments if there is an upcoming election. So once we consider "within two years" as upcoming, we never have to replace any judges.
- tzs 10y ago
  Supreme Court appointments can actually be effectively undone, if the party that wants to undo them can get control of both houses of Congress and the White House. They key is that there is nothing in the Constitution that sets the size of the court. All that the Constitution requires is that there be a chief justice. The actual number is set by statute. We have nine now because that's what the statute says we should have. It has not always been nine, and there is nothing that requires it to stay nine. If a party doesn't want to wait for current justices to retire or die in order to shift the direction of the court, it could expand the court instead and fill the new seats with its preferred justices.

by ceejay 10y ago

ceejay 10y ago

I see that my comment is unpopular. For those who might care to explain (linked from the article): https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... Why do Republicans always appear to be the ones who want to burn the entire building down just because it has a leaky roof?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
He says "fairness doctrine" like it's a bad thing and "conservative media" like it's not synonymous with "my own personal propaganda rags".

matthewmcg 10y ago

The notable exception will be judicial appointments, especially Supreme Court appointments. Lifetime tenure is a hell of a thing.

ceejay 10y ago
Yes. Although it's not "that" bad if they replace Scalia with another Scalia. We can only hope that (a) No justices die for the next 2 years, and simultaneously (b) Republicans screw up so bad over the next 2 years the Democrats win Congress back so they can at least "moderate" the situation over the final 2.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  s\House\Senate. The Democrats have basically no chance at retaking the House in the foreseeable future... all the red states are gerrymandered to hell, plus you can expect voter suppression laws to keep popping up like weeds in all them as well, with decreasing chances of them being blocked... because the SCOTUS is tilting back to the right.
  - sfifs 10y ago
    Actually, in democracies, people do get out and vote and change rulers when they can be made to care sufficiently. In India where I live, I've seen time and again how state politicians who seemingly have the administration locked up, voters intimidated through outright thuggery, bribed with cash & liqor etc nevertheless go out and vote them out if only the opposition puts up a credible and trustworthy alternative who holds out a vision of improvement. Given the amount of voting booth capturing and thuggery going on, I used to be skeptical about the democratic process but have seen time amd again that in such situations when the opposition is able to put up a credible leader, nothing the incumbents can do can save them. Kind of like Obama did in the US 8 years back.
- shuntress 10y ago
  Well, we just set the precedent this year that allows us to not confirm judicial appointments if there is an upcoming election. So once we consider "within two years" as upcoming, we never have to replace any judges.
tzs 10y ago
Supreme Court appointments can actually be effectively undone, if the party that wants to undo them can get control of both houses of Congress and the White House. They key is that there is nothing in the Constitution that sets the size of the court. All that the Constitution requires is that there be a chief justice. The actual number is set by statute. We have nine now because that's what the statute says we should have. It has not always been nine, and there is nothing that requires it to stay nine. If a party doesn't want to wait for current justices to retire or die in order to shift the direction of the court, it could expand the court instead and fill the new seats with its preferred justices.