4 ms·

Yes I do. 1. The democratic platform endorses "restructuring" (packing) of the lower courts. 2. A large number of democrats including Kamala Harris have endor

Yes I do. 1. The democratic platform endorses "restructuring" (packing) of the lower courts. 2. A large number of democrats including Kamala Harris have endorsed court packing or other schemes to change the balance of the supreme court. Joe Biden refused to tell the american public what he thinks about court packing. He later promised to create a commission to study court packing. 3. Chuck Schumer has made it a priority to eliminate the legislative filibuster so they can pass laws with 51 votes instead of 60. 4. Democrats believe the senate unfairly benefits republicans. They want to make D.C. and Puerto Rico into states to give them an advantage. Some democrats want to make states out of every american territory. This would lock republicans out of the senate permanently. They will do all of these things given the opportunity. Republicans are already pretty fucked due to demographic change, but democrats very openly want a one party state. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/19/regardless-of-what-trump-and-mitch-do-the-democrats-will-1-eliminate-the-filibuster-2-grant-statehood-to-d-c-and-maybe-p-r-3-expand-the-lower-courts-and-4-expand-the-supreme-court/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/19/regardless-of-what-trum...

Hnrobert42 6y ago
I don’t see the court restructuring point in the platform, but I just read the table of contents. Can you help me find it? https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202... Also, my question wasn’t whether you believe that’s what the Democrats want. Of course the Democrats want it to be a one party state. Everyone wants their side to win. My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. Because that is GP’s point. That this election is not an existential threat to either party.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-platform-endorse-court-packing/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-pla... >My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. It's a simple matter of whether they have the votes to do it. All they need is a simple majority to accomplish all of the things I listed. You said it yourself - everybody wants to have a one party state, right? So who, besides Joe Manchin and perhaps Kyrsten Sinema stands in the way of adding new states, abolishing the filibuster, packing the courts, or any other part of the democrat agenda? There are no shortage of voices for these things. Where are the voices against them? If Joe Biden, who is supposed to be some kind of moderate, can't tell the American public whether he's for or against packing the supreme court, what does that say about the state of the democratic party?
8note 6y ago
This uhh packing the courts thing. Isn't it what mcconnel has already done by denying all of Obama's appoints and delaying them so that they could be trump appointments instead? Especially given the odd appoints trump made like folks who'd never talked in a court before It's highly unlikely that the US becomes a one party state, but instead, the politics of the two parties changes. The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? They can easily draw more votes from minority conservatives if they drop the racism
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  Packing the court means specifically to expand the size of the court and fill it with partisan judges. Some people have been trying to redefine the term recently in order to create a false equivalency between what republicans have done and what democrats want to do. >The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? Democrats are the party of anti-white and anti-asian racists.
alisonkisk 6y ago
Preferring majority rule over minority rule is not "one-party". Republicans could win elections by appealing to voters instead of jerrymandering.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  >Republicans could win elections by appealing to voters instead of jerrymandering. Republicans are very popular. Maybe not quite as popular as the Democrats. Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so. And it wouldn't matter how many votes the democrats get, all people have a right to self determination first and foremost. Living as a permanent political minority is tyranny.
  - hellotomyrars 6y ago
    What a patently absurd statement, especially if you consider our national history. We didn't live in a strong two-party existence until relatively recently and we still have (not enough) independent members in congress. Political parties were quite literally decried by the founders and as we have now almost completely been polarized in a two-party system we have reached this level of disfunction. This is unacceptable and both parties have been responsible for shutting out third-party candidates. All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever. This is the process. This is the reality. This is America. Choosing to reject both the facts and reality doesn't change this.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      >All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever. When I talking about democrats taking over the federal government, I am talking about court packing, senate packing (by adding states), and other tactics to establish they will use to establish a permanent majority. I am not talking about the recent election. The person I replied to seems to think that all those things are justified because the democrats are more popular than the republicans. I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to political parties or choosing to reject facts. I assume you didn't actually read the thread so you took what I said out of context.
maxerickson 6y ago
I'm not a Democrat but I'm probably a liberal and I think it'd be swell to abolish the Senate entirely. It's not like we would really end up with a one party Democratic state, to begin with the party isn't cohesive enough for that to be terribly meaningful, and then you'd also get explicit divisions around issues, not more and more agreement. (abolishing the Senate would make the Federal government a lot spicier, but the Senate is much more sclerotic and ossified than it is staid)

Hnrobert42 6y ago

I don’t see the court restructuring point in the platform, but I just read the table of contents. Can you help me find it? https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202... Also, my question wasn’t whether you believe that’s what the Democrats want. Of course the Democrats want it to be a one party state. Everyone wants their side to win. My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. Because that is GP’s point. That this election is not an existential threat to either party.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-platform-endorse-court-packing/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-pla... >My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. It's a simple matter of whether they have the votes to do it. All they need is a simple majority to accomplish all of the things I listed. You said it yourself - everybody wants to have a one party state, right? So who, besides Joe Manchin and perhaps Kyrsten Sinema stands in the way of adding new states, abolishing the filibuster, packing the courts, or any other part of the democrat agenda? There are no shortage of voices for these things. Where are the voices against them? If Joe Biden, who is supposed to be some kind of moderate, can't tell the American public whether he's for or against packing the supreme court, what does that say about the state of the democratic party?

8note 6y ago

This uhh packing the courts thing. Isn't it what mcconnel has already done by denying all of Obama's appoints and delaying them so that they could be trump appointments instead? Especially given the odd appoints trump made like folks who'd never talked in a court before It's highly unlikely that the US becomes a one party state, but instead, the politics of the two parties changes. The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? They can easily draw more votes from minority conservatives if they drop the racism

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
Packing the court means specifically to expand the size of the court and fill it with partisan judges. Some people have been trying to redefine the term recently in order to create a false equivalency between what republicans have done and what democrats want to do. >The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? Democrats are the party of anti-white and anti-asian racists.

alisonkisk 6y ago

Preferring majority rule over minority rule is not "one-party". Republicans could win elections by appealing to voters instead of jerrymandering.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
>Republicans could win elections by appealing to voters instead of jerrymandering. Republicans are very popular. Maybe not quite as popular as the Democrats. Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so. And it wouldn't matter how many votes the democrats get, all people have a right to self determination first and foremost. Living as a permanent political minority is tyranny.
- hellotomyrars 6y ago
  What a patently absurd statement, especially if you consider our national history. We didn't live in a strong two-party existence until relatively recently and we still have (not enough) independent members in congress. Political parties were quite literally decried by the founders and as we have now almost completely been polarized in a two-party system we have reached this level of disfunction. This is unacceptable and both parties have been responsible for shutting out third-party candidates. All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever. This is the process. This is the reality. This is America. Choosing to reject both the facts and reality doesn't change this.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    >All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever. When I talking about democrats taking over the federal government, I am talking about court packing, senate packing (by adding states), and other tactics to establish they will use to establish a permanent majority. I am not talking about the recent election. The person I replied to seems to think that all those things are justified because the democrats are more popular than the republicans. I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to political parties or choosing to reject facts. I assume you didn't actually read the thread so you took what I said out of context.

maxerickson 6y ago

I'm not a Democrat but I'm probably a liberal and I think it'd be swell to abolish the Senate entirely. It's not like we would really end up with a one party Democratic state, to begin with the party isn't cohesive enough for that to be terribly meaningful, and then you'd also get explicit divisions around issues, not more and more agreement. (abolishing the Senate would make the Federal government a lot spicier, but the Senate is much more sclerotic and ossified than it is staid)