4 ms·

> The left soon will control all three branches of government ...the supreme court is majority conservative and has 3 trump appointees. Senate and congress are

> The left soon will control all three branches of government ...the supreme court is majority conservative and has 3 trump appointees. Senate and congress are together one branch (the legislative branch).

zaroth 6y ago
The court which Democrats have promised to pack?
- TT3351 6y ago
  Ruled out repeatedly by multiple individuals who would need to sign on. Whoever you heard that from was either misled or trying to mislead you. Biden is one of the staunchest institutionalists in government today.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Which Democrats? Biden has expressed enormous reluctance to this idea, if not outright opposition, and if it was even close to happening anyway (which is unlikely), it won't happen without his vote.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/supreme-court-packing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020... Biden famously has refused to rule it out despite being asked repeatedly since winning the nomination.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      I can't find any references anywhere to anyone asking him about it since he won the election. Before the nomination, his answers where classically institutionalist. After the nomination, he refused to be specific and said I'll let you know after the election". That doesn't appear to have happened.
      - zaroth 6y ago
        I said after winning the nomination. It was very big news at the time. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-packing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/joe-biden-supreme-co...
        PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        I addressed both time periods. The opening of your just-cited link reads: >Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden again ducked questions Thursday about whether he would seek to add seats to the Supreme Court, telling reporters he would not address the issue until after the November 3 election. For me personally, when I combine that with his institutionalist remarks before he became the front-runner in the D primary, leads me to believe that he's not in favor of it, but tried to hedge once he won the nomination to avoid another irritation to progressives. I do understand that your interpretation may be different.
        zaroth 6y ago
        I hope you’re right!
Rapzid 6y ago
You brought facts to an emotion fight.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Sigh. Sadly, I'm well aware that one cannot combat irrationality with reason. However the purpose of my post was more to inform readers who might be unaware of the structure of US government that it was an untrue statement.
dilap 6y ago
True; on the other hand, the Supreme Court didn't even deign to hear the Trump election challenges, so I think it's fair to wonder if they are really on the side of MAGA-style conservatives. Time will tell if the courts prove to be an obstacle to the Biden admin, but I'll predict probably not (& that will be in contrast to the Trump admin).
- azernik 6y ago
  There's a vast gap between not going along with baseless and unprecedented attempts to overturn a democratic election, and being left-wing.
  - TT3351 6y ago
    Not if you've been socialized by 4chan and Zucc's algorithms
  - dilap 6y ago
    Well, it's hardly unprecedented; Gore v Bush anyone? And in general election fraud, complaining about election fraud, and occasionally even doing something about it have a long history in the US. Per polls, something like 20% of democrats believe there was a significant amount of fraud. Democracy doesn't work if a majority of the people don't think the process is fair. If there are allegations of tomfoolery, then let them be argued in court. If they are groundless, great; many people will recognize that and you will increase confidence in the results. By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system.
    - esoterica 6y ago
      > By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system. You don't seem to understand how the justice system works. Courts can't just decide to investigate whatever they want to investigate, if there is no standing to hear a case then there is no case to be heard. Also there were some fraud claims that were dismissed on the merits (because they were utterly baseless) so it's not true that they were all dismissed on procedural grounds. > Bush v. Gore The Bush v. Gore lawsuit was about how to deal with ambiguously marked ballots (remember the hanging chads). No insane Chavez/Dominion/dead voter/whatever election fraud conspiracy theories involved.

zaroth 6y ago

The court which Democrats have promised to pack?

TT3351 6y ago
Ruled out repeatedly by multiple individuals who would need to sign on. Whoever you heard that from was either misled or trying to mislead you. Biden is one of the staunchest institutionalists in government today.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Which Democrats? Biden has expressed enormous reluctance to this idea, if not outright opposition, and if it was even close to happening anyway (which is unlikely), it won't happen without his vote.
- zaroth 6y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/supreme-court-packing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020... Biden famously has refused to rule it out despite being asked repeatedly since winning the nomination.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I can't find any references anywhere to anyone asking him about it since he won the election. Before the nomination, his answers where classically institutionalist. After the nomination, he refused to be specific and said I'll let you know after the election". That doesn't appear to have happened.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      I said after winning the nomination. It was very big news at the time. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-packing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/joe-biden-supreme-co...
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        I addressed both time periods. The opening of your just-cited link reads: >Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden again ducked questions Thursday about whether he would seek to add seats to the Supreme Court, telling reporters he would not address the issue until after the November 3 election. For me personally, when I combine that with his institutionalist remarks before he became the front-runner in the D primary, leads me to believe that he's not in favor of it, but tried to hedge once he won the nomination to avoid another irritation to progressives. I do understand that your interpretation may be different.
        zaroth 6y ago
        I hope you’re right!

Rapzid 6y ago

You brought facts to an emotion fight.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Sigh. Sadly, I'm well aware that one cannot combat irrationality with reason. However the purpose of my post was more to inform readers who might be unaware of the structure of US government that it was an untrue statement.

dilap 6y ago

True; on the other hand, the Supreme Court didn't even deign to hear the Trump election challenges, so I think it's fair to wonder if they are really on the side of MAGA-style conservatives. Time will tell if the courts prove to be an obstacle to the Biden admin, but I'll predict probably not (& that will be in contrast to the Trump admin).

azernik 6y ago
There's a vast gap between not going along with baseless and unprecedented attempts to overturn a democratic election, and being left-wing.
- TT3351 6y ago
  Not if you've been socialized by 4chan and Zucc's algorithms
- dilap 6y ago
  Well, it's hardly unprecedented; Gore v Bush anyone? And in general election fraud, complaining about election fraud, and occasionally even doing something about it have a long history in the US. Per polls, something like 20% of democrats believe there was a significant amount of fraud. Democracy doesn't work if a majority of the people don't think the process is fair. If there are allegations of tomfoolery, then let them be argued in court. If they are groundless, great; many people will recognize that and you will increase confidence in the results. By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    > By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system. You don't seem to understand how the justice system works. Courts can't just decide to investigate whatever they want to investigate, if there is no standing to hear a case then there is no case to be heard. Also there were some fraud claims that were dismissed on the merits (because they were utterly baseless) so it's not true that they were all dismissed on procedural grounds. > Bush v. Gore The Bush v. Gore lawsuit was about how to deal with ambiguously marked ballots (remember the hanging chads). No insane Chavez/Dominion/dead voter/whatever election fraud conspiracy theories involved.