4 ms·

You’ve spent a fair bit of time recently on HN requiring any “liberal” here to defend the most outrageous muttering of the chattering tv pundits or college prof

You’ve spent a fair bit of time recently on HN requiring any “liberal” here to defend the most outrageous muttering of the chattering tv pundits or college professors. People who espouse views that are clearly not in line with the national party or the populace as determined by polling. Yet when people point out an elected national official of the GOPs words. An official that far from sanction, actually has the backing of the caucus in a named vote, you defer to defending it as figurative language. You are applying a clear double standard. One that is dangerous. You demand your opposition abide by the Queensbury rules while your team wallops the referee with a chair and sets alight our country in the process. What could she say that you’d sanction as much as you do anything Robin Diangelo does?

rayiner 6y ago
When a progressive liberal says they want to pack the Supreme Court (and destroy the rule of law in the process) they mean it. It’s backed by white papers peddled by fancy think tanks. There’s like PACs backing it. The ideas are published by professors in reputable journals. When MTG “likes” a juvenile comment saying “a bullet would be quicker,” obviously I don’t treat that with the same weight, because that’s a figurative phrase that doesn’t convey an actual plan to kill anybody. I think it’s a fair thing for parties to have to defend the concrete policy proposals of their wings. Not so much random inane muttering of individual members.
- cozuya 6y ago
  Not having 9 justices on the Supreme Court is not destroying the rule of law, there have been many times that has happened. What a ridiculous, embarrassingly partisan statement. You should be ashamed.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    You should be ashamed of the embarrassingly disingenuous characterization of the court packing proposal. “Court packing” refers to expanding the court to allow a president from one party to appoint new justices to change the ideological makeup of the court. You know this because the very phrase “court packing” originated in a proposal to do just that: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin... It absolutely would destroy the rule of law. The Senate Judiciary Committee, controlled by FDR’s own party, had this to say: https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2 https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-wa... > By June 1937, the Judiciary Committee had sent a report with a negative recommendation to the full Senate. “The bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. . . . It is essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of the government,” the report read. > Its conclusion was even more direct: “It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” Even the mere threat of court packing effectively gutted separation of powers and federalism. Today, a federal government of “enumerated powers” is a dead letter, all thanks to FDR.
    - cozuya 6y ago
      Wow. Speaking of "embarrassingly disingenuous characterization". "Court packing" would be breaking a US government norm. A norm, very similar to, Mitch McConnell not bringing Merrick Garland's nomination to the Senate for 8 months, because "You can't nominate a SCOTUS justice in an election year". Also breaking a norm very similar to Mitch McConnell shoving through a SCOTUS justice 8 days before an election. If "Court Packing" happens, it is a direct result of bad faith norm breaking by the Republicans. But you knew that. Elections have consequences. https://www.wbtv.com/2020/09/30/trump-filling-supreme-court-seat-elections-have-consequences/ https://www.wbtv.com/2020/09/30/trump-filling-supreme-court-... Winners make policy, losers go home. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/320506-mcconnell-winners-make-policy-and-losers-go-home https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/320506-mcconnell-winners...
      - bhupy 6y ago
        How is an elected official choosing not fill one of N vacancies while they're in power (mind you, they won the following election) remotely comparable to just changing the value of N because you were unhappy with how elected officials played the game up until that point? Even RBG found this line of thinking to be nonsense and dangerous: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-...
        cozuya 6y ago
        So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules? In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0. But when Mitch McConnell spits in the face of Obama and Merrick Garland, Dems are supposed to just sit and take it? Once again, elections have consequences, and we'll see what they are very soon. By the way this is academic as Manchin has said he won't do it.
        6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

When a progressive liberal says they want to pack the Supreme Court (and destroy the rule of law in the process) they mean it. It’s backed by white papers peddled by fancy think tanks. There’s like PACs backing it. The ideas are published by professors in reputable journals. When MTG “likes” a juvenile comment saying “a bullet would be quicker,” obviously I don’t treat that with the same weight, because that’s a figurative phrase that doesn’t convey an actual plan to kill anybody. I think it’s a fair thing for parties to have to defend the concrete policy proposals of their wings. Not so much random inane muttering of individual members.

cozuya 6y ago
Not having 9 justices on the Supreme Court is not destroying the rule of law, there have been many times that has happened. What a ridiculous, embarrassingly partisan statement. You should be ashamed.
- rayiner 6y ago
  You should be ashamed of the embarrassingly disingenuous characterization of the court packing proposal. “Court packing” refers to expanding the court to allow a president from one party to appoint new justices to change the ideological makeup of the court. You know this because the very phrase “court packing” originated in a proposal to do just that: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin... It absolutely would destroy the rule of law. The Senate Judiciary Committee, controlled by FDR’s own party, had this to say: https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2 https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-wa... > By June 1937, the Judiciary Committee had sent a report with a negative recommendation to the full Senate. “The bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. . . . It is essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of the government,” the report read. > Its conclusion was even more direct: “It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” Even the mere threat of court packing effectively gutted separation of powers and federalism. Today, a federal government of “enumerated powers” is a dead letter, all thanks to FDR.
  - cozuya 6y ago
    Wow. Speaking of "embarrassingly disingenuous characterization". "Court packing" would be breaking a US government norm. A norm, very similar to, Mitch McConnell not bringing Merrick Garland's nomination to the Senate for 8 months, because "You can't nominate a SCOTUS justice in an election year". Also breaking a norm very similar to Mitch McConnell shoving through a SCOTUS justice 8 days before an election. If "Court Packing" happens, it is a direct result of bad faith norm breaking by the Republicans. But you knew that. Elections have consequences. https://www.wbtv.com/2020/09/30/trump-filling-supreme-court-seat-elections-have-consequences/ https://www.wbtv.com/2020/09/30/trump-filling-supreme-court-... Winners make policy, losers go home. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/320506-mcconnell-winners-make-policy-and-losers-go-home https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/320506-mcconnell-winners...
    - bhupy 6y ago
      How is an elected official choosing not fill one of N vacancies while they're in power (mind you, they won the following election) remotely comparable to just changing the value of N because you were unhappy with how elected officials played the game up until that point? Even RBG found this line of thinking to be nonsense and dangerous: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-...
      - cozuya 6y ago
        So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules? In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0. But when Mitch McConnell spits in the face of Obama and Merrick Garland, Dems are supposed to just sit and take it? Once again, elections have consequences, and we'll see what they are very soon. By the way this is academic as Manchin has said he won't do it.
        6y ago