3 ms·

This radical activist court is going to continue delivering major right-wing victories for the foreseeable future and there's absolutely nothing that can be don

by guelo 4y ago

This radical activist court is going to continue delivering major right-wing victories for the foreseeable future and there's absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them. Every right-wing dream will become reality. I'm having a hard time envisioning what this country will look like in say 10 years. The America as it was known in the 20th century certainly won't exist.

tablespoon 4y ago
I think you should move to Canada. It's implemented liberal policies the US Democrats can only dream of, and it's northerly location will be advantageous as climate change progresses.
- guelo 4y ago
  Typical vindictive gloating right wing response, basically "it's my country if you don't like it get out". In a way it's true since an aggressive right wing faction has captured the least democratic institution for a generation. Democracy is dead. But what happens when half the country can't affect change for decades no matter how large their electoral victories? A balance has been lost, it feels dangerous to me.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    Huh? You don't seem to like the direction the US is headed, and you don't seem to think it's possible to do anything to stop it. Given those beliefs, it seems quite reasonable to abandon ship and move somewhere more friendly. Polarization has really fried peoples' brains.
    - guelo 4y ago
      (Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being genuine, even with my apparently fried brain) That's certainly a possible future if the right tightens their grip on society too much, we could experience some brain drain as those with the ability to leave do so, but it would be a tiny minority of people. We saw some signs of that during Trump's tenure, mostly scientists and academics not wanting to study or go to conferences here.
    - watwut 4y ago
      The issue is not polarization. The issue is that pro-democravy groups did not polarized more radically against minority destroying both democracy and country itself. It is not symmetrical. It is pure power grab by wing who is also trying to dismantle democratic system itself.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > The issue is not polarization. The issue is that pro-democravy groups did not polarized more radically against minority destroying both democracy and country itself. IMHO, the issue is polarization. In large part, it's prevented the pro-democracy groups from prioritizing their issues to actually successfully defend democracy, and kept them trapped in the same old partisan modes. The result? Stuff like Democrats literally spending tons of money to support extremist election-denier Republicans, because they think they'll be easier to beat later (I suppose like Donald Trump was?).
        watwut 4y ago
        Centrism prevented pro-democracy rallying. Because it insisted making anti-democracy movements being talked about in euphemisms, because it believed in giving anti-democracy side more and more.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > Centrism prevented pro-democracy rallying. Because it insisted making anti-democracy movements being talked about in euphemisms, because it believed in giving anti-democracy side more and more. Do you mean "centrism" or "bipartisan-ism," because they're different and it's mainly the latter that would have the problem you seem to be describing. Whatever we have now is basically the partisan equivalent of hoping you can have your cake and eat it too.
        diordiderot 4y ago
        > the issue is polarization. In large part, it's prevented the pro-democracy groups from prioritizing their issues to actually successfully defend democracy The issue is that the left was taken over by monied interests who pitted social issues against class issues. First past the past voting meant voting for the wolf in sheepskin or the leapord
- UkrainianJew 4y ago
  Yep, the cleanest country on the planet, where the biggest share of the GDP is flipping the real estate to the Chinese capital, proudly made with no environmental roadblocks in sight. Your kids will never afford a house, but the liberal policies and guilt-tripping in schools will make sure they won't want it in the first place.
66fm472tjy7 4y ago
> and there's absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them Congress could pass laws saying that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, that states cannot forbid abortions, etc. If you think that these rulings are not plausible interpretations of the law, Congress can even define the size of the court[0]. They could pack the court with judges who will interpret the law in their favor. It is my understanding that the Democratic Party that holds the majority in both chambers claims to be in favor of these policies, so why aren't they taking action? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869
- diordiderot 4y ago
  It's difficult when the balance of power is skewed so heavily to the right. CA senator represents ~10000000 WY senator represents ~200000
  - laverya 4y ago
    That determines who has control. However, the Democrats currently have control despite this, if only barely. So the question remains - why don't they just do what the court has said they should, and pass a law?
    - taylodl 4y ago
      See my answer above. It comes down to the filibuster. That's a procedural rule making it so that the Democrats do not, in fact, currently have control. They have to find 10 Republicans to "come across the aisle" in order to get legislation on the floor for a vote. Getting those Senators to come across the aisle is known as politicking. That's just the way the system works. Democrats do have the power to change those procedural rules, but there's huge downsides in doing so. Bottom line - don't look for easy solutions to complex political problems. They're likely to be loaded with unintended consequences.
- taylodl 4y ago
  Senate rules. Having a simple majority in the Senate doesn't mean you can ram-rod through your agenda. You need 60 votes for legislation to reach the floor for and up and down vote. The Democrats theoretically have 51 (including Kamala!), and a couple of them haven't been too reliable. So no, the Democrats can't do "anything they want." They could end the filibuster - but that would likely backfire. End the filibuster now right before Summer recess and the Fall election cycle where not much gets done? Probably not a wise move, especially if the Republicans regain control of the senate and now you've just handed them the reigns of unbridled power. Probably not a good move. That's why the filibuster stays. Our problem really isn't so much that our Congress is deadlocked. Heck, I argue that deadlock is actually a preferable state. Otherwise these bozos would be sowing chaos on a daily basis. The game that's changed is using procedural rules to steal supreme court justice nominations from one president and giving them to another. Trump seized that opportunity and to maximize his legacy and influence chose the youngest and most controversial judges he could get through the nominations. I know many liberals who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I tried to explain to them, to no avail, what would happen with regards to the Supreme Court should Trump win. I was pooh-poohed. Repeatedly told I was over-sensationalizing things. I've since received apologies from many of them but who cares? The damage has been done and will continue for much of the remainder of our lives. There is a way out of this mess, but right now America is too polarized for that solution to be viable. Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from the bench - it's even been done before. But you need 2/3 of the Senate onboard to do it. I don't realistically see that happening any time for the next 20 years, if ever, and by then the damage wrought will be so severe that I'm afraid America will be unrecognizable. Bottom line - America was already in decline. This Supreme Court is just going to accelerate that decline. If anything they might jolt Democrats out of their complacency and turning their noses up at any candidate they don't think is absolutely perfect. Who knows? Maybe something good will come out of this after all.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Well only if Congress and voters won't do anything. Y'all have to forget about the Supreme Court, they're a lost cause now. Go vote or watch half the country turn into the next Sahara desert in the West. It's in our hands now, SCOTUS is a useless vestigial government branch now as far as getting anything done.

by guelo 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

I think you should move to Canada. It's implemented liberal policies the US Democrats can only dream of, and it's northerly location will be advantageous as climate change progresses.

guelo 4y ago
Typical vindictive gloating right wing response, basically "it's my country if you don't like it get out". In a way it's true since an aggressive right wing faction has captured the least democratic institution for a generation. Democracy is dead. But what happens when half the country can't affect change for decades no matter how large their electoral victories? A balance has been lost, it feels dangerous to me.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  Huh? You don't seem to like the direction the US is headed, and you don't seem to think it's possible to do anything to stop it. Given those beliefs, it seems quite reasonable to abandon ship and move somewhere more friendly. Polarization has really fried peoples' brains.
  - guelo 4y ago
    (Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being genuine, even with my apparently fried brain) That's certainly a possible future if the right tightens their grip on society too much, we could experience some brain drain as those with the ability to leave do so, but it would be a tiny minority of people. We saw some signs of that during Trump's tenure, mostly scientists and academics not wanting to study or go to conferences here.
  - watwut 4y ago
    The issue is not polarization. The issue is that pro-democravy groups did not polarized more radically against minority destroying both democracy and country itself. It is not symmetrical. It is pure power grab by wing who is also trying to dismantle democratic system itself.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > The issue is not polarization. The issue is that pro-democravy groups did not polarized more radically against minority destroying both democracy and country itself. IMHO, the issue is polarization. In large part, it's prevented the pro-democracy groups from prioritizing their issues to actually successfully defend democracy, and kept them trapped in the same old partisan modes. The result? Stuff like Democrats literally spending tons of money to support extremist election-denier Republicans, because they think they'll be easier to beat later (I suppose like Donald Trump was?).
      - watwut 4y ago
        Centrism prevented pro-democracy rallying. Because it insisted making anti-democracy movements being talked about in euphemisms, because it believed in giving anti-democracy side more and more.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > Centrism prevented pro-democracy rallying. Because it insisted making anti-democracy movements being talked about in euphemisms, because it believed in giving anti-democracy side more and more. Do you mean "centrism" or "bipartisan-ism," because they're different and it's mainly the latter that would have the problem you seem to be describing. Whatever we have now is basically the partisan equivalent of hoping you can have your cake and eat it too.
      - diordiderot 4y ago
        > the issue is polarization. In large part, it's prevented the pro-democracy groups from prioritizing their issues to actually successfully defend democracy The issue is that the left was taken over by monied interests who pitted social issues against class issues. First past the past voting meant voting for the wolf in sheepskin or the leapord
UkrainianJew 4y ago
Yep, the cleanest country on the planet, where the biggest share of the GDP is flipping the real estate to the Chinese capital, proudly made with no environmental roadblocks in sight. Your kids will never afford a house, but the liberal policies and guilt-tripping in schools will make sure they won't want it in the first place.

66fm472tjy7 4y ago

> and there's absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them Congress could pass laws saying that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, that states cannot forbid abortions, etc. If you think that these rulings are not plausible interpretations of the law, Congress can even define the size of the court[0]. They could pack the court with judges who will interpret the law in their favor. It is my understanding that the Democratic Party that holds the majority in both chambers claims to be in favor of these policies, so why aren't they taking action? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

diordiderot 4y ago
It's difficult when the balance of power is skewed so heavily to the right. CA senator represents ~10000000 WY senator represents ~200000
- laverya 4y ago
  That determines who has control. However, the Democrats currently have control despite this, if only barely. So the question remains - why don't they just do what the court has said they should, and pass a law?
  - taylodl 4y ago
    See my answer above. It comes down to the filibuster. That's a procedural rule making it so that the Democrats do not, in fact, currently have control. They have to find 10 Republicans to "come across the aisle" in order to get legislation on the floor for a vote. Getting those Senators to come across the aisle is known as politicking. That's just the way the system works. Democrats do have the power to change those procedural rules, but there's huge downsides in doing so. Bottom line - don't look for easy solutions to complex political problems. They're likely to be loaded with unintended consequences.
taylodl 4y ago
Senate rules. Having a simple majority in the Senate doesn't mean you can ram-rod through your agenda. You need 60 votes for legislation to reach the floor for and up and down vote. The Democrats theoretically have 51 (including Kamala!), and a couple of them haven't been too reliable. So no, the Democrats can't do "anything they want." They could end the filibuster - but that would likely backfire. End the filibuster now right before Summer recess and the Fall election cycle where not much gets done? Probably not a wise move, especially if the Republicans regain control of the senate and now you've just handed them the reigns of unbridled power. Probably not a good move. That's why the filibuster stays. Our problem really isn't so much that our Congress is deadlocked. Heck, I argue that deadlock is actually a preferable state. Otherwise these bozos would be sowing chaos on a daily basis. The game that's changed is using procedural rules to steal supreme court justice nominations from one president and giving them to another. Trump seized that opportunity and to maximize his legacy and influence chose the youngest and most controversial judges he could get through the nominations. I know many liberals who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I tried to explain to them, to no avail, what would happen with regards to the Supreme Court should Trump win. I was pooh-poohed. Repeatedly told I was over-sensationalizing things. I've since received apologies from many of them but who cares? The damage has been done and will continue for much of the remainder of our lives. There is a way out of this mess, but right now America is too polarized for that solution to be viable. Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from the bench - it's even been done before. But you need 2/3 of the Senate onboard to do it. I don't realistically see that happening any time for the next 20 years, if ever, and by then the damage wrought will be so severe that I'm afraid America will be unrecognizable. Bottom line - America was already in decline. This Supreme Court is just going to accelerate that decline. If anything they might jolt Democrats out of their complacency and turning their noses up at any candidate they don't think is absolutely perfect. Who knows? Maybe something good will come out of this after all.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Well only if Congress and voters won't do anything. Y'all have to forget about the Supreme Court, they're a lost cause now. Go vote or watch half the country turn into the next Sahara desert in the West. It's in our hands now, SCOTUS is a useless vestigial government branch now as far as getting anything done.