5 ms·

The most stupid idea ever. Biden, despite his frailties, was conscious enough not to do this.

by linhns 8mo ago

ceejayoz 8mo ago
Biden shared a delusion with Schumer and first-term Obama, that the Republicans have a behavioral floor they won't gleefully take a jackhammer to. Democrats are finally waking up to this, I think, given the recent retaliatory gerrymandering in CA and VA.
- Auracle 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > Both of which (especially Virginia) are much more egregious than what happened in Texas… "Mom, he punched me back after I sucker-punched him!"
    - Auracle 8mo ago
      It's more like "Mom, he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after..." Nobody would have cared about Texas' gerrymandering except for Trump (stupidly) called for it - pretty much every political party has done it in their state over the years, but it's generally been gently putting their finger on the scale. But now that someone that half of the country have been convinced is literally Hitler had a part in it they feel like they can go absolutely wild with it. Everyone should be mad when gerrymandering happens, whether it helps your side or not. Representatives that feel absolutely secure in their seats are bad at their jobs, whether they're on your side or not. Going so hogwild in 'retribution' isn't virtuous.
  - myvoiceismypass 8mo ago
    How is the citizen-voted CA response - contingent entirely on Texas actually implementing - "much more egregious than what happened in Texas"?
    - Auracle 8mo ago
      Because the Texas redistricting hopes to bring the Democrats seats down from 13 to to 8, but a lot of those could still easily go either way. California made theirs to also pick up 5 but theirs are more sure. Virginia is the real whopper, where a purple state will move to all seats but one for Democrats instead of the reasonable almost down the middle split they now have. I'm not defending what was done in Texas. Gerrymandering is gross. But I do hate how the discourse seems to be that Texas started it. They absolutely didn't. Neither party can be blamed for that, and this tit and tat back and forth is the wrong way to deal with it - so are so called "nonpartisan" committees, by the way. It's easy for a nonpartisan committee to quickly become quite partisan. What I wish would have happened is that there was a real dialogue about better fixes for the problem, but instead it became political mudslinging. Easy part solution - put mathematical limits on the geometry. It wouldn't eliminate gerrymandering but it would certainly help.
UncleMeat 8mo ago
Packing the court just means passing legislation. It isn't some criminal thing. The court is an expression of political power. Expressing political power through it is not stupid.
- AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
  Packing the court is unprecedented, and as soon as anyone did it, they would both do it continuously. It would also outrage the other party and make the first to do it more likely to lose the next election. So you would get to pack the court for the rest of your current term before the other party gets back in and packs it the other way, and thereafter lose the courts as a check on the party in power forever because the first thing a party would do when they get into power is pack the courts. It's a monumentally stupid idea.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    As with partisan gerrymandering, packing the court cannot be the only step. It would need to come with a commitment to a package of difficult to undo (i.e. amendments) reforms. SCOTUS term limits, preventing the Senate from refusing to even consider nominees, bans on justices receiving gifts (https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...), revocation of Presidential immunity, etc. You pack the court with an explicit promise to largely return to the old status quo when it's fixed.
    - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
      Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? Your plan would have to be to prevent them from ever getting back into power, and that's a civil war. On top of that, Clarence Thomas is the oldest person on the court and Alito is only two years younger. By the end of the next Presidential term they'll both be in their 80s. You don't have to pack the court, you just have to be in office for the term or two after this one.
c22 8mo ago
I think they were just overly confident that they would be re-elected. Why throw the baby out when the bathwater is still warm?

The most stupid idea ever. Biden, despite his frailties, was conscious enough not to do this.

by linhns 8mo ago

The most stupid idea ever. Biden, despite his frailties, was conscious enough not to do this.

Biden shared a delusion with Schumer and first-term Obama, that the Republicans have a behavioral floor they won't gleefully take a jackhammer to. Democrats are finally waking up to this, I think, given the recent retaliatory gerrymandering in CA and VA.

Auracle 8mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  > Both of which (especially Virginia) are much more egregious than what happened in Texas… "Mom, he punched me back after I sucker-punched him!"
  - Auracle 8mo ago
    It's more like "Mom, he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after I punched him after he punched me after..." Nobody would have cared about Texas' gerrymandering except for Trump (stupidly) called for it - pretty much every political party has done it in their state over the years, but it's generally been gently putting their finger on the scale. But now that someone that half of the country have been convinced is literally Hitler had a part in it they feel like they can go absolutely wild with it. Everyone should be mad when gerrymandering happens, whether it helps your side or not. Representatives that feel absolutely secure in their seats are bad at their jobs, whether they're on your side or not. Going so hogwild in 'retribution' isn't virtuous.
- myvoiceismypass 8mo ago
  How is the citizen-voted CA response - contingent entirely on Texas actually implementing - "much more egregious than what happened in Texas"?
  - Auracle 8mo ago
    Because the Texas redistricting hopes to bring the Democrats seats down from 13 to to 8, but a lot of those could still easily go either way. California made theirs to also pick up 5 but theirs are more sure. Virginia is the real whopper, where a purple state will move to all seats but one for Democrats instead of the reasonable almost down the middle split they now have. I'm not defending what was done in Texas. Gerrymandering is gross. But I do hate how the discourse seems to be that Texas started it. They absolutely didn't. Neither party can be blamed for that, and this tit and tat back and forth is the wrong way to deal with it - so are so called "nonpartisan" committees, by the way. It's easy for a nonpartisan committee to quickly become quite partisan. What I wish would have happened is that there was a real dialogue about better fixes for the problem, but instead it became political mudslinging. Easy part solution - put mathematical limits on the geometry. It wouldn't eliminate gerrymandering but it would certainly help.

UncleMeat 8mo ago

Packing the court just means passing legislation. It isn't some criminal thing. The court is an expression of political power. Expressing political power through it is not stupid.

AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
Packing the court is unprecedented, and as soon as anyone did it, they would both do it continuously. It would also outrage the other party and make the first to do it more likely to lose the next election. So you would get to pack the court for the rest of your current term before the other party gets back in and packs it the other way, and thereafter lose the courts as a check on the party in power forever because the first thing a party would do when they get into power is pack the courts. It's a monumentally stupid idea.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  As with partisan gerrymandering, packing the court cannot be the only step. It would need to come with a commitment to a package of difficult to undo (i.e. amendments) reforms. SCOTUS term limits, preventing the Senate from refusing to even consider nominees, bans on justices receiving gifts (https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...), revocation of Presidential immunity, etc. You pack the court with an explicit promise to largely return to the old status quo when it's fixed.
  - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
    Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? Your plan would have to be to prevent them from ever getting back into power, and that's a civil war. On top of that, Clarence Thomas is the oldest person on the court and Alito is only two years younger. By the end of the next Presidential term they'll both be in their 80s. You don't have to pack the court, you just have to be in office for the term or two after this one.

c22 8mo ago

I think they were just overly confident that they would be re-elected. Why throw the baby out when the bathwater is still warm?