Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Elegiac]

ITT: Republicans game the system in bad faith, Democrats protest, "Centrists" excuse Republicans because it's technically rules compliant and start griping more about hypothetical Democrat rulebreaking than the impacts of what is actually happening.

[Zaktar]

If by "lucky" you mean McConnell and Senate Republicans intentionally refused to have hearings on nominees and kept hundreds of seats open in the hopes of a Republican president so they could pack the courts...sure. But that would be an odd definition of "lucky".



They're provoking that line to begin with. Reid only implemented the "nuclear option" for lower court appointees because of the Republican obstruction to begin with, to which Republicans have gleefully exploited it and extended it to SCOTUS nominees. This was all begun because of McConnell and Republicans weaponizing the courts for partisan political purposes.



Because there's always that risk, and Republicans over the last four years have shown themselves to be utterly shameless. That Republicans are acting so shamelessly, corrupt, and in such bad faith requires more extreme measures to counteract, and we can't simply pearl clutch about giving the Republicans "ammo", because over the past four years they've shown they don't need an excuse to gleefully ratfuck the government.

Right but you're pointing out yourself that it was a Democratic strategy that made this possible in the first place. We've already been hoisted on one petard, do we need to get hoisted on another? It's true, the risk that they will violate this norm will always be there. Being first to violate that norm does nothing to reduce that risk, and does quite a bit to exacerbate it. I do not see the point. 4-12 good years traded for a broken political system?

As to the luck element - the timing of the appointments, that they had control of the senate when they came up, they had to get lucky for these things to align. I'll explain it again - that they got lucky doesn't mean they didn't also ruthlessly exploit their opportunity. But they didn't cross this particular line and encouraging them to do so seems like a terrible strategy.

[PhaelixWW]

ITT: Republicans game the system in bad faith, Democrats protest, "Centrists" excuse Republicans because it's technically rules compliant and start griping more about hypothetical Democrat rulebreaking than the impacts of what is actually happening.

I mean, it wouldn't even be rulebreaking. If they're not going to bitch about propriety now, they can hardly claim the moral high-ground later.

[Elegiac]

Right but you're pointing out yourself that it was a Democratic strategy that made this possible in the first place.

A strategy that was implemented in response to Republican obstructionism.

Keep digging that hole.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, it wouldn't even be rulebreaking. If they're not going to bitch about propriety now, they can hardly claim the moral high-ground later.

That's the thing, court packing isn't even illegal or unconstitutional and we're still hearing bitching from ostensible centrists about how it would herald the end of American democracy to court pack to rectify existing packing.

All the while they ignore the people actually attacking democracy through their ridiculous both sides narrative. I no longer have any questions about how the Nazis came to power.

[Zaktar]

Which I don't think has ever happened, so there's no basis for that comparison, especially not in recent history. Being able to appoint a full 1/3 of the court in four years is not normal. Here's context - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

The only one that's close to Trump in recent history is Nixon.

It's not normal, it sucks.

The optics would be entirely different, for one. If they do it in response to a court ruling, then it would appear to be in retaliation against one or more of the sitting Justices and how they voted. If they do it in response to the current GoP fuckery, then it appears to be more like what it is, an evening of the scales. Partisan politics is one thing, but punishing a Supreme Court Justice is another.

Do we think the GOP would see it that way and respond in a measured, appropriate way? Why do you think the GOP wouldn't more ruthlessly exploit this new norm we'd set, what would stop them if they had the executive and legislative branches. Are we just counting on them never achieving that again?

You're right, it would be fair to balance the courts and leave it at that, but since when have they played fair?

[Elegiac]

Do we think the GOP would see it that way and respond in a measured, appropriate way? Why do you think the GOP wouldn't more ruthlessly exploit this new norm we'd set, what would stop them if they had the executive and legislative branches. Are we just counting on them never achieving that again?

You're right, it would be fair to balance the courts and leave it at that, but since when have they played fair?

"We can't do anything to address Republican bad behavior because they might behave badly in future" .

Hint: We already know the present court structure is unsustainable. Packing the court just exposes it to the point reform becomes preferable.

[Zaktar]

A strategy that was implemented in response to Republican obstructionism.

Keep digging that hole.

A response that just made things worse.

- - - Updated - - -

"We can't do anything to address Republican bad behavior because they might behave badly in future" .

Because they will use this against you. And what's the countermove?

[Elegiac]

A response that just made things worse.

Whoa, put those goalposts down sweetie.

We're talking about you blaming the start of this arms race on the Democrats, not whether or not a given policy managed to address it.

Are you actually concerned about judicial integrity or are you more interested as appearing as an impartial party regardless of the facts?

- - - Updated - - -

Because they will use this against you. And what's the countermove?

Restructuring the court's composition entirely and/or putting term limits on its appointees.

You know, term limits? That thing Republicans ostensibly say they support because democracy?

[alexw]

A world where they didn't do what we're proposing, even though they had some incentive to do so. You're right, they could have under Trump but didn't; they had to get lucky with some of the appointments they got to make. I don't know that they would cross this line unprovoked, but I am pretty much certain that they will if we do it first. I don't really see what is gained by having the exact courts we want for 4-12 years if after that there is a risk of the opposition using it to overturn what you've done and use absolute control over the government to install a dictator.

No, they had no incentive to do so. They already had a majority on the court that was rapidly advancing their agenda. There was no need to be lucky on anything as they already had a 5-4 majority. They haven't expanded the court because they have absolutely no need to, not for any other reason.

[Bodakane]

Because they will use this against you. And what's the countermove?

They. Already. Did.

Fuck, this is ridiculous.

[Elegiac]

They. Already. Did.

Fuck, this is ridiculous.

I really don't understand the mindset of "undecided/independent/centrist" voters.

The level of ideological overlap between the two parties once you get out of the weeds of capitalism is so minor it's like saying you're undecided between taking a rescue animal to the Humane Society or the Glue Factory.

[Hadriker]

Its not a fair question. It was a fair question in 2015.

You guys are positing this as the Dems are the ones escalating things. Its either bad faith bullshit from pretend nonTrump supporters or it is the spineless pearl clutching that allowed McConnell to construct the demolition of civility and fair play.

I believe the Dems, as of now should use every tool in their toolbox to stop a conservative stacked court, including increasing the numbers of the SC, but that's only a short term solution. If Biden wins and gains control of the senate, and is successful in packing the court, its all for nothing if the GOP could undo it all in 4,8, or 12 years time.

I would just like my rights to not be dependent on a nearly 90 year old woman not dying ever again. Wouldn't you?

[Bodakane]

I really don't understand the mindset of "undecided/independent/centrist" voters.

The level of ideological overlap between the two parties once you get out of the weeds of capitalism is so minor it's like saying you're undecided between taking a rescue animal to the Humane Society or the Glue Factory.

This person is not undecided. They are either a Trump supporter that won't admit it so they tout 'both sides" or they are the always fearful Dem.

[PhaelixWW]

Do we think the GOP would see it that way and respond in a measured, appropriate way?

I don't have any faith right now that the GoP politicians will see anything other than what they want to see.

What I worry about is potential voter backlash, and I'd prefer that the voters have an easier time understanding the reality and not what the GoP politicians will inevitably spin. A delayed reaction will only confuse a small but perhaps meaningful percent of the voting public. It would be far better to attempt to ensure the fairness of the court and then be hands-off, rather than to punish some perceived "unfair" ruling.

Why do you think the GOP wouldn't more ruthlessly exploit this new norm we'd set, what would stop them if they had the executive and legislative branches. Are we just counting on them never achieving that again?

Honestly? Because I think the Democrat politicians will be much more fair about the process than the Republicans would be, and I think the voters will eventually respond to that.

[Edge-]

Right but you're pointing out yourself that it was a Democratic strategy that made this possible in the first place.

No, it was a Democratic reaction to Republican strategy. Republicans kicked this all off by refusing to vote on judges and keep hundreds of seats open in the hopes they could pack the courts. This has, to my knowledge, never been done in the history of the country.

Democrats are not to blame because they were forced to take action to deal with Republicans intentionally ratfucking normal governance.

4-12 good years traded for a broken political system?

You're assuming that NOT packing the courts will somehow make Republicans start behaving, in direct contradiction to all their behavior over the past four years (and longer).

As to the luck element - the timing of the appointments, that they had control of the senate when they came up, they had to get lucky for these things to align. I'll explain it again - that they got lucky doesn't mean they didn't also ruthlessly exploit their opportunity. But they didn't cross this particular line and encouraging them to do so seems like a terrible strategy.

I'll agree with the Scalia seat with Garland, but not the rest. It's commonplace for judicial seats to open up, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of federal judges and plenty retire or die etc. every year. They didn't even have full control of the Senate to begin with, that's what made Reid use the "nuclear option" because the minority party was threatening to filibuster every nominee. That's what we're talking about. There's no "luck" in any of this except for maybe the timing of the death of Scalia and more recently RBG.

[PhaelixWW]

A response that just made things worse.

No, it just enabled the Republican politicians to noticeably make things worse. Again, if the Democrats act fairly, and the Republicans keep taking advantage of that to act unfairly, then it will eventually come back and bite them in the ass.

The phrase "give them enough rope to hang themselves with" is an apt one, here.

[Edge-]

A response that just made things worse.

You think Republicans wouldn't have continued to stonewall hundreds more nominees without the nuclear option? That they wouldn't invoke it under Trump had Democrats not invoked it before?

What in the past four years has given you the slightest indication that Republicans would have had a seconds hesitation to blow up norms and rules in their endless quest for minority power and politicizing the judiciary?

[Bodakane]

I believe the Dems, as of now should use every tool in their toolbox to stop a conservative stacked court, including increasing the numbers of the SC, but that's only a short term solution. If Biden wins and gains control of the senate, and is successful in packing the court, its all for nothing if the GOP could undo it all in 4,8, or 12 years time.

I would just like my rights to not be dependent on a nearly 90 year old woman not dying ever again. Wouldn't you?

The other poster was arguing in favor of status quo and you called their argument a fair question.

If the above is how you feel that's great and I agree.

[Zaktar]

I don't have any faith right now that the GoP politicians will see anything other than what they want to see.

What I worry about is potential voter backlash, and I'd prefer that the voters have an easier time understanding the reality and not what the GoP politicians will inevitably spin. A delayed reaction will only confuse a small but perhaps meaningful percent of the voting public. It would be far better to attempt to ensure the fairness of the court and then be hands-off, rather than to punish some perceived "unfair" ruling.



Honestly? Because I think the Democrat politicians will be much more fair about the process than the Republicans would be, and I think the voters will eventually respond to that.

Okay I didn't get what you were saying before, that makes a lot of sense. Trump has me worried about Trump 2.0, a more competent and ruthless version of the same fascist we have now, and what they would do if the norm of increasing the number of justices and stacking the court became implemented. If we get unlucky enough the optics might stop mattering. Maybe that fear is overblown, it's entirely possible.

Maybe I need to clarify this as well - if Biden announced today that he was going to increase the number of justices in the supreme court in an effort to rebalance them, I would still vote for the man. Hell a big part of me would cheer the move, it could do a lot of good. I just hope he and his peers are thinking this through very carefully.

Edit: Actually I forgot, I already voted for Biden, last night, but the point stands regardless.

[Zaydin]

So far, states that show early voting turnouts (both by mail and in-person) by party affiliations show that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 to 1. Short of posting armed guards to turn way Democratic voters, voter suppression may not work so well this time.

People are tired and pissed off after four years of Trump and Republican caused chaos and destruction.