Page 52 of 59 FirstFirst ...
2
42
50
51
52
53
54
... LastLast
  1. #1021
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    Well yea florida, but those others don't sound like Ohio or any of the other swing states.
    Those 4 states makes up about 30% of the U.S. population.

  2. #1022
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    You know, before D&D ruined Game of Thrones, they wanted to make a show based on the Confederacy winning the Civil War, and still having slavery in modern day America.

    The premise is ridiculous (the first World War would have been about overthrowing America), and they're shit writers and would have for sure ruined it.....but if it was written well with a massive dose of suspension of disbelief, this topic would surely have to come up as a look into how deep the corruption of the institution of slavery was, more than just being....well, yanno, an utterly inhumane piece of shit institution.
    Isn't that basically just The Man in the High Castle, but with a different group of monsters in place of the Nazis?

  3. #1023
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Those 4 states makes up about 30% of the U.S. population.
    Yes and you do realise that under a (correctly structured) popular vote system they would not be able to "decide the election" given the threshold would be 50%? Lol?

    As opposed to the current system in which Republican votes in California get ignored and the election gets decided by less than a hundred thousand people across four entirely unrelated states. Lul.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  4. #1024
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Holy FUCK that is a fantastic quote. Go Schumer!
    It's a bullshit quote because he'll fold like a literal deuce-five hand in Texas Hold 'Em.

    If we win the majority, Liz Warren needs to be Majority Leader and put some actual bite behind this unauthentic bark.

  5. #1025
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    You know, before D&D ruined Game of Thrones, they wanted to make a show based on the Confederacy winning the Civil War, and still having slavery in modern day America.
    Don't make me tap the sign. *points at the sign reading PRISON LABOR*

    This country has never really found a way to exist economically without slave labor. While we're on the subject of Constitutional Law. *cough*
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  6. #1026
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Those 4 states makes up about 30% of the U.S. population.
    Not really a response to me so I'm not sure why you bothered to quote me.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    It's a bullshit quote because he'll fold like a literal deuce-five hand in Texas Hold 'Em.

    If we win the majority, Liz Warren needs to be Majority Leader and put some actual bite behind this unauthentic bark.
    Which is unlikely to happen.

  7. #1027
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    I disagree. Expanding the court should be in the Top 5 of Biden's First 100 Days (if he wins of course, and the Senate flips).
    The Senate would need to flip substantially. He could legally do it, but you think Republicans will just go for straight out of the gate? Espcially if we're only looking at a narrow majority in the Senate? The Right (both office holder and countryman) would lose its mind, and Biden isn't the kind of guy who goes around making sweeping changes. Congress would also go bright red in 2022 with the narrative being "Biden has abused his power".

    Packing the groups is a feel good short term fix. Without term limits and changes in the way judges are appointed (actual rules and not tradition) all you really do is weaken the seats and open the door for a President being allowed to choose sizable chunck of justices - as if a king was appointed vassals. Unless we the judges to self-regulate their terms in such a ways thats partisan...thats just gross and would degrade the merits of the courts and federal government as a whole.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  8. #1028
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    It's a bullshit quote because he'll fold like a literal deuce-five hand in Texas Hold 'Em.

    If we win the majority, Liz Warren needs to be Majority Leader and put some actual bite behind this unauthentic bark.
    (regardless of Schumer personally, it is a great quote all around - we can nail it to the top of the bill that expands SCOTUS)

    I agree - she needs to take the helm. AND chair the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. The Biden Administration can give her a $1B to fund that endeavor.

    (/knockswood)

  9. #1029
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    If the Democrats do their job right, the Republicans won't have a leg to stand on to get back into power when they have recouped as they are the minority party by a sizable margin, even the Democrats are only the 2nd biggest behind independents who lean left.

    All they have to do is implement the Wyoming Option, admit DC and Puerto Rico as states, expand the Supreme Court while immediately banning Gerrymandering and push for the interstate compact. If they push for those within the following 2 years, the Republicans won't be able to screw their way into power near as much.

    And I would follow it with investigations into McConnell and many others for their actions.
    I would hope those stars align. 2 states, plus courts, and Democrats embracing the Left? I don't see it.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  10. #1030
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    Not really a response to me so I'm not sure why you bothered to quote me.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Which is unlikely to happen.
    It's not that unlikely. It's literally a vote of the Democrats in the room. They pick their own leadership.

  11. #1031
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    The Senate would need to flip substantially. He could legally do it, but you think Republicans will just go for straight out of the gate? Espcially if we're only looking at a narrow majority in the Senate? The Right (both office holder and countryman) would lose its mind, and Biden isn't the kind of guy who goes around making sweeping changes. Congress would also go bright red in 2022 with the narrative being "Biden has abused his power".
    I think you are underestimating how pissed off this country is at the GOP. Biden hasn't been that guy, but he could be.


    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Packing the groups is a feel good short term fix. Without term limits and changes in the way judges are appointed (actual rules and not tradition) all you really do is weaken the seats and open the door for a President being allowed to choose sizable chunck of justices - as if a king was appointed vassals. Unless we the judges to self-regulate their terms in such a ways thats partisan...thats just gross and would degrade the merits of the courts and federal government as a whole.
    Not packing - expanding. Expanding the courts is actually a very good and reasonable long term fix. It dilutes each and every SCOTUS vacancy and makes a judicial appointment a minor event instead of polarizing the nation.

    If Expansion of the Courts is "marketed" right, it would be the start of sweeping change - changes you personally want.

  12. #1032
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,314
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Those 4 states makes up about 30% of the U.S. population.
    Because every single person in those states votes the same way. There aren't millions of conservative voters in California or Millions of liberal voters in Texas or anything.

    Nope, it's all a hivemind, the color on the electoral map told us so!

  13. #1033
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I think you are underestimating how pissed off this country is at the GOP. Biden hasn't been that guy, but he could be.




    Not packing - expanding. Expanding the courts is actually a very good and reasonable long term fix. It dilutes each and every SCOTUS vacancy and makes a judicial appointment a minor event instead of polarizing the nation.

    If Expansion of the Courts is "marketed" right, it would be the start of sweeping change - changes you personally want.
    Expanding, packing, whatever the term may be is side stepping the problem.

    The problem is how the senate functions. Addressing that with rules changes that require a 3/4 majority would actually be a wiser long game to play here, but I’m betting they go short term power crazy and end up making a bigger mess in 2022.

  14. #1034
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Great day for the U.S.! Protect our Constitution!
    If that's how you really feel then why are you cheering such awful news?

  15. #1035
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I think you are underestimating how pissed off this country is at the GOP. Biden hasn't been that guy, but he could be.
    I think some of that anger is masked by the GOP gladly getting rid of Trump after he has given...quite a bit. They can afford to cede 4 years of the WH to a centrist who is likely to only be a 1 term president. Better than keeping Trump around to screw them down the ballot, a gift Trump hasn't been able to deliver.
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    Not packing - expanding. Expanding the courts is actually a very good and reasonable long term fix. It dilutes each and every SCOTUS vacancy and makes a judicial appointment a minor event instead of polarizing the nation.

    If Expansion of the Courts is "marketed" right, it would be the start of sweeping change - changes you personally want.
    Packing and expanding are synonymous in various discussion groups due to people being lazy, discussions being derailed due to semantics. We both agree that it weakens seats. Is the act of diluting the seats in the highest court a good or a bad thing?

    Something I forgot to say, the court hasn't changed in over 100 years. The lower courts only expanded, with some consequence but not a whole lot, because the country got bigger. Even then SCOTUS remained the same (partly because SCOTUS is more autonomous and tell people to fuck off). Expansion isn't going to be a strong favorable approach unless the Trump judges just start nuking legislation left and right - in which you definitely have a strong argument for weakening the seats.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Because every single person in those states votes the same way. There aren't millions of conservative voters in California or Millions of liberal voters in Texas or anything.

    Nope, it's all a hivemind, the color on the electoral map told us so!
    Uh, California actually has a metric ton of conservatives. California also has Los Angeles and the Bay Area to offset the conservatives.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  16. #1036
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoirFaire View Post
    Expanding, packing, whatever the term may be is side stepping the problem.

    The problem is how the senate functions. Addressing that with rules changes that require a 3/4 majority would actually be a wiser long game to play here, but I’m betting they go short term power crazy and end up making a bigger mess in 2022.
    I agree that how the Senate functions is problematic; although I disagree that the term is irrelevant. Packaging legislation is almost important as what the legislation actually does.

    I'm trying to remember if there is some rule against passing a law that requires a certain number of votes with less votes...if that makes sense. I'm other words, you can't pass a law with a majority that requires a super majority to reverse.

    Does that ring a bell to anyone?

  17. #1037
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post

    Packing and expanding are synonymous in various discussion groups due to people being lazy, discussions being derailed due to semantics. We both agree that it weakens seats. Is the act of diluting the seats in the highest court a good or a bad thing?

    Something I forgot to say, the court hasn't changed in over 100 years. The lower courts only expanded, with some consequence but not a whole lot, because the country got bigger. Even then SCOTUS remained the same (partly because SCOTUS is more autonomous and tell people to fuck off). Expansion isn't going to be a strong favorable approach unless the Trump judges just start nuking legislation left and right - in which you definitely have a strong argument for weakening the seats.
    This is probably the most reasonable take in this entire thread.

  18. #1038
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Packing and expanding are synonymous in various discussion groups due to people being lazy, discussions being derailed due to semantics. We both agree that it weakens seats. Is the act of diluting the seats in the highest court a good or a bad thing?

    Something I forgot to say, the court hasn't changed in over 100 years. The lower courts only expanded, with some consequence but not a whole lot, because the country got bigger. Even then SCOTUS remained the same (partly because SCOTUS is more autonomous and tell people to fuck off). Expansion isn't going to be a strong favorable approach unless the Trump judges just start nuking legislation left and right - in which you definitely have a strong argument for weakening the seats..
    Maybe, but it's still a good idea to keep it on the table as a nuclear option in case they do, say, strike down Roe v Wade.
    Banned from Twitter by Elon, so now I'm your problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  19. #1039
    Quote Originally Posted by Somewhatconcerned View Post
    This is probably the most reasonable take in this entire thread.
    If they nuke ACA or Roe v Wade, then Biden has the perfect reasoning to tell republicans to fuck off, for ever.
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  20. #1040
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Somewhatconcerned View Post
    How do you lock something like that in place? Amendments aren't easy, and probably impossible in this hyperpartisan atmosphere. What stops the GOP from expanding the courts again.

    Both sides need to de-escalate this. SCOTUS positions are up almost every term, and the balance of the court seems to swing every 10 years regardless. I think Democrats are better served just biding their time and not coming across as trying to cook the books in their favor just because they can.

    And all of this is a BIG if (Biden winning AND controlling Congress). It might all be a moot point anyways.
    De-escalation is only valid if both sides can reach an agreement. The Republicans have demonstrated that they're completely unwilling to accept anything but complete victory for themselves. Merrick Garland was offered as a de-escalation attempt; he was a centrist who should have been acceptable to both parties, since he aligned with neither and could not be construed as having a partisan lean in either direction. That attempt was tossed back in Democrats' face, until the Republicans had the power to put in two far-right justices instead.

    So it's not "both sides", here. One side needs to change. And until they're willing to come to the table and compromise, the only alternative is to play the same terrible game they're choosing to play.

    The same way that, when a hostage-taker has a dozen hostages and is threatening to kill them, police might try and negotiate their release, but they are not gonna offer the hostage-taker a pardon or to let them get away. What the hostage-taker wants is already off the table, at the very beginning, and will not be offered. He's gonna have to figure out how little he can get, because by the time it got to de-escalation, he'd already lost the chance to get what he really wanted.

    What you can do is expand the courts, set sensible non-partisan guidelines for justice selection, establish a guidance principle that the courts should never be more than 50%+1 in favor of either political branch of the USA, and so forth. A middle-road system, enshrined in law, which is not just tacitly but explicitly fair to all sides, thus that any attempt to overturn those rules is so nakedly partisan dickery that it won't be defensible on any supposed merit other than abuse of power. They'll still be able to, but it will make their venal motives apparent and obvious. Which may end up, in the end, more important to history writers than anything else.

    Really, the problem is the American electorate. They're the ones who're okay with this kind of venal partisan chicanery. Not just okay with it, they want it. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Sometimes, all you can do is show them the consequences of what they want, when the shoe's on the other foot. Rub their nose in it and hope they start to realize it's a dick move.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •