• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Vyrak

Banned
Jan 12, 2018
663
Partisan bullshit nomination process =\= expanding court.

I feel like you're missing the point. They already control the supreme court and are stacking lower courts. They are already forcing toxic garbage through. Your argument against Dems doing the same to force through a progressive agenda is that Republicans will do something they are already doing. It is just not a good argument.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,527
London
I feel like you're missing the point. They already control the supreme court and are stacking lower courts. They are already forcing toxic garbage through. Your argument against Dems doing the same to force through a progressive agenda is that Republicans will do something they are already doing. It is just not a good argument.
No, it isn't. Expanding the courts through court stuffing isn't the same thing as following the existing judicial nomination process.

Gorsuch replaced an existing justice. Expanding the court to nuke the conservative majority is a completely different ballgame.
 

Vyrak

Banned
Jan 12, 2018
663
No, it isn't. Expanding the courts through court stuffing isn't the same thing as following the existing judicial nomination process.

Gorsuch replaced an existing justice. Expanding the court to nuke the conservative majority is a completely different ballgame.

Who cares? I don't know why you and others are pretending like Republicans are engaging in some kind of proper decorum. Best case scenario, maybe some good gets done. Literally the worst case scenario is Republicans just continue on being just as cancerous as they have been being.
 

MayorSquirtle

Member
May 17, 2018
7,927
No, it isn't. Expanding the courts through court stuffing isn't the same thing as following the existing judicial nomination process.

Gorsuch replaced an existing justice. Expanding the court to nuke the conservative majority is a completely different ballgame.
Mitch McConnell effectively reduced the number of SCOTUS justices to 8 by refusing to do his job in giving Garland a hearing, in order to prevent a liberal majority. And then he changed it back to 9 once Obama was out of office. There's no real meaningful difference. "Following the existing judicial nomination process" isn't worth anything when what they're really doing is exploiting the process's shortcomings in bad faith.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,527
London
Mitch McConnell effectively reduced the number of SCOTUS justices to 8 by refusing to do his job in giving Garland a hearing, in order to prevent a liberal majority. And then he changed it back to 9 once Obama was out of office. There's no real meaningful difference.

Changing the judicial makeup through the legislative process opens up an entire can of worms and makes the judiciary entirely beholden to the legislature, effectively allowing the legislature/executive to operate without any checks. Judges blocking laws restricting rights? Drown them out via court packing/implement mandatory retirement ages/some other junk in the blink of an eye, just pass a law.

Literally the worst case scenario is Republicans just continue on being just as cancerous as they have been being.

No, literally the worst case scenario is Republicans crafting legislation to stuff the courts and then passing laws restricting rights that would otherwise be overturned. Think it's bad now? Just wait.
 

Vyrak

Banned
Jan 12, 2018
663
No, literally the worst case scenario is Republicans crafting legislation to stuff the courts and then passing laws restricting rights that would otherwise be overturned. Think it's bad now? Just wait.

Democrats could do the exact same thing if they got power. Like your entire argument is based on some fantasy that Republicans are currently acting within reason and that this would send them into a frenzy as if that is not already the case. Though, in all fairness, my argument is based on the fantasy that Dems won't be toothless losers in a couple of years...
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,527
London
Democrats could do the exact same thing if they got power. Like your entire argument is based on some fantasy that Republicans are currently acting within reason and that this would send them into a frenzy as if that is not already the case. Though, in all fairness, my argument is based on the fantasy that Dems won't be toothless losers in a couple of years...

Then Democrats would be handing the legislature/executive a free hand to do whatever the fuck it wants.

The judiciary is slow for a reason! Yeah Democrats are the good guys but I'd rather not hand one party unchecked power and the GOP will retaliate, unless you're also clamouring for the Dems to legislate the GOP out of existence.

The GOP are operating (scummily) within the existing judicial framework, and I expect the next D Senate to play the exact same games.
 

Vyrak

Banned
Jan 12, 2018
663
Then Democrats would be handing the legislature/executive a free hand to do whatever the fuck it wants.

The judiciary is slow for a reason! Yeah Democrats are the good guys but I'd rather not hand one party unchecked power and the GOP will retaliate, unless you're also clamouring for the Dems to legislate the GOP out of existence.

The GOP are operating (scummily) within the existing judicial framework, and I expect the next D Senate to play the exact same games.

They already do whatever the fuck they want. And again, Dems could do the exact same shit.
 

spx54

Member
Mar 21, 2019
3,273
I'm going to feel bad for the norm busters in the Democratic Party if Biden is elected

He won't touch the legislative filibuster, and he would most likely advocate for bringing back the judicial filibuster.
 

dlauv

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,509


In other news, Beto did a 45 minute Univision interview entirely in Spanish.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,853
Orlando, FL
New ABC News/Washington Post poll, April 22-25

DemPrimaries_v02_DAP_PrimaryVoteChoice_v01_KA_hpEmbed_17x12_608.jpg
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bid...signs-generational-showdown/story?id=62666915

What a shame Beto is down.. but not out! I have the utmost confidence that Beto is the man to bring the many factions of the party together and lead us to victory!
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
What a shame Beto is down.. but not out! I have the utmost confidence that Beto is the man to bring the many factions of the party together and lead us to victory!
Who knows what will happen outside of the top two. Biden and Bernie are tapped out on name rec. Even people that recognize the other candidate's names at this point know next to nothing about them so they are more malleable.

Not surprising that more millennials voted in 2018 than in 2012 considering that the youngest millennials weren't eligible to vote in 2012 /s

... But more 18-29's voted in 2012 than 2018? That graph only shows presidential years. 2018 did not have presidential year turn out. More milenials voted in 2016 than 2012 is what you were probably seeing.
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
What a shame Beto is down.. but not out! I have the utmost confidence that Beto is the man to bring the many factions of the party together and lead us to victory!
Beto can still pull out a win. He's still attracting big crowds. He needs to do more tv appearances though. His early state strategy might pay off once people start dropping out and it's down to 4-5
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,827
Changing the judicial makeup through the legislative process opens up an entire can of worms and makes the judiciary entirely beholden to the legislature, effectively allowing the legislature/executive to operate without any checks. Judges blocking laws restricting rights? Drown them out via court packing/implement mandatory retirement ages/some other junk in the blink of an eye, just pass a law.
This is how it's always worked in the US, though... the Constitution specifically doesn't say how many there should be and as such Congress has passed legislation multiple times in the past to add/reduce justices to the SC and the lower courts. 9 SC Justices is not what we started with (was 6) and it's certainly not what we should stop at.
 
Last edited:

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,527
London
This is how it's always worked in the US, though... the Constitution specifically doesn't say how many there should be and as such Congress has passed legislation multiple times in the past to add/remove more justices to the SC and the lower courts. 9 SC Justices is not what we started with (was 6) and it's certainly not what we should stop at.

1869 was the last time they modified the composition of the SC from what I can tell.

Congress absolutely has the power to regulate the courts, but i fear this will be a race to the bottom if they pull this.

Hope the Democrats win.
 

Deleted member 10551

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,031
Changing the judicial makeup through the legislative process opens up an entire can of worms and makes the judiciary entirely beholden to the legislature, effectively allowing the legislature/executive to operate without any checks. Judges blocking laws restricting rights? Drown them out via court packing/implement mandatory retirement ages/some other junk in the blink of an eye, just pass a law.


No, literally the worst case scenario is Republicans crafting legislation to stuff the courts and then passing laws restricting rights that would otherwise be overturned. Think it's bad now? Just wait.

Better a race to the bottom than not even lining at the starting blocks.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
Saw the discussion about court packing on the previous page.

The goal is to pass an amendment, but the GOP won't bite without a figurative gun to their heads.

Basically, "If you don't agree to this, all your little wet dreams are about to be ruled unconstitutional as long as we have a Democratic president, and with all these voting rights expansions, shit doesn't look good for you."

Packing the court is a goal in and of itself, but it's also a powerful bargaining tool.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
but i fear this will be a race to the bottom if they pull this.
It's either race to the bottom or sticking with a conservative court for the rest of our lives. We're kind of already at the bottom, is how I see it.

There's nothing stopping future Republican Congresses from not confirming a Democratic nominee ever again, so we need at least D Pres and D Congress to get even a single nominee.
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,827
1869 was the last time they modified the composition of the SC from what I can tell.

Congress absolutely has the power to regulate the courts, but i fear this will be a race to the bottom if they pull this.

Hope the Democrats win.
If the underlying idea here is "x hasn't been changed in a very long time so we shouldn't change x again" then I'd say the only logical conclusion to that notion is that countries would be destined to failure and collapse eventually.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,527
London
If the underlying idea here is "x hasn't been changed in a very long time so we shouldn't change x again" then I'd say the only logical conclusion to that notion is that countries would be destined to failure and collapse eventually.

The hyperpartisanship in the US is entirely unsustainable, so I'm not disagreeing there.

No country survives forever, and it wouldn't be the first time the Union's collapsed.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,089
Sydney
I invite you to look at Poland's Supreme Court fuckery to see what "democratic pressure" on the judiciary looks like.

And what am I looking at? Judges being forced to retire? Constitution doesn't allow that, and it's a separate practice to Court packing.

The legislature should have less influence on the judiciary, not more. But that would require a constitutional overhaul to prevent one party forcing judicial picks.

But it doesn't. You have to live in reality, and the reality is if you don't engage in court packing the court is conservative for a generation.

What is even your solution here; wait decades until Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts etc are gone and pass an amendment to not let politics interfere?
 

dlauv

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,509
SF, CA.


I'm glad Cali treated him better than Nevada. Very proud of Texas today. Castro and Beto doin' work.

Edit: I take it back. HEB just unveiled their Game of Thrones recipes:
"You Know Muffin, John Snow"
"Mother of Dragonfruit Salad"
"A Grilled Cheese Has No Name"
 
Last edited:

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I'll be honest here, I'd rather push the judicial past its breaking point with 4 year cycles of court packing than live with a conservative partisan Supreme Court for the rest of my life.

It is ridiculous that we're in this situation at all but now that we're in it, hoping for normalcy to magically reassert itself is a fool's errand.
 

Trice

Banned
Nov 3, 2018
2,653
Croatia
From a European, I hope you guys vote in Sanders. From what I've heard of him so far, he's your best bet. I'm watching his Fox News reel and he talks pure sense.

Btw, what is the general mood candidate wise of the dems and people in this thread, at the moment?
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
From a European, I hope you guys vote in Sanders. From what I've heard of him so far, he's your best bet. I'm watching his Fox News reel and he talks pure sense.

Btw, what is the general mood candidate wise of the dems and people in this thread, at the moment?
The vast majority aren't fixed on a specific candidate right now. People are going to wait and see.
 

SaveWeyard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
The best endorsement a podcast could ask for.
From a European, I hope you guys vote in Sanders. From what I've heard of him so far, he's your best bet. I'm watching his Fox News reel and he talks pure sense.

Btw, what is the general mood candidate wise of the dems and people in this thread, at the moment?
In this thread? Bernie, Beto, Harris, and Pete are probably the most supported, pretty evenly. Not really reflective of era as a whole, though, where Bernie seems to be the most popular one.
 
Oct 31, 2017
4,333
Unknown
The difference is the rigor in which physiological treatments are studied, devised, and revised in accordance to a better understanding of empirical data. Since the dawn of human beings, we have always been pretty adept at recognizing patterns in things and intuitively ascribing correlation to concepts without really challenging such beliefs. This is where the scientific method comes in to check our biases and look at things a bit more objectively, and falsifiability is very, VERY important to this process working as intended and this is where spiritual/mystical/supernatural philosophies come up short; we cannot have real progress in physiological medicine (and clinical physiology) without scientific rigor, and relying on spiritual tradition is a good way to hinder said progress.

But this has gotten pretty off-topic, so we'll probably need to have this conversation another time/place.
It's not off topic it's just straying that way. To go from what you're saying and bring it back to politics:
Checking any biases is important as it prevents making judgements before rigorous testing, examination of results and theoretical conclusions made. Claiming there is no benefit from spirituality on anecdotal and partial evidence is as biased as saying there is benefit based on the same. What is known is that spirituality/religion is recommended in palliative care and that it does reduce suffering which benefits quality of life and has some effect on physical health. Of course, there is more to it than palliative care, there is also addictions treatment and other aspects of health and more research should be done before absolute claims are made.

Regardless, relying solely on the inner work of spirituality to solve physical/external problems isn't something Marianne Williamson advocates for health, relationships, activism or politics. It's part of a whole understanding on how to engage problems and find available solutions.

In her book A Politics of Love she talks of this relationship between spirituality and politics.
Here is a brief excerpt relevant to the current conversation as it deals with spiritually based transformative inner thought and external political involvement for national health:
Excepts from A Politics of Love: Section 2: Chapter 1: pages 41 - 44 said:
Political manifestations, both good and bad, are but outer reflections of internal realities. They emerge from realms beyond what the eye can see. Love and lovelessness are constantly duking it out, in our hearts and in our world. Slavery, oppression, racism, and so forth are more than mere political wrongs; they represent spiritual malfunctions. Until we deal with our problems on the level from which they emerge, then no matter what we do to solve them, they will simply morph into other forms.
---
That is why a new American revolution is a revolution of consciousness, and a new American politics is a politics of love. If the choice to love remains merely a private decision, then it will have only private effects. Only when love is applied to public issues will it then have public effects.
An overly secularized, rationalistic politics is an inadequate response to the challenges of our time. A politics of love is a twenty-first-century, whole-person politics that speaks to both external and internal issues.
External activism fosters a different way of doing things, which is important. But internal activism fosters a different way of thinking about those things as well. Both are important, because everything we do is infused with the consciousness with which we do it. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "The end is inherent in the means." Enlightenment is a shift in worldview, and only a more enlightened thinking can deliver us to an enlightened world.
America's founders were products of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, during which Western civilization overthrew the mystification of the early church dogma in favor of rational thought and individual freedom. Today, we are entering a new Era of Enlightenment, in which we are overthrowing the limits of overly rationalistic thinking that doesn't recognize the powers of the soul. We are evolving beyond a twentieth-century worldview that posited the world as one big machine, and realizing that in fact it is more like one big thought. Consciousness is no longer deemed irrelevant to human affairs, but rather the driver of human affairs.
---
A political mind-set mired in twentieth-century thinking is incapable of solving our most pressing problems, because its focus on externalities too often leaves their cause unaddressed... Not every force that is driving our world is visible to the physical eye. A politics that gives little credence to the inner life, considering it outside the purview of its analysis, is inadequate to the task of navigating these difficult times.
That is why the spiritual seeker is important to the transformation of our politics, and of our country. Spiritual seekers have always been the harbingers of political change in America--the abolitionists movement was started by the early Evangelicals and Quakers, and the civil rights movement was led by a Baptist preacher.
---
In the words of Plato, "To philosophize and do politics are one and the same thing." Not only does enlightened politics require spiritual understanding, but enlightened spirituality requires attention to politics. No serious religious path gives anyone a pass on addressing the suffering of other sentient beings. The idea that we can leave politics out of our conceptualization of our spiritual journey is an outdated concept, because politics is simply the journey we take together. We can't transform our country without transforming our politics, and that we can do only by participating. Standing on the sidelines is not an option for a conscious seeker, or for a conscious citizen.
---
"Love each other" is not just a prescription for personal salvation; it is a prescription for political renewal as well.

To expand on something she said in the first paragraph of the excerpt: It's not only that without a transformation in consciousness that the current political problems of the world will morph into other forms they will keep recurring until there is inevitable destruction. The polarized sides swinging the pendulum of power back and forth, undoing the work of the other, in a political dance of death while the world and people suffer. Not to say there doesn't need to be destruction but that it's best brought about and managed on an internal level. Which appears to be something that Marianne is saying. That a new Enlightenment, in regards to a new spiritual relationship with the world, on a mass scale will in turn transform politics as it guides external behavior. This the remedy she advocates to prevent the same problems from morphing or recurring due to a shift away from the consciousness which brings about those recurrences. That the old politics is a ditch the nation is stuck in and will continue until an internal change is made. Calling it group psychology may make it more palatable to the mechanistic materialist mentality but such a label doesn't take into account the spiritual nature which is important to the process Williamson appears to be advancing in her platform.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
The hyperpartisanship in the US is entirely unsustainable, so I'm not disagreeing there.

No country survives forever, and it wouldn't be the first time the Union's collapsed.
I mean you look at triggers for revolutions in the modern era and the US doesn't really check any of the boxes yet so
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
I mean you look at triggers for revolutions in the modern era and the US doesn't really check any of the boxes yet so

And here we have the real reason why many on the left are pushing this. They don't want reform, they want to destroy and remake the government in their own image. What they're forgetting is that they're disorganised and the right wing isn't so assuming the revolution does happen it won't be their revolution shaping the country in the aftermath.
 
Last edited:

chadskin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,013
Trump's support wasn't taking its cues from analysts, or taking much interest in the traditional vetting from the mainstream media; they were listening to the man himself, unfiltered on social media and cable news.

That pattern — the straight up-and-to-the-right of A Star Is Born — isn't how the old Establishment politics worked. But it seems to be a defining feature of the new movement politics. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's trajectory inside her party has been stunningly free of setbacks. These new politics look less like old presidential campaigns than like social-media fandoms: Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Drake, the Marvel Universe don't come and go. They're eternal, as long as their protagonists provide a steady stream of content and mutual affirmation to growing groups of supporters. This is a snowball, not a narrative.
So what does that mean for the 2020 Democratic Primary?

Well, it could mean that the theory motivating most of the 20-plus candidates — that they should make their cases and wait for their turns in the sun of public attention — is just wrong. Under this theory, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar will never get their turns.

And the candidates who have found their social media and movement fandoms early — Bernie Sanders, who never let his go and Pete Buttigieg, who caught the moment, are the obvious ones — will become harder and harder for the others to dislodge, as they develop increasingly intense relationships with their core fans. There's space for one or two more fandoms, and Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris seem closest to building them. And, perhaps, there's enough space for a reaction against this new politics for Joe Biden.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/fandoms-2020-primary-bernie-buttigieg

Interesting theory.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
That pattern — the straight up-and-to-the-right of A Star Is Born — isn't how the old Establishment politics worked. But it seems to be a defining feature of the new movement politics. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's trajectory inside her party has been stunningly free of setbacks. These new politics look less like old presidential campaigns than like social-media fandoms: Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Drake, the Marvel Universe don't come and go. They're eternal, as long as their protagonists provide a steady stream of content and mutual affirmation to growing groups of supporters. This is a snowball, not a narrative.

Going to disagree here. Trump has been able to reach the presidency through this method, forcing his rivals to bow to his influence - this is not the same route AOC has gone into. AOC's trajectory in congress is that of a freshman, and while her influence on social media has gained her some influence within congress she's not leading any committees or rising in the ranks within the party any faster than anybody else. Twitter isn't congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.