?>


The Republican party has shown their true colors.
Posted: Posted September 23rd
Edited September 23rd by ShadowFox08
View Source Report Thread Views

They care more about party loyalty, maintaining power in the government and supporting an ass clown president than fulfilling a woman's dying wishes.

When Antonin Scala passed away 4 years ago in February while Obama was still president, they protested that Obama couldn't nominate a supreme Court jurist until after the next president was nominated. They also claimed it was tradition not to do this.

But now they are singing a different tune when the executive branch (president) and Senate can flip democratic. They obviously don't give a fuck about tradition or fairness with tradition. So many have changed their tune from 4 years ago. Mitch Mconnell, Ted Cruz and even Mitt Romney can go f themselves

There are 17 Replies
Load all posts On page: 1 2
  settingsSettings

I still say Supreme court term limits would solv ea lot of problems but that's jsut me.

Posted September 23rd by tnu
View Source Quote Report
tnu
 

I still say Supreme court term limits would solv ea lot of problems but that's jsut me.

I used to think so, probably said as much myself as recently as two weeks ago. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it would just make everything worse.

Hard term limits, ie: 10 years from the day they're sworn in, are still open to gamesmanship. There will be pressure on judges to retire when it is favorable to their party. And even absent those pressures, judges tend to want a successor in their mold.

The more typical suggestion of 18 year terms, staggered 2 years, is even worse. You'll have wild ideological swings as potentially 4 judges are replaced in a single presidency, and there will be plenty of incentive to give nominees the Garland treatment. After all, why nominate 4 judges when you can potentially nominate 5?

3 or 4 years staggered at least reduces the chance of holding a seat open indefinitely, but then you're looking at 27 or 36 year terms, which are so long as to be effectively irrelevant. Ginsburg would have hit the 27 year cap this year, if that tells you how useless it would be in practice.

The status quo is not good, but I don't see a way to improve it. Court packing might help, as adding additional justices brings more viewpoints and makes the impact of a single retirement matter less, but then you risk getting into a cycle of constantly adding more judges.

Posted September 23rd by Count Dooku
View Source Quote Report

and lookign at that I"m even more convinced Judicial review as a complete msitake. having an orginization with that much power never ends well.

Posted September 23rd by tnu
View Source Quote Report
tnu
 

I think the thing that's most frustrating about this is that no matter how you look at it, there's virtually no consistency.

If we take it at the surface level in terms of whether or not a President should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice during an election year back in 2016, and now in 2020, even closer to an election, they have changed their tune.

If we look at it from the perspective of what McConnell has warped his own argument into being allegedly about, it's this notion that "the people should decide." That's the rhetoric he leaned heavily on back in 2016. To an extent, his dramatically stretched that "logic" out here again. With an election year in 2016, his argument was that it was too close to an election (with almost an entire quarter of the presidential term left) and we should "let the people decide." When the Republicans won the general election and kept the Senate, his argument was, "See? The American people voted for us to appoint this judge." But now, instead of looking ahead at the upcoming election that's even closer, it's no longer about letting the people decide. He's reaching back two years ago to the *last* election to make an argument that "the people" decided to keep a Republican Senate to work with Trump, thus the people have "already spoken."

Never mind, of course, there is almost nothing about the process that is representative of the people. Donald Trump won the election despite winning fewer votes than his opponent. On top of that, the Republican majority Senate won on fewer aggregate votes than the Democratic minority. Plus, the Republican majority represents in the Senate a discernibly smaller population size than the Democratic minority. And, on top of that, while the GOP was able to retain the Senate in the mid-terms, the Democrats flipped the Senate. Of course, there is nothing democratic in nature about the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that on top of all the undemocratic elements that highlight how this government is not even really "representative" of the will of the people in the slightest, we're about to have a Supreme Court that is a majority comprised of appointees nominated by presidents who *lost* the popular vote. Maybe if we elected the president by popular vote, seeing as there is no genuinely legitimate reason not to, and we had the House - the chamber that is arguably, although still incredibly flawed, more actually representative of the people - then we can talk. But no part of appointing Supreme Court justices is democratic or in any way remotely representative of "the people." But it sounds nice and hides the autocratic reality of the modern GOP, so their base doesn't have to think too hard about the reality.

And then, of course, there's the fact that *literally none of this is in the constitution.* Spent my entire life hearing from conservative Republicans about the need for a literal interpretation of the constitution. And yet, in American history it has only been by Mitch McConnell in the past four years that somehow, the constitution suddenly shifts the power to appoint judges off of the Presidency and gives it predominantly to the Senate; an interpretation that is by every metric "loose." On top of that, the idea that a president can't or shouldn't appoint a justice during an election year is, quite literally, *not* in the constitution. McConnell himself just conjured an asterisk to the constitution out of thin air to hold it over the election four years ago, and now, he's ignoring his own rule that he just made up to benefit him now. Where exactly does "ignoring the constitution" to appoint judges who will "strictly interpret the constitution" a philosophy that has actual, meaningful merit?

Thing is? I actually think there is validity to the argument that at a certain point, a sitting president shouldn't be able to appoint a justice if a vacancy occurs. There's a pretty key different as well between 2020 and 2016. In 2016, President Obama did not stand to personally gain from the nomination. He was at the end of his presidency, was not a candidate for re-election, and - while obviously wanting to accomplish something politically (that's what all of this is), he himself did not stand to benefit. In 2020, President Trump is about to appoint his third SCOTUS judge to give his bench a super majority, comprised of 1/3rd his own loyalists. In an election year in which Trump himself has indicated at every turn he's going to do everything he can to undermine the election if he doesn't like the results and loses. He's even openly talked about needing to appoint a judge now to ensure that if he has to send his case up to the Supreme Court in the case he loses, he has greater leverage.

For all the wisdom we like to credit our Founders with, somehow I can't imagine this is something they would find particularly agreeable: a president seeking re-election appointing another judge so close to an election that is obviously going to be contested, with SCOTUS possibly having to weigh in? Yeah, that seems like the pinnacle of fairness and indicative of a healthy democracy.

I'd be willing to agree to a rule in which we say, maybe four or five months prior to an election, any court vacancies would be postponed until the next presidential term. Honestly feels reasonably fair to me. If we're going to say that, we could codify it. We won't, of course, because we all know this rule of McConnell's only exists when it benefits them. And he'll have no incentive to pass a new rule in law that would hold his party to the same standards as the rival party.

What I don't understand is: do Republicans not have any concerns about the growing feeling among the majority of this country that the government is innately undemocratic and stacked against them? Do Republicans not even worry a little bit about the damage done by constantly undermining the legitimacy of the government? I know they're pretty anti-government when they don't occupy the majority of power, but I don't understand why the people who seem to care the least about the idea of having a country with a government viewed as legitimate are the people who whine the loudest about needing to maintain "law and order."

We'll see what the Democrats do. There's little available to them at the moment. They could (and should, at this point) openly discuss expanding the Courts, but that won't happen until they win the White House *and* the Senate, which, given how broken the Senate is, probably won't happen in this next term. What's abundantly clear, although I'm surprised it wasn't for years at this point, is that the singular political philosophy the modern GOP has is that they believe in power for them only. And when they don't have it, they rail against the very notion of governance or political power. There's not a single other objective to this party besides trying to amass as much power as they can, and just to protect their identity. That's it. That's why they have prioritized statues and "cultural heritage" and routinely talk about the tens of millions of Americans who live in "blue states" (a thing that doesn't actually exist and is only a product of the electoral college) or "liberal cities" as if they're not real Americans, who tell immigrants or just anyone of color that they should "go back to where they came from," who claim sole ownership of the flag, the anthem, and the country as a whole. And they never, ever, ever talk about policies that would, ya know, actually help people. You never hear Republicans talk about what they'll do, what legislation they'll push for to help Americans get access to health care. Or to afford their homes. Or to pay their debts. Or to expand their farms. Or to go to college if they choose. You've got Trump up in Minnesota literally talking basically about eugenics, arguing that the 200,000 Americans dead from the pandemic either don't exist or weren't really "Americans." You've got McConnell and Trump constantly undermining every single institution we've ever had and the very notion of free and fair elections at almost every turn. But never talk about how they're actually going to help anybody.,

We've discussed whether or not Trump is a fascist (he is; fascism is an ideology whether he's able to enact policy on it or not, and he has enacted a fair amount on it and either way constantly espouses fascist rhetoric to the cheers of his fascist base), but make no mistake: the likes of McConnell or the entire modern Republican party? They're just about autocracy. They don't want democracy. They don't want even a representative republic based on democratic principles. They aren't even actually in favor of state's rights (let's see what they do when they overturn Roe v. Wade and then a bunch of states pass state laws legalizing abortion; you'll have to forgive me if I'm not holding my breath that they'll shrug and say, "It's a state's rights issue..." and don't try to bring it to the Supreme Court to challenge it). They are for power for themselves and that's it.

I've long said this, especially about presidential elections: if we have a set of rules that are fair - if you run your candidate and we run ours and your candidate gets more votes, congratulations! Sucks for me and my side, but that's how it is. Fair is fair. And I will always stand by this: if the Republicans hadn't pulled what they had pulled in 2016 after Scalia died (man, remember when the nutjobs came out with wild conspiracy theories that Democrats must have smothered him in his sleep?), this would be a non-issue. I would have no problem whatsoever saying, ya know, the Constitution gives that power to the president and centuries of legal and historical precedence would see even an opposition-majority Senate confirm a candidate (especially a non-threatening moderate like Merrick fucking Garland). So yeah, Trump should get to pick a nominee here.

Except that's not what happened, is it? The Republicans ignored the constitution and centuries of precedent to conjure a rule out of thin air that exists nowhere in the rule book. Then abandoned it the moment the shoe was on the other foot. So maybe if y'all want us to believe in the notion of "law and order," you should abide by it, too. As McConnell (and Trump) have eroded every single norm and institution, ignored law and precedence time and time again, it's increasingly clear that there IS no such thing as "law and order." There's only power. They want *us* to obey the law because we're the ants. But pretty clearly, they don't feel any of it applies to them. And yeah, Democrats engage in some iffy political tactics, too, but there's literally nothing comparable to what McConnell's GOP has done in the past decade. Even things like gerrymandering; Democrats do it, but nowhere near as much or as egregiously. You can't genuinely "both sides" the argument, because for a long time Democrats have shown a substantial more willingness to consider Republicans than vice versa.

But I go back to that question: do Republicans just not care about the growing perception that the entire government is illegitimate? Is it that they don't see the innate dangers of not only ignoring these dilemmas of legitimacy, but willfully stoking the flames of discontent? Or is it that the Confederacy-obsessed Republicans understand that and see it as the true way to destroy the Union? Because we're fast approaching the end of it if they continue to pull shit like this while also say, "La la la: I can't hear you" when people point out just exactly how unrepresentative every branch of government has been for almost a decade now.

Posted September 23rd by Jet Presto
View Source Quote Report

Fuck me. Posted in the wrong board. 🤦‍♂️

Can this get moved to the politics board?

Posted September 23rd by ShadowFox08
View Source Quote Report

if it makes y ou feel any better I don't think anyoen even noticed.

Posted September 23rd by tnu
View Source Quote Report
tnu
 

This isn't a "Republican" thing, it's an "all politicians" thing.

Posted September 23rd by Axem Great Water
View Source Quote Report

I don't like the Democratic party either. The DNC has done all sorts of shady shit. Like they did Bernie really dirty twice, and their best bet for Trump is a democratic candidate who is mentally declining.

But the Republican Party really is the greater of two evils.

It's insane we have to choose between the two, and how third parties don't get coverage or support by the corporate media.

Edited September 23rd by ShadowFox08
View Source Quote Report

The Democrats do tend to be the saner party of the two, but this year they've gone completely off the deep end. I know a lot of independents that refuse to vote for them for those reasons (and some are even considering trump). This deliberation is happening in red states so it probably isn't going to affect anything, but if it's indicative of broader trends it'll definitely come out when the results come in.

Never mind, of course, there is almost nothing about the process that is representative of the people. Donald Trump won the election despite winning fewer votes than his opponent.


You can keep making that argument as long as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the electoral college is the system that's in place so it's representative of the people by definition. There's even a good reason for it -- I agreed with you about it for a long time until I started to see the monumental difference in policies between cities and less urban areas and the way that the EC system actually corrects for population differences and allows less urbanized areas to have a voice.

Edited September 23rd by Xhin
View Source Quote Report
Xhin
 

I don't buy there being a "lesser evil" the Democrats have been striagght up collectivist social authoritarians for years now but honestly I couldn't care less about elections they 're utter trash. T he Democrats straight up reject cultural liberalism now which is an absolute dealbreaker for me.

Edited September 23rd by tnu
View Source Quote Report
tnu
 
Next page Load rest of pages On page: /
Reply to: The Republican party has shown their true colors.
Enter your message here

Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
GTX0 © 2009-2020 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett