gowlerk 2,057 #26 October 12, 2018 Quote I reject the proposition that the Democrats have fewer manipulatable dipshits to motivate than the Republicans. Maybe so. But good luck motivating them!Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,509 #27 October 12, 2018 gowlerkQuote I reject the proposition that the Democrats have fewer manipulatable dipshits to motivate than the Republicans. Maybe so. But good luck motivating them! You go straight to the tried and true: lie to them. Tell them Trump is planning to confiscate all Grateful Dead Albums, ban Yoga and tie-dye and serve the last remaining Fluffy Bellied Danderhooie's in school lunches. Say whatever it takes to get them out of their yurts and into a voting booth. Win first, feel crappy later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,308 #28 October 12, 2018 JoeWeber****** I am not advocating a known solution. I'm advocating outright obstruction. I'm advocating torches, pitch forks and marching up the hill at dawn. I'm advocating any goddamn thing besides the current pansy assed "whatcha gonna do?" attitude the Dem's have. The right has leaders who fight for their base. Whether or not their base are wrong headed or being deceived is not the point. The point is their leaders come off as fighters and they are winning. I can not name one Dem leader who comes off as a real fighter. And they keep losing. Giving up more lifetime appointments, which is the last thing we should want at this juncture, as an expediency because "whatcha gonna do?" and we need to go home and campaign is not acting strong. I just think that if the Dems want to motivate their base they need to start acting motivatingly. Instead, they act like it's more about keeping their jobs. During the judiciary hearings the rights base heard stirring oratory. We heard bluffing. I say give them all the Congressional Weenie of Honor Medal and send them home for good. I hate what's going on and I hope somehow, someway we get off this merry go round but I'm starting to see this continuing past my lifetime. So, sort of, I don't care if some more lose their jobs uselessly obstructing the rights agenda. JoeI agree that the current democratic leadership is old, stale, uninspiring, and a thorough housecleaning is in order. Even here in Georgia where a democrat has a shot at the governorship, it seems to me that the political ads are watered down, way too underplayed. Even when they are talking about Republicans wanting to strip health insurance from everyone with pre-existing conditions they do it without conveying any sense of outrage. On the other hand the Republicans are running ads that make it clear they are completely untethered from any regard for the truth. They photoshop Stacey Abrams photos to make her skin super dark and her eyes and teeth super white to the point where she looks demonic, and then they lie through their teeth saying she wants to unleash sex offenders and armed violent criminals on our schools. They are really playing up the fear angle, and the appeal to racism and sexism is totally in your face. Who would choose an insane criminal-loving black female demon over a nice white boy? But back to the issue at hand, how will pitchforks and marching up (I assume Capitol) Hill at dawn keep the Republicans from voting on those judges when they control the agenda and have a majority in the senate? Republicans are already playing up the "Democrats are nothing but an insane mob" angle; it's hard for me to see how proving them right will sway enough votes towards the democrats to help. Unfortunately it might already be too late for the senate. Pelosi and Schumer should have stepped aside months ago so they could be replaced with dynamic new leaders. Not going to happen now. Don Don, It was meant as a metaphor for taking action. As I think about it now, it would make a great flag for the movement. Joe So what do you actually mean then Joe? The Democrats should use a metaphor to stop the Republicans from using their majority to do things their majority can force through regardless?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,509 #29 October 13, 2018 jakee********* I am not advocating a known solution. I'm advocating outright obstruction. I'm advocating torches, pitch forks and marching up the hill at dawn. I'm advocating any goddamn thing besides the current pansy assed "whatcha gonna do?" attitude the Dem's have. The right has leaders who fight for their base. Whether or not their base are wrong headed or being deceived is not the point. The point is their leaders come off as fighters and they are winning. I can not name one Dem leader who comes off as a real fighter. And they keep losing. Giving up more lifetime appointments, which is the last thing we should want at this juncture, as an expediency because "whatcha gonna do?" and we need to go home and campaign is not acting strong. I just think that if the Dems want to motivate their base they need to start acting motivatingly. Instead, they act like it's more about keeping their jobs. During the judiciary hearings the rights base heard stirring oratory. We heard bluffing. I say give them all the Congressional Weenie of Honor Medal and send them home for good. I hate what's going on and I hope somehow, someway we get off this merry go round but I'm starting to see this continuing past my lifetime. So, sort of, I don't care if some more lose their jobs uselessly obstructing the rights agenda. JoeI agree that the current democratic leadership is old, stale, uninspiring, and a thorough housecleaning is in order. Even here in Georgia where a democrat has a shot at the governorship, it seems to me that the political ads are watered down, way too underplayed. Even when they are talking about Republicans wanting to strip health insurance from everyone with pre-existing conditions they do it without conveying any sense of outrage. On the other hand the Republicans are running ads that make it clear they are completely untethered from any regard for the truth. They photoshop Stacey Abrams photos to make her skin super dark and her eyes and teeth super white to the point where she looks demonic, and then they lie through their teeth saying she wants to unleash sex offenders and armed violent criminals on our schools. They are really playing up the fear angle, and the appeal to racism and sexism is totally in your face. Who would choose an insane criminal-loving black female demon over a nice white boy? But back to the issue at hand, how will pitchforks and marching up (I assume Capitol) Hill at dawn keep the Republicans from voting on those judges when they control the agenda and have a majority in the senate? Republicans are already playing up the "Democrats are nothing but an insane mob" angle; it's hard for me to see how proving them right will sway enough votes towards the democrats to help. Unfortunately it might already be too late for the senate. Pelosi and Schumer should have stepped aside months ago so they could be replaced with dynamic new leaders. Not going to happen now. Don Don, It was meant as a metaphor for taking action. As I think about it now, it would make a great flag for the movement. Joe So what do you actually mean then Joe? The Democrats should use a metaphor to stop the Republicans from using their majority to do things their majority can force through regardless? I actually mean what I actually wrote. Obstruct, even if it is futile. Drag out everything, never give an inch willingly. The court appointments are a prime example. I don't give a crap if they were going to get them anyway. That doesn't mean Schumer should give them up a single second faster than need be. I mean get on TV and outright lie, obfuscate, conflate and talk bullshit if that will get the job done. I mean throwing the same big fat fuck you at them that they tossed our way. You don't win a fight by hoping the son of a bitch gets tired of whomping on you. And unless there are referees, you always win by fighting dirty. So, enough of the when they go low we go high business. The good fight thing isn't working. When you are getting your ass kicked, even a swing and a miss is better than no swing at all. QuoteThis message was brought to you from the gentle souls of Oregon, the Liberal heartland of America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #30 October 13, 2018 JoeWeber Tell them Trump is planning to confiscate all Grateful Dead … Fuck that. True story: I have a dedicated digital music player for my Grateful Dead library. A few months ago, I had to upgrade the storage capacity from 128GB to 256GB, of which I'm presently using about 200GB. Oh, and I vote. Also, I live in a location where anything other than an explicit vote for a Republican is an implicit (or explicit) vote for a Democrat. eta: I'm mid-forties, and the youngest Deadhead I know.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,229 #31 October 13, 2018 QuotePrevious administrations have at least tried to look for candidates that have a bit of a neutral feel. That has ended, completely. The lasting legacy of the Trump administration will be what they have done to your court system. From the 1800's: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-stolen-supreme-court-seats-180962589/ To FDR's New Deal Era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 To Joe Biden in 1992 (the Biden Rule): https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html The Thurmond Rule etc. etc. etc... I would argue that all previous administrations have been fraught in less than neutrality. To your point, though; I don't like it. The SC SHOULD be the most apolitical in our government.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #32 October 13, 2018 Like most “lifetime” things, life expectancy increasing was not factored in when originally proposed. Perhaps a mandatory retirement age? This would of course lead to younger appointees, which may not be a bad thing either. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,057 #33 October 13, 2018 Conservatives need to be careful what they wish for. An SC that swings far right will bring a political backlash. Those who wish for Roe V Wade to be overturned should consider the real world consequences. Because of the pretty unique US system there would be a national patchwork of laws where in some states abortion would be readily available and in others lengthy jail terms would be the penalty. This would most likely result in considerable social pressure and organization among woman's groups and others at the state level. Many, possibly most states would see their governments move left in response to the voters. This is the flip side of "judicial activism". In matters like abortion and marriage equality the SC provides a relieve valve when the times and popular opinion change. In the end it is, was meant to be, and always will be a political body. The danger to it's reputation comes not from being political, but from being associated too strongly with party politics.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #34 October 13, 2018 QuoteIn the end it is, was meant to be, and always will be a political body. How do you figure it was always meant to be a political body? Looking back at the original wording there’s not even anything about unlimited terms. Judges serve under ‘good behavior’... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,057 #35 October 13, 2018 yoinkQuoteIn the end it is, was meant to be, and always will be a political body. How do you figure it was always meant to be a political body? Looking back at the original wording there’s not even anything about unlimited terms. Judges serve under ‘good behavior’... Law and politics are inseparable. There are three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive and legislative are elected and they select the SC. The SC is meant to be a check on the other two. And the other two are meant to be a check on them. That is the basis of the US Federal system. And US politics.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #36 October 13, 2018 Current justices would be exempted from the mandatory retirement age. Definitely agree judicial activism needs to be limited regardless of party. Would like to think further limiting access to abortions is something used to just get the rabble to vote at this point as it really just needs to go away and accept that (gasp) it’s not the government’s business what a woman chooses to do. At the same time, the legislative and executive branches have to stop punting the ball to the SC. As was said earlier in the thread, were congress to pass clear laws, the SC wouldn’t have to do some of the gymnastics it had to do with the ACA. Vaguely recall the justices back when gay marriage laws were overturned stating prior that they didn’t need to rule on this: a law or executive order declaring as such would be upheld as constitutional if challenged.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,057 #37 October 13, 2018 QuoteVaguely recall the justices back when gay marriage laws were overturned stating prior that they didn’t need to rule on this: a law or executive order declaring as such would be upheld as constitutional if challenged. This is an area where the SC becomes very important in the US. In many, if not most countries the marriage law is a national issue. In the USA it is a state issue. The Congress could not make a law granting marriage equality unless they amended the Constitution. Which would of course also require ratification. Without the SC declaring that the Constitution requires marriage equality, which it did, there would be a patch work of conflicting laws in the US. However, this is clearly what many people regard as "judicial activism". It is the SC moving with the times. Catching up with most of society and dragging the rest along. Sometimes it does that and sometimes it does not. And depending which side you are on it will be activism or just common sense. Politics is the art of the possible. It is not always possible for the legislative branch to move. Sometimes the SC needs to do it. More often they decide not to, which is usually wise. It took the civil war followed by the 13th amendment to overturn the Dred Scott ruling. A different ruling might have changed history. But it would certainly have been strongly resisted as meddling by unelected judges.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,659 #38 October 13, 2018 >However, this is clearly what many people regard as "judicial activism". Ironically the SC has gotten a lot less "activist" with time. When Loving vs Virginia legalized interracial marriage in the 1950's, most of the country opposed it. It was a big stinking deal; the Supreme Court was perverting the laws of God and man to allow "filthy negroes" to prey on white women. (And indeed the language they used back then sounds an awful lot like the "perverted transsexuals preying on innocent girls" meme we hear today from the right.) Compare that to the gay marriage decision. At the point the SC heard the case US vs Windsor, the country overwhelmingly supported gay marriage. It was in no way a radical or revolutionary decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 350 #39 October 14, 2018 Loving vs Virginia was decided in 1967, not the 1950s. And yes it was very controversial. I'm amazed at how the USA embraced racism as the law of the land long after the rest of the world (except South Africa) had moved on. In his dissent on the ruling on same sex marrage, Justice Clearance Thomas wrote that marriage was purely a State matter, each State could decide for themselves what they would recognize. Of course Thomas has an interracial marriage, and he and his wife were married in Virginia, so in effect he was arguing that his own marriage was illegitimate. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites