As the article mentions regarding the filibuster, Biden’s position is “going to depend on how obstreperous” Senate Republicans become when he’s president.
Likewise, I do think that it will depend on the right wingers of the supreme court to show if they will become the ones that will stand against progress.
I agree. Then when the republicans take power they can nominate and confirm the state of wyoming to the court. Then the Democrats take over and install the state of New Jersey. etc.
Yes, norms are not the constitution. If we want to reestablish norms then the kavanaugh hearing is not a good example. What norm do you think would have changed the court composition by more than one justice?
I think they should do whatever will win them the most elections on a consistent basis.
They should do things that will win them control of the house, the senate and the white house.
Gerrymandering should absolutely happen in every blue state until a comprehensive accord is reached. Unilaterally disarming on gerrymandering has led to Republican congresses despite popular support for democrats.
The most important thing democrats can do to level the playing field is admit the territories and washington dc to the union. This gets rid of the electoral advantage the republicans have and also eliminates the senate advantage.
Progressives should do more to win elections in the senate and the white house to preserve the composition of the court. Instead of looking for the most left leaning electable progressive you can find in every jurisdiction, perhaps you should be focusing on forming a party that is widely appealing to the greatest number of people in the greatest number of states.
I am friends with an old senate aide (republican) and he thinks that the problem with american politics today can all be traced back to two things. The Bork confirmation hearings when democrats realized that they character assassination of scotus nominees could work (and democrats are the ones that use character assassination of scotus nominees far more frequently and more viciously than republicans) and McConnell’s total disregard for the stability of the senate as an institution.
what do you mean by “in their pocket” do you mean they’re conservative or do you mean they call jup mitch mcconnell and ask how they should rule?
And that is why we have democracy. I prefer democracy to your certainty.
The latter (except that it’s probably The Federalist Society or similar, not McConnell himself).
Thanks to the GOP and their justices, who strip voting rights and more, our democracy is disappearing. We’re not going to get it back by coddling these corrupt and dishonorable charlatans.
I am friends with an old senate aide (republican) and he thinks that the problem with american politics today can all be traced back to two things. The Bork confirmation hearings when democrats realized that they character assassination of scotus nominees could work (and democrats are the ones that use character assassination of scotus nominees far more frequently and more viciously than republicans) and McConnell’s total disregard for the stability of the senate as an institution.
I think we cannot overlook the power of media, how we generate, filter, and process information. I don’t want to make the age of Cronkite out to be some Golden Age in which all was right with the world, but that strikes me as a time when we had reputable people in the business of journalism and trying to establish and uphold journalistic standards.
The press had a lot to do with uncovering scandals of the Vietnam conflict and Watergate. On the one hand, these were victories for investigative journalism, as they shone the spotlight on government lies and corruption. At the same time, however, there was generally less respect for elected officials among ordinary folk and journalists. I think the result is that journalists felt they had a little more license to be aggressive in publishing negative news stories, which fueled cynicism. And then politicians, doing what they do best, figured out ways to exploit this dynamic to their advantage.
Why? It is not the judge’s responsibility to make policy. If they strike down liberal laws and uphold conservative laws of equal constitutional merit then that’s a problem. But if liberals push the envelope beyond constitutional limits more frequently then why shouldn’t the justices strike down progressive laws more frequently?
Do the progressive judges call up NARAL to ask how they should rule or are conservative judges the only ones that are ethically and morally compromised?
Stripping voting rights?
Democracy disappearing?
Why because your guys isn’t winning as much as you would like?
Perhaps progressives should advance positions that are appealing to a broader spectrum of voters and not things that appeal the the far left and tell the moderate left that they should vote for them because their alternative is trump.
I’m still glad it’s not up to you or any individual. Over time, I trust the teeming masses more than any individual.
I’ve had that conversation too and in an age when people pick the news they want to hear, the death of the fairness doctrine cemented that. Truth has taken a hit and now people can believe they are on the side of the angels in a debate about cutthroat politics.
If you don’t believe the GOP is trying to prevent people from voting if they’re black (or a handful of other categories), then we live in such different factual universes that discussion would be pointless.
Yeah, and throw social media into that conversation, too. User-generated content that can be produced on low budgets and shared with millions is problematic. More than that, it’s the ability of people with dark worldviews to engage with each other and reinforce each other’s toxic mindset. Before, we always used to dismiss white nationalists as ‘cranks’ on the fringes of society, and on the fringes is where they stayed -primarily because the best they could do was occasionally get airtime on some local cable access TV program as a radical guest. Now? They can all communicate with each other, spread conspiracy theories, and reinforce each others’ ideas. It can lead to cultural Balkanization.
Did you read the Smithsonian article? The reason why is if the courts are found to be out of tune with what most Americans want. In the past the conservatives in the courts were the ones pulsing constitutional interpretations that ignored what was needed then, or what most people wanted. They changed that.
Ahem, pushing… not pulsing, darn auto correct.
Democracy is not served by the U.S. Senate. 82% of us have 50 Senators…and 18% of us have 50 Senators.
Kill the Senate, and then you can start to talk about democracy.
I’m sorry I didn’t run the 2016 and 2018 campaigns to your liking. I’m trying harder this year.
Republicans are absolutely trying to suppress democratic votes.
I don’t think they care about the color of their skin as long as they are democratic voting
This includes college students of all races.
But stripping voting rights?
Democracy is disappearing?
We don’t live in different factual universes, I don’t think you are really paying attention to all facts equally. Some facts that fit your narrative overshadow all the other facts.
Yes, this ability to cocoon yourself in a community of people that think exactly like you do makes it too easy to believe that everyone agrees with you and you are right about everything. The more extreme your views, the more necessary this bubble is to your worldview.
They are not a democratically elected branch. They are not subject to popular pressure. That is a feature not a flaw. The founding fathers recognized that there will be times like today when partisan sentiment becomes heated and we need a branch of government that is immune to popular pressures.
If you ask almost anyone in the industrialized world whether we are a democracy, the answer will be yes. If that answer changes because you do not like the results of that democracy, perhaps you don’t actually support democracy. This union was formed on a bargain between states and every state that has joined since then has agreed to those terms. Noone was forced to join. If you want to change that bargain now because the party of your ideology is having trouble winning as many elections as you would like then you can either start trying to appeal to more people or you can amend the constitution. But you shouldn’t cry foul fair because you don’t like the results today of rules set in place 250 years ago.
Did you seriously think I was criticizing you personally? I was criticizing the ideology of folks on the far left that think they should keep pushing the party further and further to the left while accusing anyone to the right of them of racism, fascism and other isms and then wonder why they aren’t winning over moderate voters.
Republicans are absolutely trying to suppress democratic votes.
I don’t think they care about the color of their skin as long as they are democratic voting
This includes college students of all races.
But stripping voting rights?
Democracy is disappearing?
We don’t live in different factual universes, I don’t think you are really paying attention to all facts equally. Some facts that fit your narrative overshadow all the other facts.
Yes, this ability to cocoon yourself in a community of people that think exactly like you do makes it too easy to believe that everyone agrees with you and you are right about everything. The more extreme your views, the more necessary this bubble is to your worldview.
That is rich to say when we are talking about an example that showed the opposite of what you think it happens.
Yes, because
Ultimately, this isn’t a game, it’s the exercise of our rights as Americans. Playing defense, stopping someone from voting, is a way to “win” but is also stripping away people’s rights. If Republicans had any decency they wouldn’t do it.
So how does popular pressure affect the current justices? Can they lose their office? Can their pay be reduced? Of course not. They are about as insulated from popular pressure as a government official can be.
And when democrats engage in gerrymandering, they are trying to suppress republican votes. Does this mean democrats don’t have any sense of decency? Politics has always been a game of buck (political dollars), ballots (ballot access, who gets the franchise, who comes out to vote) and maps (gerrymandering and districting). And we need an independent judiciary to make sure that noone crosses the line. Now I happen to agree that some of the voter id laws that were shown to be racially motivated should be struck down. But in the end, they would just be replaced with voter ID laws with a well documented pedigree of not being racially motivated. Just because you lose doesn’t mean the game is rigged, the rules apply equally to both sides but the other side has just done a better job of convincing the majority of states to agree with them over the last 3 elections.
Uh, the point was that it is not now, but after the election…
And clearly in the past the pressure came from elected officials too. Not all justices changed, but enough to say that Roosevelt lost the battle about expanding the court, but he won the war.
I think the fdr example is an exception that proves the general rule. Everyone recognizes it as an extraordinary event.
I don’t really understand the rest of your post
As mentioned before in other threads, it is clear that you do miss a lot of what was cited early.
Oh, I thought you were talking to me, I didn’t realize you were addressing a strawman.