The only advantage to “busting it now” is appeasing the bloodthirsty base. It’s not like if they don’t “bust it now”, if Democrats get the majority they won’t be able to do it then.
Appeasing the base may have its merits, but it may backfire by making the base even more bloodthirsty, and by (quite correctly) looking impotent when your filibuster is broken. Leadership doesn’t really like being forced to do things by the base (on both sides, obviously).
The irony is fucking painful. RBG’s ego may very well be the reason why Roe V Wade gets overturned.
Do you mean this in the FDR way?
Zero chance of that. But if RG survives this presidency then the Democrats can nominate young liberals to the court and just shove them through if they have 50 votes in the senate and a Democrat in the White house.
The filibuster might be used against them if RBG survives.
Have you MET the Republican party?!?!?!
Yeah, but the Dems can then nuke it. Didn’t they already nuke it for everything else? So they can, like, do that again; the only question is whether, in the interim, the GOP is more – conservative? Let’s say conservative – than the Dems were.
Unless Mitch McConnell is going to lose his seat because he changed the balance of the supreme court for a generation, they are going to nuke the filibuster.
According to Wikipedia (which has different %s listed), turnout in 2008 (a landslide or near-landslide) was markedly higher than 2016, and 2016 (in which the Democrat won the popular vote) was very slightly higher than 2012. I think those results do actually support this argument.
Ironically, this would probably (IMO) be a huge electoral boon to the Democrats, as few things would motivate liberal women to vote like the prospect of losing the right to complete control of who and what get to use their bodies.
Yes, I think this would be a boon for Democrats, but overturning Roe would not take away the right to “complete control of who and what get to use their bodies” since women don’t have that now. It wouldn’t even take away the right to abortion since it would just pass that decision onto the states, and most states would certainly keep their own version of Roe. Some, of course, would not, but most would.
Did 2010 have a higher turnout than 2008? Hmm, nope. If you wanna play the cherry picking game, we can play the cherry picking game, and I’ll end up with far more cherries than you will, every time.
And, yes, there were more votes in 2016 than in 2012, by almost the exact same amount that there were more eligible voters in 2016 than in 2012. It’s almost as if the population keeps growing.
If you note on your cite, there is only a small percentage increase (1.6%) in percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot.
You would also note that in 2016, the democrats did win the popular presidential vote by several million votes, just not strategically located votes.
Not to mention that there were more votes for democratic senators than there were for republican senators, and while there were a few more votes for republican representatives than democratic, the proportion is not nearly reflected by the makeup of the house.
Add to this quite a bit of apathy on democrats part, and the running of a candidate that did not do much to fire up the voters to make sure they turned out, and yes, I absolutely stand by my statement, higher voter turnout helps democrats, lower voter turnout helps republicans. There can be exceptions to this, sure, but as a general rule, ti seems to stand.
So, I also stand by my advised strategy of the democrats fighting tooth and nail against the disassembly and sale of our country, and for them to point out at every step, what they are fighting for, and what the consequences to the american people are if they lose. This will increase turnout, especially democratic turnout, which will help to retake the government, and put it into hands of people who actually wish to govern.
Don’t be so sure. Bricker has outline scenarios where SCOTUS declares abortion to be entirely illegal in the US. He does say that he does not support this kind of decision by scotus, but points out that it is entirely possible.
Okay, to be more careful and clear, it would take away a very significant degree of control of who and what can use their bodies.
Truth matters less than perception.
Yeah but then that would make Democrats the assholes.
The Democrats are going to lose either way. They looked impotent when they had a sit in and then let the Republicans shoot the moon on election day. But they are not going to look impotent when the majority goes nuclear.
Bullshit.
I realize that it’s tantalizing and easy to paint this as a partisan issue, because yeah, it’s mostly one side doing it (much like it’s a lot easier to paint the science behind climate change as a partisan issue, because only one side is demonstrably wrong), but that’s just bullshit, I’m sorry.
Like it or not, there was a substantial shift in how the filibuster was used at the start of Obama’s term. A substantial shift, one which threw out the norm that this was a tool to be used sparingly, rather than as a matter of course. The result: our system became far more intransigent and far less capable of actually getting the things that needed to be done done. There was never a rule that said, “Don’t use the filibuster for fucking everything”. It was just taken as a given norm - that this tool should be used sparingly, because otherwise shit falls apart.
Like it or not, there was a substantial shift in how we view judicial nominations at the end of Obama’s term. A substantial shift, one which threw out the norm that the president should be given some berth on their choice of supreme court justices. There was never a rule that said that congress had to confirm the president’s nominees, or that they couldn’t just stonewall and run out the clock until they got a president more in line with their opinion on what supreme court justices should act like (and this truly is a substantial shift, as made obvious by the fact that republicans were gearing up to fight for another four years, should Hillary Clinton win). It was just taken as a given norm - that the president gets to select supreme court nominees, and while congress can say “please not that guy”, they shouldn’t really be able to say, “No, you pick who we want”. Probably something based off the intent of the founding fathers or some irrelevant, non-legally-binding bullshit like that. :rolleyes:
Right. And again, this is a drastic shift in how we do business, and it is extremely harmful. It’s like being the asshole who notices that the Street Fighter tournament you’re in doesn’t ban unplugging controllers - sure, you “win”, but congratulations on ruining the tournament. And if you then turn around and use your position as the winner of the tournament to ensure that you can keep doing it. And this is where the analogy breaks down somewhat.
These norms are, by and large, just as important as the rules when it comes to actually having a functional and successful democracy. Particularly in a democracy like ours, where the rules kinda suck on their own and changing them can be difficult. And counterproductive if there are no norms to back them up - see also: democrats remove filibusters for cabinet positions because republicans were abusing it in obvious ways, and therefore they cannot filibuster blatantly unqualified and incapable cabinet nominees.
Where, in your eyes, are the limits here? Barring Obama from nominating a supreme court justice clearly didn’t do it. How about, just to pull one completely insane example out of a hat, the debt ceiling? Is it, in your eyes, legitimate for the democrats to take a majority in the house of representatives, then refuse to pass a bill raising the debt limit unless their demands are met? There’s no rule saying that one party can’t hold the good faith and credit of the nation hostage unless the other party capitulates and gives them what they want. So why shouldn’t the democrats do that, if they thought they could use this to gain an advantage?
I realize this is a very extreme example, and anyone who considers voting for a politician who took part in or endorsed this kind of insane stunt should probably be sectioned, but there’s no rule against it. Given your logic, we should just be glad it hasn’t happened yet.
:rolleyes:
Of course they would. And they would have a whole slew of reasons why they should.
And the Democrats would call them flip-floppers. And the Dems would have a long list of reasons why McConnell was quite correct when he said the Senate shouldn’t consider a nomination in a President’s last year.
Okay, maybe not that last part. But by golly, the Dems will stick to their principles! A President should/shouldn’t be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice in his last year.
Definitely.
Regards,
Shodan
No, I think that would be several steps too far. I mean it in the sense that they could put young liberals on the court.
Wasn’t it Muhammad Ali who said something like, “If you can do it, it ain’t braggin?”
Justice Ginsburg has a flawed view, in my opinion, of the best role for federal judges to play in a representative democracy like ours . . . but she is a great legal mind, and it’s not egotistical for her to believe that she can do the job better than almost anyone else that might be nominated. I don’t share her philosophy, but I am awed by her analytical prowess and our country will be poorer when she leaves the bench.
I thought of a partial solution to the politicization of SCOTUS and SCOTUS confirmations, but it would require a Constitutional amendment:
SCOTUS nominees must be at least 70 years of age.
This way, filling vacancies wouldn’t be nearly as big of a deal, since they would be much more frequent – every Presidential term would probably get multiple vacancies. And I don’t think it would favor one side or the other. It would only mitigate, rather than eliminate, politicization of the SCOTUS, but I think it might improve things quite a bit.
Any thoughts on this?
Few things motivate the right like the prospect of saving millions of baby lives every year.
In most states it would have little to no effect on their lives. How motivated will California women be that some women in Kansas are being denied access to an abortion? its not like Roe V Wade makes abortion illegal, it just throws it back to the states.