America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,707 comments
- 1,596,254 views
Danoff
Premium
- 33,628
- Mile High City
So I admit, I'm stressing this election.
I think just about everyone is. Maybe most people are used to it. I'm not particularly used to it, I didn't even really stress over the 2016 election. But in case anyone wants to understand what real stress over this election looks like, watch the latest John Oliver youtube clip on Asylum. We have a whole host of people that are waiting to see if they'll be deported back to the countries they are fleeing from depending on who wins this election.
I have a lot riding on this election, but no more than them.
Last edited:
- 2,647
- 2,265
- Michigan
- FuriousDemon
I’m surprised the whole thing about Supreme Court wasn’t talked about much here (or maybe I missed it). It’s 6-3 now. That has potential to have a much longer and even more negative impact than Trump. I guess even if he loses, conservatives should be pleased.
- 23,814
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 29,459
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
D-don't...don't...don't engage him.
andrea
(Banned)
- 5,858
- Japan
- virtualnao
- 2,677
- UK
- Outspacer
Astonishing amounts. For our last general election the Conservatives spent a total of £18.6 million fielding 638 candidates and that was only a little less than they were allowed to spend. Presumably US Elections are now bigger than Christmas for advertising platforms, who seem to be the only real winners from it all.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
People are the fuel and engine of change in society.
Congress is the steering wheel and gas pedal.
The Executive Branch is the driveline, tires and wheels.
The Courts are the brakes.
- 23,814
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
My wife is an author and advertises predominantly on Facebook. During October she, and many of her fellow authors, barely bothered trying to advertise on that platform due to the way adverts are bid for. The political parties plough so much money into it, the chances of anyone who would only bid a few hundred dollars a day getting any coverage is tiny on the run up to the election.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,628
- Mile High City
No, I don't think the Supreme Court has more potential negative impact than Trump. Actually I don't see it being particularly close.
- 23,814
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 29,351
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Yeah, so Barrett got confirmed.
I don't know if it's actually wrong to fill a SC vacancy in an election year, and this one is damn close to voting day, but it definitelty seems like an "okay when we do it, wrong when you do it" sort of thing.
I don't know if it's actually wrong to fill a SC vacancy in an election year, and this one is damn close to voting day, but it definitelty seems like an "okay when we do it, wrong when you do it" sort of thing.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,628
- Mile High City
Yea it's hypocritical.
At the end of Obama's term the senate refused to fulfill their obligations. Their constituency seemed fine with it, but shouldn't have been. It's fairly appalling that they got away with that. This time around they're performing their duties by confirming a supreme court appointment, but they confirmed someone who probably should not have been (just based on her judicial record). So it's a different issue that their constituents should take them to task over. Which many of them won't.
- 29,459
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
That's precisely what it is. Were it not for the events of 2016, into 2017, it wouldn't have occurred to me that a Supreme Court nomination wouldn't get a go at confirmation.
Of course it's totally unsurprising that Pubes like Rubio would go along now after having said it would be no different with one of their nominees "so close to election."
Danoff
Premium
- 33,628
- Mile High City
I think regarding the supreme court situation there is another problem here, which is that s/c appointments are obviously more partisan and sporadic than they should be. We shouldn't have members wondering whether the senate will confirm a new appointment over the next year. It prevents orderly retirement. We should also not have supreme court justices in office until they die. Is this what we think represents competency in the s/c?
We should also not leave ourselves with lots of new appointments during a single term if we can help it, and that kind of thing seems fairly likely if members serve until death. We should also probably not have someone serving 30 years. We should have a bit more flexibility in the courts than that, and it played out badly for intellectual property recently, where the supremes did their best to prevent patent law from functioning by demonstrating that they do not understand modern technology or invention.
I also think it's hilarious that people think that they should get to have a partisan vote for local judges (because it matters whether you're a republican or democrat when you're handling traffic violations), but that the supreme court... the supreme court, which handles real political issues (like gay marriage) should be appointed, not elected. It's the most absurd thing.
That's not to say that the public is prepared to understand whether a judge is qualified. Maaaaybe, but I kinda doubt it. Apparently presidents and congress are not so hot at determining whether a judge is qualified either.
This is why I think term limits make sense for the supremes. We need (more) turnover (not a ton), they need to retire (not die), they should be moved into the court and out of the court in a steady fashion, not all at once, and we need to make their appointment as a-political as possible, which it currently is obviously not.
We should also not leave ourselves with lots of new appointments during a single term if we can help it, and that kind of thing seems fairly likely if members serve until death. We should also probably not have someone serving 30 years. We should have a bit more flexibility in the courts than that, and it played out badly for intellectual property recently, where the supremes did their best to prevent patent law from functioning by demonstrating that they do not understand modern technology or invention.
I also think it's hilarious that people think that they should get to have a partisan vote for local judges (because it matters whether you're a republican or democrat when you're handling traffic violations), but that the supreme court... the supreme court, which handles real political issues (like gay marriage) should be appointed, not elected. It's the most absurd thing.
That's not to say that the public is prepared to understand whether a judge is qualified. Maaaaybe, but I kinda doubt it. Apparently presidents and congress are not so hot at determining whether a judge is qualified either.
This is why I think term limits make sense for the supremes. We need (more) turnover (not a ton), they need to retire (not die), they should be moved into the court and out of the court in a steady fashion, not all at once, and we need to make their appointment as a-political as possible, which it currently is obviously not.
Last edited:
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
To me, they absolutely are the same situation. What changed is how the party in power treated them. Empty SCOTUS seats are to be filled by Presidential appointment. Obama should have filled Scalia's seat, and Trump should have filled RBG's seat. The Constitution says nothing about exceptions for election years, nothing about exceptions for which party holds what office(s).
Yes, the Senate confirms, but in my opinion, that power has become twisted and inflated into a form not at all in line with what the founders intended. I believe the founders meant for it to be used only when needed - unless the President's pick was unqualified, or represented an abuse of power or corruption, then the Senate should not needlessly obstruct the President in exercising their Constitutional duty.
Merrick Garland was none of those things. Several Republicans in Congress are on record as saying he was an excellent judge, and one they would vote to confirm to the bench. The Republicans needlessly obstructed Obama's Constitutional duty, and they shirked their own. It was utterly disgraceful, and an act that I believe has done far more damage to this country than we currently realize.
- 29,351
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Is it not true that there are 9 justices because when Congress finalised the number of justices in the 1860s, there were 9 judicial circuits? Each judge was notionally responsible for one particular circuit.
Given that there are 13 circuits now, the number of SCJs hasn't kept up with the evolution of the circuits themselves. But it's another can of worms altogether.
Given that there are 13 circuits now, the number of SCJs hasn't kept up with the evolution of the circuits themselves. But it's another can of worms altogether.
- 40,650
At this point, I've pretty much decided that if McConnell and Graham want to do whatever they want while talking out of both sides of their mouths about ethics so they can ramrod whatever right wing religious nutjob policy through whatever idiot they can manipulate in the White House to support that they can codify through the courts with whatever partisan hack they can find just out of law school, I've got little problem with Democrats responding in kind for once instead of just whining about it if this election turns into as much of a bloodbath for the GOP as it looks to be shaping up as. Add more justices to the Supreme Court, add more states, ban gerrymandering, eliminate the Electoral College; then play McConnell and Graham's words about Constitutional duties back at them over the intercom in the Capital building if they object. It's laughable to me that they spent over a month doing nothing else but transparently rushing this through considering the state of the country even ignoring the Garland thing; and try as I might I cannot bring myself to find court packing to be as heinous of a response from Democrats as the GOP simply not caring about anything but their ability to find anyone they can shove in to overturn Roe and Obergefell and Obamacare because their limp-wristed attempts at attacking them so far haven't worked for them. And God help us all if this election isn't a massacre against Trump and it somehow gets to the Supreme Court.
I'm certainly concerned about the agenda of the Democrats if they have the Presidency and all of Congress and the Supreme Court; but this "good old days" 1950s crap was weird to me during the Bush administration, and I'm at a loss to understand why people fall in love with it in 2020 for any reasoning that doesn't reflect poorly on the individual espousing it.
I'm certainly concerned about the agenda of the Democrats if they have the Presidency and all of Congress and the Supreme Court; but this "good old days" 1950s crap was weird to me during the Bush administration, and I'm at a loss to understand why people fall in love with it in 2020 for any reasoning that doesn't reflect poorly on the individual espousing it.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,168
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I guess I can sort of, kind of understand where Roe v. Wade comes into play. But under what justification would allow the Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage? Other than moving it to "let the states figure it out" I can't think of a logical reason to ban same-sex marriage without using religion.
It concerns me that these overly religious justices get confirmed. I can't see them being impartial in the slightest on matters that are supported by the religious right. I don't want to be all doom and gloom about her confirmation, but reading about her decisions in previous court cases, I can't see her following her duties.
It concerns me that these overly religious justices get confirmed. I can't see them being impartial in the slightest on matters that are supported by the religious right. I don't want to be all doom and gloom about her confirmation, but reading about her decisions in previous court cases, I can't see her following her duties.
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
This is wishful thinking but in the current system it's up to voters never to vote again for any senator who says one thing about confirming judges in an election year one time then holds the opposite principle in the next election year. If the citizens ask for such senators with their votes then that's who they'll get. I think the result isn't working very well at all but can't see who else is more to blame. People vote for complete hypocrites all around the world. Stop doing that.
- 29,459
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Garland having support across the aisle because of his moderate stance, and the desire for a more staunchly conservative Justice, is precisely why McConnell stifled any attempt at confirmation.
While it didn't explicitly apply due to confirmation being a duty of the Senate, McConnell's efforts were very much in the spirit of the Hastert "majority of the majority" Rule, which unofficially holds (it's not mandated, rather it's a tool in the belt of partisan pols) that the Speaker of the House prevent legislation from hitting the House floor on the basis of it garnering less than majority favor among members of the party that makes up the majority of the House of Representatives. Per the majority of the majority tactic, a vote may be withheld in the House, with its 435 voting members, if, for example, 235 are Republican and 200 are Democrat, and only 100 Republicans are likely to vote in favor of a bill of which all 200 Democrats are likely to vote in favor. Per the Hastert Rule, a vote on this bill that garners 300 of the 218 required to pass simply is not held, and the bill is dead in the water.
It's worth noting that the Hastert Rule is named for Dennis Hastert, a former congressman and Republican Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007, succeeded by Nancy Pelosi, who served a little over a year for deliberately scheduling bank withdrawals so that they would not be subject to reporting as mandated by Federal law, which he did to keep a lid on his paying off victims of child sexual abuse acts he'd perpetrated as a high school wrestling coach. He didn't face prosecution for the acts themselves due to time passed, but he eventually admitted guilt.
Now I've declined to elaborate on the above in the past when I've referred to the Hastert Rule, but having just been forced to spend by far the most time I have in public since social distancing purportedly began in earnest, because it was my desire to fulfill my civic duty and have my voice heard, and because ****-eating Republicans are afraid their position is compromised if voting is made easy, I was sufficiently compelled to do so. **** 'em.
They have a particular focus when it comes to the Constitution, particularly the First Amendme t; their right to free exercise of religion is all important, but they couldn't give two ***** about the Establishment Clause. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, ****-heels.
"Please, Tread On Anyone But Me."
