By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead

Hiku said:
Dulfite said:
I wish this thread was focused on other things than it has been, 

I don't know much about the deceased judge, because she's not like a public figure that's been in our lives in some intimate manner, unlike many other deceased people getting threads like this. I can say R.I.P., but there's nothing I can focus on there.
We can have a separate thread for the subject that is the elephant in the room if people want it, but few people, you included, focused on, or said anything of substance regarding her life.

Dulfite said:
but can we all please stop pretending to be ignorant? Both sides want their own justices on the bench. Both sides will say whatever they have to get their way and make the other side bad. Yes, Repuplicans tanked Garland and eliminated the filibuster on SC picks. 

There's a big difference between wanting, and doing. Democrats have not yet been in a position to pull this stunt that the GOP set a precedence for, and until they do, can we please stop pretending that it's 'both sides' here. This is a lifetime appointment with immense legal and political repercussions for the next half century.
When the Democrats do this twice, then we can talk. But chances are they won't, because they want to uphold the image of having morals.

Sure, let's talk doing. FDR, who had more lifetime impact than any other President in history due to his 3 full terms (and then some months), tried to pack the court to get his way more. This is arguably the most famous Democratic President ever, and absolutely the most influential and powerful, and he could not tolerate a Supreme Court ruling against him to the point that he wanted to cheat under some silly notion that the 9 were overworked or too old to make reasoned decisions (notions the people, Congress, and the Court itself rejected).

Trump has had the SC rule in his favor and against him numerous times since taking office. Obamacare survived, despite what he wanted. Abortion rights were not weakened, let alone wiped out, like he wanted. And what did he do? Tweeted out annoyance. He didn't seriously attempt (like FDR) to convince the Republican controlled Senate to approve of expanding the court to get more of his way.

It seems like the majority of the time Republicans lose at the Supreme Court, they are mad but accept the loss, whereas Democrats, when they lose at the Supreme Court, start calling for the expansion of the court. If both sides could just accept when they lose and hope to one day get the court that they desire, rather than trying to destabilize the whole system, we'd be better off.

If the Democrats were to expand the court, then the next time Republicans take back the Senate they would have full reasoning to balance that out by adding proportional to what was lost by the last expansion. And then the pattern would continue, which would eliminate the SC as a check on government and make it more a reflection of the CURRENT powers that be. I want a SC that is mostly comprised of people that were appointed before current administrations. If FDR had his way, the majority of the court would have been his picks by far. We rejected that idea decades ago and we need to reject it again today or the SC will become just as destabilized as the other two branches.



Around the Network
Snesboy said:
Shadow1980 said:
Hopefully this lights a fire under the asses of fence-sitting progressives everywhere and gets them to vote Biden. This is why elections matter. Republicans will never play fair, so we have to beat them at the ballot box.

Democrats are literally burning our cities down over the fact that Democrat populations elect Democrat mayors who appoint Democrat police chiefs who hire Democrat cops that do dumb ass shit like suffocate people by kneeling on their neck. READ: Minnesota

Democrat problems for Democrat states.

Elections matter. Yes they do. Now stop trying to ram National Popular Vote down people's throats.

Republicans don't play fair? They seem to be the only ones protecting the Electoral College.

If Biden wasn't such a trash candidate, we wouldn't have these problems.

If it's a Democrat problem, why do you have such an issue with Democrats wanting to fix Democrat problems?  

>Republicans don't play fair? They seem to be the only ones protecting the Electoral College.

Something about where you live affecting how much your vote counts doesn't seem very fair. 



NightlyPoe said:
the-pi-guy said:

If it's a Democrat problem, why do you have such an issue with Democrats wanting to fix Democrat problems?  

>Republicans don't play fair? They seem to be the only ones protecting the Electoral College.

Something about where you live affecting how much your vote counts doesn't seem very fair. 

Democrats in 2000 and 2016 believed that the electoral college would grant them the victory (remember the "blue wall" anyone?).  In both cases, they would have happily taken the win if the election had turned out differently.

Difference really is that Republicans wouldn't have spent years complaining about it.

Same thing happened with gerrymandering.  For the whole 2nd half of the 20th century it helped Democrats remain the nation's de facto ruling party in Congress and in state legislatures.  The moment that Republicans got the upper hand in it, it became a bad thing.

Yeah I made similar comment in comparing this situation to FDR wanting to pack the court to get his way. When Republicans lose, they accept it and sometimes protest. When Democrats lose, they protest (that's fine), riot (not good), try to kill those that oppose them (horrendous), and call for the abolition of institutions (electoral college) or pack the courts.



Dulfite said:

Sure, let's talk doing.

-Snip-

Sure? I said to not to pretend that it's 'both sides' by listing other issues the other side has done. We'd be here all day.

And I really don't want to get into how the ideologies of the Democrats and the Republicans switched after FDR in this thread. 
The Republicans were the ones that fought to free the slaves during the civil war, and the Democrats fought to keep them and were the the confederate supporters. That's where the racists and KKK members flocked to. 
Today, nazis and confederate loyalists march together in Unite the Right rallies, etc.

And like I said, there's a difference between trying and doing.
It'll be 'both sides' on this particular issue when the Democrats actually block one (or two if the GOP does it again) justices.

We can talk equilibrium on other issues involving the Supreme Court or otherwise, but I think that's better left for another thread.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 September 2020

NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said:

Republicans blocked Obama's pick 7 months before an election, but will fill a seat 2 months before an election.

Mitch McConnell and co never had any beliefs to betray. This behavior is consistent with their immoral naked pursuit of power.

If so, then Democrats have demonstrated that same immoral naked pursuit.  As previously posted, both Biden and Schumer have signaled that they would block a Republican nominee in the last year of a presidency.  In Schumer's case, last two years of a presidency.

Your only objection is that the shoe ended up on the other foot.

No my objection is that the GOP did this in the first place. It makes the DNC feel the need to do the same thing.
And what happens when it's 1-1 in blocked Supreme Court nominees, and the chance for another appears? Do they take the 'high road' and pretend to have morals to uphold and presume the GOP won't do this again when they next get the chance? No, they'll probably feel compelled to do it again, because the GOP showed that they'd try it again even if it the situation is the complete opposite of what they originally said.

If it becomes a back and forth a few decades from now, I probably wouldn't even be talking about it.
But the fact that the GOP are still the only party that have been in position to do this ever since, is unfortunately now the main issue. That's how low the bar is.

NightlyPoe said:

Out of curiosity, if Republicans had started the Trump administration by abolishing the filibuster for legislation, would you have objected?  Now after answering that, will you object when Democrats do make a push to abolish the filibuster should they win? I believe that the liberal side's morals and outrage are subject to and dictated by which side is using their power.  Republicans actually tend to be the ones that follow the Democrat playbook after they've established the new rules.

If and when that came to be, I'd make sure to feel more qualified to answer the question than I am now.

And I'm a progressive, not a liberal.
You have a bad habit of going out of your way to make things personal, and making presumptions about forum members you don't know.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 September 2020

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
the-pi-guy said:

If it's a Democrat problem, why do you have such an issue with Democrats wanting to fix Democrat problems?  

>Republicans don't play fair? They seem to be the only ones protecting the Electoral College.

Something about where you live affecting how much your vote counts doesn't seem very fair. 

Democrats in 2000 and 2016 believed that the electoral college would grant them the victory (remember the "blue wall" anyone?).  In both cases, they would have happily taken the win if the election had turned out differently.

Difference really is that Republicans wouldn't have spent years complaining about it.

This is kind of nonsense...

In both 2000 and 2016, some Democrats believed that the Electoral College AND the popular vote would grant them victory. Especially in 2016, there has not been any reasonable expectation that the Democrats would win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote. Yes, democrats would have taken an electoral win in 2016, however, they would have done so with strong popular support, so what point are you trying to make?

And it is hilarious that you honestly think that Republicans wouldn't have spent years complaining about winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college. Trump won and he has still spent years complaining about the election...



Shadow1980 said:
Hopefully this lights a fire under the asses of fence-sitting progressives everywhere and gets them to vote Biden. This is why elections matter. Republicans will never play fair, so we have to beat them at the ballot box.
Shadow1980 said: 
Hopefully this lights a fire under the asses of fence-sitting progressives everywhere and gets them to vote Biden. This is why elections matter. Republicans will never play fair, so we have to beat them at the ballot box.

I’m independent, and it just baffles me how many people think one side is either all good or all evil. Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. All each side wants is power. The fact that you suggest Republicans are the only ones who don’t “play fair” is coo-coo.

I’ve got plenty of criticisms of Trump, but no president in history, including Trump, has gone without doing a single positive thing. But even when he’s done something positive, Dems and the liberal media (which is approx 95%?) find a negative spin every single time. And the same happens with Fox News when a Dem president is in. The great majority of politicians and media are pathetically corrupt and biased, and they’ll play unfairly as much as they’re able to get away with. 

Last edited by pitzy272 - on 19 September 2020

NightlyPoe said:
the-pi-guy said:

If it's a Democrat problem, why do you have such an issue with Democrats wanting to fix Democrat problems?  

>Republicans don't play fair? They seem to be the only ones protecting the Electoral College.

Something about where you live affecting how much your vote counts doesn't seem very fair. 

Democrats in 2000 and 2016 believed that the electoral college would grant them the victory (remember the "blue wall" anyone?).  In both cases, they would have happily taken the win if the election had turned out differently.

Difference really is that Republicans wouldn't have spent years complaining about it.

Same thing happened with gerrymandering.  For the whole 2nd half of the 20th century it helped Democrats remain the nation's de facto ruling party in Congress and in state legislatures.  The moment that Republicans got the upper hand in it, it became a bad thing.

Having plans to work in the system isn't the same as being for the system. 

In 2009 after winning the EC, some Democrats had put up proposals to get rid of the EC despite just winning it.  

>Difference really is that Republicans wouldn't have spent years complaining about it.

Trump literally won the EC and he's still complaining it was rigged. 



NightlyPoe said:

I'm pointing out that the GOP may have done it first, but the Democrats had already made it clear that they would do exactly what the Republicans did if they had a chance.  So, what would you have Republicans do?  Wait until Democrats break do what they said they would do before playing by the rules as laid out?

"Block a nominee in the last year of a presidency" and "appoint a nominee in the last year of a presidency" is not the same thing.

They said they would do the former, because at the time, the GOP had not yet said that they all of a sudden no longer believe in blocking a nominee during an election year.

But let's presume they expected this from the GOP and intended to do both. And they probably did.
If there's no turning back, then the main issue is that the GOP are so far the only ones to have done this. And we don't know when, if ever in our lifetime, the Democrats may be able to do this to 'even things out' once. Let alone twice.

If they also blatantly lie about believing in blocking a nominee during an election year, and then the opposite the next time, people can call them out on it. While they may also be less worried about only the other side gaining an unfair advantage in this manner for this extremely important issue.

So until people feel that the score is somewhat evened out for this particularly scummy move, they will of course complain more.

NightlyPoe said:

Democrats aren't made because Republicans broke this rule.  Democrats are mad because Republicans took the opportunity to do it first.

I don't necessarily disagree there. But as far as immoral political players go, there are other underlying reasons for why I'm singling out people like Mitch McConnell. But I digress.

NightlyPoe:

It was a fairly simple question.  If, as is likely to happen if they sweep, Democrats were to nuke the filibuster for legislation, would it have been okay for Republicans to do the same 8 years ago when they had full control of Congress and couldn't get things passed through a blocked up Senate and passed whatever right wing agenda they wished?

I don't think it's simple because I don't know how long it would likely remain removed in that case, or if I prefer it to be gone long term or not, because I don't know enough about how it has and can be used in positive or negative ways in various other situations.

NightlyPoe:

In the United States, the two are synonyms for those with leftist beliefs.  Liberals just switched the lingo to progressive in the early 21st century after a successful effort in the 90s on conservatives' part to make the liberal label negative in the public mind.

First of all, in the United States, universal healthcare is considered 'radical left/socialism', while someone like Bernie Sanders is barely left of center here, and Universal Healthcare exists in every developed country and is not up for debate no matter if you're left or right.

Secondly, a progressive to me in America is someone that doesn't take big corporate donations. Or rather, that's the base qualification.
Otherwise I'd not place my trust in them to uphold what they say. Not that such a person couldn't possibly betray people's trust anyway, but I find them extremely likely to do so otherwise.

NightlyPoe:

I don't believe I've made it personal.  I'm merely stating that the anger on the subject is transitory based on which side gets the advantage.  And the idea that Republicans are uniquely shattering of these norms has no merit.  Particularly on the subject of judicial nominations where Democrats have been traditionally, by far, the more aggressive party on this front.

Suggesting hypocrisy (and for no particular reason) is making it personal. It wasn't based on anything I said, but on liberals. As is starting a discussion by pointing out how you think the other person is imploring wishful thinking when you know little to nothing about them. It's pretty unnecessary, and only prompts them to respond in kind.
You've now gone several posts without acknowledging how bad this is. Instead focusing on 'the Democrats would have done the same thing', which is backhandedly excusing this action right now.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 September 2020

NightlyPoe said:

And you also forget 2016 to a lesser extent.  There were times when the polls tightened and Democrats very much consoled themselves with the blue wall giving them an advantage in case Trump managed to eek out a popular vote win. 

Fell free to find data to support that information (or more importantly, a Democrat saying that it was both likely and that they supported the EC). 538 actually projected out the likelihood of Trump winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college and it was never a likely scenario. Even when the race was at its tightest (according to polls) on July 28th (RCP had Trump ahead by about 1 point at this time), Trump had a 1.3% chance of winning the popular but losing the EC (compared to 5.8% from Clinton). The final forecast gave Clinton a 10.5% chance compared to Trump's 0.5% chance. The electoral college fairly heavily benefits Republicans at this point in time. 

While you might be able to find "the occasional talking head" making a weak argument that the EC benefited Clinton, this was far from common or widely believed, and even if it was, it is unlikely that this would be widely accepted as a pretext for keeping the EC.

I personally support switching to a popular vote system, regardless of which party the EC benefits. That simply shouldn't be how a democracy is run.