DNC Restructuring

**Greatguardian** · 2018-10-14 13:49

Originally Posted by Fiye

Obama 2010-2016 says hello.

Sure let me just draft this executive order banning private healthcare and replacing it with a tax-funded public alternative.

In all seriousness, Obama vastly expanded Executive power during his tenure in ways that I highly doubt would pass muster through the courts in 2020 (and probably shouldn't have in 2016). The executive and judicial branches have very specific roles and just because the workhorse branch of government is a total clusterfuck doesn't mean we're all better served by continuously delegating its powers elsewhere.

**Fiye** · 2018-10-14 13:52

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

Sure let me just draft this executive order banning private healthcare and replacing it with a tax-funded public alternative.

If you think that's what bernie is going to end up doing you're delusional

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

In all seriousness, Obama vastly expanded Executive power during his tenure in ways that I highly doubt would pass muster through the courts in 2020 (and probably shouldn't have in 2016). The executive and judicial branches have very specific roles and just because the workhorse branch of government is a total clusterfuck doesn't mean we're all better served by continuously delegating its powers elsewhere.

And with a conservative 5-4 court how much do you think of any democratic legislature is going to pass through?

**Greatguardian** · 2018-10-14 13:58

Originally Posted by Fiye

If you think that's what bernie is going to end up doing you're delusional

And with a conservative 5-4 court how much do you think of any democratic legislature is going to pass through?

These are both dumb takes and I'm going to elaborate just a little bit on why they're dumb takes.

#1, the first part of my post was obviously sarcasm. The point being that most of Bernie's bigly policy goals are completely outside the realm of even Obama's vastly expanded Executive powers.

#2, That's not how courts work. Stopping an executive order with an injunction is easy, especially when they're on shaky legal footing to begin with. Stopping legislation passed by Congress is not easy. Parties must have standing to file a suit, which means they must have already been tangibly negatively impacted by the legislation (no hypothetical damages). Parties must also work their way up through the court system; you can't just walk into SCOTUS and plead your case. This part takes years on its own.

Most well-designed legislation intentionally spaces itself out so that it doesn't take effect all at once and - more importantly - people who might be negatively impacted by it aren't actually impacted until at least a couple years after the legislation had passed. This gives the country at least several years to come to terms with the legislation (or change/repeal it) before it has a possibility of being reviewed by SCOTUS.

**Fiye** · 2018-10-14 14:06

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

#2, That's not how courts work. Stopping an executive order with an injunction is easy, especially when they're on shaky legal footing to begin with. Stopping legislation passed by Congress is not easy. Parties must have standing to file a suit, which means they must have already been tangibly negatively impacted by the legislation (no hypothetical damages). Parties must also work their way up through the court system; you can't just walk into SCOTUS and plead your case. This part takes years on its own.

Most well-designed legislation intentionally spaces itself out so that it doesn't take effect all at once and - more importantly - people who might be negatively impacted by it aren't actually impacted until at least a couple years after the legislation had passed. This gives the country at least several years to come to terms with the legislation (or change/repeal it) before it has a possibility of being reviewed by SCOTUS.

And you legitimately don't believe right wing think tanks don't have lawyers ready to take this to court and get it through to the SCOTUS ala the Affordable Care Act?

**Greatguardian** · 2018-10-14 14:26

Originally Posted by Fiye

And you legitimately don't believe right wing think tanks don't have lawyers ready to take this to court and get it through to the SCOTUS ala the Affordable Care Act?

The ACA survived SCOTUS scrutiny on the back of Chief Justice of the United States of America John Glover Roberts Jr., a W appointee.

That process also took years to get through the courts. That's the point. Any similar attempt will take the same. If it's good legislation, people's lives will get better and the public will to change it just won't be there

**Fiye** · 2018-10-14 14:37

I'm sure Scalia, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito will have differing opinions.

Who knows maybe RBG will drop dead and we'll have a 5th for sure no vote on the ACA.

Or maybe the democrats will craft such a fine artisinal law that even the most stalwart of tea party conservatives will bow down in its majesty.

**Greatguardian** · 2018-10-14 14:41

Alito was a Bush appointee. He ruled on the ACA the first time. The only roster changes are Scalia>Gorsuch and Kennedy>Kavanaugh. That's no net change in the court's composition unless you count Kennedy's gay marriage vote as "sometimes liberal". Kennedy is also the man who gave us Citizens United.

I'm going to stop arguing this point now because you're not even trying to address the original post/points and are just dragging us off into tangent land.

**Fiye** · 2018-10-14 14:42

And you're delusional if you think the SCOTUS is gonna rule on the merits of the law only.

**Byrthnoth** · 2018-10-14 15:11

He is right that the Supreme Court has been a conservative majority political body for my adult life, though.

The question is just about how shameless the people on the court are.

**Greatguardian** · 2018-10-14 15:47

Originally Posted by Byrthnoth

He is right that the Supreme Court has been a conservative majority political body for my adult life, though.

The question is just about how shameless the people on the court are.

That's precisely the point, though. Ignoring for a moment the fact that it will absolutely take several years for a challenge to any single piece of legislation to work its way through the courts to SCOTUS, every single member of that panel has an ego the size of the Empire State building.

Roberts saved the ACA in large part because he understood the fragility of his legacy as the first SCOTUS appointee of a president whose own election was questioned and decided by that body. He cut the ACA a lot of slack and came through where it counted because he wanted people to remember him as more than just an R on the court.

Kennedy instantaneously enfranchising every homosexual in the country was a similar bout of ego at the end of the day. Kennedy is an extremely well traveled man, and he cares deeply about how he is viewed abroad. The US lagging so far behind similarly developed countries on gay marriage was a personal issue for him - it made him look bad. So he fixed it.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have their own sets of baggage to unpack (Garland, Ford). While Kavanaugh may have spent his life as a Republican operative, the fact is he's on the court now. He's there for life. The Republican party can't offer him anything any more. He's gonna be looking out for number one from here on and step one of that is going to be repairing his public image.

These are absolutely conservative jurists so I'm not holding my breath or anything, but it is 100% in their own self interest to dispel the notion that they're just faceless R's on the court. I imagine they'll take full advantage of whatever hypothetical high profile Democratic legislation heads their way to do it.

**Zetanio** · 2018-10-14 15:49

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

That's precisely the point, though. Ignoring for a moment the fact that it will absolutely take several years for a challenge to any single piece of legislation to work its way through the courts to SCOTUS, every single member of that panel has an ego the size of the Empire State building.

Roberts saved the ACA in large part because he understood the fragility of his legacy as the first SCOTUS appointee of a president whose own election was questioned and decided by that body. He cut the ACA a lot of slack and came through where it counted because he wanted people to remember him as more than just an R on the court.

Kennedy instantaneously enfranchising every homosexual in the country was a similar bout of ego at the end of the day. Kennedy is an extremely well traveled man, and he cares deeply about how he is viewed abroad. The US lagging so far behind similarly developed countries on gay marriage was a personal issue for him - it made him look bad. So he fixed it.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have their own sets of baggage to unpack (Garland, Ford). While Kavanaugh may have soent his life as a Republican operative, the fact is he's on the court now. He's there for life. The Republican party can't offer him anything now. He's gonna be looking out for number one from here on and step one of that is going to be repairing his public image.

These are absolutely conservative jurists so I'm not holding my breath or anything, but it is 100% in their own self interest to dispel the notion that they're just faceless R's on the court. I imagine they'll take full advantage of whatever hypothetical high profile Democratic legislation heads their way to do it.

I like this take.

**Byrthnoth** · 2018-10-14 16:07

I do not think you are right that the Republican establishment has no carrots left for Kavanaugh. Someone like that isn't doing it for the seat on the Supreme Court where he gets to set legal precedent. He is not a serious legal scholar and probably does not care about his reputation or legacy in that community. Maybe Gors, but not him.

He is doing it for the high fives and knowing nods at the yacht club. Being a good partisan hack is his highest calling.

**Gredival** · 2018-10-14 16:26

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have their own sets of baggage to unpack (Garland, Ford). While Kavanaugh may have spent his life as a Republican operative, the fact is he's on the court now. He's there for life. The Republican party can't offer him anything any more. He's gonna be looking out for number one from here on and step one of that is going to be repairing his public image.

These are absolutely conservative jurists so I'm not holding my breath or anything, but it is 100% in their own self interest to dispel the notion that they're just faceless R's on the court. I imagine they'll take full advantage of whatever hypothetical high profile Democratic legislation heads their way to do it.

What he wants for his public image is based not only what people think about him but who thinks what about him. If the people he associates with most hate abortion, he has the most to gain by repealing Roe. If he is friends with many wealthy people that like to use their money to influence politics, he has the most to gain by keeping Citizens United around. Etc.

I have seen nothing that makes me think Kavanaugh would be like Stevens (Ford) or Souter (Bush 41) where something beyond politics would guide his decisions.

**Fiye** · 2018-10-15 14:22

Warren took a DNA test to prove her native american ancestry. I think she's running.

https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/s...61713589432320

**Greatguardian** · 2018-10-15 15:40

Originally Posted by Byrthnoth

He is doing it for the high fives and knowing nods at the yacht club. Being a good partisan hack is his highest calling.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I feel like coming into a position like that changes people. He may not have cared about his legacy last week, but pretty soon he's going to realize that he will be a part of the history books whether he likes it or not.

Originally Posted by Gredival

What he wants for his public image is based not only what people think about him but who thinks what about him. If the people he associates with most hate abortion, he has the most to gain by repealing Roe. If he is friends with many wealthy people that like to use their money to influence politics, he has the most to gain by keeping Citizens United around. Etc.

I have seen nothing that makes me think Kavanaugh would be like Stevens (Ford) or Souter (Bush 41) where something beyond politics would guide his decisions.

As above, I honestly think the weight of the history books will end up having a strong influence on anyone on the court. Reality has a well established liberal bias. Politicians in the present may be able to get away with memeing their way to victory but history isn't written by popular (or electoral) vote.

I don't think any JotUS wants to be remembered as a crony.

**Byrthnoth** · 2018-10-15 21:14

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I feel like coming into a position like that changes people. He may not have cared about his legacy last week, but pretty soon he's going to realize that he will be a part of the history books whether he likes it or not.

You're so optimistic, lol.

I went to a private high school filled with old money guys like Brett and know the type. He's a yacht boi, and not one who found something else to be when he grew up. Everything about him screams it.

**Gredival** · 2018-10-15 22:23

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

I don't think any JotUS wants to be remembered as a crony.

I think in their minds to the people that matter they will be remembered as heroes. Case in point are Scalia and Rhenquist.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk