SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) III: Abandoning 90 Years of Precedent

[Zealot]

Which part were you confused with? The part where I said you are just making excuses for junior congresswomen? The part where I said their protest and police response were a stunt? The part where the democratic party has failed to protect it's voters in the first place? That's all rather understandable.

How about the part where all of this has already been addressed and you are diametrically opposed to understanding?

There is nothing they could do that you would not call posturing, there is no basic explanation of political reality that you would not call an excuse. You are more determined to rage against the establishment than you are to comprehending what legislators are and are not capable of. You haven't said jack shit that's understandable because you're directing ire at people who I promise you are on your side because they align with a party that hasn't caught up to them yet.

You are the absolute worst example of the left, a person more interested in applying blanket statements to the entire Democratic establishment than you are with actually fighting the GOP.

[Zealot]

You all need to either strike the word "performative" from your collective vocabularies or get a fucking clue about what politics is all about.

All politics are performative. In a system of democratically-elected representatives, the entire basis of accomplishing anything is making an issue resonate with voters. The GOP are tremendous at this.

I have not once seen anyone here call out Lauren Boebert or her ilk for their public gun-humping or every GOP figure who calls for increasingly strict abortion regulation or criminal penalties because you have it in your heads that they must be 100% sincere, but the people aligned with you are making it up and just giving you lip service. Meanwhile they get everything they want because they successfully rile their voter base into getting to the polls and I guarantee you not one of them actually gives a shit. They are simply engaged in a race to the bottom against any potential challenges from more moderate elements of the party to be the person with the most extreme stance on an issue. You can watch insincerity and performance on display every time a GOP politician gives a speech on the House floor or appears on Fox News.

Is going to a protest and getting arrested performative? 100% it is, but that is the whole fucking point. Politics is performance, performance is successful when you have engaged with your audience and motivated them. Spicy is the single worst kind of audience member, the kind who engages the material in bad faith and refuses to even consider that their interpretation of things is debatable.

[Spicyryan]

The problem is human psychology doesn't work that way. People will unilaterally blame Democrats for not fighting for their rights when the issue is voters just don't show up when they need to. They become apathetic and just expect representatives to act on autopilot.

It's important to have elected officials that are willing to right, but it's as futile an argument as asking for a war without arming the troops.

So when voters show up, and the Democrats had a super majority, and still failed to fight for their rights. Was it the voters fault?
If they had a super majority again today, do you really believe that it be be any different? Where is the leadership on Abortion from the heads of the party beyond words?
The democrats couldn't get actual criminal justice reform passed beyond a choke hold even with full control. You should drop the "people didn't show up" trope.

[Yabby]

When was the last time the Dem's had a super majority in the house and senate?

[Kaslo]

When was the last time the Dem's had a super majority in the house and senate?

And the Presidency

[Lokus]

2009 and that only lasted 72 days according to the Wiki.

[Kaslo]

2009 and that only lasted 72 days according to the Wiki.

And relied on Arlen Specter changing parties. Before that it was Carter's first year.

[Spicyryan]

Yup, and they couldn't even get a public option passed with it. Instead the ACA is a solid ramshackle of a metaphor for the party. So let's not pretend the issue is just that not enough democrats are being elected to fix the very problem they are a part of.

Point is, we need to stop seeing the solution to the problem of the SCOTUS or abortion or gay rights or any of the above as something voting Democrat fixes.

[Krandor]

Also worth noting just because someone is a democratic politician doesn't mean they're pro choice.

[Kaslo]

Also worth noting just because someone is a democratic politician doesn't mean they're pro choice.

What are you talking about? All Democrats must be the exact same.

[Zealot]

The people you are upset with were teenagers in 2009.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Day]

and still acting like one in 2022 smh

[Spicyryan]

The people you are upset with were teenagers in 2009.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

Yet the party hasn't really changed since then. Hmmm..

[Yabby]

Yup, and they couldn't even get a public option passed with it. Instead the ACA is a solid ramshackle of a metaphor for the party. So let's not pretend the issue is just that not enough democrats are being elected to fix the very problem they are a part of.

Point is, we need to stop seeing the solution to the problem of the SCOTUS or abortion or gay rights or any of the above as something voting Democrat fixes.

So, what should we be doing? How should we be voting?

[synistar]

Point is, we need to stop seeing the solution to the problem of the SCOTUS or abortion or gay rights or any of the above as something voting Democrat fixes.

Because writing and passing federal laws tends to be a solution to not have the SCOTUS slap it down unless it's blatantly unconstitutional. But you believe whatever you want to about how government works.

[Krandor]

It's blatantly clear they have no idea how government actually functions

[Spicyryan]

So, what should we be doing? How should we be voting?

Basic needs like understanding basic history in this country or material analysis of the political situation. As well as being on the same planet as others around you in your understanding by having conversations is important first. In other words, education.
How else can people improve their lives if they don't know that rent control is a horrible lack of a solution to rising rents, that water usage needs to be addressed, or that depression era subsides need to be changed? Have to know what to ask for, and that involves discussion.

Otherwise, we need the forming of cooperatives in the workplace and collaboration with other organized labor. In order to address the concerns of the average American and then apply pressure to local elected officials via the heads of such cooperatives. Individual voters hold little power regardless that 70% just "showed up".
Registering as No Party Preference or any third party you believe in. This doesn't stop you from voting Democrat come the main election of you wish, but removes your affiliation. It sends a message that they their corporate backed platform does not meet the needs of their voter base.
Not just paying attention to politicians every 4 years, etc.

Above all, I would like to see people exposed to political ideas outside of their Thanksgiving table or Facebook. In fact no one should watch CNN, NBC, Fox, etc and generate them revenue. Otherwise, we are at square one before even arguing over voting for which person has the best ideas for ways to use tax revenue.

Because writing and passing federal laws tends to be a solution to not have the SCOTUS slap it down unless it's blatantly unconstitutional. But you believe whatever you want to about how government works.

They are but one branch of government. One branch with a great deal of disproportional power. Think of the terms of representation that 9 judges hold compared to even 100 senators let alone all the Congressional reps. Which form one entire branch. This whole recent session has once again shown the lack of checks and balances on the judiciary.

There is nothing in the constitution saying that the court can't be expanded past 9 judges, and so it should be. Only the president can really take the lead on this, and once again Biden is absent from anything besides a customary appearance or word before nap time. While he waits for the all to blow over and the status quo to be safe. Thus fulfilling his most legendary campaign promise that nothing would change under him.

[Tymon]

Ironically, as long as the threat of the far right exists as legitimate presidential candidates (and it may for a very long time) the chance of a serious progressive Democrat candidate being nominated is near zero. The party will never take the risk. None of the serious 2024 candidates would ever even blink an eye at court expansion.

[Spicyryan]

Court expansion is really reasonable given the representation requirements in the legislative branch and the lack of accountability the judiciary face compared to either other branch. It also takes them off the ballot a bit because it's not this big power struggle over the executive in order to manipulate the makeup of the judiciary.

[Zealot]

This is the voice of a person who is so intent on ideological purity that they have completely forgotten the people they are fighting against.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk