this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
336 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3620 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 150 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Vote Biden. Then vote D again in '28, '32, '36, and '40.

Flip the House. Widen the lead in the Senate.

Thomas is 75, Alito is 74, if they don't get replaced between 24 and 28, it's virtually assured they'll be out between 28 and 32.

The problem then becomes the next two oldest justices, Roberts and Sotomayor, so we have to hold the Presidency through probably 2040.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The last time a single party held the presidency for more than 12 years was when FDR won 4 times. Prior to that it was civil war reconstruction.

Keeping the white house from 2020-2040 would be the longest single party streak without one president occupying the office more than 8 years. 3 consecutive Democrats would need to win. Ignoring the Democratic Republican steak at the beginning of the 19th century, because at one point everyone ran as a democratic Republican regardless.

My point is, what's plan b?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 2 months ago (4 children)

My fear is Biden wins in '24, dies in office, we get President Harris, who is the party pick in '28 and she loses terribly because nobody likes her.

If Thomas and Alito make it to '28, they step down to assure a Republican replaces their seats.

So we get Republicans in 28 and 32, maintaining the 6-3 split, then Roberts and Sotomayor are out, eliminating the reliable swing vote (Roberts) and leaving the court with a 7-2 majority.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

100% agree. We need to stop autopicking the next candidate just because they were VP. I don't hate her, but she hasn't done anything to stake a claim for the next seat.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Tbf the vice president has not been the candidate since Al Gore, so I don’t think it can be seen as the default.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What if we dust flyover states with MDMA?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Bold of you to assume that we're not already partying constantly.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

Alright maybe just the suburbs

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Fuck that flyover states. Send me some of that shit. Dust the capital.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

No. MDMA is for real voters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Just to add, if Trump wins, they will certainly step down and Trump will appoint 40-year olds to the SC. Possibly the crazy lady from Florida. Voting Blue is the only thing that will stop this distopia.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I could see him nominating Cannon and Giuliani - sure Rudy would only be on the court until he died but Trump would still appoint the replacement five months later.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yea absolutely, but also off-year elections are important too! We elect the House every 2year, the senate every 6, and there’s tons of local issues on the ballot every year.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Absolutely this. This is why Dems have had control of all 3 houses (house of reps, Senate, presidency) for only 4 years of the last 24 years. Voters don't show up and then GOP gets one of them. We've all seen what happens when it's president and not Senate - the GOP Senate blocked Obama's supreme Court Justice.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

It's so fucking ridiculous that this needs to happen for America to not become a dictator/fascist country. Why the hell do we have to fight so hard to protect our nation's well-being. How come these assholes can attack our country from within constantly for decades without anything happening to them. Ridiculous.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

The nature of democracy not being a system that relies purely on violence for legitimacy (unlike authoritarian forms of government) means that it is a constant forever war against the lapping waves of fascism attempting to slowly erode away our democratic institutions (because we, thankfully, don't just use violence to immediately silence dissidents)

I think an entire generation of people raised in the peace dividend have forgotten this fact, figured that democracy is the natural course of things, ignored its badly needed maintenance, and are swiftly being reminded of it now that the damage is so readily apparent

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because the founders assumed that our rulers would be rational actors. They didn't have a plan for an entire party going bad. "Oh, sure, we'll just add an impeachment clause so nobody has to get assassinated..." (paraphrasing Ben Franklin):

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/american-presidents-can-be-impeached-because-benjamin-franklin-thought-it-was-better-assassination-180961500/

"The Founding Fathers wrote impeachment—originally a Roman political institution—into the constitution for the purpose of removing an official who had “rendered himself obnoxious,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin. Without impeachment, Franklin argued, citizens’ only recourse was assassination, which would leave the political official “not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character.”

But they didn't take the extra step to realize "What happens if that party refuses to impeach? Or indict? Or convict?" Suddenly there is no alternative.

Ideally, there needs to be a process to nullify the entire party, but I have no idea how you'd go about it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

The founders were entirely aware that not only an entire party, but the entire government could become irrational and work against our best interests: that's why we have the second amendment as a backstop and last line of defense against authoritarian rule

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, we fucked.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

pack the court

subpoena them and grill them. Ask Thomas why he didn't recuse himself from cases involving his rich billionaire buddy. THEN implement impeachment proceedings.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And do investigations even if they don't agree to show up. Air the dirty laundry in a six week hearing with witnesses. Subpoena their finances, bring in their patrons. The Supreme Court may questionably be able to just say "no", but that doesn't mean that's the limit of a hearing.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

Exactly. The R's have shown how this works plenty of times. And more importantly the public has a right to know. So yeah. And you can subpoena the judge, and if he does not want to show his tax returns, subpoena the IRS. The justice can either come and provide context, or we do it for you.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 53 points 2 months ago

I'll save you a click. It's paragraphs and paragraphs laying out the reasons someone should do something and then flight-of-fancy dreaming about impeachment, which will never happen.

So, effectively, the answer to their rhetorical question is: "nothing, but I really wanted you to click on this article."

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Shatter their kneecaps? Oh wait, I mean "vote". I always get those two mixed up.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I hate having that awkward conversation after confusing the two

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

My neice is an actress and before a performance I always tell her I hopes she shatters her kneecaps... you know, for luck

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Both! Do both!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Just replace OP with "corrupt supreme Court justices"

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago

pack the goddamn court you cowardly libs.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The question is not what Democrats can do, but who saw this coming and what Democrats could have done for the last two decades. All of us who are old enough and were paying attention know what the answer to that is, and we know that the situation now is one that veteran Democrat lawmakers happily embraced.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I have been receiving texts asking me to confirm that I am going to vote for Biden. They often include a link to some online form where you pinkie swear to vote for him (and have to give up your personal info so they can email you endlessly for fundraising, while sharing your info with every single politician who also pays them for access to their mailing list). These are usually conducted by volunteers - they sign up for various organizations that don’t really tell them the depth of the data collection scheme. (Why volunteers? Enough spam reports for a single number get it blocked by a carrier or deny access to services. And automated systems/new phone numbers cost money.)

I always respond with “You do not need my email to know that I have not decided if the Democratic Party has earned my vote for their candidate.” (Which is true. I think Biden has done no more wrong than any other president, and has done better than most others in recent memory, but the Democratic Party is… disappointing. I will vote for him, but I won’t feel good that my vote benefits the Democratic Party.)

Side note: I use a wireless keyboard that can switch devices. Most of my workday phone typing is done from a full sized keyboard. It’s glorious.

Yesterday one texted back, trying a second time. They received a response so long it takes three screens to scroll through.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power. You don’t need a constitutional amendment. You don’t need to pass a law. And you don’t need to appoint any judges. This is a completely reasonable position that also reflects the kind of power top courts have in other countries.

  • Matt Bruenig

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/09/20/what-exactly-is-the-liberal-position-on-the-supreme-court/

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (11 children)

I think it's not that simple. In other countries, there is no written constitution or the constitution is merely aspirational, like our Declaration of Independence.

In the US, the Constitution is considered legally binding. The 13th Amendment doesn't discourage slavery, it prohibits it. And if you think the Constitution should be legally binding, then Marbury is inescapable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (22 children)

In other countries, there is no written constitution or the constitution is merely aspirational

What specific country are you referring to? It's hard to find one without a constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions

the Constitution is considered legally binding

I don't believe anyone is disputing that the constitution is a legal document. Is that what you think Marbury is about?

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Court Packing has been on the table for a while. Also, state prosecution is possible, if the judges are breaking state laws.

Nobody is going to try and do anything, because American politicians are generally fine with reactionaries running the courts. But they could do something if they wanted to.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Since they are lifetime appointments, does that mean they don't loose it if they get convicted of a crime? Could we see Trump and Thomas both in prison serving as president and SCOTUS judge?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I would think he’d need to be impeached and removed, yeah

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Supermajority in Congress could do that, if people took the midterms seriously.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Did the supreme court rule on if the president could use seal team 6 to kill people?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Supreme Court judge behavior has the danger of being influential, why should we expect small time judges to have ethics and objectivity then? This kinda stuff trickles down

load more comments
view more: next ›