How Dems take back the supreme Court post Trump. Court packing, and FDR.

Is adding additional justice seats a good idea?

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
VivaRevolution said:
Shock Doctrine time.

Crisis precipitates opportunity.

The Dems shouldn't obstruct. They shouldn't work with them, they should let the GOP's own institutional corruption come to it's logical conclusion.
Click to expand...
That will involve a lot of regular people paying the price though. Nothing Trump, or the Republicans do at this point will be politically costly. Nothing.

Not repealing Roe v. Wade, not nuking the filibuster for legislation, not war with Iran, and not suspended due process for citizens.

The far right is poised to get what they always wanted, an authoritarian oligarchy.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
If Roe vs Wade is overturned, California would quickly pass legislation legalizing abortion in their state. I'd guess 35 or so other states would as well. In fifteen or so states where the majority of the population is anti-abortion, they would pass laws prohibiting abortion in almost all cases except rape and danger to the mother.

Is secession impossible? No. Is it stupid? Yes. The only reason for it would be hurt feelings, because California could easily and without undue turmoil get the exact same result without secession, which is the beauty of our federal framework. It is the abandonment of allowing states to decide how to govern themselves and doing everything top down that has overly focused power in the hands of nine justices.

From drugs, to health care, to abortion, simply let the people of each state decide. A lot less crying over the Anthony Kennedy's of the world that way.
Click to expand...

I would be OK with this. I think we could put the crime rate theory to the test here.

Would love it, if in states where it was banned, crime rates shot up 18 years later, and we could put this debate to bed, and accept that unwanted children are a shit contribution to society.

Einstien isn't coming from a broken home, with parents who don't care, and would have aborted if given the choice. That is where serial killers come from.
 
HomerThompson said:
That will involve a lot of regular people paying the price though. Nothing Trump, or the Republicans do at this point will be politically costly. Nothing.

Not repealing Roe v. Wade, not nuking the filibuster for legislation, not war with Iran, and not suspended due process for citizens.

The far right is poised to get what they always wanted, an authoritarian oligarchy.
Click to expand...

I disagree. For all the talk of being woke, I see a sleeping society.
 
X-Pac Rules said:
And you believe Hillary?
Click to expand...
I believe that— whatever shady business she conducted off the books— her platform was good, and she would have had no choice but to deliver on some of it.

Would she have been crooked? Maybe. But at least unions would have gotten protection, there would have been movement towards reduced college tuition for state schools, and campaign finance regulations of some sort would have been passed.

With Dotard Dump all we get is a hot-shotted economy that’s going to burn out JUST before middle class wages rise appreciably (funny how that always seems to happen).

And a dumb hat.
 
VivaRevolution said:
I think rep or Dem, could argue that campaign finance, and lobbying are a threat to future of this country...
Click to expand...

Agreed, you could build public support for that...

...and build the public support to pack the court, by villifying them for their inaction.
Click to expand...

lcxyE0D.gif
 
VivaRevolution said:
I would be OK with this. I think we could put the crime rate theory to the test here.

Would love it, if in states where it was banned, crime rates shot up 18 years later, and we could put this debate to bed, and accept that unwanted children are a shit contribution to society.

Einstien isn't coming from a broken home, with parents who don't care, and would have aborted if given the choice. That is where serial killers come from.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you would be OK with this. I think the way to live peacefully in a large diverse country is to decentralize more power, which is easy to do constitutionally. I understand how Californians feel threatened by the ignorant seething masses in the Midwest. Most of those Midwesterners feel just as threatened by the perverse and often obtuse Californians. If we could limit the ways in which each interferes with the life and culture of the others, with enumerated powers and Bill of Rights being the bare minimum (and the other Amendments etc), we'd take a lot of tension out of the system.

Forcing California or Oregon to live like Kentucky is tyranny in many cases. And vice versa. And it is unnecessary. The problem comes in when once either party feels even slightly secure at the national level and starts forcing everyone into cookie cutter solutions.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
I'm glad you would be OK with this. I think the way to live peacefully in a large diverse country is to decentralize more power, which is easy to do constitutionally. I understand how Californians feel threatened by the ignorant seething masses in the Midwest. Most of those Midwesterners feel just as threatened by the perverse and often obtuse Californians. If we could limit the ways in which each interferes with the life and culture of the others, with enumerated powers and Bill of Rights being the bare minimum (and the other Amendments etc), we'd take a lot of tension out of the system.

Forcing California or Oregon to live like Kentucky is tyranny in many cases. And vice versa. And it is unnecessary. The problem comes in when once either party feels even slightly secure at the national level and starts forcing everyone into cookie cutter solutions.
Click to expand...

I think it is a crying shame we don't use our states as laboratories of policy testing.
 
luckyshot said:
There is no salvageable system when one side perverts it continuously (computer based gerrymandering, voter suppression, stealing the SCOTUS, dark money... this is the GOP playbook).
Click to expand...

You threw quite a few things out here and I'm not sure it's best to go through it all to stay focused on the thread itself but to retort briefly:
-Gerrymandering has been around long before 2010. What changed was one party realized the cheap investment in winning state legislators. Winning more state legislators would lead to more gerrymandered states for that party. The Democrats are aware of this now and things will even out again. They have a similar gameplan for 2020. What we both should hope for is the courts to intervene (like they did in PA) which is pretty ironic for the thread we are in.
-Voter suppression is broad. If you are talking about ID laws, that is a can of worms that will go on longer than a brief statement and one that I don't have 100% stance on.
-I mentioned the Garland decision above. I don't agree with the move but I understand the argument of Scalia not choosing his time to go. I actually find it interesting Democrats have been obsessed with Russia tilting the election when it far more likely was the GOP letting voters know a supreme court appointment was in the balance. That easily had a material affect on 2016.
-Again, dark money is broad so I'm going to assume you mean Citizen's United from the post you make after. I was skeptical of CU when it first happened but so far the results haven't been damaging the way I thought it would. I think you may be surprised to know some decent left minded posters here see that the same. The long term effect I'm still worried about is it's given more power to larger corporations to maintain control on their industries and stifle smaller rising competition/innovation. Something like that doesn't really play into either parties hand. The larger corps just end up paying both candidates for the same promises cause they don't conflict.

I may have made that less brief than I promised but eh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,154
Messages
55,470,936
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top