bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

He's under no obligation to care about or implement the wishes of the United States, but at least don't be so dishonorable as to take their money and weapons.

Ummm...you may want to review "Christianity", the Bible is profoundly violent and disturbing.

Literally, the point of Chevron was that we cannot expect legislators to be as knowledgeable as the experts working at specific agencies. So allow the agencies leeway to act within the scope of the grant authorized by Congress. If Congress sees an overstep, then they can rein in that authority. I would love to hear a well-reasoned argument on why this should be disturbed.

Although, I know it will be overturned and well-reasoned won't be part of the decision.

Computer programs exist that can draw legitimate districts. Lawsuits can challenge districts, and if found to be based on race or political affiliation they can be removed. Bad faith actors will forever be a problem though.

I like the German electoral system, they vote for individual candidates and then a party. The candidates get seated first, and then additional members from the party's ticket are added to create the proportion of representation that each party received.

No gerrymandering and no two party system, win-win!

Huge pet peeve here, but it's counsel not council.

I'm arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed.

Having an open mind that can be changed if provided with sufficient evidence is fantastic, something we should all strive for.

That being said, I don't think it is necessarily needed for a debate. If you're in a formally structured debate I would hope that you have fully considered all aspects, the pros and the cons. During the debate they should be making their points and critiquing the opposing viewpoint. Changing their mind would, in my opinion, be a disservice to the audience.

I was speaking about debates more broadly, not just political debates but also scholarly debates. I don't think the participants changing their minds would be a virtue.

Easy enough, let's make political gerrymandering unconstitutional, as it always should have been. Politicians should not be choosing their voters, that's 180° backwards.

Perhaps sway the audience, but I've never seen a debate where the participants ever changed their mind. Debates are about showcasing ideas and then seeing if those ideas stand up to the critiques of your opponent.

Honestly, if a participant ever changed their mind during a debate, I'd think they were a poor representative of that idea. By the time you're on stage at a formal debate you should have already thoroughly considered your opinion from every angle.

Not necessarily. If they withdraw by motion, then certainly, but if successor counsel is in place they usually don't need to.

They didn't want to pick a fight with Republicans in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland because they figured Clinton would just do it after winning in 2016.

What would that fight have looked like? Many prominent Dems spoke out against it. So what actions should have been taken. Could they have seated Garland somehow? Please stop with ambiguous statements like "fight".

In 2020 they once again sat idly by and allowed Trump to nominate ACB just 3 weeks before the election because they didn't want to make waves.

Many Dems again spoke out, pointing out the hypocrisy of not following their own "rule". So again, what actions should they have taken? Could they have done something to stop ACB?

I don't get how people keep trying to claim Dems don't have the power to do anything...

Well, rather than being incredulous, maybe you could explain what Dems could have done, specifically of course.

...while ignoring the fact that Republicans manage to pass their draconian bullshit in spite of Democratic opposition nearly every time. How come it only seems to work in one direction?

Again, specifics would be helpful. But the Dems have stopped many Republican bills. But there are several differences. There's a lot more Republican gerrymandering, so it's easier for them to take the House. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, with representation being based on land and not people. California has as much representation in the Senate as Wyoming.

Additionally, Republicans don't care if government functions. Their narrative is improved if government doesn't work. They also govern for the fabulously wealthy and corporations, both of which will survive fine if the government doesn't function.

Lastly, most of the Republicans most draconian legislation is passed at the state level or the result of SCOTUS decisions.

Not deny Obama his appointment at the end of the term while allowing Trump to do that exact thing at the end of his term which is how they got a SCOTUS majority in the first place.

Except the Dems didn't do any of that. Do you have a method they could have employed to stop it? How is really the important part of the question.

And then saying there was nothing to do.

Bare minimum we should have taken action when they stole Obama's pick.

I'm complaining about decades of inaction

None of this addresses the question, do what? If the Republicans hold the White House or either branch of Congress there is nothing that can be done; at least no proactively, which leaves obstruction.

But that wouldn't change anything, so what actions could they have taken and how? It's really easy to say "do something" as long as it's not on you to say what should be done and how it should be accomplished.

The Senate refused to confirm Garland, how do you seat a Supreme Court justice without the advice and consent of the Senate? Congress even refused to take a recess to block Obama's ability to make recess appointments. The Republicans would leave a member behind to open and then adjourn.

So the question remains, do what? If you don't have an answer then stop repeating that they should have done the thing that you can't even think of.

I don't want this conversation twice. Just asking a follow up question to your comment. Since this response has no substance, I'll assume your other response is better and engage there.

One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it's broken.

Why are you "both sides"-ing this? One party is exploiting the flaws of the system...full stop. The system is flawed, one side doesn't want it to work, and the other doesn't have the numbers to change the system.

I don't think the Dems will try to do anything about it, because then they'd have to admit they stood by and let the system get this corrupted.

As opposed to doing what? Roadmap it for me, what should the Dems have done?

We lost federal abortion protection and they went "aww shucks, oh well".

What would you like the Dems to do, and how should they accomplish your goal? Right now it just seems like you're blaming the wrong people.

bad faith judiciary

This is what we certainly have now, given the recent decisions that are based on facts that are somewhere between cherry picked and outright false. Laws and precedent don't, and won't, matter if they're acting in bad faith.

but I question whether the current SCOTUS wouldn't overturn a national abortion protection on States Rights grounds, finding some reason to disqualify the Commerce Clause from being applicable.

They definitely would. And if the Commerce clause is where Congress finds its grant of authority, they wouldn't be wrong. That's why it bothers me every time someone laments that Dems should have passed a law, as if SCOTUS wouldn't have struck that too.

Are you honestly suggesting that the bus companies might be unaware of what they're doing? That seems preposterous to me. Greg Abbott isn't walking up to the ticket window purchasing two tickets to NYC, these busses are specifically chartered for this purpose.