|
|
Post by ganews on Jul 5, 2018 22:21:50 GMT -5
Got to say, I'm a big fan of a federal jobs guarantee, and I'm happy to see Gillibrand out n front on this. I consider it far more workable than a universal basic income, more politically praticable, and more in line with US culture like it or not.
The major argument against UBI would be "what, pay people to do nothing??" which is going to resonate with a lot of people. The arguments against a jobs guarantee are basically the same as the arguments we already have, i.e. big gubmint and minimum wage. Of course you can set a nice floor for the guarantee that acts as a UBI. Also we've already had the New Deal once. Also what is a 2020 name for "____ Deal"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hachiman on Jul 6, 2018 2:47:00 GMT -5
Got to say, I'm a big fan of a federal jobs guarantee, and I'm happy to see Gillibrand out n front on this. I consider it far more workable than a universal basic income, more politically praticable, and more in line with US culture like it or not. The major argument against UBI would be "what, pay people to do nothing??" which is going to resonate with a lot of people. The arguments against a jobs guarantee are basically the same as the arguments we already have, i.e. big gubmint and minimum wage. Of course you can set a nice floor for the guarantee that acts as a UBI. Also we've already had the New Deal once. Also what is a 2020 name for "____ Deal"? Better Deal |
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Jul 6, 2018 20:47:32 GMT -5
You know, when it's laid out like this, the parallels are ridiculous:
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jul 11, 2018 20:34:21 GMT -5
Let us all congratulate ourselves that, while occasionally contentious, our various political threads don't devolve into useless trolling so bad that moderators have to Say Stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Aug 18, 2018 2:56:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Aug 18, 2018 17:47:03 GMT -5
FT headline:
Kofi Annan, UN leader in difficult times, 1938-2018
‘Secular monk’ stung by failures in Rwanda and Bosnia who never stopped working for peace
He was ‘stung’ by the genocide of which the clear, direct forewarning he received, he disregarded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Aug 18, 2018 23:00:58 GMT -5
“Tributes poured in from around the world for Kofi Annan, the first sub-Saharan African to lead the United Nations, whose work revitalising the organisation and putting human rights at the core of its mission was recognised with a Nobel peace prize.
In a rare moment of unity, leaders around the globe and across the spectrum, from Tony Blair to Vladimir Putin, remembered his charisma, commitment and diplomatic gifts.“
This enough to raise one’s suspicions very high, if nothing more of his ignominious career were known.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Aug 27, 2018 19:05:58 GMT -5
|
|
Crash Test Dumbass
AV Clubber 
ffc what now
Posts: 7,058
Gender (additional): mostly snacks
|
Post by Crash Test Dumbass on Aug 28, 2018 13:04:21 GMT -5
It really bothers me when people are so blinded by partisanship that they can't see that people who disagree with me on political issues are idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Aug 30, 2018 23:04:07 GMT -5
"She was in a position to do something," UN human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein told the BBC. "She could have stayed quiet - or even better, she could have resigned."
Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, as it happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Lucan on Sept 1, 2018 22:25:06 GMT -5
Really abysmal.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Sept 7, 2018 22:34:19 GMT -5
Every person online who regularly talks about the evils of capitalism and corporations (no argument here) seems to be gloating over Nike's profits/stock/orders numbers since the Kaepernick ad and the ridiculous protests against it. And there is something to be said for a corporation supporting a righteous cause, profit motive or not. I have seen precisely one commenter remind people about their exploitive labor practices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hachiman on Sept 9, 2018 19:59:22 GMT -5
This is a good article on race in Japan in light of Naomi Osaka's win at the US Open. Like many of the people referenced in the article, I am torn on this. As a multiracial foreigner in Japan (who is also partially of Japanese descent) raising mixed-race children here, I do see things getting slightly better for the kids. On the other hand, the country is still notoriously close-minded with matters regarding race, immigration, and interracial relationships which conflict with its desire to present itself to the world as modern and international. Its also odd because Naomi Osaka has spent most of her life in the US precisely because of this, but the Japanese media is now happy to claim her as one of theirs. This also gives Japan a chance to crow about its athletes competing on the global level while, as usual, ignoring that those athletes all have to go abroad since the training methods, coaching, and facilities in Japan is so poor. So I am happy for this girl but unhappy on the general state of Japan and how this kinds of news gives the establishment here another reason to say "you see, things are fine just the way they are! We have international sports superstars (who live and train outside Japan) and are very international (although we still wouldn't want our kids marrying foreigners and children from such relationships generally do better abroad)." As an aside, Japan still doesn't allow dual-citizenship (blood purity and all that), but children of international marriages are given a limited-time exception since citizenship is often assigned at birth by the foreign parent's country and she is now at the age where she is legally required to choose one citizenship and give up the other. So she has to be in the weird position of either abandoning the citizenship of the country she was raised in or the country where she is an icon and that happily claims her since she is good PR but where she would have a had time making a career outside of sports. Oddly enough, there is no way to really enforce this law or check if someone has given up their citizenship so many dual-citizens here just keep their mouth shut and go on with their lives, but it would be harder for Ms. Osaka since she has such a high profile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Sept 9, 2018 20:46:27 GMT -5
Every person online who regularly talks about the evils of capitalism and corporations (no argument here) seems to be gloating over Nike's profits/stock/orders numbers since the Kaepernick ad and the ridiculous protests against it. And there is something to be said for a corporation supporting a righteous cause, profit motive or not. I have seen precisely one commenter remind people about their exploitive labor practices. Yeah, it's really weird and even a little infuriating. I too enjoy the mockery of racist scumbags boycotting Nike for entirely the wrong reasons and who don't even know how boycotts work, but yeah, it's kind of dismaying how many people on the left (not just liberals but also socialists) seem to be entirely cool with Nike co-opting a movement for its own financial gain, when many of those same people are normally so wary or outright dismissive (and rightfully so) of corporations trying to paint themselves as the good guys. I've no doubt that Kaepernick's beliefs are entirely genuine and he's still one of the more admirable professional athletes out there, but Nike is running the ad entirely because they assumed they would profit off of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Sept 9, 2018 21:14:13 GMT -5
This is a good article on race in Japan in light of Naomi Osaka's win at the US Open. Like many of the people referenced in the article, I am torn on this. As a multiracial foreigner in Japan (who is also partially of Japanese descent) raising mixed-race children here, I do see things getting slightly better for the kids. On the other hand, the country is still notoriously close-minded with matters regarding race, immigration, and interracial relationships which conflict with its desire to present itself to the world as modern and international. Its also odd because Naomi Osaka has spent most of her life in the US precisely because of this, but the Japanese media is now happy to claim her as one of theirs. This also gives Japan a chance to crow about its athletes competing on the global level while, as usual, ignoring that those athletes all have to go abroad since the training methods, coaching, and facilities in Japan is so poor. So I am happy for this girl but unhappy on the general state of Japan and how this kinds of news gives the establishment here another reason to say "you see, things are fine just the way they are! We have international sports superstars (who live and train outside Japan) and are very international (although we still wouldn't want our kids marrying foreigners and children from such relationships generally do better abroad)." As an aside, Japan still doesn't allow dual-citizenship (blood purity and all that), but children of international marriages are given a limited-time exception since citizenship is often assigned at birth by the foreign parent's country and she is now at the age where she is legally required to choose one citizenship and give up the other. So she has to be in the weird position of either abandoning the citizenship of the country she was raised in or the country where she is an icon and that happily claims her since she is good PR but where she would have a had time making a career outside of sports. Oddly enough, there is no way to really enforce this law or check if someone has given up their citizenship so many dual-citizens here just keep their mouth shut and go on with their lives, but it would be harder for Ms. Osaka since she has such a high profile. This sounds very similar to what happens in Korea, where mixed raced people are foreigners until they do something important on the world stage. Hines Ward got turned into a minor celebrity here after being named the MVP of the Super Bowl a few years back in spite football not being a sport anyone in Korea actually cares about. His mom actually called out the nation of Korea for the fact that she basically had to raise him in America due to racism against him as a child in Korea only for him now to be celebrated due to being good at something the nation wanted to take credit for. As for the dual citizenship has the aging population in Japan not gotten bad enough for the government to ease up on that? The birthrates are so low in Korea that they started allowing dual citizenship for mixed raced children just to attempt to slow the sprint towards becoming an aged society. Up until I think 2010 though it was kind of the same, once a child became an adult they had to pick which citizenship they wanted to keep. There are some caveats for people who become dual citizens here (I don't think they can run for political office and men can't use their foreign citizenship to avoid mandatory military service) but otherwise they're happy to have young people who will pay taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by Hachiman on Sept 10, 2018 0:01:41 GMT -5
This sounds very similar to what happens in Korea, where mixed raced people are foreigners until they do something important on the world stage. Hines Ward got turned into a minor celebrity here after being named the MVP of the Super Bowl a few years back in spite football not being a sport anyone in Korea actually cares about. His mom actually called out the nation of Korea for the fact that she basically had to raise him in America due to racism against him as a child in Korea only for him now to be celebrated due to being good at something the nation wanted to take credit for. As for the dual citizenship has the aging population in Japan not gotten bad enough for the government to ease up on that? The birthrates are so low in Korea that they started allowing dual citizenship for mixed raced children just to attempt to slow the sprint towards becoming an aged society. Up until I think 2010 though it was kind of the same, once a child became an adult they had to pick which citizenship they wanted to keep. There are some caveats for people who become dual citizens here (I don't think they can run for political office and men can't use their foreign citizenship to avoid mandatory military service) but otherwise they're happy to have young people who will pay taxes. Yes, its definitely another area where Japan and Korea are more alike than they are different. Good luck convincing them of that, but there it is. The dual-citizenship issue is occasionally raised, but progress in Japan is slower than molasses. Korea's approach to democracy is revolutionary by comparison. The population issue? They don't have any real plans to address the actual causes. I've come to the conclusion that while ancient Japan produced a lot of pretty things, modern Japanese society is basically at an evolutionary dead-end unless something really big comes along to shake things up. Until such a change, the population and economy will just keep declining until the country is once again back to being a very stable backwater good for not much more than taking a nice vacation. Kind of like an Asian version of Greece that, you know, actually has it together. All the while, they will point at people like Naomi Osaka, who I just heard on the news was praised by a reporter for having a "Japanese heart," as signs that they are still relevant. Seriously, you can really feel the media straining to claim this one as a win for Japan in anything other than a record book. |
|
dＬᵒ
Prolific Poster 
𝓐𝓻𝓮 𝓦𝓮 𝓒𝓸𝓸𝓵 𝓨𝓮𝓽?
Posts: 4,533 
|
Post by dＬᵒ on Sept 10, 2018 11:05:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Sept 11, 2018 14:36:06 GMT -5
Ramble time:
The poor don't vote because they feel they aren't represented. Politicians are less likely to represent the interests of the poor because they don't vote, and because the rich make campaign contributions (which are effective at getting votes). Leaving aside the very real issues of opponent voter suppression and un-democratic vote apportionment, how do you break this cycle?
The GOP found an extremely effective method in bringing in the Dixiecrats and solidifying over 50 years as the party of white supremacy, able to represent the interests of a substantial portion of the poor (racism) without spending a dime more than necessary to blow the dog whistle (or regular whistle).
Best I can figure is automatic registration and postage-paid mail-in voting. How's that going in Washington state? It still requires a modicum of effort, and it seems like half the world can't remember to pay a bill on time even if they have the money. One of the most important things I have learned about organizing things that people aren't paid to participate in is that you can't force people to care, which makes me somewhat wary of mandatory voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Sept 18, 2018 13:55:37 GMT -5
Ramble time: The poor don't vote because they feel they aren't represented. Politicians are less likely to represent the interests of the poor because they don't vote, and because the rich make campaign contributions (which are effective at getting votes). Leaving aside the very real issues of opponent voter suppression and un-democratic vote apportionment, how do you break this cycle? The GOP found an extremely effective method in bringing in the Dixiecrats and solidifying over 50 years as the party of white supremacy, able to represent the interests of a substantial portion of the poor (racism) without spending a dime more than necessary to blow the dog whistle (or regular whistle). Best I can figure is automatic registration and postage-paid mail-in voting. How's that going in Washington state? It still requires a modicum of effort, and it seems like half the world can't remember to pay a bill on time even if they have the money. One of the most important things I have learned about organizing things that people aren't paid to participate in is that you can't force people to care, which makes me somewhat wary of mandatory voting. You could also make election day a holiday like in South Korea. That would definitely increase the number of poor people voting. Edit: Just thought of another measure to increase the number of poor people voting - make sure current and former convicts have the vote. It would probably be easier to organize voting in a prison as well. |
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Sept 18, 2018 17:58:30 GMT -5
Ramble time: The poor don't vote because they feel they aren't represented. Politicians are less likely to represent the interests of the poor because they don't vote, and because the rich make campaign contributions (which are effective at getting votes). Leaving aside the very real issues of opponent voter suppression and un-democratic vote apportionment, how do you break this cycle? The GOP found an extremely effective method in bringing in the Dixiecrats and solidifying over 50 years as the party of white supremacy, able to represent the interests of a substantial portion of the poor (racism) without spending a dime more than necessary to blow the dog whistle (or regular whistle). Best I can figure is automatic registration and postage-paid mail-in voting. How's that going in Washington state? It still requires a modicum of effort, and it seems like half the world can't remember to pay a bill on time even if they have the money. One of the most important things I have learned about organizing things that people aren't paid to participate in is that you can't force people to care, which makes me somewhat wary of mandatory voting. You could also make election day a holiday like in South Korea. That would definitely increase the number of poor people voting. Edit: Just thought of another measure to increase the number of poor people voting - make sure current and former convicts have the vote. It would probably be easier to organize voting in a prison as well. In the US it would have to be an absolute sacred holiday on the order of Christmas, like it would have to be illegal to have a business open or something else to prevent employers from getting people to come to work. And therefore it would have to be a paid work holiday for everybody, except lots of people don't get paid holidays. And you still couldn't stop people from using it as any holiday - no time to vote, got to get to the barbecue.
There is a big movement to restore voting rights to released felons, and rightly so. That's under state control though.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Oct 8, 2018 19:08:50 GMT -5
I'm not spiritually opposed to court-packing (although it needs a better name than that pejorative holdover from the 30s) if that's what it takes to keep the US from rolling back to the nineteenth century. There's not much sense worrying that the Republicans will just take it further their next chance, because the time of norms is dead. But it will accelerate the Court's slide into irrelevance, and I think we actually do need a court in this roll.
Assuming that the current SCOTUS composition is static until the next majority, I prefer the idea that Democrats pass legislation to instill something like 16-year term limits that immediately retire all lifetime judicial positions including Appeals. Or set up some sort of initial staggered retirement system that ultimately results in an equal number of positions going out in an election year. For SCOTUS, that immediately retires RBG, Breyer, and Thomas to be replaced with liberal justices in a youthful 5-4 majority. I feel this would do a better job of preserving the Court as a legitimate institution, plus the added advantage of term limits that really ought to exist in any event. We shouldn't have to risk another senile justice or let the fate of a nation hang on the tired breaths of an old stalwart. So maybe then the Republicans try their own packing scheme down the line, but we can't control what they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Oct 8, 2018 20:06:48 GMT -5
I'm not spiritually opposed to court-packing (although it needs a better name than that pejorative holdover from the 30s) if that's what it takes to keep the US from rolling back to the nineteenth century. There's not much sense worrying that the Republicans will just take it further their next chance, because the time of norms is dead. But it will accelerate the Court's slide into irrelevance, and I think we actually do need a court in this roll.
Assuming that the current SCOTUS composition is static until the next majority, I prefer the idea that Democrats pass legislation to instill something like 16-year term limits that immediately retire all lifetime judicial positions including Appeals. Or set up some sort of initial staggered retirement system that ultimately results in an equal number of positions going out in an election year. For SCOTUS, that immediately retires RBG, Breyer, and Thomas to be replaced with liberal justices in a youthful 5-4 majority. I feel this would do a better job of preserving the Court as a legitimate institution, plus the added advantage of term limits that really ought to exist in any event. We shouldn't have to risk another senile justice or let the fate of a nation hang on the tired breaths of an old stalwart. So maybe then the Republicans try their own packing scheme down the line, but we can't control what they do.
Isn't there a US politics thread for this? Did it get too nuts in there? |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Oct 8, 2018 20:14:15 GMT -5
I'm not spiritually opposed to court-packing (although it needs a better name than that pejorative holdover from the 30s) if that's what it takes to keep the US from rolling back to the nineteenth century. There's not much sense worrying that the Republicans will just take it further their next chance, because the time of norms is dead. But it will accelerate the Court's slide into irrelevance, and I think we actually do need a court in this roll.
Assuming that the current SCOTUS composition is static until the next majority, I prefer the idea that Democrats pass legislation to instill something like 16-year term limits that immediately retire all lifetime judicial positions including Appeals. Or set up some sort of initial staggered retirement system that ultimately results in an equal number of positions going out in an election year. For SCOTUS, that immediately retires RBG, Breyer, and Thomas to be replaced with liberal justices in a youthful 5-4 majority. I feel this would do a better job of preserving the Court as a legitimate institution, plus the added advantage of term limits that really ought to exist in any event. We shouldn't have to risk another senile justice or let the fate of a nation hang on the tired breaths of an old stalwart. So maybe then the Republicans try their own packing scheme down the line, but we can't control what they do.
Agreed on the need for a name-change with court-packing; it's definitely a pejorative term. I like your specific term limit solution as well, although it may require a Constitutional Amendment, which would be pretty difficult to accomplish. However, the language of Article III regarding the tenure of federal judges is quite vague: It may therefore be possible to argue that one could interpret that the Constitution to permit term limits on federal judges since it doesn't explicitly say anything about term limits not being allowed, as it only stipulates "good Behavior" as a condition for their continued occupancy of their position. However, this would likely require Congress to pass the legislation, then retire RBG, Breyer, and Thomas, and then appoint three new justices who all get confirmed before a 4-2 conservative-majority SCOTUS can rule the law unconstitutional (although of course, time would almost certainly be of the essence in a court-packing scheme as well, for similar reasons). I'm in favor of either of these measures if the opportunity presents itself. Neither is ideal, and neither may ultimately be feasible, but I think one thing that even some sincere critics of these tactics tend to fail to address is the fact that if something isn't done, the Court may well have a 5-4 conservative majority for a very long time. Provided Republicans win another Presidential election in 2020, 2024, 2028, or 2032, and have control of the Senate during said President's term, it may well be possible for them to maintain their advantage, replace Alito, Roberts, and Thomas with judges even younger than Gorsuch, without even needing to replace a liberal Justice with a conservative one. And if SCOTUS maintains a 5-4 conservative majority for 15 years or more, it's going to prove considerably difficult to pass progressive federal legislation in this country. One thing that I think Democrats and those to the left of Democrats need to do, even if it won't be sufficient in and of itself to solve the problem, is to start hammering home the point that the Supreme Court has enjoyed a conservative majority since the 1970s, during which time Democrats have won the electoral vote in five elections and the popular vote in two more, and to continually denounce this as being deeply undemocratic (of course, there are other ways in which American politics are deeply undemocratic, but referring to the Supreme Court as such need not exclude one from calling for changes to other anti-democratic features in our politics). Conservatives have been able to take a handful of liberal victories stretching back to Roe v. Wade and disingenuously argue that the Court has been overrun by leftist "activist" judges, and much centrist and even liberal discourse around the Court has greatly overvalued the presence of Justices who have occasionally served as swing votes (like Anthony Kennedy). The time has come to do away with the notion that a balanced Court is a good thing, and to do away with the notion that the court has been particularly "balanced" in the first place over the last 40 years. Because until it is a nearly universally held opinion by people left of center in this country that the Supreme Court's decades of conservative hegemony have been unjust and that it is intolerable to wait perhaps 40 more years to end it through Democratic appointments, then it is questionable whether court-packing or term limits for federal judges would ever gain enough popular support for Congress to even attempt such measures. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Oct 8, 2018 20:19:09 GMT -5
I'm not spiritually opposed to court-packing (although it needs a better name than that pejorative holdover from the 30s) if that's what it takes to keep the US from rolling back to the nineteenth century. There's not much sense worrying that the Republicans will just take it further their next chance, because the time of norms is dead. But it will accelerate the Court's slide into irrelevance, and I think we actually do need a court in this roll.
Assuming that the current SCOTUS composition is static until the next majority, I prefer the idea that Democrats pass legislation to instill something like 16-year term limits that immediately retire all lifetime judicial positions including Appeals. Or set up some sort of initial staggered retirement system that ultimately results in an equal number of positions going out in an election year. For SCOTUS, that immediately retires RBG, Breyer, and Thomas to be replaced with liberal justices in a youthful 5-4 majority. I feel this would do a better job of preserving the Court as a legitimate institution, plus the added advantage of term limits that really ought to exist in any event. We shouldn't have to risk another senile justice or let the fate of a nation hang on the tired breaths of an old stalwart. So maybe then the Republicans try their own packing scheme down the line, but we can't control what they do.
Isn't there a US politics thread for this? Did it get too nuts in there? Sort of. Although there's also some precedent for this thread being a place for discussion of policy ideas and vague musings about potential solutions to structural issues even in US politics. Would it help if, for the duration of this General Politics thread conversation about SCOTUS, everyone who engaged in the discussion appended "And also, I think Doug Ford is bad," to the end of every comment, because I would definitely do that, and in fact I'd probably be willing to do that at the end of basically every post I make on this site. And also, I think Doug Ford is bad. |
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Oct 8, 2018 21:36:53 GMT -5
I'm not spiritually opposed to court-packing (although it needs a better name than that pejorative holdover from the 30s) if that's what it takes to keep the US from rolling back to the nineteenth century. There's not much sense worrying that the Republicans will just take it further their next chance, because the time of norms is dead. But it will accelerate the Court's slide into irrelevance, and I think we actually do need a court in this roll.
Assuming that the current SCOTUS composition is static until the next majority, I prefer the idea that Democrats pass legislation to instill something like 16-year term limits that immediately retire all lifetime judicial positions including Appeals. Or set up some sort of initial staggered retirement system that ultimately results in an equal number of positions going out in an election year. For SCOTUS, that immediately retires RBG, Breyer, and Thomas to be replaced with liberal justices in a youthful 5-4 majority. I feel this would do a better job of preserving the Court as a legitimate institution, plus the added advantage of term limits that really ought to exist in any event. We shouldn't have to risk another senile justice or let the fate of a nation hang on the tired breaths of an old stalwart. So maybe then the Republicans try their own packing scheme down the line, but we can't control what they do.
Isn't there a US politics thread for this? Did it get too nuts in there? This thread has long existed for the discussion of ideas about politics of any flavor or country, and it's here on the main board so people who aren't over the threshold can participate. Whereas the US Politics thread on the TMI board tends to cover day-to-day outrages and also showing one's ass to long-time forumites. But there's no law sez I can't show my ass here too! Ahem, metaphorically... |
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Oct 10, 2018 13:36:22 GMT -5
Isn't there a US politics thread for this? Did it get too nuts in there? This thread has long existed for the discussion of ideas about politics of any flavor or country, and it's here on the main board so people who aren't over the threshold can participate. Whereas the US Politics thread on the TMI board tends to cover day-to-day outrages and also showing one's ass to long-time forumites. But there's no law sez I can't show my ass here too! Ahem, metaphorically... Well, if we're to link this issue to politics in general, I think we have to acknowledge that this is yet another example of American exceptionalism. This article compares the US system of Supreme Court appointments to that for other countries and concludes that all the drama is an American thing. This goes into further detail and basically it's saying that the main issue is not that appointments are political, since of course law and politics go together, but rather that US Supreme Court appointments are unusually partisan, where the composition of the court has become just another battleground for electoral politics. I had no idea that there were essentially pipelines to funnel Democrat and Republican law students from law school to jobs as judges and lawyers and then to further appointments in their careers. This system appears to be too deeply entrenched to be easily changed, so as with many things in US politics, things will be getting worse before they get better, if ever. |
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Oct 10, 2018 14:55:02 GMT -5
This thread has long existed for the discussion of ideas about politics of any flavor or country, and it's here on the main board so people who aren't over the threshold can participate. Whereas the US Politics thread on the TMI board tends to cover day-to-day outrages and also showing one's ass to long-time forumites. But there's no law sez I can't show my ass here too! Ahem, metaphorically... Well, if we're to link this issue to politics in general, I think we have to acknowledge that this is yet another example of American exceptionalism. This article compares the US system of Supreme Court appointments to that for other countries and concludes that all the drama is an American thing. This goes into further detail and basically it's saying that the main issue is not that appointments are political, since of course law and politics go together, but rather that US Supreme Court appointments are unusually partisan, where the composition of the court has become just another battleground for electoral politics. I had no idea that there were essentially pipelines to funnel Democrat and Republican law students from law school to jobs as judges and lawyers and then to further appointments in their careers. This system appears to be too deeply entrenched to be easily changed, so as with many things in US politics, things will be getting worse before they get better, if ever. Democrats have pipelines to get young liberals into position? From what I read, it seems that elite law schools have such mechanisms to maintain their status as elite, but there is no party devotion. Practically any grad will jump at the chance to clerk for practically any SCOTUS justice. I don't know of any left equivalent to the Federalist Society, which was formed specifically in response to a couple of Reagan appointees turning out to be more liberal than intended.
to take the first article point-by-point: 1. The U.S. Supreme Court itself is unusually high-profile This is essentially because of significant mid-20th century SCOTUS decisions that the Republicans have been fighting ever since. If those things had been changed legislatively, the profile would not be so great. When Congress could not out-legislate, Republicans started promoting the importance of the Court, something Democrats were slow to catch on to. Going farther back, it's an accident of history rather than American exceptionalism. SCOTUS had to assert its power, it was not designed this way.
2. The selection process for the U.S. Supreme Court appears unusually political I am in no hurry to adopt a German behind-closed-doors selection system, thanks. It's bad enough when we can see it. Making a process "apolitical" or non-partisan does not inherently make it better, and I estimate that in practice it would lead to actual both-sides-do-it practices.
3. There are no term limits on the U.S. Supreme Court It's another accident of history that we still using rules from when court justices did not live long enough to sit on SCOTUS for a generation, and it needs changing legislatively.
4. U.S. Supreme Court justices hold more power than most of their foreign counterparts The cited example here are again systems with less transparency, which I do not consider a good thing. Contra the the British example, having a written constitution is largely immaterial other than the bullshit "originalism" fig leaf for Conservatives in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Oct 10, 2018 18:46:43 GMT -5
This thread has long existed for the discussion of ideas about politics of any flavor or country, and it's here on the main board so people who aren't over the threshold can participate. Whereas the US Politics thread on the TMI board tends to cover day-to-day outrages and also showing one's ass to long-time forumites. But there's no law sez I can't show my ass here too! Ahem, metaphorically... Well, if we're to link this issue to politics in general, I think we have to acknowledge that this is yet another example of American exceptionalism. This article compares the US system of Supreme Court appointments to that for other countries and concludes that all the drama is an American thing. This goes into further detail and basically it's saying that the main issue is not that appointments are political, since of course law and politics go together, but rather that US Supreme Court appointments are unusually partisan, where the composition of the court has become just another battleground for electoral politics. I had no idea that there were essentially pipelines to funnel Democrat and Republican law students from law school to jobs as judges and lawyers and then to further appointments in their careers. This system appears to be too deeply entrenched to be easily changed, so as with many things in US politics, things will be getting worse before they get better, if ever. Actually, the whole track to become a SCOTUS Justice really starts before law school. Consider that Georgetown Prep was attended by both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 11:19:09 GMT -5
When you call a psychotic despot who's murdered several members of his own family a "progressive reformer"
|
|
dＬᵒ
Prolific Poster
𝓐𝓻𝓮 𝓦𝓮 𝓒𝓸𝓸𝓵 𝓨𝓮𝓽?
Posts: 4,533
|
Post by dＬᵒ on Oct 16, 2018 22:43:24 GMT -5
www.ktnv.com/news/nevada-brothel-owner-dennis-hof-has-diedI am continually dry-heave belly laughing not because I wished ill-will on this man* but just the sheer timing of it. This is like straight out of VEEP or maybe The Thick of It. [To explain: brothel owner gets in fight with government over regulation and gets shut down, Hof stylizes himself after trump and runs in the Repub primary and wins in a landslide, also apparently was looking good in the polls. Then to quote the article ""Longtime friend and adult film star Ron Jeremy found Hof after he went to his room around 11 a.m. to wake him for a scheduled lunch at the Pahrump Senior Center. ""] *he did seem like a bit of a putz tho /edit: Joe Arpaio was involved in his campaign, that nails it. //edit: here is his birthday party invite, and it kinda sounds like four days of partying got to him. Also his was the brothel where Lamar Odom did some substance and went into a coma, which kicked off the investigation that got the brothel shut down. 
|
|
