2020 US General Election Thread VIII: Cs, Ds, and Es

[Washington Resistance Army]

Trump met with Barrett at the White House. It looks like they have the votes and it looks like it's gonna be her, she'll probably be on the bench in a week or two knowing McConnell.

I know you disagree, but that's a poor political judgment call from where I'm sitting. Trump chances to win this thing and keep the senate aren't great, but if they merely dangle Barrett, that might actually move some votes back to him that were either going to sit on their hands or vote for someone else due to the pandemic. Especially since y'all still have a 5-4 advantage built in for at least 15 years.

The 5-4 split effectively doesn't exist for the actually important issues. Roberts won't touch guns or any other culture war issue, Barrett (or whoever gets the nod) getting the seat here and now is effectively the only chance at actually getting answers on these things before 2040.

[Ngelmish]

I know you disagree, but that's a poor political judgment call from where I'm sitting. Trump chances to win this thing and keep the senate aren't great, but if they merely dangle Barrett, that might actually move some votes back to him that were either going to sit on their hands or vote for someone else due to the pandemic. Especially since y'all still have a 5-4 advantage built in for at least 15 years.



Yeah, court expansion is the wrong power play. If the Democrats want to play majoritarian hardball, they incorporate new states.

They arent going to just dangle her. They are determined to get her on the court as soon as possible.

How does incorporating new states help them when in comes to the courts?

Probably not, but they'd be politically smart to do so. If they still want to ram her through and they lose the election, there's always the lame duck.

If Democrats want to exercise majority power, they have to do something about the fact that the senate is a lot harder for them to win than it is the GOP. New states could give them a durable working majority. Admittedly, this doesn't directly address the court. But, if they want to eventually expand it (I think investigating conflict of interest claims and impeachment is a smarter route to go), they need the public to be behind the idea that the court is behaving irresponsibly. The best way to build public support for altering a reactionary court is to let it be reactionary in public first.

[Ngelmish]

I know you disagree, but that's a poor political judgment call from where I'm sitting. Trump chances to win this thing and keep the senate aren't great, but if they merely dangle Barrett, that might actually move some votes back to him that were either going to sit on their hands or vote for someone else due to the pandemic. Especially since y'all still have a 5-4 advantage built in for at least 15 years.

The 5-4 split effectively doesn't exist for the actually important issues. Roberts won't touch guns or any other culture war issue, Barrett (or whoever gets the nod) getting the seat here and now is effectively the only chance at actually getting answers on these things before 2040.

Well I know that guns in particular is your thing, but I don't think that's entirely true. Roberts pretty clearly is willing to touch abortion, provided that he be given a better route than "re-decide this case that literally went the other way one term ago because there's a new Republican appointee on the court!" As one example.

[Zurkerx]

Gardner will not oppose a trump nominee.

Well he just doomed himself for reelection.

I don't see why he would care: he was doomed anyway. Not to mention, since he is going to lose anyway, what does he have to lose by confirming Trump's nominee? Nothing. Republicans will sacrifice their majority in the Senate in order to have a 6-3 Court. I suspect the likes of Tillis and McSally will do the same thing once the election is done as well if they lose.

and they will cause a democratic mega tsunami. The public is not with them on this. Democrats will expand the court come January,

I'll give Biden one thing, at least he's smart enough to see how atrocious and poorly thought out an idea that is.

Indeed, especially when Republicans will one either add more seats or two, when a couple seats open up, fill them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The 5-4 split effectively doesn't exist for the actually important issues. Roberts won't touch guns or any other culture war issue, Barrett (or whoever gets the nod) getting the seat here and now is effectively the only chance at actually getting answers on these things before 2040.

Well I know that guns in particular is your thing, but I don't think that's entirely true. Roberts pretty clearly is willing to touch abortion, provided that he be given a better route than "re-decide this case that literally went the other way one term ago because there's a new Republican appointee on the court!" As one example.

Especially with the Biden campaign saying it's gonna use the NFA to force confiscation yeah I'd like to have Barrett, or frankly anyone from the GOP's list, on the bench for that. In the ideal world the new court lineup would slaughter the Dems so heavily on it they never touch dumbass topics like it again and instead run solely on things like the economy, the environment, healthcare etc etc.

[South Odreria 2]

Well I know that guns in particular is your thing, but I don't think that's entirely true. Roberts pretty clearly is willing to touch abortion, provided that he be given a better route than "re-decide this case that literally went the other way one term ago because there's a new Republican appointee on the court!" As one example.

Especially with the Biden administration saying it's gonna use the NFA to force confiscation yeah I'd like to have Barrett, or frankly anyone from the GOP's list, on the bench for that. In the ideal world the new court lineup would slaughter the Dems so heavily on it they never touch dumbass topics like it again and instead run solely on things like the economy, the environment, healthcare etc etc.

Yeah that would be kinda nice

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Call me crazy, but I don't think the president should have the power to appoint people to the supreme court.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Call me crazy, but I don't think the president should have the power to appointment people to the supreme court.

I really like the idea people have thrown around of an apolitical committee of, like, the ABA or something recommending people that the Senate then votes on.

Of course that would require an amendment and lol good luck

[Bienenhalde]

Again, Republicans like Jeb Bush are good.
Republicans like Mitch McConnel are bad.

If you support someone who wan't to make it harder for people, strip them of much needed benefits, which leads to increased urban problems, then to riots; that's up to you.
But you should never follow someone simply because they are in a particular party. It is an individual's actions and merits that should be judged and criticised.

Jeb is pretty much the worst kind of Republican though.

Jeb isn't as based as Mutti Merkel, but is still much better than Trump.

[The Rich Port]

Call me crazy, but I don't think the president should have the power to appointment people to the supreme court.

I really like the idea people have thrown around of an apolitical committee of, like, the ABA or something recommending people that the Senate then votes on.

Of course that would require an amendment and lol good luck

Not very authoritarian of you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nMm7S8 ... SethMeyers

Never expect the Republican Party to have shame

[Ngelmish]

Well I know that guns in particular is your thing, but I don't think that's entirely true. Roberts pretty clearly is willing to touch abortion, provided that he be given a better route than "re-decide this case that literally went the other way one term ago because there's a new Republican appointee on the court!" As one example.

Especially with the Biden campaign saying it's gonna use the NFA to force confiscation yeah I'd like to have Barrett, or frankly anyone from the GOP's list, on the bench for that. In the ideal world the new court lineup would slaughter the Dems so heavily on it they never touch dumbass topics like it again and instead run solely on things like the economy, the environment, healthcare etc etc.

Not sure that I buy the framing that gun policy, or more accurately stated, cultural disagreements about levels of gun proliferation, is a "dumbass topic" (I'm aware that you're referring to particular policies vis a vis gun confiscation as "dumbass" and not necessarily the whole sweeping field of gun policy per se). By definition, if it's a touchstone in court appointments, both sides think it's pretty relevant and pretty important. That framing strikes me a little disingenuous.

[Bienenhalde]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... lic-voters
Biden leads by 12 among Catholic voters. Clinton won the Catholic vote by 5. Biden would be second Catholic president after JFK.

Amusing given he was denied communion and such things.

I wish he would just admit he was wrong and accept a position in line with church teaching. Even so, I don't think Trump being anti-abortion really makes him pro-life.

[Uiiop]

They arent going to just dangle her. They are determined to get her on the court as soon as possible.

How does incorporating new states help them when in comes to the courts?

Probably not, but they'd be politically smart to do so. If they still want to ram her through and they lose the election, there's always the lame duck.

If Democrats want to exercise majority power, they have to do something about the fact that the senate is a lot harder for them to win than it is the GOP. New states could give them a durable working majority. Admittedly, this doesn't directly address the court. But, if they want to eventually expand it (I think investigating conflict of interest claims and impeachment is a smarter route to go), they need the public to be behind the idea that the court is behaving irresponsibly. The best way to build public support for altering a reactionary court is to let it be reactionary in public first.

I feel either an implicit "2022 will wreck republicans to either make them lose seat or change their "politicians" and/or a "Oh, we're adding Guam too" vibe.

Either way, I'm not sure what you're saying is true. The poll pundits say there's already a small plurality for court packing and people are excepted to grow that number once things actually start to happen. People are polarized already and it's not like Court packing in response to other moves is going to offend the swing voter.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I really like the idea people have thrown around of an apolitical committee of, like, the ABA or something recommending people that the Senate then votes on.

Of course that would require an amendment and lol good luck

Not very authoritarian of you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nMm7S8 ... SethMeyers

Never expect the Republican Party to have shame

Make no mistake I'm not a mindless ideologue. My pivot towards authoritarianism is a response to the rapid and continual failings of liberal democracy in the west. If the system could correct itself, something which I find ever more doubtful, I'd have little problem accepting it again.

Especially with the Biden campaign saying it's gonna use the NFA to force confiscation yeah I'd like to have Barrett, or frankly anyone from the GOP's list, on the bench for that. In the ideal world the new court lineup would slaughter the Dems so heavily on it they never touch dumbass topics like it again and instead run solely on things like the economy, the environment, healthcare etc etc.

Not sure that I buy the framing that gun policy, or more accurately stated, cultural disagreements about levels of gun proliferation, is a "dumbass topic" (I'm aware that you're referring to particular policies vis a vis gun confiscation as "dumbass" and not necessarily the whole sweeping field of gun policy per se). By definition, if it's a touchstone in court appointments, both sides think it's pretty relevant and pretty important. That framing strikes me a little disingenuous.

Oh I'll fully admit I'm speaking from a wildly biased position on the topic. Biden's propositions would more or less put me out of a job in the worst economy in a hundred years so naturally I'm pissy.

[The Rich Port]

Jeb is pretty much the worst kind of Republican though.

Jeb isn't as based as Mutti Merkel, but is still much better than Trump.

Who is Mutti Merkel

[Major-Tom]

Amusing given he was denied communion and such things.

I wish he would just admit he was wrong and accept a position in line with church teaching. Even so, I don't think Trump being anti-abortion really makes him pro-life.

Catholics straying from official church teaching is nothing new, and really, people can be personally pro-life but recognize the dangers overturning Roe v Wade poses. That includes many Catholic Democrats or even ex-Catholics such as myself who still strongly believe in the tenets of Catholic Humanism and consistent life ethics (while remaining pro-choice as a policy position).

[Bienenhalde]

Jeb isn't as based as Mutti Merkel, but is still much better than Trump.

Who is Mutti Merkel

It is a nickname for German chancellor Angela Merkel.

[The Rich Port]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... lic-voters
Biden leads by 12 among Catholic voters. Clinton won the Catholic vote by 5. Biden would be second Catholic president after JFK.

Amusing given he was denied communion and such things.

He was denied communion? On what grounds?!

Amusing given he was denied communion and such things.

I wish he would just admit he was wrong and accept a position in line with church teaching. Even so, I don't think Trump being anti-abortion really makes him pro-life.

Oh yeah, the Catholic Church, arbiters of everything moral, not hypocritical at all, no skeletons in their closet

[Talvezout]

US political hot take: Every territory that is sending a representative to Congress should become a state.

This means that Guam, DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands should all become states. If these places are all sending representatives to the US, why should we deny them full statehood and make them effectively second class citizens?

[Bienenhalde]

Catholics straying from official church teaching is nothing new, and really, people can be personally pro-life but recognize the dangers overturning Roe v Wade poses. That includes many Catholic Democrats or even ex-Catholics such as myself who still strongly believe in the tenets of Catholic Humanism and consistent life ethics (while remaining pro-choice as a policy position).

Well, he could at least reaffirm his previous support for the Hyde Amendment. He shouldn't have repudiated it in the first place, but it is too late for that anyway.

[The Rich Port]

US political hot take: Every territory that is sending a representative to Congress should become a state.

This means that Guam, DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands should all become states. If these places are all sending representatives to the US, why should we deny them full statehood and make them effectively second class citizens?

Then the Republican Party would get shunted out every election, can't have that

Puerto Rico especially is an "alien culture", they're too alien to understand how to vote properly, which is to say, Republican.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Amusing given he was denied communion and such things.

He was denied communion? On what grounds?!

So, the story isn't fully confirmed as Biden said it was a personal topic and he wouldn't talk about it, but the way it goes is that in October of last year when he was in South Carolina a priest denied him communion at Mass because he has worked politically to help abortion rights. Afaik there's still ongoing debate amongst church leaders whether that should warrant an immediate excommunication or not.

[The Rich Port]

He was denied communion? On what grounds?!

So, the story isn't fully confirmed as Biden said it was a personal topic and he wouldn't talk about it, but the way it goes is that in October of last year when he was in South Carolina a priest denied him communion at Mass because he has worked politically to help abortion rights. Afaik there's still ongoing debate amongst church leaders whether that should warrant an immediate excommunication or not.

That is absolute fucking nonsense, that priest should get excommunicated instead.

If Biden did his confession he has no grounds to deny him Communion.

Honestly though, this fucking hypocritical bullshit is why I left the Church anyway and Biden shouldn't have to take this bullshit.

*Bullshit*
Papal Bullshit

[Ngelmish]

Probably not, but they'd be politically smart to do so. If they still want to ram her through and they lose the election, there's always the lame duck.

If Democrats want to exercise majority power, they have to do something about the fact that the senate is a lot harder for them to win than it is the GOP. New states could give them a durable working majority. Admittedly, this doesn't directly address the court. But, if they want to eventually expand it (I think investigating conflict of interest claims and impeachment is a smarter route to go), they need the public to be behind the idea that the court is behaving irresponsibly. The best way to build public support for altering a reactionary court is to let it be reactionary in public first.

I feel either an implicit "2022 will wreck republicans to either make them lose seat or change their "politicians" and/or a "Oh, we're adding Guam too" vibe.

Either way, I'm not sure what you're saying is true. The poll pundits say there's already a small plurality for court packing and people are excepted to grow that number once things actually start to happen. People are polarized already and it's not like Court packing in response to other moves is going to offend the swing voter.

I don't pretend to know what's going to happen in '22, but I do think the Democrats are more likely to be successful in general if they empower themselves to really do more than one significant piece of legislation, and that means padding their majority. Incorporating new states is a legal way to do that. So it's probably more of the latter. I'd be in favor of statehood for D.C., Puerto Rico and breaking California up, if I was advising the party.

And, yes, I may be mistaken. But it seems from my observation that packing the court riles all the partisans up on both sides without addressing the structural imbalance that the majority party has a very shaky grasp on maintaining power in the senate for any length of time. The long term solution then seems obvious. Build that durable majority with hardball if necessary and use it to deliver reforms that, at once reward and gratify your own supporters, but universally improve things for the whole country (this is why healthcare would be at the top of the list). I think that's a more viable long term path than resorting to immediate court packing, but, yeah, sure, I'll concede that it's all speculation.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

US political hot take: Every territory that is sending a representative to Congress should become a state.

This means that Guam, DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands should all become states. If these places are all sending representatives to the US, why should we deny them full statehood and make them effectively second class citizens?

That's only a hot take to people with an (R) next to their name. The rest of us support the idea.