2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[Thermodolia]

The question then becomes... where does this all go?

Whether Trump wins or loses, the Republicans will have learned from him. The next Republican on the ticketwill be younger, more energetic, more charismatic, better spoken, and far more right wing. Imagine if Trump knew how to properly dog-whistle and use anti-leftist rhetoric.

And the Dems will move further to the right as well, and they will become even less populist because the Republicans will claim charisma as their own.

The current American system can only lead to the right.

All the while they'll be howling about how far Left the Democrats have gone, too, which is funny.

They already are. They are labeling known centrists slime Jon Ossoff as a socialist. The guy basically worships at the Altar neoliberalism.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So Trump finally explicitly denounced white supremacy, only to immediately fail to denounce the maniacs who believe that Democrats are satanists.

Also, Biden needs to be clearer in his refuse to pack the courts. I know he's said so already but he should do so several times more just to get the point across.

I'm not a voter, but if I was then "I absolutely will not add seats to the Supreme Court" would be enough to make me lapse into indifference.

Four years from now you might be looking at a trimmed down climate change plan as the only legacy of the Biden years, dragged into the negative by the dismantling of the ACA and the weakening of Roe v. Wade. Without the Court (and without the Senate, which is still possible) the Democratic program could actually go backwards.

Sure the talk of packing the Court is scaring off some voters. But a promise not to, would demotivate others. It's a decision that should only be made after considering the effect state-by-state.

[Jerzylvania]

So Trump finally explicitly denounced white supremacy, only to immediately fail to denounce the maniacs who believe that Democrats are satanists.

Also, Biden needs to be clearer in his refuse to pack the courts. I know he's said so already but he should do so several times more just to get the point across.

Better to unpack it. Send the newest 2 back to the minors (Appellate Courts). Seniority rules. The number of justices on the Supreme Court has varied from 5 to 10 over history iirc. Seven justices on the court is middling. GOP should like two less high federal salaries to pay. Smaller Gov't. That'll punch their ticket, right?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So Trump finally explicitly denounced white supremacy, only to immediately fail to denounce the maniacs who believe that Democrats are satanists.

Also, Biden needs to be clearer in his refuse to pack the courts. I know he's said so already but he should do so several times more just to get the point across.

Better to unpack it. Send the newest 2 back to the minors (Appellate Courts). Seniority rules. The number of justices on the Supreme Court has varied from 5 to 10 over history iirc. Seven justices on the court is middling. GOP should like two less high federal salaries to pay. Smaller Gov't. That'll punch their ticket, right?

Something seems lacking in this plan. 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to remove justices.

[Thermodolia]

It means something for people who actually read about core fascist tenants. Leftists can properly react to claims of communism. Mainly, by lamenting the fact that the democrats aren’t half as communist as the Republicans claim. But Republicans can’t do the same. They just lament the use of the Bad Word while their rhetoric and policies match ur-fascistic tenets. What argued position have you ever seen a Republican to deny their fascism? Other than the claim that the word is overused? Because that seems to be the only defence.

Yeah it does mean something for people who actually know fascist doctrine and theory. I'll give you a hint, those people aren't the ones going around claiming every right wing populist is the second coming of big H. Especially fucking Trump of all people lol, he's entirely lacking in ideology. He just wants more money and power.

If I was a fascist I’d be quite insulted to be associated with Trump

[Jerzylvania]

Better to unpack it. Send the newest 2 back to the minors (Appellate Courts). Seniority rules. The number of justices on the Supreme Court has varied from 5 to 10 over history iirc. Seven justices on the court is middling. GOP should like two less high federal salaries to pay. Smaller Gov't. That'll punch their ticket, right?

Something seems lacking in this plan. 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to remove justices.

Well fiddle-de-do. We'll need a bigger tsunami.

Wait. Congress has the purse strings, right?

Reduce their salaries to $1 a session, see who quits first. Bet it's the one with seven kids to feed. Perfectly Trumpian way to handle this. GOP can understand it's evil genius.

[Zurkerx]

Trump's covid herd immunity announcement pushed me 100% into voting for Biden. I'm not just likely to vote for Biden. I will. I have no choice when this embarrassment to the Republic is actively trying to cause mass death.

That's quite a big change but I can see why: Herd Immunity is a dangerous idea, especially for older Americans whom Republicans need their votes to win. Can't get any stupider than that if you connect the points together.

[Thermodolia]

Better to unpack it. Send the newest 2 back to the minors (Appellate Courts). Seniority rules. The number of justices on the Supreme Court has varied from 5 to 10 over history iirc. Seven justices on the court is middling. GOP should like two less high federal salaries to pay. Smaller Gov't. That'll punch their ticket, right?

Something seems lacking in this plan. 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to remove justices.

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

[Jerzylvania]

Trump's covid herd immunity announcement pushed me 100% into voting for Biden. I'm not just likely to vote for Biden. I will. I have no choice when this embarrassment to the Republic is actively trying to cause mass death.

That's quite a big change but I can see why: Herd Immunity is too much of a dangerous strategy, especially for older Americans whom Republicans need their votes to win. Can't get any stupider than that.

Just when we thought Donny couldn't get any stupider. He's de-evolving before our eyes.

[Jerzylvania]

Something seems lacking in this plan. 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to remove justices.

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

BULLY!!!

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's not just the lack of nameing you, it's the lack of any "If you own guns you go to jail" statment from the dems.



Or the people that call COVID-19 the sniffles or the people who refuse to put on a mask.

Well I can't solve willful ignorance, it's an issue they're vocal on, actively pursue in states they control, and have explicitly written into their party platform.

Except again, the democratic party platform does not and has not, nor has it ever had a statement that said "all people with guns will be imprisoned".

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, Biden's ASMR sleep podcast is over and even ABC has decided to talk about crazy shit Trump said over at NBC instead.

Good optics for the Biden campaign, though. While the talkie heads talk about bonkers or weird shit Trump did, Biden hasn't left. He's taking more questions and letting the people follow up on questions.

[Thermodolia]

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

BULLY!!!

This has been a message from Therm Esq. Weasel at Law.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yeah it does mean something for people who actually know fascist doctrine and theory. I'll give you a hint, those people aren't the ones going around claiming every right wing populist is the second coming of big H. Especially fucking Trump of all people lol, he's entirely lacking in ideology. He just wants more money and power.

If I was a fascist I’d be quite insulted to be associated with Trump

Most Fascists don't like Trump from what I've seen. Rather, he proves their point about the "degeneracy of Western Civilization".

[Thermodolia]

If I was a fascist I’d be quite insulted to be associated with Trump

Most Fascists don't like Trump from what I've seen. Rather, he proves their point about the "degeneracy of Western Civilization".

Well that and he’s quite damaging to the right wing populist movement

[Jerzylvania]

BULLY!!!

This has been a message from Therm Esq. Weasel at Law.

Check is in the mail. So you may get it by 2022.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Most Fascists don't like Trump from what I've seen. Rather, he proves their point about the "degeneracy of Western Civilization".

Well that and he’s quite damaging to the right wing populist movement

That, too. Trump's lack of an ideology makes him more akin to a Latin American dictator, as I believe Arch pointed out.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Something seems lacking in this plan. 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to remove justices.

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

You used the word "technically" twice. That's a bad sign for the strength of your argument.

So next year, Democrats can set the size of the court to 1 (Roberts presumably), "technically" removing 8 justices. Then set it back to 9, appoint 8 new ones and voila, a much better result than they'd get by packing the court. 8-1 is better than 7-6 right?

That moment when you realize that if it was that easy, someone would surely have done it.




No, my position is that "setting the size of the court" smaller only means that seats don't become empty, and available to be filled, until the number of sitting justices falls below that new number. I could look it up for you, but I think that's how it went one time.

[Jerzylvania]

Well, Biden's ASMR sleep podcast is over and even ABC has decided to talk about crazy shit Trump said over at NBC instead.

Good optics for the Biden campaign, though. While the talkie heads talk about bonkers or weird shit Trump did, Biden hasn't left. He's taking more questions and letting the people follow up on questions.

Who was Biden's favorite panel on The McLaughlin Group? Mine was Jack Germond, Eleanor Clift, Freddie (the Beatle) Barnes & (Morty Mort) Morton Kondrake.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This has been a message from Therm Esq. Weasel at Law.

Check is in the mail. So you may get it by 2022.

Um, I'd direct the defense if I were you. If not dismiss them and defend yourself.

[Valrifell]

Something seems lacking in this plan. 2/3 supermajority in the Senate to remove justices.

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

The size of the court wouldn't be shrunk down immediately, since that would be a law applied ex post facto, ie before the judge was appointed. Instead what would happen, and what has happened when the court shrinks, is that the seat is not refilled when the justice dies.

[Jerzylvania]

Check is in the mail. So you may get it by 2022.

Um, I'd direct the defense if I were you. If not dismiss them and defend yourself.

It's a rubber check anyway. BOING!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

The size of the court wouldn't be shrunk down immediately, since that would be a law applied ex post facto, ie before the judge was appointed. Instead what would happen, and what has happened when the court shrinks, is that the seat is not refilled when the justice dies.

I think so too. Makes 2 for and 2 against. Don't you wish we had The Cat-Tribes to write the ruling?

[Thermodolia]

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

You used the word "technically" twice. That's a bad sign for the strength of your argument.

So next year, Democrats can set the size of the court to 1 (Roberts presumably), "technically" removing 8 justices. Then appoint 8 new ones and voila, a much better result than they'd get by packing the court. 8-1 is better than 7-6 right?

That moment when you realize that if it was that easy, someone would surely have done it.




No, my position is that "setting the size of the court" smaller only means that seats don't become empty, and available to be filled, until the number of sitting justices falls below that new number. I could look it up for you, but I think that's how it went one time.

The reason why no one has done it is because the court has been kept out of politics for centuries so nobody has thought of doing such a thing.

But my argument is that you could lower the number and keep it there. Besides a balanced court is better than unbalanced one. If you removed two seats you’d be left with 3 Liberals and 3 Conservatives with 1 conservative swing voter

[Jerzylvania]

Well not exactly. The constitution does say that congress alone has the power to determine the size of the court so technically you could argue that if the court was down sized to 7 that congress is just doing it’s constitutional duty and therefore doesn’t require the 2/3rds supermajority.

You also aren’t technically removing justices themselves just removing the number of seats on the court so you don’t need a 2/3rd supermajority there either

The size of the court wouldn't be shrunk down immediately, since that would be a law applied ex post facto, ie before the judge was appointed. Instead what would happen, and what has happened when the court shrinks, is that the seat is not refilled when the justice dies.

Make it retroactive to 2017.

Then get a constitutional amendment out dismissing the electoral college as a failed and outdated procedure. Popular vote wins POTUS.