American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Washington Resistance Army]

In the continuing saga of "how badly can the Democrats lose the midterms", they plan to introduce legislation to pack the court.

[Drongonia]

In the continuing saga of "how badly can the Democrats lose the midterms", they plan to introduce legislation to pack the court.

Not being American I'm unaware, when was the last time someone added a seat to the Supreme Court? And how major is that? I understand the political implications would be massive, but is this something that's likely to catch the public's ire?

[Washington Resistance Army]

In the continuing saga of "how badly can the Democrats lose the midterms", they plan to introduce legislation to pack the court.

Not being American I'm unaware, when was the last time someone added a seat to the Supreme Court? And how major is that? I understand the political implications would be massive, but is this something that's likely to catch the public's ire?

The 1860's is the last time it changed size. FDR floated the idea of packing the court because they kept rightfully striking down his unconstitutional stuff but a bill never went through and it stayed at 9 seats.

It's very likely to catch the publics ire, at least among GOP voters. This, the gun stuff, the lack of progress and walk backs on things he promised to the Progressive wing etc etc increasingly make 2022 look like it's going to be a bloodbath for the Dems.

[The Black Forrest]

In the continuing saga of "how badly can the Democrats lose the midterms", they plan to introduce legislation to pack the court.

Not being American I'm unaware, when was the last time someone added a seat to the Supreme Court? And how major is that? I understand the political implications would be massive, but is this something that's likely to catch the public's ire?

In 1830something it was expanded from 7 to 9. Lincoln added a 10th seat so the court would not interfere with the civil war. FDR had plans to make it 15.

It’s packing when one side doesn’t like it.

The interesting thing is the Constitution does not define how many justices their can be.....

[Drongonia]

The interesting thing is the Constitution does not define how many justices their can be.....

That seems like a bit of a glaring omission, considering how integral the Supreme Court has been over the years

[Postauthoritarian America]

In the continuing saga of "how badly can the Democrats lose the midterms", they plan to introduce legislation to pack the court.

Increasing the Supreme Court from 9 Justices to 13...

...versus inciting a violent insurrection aimed at overturning the results of a free, fair and fraudless election...

...hmmm, which do I choose...

...hmmmm....

[The Black Forrest]

The interesting thing is the Constitution does not define how many justices their can be.....

That seems like a bit of a glaring omission, considering how integral the Supreme Court has been over the years

Well? Growth was always in their minds and other issues could happen. A set number would require a Constitutional amendment to change the number. It’s exteamly tough to do it. They didn’t even try to do a marriage amendment as they knew it would fail....

[Forsher]

Now ask them if they think ciswomen should be in the military.

FFS this may not even ignore transitivity, i.e. transwomen > ciswomen, military standard > transwomen... ciswomen > military standard? why would you assume they think that?

Yeah but the sports thing is specifically about how trans women retain the inherent strength of cis men.

Also stuff about how we have higher bone density than cis women so its unfair, while at the same time hormone therapy is evil because among other things it drastically reduces bone density.

The argument is exactly the same as "Justin Gatlin and athletes like him should be banned for life because their bodies are still affected by doping earlier in their careers" (for the scientific part of that see here, for the conclusion see here).

(Warning: digression on nature of sport)

Look, sports aren't fair. That's just a fact. Not everyone has the right balance of fast twitch fibres to succeed in sprinting, for example, and biomechanical implications of sexual dimorphism in humans mean ciswomen will never be able to out sprint the best cismen (actually, it may just be generic sex differences but the bottom of this is making the same claim I'm remembering from a National Geographic article from years back). You might be the most technically gifted basketballer ever born, but if you're 157cm/5'2" and can't jump, you're probably screwed (at least, in the NBA) because height does matter (it's far from everything... I'm pretty bad at basketball, for example).

And look at pound for pound boxing ratings... notice how few heavyweights there are in there? It cuts both ways... you wouldn't put those middleweights in with Usyk or Fury for safety reasons, but that begs the question of why the best heavyweights don't tend to feature in pound for pound rankings. One of the theories is that heavyweights can knock the other guy out so much easier. You don't need to be able to box, the argument runs, to win, you just need to be able to punch (and also, take a punch). Of course, here's a historical list that features quite a few heavyweights. Let's compare Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali's figures... 63 vs 66% of their wins were by KO. Lennox Lewis (not on the list) clocks in at 78% of his wins being by knock out, whereas Manny Pacquiao (on the list) is also at 63% of his wins. So, I'm thinking maybe there's some truth to this KO theory. The point is, though, that sports is biologically deterministic. Yes, you might get lucky or maybe they ban something innovative that could shake things up but by and large, only athletes whose biology (and in many cases, wealth) fit the meta of the time they're coming up succeed.

So, what basis do we have to see sports as "fair"? And why do we care about unfair things like doping? Well, it's because sports are blocked. Almost always by sex and in many sports again by weight and/or age. In some competitions, blocking by age is very structured and looks similar to weight classes in strength sports and combat disciplines (e.g. World Masters Games). The Paralympics similarly have a whole bunch of blocks so that you don't have people in wheelchairs racing people with blades, for example.

Blocking is simply how sports work. It's not socio-cultural, except in the sense people believe in fairness (and, in some cases, don't want teeny weeny people getting hurt fighting big, big people), but biological... a question of seeing the fastest, the strongest, the highest etc. People don't like doping because it gets in the way of exploring the limits of raw human potential. If it was just about exciting contests, no-one would care. If it was just about making the best product, no-one would care (when have those with the money ever cared about their labourers' wellbeings?). But it's not.

I don't know where the science stands on testosterone's effects for people who are on, for example, HRT, but it's not about equivalisation and never has been. If it was, they'd be sticking Gatlin on something. It's about biology. Like it or not, that's what sport is about. And the logical conclusion from this is... separating trans and cis athletes out in to their own competitions, no different to the way we split people in different weight classes out or with different disabilities.

What I don't see happening in the US in all these articles Kowani and others post is moves by those legislatures to support trans athletes. They have no honest interest in sport and they have no honest interest in helping trans athletes succeed and have fun. In some cases, I think they're banning people from non-competitive leagues/tournaments (social sports)? And they all seem exclusively targeted at transwomen and transgirls. Which, if you look at what competitive sports is all about is insane. And one of the recent ones has:

“normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”

The whole bloody point of blocking is that you can't be trucking with this sort of shit... you let the natural variation (including extreme outliers) happen and you don't care.

The logical extension... and I understand mercy rules are common in the US so it's possible in 5-30 years this will be something enter the Overton Window... of these arguments is to start banning the bigger kids in non-full-contact sports because someone's precious but runty child is unable to get playing time.

And, sure, you might think, "but like less than 1% of people are trans, you're just going to end up with a lot of tiny little disciplines and may be wholly unable to field complete teams in team sports", but there are 7 billion people on Earth. If we take the 0.39% a quick Google Search gave me for America, that ends up being more than 27 million people worldwide... with presumably about half and half between transmen and transwomen.

Of course, I'm sure the bigger concern is that having trans and cis blocks in sport would seem like saying "there is a difference" but we don't say that the Paralympics cause Paralympians to be defined by their disabilities. Obviously, the world is more actively transphobic than it is ableist (though it may be more casually ableist than casually transphobic), so the comparison isn't wholly sound but there you go.

And I'm equally sure that many people would prefer sport to be defined in other terms (to human potential)... and if mercy rules are de rigueur in the US, you should definitely argue that in America, sport has nothing to do with human potential already. But that doesn't change that the logic being used is internally consistent (assuming these people really are opposed to ciswomen in the military), even if bringing it up is a non sequitur. I'm not in the US, so you'll have to tell me if sport in America has been perverted by mercy rules to such an extent it's now odd not to have them. And if you're going to tell me that mercy rules are ingrained in the American psyche (e.g. they're part of how Americans think about grassroots sports), then I apologise for bringing up the (probable) logical consistency since all I've really done in doing that is help legitimise an irrelevant and harmful framing of the debate.

[Forsher]

The interesting thing is the Constitution does not define how many justices their can be.....

That seems like a bit of a glaring omission, considering how integral the Supreme Court has been over the years

You know how every dogshit piece of the US constitution is defended as being a feature, not a bug? As though something's being intentional absolves America of its flaws?

SCOTUS' importance in American political life is like a security flaw. The developers made it part of the system, but it's completely unintentional.

I guess you might call that a bug.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Not being American I'm unaware, when was the last time someone added a seat to the Supreme Court? And how major is that? I understand the political implications would be massive, but is this something that's likely to catch the public's ire?

The 1860's is the last time it changed size. FDR floated the idea of packing the court because they kept rightfully striking down his unconstitutional stuff but a bill never went through and it stayed at 9 seats.

It's very likely to catch the publics ire, at least among GOP voters. This, the gun stuff, the lack of progress and walk backs on things he promised to the Progressive wing etc etc increasingly make 2022 look like it's going to be a bloodbath for the Dems.

Many Persons want Biden and the Democrats to be more Progressive and leftist. Yes, the gun control stuff for us Republicans, as a Republican I hope the Republicans win the mid terms.

[Genivaria]

Not being American I'm unaware, when was the last time someone added a seat to the Supreme Court? And how major is that? I understand the political implications would be massive, but is this something that's likely to catch the public's ire?

The 1860's is the last time it changed size. FDR floated the idea of packing the court because they kept rightfully striking down his unconstitutional stuff but a bill never went through and it stayed at 9 seats.

It's very likely to catch the publics ire, at least among GOP voters. This, the gun stuff, the lack of progress and walk backs on things he promised to the Progressive wing etc etc increasingly make 2022 look like it's going to be a bloodbath for the Dems.

Oh I'm already never voting Dem again after the bullshit the Dem party pulled against Bernie, and I'm sure I'll be called a Trump supporter by Democrats.

[Greater Miami Shores]

The 1860's is the last time it changed size. FDR floated the idea of packing the court because they kept rightfully striking down his unconstitutional stuff but a bill never went through and it stayed at 9 seats.

It's very likely to catch the publics ire, at least among GOP voters. This, the gun stuff, the lack of progress and walk backs on things he promised to the Progressive wing etc etc increasingly make 2022 look like it's going to be a bloodbath for the Dems.

Oh I'm already never voting Dem again, and I'm sure I'll be called a Trump supporter by Democrats.

lol, good one Genivaria.

[Genivaria]

Oh I'm already never voting Dem again, and I'm sure I'll be called a Trump supporter by Democrats.

lol, good one Genivaria.

Wasn't making a joke so I've no idea what you find funny.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

lol, good one Genivaria.

Wasn't making a joke so I've no idea what you find funny.

Maybe he read your sig and thought it part of your post?

[Greater Miami Shores]

lol, good one Genivaria.

Wasn't making a joke so I've no idea what you find funny.

It sounds funny, but I know you are serious about it.

[The Black Forrest]

That seems like a bit of a glaring omission, considering how integral the Supreme Court has been over the years

You know how every dogshit piece of the US constitution is defended as being a feature, not a bug? As though something's being intentional absolves America of its flaws?.

What are you talking about?

SCOTUS' importance in American political life is like a security flaw. The developers made it part of the system, but it's completely unintentional.

I guess you might call that a bug.

Oh let’s see you expand on that.

[The Black Forrest]

The 1860's is the last time it changed size. FDR floated the idea of packing the court because they kept rightfully striking down his unconstitutional stuff but a bill never went through and it stayed at 9 seats.

It's very likely to catch the publics ire, at least among GOP voters. This, the gun stuff, the lack of progress and walk backs on things he promised to the Progressive wing etc etc increasingly make 2022 look like it's going to be a bloodbath for the Dems.

Oh I'm already never voting Dem again after the bullshit the Dem party pulled against Bernie, and I'm sure I'll be called a Trump supporter by Democrats.

Meh. I remember the PaulBots saying similar things. Still did you listen to Bernie when he said support H or did you ignore him?

Anyway......

[Genivaria]

Oh I'm already never voting Dem again after the bullshit the Dem party pulled against Bernie, and I'm sure I'll be called a Trump supporter by Democrats.

Meh. I remember the PaulBots saying similar things. Still did you listen to Bernie when he said support H or did you ignore him?

Anyway......

Support H?
I didn't end up voting that time because my Voter ID never arrived.

[The Black Forrest]

Meh. I remember the PaulBots saying similar things. Still did you listen to Bernie when he said support H or did you ignore him?

Anyway......

Support H?
I didn't end up voting that time because my Voter ID never arrived.

Hilary.

Voter ID? Where do you live?

[Genivaria]

Support H?
I didn't end up voting that time because my Voter ID never arrived.

Hilary.

Voter ID? Where do you live?

San Antonio Texas, back then I lived in Houston.
We had to wait for our Voter ID cards to arrive in the mail and mine never did despite me making sure I was registered and requested it months ago.
So yeah I was turned away at the station.

[The Black Forrest]

Hilary.

Voter ID? Where do you live?

San Antonio Texas, back then I lived in Houston.
We had to wait for our Voter ID cards to arrive in the mail and mine never did despite me making sure I was registered and requested it months ago.
So yeah I was turned away at the station.

That is BS. One of the reasons why I can’t support the republicans. Voter suppression efforts.....

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Hilary.

Voter ID? Where do you live?

San Antonio Texas, back then I lived in Houston.
We had to wait for our Voter ID cards to arrive in the mail and mine never did despite me making sure I was registered and requested it months ago.
So yeah I was turned away at the station.

That is odd. I live in a pretty hard-leaning blue rural district of Texas and I damn near got beheaded by my voter registration card when I requested a new one, so fast did it arrive. Like two days’ wait, it was.

[Forsher]

You know how every dogshit piece of the US constitution is defended as being a feature, not a bug? As though something's being intentional absolves America of its flaws?.

What are you talking about?

Ever read a discussion about the Electoral College, for example? See also this stuff.

SCOTUS' importance in American political life is like a security flaw. The developers made it part of the system, but it's completely unintentional.

I guess you might call that a bug.

Oh let’s see you expand on that.

If you compare its importance to the attention it receives in the US constitution it seems pretty self evident. I know the US Constitution isn't overly long as a whole, but a country that sets up Supreme Law and judicial review that doesn't pay very close attention to the powers and responsibilities of its top court? That reeks of people who don't understand what they're doing or, at least, people who didn't understand or care that they were being placed on pedestals and turned into culture heroes. And they certainly didn't understand ideas like the principal agent problem or, at least, didn't understand how to solve it.

Also, read the first third of this, though. And this... though whatever I read originally explaining how SCOTUS has clawed more and more power for itself over the centuries definitely wasn't that.

[Bombadil]

In the continuing saga of "how badly can the Democrats lose the midterms", they plan to introduce legislation to pack the court.

I'm not so sure the Dems are on course to lose midterms, though I'm not clear on which seats are up for grabs exactly. Biden is not Obama, he doesn't invite the reactions akin to the Tea Party and over time I feel Trumpism will decline - at some point there'll be a degree of consensus on him and I don't think it will be favorable.

Of course given the times there's a huge amount of unpredictability so, all in all, I think it's nigh impossible to predict what will happen this next near or so.

[The Lone Alliance]

In the continuing saga of "how badly can the Democrats lose the midterms", they plan to introduce legislation to pack the court.

I'm not so sure the Dems are on course to lose midterms, though I'm not clear on which seats are up for grabs exactly. Biden is not Obama, he doesn't invite the reactions akin to the Tea Party and over time I feel Trumpism will decline - at some point there'll be a degree of consensus on him and I don't think it will be favorable.

Of course given the times there's a huge amount of unpredictability so, all in all, I think it's nigh impossible to predict what will happen this next near or so.

The moderate Republicans that liked and tolerated Biden mostly tolerated him because they believed his reign was not going to result four more years of the President flailing around acting like a dumbass on Twitter while ruling as a moderate centrist Democrat.

Most Republicans at this point can handle a moderate centrist Democrat, they'll just hate it, and a lot of them saw that as a better fate than another 4 years of Trump.

But stuff like that destroys that image and brings back the same fear that got Trump elected in the first place. If you really think the Republican party will be okay with the Democrats stacking the court, you really know absolutely nothing about the Republican party.

Half of them only reluctantly voted for Trump the first time around because of that Supreme court seat.