US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Kane Lives]

To be a bit less vague post:
There are three types of cases that SCOTUS has been historically incredibly reluctant to rule on in any sort of major way. This is not to say no SCOTUS bench has ever ruled on them, but they are very rare and usually define any given bench of SCOTUS judges.

1st: Any decision which sees multiple states having to completely redo or throw out their laws.
2nd: Any decision which undoes major settled precedent, especially if said precedent has been used in other cases.
3rd: Any decision which sees a major curtailment or change in the power of the other two branches of government.

Keep in mind, these kinds of decision usually -define- a bench, you see one of them with any specific group of judges and then nothing until several retire or leave. And yet, within a week we have had the first and second ruled on and done. And a potential example of the third being on this very docket which we are waiting on. If they rule on all three it says outright this SCOTUS -does not give a fuck- and will make whatever ruling it damn well pleases, and if you have a problem with it you can go pound sand.


That has never occurred in the history of the United States.

Not doubting your analysis here but didnt the SCOTUS try to cuck the other branches once or twice before?

FDR had to threaten them, for one. And even earlier, I believe there was some VP shittery that the SCOTUS refused to sign off on that the standing president decided to outright ignore anyway.

 

[Gehenna]

Not doubting your analysis here but didnt the SCOTUS try to cuck the other branches once or twice before?

FDR had to threaten them, for one. And even earlier, I believe there was some VP shittery that the SCOTUS refused to sign off on that the standing president decided to outright ignore anyway.

There is a reason I said major curtailment. There is a history of some tit for tat between every branch of government and every other branch of government. But a major action which stands to permanently undermine one is... rare.

For example, even with everything going on neither congress nor the presidential cabal have seriously tried to pack the courts. Plenty of bluster, but no real major attack. If SCOTUS does rule in a wide way here I can definitely see some shit going down though.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

To be a bit less vague post:
There are three types of cases that SCOTUS has been historically incredibly reluctant to rule on in any sort of major way. This is not to say no SCOTUS bench has ever ruled on them, but they are very rare and usually define any given bench of SCOTUS judges.

1st: Any decision which sees multiple states having to completely redo or throw out their laws.
2nd: Any decision which undoes major settled precedent, especially if said precedent has been used in other cases.
3rd: Any decision which sees a major curtailment or change in the power of the other two branches of government.

Keep in mind, these kinds of decision usually -define- a bench, you see one of them with any specific group of judges and then nothing until several retire or leave. And yet, within a week we have had the first and second ruled on and done. And a potential example of the third being on this very docket which we are waiting on. If they rule on all three it says outright this SCOTUS -does not give a fuck- and will make whatever ruling it damn well pleases, and if you have a problem with it you can go pound sand.


That has never occurred in the history of the United States.

I wonder if there's some level of agreement in the SCOTUS that the current balance of power and existing checks is not stable - All of this so far reasonably wraps under "The legislature needs to actually do their jobs" at the end of the day - In the recent gun law rulings, that job being recognizing the constitution exists. In Roe, by actually passing legislation instead of expecting the court to pull justifications out of thin air. In this EPA matter, reigning in executive fiat would, if nothing else, force the legislative branch to make decisions federally, or allow those decisions to be made at the state level.

As it stands, it feels like the legislature does very little of substance (See, the recent gun 'laws') and spends a lot of time polarizing people to just keep their power. Not to use it, but to use the threat of it either being used against someone, or being passed to someones enemies, to curry political donations.

 

[northstar747]

Or what about last year with the eviction moratorium?

They basically said that the executive just need the legislative to authorize it, and even differed to say that they were just gonna let the clock run out.

The admin basically doube dog dared them on that.

 

[pwnest injun]

I wonder if there's some level of agreement in the SCOTUS that the current balance of power and existing checks is not stable - All of this so far reasonably wraps under "The legislature needs to actually do their jobs" at the end of the day - In the recent gun law rulings, that job being recognizing the constitution exists. In Roe, by actually passing legislation instead of expecting the court to pull justifications out of thin air. In this EPA matter, reigning in executive fiat would, if nothing else, force the legislative branch to make decisions federally, or allow those decisions to be made at the state level.

As it stands, it feels like the legislature does very little of substance (See, the recent gun 'laws') and spends a lot of time polarizing people to just keep their power. Not to use it, but to use the threat of it either being used against someone, or being passed to someones enemies, to curry political donations.

The problem with the legislature is that it's far too profitable to do anything but invent money and funnel it into your firends' hands, so all they do is that, and whatever it takes to stay in the position to continue doing that. The only way to fix things is a Constitutional Convention, and the only way to get that is to remind DC that the Constitution is THE LAW.

My hope, as stupid and unrealistic as it may be, is that the Constitution is amended to actually account for all of the powers that the Federal government has granted for itself, but it takes those powers and splits them up among lets say 5 internal jurisdictions composed of several states. So things like the Department of Education, would be granted a constitutional basis to exist, but there would be a DoE for the NE, one for the South, the Midwest, the West Coast and the Rock Mountain regions as well. Split up the federal behemoth, but leave the government in DC to do the things it was supposed to do, like manage the military, trade between states and nations, etc. The enumerated powers only. I don't think that we can survive as a Confederacy, but all the power and influence being concentrated in DC is unworkable and it needs to end, immediately.

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

I can definitely see some shit going down though.

Please expand upon this.

 

[Leslie Nielsen]

>Roe v. Wade overturned
I am going to personally impregnate every BP poster on this site.
Except Janethough, she's fat.

 

[Gehenna]

Or what about last year with the eviction moratorium?

They basically said that the executive just need the legislative to authorize it, and even differed to say that they were just gonna let the clock run out.

The admin basically doube dog dared them on that.

If this SCOTUS does prove to be hostile things like that probably had a large part in said hostility. Very clearly they didn't start hostile given their actions around the election.

Please expand upon this.

A hostile SCOTUS means a SCOTUS who will almost always rule against the current Admin basically out of pure spite. This means anything the admin wants is DOA. The only option then is to try to pack the court which is resisted and hated by both the people and the majority of congress.

 

[Otterly]

To be a bit less vague post:
There are three types of cases that SCOTUS has been historically incredibly reluctant to rule on in any sort of major way. This is not to say no SCOTUS bench has ever ruled on them, but they are very rare and usually define any given bench of SCOTUS judges.

1st: Any decision which sees multiple states having to completely redo or throw out their laws.
2nd: Any decision which undoes major settled precedent, especially if said precedent has been used in other cases.
3rd: Any decision which sees a major curtailment or change in the power of the other two branches of government.

Keep in mind, these kinds of decision usually -define- a bench, you see one of them with any specific group of judges and then nothing until several retire or leave. And yet, within a week we have had the first and second ruled on and done. And a potential example of the third being on this very docket which we are waiting on. If they rule on all three it says outright this SCOTUS -does not give a fuck- and will make whatever ruling it damn well pleases, and if you have a problem with it you can go pound sand.


That has never occurred in the history of the United States.

For us non Americans, would be interested in hearing more on this. Intent? Where will this go? Potential implications?

 

[ICametoLurk]

I think Biden and the Democrats are gonna do well because of the SCOTUS.

They get fundraising, more people will vote Democract seeing something that was considered normal by previous Republican Governments is taken away, and Democract States can prove how wonderful they are by signing laws for day of birth abortions, something that would never fly in the Entire United States.

 

[Gehenna]

I think Biden and the Democrats are gonna do well because of the SCOTUS.

They get fundraising, more people will vote Democract seeing something that was considered normal by previous Republican Governments is taken away, and Democract States can prove how wonderful they are by signing laws for day of birth abortions, something that would never fly in the Entire United States.

Several problems with that.

Actual support for abortion has always been tepid, the vaunted "Over half of American's support abortion! has always been shenagins because the vast majority suppport "Some abortion, within constraints, with reasonable restrictions". A big part of why this happened now was because Democrats pushing for late term abortions made that majority bleed away from them.

So all their signed laws and fundraising is doing is preaching tot he choir who already were going to vote for them. It will do nothing to gain new voters.

 

[northstar747]

because the vast majority suppport "Some abortion, within constraints, with reasonable restrictions". A big part of why this happened now was because Democrats pushing for late term abortions made that majority bleed away from them.

yep.

Bill Clintons "safe, legal, and rare" was a good sell.

It acknowledged the concerns of a group, and came at it with a measure of respect.

What was it? Back alley abortions? I can see no abortion states having black market services.

When I spoke to some lib friends quoting slick willey they fucking bit my head off, that I was shaming a women (birth givers)

They also got mad at me for supporting abortion because Black Lives Matter, and then the whole fun part about the state regulating peoples bodies (vax shit)

And then I really lost them about how its a good thing we have the 2nd amendment and now a bunch of women can take up AR-15s and fight for the right.

 

[borsabil]

If this SCOTUS does prove to be hostile things like that probably had a large part in said hostility. Very clearly they didn't start hostile given their actions around the election.


A hostile SCOTUS means a SCOTUS who will almost always rule against the current Admin basically out of pure spite. This means anything the admin wants is DOA. The only option then is to try to pack the court which is resisted and hated by both the people and the majority of congress.

They can't pack the court. Unless they win the November election in a landslide (ha) they can't do it. It's theoretically possible if they removed the filibuster but it's practically impossible without an overwhelming majority in the Senate and House. Even then there's nothing stopping the current court ruling it unconstitutional (which would cause a no shit crisis).

Even when Obama had a super majority after the 2008 bank run he couldn't do shit like this.

Communists will have to bide their time and hope they end up in charge when the economy collapses or post nuclear war. If they were in a position to appoint an extra 5 judges or whatever it would mean they could re-write the constitution anyway so why bother?

Packing SCOTUS is shit lib fan fic. Like abolishing the electoral college or allowing non citizen voting. They live in fantasy world were 80% of the population are super left wing and the only reason the GOP is a thing is because some white people are racist and super genius Republican politicians stop BIPOC's from voting through threats of lynching and muh gerrymandering. It's pathetic.

 

[Gehenna]

They can't pack the court. Unless they win the November election in a landslide (ha) they can't do it. It's theoretically possible if they removed the filibuster but it's practically impossible without an overwhelming majority in the Senate and House. Even then there's nothing stopping the current court ruling it unconstitutional (which would cause a no shit crisis).

Even when Obama had a super majority after the 2008 bank run he couldn't do shit like this.

Communists will have to bide their time and hope they end up in charge when the economy collapses or post nuclear war. If they were in a position to appoint an extra 5 judges or whatever it would mean they could re-write the constitution anyway so why bother?

Packing SCOTUS is shit lib fan fic. Like abolishing the electoral college or allowing non citizen voting. They live in fantasy world were 80% of the population are super left wing and the only reason the GOP is a thing is because some white people are racist and super genius Republican politicians stop BIPOC's from voting through threats of lynching and muh gerrymandering. It's pathetic.

Here's the thing... expanding SCOTUS doesn't get the option of a filibuster. There is no actual limit on the judges. And the last nuclear option the dems managed to pull off was to make judge appointments an up or down vote. All they need is 50 votes and Kamala.

Its not that they -couldn't- do it under Obama, but that doing so is hideously unpopular as an idea. So much so that unless they have a damn good control on the vote they'd lose even Democrat heartland areas. With the current makeup of congress, they could theoretically do it. Except that one guy, Joseph Manchin, has flatly told them to fuck off.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

If SCOTUS does rule in a wide way here I can definitely see some shit going down though.

I guarantee Dems switch from trying to subtly encourage assassinations of Justices to outright assassinating them Seth Rich-style if they totally gut executive authority in the EPA decision. Of course, it would result in some actual insurrectionary activities from some segments of society. Dems are insects, and like wasps they literally cannot think beyond inflicting great pain on their targets in the short term.

 

[Garm]

For us non Americans, would be interested in hearing more on this. Intent? Where will this go? Potential implications?

Basically it would cripple the executive branch because it would curtail executive orders and it would force the legislative branch to do its job.

Basically it would be like having big brother come home and be really pissed because you had a party at the house.

 

[jje100010001]

I guarantee Dems switch from trying to subtly encourage assassinations of Justices to outright assassinating them Seth Rich-style if they totally gut executive authority in the EPA decision. Of course, it would result in some actual insurrectionary activities from some segments of society. Dems are insects, and like wasps they literally cannot think beyond inflicting great pain on their targets in the short term.

In the end it may fall to the working moderate majority to do the job.

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

They live in fantasy world were 80% of the population are super left wing and the only reason the GOP is a thing is because some white people are racist and super genius Republican politicians stop BIPOC's from voting through threats of lynching and muh gerrymandering. It's pathetic.

I am sick of that talking point of their's. They are truly convinced that somehow, the vast majority of the US is like this but Republicans maintain power. They really close themselves off from the reality of the rest of the country.

View attachment 3431728
In the end it may fall to the working moderate majority to do the job.

i like bees

 

[Blake Chortles]

Is the emission limit the one they are using to just completely cut gas supply for no other reason than
" saving the environment "?

Yea its a form of punishment/economic control. Environmentalists are watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.

 

[ICametoLurk]

So all their signed laws and fundraising is doing is preaching tot he choir who already were going to vote for them. It will do nothing to gain new voters.

So more Dems will vote then?

https://twitter.com/hutchinson/status/1541104799529062400