Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 2059 2060 [2061] 2062 2063 ... 2331

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 1311095 times)

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30900 on: June 29, 2019, 06:23:13 pm »

Warren supports court-packing, so i want her to lose.
Whatís court packing?
The US constitution in itself does not technically have any requirement for the composition of the US Supreme Court.  As such, the number of justices has been controlled by the number of candidates able to make it through the appointment process and statutory law, varying between six to ten.  Court-packing schemes, the most infamous of which was FDR's in 1937, refer to any attempt to take advantage of control of the Congress and Presidency in order to add appropriately-partisan justices to the Supreme Court until you're guaranteed to win any court cases that are posed against you or your policies.  The effects this would have on the checks and balances between the three branches would be...let us be polite and call it "profoundly negative."

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases arenít defined by party

Maxô

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30901 on: June 29, 2019, 06:28:35 pm »

Given how the parties have changed over time it would be easier to say defined by conservative/liberal lean I think?

Though then you get into all the bullshit with social vs economic, and constitutional originalism vs whatever the fuck they call "interpreting shit in a sensible modern fashion" lately.
Logged
Engraved here is a rendition of an image of the Dwarf Fortress learning curve. All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality. It depicts an obsidian overhang which menaces with spikes of obsidian and tears. Carved on the overhang is an image of Toady One and the players. The players are curled up in a fetal position. Toady One is laughing. The players are burning.
The VectorCurses+1 tileset strikes the square set and the severed part sails off in an arc!

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • Itís shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30902 on: June 29, 2019, 06:32:24 pm »

How dare you, the Founding Fathers were omniscient benevolent super-beings, their words will stand the test of time and need no interpretation!
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30903 on: June 29, 2019, 06:33:18 pm »

Justices generally aren't members of any party to begin with. Judges are labeled "Democrat" or "Republican" not because they hold membership in those parties, but because their judicial record suggests an ideological alignment with one or the other. That isn't really relevant, because the people wanting to pack the Court are openly doing so because the EEEEVIL Republicans have appointed more members, and the EEEEVIL Justices they appointed won't rubber-stamp the agenda the candidates are proposing.
Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

Culise

  • Bay Watcher
  • General Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30904 on: June 29, 2019, 06:39:59 pm »

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases arenít defined by party
Most likely?  Absolutely nothing would change; most USSC decisions are unanimous and less than 20% are sharply split (5-4).  Judges already aren't part of the political apparatus and don't require (or even prefer) direct membership in political parties.  This would just result in a question of enforcement and, possibly, even worse.  If they're not part of a party officially, do we require them to be?  Do we try to infer their political standings?  We can't just crack open the ballot box and examine their votes; the secret ballot is also constitutionally protected.  Do we do it based on their public statements?  How do we reconcile banning people with opinions from holding political offices?  Who judges these judges?  Another non-partisan committee would be turtles all the way down, and the only reason for this sort of amendment is if you don't trust the partisan Congress (the present arbiter).  It's a nasty can of worms for questionable benefit.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 06:42:17 pm by Culise »
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30905 on: June 29, 2019, 07:05:56 pm »

My compromise position on court packing is that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas should all be impeached for their crimes and replaced with socialist agitators rather than expanding the court size.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30906 on: June 29, 2019, 07:17:50 pm »

I don't recall gorsuch's actual crimes (save how he was appointed to begin with), but I'd take that compromise pretty handily anyway. In the meantime adding a few seats to counterbalance GOP fuckery would be okay, too. Whichever's more likely.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30907 on: June 29, 2019, 08:05:12 pm »

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases arenít defined by party
Most likely?  Absolutely nothing would change; most USSC decisions are unanimous and less than 20% are sharply split (5-4).  Judges already aren't part of the political apparatus and don't require (or even prefer) direct membership in political parties.  This would just result in a question of enforcement and, possibly, even worse.  If they're not part of a party officially, do we require them to be?  Do we try to infer their political standings?  We can't just crack open the ballot box and examine their votes; the secret ballot is also constitutionally protected.  Do we do it based on their public statements?  How do we reconcile banning people with opinions from holding political offices?  Who judges these judges?  Another non-partisan committee would be turtles all the way down, and the only reason for this sort of amendment is if you don't trust the partisan Congress (the present arbiter).  It's a nasty can of worms for questionable benefit.
Thank you. I never thought of those things. I thought they were of parties. Thank you for clarifying.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30908 on: June 29, 2019, 08:23:31 pm »

Warren supports court-packing, so i want her to lose.
What’s court packing?
The US constitution in itself does not technically have any requirement for the composition of the US Supreme Court.  As such, the number of justices has been controlled by the number of candidates able to make it through the appointment process and statutory law, varying between six to ten.  Court-packing schemes, the most infamous of which was FDR's in 1937, refer to any attempt to take advantage of control of the Congress and Presidency in order to add appropriately-partisan justices to the Supreme Court until you're guaranteed to win any court cases that are posed against you or your policies.  The effects this would have on the checks and balances between the three branches would be...let us be polite and call it "profoundly negative."

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases aren’t defined by party

How do you define 'independent' though? That's the problem as most who label themselves as 'independent' actually lean one way or another.

My compromise position on court packing is that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas should all be impeached for their crimes and replaced with socialist agitators rather than expanding the court size.

I get Kavanaugh and Thomas, but Gorsuch? Any impeachment of him is going to be political, not criminal as his only crime is stealing the seat by proxy of McConnell. Really, it's McConnell who should be punished. Socialist agitators though, lol.

Imagine if an amendment was made that made independents(members of no party) required to be on the Supreme Court. So that cases aren’t defined by party
Most likely?  Absolutely nothing would change; most USSC decisions are unanimous and less than 20% are sharply split (5-4).  Judges already aren't part of the political apparatus and don't require (or even prefer) direct membership in political parties.  This would just result in a question of enforcement and, possibly, even worse.  If they're not part of a party officially, do we require them to be?  Do we try to infer their political standings?  We can't just crack open the ballot box and examine their votes; the secret ballot is also constitutionally protected.  Do we do it based on their public statements?  How do we reconcile banning people with opinions from holding political offices?  Who judges these judges?  Another non-partisan committee would be turtles all the way down, and the only reason for this sort of amendment is if you don't trust the partisan Congress (the present arbiter).  It's a nasty can of worms for questionable benefit.

Yeah, most of the cases are what have been described as 'bread and butter' cases, basic stuff that are mostly of little interest politically. It's the highly political and polarized stuff (the roughly 20%) that get peoples attention, not the boring ones.

Anyways, my position on court packing is that it should be something only dictatorships and illiberal democracies take part in. Besides, does anybody think that McConnell or any other Republican WOULDN'T pack the court back their way the next chance they get? That's the main problem with court packing, with the way the Republicans (McConnell in particular) respect (or rather, don't) the rules, theres no guarantee that they won't turn the tables around next time.

Given how the parties have changed over time it would be easier to say defined by conservative/liberal lean I think?

Though then you get into all the bullshit with social vs economic, and constitutional originalism vs whatever the fuck they call "interpreting shit in a sensible modern fashion" lately.

Haven't the positions and definitions of conservative/liberal changed over time as well? I mean, the core definition hasn't changed all that much, but the place on the spectrum (though using a 1D line would be a massive oversimplification) has changed over time.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 08:31:28 pm by smjjames »
Logged

ggamer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Reach Heaven through Violence
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30909 on: June 29, 2019, 08:29:26 pm »

The judicial system being famed for it's socialist agitators? I figured most of them were working defense pro bono cases or working for the liberal crime squad

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30910 on: June 29, 2019, 09:15:13 pm »



Given how the parties have changed over time it would be easier to say defined by conservative/liberal lean I think?

Though then you get into all the bullshit with social vs economic, and constitutional originalism vs whatever the fuck they call "interpreting shit in a sensible modern fashion" lately.

Haven't the positions and definitions of conservative/liberal changed over time as well? I mean, the core definition hasn't changed all that much, but the place on the spectrum (though using a 1D line would be a massive oversimplification) has changed over time.

There is a website called https://www.politicalcompass.org/

that has a two axis system. An authoritarian/libertarian axis, and a left/right axis

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30912 on: June 29, 2019, 10:32:34 pm »

Black, Red, and Green are the predominant colors of many Middle Eastern states. The "satirical" article linked above is a claim that the US government is now as functional as those found in the nations that usually use those colors.
Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30913 on: June 29, 2019, 11:04:03 pm »

Thank you

sluissa

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #30914 on: June 30, 2019, 08:23:36 am »

Re: Term limits

I'm still against them. If a group finds a politician they actually LIKE and that represents them well, why should they have to find a new one after 4-12 years? Why should we be handing the lifelong, experienced lobbyists of D.C. a bunch of fresh fish that have no clue how to handle themselves every couple of elections? Why would we choose to do this for politicians but not any other profession? You've been a doctor for 10 years? I think that's long enough, you're learning how to be a doctor too well. Do you LIKE lame duck politicians who don't give a damn what they do in their last term because they know they aren't up for reelection again? Because that's how you get a bunch of lame duck politicians who WILL be turning to those lobbyists, asking them what they need to do to make sure they have a cushy job after they're term limited.

The problem isn't that we need term limits. The problem is that the party structure has become too powerful and made it so that an incumbent in a safely leaning area has almost perfect protection from primary challenges. If we made it easier to just vote them out for better options then we wouldn't need term limits.

Now, mandatory retirement age? I'd be more in favor of that. But even that is isn't necessary, I believe.

EDIT: Typo'd. I don't believe the retirement age is necessary, despite my desire to have fewer geriatrics in office. If they're doing a good job, then perhaps their experience is a benefit. But if they're not, then it just needs to be easier to vote them out rather than forced out via some procedure. Still... once you hit your 70s it's probably time to pass the torch... to steal a phrase from the last debate.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2019, 09:38:44 am by sluissa »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 2059 2060 [2061] 2062 2063 ... 2331