2020 General Election Thread

[sys]

judges and justices are human beings living in society, and so they have their own faults and biases like the rest of us. The "everything is naked political power" mantra is too cynical for me, and I consider it a facile explanation that does not comport with the complexities of reality.

i agree with this too.  if it wasn't true, it would be relatively inconsequential that the court is going from a 5-4 conservative majority to a 6-3 majority.  but virtually everyone agrees that it will be meaningfully different.

[CHONGS]

[Spracne]

The idea that the Supreme Court is not just naked politics is something pushed by lawyers and politics nerds to confuse the rest of the public in to taking it seriously so that politicians can exercise more unaccountable power over the public. I don’t know if spracs is dumb enough to buy it or if he is just trying to play the same game.

I think that has some hyperbole. For the nerds

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/02/6-catholics-1-court-scotus-and-the-rise-of-the-federalist-society-424778

This reminds me, can we also stop referring to FedSoc as some sort of shadowy organization? I get that non-lawyers have never heard of it, but it's a legitimate organization that has chapters at every top law school in the country. Likewise, progressives have the American Constitution Society (ACS), and they too play a role in promoting potential candidates for the federal bench.

[Spracne]

That was in the podcast 

I clicked the link but was disappointed to see it was only a stub article. Obviously, I did not listen to the podcast.

[Kat Kid]

The idea that the Supreme Court is not just naked politics is something pushed by lawyers and politics nerds to confuse the rest of the public in to taking it seriously so that politicians can exercise more unaccountable power over the public. I don’t know if spracs is dumb enough to buy it or if he is just trying to play the same game.

Yeah, I disagree. Yes, judges and justices are human beings living in society, and so they have their own faults and biases like the rest of us. The "everything is naked political power" mantra is too cynical for me, and I consider it a facile explanation that does not comport with the complexities of reality. No doubt there have been judicial appointees who were reliable arbiters for the parties that elevated them, but to a far lesser degree than the other two branches of government. And yes, we do have politicians who meddle with the courts and treat them as their own personal sandbox for promoting political agendas.

I think it is an insult to the great majority of judges, however, to paint them as mere political actors (federal judges, that is). We have only three branches of our national government, and only one was structurally designed to minimize political interference with its decisions. That was a good idea in 1791, it's a good idea now, and I will always root for and promote the independence of the judicial department. Indeed, when the political branches of government fail to act for generations, and when the collective action problem becomes so intractable that the machinery of democracy breaks down, sometimes you need the third branch of government to grease the zerks, so to speak. Lifetime appointments are the structural component that allows that to happen.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

1791?

Marbury v Madison was in 1803.

And your caveats are hilarious to begin with. As you well know, at the state and local level in most places the bullshit is dispensed with and judges just run as politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

The idea that the Supreme Court is not just naked politics is something pushed by lawyers and politics nerds to confuse the rest of the public in to taking it seriously so that politicians can exercise more unaccountable power over the public. I don’t know if spracs is dumb enough to buy it or if he is just trying to play the same game.

Yeah, I disagree. Yes, judges and justices are human beings living in society, and so they have their own faults and biases like the rest of us. The "everything is naked political power" mantra is too cynical for me, and I consider it a facile explanation that does not comport with the complexities of reality. No doubt there have been judicial appointees who were reliable arbiters for the parties that elevated them, but to a far lesser degree than the other two branches of government. And yes, we do have politicians who meddle with the courts and treat them as their own personal sandbox for promoting political agendas.

I think it is an insult to the great majority of judges, however, to paint them as mere political actors (federal judges, that is). We have only three branches of our national government, and only one was structurally designed to minimize political interference with its decisions. That was a good idea in 1791, it's a good idea now, and I will always root for and promote the independence of the judicial department. Indeed, when the political branches of government fail to act for generations, and when the collective action problem becomes so intractable that the machinery of democracy breaks down, sometimes you need the third branch of government to grease the zerks, so to speak. Lifetime appointments are the structural component that allows that to happen.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

1791?

Marbury v Madison was in 1803.

And your caveats are hilarious to begin with. As you well know, at the state and local level in most places the bullshit is dispensed with and judges just run as politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I very much disagree with that model, because you have district attorneys and judges whose interests may be too closely aligned.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I like the Kansas model. Let the people vote them out.

[sys]

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1315808294771064832

[michigancat]

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1315808294771064832

I think Bernie deserves some gosh darn credit for this as well!

[sys]

I think Bernie deserves some gosh darn credit for this as well!

as i recall, your comment on biden using sanders to help with this effect was that it was stupid.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

Spotted in Smallsville, KS:

[cfbandyman]

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1315808294771064832

Things become more moderate the further right the right goes.

[cfbandyman]

Spotted in Smallsville, KS:

Impressive, but even many of the journeys in smalltown KS this summer and early fall there is a small, but noticeable Biden lean out there

[michigancat]

I think Bernie deserves some gosh darn credit for this as well!

as i recall, your comment on biden using sanders to help with this effect was that it was stupid.

I don't recall

[kim carnes]

Bernie deserves credit for hoodwinking the American people

[sys]

I don't recall

https://twitter.com/hctrudo/status/1313491642649804804?s=21

Sitting in the middle laughing. What a crap show.

this highlights why it's so dumb, it doesn't fire you up at all

[sys]

 

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1315800609887584256

[IPA4Me]

Serious question. Do you really think the right is moving further right?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[sys]

Serious question. Do you really think the right is moving further right?

what is the context?

are red-leaning areas of the country becoming more red?
is the right-wing of the republican party moving even farther to the right?
is the average republican becoming more conservative?

something else?

[IPA4Me]

I've lived around quite a few red states over the years. I don't see things have changed with their positions all that much.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[bucket]

I've lived around quite a few red states over the years. I don't see things have changed with their positions all that much.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Personally, I think with the rise of cable news we've seen more polarization and as a result more congressional gridlock.

[IPA4Me]

I've lived around quite a few red states over the years. I don't see things have changed with their positions all that much.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Personally, I think with the rise of cable news we've seen more polarization and as a result more congressional gridlock.

Social media definitely drives the wedge further.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[sys]

I've lived around quite a few red states over the years. I don't see things have changed with their positions all that much.

david shor agrees with that view.  his data shows that more of the divergence has been dems becoming more liberal (also a lot of the polarization isn't really people moving left or right, just better ideological sorting by party).

[MakeItRain]

Serious question. Do you really think the right is moving further right?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

You asking about party agenda or rank and file republicans and what time frame are you referring to? The party agenda has definitely slid right since it was taken over by evangelicals. The party of limited government is long gone. Republicans have adopted 2nd amendment rights as a standard bearer issue, when it wasn't that as late as the 90's. If a Republican legislator proposed something similar to the Brady Bill today, I honestly think they would be kicked out of the caucus, I'm not kidding. Sandra Day O'Connor upheld abortion rights, I don't know if Republicans would even come close to considering a justice without an abortion litmus test.

What was formally known as compassionate conservatism now has no place in the party. You have a party that now pushes Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, Roy Blunt, and Joni Ernst to the front and has pushed Lisa Murkowski, Pat Roberts, and Mitt Romney to lesser roles. Look at people who used to be moderates like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, having to shift right, on the fly, to stay relevant.

I think a combo of Barack Obama and the religious right mumped your party and next month will be your comeuppance. Same thing happened to the libs, in the late 90's, but the blood letting was much slower.

Take your party back and reopen the big tent y'all used to tout.

[WildcatNkilt]

Pat Roberts slid more right his last two terms.  He is also really old.