• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

milo said:
There aren't any rules, there is a modern convention but the Republicans have thrown out loads of those. I think that it is similar to the Tories trying to load the Lords here, it doesn't really cut through outside a small group of politicos.

I think that this is a distraction though, it is a big ask for the Dems to win both Senate runoffs and even then they have a tied Senate and VP casting vote. I think that they needed a clear majority to make it a reasonable option.
Click to expand...

I think adding more people to the Lords which already has 600 members and no real power is quite different to adding additional SC justices of which there are 9 and have the final say on anything constitutional.

Adding to that it's symbolic, maybe you do need to fight fire with fire but then you risk alientating people who voted for you because you claimed you were above all of that.
 
P.D. said:
I think adding more people to the Lords which already has 600 members and no real power is quite different to adding additional SC justices of which there are 9 and have the final say on anything constitutional.

Adding to that it's symbolic, maybe you do need to fight fire with fire but then you risk alientating people who voted for you because you claimed you were above all of that.
Click to expand...
Trump has appointed 3 justices, all of which have question marks over them for one reason or another. The ideology of the court has always been right of centre in recent times and is going further and further that way with each new religious nut appointed. So through luck or some other shenanigans the minority has taken a stranglehold of the highest court, a court which espouses views that do not represent the opinion of the majority of Americans. This has to change to preserve the legitimacy of the court IMO. I can see Biden doing something even though he has dodged the question a few times.
 
Rorschach said:
Trump has appointed 3 justices, all of which have question marks over them for one reason or another. The ideology of the court has always been right of centre in recent times and is going further and further that way with each new religious nut appointed. So through luck or some other shenanigans the minority has taken a stranglehold of the highest court, a court which espouses views that do not represent the opinion of the majority of Americans. This has to change to preserve the legitimacy of the court IMO. I can see Biden doing something even though he has dodged the question a few times.
Click to expand...
Yup reap what you sow...

https://twitter.com/x/status/800775038224007168

https://twitter.com/x/status/829107918771519491
 
Rorschach said:
Trump has appointed 3 justices, all of which have question marks over them for one reason or another. The ideology of the court has always been right of centre in recent times and is going further and further that way with each new religious nut appointed. So through luck or some other shenanigans the minority has taken a stranglehold of the highest court, a court which espouses views that do not represent the opinion of the majority of Americans. This has to change to preserve the legitimacy of the court IMO. I can see Biden doing something even though he has dodged the question a few times.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that appointing someone to the Lords is massively different to appoint a SC justice. Whilst it's obviously conservative led not everything has gone their own way reecently e.g. the interim judgement on ACA indicates it won't be deemed illegal, they lost some other cases on abortion etc.

I have no issue with amending the structure of the SC at all to rectify those points you mention but its a balancing act because they will need the support of some voters that might be put off by such a change.
 
P.D. said:
I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that appointing someone to the Lords is massively different to appoint a SC justice. Whilst it's obviously conservative led not everything has gone their own way reecently e.g. the interim judgement on ACA indicates it won't be deemed illegal, they lost some other cases on abortion etc.

I have no issue with amending the structure of the SC at all to rectify those points you mention but its a balancing act because they will need the support of some voters that might be put off by such a change.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Lords is completely different, I agree.

Rebalancing the supreme court has widespread support in dem circles from the stuff I have read, though I don't have any hard number to back that claim up. Just the opinion in my reading bubble. Changing the numbers would allow the reintroduction of the voting rights act, maybe the revocation of citizens united, dc statehood, etc. It seems to me this would easily be a net vote gain for dems on a whole range of areas. Who knows really, but I do know one thing for sure. If the shoe was on the other foot the GOP wouldn't hesitate to expand it. They've already shown that norms don't matter.
 
Rorschach said:
Yes, the Lords is completely different, I agree.

Rebalancing the supreme court has widespread support in dem circles from the stuff I have read, though I don't have any hard number to back that claim up. Just the opinion in my reading bubble. Changing the numbers would allow the reintroduction of the voting rights act, maybe the revocation of citizens united, dc statehood, etc. It seems to me this would easily be a net vote gain for dems on a whole range of areas. Who knows really, but I do know one thing for sure. If the shoe was on the other foot the GOP wouldn't hesitate to expand it. They've already shown that norms don't matter.
Click to expand...

But Dem circles aren't who they need to impress, by definition they already vote Dem. To remain popular and win elections you always need to attract swing or lethargic voters which is usually what gets you over the line. DC statehood has nothing to do with the SC, it just needs a majority in both houses and a president willing to sign it. Sure it could be appealed and taken to the supreme court but that's a separate matter.
 
P.D. said:
But Dem circles aren't who they need to impress, by definition they already vote Dem. To remain popular and win elections you always need to attract swing or lethargic voters which is usually what gets you over the line. DC statehood has nothing to do with the SC, it just needs a majority in both houses and a president willing to sign it. Sure it could be appealed and taken to the supreme court but that's a separate matter.
Click to expand...
The broad tent of dem voters is a herd of cats. You always have to work hard to keep them engaged as their views are disparate and varied. It is an advantage that the GOP has that their message is relatively simple and consistent, and they have a media machine that repeats it to the base. Some of the big issues a liberal supreme court would vote for (and the current surpreme court would not) bring more into this tent IMO. For instance, there is a larger constituency of disenfranchised voters that could be brought to vote if the voting right act was reintroduced. The GOP have openly admitted that if everyone could vote they would win fudge all. These swing voter would likely not be swayed by SC justice counts. They make up their mind in the weeks leading up to an election and are not tuned into the political chatter outside of that window. My overall point that adding more SC seats is a net positive for the dems, but I guess we'll see.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back