Faith in the Supreme Court is down. Voters now say they want changes.
Faith in the Supreme Court is down. Voters now say they want changes.
A new survey shows three-in-four voters want the justices bound to an ethics code.
You're viewing a single thread.
If voters want changes, they should go to the polls, and stop electing idiots like Trump who nominate garbage.
"If voters want change, they should go to the polls" doesn't work anymore. I don't know if it is the Democrats' spinelessness or the fact that the GOP is doing everything that they can to gerrymander and rig elections, or when that fails, just try to overthrow the damn government. We really need a plan B, though.
It's really not the Democrats' fault.
Democrats have not had true, fillibuster-proof control of Congress since the late 1970s.
For about seven months in 2009-10 they had something pretty close to that if you count the independents who caucused with them, but they also had the traitor, Joe Lieberman who ruined Democrats' one chance to get a public option for healthcare.
I love how apologists for Democrats' spinelessness never mention that the party could have done away with the filibuster forever with just 50 votes, and always pretend that Lieberman didn't have Ben Nelson's help in killing the public option.
They don't want to get rid of the filibuster because then they might actually have to pass substantive bills instead of giveaways to insurance companies and measly tax credits
Democrat's spinelessness
What you seem mad about here are a small number of Democrats who refuse to get on board for big progressive bills.
What you're missing is that those Democrats aren't spineless, but rather they disagree. Their voters disagree with other Democrats and so pressure their representative to take stances other Democrats oppose.
This happens because the Democrat party is a coalition party. They don't move in lockstep as Republicans do, about anything.
You and I would likely vote for Democrats, given the alternative, and I assure you that we have very different politics. For instance, you see removing the fillibuster as a good way to pass reforms and I see it as a good way to get trans people killed the next time a Republicans commands both gavels.
What you’re missing is that those Democrats aren’t spineless, but rather they disagree.
If they're so scared of doing the right thing that they won't, that's spinelessness. If they don't want to do the right thing and will fight against it, I am under no obligation to support them.
Democrat party
uh...
For instance, you see removing the fillibuster as a good way to pass reforms
And you oppose reform.
I see it as a good way to get trans people killed the next time a Republicans commands both gavels.
They're not going to let the filibuster stop them from doing it if they actually want to do it. They're not going to find just enough turncoats to keep the filibuster just to defend trans people. This is what I mean about spinelessness. You're so scared about what Republicans might do in the future that you're willing to preserve the filibuster, keeping badly needed reforms from happening. If you wanted to have protections for trans people, you would support ending the filibuster so we could put some in place. Republicans are gonna do what they're gonna do in either case. You'd rather gain nothing first. The more reforms we pass, the more popular policy Republicans will have to muster the political capital to undo before they can make things worse than they are today.
You're using a vulnerable minority as a rhetorical shield to defend a procedural nonsense that has been used to hold back human rights from minorities since Jim Crow. A proud tradition for what both you and Joe McCarthy call the Democrat Party.
In genuinely surprised that you put all this effort into a response and zero effort into processing what I said.
You skip over my actual points and just... ramble
And here we come to the part where a centrist can't address what a progressive has said and condescendingly dismisses it instead.
Concession accepted.
You literally know nothing about me. I explained how reality functions and you threw some weird tantrum over a one-line example.
Grow up.
Yeah, that would have been a great strategy had we started it 30 years ago.
As it is the only way to repair this court in our lifetime is an overwhelming democratic sweep of the Senate, (and winning the presidency) and then massively restructuring the court to add enough new seats to get control back into the hands of the majority of Americans, and our of the hands of those corrupt, bigoted theocrats.
43 years ago... fucking Regan is responsible for a fuckton of this bullshit.
The party of ratfuckers would never let something like "the constituents' interest in political representation" keep them from winning elections.
We'll have to wait for them to die, too. With modern medical technology ACB could live to be 200. Then what?