Kavanaugh ... now what?

You're a Russian troll, not an American.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

How do we promote the values of interests of Americans, irrespective of political party? And what ARE those, anyway? What "program" would YOU be in favor of?

---

The Supreme Court has spent the better part of 20 years chipping away at American democracy, from the infamous case of Bush v. Gore to its refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering to a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system (Citizens United is the best known of these, but McConnell v. FEC is probably more important) to the absurd Shelby County v. Holder decision in (which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem).

The conservative justices's basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted. Elected officials are, however, now having a much easier time getting away with accepting bribes. (Senator's bribery case www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/11/15/16656784/menendez-corruption-supre
me-court )

Putting Kavanaugh on the bench will likely exacerbate these problems. But critically, in most respects, the justice he’s replacing was already very much part of the problem, and anyone Trump might have appointed instead of Kavanaugh would be just as bad. His ascension is not so much an alarming new point of departure as a useful opportunity for people to open their eyes to what’s been happening for a while.

More at www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17941312/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-legitimac
y

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

What can democrats do ... it depends on the tools at their disposal, and whether or not they get their act together.

Looking at the polls, the 'democratic' party lead has shrunk significantly, from double digits to single digits in many cases, even low single digits. But assuming the leads, while narrow, have solidified, democrats may gain control of the House. That puts them in position to be the Party of No. Last time they were in that position (in the Senate, led by the forgettable marshmallow Harry Reid), they forgot to put on their big-boy pants. Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us. As a result, they looked like whipped dogs trying to figure out how not to get kicked. Their tenure was an abysmal failure.

ETA: Even if they don't gain a single majority anywhere, democrats have the power of words. This would be the perfect opportunity for democrats to formulate their message.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'd say the first thing the Democrats need to do is ditch the gun control stance. It doesn't matter how terrifying some of the other things that a Republican lead Supreme Court can mean when the flip side has the real fear of losing the 2nd Amendment rights.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What can democrats do ... it depends on the tools at their disposal, and whether or not they get their act together.

Looking at the polls, the 'democratic' party lead has shrunk significantly, from double digits to single digits in many cases, even low single digits. But assuming the leads, while narrow, have solidified, democrats may gain control of the House. That puts them in position to be the Party of No. Last time they were in that position (in the Senate, led by the forgettable marshmallow Harry Reid), they forgot to put on their big-boy pants. Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us. As a result, they looked like whipped dogs trying to figure out how not to get kicked. Their tenure was an abysmal failure.

ETA: Even if they don't gain a single majority anywhere, democrats have the power of words. This would be the perfect opportunity for democrats to formulate their message.

---

You really believe Dems will erase a 43 Seat majority of the GoP?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You really believe Dems will erase a 43 Seat majority of the GoP?

---

There have been far more dramatic House flips! I don't have a whole lot of belief in anything, but historically, it's well within the realm of possibility.

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/
111th (2009–2011) D257 R178
112th (2011–2013) D193 R242

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us.- KIKI

---

I don't know HOW we got so "blessed" by being on the (apparently) permanent list of who gets a DNC survey every two-three months, but if the questions that they ask are any indication, the DNC STILL hasn't figured out what went wrong.

I wish I had that survey here so I could refer to it, but I just mailed it off, making liberal use of the "other" option and any blank spaces I could find.

According to the survey, the DNC is concerned with ... or assumes that WE'RE concerned with ... or is trying to elevate the issues of ...

Social Security and Medicare
universal health insurance
global warming
free education
additional assistance programs
Trump and the GOP
Social issues (LGBTQ rights)
minimum wage
raising taxes
reforming Wall Street (how, not sure)

I wish I could remember the rest, but nowhere did they mention

ending our endless wars
cutting the Pentagon budget
reviving our manufacturing sector
restoring our environment
balancing our Federal and trade budgets
jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs
improving our infrastructure
restoring our Bill of Rights

They asked What is it about the Republican Party policy that you disagree with? and What is it about the Trump Presidency that disturbs you? one of the answers to that is Russia.

Next time I get one of those surveys I'll post what they contain so you can get a view of what they seem to be focusing on.

I think the thing that disturbs me ... aside from the fact that Dems seem to be as war-mongering as Repubs, if not more so ... is that they seem to have lost focus that in order to pay for all of the goodies that they want, you need a robust economy, which means production and jobs. It's not enuf to "tax the rich" because the money that the rich have was created out of thin air, it means nothing and can disappear in an instant in a financial meltdown.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court has spent the better part of 20 years chipping away at American democracy, from the infamous case of Bush v. Gore

---

No kidding.

Quote:

---

to its refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering

---

Okay, I had to look this up. I wondered what the basis was for the Federal government to be involved in a state's drawing of districts. There are two requirements for Federal districts (which btw might be based in the Constitution, but I don't see a direct Constitutional mandate) - each district has to represent almost exactly the same number of people, and (according to the Voting rights Act of 1965) racial minorities cannot be denied representation. http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

I mention this because it is a reminder that Federal intervention in redistricting in based on a LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS. Where Congress passed one law, they can pass another.

Quote:

---

to a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system (Citizens United is the best known of these, but McConnell v. FEC is probably more important)

---

Looking into this, it seems that Citizens United actually overruled McConnell v FEC; these decisions appear to be in conflict with each other, but you're posting as if they have a common aim. What is your interpretation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC

Quote:

---

to the absurd Shelby County v. Holder decision in (which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem).

---

Actually, if I recall correctly the point was more that voter suppression was possibly no longer more of a problem in those particular states that were required to obtain pre-clearance for redistricting than in other states that were not required to obtain pre-clearance. And indeed ...

Quote:

---

On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

The SC could have let the section of the law stand. However, I remember thinking, even at the time, that if pre-clearance was a good idea for SOME states, maybe it should be required of ALL states.

Again, I think this is a problem subject to CONGRESSIONAL solution. If Congress were to write a law with more explicit and comprehensive requirements required of ALL states, the problem of gerrymandering could be solved (or at least reduced).

Quote:

---

The conservative justices's basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted.

---

Can you provide some examples? Have they said so? What rulings have they made? I have no idea what you're trying to say.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME