Felagund
11mo ago
He personally wanted to debate, and it gave more time for any bad impressions to wear off (which, in fact, did not happen, until he was forced out).
Actually, do people still think of Biden as too old now (on a gut level)? Has that lessened since people stopped caring about it?
Felagund
11mo ago
Her prosecutorial record is astonishingly weak and it blows my mind that the Trump campaign hasn't started running huge numbers of ads showing what she did and said during that time. She was just beyond ghoulish in her decisions and I think that the sheen on her image will evaporate once that stuff gets more widely known - at the very least enthusiasm on the left will take a nosedive when they realise they're voting for the cop who wanted to keep innocent black men in jail for prison labour.
Law and order appeals to the median voter, I think. Not sure that would help.
Felagund
11mo ago
And the optics are decided on by the media, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. Game, set, and match.
And social media, which is more of a mixed bag.
Felagund
11mo ago
It looks like it's 13000 per year for non-Mormons. That's not bad, though there exist other options for similar prices.
Felagund
11mo ago
as quite willing to compromise on values for tuition money,
Do they? I would have thought they were heavily subsidized.
Felagund
11mo ago
But that we have wildly differing rationalizations about why.
What is your rationalization? I'm curious.
Felagund
11mo ago
Uhh… are you asserting that there are multiple identities within you (read "you" expansively here) capable of doing things like "identifying"?
Felagund
11mo ago
What are the main losses that you'd point to? The Supreme court, sure. Elon buying twitter. What else?
Trump's brought it up several times. But no one believes him. You're right that this could probably be pressed in a more serious manner, but merely having Trump repeat it does not work.
See also Montana's failed referendum to protect those children.
Felagund
11mo ago
I think it probably would have helped, actually. It's the moderate position. I assume you win more undecided independents by being pro-Israel than you lose far-left by being pro-Palestine.
And Shapiro's the governor in what's currently the most important state.
Felagund
11mo ago
I just realized he decided to leave the site after posting the top post of all time.
Felagund
11mo ago
It describes this as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the senate. What does that imply, exactly? I assume the house would still be needed.
Felagund
11mo ago
No, the premise of republicanism is restrain power to make insufficiently popular tyranny hard to enact.
Felagund
11mo ago
That's a misconception! See The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury, by Michal Stokes Paulsen.
Marbury merely implied that justices could interpret whether statutes were constitutionally legitimate in the cases before them. This is obviously correct—they swear an oath to it, and the Constitution is law, supremacy clause, etc. That does not say that it binds the Executive or something in all other similar cases, they are bound by their own, independent, oath to support the Constitution, which implies that they themselves are also to interpret the constitution within their own sphere.
Subsequently, the Court has asserted Judicial supremacy, but that's not what Marbury said.
Felagund
11mo ago
Sounds like you're strung up on is/ought.
I don't see how I'm doing anything of the sort. Could you elaborate?
The Supreme Court is an inherently political institution
Yes and no. Yes, people's political views influence their legal opinions, and vice versa. Yes, the political process is how people get onto the court. But the court does not make decisions just based off whatever is politically expedient. Its members often consider themselves to be trying to perform a conscientiously non-political task, which influences how they decide things.
therefore
You provide no explanation.
it is good to ensure that we cycle through members of our highest tiers of government on a regular basis to prevent too much power creep.
I don't see why this would result in that, in the abstract. That isn't at all obvious to me. It's not like presidents decide to prevent their own power creep, and they're gone in at most eight years.
In the concrete case, Justice Thomas is the most limited view of what the judiciary can do, wanting to reduce its power, so removing him from the court first is not conducive to preventing power creep.
Felagund
11mo ago
I realized I didn't list the additional and maybe most likely possibility that they just start appointing justices two years, with the longest-serving justices phased out then. This would still try to remove two conservatives right away and replace them, but it would be slower.
Felagund
11mo ago
True, these are relevant details. My gut is that since appointments are a constitutionally provided thing, and the statute is merely federal law, they couldn't be stopped from appointing people, nor would their appointments be dependent on the validity of the statute. But I really don't know; good point about a stay.
Felagund
11mo ago
We don't have any proposed text. It would all be up to how they design it exactly.
Felagund
11mo ago
It's not that long of a shot. Manifold puts it at a 65% chance of happening, should they get a trifecta, which is not too unlikely either. It's entirely possible that I've been overstating things, but it's at least likely enough that it should be on our radar as a danger.
Yes, it is of course less likely than Trump being reelected.
Additionally, this catastrophozing has the exact same crunch as the people who cried over Jan 6th, calling the participants traitors.
Therefore, until we have a text that actually states how it would work, there is really no point in debating exactly what would happen.
I don't follow your reasoning here.
Additionally, if I was so concerned about this, the solution would simply be to make sure to win and get justices in that will give rulings I want on a consistent basis. That would necessarily require making sure my party continues to get elected.
Similar to how the "fix" to project 2025 for Democrats, should it succeed, is to make sure you win the follow-up elections.
Do I read you correctly as saying that if this happens, and you win later, you can just install a slate of new justices, and there's no real harm?
If so, I disagree. The role of the federal judiciary shouldn't be a political tool, but should be to faithfully interpret the law and decide cases brought before it. I don't want yes-men on the court, I want men who will faithfully execute their constitutional office. Repeatedly expanding the court or modifying what it could do would, I imagine, tend to increase how much those present are motivated by partisanship. The Supreme Court is in the present moment the only branch that's making any real effort to hold the government to what the Constitution says. Seriously weakening that would be bad.
I wonder what attacks on their campaign are most likely to stick. There is no record for the future, just vibes. Maybe the best attack on that is that she caves to pressure, especially from leftists? This sort of attack seems better to match the amount of agency she is projecting herself as having, and allows you to show why that's bad.
Debates soon would be good. Once they start actually taking positions, then you have positions to attack.
More options
Context Copy link