site banner
zataomm  2yr ago (text post)   6862 thread views

Colorado Supreme Court Thread

Link to the decision

I don't know to what extent there are established precedents for when a topic is worthy of a mega-thread, but this decision seems like a big deal to me with a lot to discuss, so I'm putting this thread here as a place for discussion. If nobody agrees then I guess they just won't comment.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For reasons discussed in this thread that relate to due process and presumption of innocence, I believe this decision is either nonsensical or tyrannical and will be annulled by any SCOTUS that wants the Republic to continue.

But let's for a moment leave that aside and consider what would happen if they failed to do so. What are the consequences of this standing for American politics?

Some republicans are already talking about retaliating and banning Biden from the ballot in their states. And if that were to become a legitimate practice, you'd have local politics even more solidified than they are now. Every State a one party State, and both parties vying for one party control of the federal government.

It's hard to see the President not packing the court in that context. Or how a shooting war doesn't start eventually when the losing side realizes there are more direct ways of banning politicians from election when you're not in control of institutions.

I'm honestly a bit surprised at how lightly the media is taking this particular escalation. They sure are talking about it but courts banning major party leaders from the ballot is levels of danger not seen since Lincoln.

What are the consequences of this standing for American politics?

I believe nothing will really happen, but on the other hand, I would personally say that it becomes reasonable to treat the Democrats as an undemocratic, authoritarian regime that seeks permanent one-party rule. Again, I think the response from the right will be, "wow, imagine if Republicans acted like this" followed by doing absolutely nothing, but whatever you think the appropriate response to attempting to eliminate all political opposition should be, that's what should happen.

I think republicans will do something, although I don't have any guesses as to what it will be and it's probably going to be Texas or Florida doing something technically constitutional but in practice fenced off(both have governments that need to reestablish streetcred with grassroots conservatives). I agree that it's reasonable at this point to treat democrats as attempting to establish a one-party regime, and that democrats wanting to punish conservative-leaning demographics(aka everyone I care about) as a primary goal has been obvious for a while, but I think there's enough safeguards to stop them from doing so in a way that matters for another 10 years or so even if they hit their election goals, and that they'll probably blink at dismantling them. To be clear, that's cold comfort to California or New York red tribers. But the democrats aren't actually able to impose a one party dictatorship.

Why does Florida need to reestablish streetcred?

Desantis challenging Trump means he needs to reestablish his conservative credentials before he moves on; he can't run for governor again, but he's going to have a chosen successor and more than likely will want a political career(possibly in the senate, possibly elsewhere).

That’s just silly. No one doubts his conservative bona fides. Who out there is saying “I’m not voting for DeSantis. Cause he is too progressive.” No they talk about lifts or call him a robot.

Again, I think the response from the right will be, "wow, imagine if Republicans acted like this" followed by doing absolutely nothing

The one stonetoss edit superior to the original.

I would personally say that it becomes reasonable to treat the Democrats as an undemocratic, authoritarian regime that seeks permanent one-party rule

If this were reframed as a positive thing, then I think prominent Democrats would agree. Not too long ago Obama staffers and Democratic politicians were evangelists for The Emerging Democratic Majority. The larger point of which is that with a bit of demographic change the Democrats would have a permanent electoral majority. They were saying they would then transform America more than FDR did. They were on the cusp of total permanent victory.

But then that didn't happen. Not at all. Extrapolating from a few early-2000s demographic and voting trends was invalid. Turns Hispanics aren't that reliable of Democrats.

More recently, a Reuters/Ipsos survey of almost 800 Hispanic adults carried out this month found Trump narrowly leading Biden in support, 38% to 37%.

Whoopsie-daisey.

And the stuff about the youth getting out the vote and sweeping away Republicans on the national stage was an even worse prediction.

But to be fair, they argue for this as them winning fair elections. It's a positive aspirational goal from their point of view. So they see this as a good, valid, democratic way by which America will enter into the blissful state of one party Democratic rule.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats