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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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.
The one stonetoss edit superior to the original.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link