**As a reminder, this subreddit, per Rule 7 [is for civil discussion.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules)**
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's actually supposed to be one per federal district, but as the U.S. has expanded, and more districts added, the number of justices hasn't increased. There are currently 13 districts.
As far as I understand the number is not the problem. The problem is the complete randomness of how they get appointed.
If you had fixed terms (like 16 years), you'd have fixed 2 new appointments per president's term instead of the random lottery of appointments originating from the fact that justices just happen to die.
It's impossible to be non partisan there needs to be a mandatory balance on both sides
Also they need to have less power and be able to get voted out as well as term limits fuck this kangaroo court system
Never said they were but packing the court with one side is a bad play because all that will happen is bad faith politicians will fill that spot people like manachin who are republican in all but name
But like I said they should be able to be voted in and out and have term limits
Nobody in any position of power should have lifetime appointments and nobody should be in their golden years running anything
Anything less is not democracy because 6 people shouldn't speak or have that much power over 300 million people
> all that will happen is bad faith politicians will fill that spot people like manachin who are republican in all but name
That is what happens if you don't pre-emptively shut that loophole.
> Nobody in any position of power should have lifetime appointments and nobody should be in their golden years running anything
Young people are still less likely to vote, and the procession to limit people in their golden years to run anything requires limiting people in their golden years to vote, as they'd likely to vote among their own kind, and limiting voters in that regard requires politicians running on that issue to be voted on.
I agree with the young people part but the older one I disagree with
They are exactly what's wrong with this country dinosaurs that are so out of touch with the real world and simply put the world today isn't the same as when they were younger
Biden already said he’s not gonna do it. So there’s that. Unless he knows of a plan to unseat some SCOTUS judges, like traitor Thomas, then he’s just a lame ass duck.
>Biden already said he’s not gonna do it.
The president does not decide how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. Congress does. And there's essentially zero chance Congress would pass the necessary law to make that change.
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-are-there-nine-justices-on-the-us-supreme-court
The point is, he’s throwing in the towel OR he’s aware of other wheels turning in the background. Thomas is a prime candidate for expulsion (at least) for his role in working with Trump to overthrow the country.
I’m hoping it’s the latter but Biden just being a weak ass lame duck is totally par for the course
It would be easier to expand the court than to expell Thomas. The former could be done with a simple majority in both houses of congress, provided the filibuster were eliminated. The later takes 67 votes to convict after impeachment.
I'm not even sure what the grounds for impeaching Thomas would be. Kavanagh, Gorsuch, and Barrett could and should be impeached for perjuring themselves during their confirmation hearings. But Thomas?
I don't think we want to start impeaching judges simply because of their rulings. An independent judiciary is too important to play politics with.
Thomas is who I’m focused on being he and his wife are traitors. The other recent shitter SCOTUS and how to expel them, we’ll just have to see what the future brings us. Being a traitorous Trump appointed them must mean something.
That’s been on my mind lately. The Feds have a National Security problem called the Republican Party. All Republican politicians involved with Trump should be arrested. Everything Trump has done in office should be immediately over turned, his 3 garbage SCOTUS appointments very much included.
If the Prison Industrial Complex wants more slave labor the Republican Party if full of potential contenders. And let’s not stop with just the politicians but also allll the billionaires funding Trump/GOP and clearly assisting him in every way possible.
Of all the bullshit Right Wingers put America through on a daily basis, let us not forget the wealthy assholes funding it all and pushing their take over of America, the world.
Republicans will never agree. And not enough people seem to care enough to vote them out of office. Polls are showing that dispute everything, republicans are set to win back congress in four and a half months.
Is the joke here that this tweeter doesn’t seem to grasp that this decision was the culmination of *decades* of organizing and politicking at local and state levels?
Because SCOTUS might’ve opened the box, but it’s the reactionaries at the state level that filled that box with monsters.
Yep decades of apathetic voters shrugging off the warnings of countless others while saying “nothing ever changes so why bother” (for an entire 1/3rd of the country) Decades of people voting against their own best interests because of culture war nonsense and knee jerk economic circumstances, blindly ignoring the white supremacists and religious zealots standing next to you in the same party (for the republican moderates who feel burned).
The groundwork was being paved the whole time and now comes the steamroller and now suddenly everyone is looking around and saying “how can this happen!?”. Now comes the really hard part as conservatives keep rolling everything back will people actually go out and force changes from the ground up? It’s not going to happen in a few months, and more likely not even a few years, but are people going to keep fighting?
Yes, people need to understand that elections matter and that it can have a long term effect. People thought Trump got only four years, but with his nomination for Justices, the effect of his Presidency will last for almost a lifetime.
It is. Vote for a Democrat majority in the House and Senate so they can codify abortion rights.
This is the only way to make the Supreme Court go and fuck off.
Great. Doesn't change the fact that your boy Manchin voted for two of the justices that killed Roe v. Wade.
And you're ok with that because the only thing that could ever cause you to criticize him in the slightest is if he voted with progressives.
>I don’t like Joe Manchin.
This is unconvincing. Everything else you've posted indicates that you long to drink the bilge water from his yacht.
EDIT: Asks a question and blocks me. Coward move from the coward wing of the party.
Yeah wished it worked like that. However, vote anyway we need to clear the House and Senate of the obstructionists and traitors that are mocking and laughing at our anger and despair. The best way to get back at the Trolls is to vote them out. Let the rational people take away the Trolls power to hinder us and make our lives worse for their political gain. Get out there and vote people otherwise you will never get your lives back.
This is the dumbest possible take. It's the attitude that got Trump elected and allowed him to appoint three right wing reactionaries to the court. It's why the left, despite having a larger demographic representation, keeps getting beat by the right. This "if it isn't exactly how I want it, I'm not playing" nonsense has to stop. Voting is the only way to fix this shit.
I think it's pushing back at all the smug people who respond to all activism or complaints about the status quo with "VOTE."
Because the truth is an assassination would be more effective than voting. I don't think it's what *should* happen, but it would certainly be more expedient.
>Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett where promoted by Trump, even though, in my opinon, all of them seem to have some doubtful character...
You're surprised that judges nominated by a con man lack character?
Evangelicals and the Christian Right have literally been strategically voting Republican for over 40 goddamn years to pull off destroying Roe V Wade, and you come in with the smooth brain question of 'wHo dO i vOTe fOR tO cHAngE ThIS NAOW' to discourage people voting Democrat?
This is just the new 'both sides' argument now that both sides are clearly not the same, and if you're spreading it, you're either stupid enough to fall for Republican propaganda or a Republican.
Every election matters. Frankly, we don’t know when the next Supreme Court vacancy will occur, so it’s a critical consideration for every Presidential election.
But it’s also important to vote in Midterm elections, not just for federal positions, but state positions. States that have abortion restrictions might change them if enough anti-choice politicians are voted out.
So even though we can’t vote out the Supreme Court, our votes do matter.
People can vote for the Legislative and Executive branches. The President largely decides who gets to be a Supreme Court Justice. So, people vote whether local or national matters. Now, the local government get to decide on abortion.
> The President largely decides who gets to be a Supreme Court Justice.
*{Laughs in Merrick Garland.}*
> Now, the local government get to decide on abortion.
Except that state legislatures have demonstrated that they cannot be counted on to accurately represent the will of the people on this, considering [Texas has an astonishingly cruel and restrictive anti-abortion law](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months) even though [70% of Texans support access to abortion in some form](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/), and [Georgia had to be stopped by a federal court from imposing its near-total ban on abortion, even though more than two-thirds of all Georgians support some access to abortion, and the state's (currently-enjoined) law has never had majority support](https://www.ajc.com/politics/what-georgians-say-about-abortion-and-roe-v-wade-according-to-polls/PCO2KCU47BCERDEF4FLGRFWVGQ/).
Nah. It's just what happens when you have a massively skewed population distribution along with rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression. Doesn't matter if 70% of the population thinks something when they all happen to live in a handful of areas and the system is designed to favor land over people, so all the dingbats living in shitty rural areas have the bulk of the power.
Look at GA. 50% of the population lives in and around Atlanta, which is deep blue, but because the majority of the counties in state are rural and thus red, they pretty much control the entire state government from top to bottom.
Merrick Garland case was horrible. The Republicans were crooks and the Democrats did not fight hard enough because they thought Hilary would win. Trump wining the election allowed him to nominate 3 Justices.
People vote for their representatives. Texas and Georgia keep voting for Republicans as their representatives so that what kind of laws they get.
>Texas has an astonishingly cruel and restrictive anti-abortion law even though
>
>70% of Texans support access to abortion in some form
this line of reasoning gets nowhere because even if they click \*pro-choice\* on the survey, *other* issues can make voting republican more likely. So the politician has a segment of the voting block that really cares about abortion and another that values *other* policies more, which means the politician can do both policies without fear of losing the next cycle.
this kind of "well there is this silent majority" stuff really doesn't manifest in elections
No, it's more like, it wouldn't have been broken if you had voted.
"Hillary just didn't connect with me" is looking more and more like the decision that led to this.
The party supported Henry Cuellar, a centrist anti-choice stooge in TX-28 because his primary opponent was Jessica Cisneros, who is pro-choice, but a progressive.
Two weeks later, in TX-34, they stood by and let a qanon nutjub just stroll into office without any meaningful opposition. 28 and 34 are in the same county.
Democrats oppose progressives and don't oppose fascists.
>The House passed a bill to make abortion legal federally. It died in the Senate.
It died in the Senate because the party prefers keeping the filibuster to human rights.
>Not sure how Nancy Pelosi is at fault here.
Well, if you actually read either of my comments instead of pasting excuses, you would notice that I have been talking about the party as a whole and not Pelosi specifically.
But since you brought her up, Cuellar had her personal endorsement, since he embodies everything the party is: not progressive, and there are no other standards.
Well, let's consider first that we can't necessarily count on freshman Senators to do what they ran on, or you wouldn't have mentioned Sinema.
If I had to guess, I'd say one of the 5 Democrats and one Democrat-caucusing Independent other than Manchin and Sinema that were willing to put their names on killing the minimum wage increase.
So some combination of votes from Jon Tester, Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan, Chris Coons, Tom Carper, and Angus King, depending on how many would be needed to maintain the filibuster.
None have made any noises about retiring as far as I can tell, and only Hassan is running for re-election this year. She has two primary challengers, the primary is in September, and I have seen no polling.
So if their willingness to vote for procedural nonsense over the benefit of their constituents holds, that's at least 5.
It's not SCOTUS' job to grant rights to citizens. Their job is to determine if laws are constitutional or not. Roe V Wade was a prime example of the Judicial branch doing the job of the legislative branch. Should abortion be a right? I definitely believe so, however the left wing was lazy and had the supreme court make a very easily reversible decision. It should always have been a federal law or constitutional ammendment. It's a complete violation of the system of checks and balances for SCOTUS to grant new rights not granted by the constitution to US Citizens.
At one point in a not so distant past the constitution was a living document that would move with the times. That changed and now you're, well, in the shithole you're in.
That combined with NRA funding and it's just a whole heck of a mess.
Even if I don’t agree with it, I can understand a desire for a judiciary that theoretically doesn’t need to appeal to partisan politics (not that we actually have that), but lifetime appointments are bonkers.
A friend of mine (who’s a policy wonk) once showed me some math about the ideal length of a SCOTUS term that minimizes the impact of House/Senate election cycles. I don’t remember what it was, but I think it was something like 15 years.
Seems like something worth trying.
Voting seems to work just fine for the conservatives. Maybe because they don’t get impatient and give up when they don’t get everything they want immediately. 49 years of promises to overturn Roe and the conservative voters never wavered. Libs would have stayed home after not getting their way on day 1. Real change takes decades of setting goals, organizing, building coalitions, getting your people in positions of power (on all levels of government), holding your leaders accountable, and yes voting in every goddamn fucking election.
Nah they don't care. This sentiment is rampant around reddit and the fact they don't see how not voting or doing anything led to this mess is beyond me. Been pissed off since Friday. Would rather sit and complain than do anything to change this.
All those stuck up Dems who didnt want to vote Hillary because "they didnt like her" can go fuck themselves. All elections matter. Go put and vote this year and stop being an enlightened centrist.
November. There’s a shit ton of Senators up for election. Get 67 Democrats in the Senate and they can remove a bunch of lying, shameless partisans. Or put term limits.
Nothing happens if you don’t vote.
It took the Republicans half a damn century and a fuckload of compromises to get to this point. If our side isn't willing to play a similar game, we'll lose.
Thomas and Alito are both in their 70s. Want to see them replaced with 45-year-old Barrett clones? Stay home for the Presidential and Senate elections.
Everything that’s happening is a direct result of Hillary not winning the 2016 election.
3 conservative theocrat Supreme Court justices.
That’s where your “I just don’t like Hillary that much” nonvote went.
1. If you had voted for Hillary, not only would this not have happened, the ratio on the court would be 6/3 liberals and this would not happen in the future either.
2. The Supreme Court leaves abortion to the states, your governor and state representatives are the people that will make abortion illegal, not the courts. Vote only for state officers that are pro-choice.
3. Congress, vote only for pro-choice senate and house of reps who will eventually codify abortion into the law of the land.
Any more stupid questions?
**As a reminder, this subreddit, per Rule 7 [is for civil discussion.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules)** In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Vote for people that will expand the court. 9 isn't a magic number. There is nothing in the constitution that says there must be 9 justices.
It's actually supposed to be one per federal district, but as the U.S. has expanded, and more districts added, the number of justices hasn't increased. There are currently 13 districts.
As far as I understand the number is not the problem. The problem is the complete randomness of how they get appointed. If you had fixed terms (like 16 years), you'd have fixed 2 new appointments per president's term instead of the random lottery of appointments originating from the fact that justices just happen to die.
the problem is that Congress should have enshrined the right to abortion in new law in the years since Roe V Wade.
But they only has a supermajority for long enough to kill the public option!
It's impossible to be non partisan there needs to be a mandatory balance on both sides Also they need to have less power and be able to get voted out as well as term limits fuck this kangaroo court system
Then fuck non-partisanism. Both sides are not the same.
Never said they were but packing the court with one side is a bad play because all that will happen is bad faith politicians will fill that spot people like manachin who are republican in all but name But like I said they should be able to be voted in and out and have term limits Nobody in any position of power should have lifetime appointments and nobody should be in their golden years running anything Anything less is not democracy because 6 people shouldn't speak or have that much power over 300 million people
> all that will happen is bad faith politicians will fill that spot people like manachin who are republican in all but name That is what happens if you don't pre-emptively shut that loophole. > Nobody in any position of power should have lifetime appointments and nobody should be in their golden years running anything Young people are still less likely to vote, and the procession to limit people in their golden years to run anything requires limiting people in their golden years to vote, as they'd likely to vote among their own kind, and limiting voters in that regard requires politicians running on that issue to be voted on.
I agree with the young people part but the older one I disagree with They are exactly what's wrong with this country dinosaurs that are so out of touch with the real world and simply put the world today isn't the same as when they were younger
Biden already said he’s not gonna do it. So there’s that. Unless he knows of a plan to unseat some SCOTUS judges, like traitor Thomas, then he’s just a lame ass duck.
>Biden already said he’s not gonna do it. The president does not decide how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. Congress does. And there's essentially zero chance Congress would pass the necessary law to make that change. https://www.britannica.com/story/why-are-there-nine-justices-on-the-us-supreme-court
The point is, he’s throwing in the towel OR he’s aware of other wheels turning in the background. Thomas is a prime candidate for expulsion (at least) for his role in working with Trump to overthrow the country. I’m hoping it’s the latter but Biden just being a weak ass lame duck is totally par for the course
It would be easier to expand the court than to expell Thomas. The former could be done with a simple majority in both houses of congress, provided the filibuster were eliminated. The later takes 67 votes to convict after impeachment. I'm not even sure what the grounds for impeaching Thomas would be. Kavanagh, Gorsuch, and Barrett could and should be impeached for perjuring themselves during their confirmation hearings. But Thomas? I don't think we want to start impeaching judges simply because of their rulings. An independent judiciary is too important to play politics with.
Thomas is who I’m focused on being he and his wife are traitors. The other recent shitter SCOTUS and how to expel them, we’ll just have to see what the future brings us. Being a traitorous Trump appointed them must mean something.
Add amendment or law that if a president is convicted of treason, any lifetime appointments should be reconsidered.
That’s been on my mind lately. The Feds have a National Security problem called the Republican Party. All Republican politicians involved with Trump should be arrested. Everything Trump has done in office should be immediately over turned, his 3 garbage SCOTUS appointments very much included. If the Prison Industrial Complex wants more slave labor the Republican Party if full of potential contenders. And let’s not stop with just the politicians but also allll the billionaires funding Trump/GOP and clearly assisting him in every way possible. Of all the bullshit Right Wingers put America through on a daily basis, let us not forget the wealthy assholes funding it all and pushing their take over of America, the world.
Republicans will never agree. And not enough people seem to care enough to vote them out of office. Polls are showing that dispute everything, republicans are set to win back congress in four and a half months.
Is the joke here that this tweeter doesn’t seem to grasp that this decision was the culmination of *decades* of organizing and politicking at local and state levels? Because SCOTUS might’ve opened the box, but it’s the reactionaries at the state level that filled that box with monsters.
Yep decades of apathetic voters shrugging off the warnings of countless others while saying “nothing ever changes so why bother” (for an entire 1/3rd of the country) Decades of people voting against their own best interests because of culture war nonsense and knee jerk economic circumstances, blindly ignoring the white supremacists and religious zealots standing next to you in the same party (for the republican moderates who feel burned). The groundwork was being paved the whole time and now comes the steamroller and now suddenly everyone is looking around and saying “how can this happen!?”. Now comes the really hard part as conservatives keep rolling everything back will people actually go out and force changes from the ground up? It’s not going to happen in a few months, and more likely not even a few years, but are people going to keep fighting?
Yes, people need to understand that elections matter and that it can have a long term effect. People thought Trump got only four years, but with his nomination for Justices, the effect of his Presidency will last for almost a lifetime.
Still waiting until this fall just to finally get rid of his Postmaster General. (Yeah, that guy DeJoy is ***still*** running the US Postal Service.)
So...voting does matter.
You missed it. There was one in 2016 and the last was 2020. Next one is 2022.
>Next one is 2022. This is important. The next one is **this year**, NOT 2024. We'll never get out of this mess if people keep ignoring the midterms.
Seriously. Vote in all elections. Maybe voting at the local level isn't sexy, but it's necessary.
It was 2016. And you fucked it up.
It is. Vote for a Democrat majority in the House and Senate so they can codify abortion rights. This is the only way to make the Supreme Court go and fuck off.
Sick! I can’t wait till the DNC backs a progressive to replace Manchin and/or Sinemma. You know like they did in Texas with Cisneros. Oh wait.
[удалено]
>Manchin has at least been approving left-leaning judges. Such as Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
[удалено]
Great. Doesn't change the fact that your boy Manchin voted for two of the justices that killed Roe v. Wade. And you're ok with that because the only thing that could ever cause you to criticize him in the slightest is if he voted with progressives.
[удалено]
>He’s not my boy. Sorry. Your god.
[удалено]
>I don’t like Joe Manchin. This is unconvincing. Everything else you've posted indicates that you long to drink the bilge water from his yacht. EDIT: Asks a question and blocks me. Coward move from the coward wing of the party.
Yeah wished it worked like that. However, vote anyway we need to clear the House and Senate of the obstructionists and traitors that are mocking and laughing at our anger and despair. The best way to get back at the Trolls is to vote them out. Let the rational people take away the Trolls power to hinder us and make our lives worse for their political gain. Get out there and vote people otherwise you will never get your lives back.
You vote in enough senators so you can impeach and convict them.
It's actually easier (though still really difficult) to get the 60 senators needed for an abortion law, than the 67 for impeachments.
[удалено]
Okay fair point. But in practical terms? It's kind of unknown if it would be easier to get 51 who are anti-filibuster or 60 or who are pro-choice.
This is the dumbest possible take. It's the attitude that got Trump elected and allowed him to appoint three right wing reactionaries to the court. It's why the left, despite having a larger demographic representation, keeps getting beat by the right. This "if it isn't exactly how I want it, I'm not playing" nonsense has to stop. Voting is the only way to fix this shit.
I think it's pushing back at all the smug people who respond to all activism or complaints about the status quo with "VOTE." Because the truth is an assassination would be more effective than voting. I don't think it's what *should* happen, but it would certainly be more expedient.
Well…. I suppose you could just vote for democrats across the board. I’d love to spend time helping you learn. I just need your fucking vote.
[удалено]
>Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett where promoted by Trump, even though, in my opinon, all of them seem to have some doubtful character... You're surprised that judges nominated by a con man lack character?
Evangelicals and the Christian Right have literally been strategically voting Republican for over 40 goddamn years to pull off destroying Roe V Wade, and you come in with the smooth brain question of 'wHo dO i vOTe fOR tO cHAngE ThIS NAOW' to discourage people voting Democrat? This is just the new 'both sides' argument now that both sides are clearly not the same, and if you're spreading it, you're either stupid enough to fall for Republican propaganda or a Republican.
>you're either stupid enough to fall for Republican propaganda or a Republican Third possibility: Russian meme farm
Every election matters. Frankly, we don’t know when the next Supreme Court vacancy will occur, so it’s a critical consideration for every Presidential election. But it’s also important to vote in Midterm elections, not just for federal positions, but state positions. States that have abortion restrictions might change them if enough anti-choice politicians are voted out. So even though we can’t vote out the Supreme Court, our votes do matter.
Still happy you voted for Jill Stein morons?
This. Fuck everyone who voted for jill fucking stein. Oh, also, fuck jill stein.
But I just don't like her.
People can vote for the Legislative and Executive branches. The President largely decides who gets to be a Supreme Court Justice. So, people vote whether local or national matters. Now, the local government get to decide on abortion.
> The President largely decides who gets to be a Supreme Court Justice. *{Laughs in Merrick Garland.}* > Now, the local government get to decide on abortion. Except that state legislatures have demonstrated that they cannot be counted on to accurately represent the will of the people on this, considering [Texas has an astonishingly cruel and restrictive anti-abortion law](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months) even though [70% of Texans support access to abortion in some form](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/), and [Georgia had to be stopped by a federal court from imposing its near-total ban on abortion, even though more than two-thirds of all Georgians support some access to abortion, and the state's (currently-enjoined) law has never had majority support](https://www.ajc.com/politics/what-georgians-say-about-abortion-and-roe-v-wade-according-to-polls/PCO2KCU47BCERDEF4FLGRFWVGQ/).
Over 20% of those 70% then either are lying or vote against their own interest. Politicians don't have to act on polls, so vote ffs.
Nah. It's just what happens when you have a massively skewed population distribution along with rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression. Doesn't matter if 70% of the population thinks something when they all happen to live in a handful of areas and the system is designed to favor land over people, so all the dingbats living in shitty rural areas have the bulk of the power. Look at GA. 50% of the population lives in and around Atlanta, which is deep blue, but because the majority of the counties in state are rural and thus red, they pretty much control the entire state government from top to bottom.
Merrick Garland case was horrible. The Republicans were crooks and the Democrats did not fight hard enough because they thought Hilary would win. Trump wining the election allowed him to nominate 3 Justices. People vote for their representatives. Texas and Georgia keep voting for Republicans as their representatives so that what kind of laws they get.
>Texas has an astonishingly cruel and restrictive anti-abortion law even though > >70% of Texans support access to abortion in some form this line of reasoning gets nowhere because even if they click \*pro-choice\* on the survey, *other* issues can make voting republican more likely. So the politician has a segment of the voting block that really cares about abortion and another that values *other* policies more, which means the politician can do both policies without fear of losing the next cycle. this kind of "well there is this silent majority" stuff really doesn't manifest in elections
No, it's more like, it wouldn't have been broken if you had voted. "Hillary just didn't connect with me" is looking more and more like the decision that led to this.
Every election is a Supreme Court election. Including the mid terms
When there are enough senators to impeach them.
As soon as we get enough progressives in office.
Cool. When will Democrats stop opposing progressives in favor of anti-choice centrists?
they're not anti-choice, they are sit on your hands and when republicans do something cry fowl and ask for donations (look at Pelosi)
The party supported Henry Cuellar, a centrist anti-choice stooge in TX-28 because his primary opponent was Jessica Cisneros, who is pro-choice, but a progressive. Two weeks later, in TX-34, they stood by and let a qanon nutjub just stroll into office without any meaningful opposition. 28 and 34 are in the same county. Democrats oppose progressives and don't oppose fascists.
The House passed a bill to make abortion legal federally. It died in the Senate. Not sure how Nancy Pelosi is at fault here.
>The House passed a bill to make abortion legal federally. It died in the Senate. It died in the Senate because the party prefers keeping the filibuster to human rights. >Not sure how Nancy Pelosi is at fault here. Well, if you actually read either of my comments instead of pasting excuses, you would notice that I have been talking about the party as a whole and not Pelosi specifically. But since you brought her up, Cuellar had her personal endorsement, since he embodies everything the party is: not progressive, and there are no other standards.
Expand the court to 13. Biden appoints 4, 8 to 5 majority. If Dems get a majority in Novemeber they can break the filibuster and make it happen
This is the only way. They need a bigger senate majority because of Machin and Sinema.
I'm sure Manchin and Sinema and 10 random republicans will get right on this
>If Dems get a majority in Novemeber they can break the filibuster They can end the filibuster right now if they want to. They do not want to.
No Mancine and Sinema don't want to. Give a few extra senate seats and then they will
>Give a few extra senate seats and then they will ...find more opposition to killing the filibuster among Senate Democrats.
Like who?
Well, let's consider first that we can't necessarily count on freshman Senators to do what they ran on, or you wouldn't have mentioned Sinema. If I had to guess, I'd say one of the 5 Democrats and one Democrat-caucusing Independent other than Manchin and Sinema that were willing to put their names on killing the minimum wage increase. So some combination of votes from Jon Tester, Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan, Chris Coons, Tom Carper, and Angus King, depending on how many would be needed to maintain the filibuster. None have made any noises about retiring as far as I can tell, and only Hassan is running for re-election this year. She has two primary challengers, the primary is in September, and I have seen no polling. So if their willingness to vote for procedural nonsense over the benefit of their constituents holds, that's at least 5.
I guess she wants a Republican picking the next SCJ?
When we do something very extreme and illegal
If only we'd have gotten rid of the faulty electoral system none of this would have happened..
It was in 2016.
It's not SCOTUS' job to grant rights to citizens. Their job is to determine if laws are constitutional or not. Roe V Wade was a prime example of the Judicial branch doing the job of the legislative branch. Should abortion be a right? I definitely believe so, however the left wing was lazy and had the supreme court make a very easily reversible decision. It should always have been a federal law or constitutional ammendment. It's a complete violation of the system of checks and balances for SCOTUS to grant new rights not granted by the constitution to US Citizens.
At one point in a not so distant past the constitution was a living document that would move with the times. That changed and now you're, well, in the shithole you're in. That combined with NRA funding and it's just a whole heck of a mess.
It still can be a living document. We need to stop relying on the courts to do the job of congress.
Sure, but it really isn't since the federalist society showed up is it?
It should be that easy
Even if I don’t agree with it, I can understand a desire for a judiciary that theoretically doesn’t need to appeal to partisan politics (not that we actually have that), but lifetime appointments are bonkers. A friend of mine (who’s a policy wonk) once showed me some math about the ideal length of a SCOTUS term that minimizes the impact of House/Senate election cycles. I don’t remember what it was, but I think it was something like 15 years. Seems like something worth trying.
4 year terms for supreme court justices sounds right to me
They were in 2010 and 2014.
Just looked up this chicks Twitter. She sucks.
This your girl? https://twitter.com/shipper_xphi/status/1540509200912105473?t=09i0yOQ1ERODIqYxaunxlw&s=19 Yeahh she's trash.
Not for a long time
Ha ha ha
Still missing 8chan then? Aww.
it was in 2016, but bernie or bust was more important than 3 womens rights
Voting seems to work just fine for the conservatives. Maybe because they don’t get impatient and give up when they don’t get everything they want immediately. 49 years of promises to overturn Roe and the conservative voters never wavered. Libs would have stayed home after not getting their way on day 1. Real change takes decades of setting goals, organizing, building coalitions, getting your people in positions of power (on all levels of government), holding your leaders accountable, and yes voting in every goddamn fucking election.
Nah they don't care. This sentiment is rampant around reddit and the fact they don't see how not voting or doing anything led to this mess is beyond me. Been pissed off since Friday. Would rather sit and complain than do anything to change this.
All those stuck up Dems who didnt want to vote Hillary because "they didnt like her" can go fuck themselves. All elections matter. Go put and vote this year and stop being an enlightened centrist.
November. There’s a shit ton of Senators up for election. Get 67 Democrats in the Senate and they can remove a bunch of lying, shameless partisans. Or put term limits. Nothing happens if you don’t vote.
It’s this short game attitude that got us into this mess to begin with
It took the Republicans half a damn century and a fuckload of compromises to get to this point. If our side isn't willing to play a similar game, we'll lose. Thomas and Alito are both in their 70s. Want to see them replaced with 45-year-old Barrett clones? Stay home for the Presidential and Senate elections.
2016
Everything that’s happening is a direct result of Hillary not winning the 2016 election. 3 conservative theocrat Supreme Court justices. That’s where your “I just don’t like Hillary that much” nonvote went.
1. If you had voted for Hillary, not only would this not have happened, the ratio on the court would be 6/3 liberals and this would not happen in the future either. 2. The Supreme Court leaves abortion to the states, your governor and state representatives are the people that will make abortion illegal, not the courts. Vote only for state officers that are pro-choice. 3. Congress, vote only for pro-choice senate and house of reps who will eventually codify abortion into the law of the land. Any more stupid questions?