To be fair, I don’t quite understand the reasoning on why more judges should be added.
If we have 19 judges and 10 are conservative then we are in the same situation as now.
If we have 19 judges and 10 are liberal, we are in the opposite situation but the other side is making the argument “there should be more judges”
In a representative democracy there will be times that a certain side doesn’t get what they want but that is not a reason to rewrite the rules to improve the chances of a particular view being more represented. The spirit of rule changing is how we got things like gerrymandering.
While I know that people don’t like this opinion but just because people don’t like the conservative or liberal judges doesn’t mean those judges have any less of a claim on the position they hold. The courts views on issues ebbs and flows over decades.
If citizens take issue with the current justices on the court, they need to hold the incumbent politicians accountable that approved the justices to be there.
It all only works if everyone is acting in good faith. We have about half of America working in bad faith right now. I don’t think there is a solution here.
What’s the reason behind thinking half of them are acting in bad faith? Is that because you disagree with them?
The thought of “there is no reasoning with them” is why each group of the electorate has become more and more polarized. Things have been getting worse because all groups only want to talk to people that agree with their own viewpoint.
We all can just do a better job of talking with fellow Americans about these things respectfully, admit positions we can compromise on and educate to convince on positions we are less likely to compromise on.
How exactly do you propose we get people who want to force all trans people to detransition or face persecution to stop wanting that?
The whole “it must be because you disagree with them!” narrative only makes sense if you ignore any and all context surrounding what’s being disagreed upon. Of course, those people are a vocal minority within the population, but a vocal minority who cause a disporportionate number of problems. ~Strawberry
I’m not saying it’s easy. From the people I have interacted with that are in the vocal minority group, often have no interaction with the groups they are vehemently against. If those people are given the opportunity to interact with someone that is trans or a group they are dehumanizing, they will come to relate to them and that will change their views. When people interact with people they will humanize them and realize that first and foremost we are all human beings.
A good case study of this is Darryl Davis, a black man, who ended up befriending several members of the KKK. Those people he interacted with ended up abandoning the Klan and that made an impact on racism.
If people demonstrated more of that compassion, the world would be a better place than it currently is.
But I think you are missing that the people Darryl talked to had to also be open to that conversation in the first place.
Moreover, the physical risk in that approach is quite high and the level of violence in the modern GOP’s rhetoric has just continued to ratchet up every year. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the same approach in this situation. Most of the people that we’d need to replicate what Davis did are in no position to put themselves in that kind of situation–and presumed allies like myself can only do so much.
The KKK is a violent extremist organization. How is interacting with that any less risky than the current political climate?
If people just give up on dialog there is 0% of change but if we don’t give up and there is even a 5% chance of humanizing with someone to change their hurtful view, that is many thousands of times better than no chance.
Because Davis was a grown adult when he started doing this, not a teenager or younger that is already much more likely to be a victim of violence.
I never said we shouldn’t try to have a conversation, but there are situations where I cannot recommend putting yourself in harm just for the small chance of changing someone’s mind. Davis decided to do that, but it’s not everyone else’s responsibility or duty to do the same.
I think I see where you are coming from, but there does need to be a line where we can just acknowledge reality.
What’s the reason behind thinking half of them are acting in bad faith? Is that because you disagree with them?
This is especially galling when talking about the Supreme Court specifically. McConnell refused to do his legal duty and allow a vote on the current President’s nomination to replace Ginsburg. He and his party said this was because it was unfair to seat a new Justice during an election year.
Several years later, the exact same people rushed through a nomination and confirmation of a new Justice just weeks before the 2020 election. The two situations are as close to identical as can be practical with two real-world examples.
Please explain how this should be interpreted in a way that can be described as “operating in good faith”.
When I’m talking about perspectives of who is operating in good faith, I’m referring to the general American populace and not politicians. That was based on the comment I was replying to. Politicians as a whole, and I think the majority of people can agree, not that trustworthy.
To the example you provided, I think McConnell was operating based on what congressional rules of procedures allow. Should he have let it go to a vote? Yes. However, he was acting in the interest of the people who elected him. He used the means available to him to achieve the outcome his electorate wanted. It wasn’t fair that he didn’t allow the vote but unfortunately the system isn’t fair.
Americans need to get more involved in elections. A max of roughly 40% participation in non presidential years and 60% in presidential election years is abhorrent and we need more involvement to get politicians who have been in office for 15 plus years out of office.
One of the main benefits is that it waters down the influence of hyper-activist judges, even if the court does end up split. It allows for a window in which reform can occur without interference by the court the way we see now.
But more importantly, expansion would be part of a multipart strategy that would need to be implemented in order to disrupt grip on the levers of power that conservatives have accomplished through manipulation of math. The other parts of that strategy, described fairly concisely by Aaron Belkin, would be getting rid of the filibuster, grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC to expand the voter pool, and using the above window provided by court packing to introduce aggressive anti-voter suppression and anti-gerrymandering legislation.
I don’t think court expansion in and of itself solves everything, it’s more that it’s one of the main legal tools that an administration has to exert a check on the courts. It needs to be combined with other efforts to produce results.
In my view, it’s a stop gap measure. The real issue is the lifetime appointments. We just had one president choose 3 justices, who all get lifetime appointments. That is beyond insane, and if packing the courts right now will help alleviate that imbalance I think it should be advocated for. Of course in the long term we will want term limits, or maybe some sort of rotation system, but for now I think that’s the most politically effective way forward.
@anthoniix@Recant@hedge I’ve come to the conclusion that there are no particular rules that can prevent fascism. All that can be done is to continuously fight in whatever way is possible that day.
The fascists firmly control the courts? Pack the courts. The progressives firmly control the courts? Amend the constitution to prevent court-packing. The fascists took them over again? Repeal the amendment. The rules and traditions mean nothing to fascists and they have to mean nothing to progressives as well if progressives are to win. Fascists will always change the rules to help fascists win; progressives have to do the same.
there are no particular rules that can prevent fascism
100% truth. Democracy cannot defend itself against actors that don’t agree with the common principle of following the law, and fascists by their very nature don’t acknowledge any law buy physical might.
I suppose the reasoning is that rich people have to pay off more people to get what they want.
So instead of flying 5 people on their personal jet it would be 10, or 20… and all of them would have to be willing to suspend their moral and ethical principles continually for these kinds of kickbacks (or for no other reason than to ‘own the libs’)
To be fair, I don’t quite understand the reasoning on why more judges should be added.
If we have 19 judges and 10 are conservative then we are in the same situation as now.
If we have 19 judges and 10 are liberal, we are in the opposite situation but the other side is making the argument “there should be more judges”
In a representative democracy there will be times that a certain side doesn’t get what they want but that is not a reason to rewrite the rules to improve the chances of a particular view being more represented. The spirit of rule changing is how we got things like gerrymandering.
While I know that people don’t like this opinion but just because people don’t like the conservative or liberal judges doesn’t mean those judges have any less of a claim on the position they hold. The courts views on issues ebbs and flows over decades.
If citizens take issue with the current justices on the court, they need to hold the incumbent politicians accountable that approved the justices to be there.
It all only works if everyone is acting in good faith. We have about half of America working in bad faith right now. I don’t think there is a solution here.
What’s the reason behind thinking half of them are acting in bad faith? Is that because you disagree with them?
The thought of “there is no reasoning with them” is why each group of the electorate has become more and more polarized. Things have been getting worse because all groups only want to talk to people that agree with their own viewpoint.
We all can just do a better job of talking with fellow Americans about these things respectfully, admit positions we can compromise on and educate to convince on positions we are less likely to compromise on.
How exactly do you propose we get people who want to force all trans people to detransition or face persecution to stop wanting that?
The whole “it must be because you disagree with them!” narrative only makes sense if you ignore any and all context surrounding what’s being disagreed upon. Of course, those people are a vocal minority within the population, but a vocal minority who cause a disporportionate number of problems. ~Strawberry
I’m not saying it’s easy. From the people I have interacted with that are in the vocal minority group, often have no interaction with the groups they are vehemently against. If those people are given the opportunity to interact with someone that is trans or a group they are dehumanizing, they will come to relate to them and that will change their views. When people interact with people they will humanize them and realize that first and foremost we are all human beings.
A good case study of this is Darryl Davis, a black man, who ended up befriending several members of the KKK. Those people he interacted with ended up abandoning the Klan and that made an impact on racism.
If people demonstrated more of that compassion, the world would be a better place than it currently is.
I admire your compassion and empathy.
But I think you are missing that the people Darryl talked to had to also be open to that conversation in the first place.
Moreover, the physical risk in that approach is quite high and the level of violence in the modern GOP’s rhetoric has just continued to ratchet up every year. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the same approach in this situation. Most of the people that we’d need to replicate what Davis did are in no position to put themselves in that kind of situation–and presumed allies like myself can only do so much.
The KKK is a violent extremist organization. How is interacting with that any less risky than the current political climate?
If people just give up on dialog there is 0% of change but if we don’t give up and there is even a 5% chance of humanizing with someone to change their hurtful view, that is many thousands of times better than no chance.
Things will never improve if we give up.
Because Davis was a grown adult when he started doing this, not a teenager or younger that is already much more likely to be a victim of violence.
I never said we shouldn’t try to have a conversation, but there are situations where I cannot recommend putting yourself in harm just for the small chance of changing someone’s mind. Davis decided to do that, but it’s not everyone else’s responsibility or duty to do the same.
I think I see where you are coming from, but there does need to be a line where we can just acknowledge reality.
This is especially galling when talking about the Supreme Court specifically. McConnell refused to do his legal duty and allow a vote on the current President’s nomination to replace Ginsburg. He and his party said this was because it was unfair to seat a new Justice during an election year.
Several years later, the exact same people rushed through a nomination and confirmation of a new Justice just weeks before the 2020 election. The two situations are as close to identical as can be practical with two real-world examples.
Please explain how this should be interpreted in a way that can be described as “operating in good faith”.
When I’m talking about perspectives of who is operating in good faith, I’m referring to the general American populace and not politicians. That was based on the comment I was replying to. Politicians as a whole, and I think the majority of people can agree, not that trustworthy.
To the example you provided, I think McConnell was operating based on what congressional rules of procedures allow. Should he have let it go to a vote? Yes. However, he was acting in the interest of the people who elected him. He used the means available to him to achieve the outcome his electorate wanted. It wasn’t fair that he didn’t allow the vote but unfortunately the system isn’t fair.
Americans need to get more involved in elections. A max of roughly 40% participation in non presidential years and 60% in presidential election years is abhorrent and we need more involvement to get politicians who have been in office for 15 plus years out of office.
One of the main benefits is that it waters down the influence of hyper-activist judges, even if the court does end up split. It allows for a window in which reform can occur without interference by the court the way we see now.
But more importantly, expansion would be part of a multipart strategy that would need to be implemented in order to disrupt grip on the levers of power that conservatives have accomplished through manipulation of math. The other parts of that strategy, described fairly concisely by Aaron Belkin, would be getting rid of the filibuster, grant statehood to Puerto Rico and DC to expand the voter pool, and using the above window provided by court packing to introduce aggressive anti-voter suppression and anti-gerrymandering legislation.
I don’t think court expansion in and of itself solves everything, it’s more that it’s one of the main legal tools that an administration has to exert a check on the courts. It needs to be combined with other efforts to produce results.
In my view, it’s a stop gap measure. The real issue is the lifetime appointments. We just had one president choose 3 justices, who all get lifetime appointments. That is beyond insane, and if packing the courts right now will help alleviate that imbalance I think it should be advocated for. Of course in the long term we will want term limits, or maybe some sort of rotation system, but for now I think that’s the most politically effective way forward.
@anthoniix @Recant @hedge I’ve come to the conclusion that there are no particular rules that can prevent fascism. All that can be done is to continuously fight in whatever way is possible that day.
The fascists firmly control the courts? Pack the courts. The progressives firmly control the courts? Amend the constitution to prevent court-packing. The fascists took them over again? Repeal the amendment. The rules and traditions mean nothing to fascists and they have to mean nothing to progressives as well if progressives are to win. Fascists will always change the rules to help fascists win; progressives have to do the same.
100% truth. Democracy cannot defend itself against actors that don’t agree with the common principle of following the law, and fascists by their very nature don’t acknowledge any law buy physical might.
I suppose the reasoning is that rich people have to pay off more people to get what they want.
So instead of flying 5 people on their personal jet it would be 10, or 20… and all of them would have to be willing to suspend their moral and ethical principles continually for these kinds of kickbacks (or for no other reason than to ‘own the libs’)