American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

The more important point is that in my opinion the court overstepped his constitutional role and Roosevelt reigned the judges in.

The exact point made by Republicans on e.g. Roe v Wade, and one of the reasons they are willing to buck tradition to flip the court decisively.

Darrell

[superdeath]

Common sense laws shouldnt need SCOTUS to act on them IMO. But the parties like to hide behind their so-called "morals" that seemingly force them to not want to allow things like a womans right to choose to have an abortion, or someone's right to have a gun. Its Asinine.

[Gustaran]

The more important point is that in my opinion the court overstepped his constitutional role and Roosevelt reigned the judges in.

The exact point made by Republicans on e.g. Roe v Wade, and one of the reasons they are willing to buck tradition to flip the court decisively.

I don't see how Roosevelt's New Deal and Roe v. Wade are even remotely comparable.

And I think the fight for the Supreme Court is simply politically motivated: If you believe the political projections, the traditional Republican voter base is going to shrink further each year. Actually, Republicans would currently be dead in the water without the quirks of the American constitution.
Right now, there is a Republican president, even though he lost the popular vote. At the same time, Republicans control the Senate, even though they represent less people than the Democrat minority. In other words: If the US had true proportional representation, the House, the Senate and the President would already be in the hands of the Democrats.

And in my opinion that's the main reason why they need to secure the Supreme Court for the future.

[darrelljs]

The more important point is that in my opinion the court overstepped his constitutional role and Roosevelt reigned the judges in.

The exact point made by Republicans on e.g. Roe v Wade, and one of the reasons they are willing to buck tradition to flip the court decisively.

I don't see how Roosevelt's New Deal and Roe v. Wade are even remotely comparable.

Is that because you favor one set of policies and not the other?  Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to understand .  In both case arguments were made that activist judges (to use your words) "overstepped their constitutional roles".  For the record, I support the New Deal, and am also pro choice.  But any day the executive bullies the judiciary into submission is a sad day for American style democracy, and I have the same disgust at FDR for trying to stack and browbeat SCOTUS as I do for Mitch's hypocrisy.

And I think the fight for the Supreme Court is simply politically motivated: If you believe the political projections, the traditional Republican voter base is going to shrink further each year. Actually, Republicans would currently be dead in the water without the quirks of the American constitution.

Right now, there is a Republican president, even though he lost the popular vote. At the same time, Republicans control the Senate, even though they represent less people than the Democrat minority. In other words: If the US had true proportional representation, the House, the Senate and the President would already be in the hands of the Democrats.

All true, although the bicameral system is designed to give rural states more pull, so the Senate is perhaps not an anomaly.  There's a long history of voters values shifting from left to right as they age, and the millennials in 30 years may well be the boomers of today, but in the near term the Republicans are in trouble.  Trump made that worse; they blew an opportunity to shift in a direction that would capture more of the Hispanic vote.

Darrell

[GeneralKilCavalry]

All true, although the bicameral system is designed to give rural states more pull, so the Senate is perhaps not an anomaly.  There's a long history of voters values shifting from left to right as they age, and the millennials in 30 years may well be the boomers of today, but in the near term the Republicans are in trouble.  Trump made that worse; they blew an opportunity to shift in a direction that would capture more of the Hispanic vote.

Darrell

The trend of age -> more conservative is much less than the ideological divide of boomer vs. millenial. The greatest generation was never as conservative as silent/baby boomers, and their generational cohort became less conservative as time went on, while the silent generation has become extremely conservative with time.

Look at countries in much of central/eastern europe - the "boomer" vote there is often more left-leaning than that of the youth.

The current trend in the US I would attribute to a long overdue secularization of large sections of the younger populace. For a western country, the level religious dogma has penetrated all sectors of society is shocking.

[Gustaran]

Is that because you favor one set of policies and not the other?  Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to understand .  In both case arguments were made that activist judges (to use your words) "overstepped their constitutional roles".  For the record, I support the New Deal, and am also pro choice.  But any day the executive bullies the judiciary into submission is a sad day for American style democracy, and I have the same disgust at FDR for trying to stack and browbeat SCOTUS as I do for Mitch's hypocrisy.

No, that is because in the case of FDR, the court had blocked all economic regulations for 40 years:

The Lochner era is a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State.

I find it at the very least completely against the spirit of a constitution, if a court prevents lawmakers from establishing protections for workers for 40 years, while there is clearly a popular and legislative majority for these changes. From today's view, one could even argue it is an ethical violation to prevent things such as child labor laws, it would certainly be a violation of today's UN conventions.

"You go to a case like the Lochner case, you can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law", concluding that the Lochner court substituted its own judgment for the legislature's findings.

Roe v Wade, on the other hand is in my opinion an ethical case. Let's also not forget it's a fairly nuanced decision: Neither did the court allow abortions at all times, nor did the court try to make abortions somehow mandatory (which could indeed be considered political activism), nor did it create disadvantages for people who are anti-abortion.

All it did was give a personal ethical choice back to the people, freeing women from fundamental restrictions which are favoured by religious hardliners.
So just because some right-wing dimwit cries "political activism through the court" does not mean it is a sensible point. Otherwise you could label any court decision in such a way.

[darrelljs]

I think we’ll just have to agree to see this one differently .

Darrell

[Jowy]

So Trump is hundreds of millions in debt and is not making any money. US president is a broke conman. No wonder he has so many strings on him.

[darrelljs]

Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, hotels and casino businesses of his have declared bankruptcy six times between 1991 and 2009 due to its inability to meet required payments and to re-negotiate debt with banks, owners of stock and bonds and various small businesses (unsecured creditors).  Because the businesses used Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they were allowed to operate while negotiations proceeded. Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they're very good for me."

It's pretty hard to find an example where Trump behaved selflessly, or for that matter failed to brag when he abused something for personal gain.  How quickly do you think he would have taken the early release deal McCain turned down?

Darrell

[GeneralKilCavalry]

So Trump is hundreds of millions in debt and is not making any money. US president is a broke conman. No wonder he has so many strings on him.

He paid 400 times more in taxes to other nations in a year than the to the US.