870
Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised'
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
870 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2305 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Get these fairy-tale-believing cunts out of government.
I will do my part by not voting in protest! That will surely work! (/s)
Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don't vote. /s
Maybe they ought to? There's quite a lot of potential votes out there. Also want to add that I always vote, and politicians never consider my opinion anyway.
Reliable demographics or voting blocks get preferential treatment over fair-weather voters. If you want to know why even the GOP won't overtly kill social security or medicare (unless they include a way to keep current recipients on benefits), it's because old people vote very reliably. Though with the modern day cultists this isn't as true anymore since MAGAs will happily let the GOP take everything from them if they think it will hurt their perceived political enemies.
This is just useful expenditure of political capital. As a politician you want to stick your neck out for groups that are definitely showing up.
Seems like a good way to ensure you have low turnout elections, with only die-hard party-heads participating. That way, elections are won or lost on how jazzed up you can get your base, and you never have to attract anyone new. That sounds bad enough, but I think who the politicians actually listen to are their donors. Anytime there is a conflict between what the donors want, and what the constituency wants... voters can get fucked.
Believe it or not, there are people in the center that switch votes. That's who they go after.
Still the same small pool of voters.
It's not die hards as you put it. They are swing voters. Every one counts double because you get a vote and take one away from the other party. Elections are won from the centre.
Sure, but I'm saying that in addition to the 'swing' voters, there is a huuuge pool of people that never or rarely vote. These are potential voters, many of whom could be energized by the right policies.
Ok let's say you gamble and try to get those guys by say doubling gas taxes.You just lost the center (worth double) on the hope that some of the people who never vote magically vote. See the problem?
I see a lot of problems.
Sounds like you're avoiding the point. I'll take that as a concession.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm saying, look this system is so shitty that half the people don't even bother participating in it. You've taken a pretty bad example of a policy to point out why neither party could possibly attract disengaged citizens. How about taxing billionaires out of existence to fund QOL upgrades for the rest of us? I bet that would gain more votes than it would lose, but something tells me the billionaire segment of the electorate is the one that matters most.
"Taxes! They want to raise taxes! They're coming for your hard earned money! That's all they do is raise taxes!"
And you just lost the center. We both know that's how they're going to spin it. In the HOPE (I choose that word very carefully) that the people that never vote will magically vote. You lose the guaranteed vote (which counts double) from people that are engaged, in the HOPE that some others maybe, possibly, hopefully, perhaps, show up. I think they'll just say "still not enough, so I'm still not voting in protest". The math does not work. Elections are won from the center.
"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"
Funny because that's exactly what I think of these protest non-voters. They've tried nothing (literally nothing because they don't vote) and they're all out of ideas.
Is this the point where I point out that the dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years? They need all 3 to actually pass anything progressive. But the non-voters never try to give them any real control.
What about the ones that vote every single time, and still never get what they wanted?
Edited my comment, so you probably didn't see. And we are at that point.
Is this the point where I point out that the dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years? They need all 3 to actually pass anything progressive. But the non-voters never try to give them any real control.
Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. Want to go further? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again, 6 years of the last 44 fucking years dems have had control of all 3.
And that can still be filibustered. If you want filibuster proof majority then it's 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS out of the least 44 fucking years.
That's why it's tried nothing and all out of ideas.
So we're back to the point where the system is hopelessly broken? Because what you just described is the system. You want to fantasize about non-voters just suddenly deciding to vote blue in overwhelming numbers. I fantasize about genuine, inspiring leaders and policies bringing more participation to the process. They're both just fantasies though.
Whose idea was it to appoint Supreme Court justices for life? That seems like asking for trouble.
Blame the conservatives for abusing the system.
Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn't the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.
It doesn't have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don't know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution
There is. The Military. Its why they swear to the constitutio to protect against all threats foreign and domestic. not a person.
Now, The real question is, how to deal with it if the Military is at best indifferent, or at worst, complicit, and either way refusing to act.
Which should also help shine a worrying light on why the right never wanted the military to investigate and purge white supremacists/fascists/etc
If by "the military," you mean the well-regulated militia (every able-bodied adult male) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, then sure.
'Cause otherwise you could only be talking about the Navy, as (from the founding fathers' perspective) a permanent standing army was very explicitly and intentionally Not A Thing. (That's why the Constitution limits for appropriating money to raise and support an army to a term of two years or less.)
All democratic government relies on some amount of good faith. Many of the rules are set up to be guidelines for resolving disputes in a civilized manner, and preventing any single bad actor.
The place where this was most respected was in the transfer of power between presidencies.
That goodwill benefits everyone. If you break it, all hell comes loose. It's why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn't.
I'm not so sure the reason is quite so principled. I'm more inclined to believe the explanation in this video starting at about the 6:40 mark: the difficulty building a coalition in the Democratic Party (and especially the conflicting aims of Democratic voters and Democratic donors) causes the party to avoid policy and focus on process instead.
And at the time people involved generally did. The only reason we perceive things differently these days is because we expect different outcomes easing a system designed for something else. Our system of government initially was drafted to protect the rights of white land owning males. And it still does this really well. We've scaffolded a lot of other things on top of that trying to make it more Equitable for everyone else. But it can't seem to stop giving preferential treatment to White land owning males.
The thing is the founders knew that they were going to be ignorant about the future. The further out you try to speculate the more wrong you'll be. They knew that they wouldn't be able to understand the needs of future generations. They expected things to change. They also expected the Constitution to be heavily amended or completely written every few decades. Instead the status quo has largely ignored their wishes instead deifying them and their original creation as perfect and infallible.
Originalism is fairly new i thought? But your explanation makes sense.
I suppose I was a bit small in the scope of what were dealing with today and entire party willing to disregard democracy to accumulate power.
There is a process. They can be impeached just like the President.
It's more than just the Judicial branch that's broken.
They can be impeached. That requires both houses of Congress to be on board with it though, and most people wanting a solution to that problem currently don't want a solution that requires both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to be on board because that's not a kind of support they can get. the only other way to remove a justice from SCOTUS is one casket at a time.
There's a funny thing about lifetime appointments.
You can end them whenever you want.
Especially religious ones. Maybe we should have religious tests, just not the way xtianists want them.
The framers of the constitution. But to be fair, back then they did not expect people to live this long. If anything, blame science. It’s all their fault!