Cygnia Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 Conservative-backed group is creating a list of federal workers it suspects could resist Trump plans Tom Cowan, Pariah, Old Man and 1 other 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 Boebert Wins Primary Election Dadgammit. This woman should not have been elected once, let alone twice. Now it looks like she may be elected again. Dadgammit. Old Man and Pariah 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 It appears even carpetbaggers benefit from name recognition. But Colorado's districts are so heavily gerrymandered, they'd elect a gerbil if it had an 'R' next to its name. Pariah and BoloOfEarth 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 11 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: But Colorado's districts are so heavily gerrymandered, they'd elect a gerbil if it had an 'R' next to its name. And the gerbil would most likely do a better job at governance than the humans with "R"s next to their names. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 10 hours ago, wcw43921 said: Boebert Wins Primary Election Dadgammit. This woman should not have been elected once, let alone twice. Now it looks like she may be elected again. Dadgammit. The best candidate won! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 1 minute ago, Lawnmower Boy said: The best candidate won! And what does that say about the other candidates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asperion Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 With the way the Supreme Court has been acting lately I have been wondering about ways that they can be brought back under control. Here is a basic concept that should work. Require all judges at all levels (especially Supreme Court Justices). The moment they start their shift that device starts recording all sound and video and sends it to a central location that is automatically loaded onto the open nets for everyone to view, no passwords, pay walls, or other barriers. If this is declared illegal, then no law enforcement officer can use such a device. Since their use of these devices has already been through the court and ruled legal, the Supreme Court should apply the same standard upon themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted June 26 Report Share Posted June 26 On Boebert...note that she didn't run in her old district. She shifted over to Ken Buck's district, as he's retiring. Buck wasn't as bad as Boebert...but few are...still, he was another Freedom Caucus member. So unfortunately, there's gonna be districts where the Greenes and Boeberts can safely ensconce themselves. We'll see who comes out of her former district. Quote With the way the Supreme Court has been acting lately I have been wondering about ways that they can be brought back under control. Here is a basic concept that should work. Require all judges at all levels (especially Supreme Court Justices). The moment they start their shift that device starts recording all sound and video and sends it to a central location that is automatically loaded onto the open nets for everyone to view, no passwords, pay walls, or other barriers. If this is declared illegal, then no law enforcement officer can use such a device. Since their use of these devices has already been through the court and ruled legal, the Supreme Court should apply the same standard upon themselves. No, it wouldn't work at all. It's an awful idea. To start, what problem is this trying to address, and how will it fix that problem? And equating this kind of recording with body cams? WHAT? The interactions are totally different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 (edited) You can basically bring the SCOTUS back under control in the same way you bring the Legislative and Executive branches of government under control. They’re interdependent branches of government, and change is typically over time. Vote, engage in local politics (all politics are local, from differing perspectives to the folks who will one day run for State and Federal office), engage in democratic process. It’s not an exciting answer, but it has the advantage of being both available to everyone and a personal source of action that can conceivably make a difference. Edited June 27 by Iuz the Evil Grailknight, Lord Liaden, Pariah and 2 others 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 7 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said: Vote, engage in local politics (all politics are local, from differing perspectives to the folks who will one day run for State and Federal office), engage in democratic process. Great answer. We are lazy. We want all the benefits of a democratic society without the effort of actually participating. And then we like to castigate the politicians that do participate. It is like wanting all the benefits of a socialist society (the good, free to access, medicine, education, mental health support, affordable housing, heating (and cooling)) without the taxes needed to deliver that. Doc Iuz the Evil, Old Man, Grailknight and 2 others 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asperion Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 I have always been in favor of limiting the time Supreme Court Justice is on the bench. I would make it for a ten year term, but am willing to debate that. The greatest problem here is that this requires a constitution amendment, which I doubt stands a chance. I would also make similar term limits (limiting to one term)for every elected official, regardless if they are in congress or president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 41 minutes ago, Asperion said: I have always been in favor of limiting the time Supreme Court Justice is on the bench. I would make it for a ten year term, but am willing to debate that. The greatest problem here is that this requires a constitution amendment, which I doubt stands a chance. I would also make similar term limits (limiting to one term)for every elected official, regardless if they are in congress or president. Supreme Court: term limits might be good, but all you might do is make it easier to hijack the Court as the Republicans did...refusing to consider an Obama nominee then steamrolling Barrett through, while using ideological adherence to be the major touchstone with the 3 nominees Trump selected, including Barrett. But this doesn't address the problems with Thomas and Alito. Limiting Congressmen to 1 term has several downsides. 1. It takes a while to learn the job properly. 2. I'd be concerned it works better for the firebrands...both during elections and once in office. 3. An indirect consequence might be that administrative agencies gain more power...because they're largely more stable, with more experienced people. IIRC, the Cabinet secretaries and their direct undersecretaries are nominated and confirmed, but that leaves people in charge of *large* groups as career bureaucratic positions. How much can a legislator who's only 6 months in office, push back? So, this has potentially major instability built in. The problem isn't term limits, it's that the political process has been converted into a zero-sum game. The fundamental underpinnings of the process have become non-democratic. Which is NOT new, it's just being taken to greater extremes. Changing how district maps are drawn...that's something that wouldn't necessarily require a Constitutional amendment, at least at the federal level, and eliminating gerrymandering should go a long way to improving legislative accountability. BUT, we bloody well know the majority party in every state would scream. Without an amendment, it'd have to be pushed on a state-by-state basis, which would be incredibly slow...and highly partisan states would likely drag their heels, particularly WRT redrawing House districts, to maximize their influence. Ergo, a piecemeal implementation might well make things *worse*. And to implement a broad change, to *try* to force redistricting out of partisan lines across the country...that probably would require an amendment. Which would never pass, again. Hmm. I'll toss out an idea. Revamp the process to elect the House. There's 435 seats now. Re-allocate the seats, state by state, to elect 335 of those seats by district, as per now. The other 100 are elected at a broader level...I was thinking national at first, but regional might be better, with preferably no more than 4, perhaps 5, regions. The hope here is this might form a somewhat more centrist coalition, as it would seem to be harder to elect the Boeberts and Greenes on a regional basis. And there may be consequences I'm not seeing. Not that it matters, as this would *never* fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 Supreme Court tosses out the liability shield for the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma case. That aspect was seriously criticized from day 1. Kind of interesting to see the vote, tho. Aye: Gorsuch (wrote the opinion), Alito, Thomas, Barrett...and Jackson. Nay: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan...and Kavanaugh. The case is tricky, and this article discusses the arguments before the Court last year, among other issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/supreme-court-opioid-settlement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.200.CyNJ.UqvOacPwo26_&smid=url-share Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 Pattern Ghost, Pariah, Lord Liaden and 1 other 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 It's after 10 pm and the debate is still going on between Biden and Trump. Isn't it past both of their bedtimes? Starlord, Pariah and Tom Cowan 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 At least Biden is trying to answer the questions put to him. Trump has gone off on completely different tangents no fewer than three times during this debate. BarretWallace and Tom Cowan 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 7 minutes ago, wcw43921 said: At least Biden is trying to answer the questions put to him. Trump has gone off on completely different tangents no fewer than three times during this debate. True, but people online are nervous about Biden's apparent lack of energy, while Trump continues to play on people's fears with his lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 I didn't get a sense of that. If anything, it seemed Biden was talking very fast, like he was trying to get all the words out before the time ran out. I did like Biden's comment when discussing their physical fitness--"I'd like to play golf with you (Trump) if you carry your own bag. Think you can do it?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 There was no real-time fact checking of Trump. He just lies and lies, but was never challenged during the debate by the moderators. I've read and heard reports that Joe Biden has a cold. If true that could explain some of his apparent mental and vocal difficulties; but the timing of it couldn't be worse. Biden talked substance, but Trump was more animated. Too many people vote based on the visual presence of the candidates. I've read about the Kennedy/Nixon debate, the first televised presidential debate. The majority of people who listened to it on radio thought Nixon won, but the majority of TV watchers gave it to Kennedy. Biden needs to come out strong in the second debate, but even if he does I know the right wing pundits will claim it's because he was "on drugs." wcw43921 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: but was never challenged during the debate by the moderators. He was barely challenged by his opponent as well. Trump left a lot of unexploited opportunities for Biden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 <GULP> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/politics/biden-debate-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E0.NuWn.MgHtHI1CS0Kj&smid=url-share Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 1 hour ago, unclevlad said: <GULP> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/politics/biden-debate-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E0.NuWn.MgHtHI1CS0Kj&smid=url-share It's a little late to be panicked...if anyone was surprised by what they saw from both candidates last night, they have either not been paying attention or fooling themselves the last few years. Iuz the Evil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 (edited) 5 hours ago, unclevlad said: <GULP> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/politics/biden-debate-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3E0.NuWn.MgHtHI1CS0Kj&smid=url-share There's no procedural mechanism to do that, and no obvious person who would be guaranteed to be better received. Doing it at this late stage would also look like the Democrats knew Biden was incompetent, and tried to hide it. It's likely that the choices this year will be perceived by much of the public as being between an apparently decrepit man, and an obviously demented man. Once again, voting against someone rather than for someone. I won't lie, I went to bed last night feeling scared for all of us. Edited June 28 by Lord Liaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 11 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: I won't lie, I went to bed last night feeling scared for all of us. I've been doing that for at least 8 years now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWolf Posted June 28 Report Share Posted June 28 /sarcasm. "Biden had a cold! IMPEACH HIM IMMEDIATELY!"... hopefully this is ONLY sarcasm... and no one said that for real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.