How many crazy SC decisions will it take before voters demand the court be packed to reverse them? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15235066
BlutoSays wrote:Steve, I only come here to fuck up your world. :)



Image


[img]https://i.im[==]gflip.com/6kdn5z.jpg[/img]


[img]https://i.im[==]gur.com/LU9dMDH.gif[/img]


Lurkers, the image above is wrong.
It is wrong because inflation hurts more people than a recession does. Inflation hurts all but the rich who's incomes go way up because they have monopoly pricing power, while a recession mostly hurts those who become unemployed as a result, and some small business owners who see less sales.

Bluto can't even get that right.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 25 Jun 2022 14:02, edited 2 times in total.
#15235121
"This court has zero respect for 100 year old precedents. No law is safe."

Plessy v. Ferguson ruled racial segregation laws did not violate the Constitution. It was decided in 1896. Was that a good decision, Steve?

Brown vs. Board of Education ruled segregation in public education unconstitutional in 1954.

Should Supreme Court decisions be "settled science", Steve? :D
#15235122
"Two of the 6 conservatives seats were stolen, IMHO. "



If you hadn't performed all those abortions since Roe v. Wade, you would have had enough Democrat voters to elect Hillary over Trump and you would have control over the Supreme Court right now.


Image
#15235124
Steve_American wrote:Lurkers, the image above is wrong.
It is wrong because inflation hurts more people than a recession does. Inflation hurts all but the rich who's incomes go way up because they have monopoly pricing power, while a recession mostly hurts those who become unemployed as a result, and some small business owners who see less sales.

Bluto can't even get that right.
.



It can't be wrong because

A) The tracks go in a loop to run over both anyway. You did notice that, right? The train can go in either direction.
B) Inflation hurts more people than recession? Is that correct, Steve? Arguments could be made in many directions, including hits to unemployment and long term malaise.
C) Will we bring back the "misery index" thanks to Biden?
C) I'll leave you alone now. You're probably seething at this point. :lol:
#15235125
Steve_American wrote:
Beau had had an earlier post just hours before this one, in which he called on the Dems the "unpack the court". He asserted that the Repuds had already packed the court because according to the norms from 1980 to 1990 the Repuds had stolen 2 appointments. These were when they refused to hold hearings and so a vote for about 10 months before the election, and then 4 years later held hearings and a vote after early voting had already started.



My reply to the above post was this =>

Yes, we need to unpack the court. Why is this a good idea? 1] It is the only way to keep those privacy rights that the Repuds will take very soon. 2] The Repub threat to repack the USSC as soon as they regain power is not much of a threat. This is because => a] if they openly make it a campaign issue it will cost them a million or 4 M votes for President and down ticket too, and b] IMHO if Repuds gain total control of the President, Senate and House then democracy is over anyway. Therefore, unpacking the court helps the Dems hold power to keep the Repuds/fascists out of power, which is necessary to maintain democracy.

So, IMHO the Dems should make unpacking the court a major campaign issue. This is because it should make it less likely that the Repud Party wins the election this year.
And it makes it more likely that they can dump the filibuster and actually unpack the court, to make it less likely that the Repuds will gain power anytime soon.
.


Fair enough, the whole system is a mess anyway. Why not fuck with it more.

I don't have trust in America anyway anymore.

Fuck it, let it all crash.
#15235126
BlutoSays wrote:
"This court has zero respect for 100 year old precedents. No law is safe."

Plessy v. Ferguson ruled racial segregation laws did not violate the Constitution. It was decided in 1896. Was that a good decision, Steve?

Brown vs. Board of Education ruled segregation in public education unconstitutional in 1954.

Should Supreme Court decisions be "settled science", Steve? :D



Plessy v Ferguson violated 3 sections, of course it violated the Constitution. Some legal historians think it was the worst decision the court ever made.

The court exists because the law can never be 'settled'. It's been doing what you'd call legislating from the bench since George Washington. Back then, there was no choice, the legislatures would never have been able to keep up.

Nowadays, Congress should be doing 10 times what it's actually doing. That has created a power vacuum that drags the president and the courts into places that should be handled by Congress.
#15235175
late wrote:Nowadays, Congress should be doing 10 times what it's actually doing. That has created a power vacuum that drags the president and the courts into places that should be handled by Congress.


Bingo, Congress can legally provide very strong incentives for states to allow abortion just as it was able to do so when it came to the legal drinking age.

I doubt the SCOTUS would overturn that precedent or else it would risk allowing states to set their legal drinking age as they see fit.
#15235213
BlutoSays wrote:It can't be wrong because

A) The tracks go in a loop to run over both anyway. You did notice that, right? The train can go in either direction.
B) Inflation hurts more people than recession? Is that correct, Steve? Arguments could be made in many directions, including hits to unemployment and long term malaise.
C) Will we bring back the "misery index" thanks to Biden?
C) I'll leave you alone now. You're probably seething at this point. :lol:


Oh my God.

Lurkers, Bluto is so _______ that he doesn't understand his own post of the meme he chose.

The little man at the switch in the top image can switch the track switch to either run over 1 guy or 5 guys. He needs to make that choice.

In the bottom image "The Fed" is changing the tracks so that it doesn't matter what the little man does all the people will be run over unless the trolley or street car stops.

I don't approve of the Fed's actions now. My response was to send money to the people so they can afford the inflation, which will allow corps to buy and import more oil and food to provide more supply. Which should stop the inflation.

But, like I also said, droughts have increased food prices for over 2000 years. The effect is mentioned in the Bible. IIRC the passage is like "50 shekels for 4 oz. of grain." And OPEC and oil corps have reduced supply to raise the price of oil.

.
#15235217
"My response was to send money to the people so they can afford the inflation, which will allow corps to buy and import more oil and food to provide more supply. Which should stop the inflation."


The federal government made easy money available for college tuition. What happened? The schools jacked up the prices to soak up all that easy money.

The federal government made easy money available for health insurance. What happened? The medical providers jacked up the prices to soak up all that easy money.

College education and medical care are among products/services that have risen the most in cost in the last decade.



Explain the mechanics by which your idea will stop the inflation?
#15235222
wat0n wrote:
Bingo, Congress can legally provide very strong incentives for states to allow abortion just as it was able to do so when it came to the legal drinking age.

I doubt the SCOTUS would overturn that precedent or else it would risk allowing states to set their legal drinking age as they see fit.


How does that get done though? There's basically deadlock here. Why would say Republicans agree to incentivize allowing abortion or anything else they are fundamentally against? :?:
#15235228
wat0n wrote:Democrats can do it before November. It's up to them if they will.


I would correct you and say it's up to voters in November. That said, I think Republicans win big and we continue our move towards authoritarianism, condoning coups, and the abandonment of democratic principles. I think that ship sailed on Jan 6th of 2021.

REmember, even if democrats win, lots of election officials are going to declare the elections fraudulent and not certify. It already happened last week in New Mexico. It will happen on a much larger scale. The authoritarian play has been laid out already. The conclusion is inevitable. America is on the path to shit hole country status.
#15235230
Rancid wrote:I would correct you and say it's up to voters in November. That said, I think Republicans win big and we continue our move towards authoritarianism, condoning coups, and the abandonment of democratic principles. I think that ship sailed on Jan 6th of 2021.

REmember, even if democrats win, lots of election officials are going to declare the elections fraudulent and no certify. It already happened last week in New Mexico. It will happen on a much larger scale.


Democrats control Congress now. They can perfectly pass a law like that, and use it as an argument for their base and pro-choice Republicans.

I mean, what else could they possibly have? I don't think anyone but trumpists are condoning the January 6 riot. There are republicans who are testifying against Trump in the Congressional hearings, and I wouldn't be so sure voters are happy with the trumpists. In Georgia, they lost and lost big, for example. This isn't 2016.
#15235233
wat0n wrote:
Democrats control Congress now. They can perfectly pass a law like that, and use it as an argument for their base and pro-choice Republicans.

I mean, what else could they possibly have? I don't think anyone but trumpists are condoning the January 6 riot. There are republicans who are testifying against Trump in the Congressional hearings, and I wouldn't be so sure voters are happy with the trumpists. In Georgia, they lost and lost big, for example. This isn't 2016.


This is beyond Trump at this point though. The shit sailed, MAGA and authoritarianism is en vogue. The democrats won't do shit, and even if they do, the MAGA morons will subvert it all. This nation is done.
#15235324
BlutoSays wrote:"My response was to send money to the people so they can afford the inflation, which will allow corps to buy and import more oil and food to provide more supply. Which should stop the inflation."


The federal government made easy money available for college tuition. What happened? The schools jacked up the prices to soak up all that easy money.

The federal government made easy money available for health insurance. What happened? The medical providers jacked up the prices to soak up all that easy money.

College education and medical care are among products/services that have risen the most in cost in the last decade.

Explain the mechanics by which your idea will stop the inflation?


For once, you ask a good question.

First off, more supply should according to economic theory stop inflation because of competition between corps, as buyers shop for the cheaper provider. You are correct that the US may have its market too monopoly controlled.

So, 2nd, the Gov. would need to step in a freeze prices, like Nixon did in '71. The current prices are high enough that the oil corps would still be making money if the wholesale price rises a little. If it rises a lot the Pres. can demand they sell at a loss to suck up the excess profits they have been making for the last 2 years.

The law may have changed since Nixon in '71. The Dems control the Senate, if they nix the filibuster, then they can change the law.

If you say that a single Dem is enough to keep the Dems from doing this, I reply that a single Dem can block the stimulus checks, too. The fact that is may not be possible politically, really doesn't make my idea bad economically. It just shows how dis-functional the current situation is. That is, anything other than the Fed raising or lowering interest rates is politically impossible. Or, this seems to be so. Maybe the Pres. can use executive power (maybe the Defense production act) to do something.

This is sort of like my suggesting that WWII style rationing is the answer to global warming, aka ACC. It would work, when all economic fiddling will fail. The problem is that it will never pass Congress, because the emergency is *not* obvious enough yet, and later it will be too late. So, does this make humanity doomed? I hope not, but fear that it is so.

.
#15235326
Your ideas are laden with so many problems. Let’s start with your second and third paragraphs.

More supply of what? Dollars? You don’t believe that there’s going to be more supply of goods and services just because you flood the market with dollars, do you? A dollar does not equal increases in quantity of an item or product because there is a process behind creating the product. If a widget requires 200 people to put it together, a higher price will not equal more people building more widgets because the problems we have now don’t stem from that. They stem from a scarcity in transportation because the government has scared energy producers with mandates and energy suppliers are reacting. They are "pulling in their horns" so to speak and cutting their losses. They’re cutting their production to avoid further risk from fixed costs (to avoid any further sunk costs). And factories and manufacturing facilities don't just ramp up and create additional manufacturing lines on a whim. That takes years of planning. Pulling airplanes out of the desert to make them airworthy (for increased capacity) takes a lot of time for reasons from financial to logistic to finding the right labor to get it done to regulatory to gaining favorable market conditions so you don't lose money doing it. These are big industries where haphazard decisions can quickly unravel a lot of things and cause massive damage and demand destruction.

“The current prices are high enough that the oil corps would still be making money if the wholesale price rises a little.”

You miss the point. The leaders of the oil companies right now are cutting back on exploration and any ancillary costs. They’re in a risk avoidance mode right now because of signals from this administration. They have a lack of trust in long-term decision making from government that will affect their bottom line. If the administration was to say tomorrow that they are reversing all former Executive Orders and other moves they had made against oil, the oil executives would say we are not changing the mode we are in. An oil executive would be wary of embarking on any new platforms or explorations, because at any time in the future, this administration could change their mind in the other direction and leave oil companies in a lurch (exploration projects go on for years with fixed and variable costs that are measured in risk vs. reward). This administration has literally spooked the oil market and all markets with poor haphazard decisions that affect producers (but are great in speeches as a soundbite), so they’re going to play it very conservative until these economic illiterates are out of office. You don’t just turn confidence on and off on a minute to minute basis with long term drilling projects. You can lose your ass by shifting sands overnight.

“If it rises a lot the Pres. can demand they sell at a loss to suck up the excess profits they have been making for the last 2 years.”

That would cause harm to shareholders. I know you think this is a good thing, but there are many investment and reinvestment vehicles (401K’s, pensions, stocks, mutual funds, retirement accounts, growth accounts) that have money on the line. So as you think you’re going to hurt the rich, you’re actually going to hurt middle America with this kind of thinking. Many many people rely on petroleum through reinvestment vehicles owning a percentage of the oil market (producing, refining, delivering).

The more I read your explanations, the more I realize you are a very short term thinker. You think things can just be done by the snap of a finger and the ramifications will be great. You have no idea of the thousands of moves taking place every day, based on these random decisions and signals sent out by Washington DC. Democrats run on feel-good policy of the moment, but the unintended consequences last long after they are spoken and instantiated. These policies are like turning an aircraft carrier one degree at a time and once you do it, some of the consequences take decades to undo.

You’re going to nix the filibuster? Just in time for Republicans to take control in 22 or 24. Are you sure you want to do that? You’re thrashing about at this point with short term solutions for the damage done.

Helicopter money is like a drug. You need more and more of it in increasing amounts to get smaller effects. The market signal is broken. We’ve been doing QE for decades and it’s caused great damage. If you want to repair it, think differently. Countries around the globe are losing confidence in us, and quickly.

Why would you be doing WWII style rationing in the U.S. when they’re building one coal fired plant in China every week? Do you work for the Chinese?

If you need a constant boogey man to defend against (climate change), your line of thinking is clouded and will cause us further problems. You are putting us at a competitive disadvantage against the rest of the world, standards of living are dropping, and people will not stand for the unilateral shoot us in the foot nonsense. This is very uninspiring in creating confidence in well thought out policy for long term solutions.
Will Trump Be Above The Law?

I'll add that it's time for a general *reality che[…]

Indisputably. No. Lots of stagnant, poverty-str[…]

Mar-a-lago raided by the FBI

@late They will be making a big mistake too. T[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Rats leaving the sinking ship. https://twitter.c[…]