How many crazy SC decisions will it take before voters demand the court be packed to reverse them? - Page 3 - 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.
#15235330
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 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.


You are right, this is possible.

I told the voters in 2010 to add more Dems to the House and Senate, so they could do more for the people. The American economy *needed* more economic stimulus. The $800 b was just a down payment, for example. And Lieberman was blocking things in the Senate unto Kennedy died and a Repud replaced him. So, Obama needed 2 more Senate seats.
. . . The voters did agree with me and voted the Repuds in to punish the Dems for failing to act. Of course, this didn't solve the people's problems, it just let the Repuds hurt them more.

I've been telling the voters to stop voting for Repubs and then in 1998 Repuds since 1979. They keep thinking that punishing the Dems will get the them (the people) more good outcomes. IMHO, their plan has been a dismal failure.
. . . Lately, starting 18 months ago, I have called for mass demonstrations of progressives in the streets to meet & exchange contact info, and show the nation just how many progressives there are. That didn't happen and now the primaries have started so it is way too late. We can only vote for the progressives in primaries and then the Dem in the general election.

Because the voters plan to punish the Dems by voting Repud instead of voting progressive has been a total failure, I hope the voters will wake up and follow my plan I'm not holding my breath.

So, you may be right, but if you are climate change will (certainly, beyond all doubt) end civilization when grain can't be grown at sufficient scale, and may even drive humans extinct over the next 100 to 150 years. [A tiny few descendants of the rich may survive that long, but no longer.]
#15235333
BlutoSays wrote: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.


Bluto, I mean the supply of oil and food, because more would be imported. I used the word 'imported' there for all to see.

Yes, I know that corps will want to raise prices more, that was WHY I said the the Gov. needs to act to stop that from happening.

Stock prices are way to high. In terms of the old theory that corps' stock prices are related to future profits, buying shares now will lose you money. I suggest that pension plans sell now and hold cash as the market drops, then buy back in.

I have zero doubt that the Repuds will nix the filibuster anyway in 2025 if they take total control of the Gov. They are going all in (so to speak) on their move to end democracy. They would end the filibuster to pass many laws that consolidate their hold on power, no matter what the voters do after 2024.

With all due respect, Bluto, (here, some), those coal fired power plants can be operated as night time power plants without burning coal or gas. In the daytime they are off line while solar power is used to drive heat pumps to heat and melt aluminium inside insulated large boxes. Then at night, the water is converted to steam by the heat in the boxes as the al freezes/becomes-a-solid releasing the latent heat.

And, the world needs to work together or we are doomed.

I want to try to save us. You want to listen to the band play and eat the ice cream in the freezer as the Titanic sinks. Your plan is the same as giving up and living for today.

Also, if we are doomed, then there is no "long run" for your bad unintended consequences to manifest themselves. So, decide. Are we doomed or do we try to save civilization or even humanity?
. . . I think I know your position on ACC. It is that ACC is a hoax to create a world Gov. to end America. Of course, we disagree on that. So, you think all my plans to fight ACC are stupid. You may even think I'm being paid (as part of the conspiracy) to say what I say. I'm not being paid, for the record.
.
#15235584
Packing the court sets a precedent for making the court subsurvient to the party controlling senate and presidency.

Every good reform of the SCOTUS (such as term limits) requires a constitutional amendment. Americans will be stuck with their stupid constitution forever.

In Switzerland I can collect 100'000 signatures for an initiative and if a majority in the country and a majority in a majority of states agree there's a new constitution.

Maybe too easy but certainly preferable to that American nonsense.
#15235600
Rugoz wrote:Packing the court sets a precedent for making the court subsurvient to the party controlling senate and presidency.

Every good reform of the SCOTUS (such as term limits) requires a constitutional amendment. Americans will be stuck with their stupid constitution forever.

In Switzerland I can collect 100'000 signatures for an initiative and if a majority in the country and a majority in a majority of states agree there's a new constitution.

Maybe too easy but certainly preferable to that American nonsense.


The problem with your do nothing decision, based on fear of the long term consequences, is that in 2024 the USSC can make rulings on the "stolen" election that lets the Repuds corruptly take control of the Gov. in 2025 after they lost the election.

Right now no Dem or independent voter should ever vote for any Repud at any level of gov. They are all controlled by the leadership and will vote for terrible things. This situation needs to last for a while.

I think that the Repuds will get sick of always losing, so they will agree to the below solution and let 3/4 of the states ratify the amendment.

My solution to the problem with the USSC is =>
1] The Dems unpack the court with 4 added Justices by nixing the filibuster and passing a law to do it.
2] The Dems propose an amendment. It does these things =>
. . a] It requires a 2/3 majority to confirm a SC Justice.
. . b] It encourages the 2 parties to cooperate and confirm middle of the road Justices because of the 2/3 requirement and a system of temporary Justices when the parties after 2 (or 3?) tries have not agreed on a Justice
. . c] My suggested system involves some luck. It has 5 groups nominate Justices (Senate Dems, Senate Repuds, American Bar Assoc. Assoc. of state governors, and Assoc. of Labor Union Presidents). There is a random lottery using a lottery machine with 10 copies of balls each with a number from 1 to 5. Run the machine for 5 min. and have a ball come out in with the lottery. The number of the ball determines who sits in that set on the court until the next Senate is sworn in and then the Pres. can try to get his pick(s) for the Justice or Justices confirmed.
. . d] I predict that the rich who control Congress would not like the uncertainty of this system, so they would get the 2 parties to agree on Justices who can get 2/3 majority to be confirmed.
. . e] Any system that gives someone the power to select the temporary Justice would give power to the side that includes that someone (Pres. party and opposition party) to want to sabotage the confirmation process so they get an extreme temporary Justice.
.
#15235878
Another good argument I just saw on line is =>

Sen. Manchin and Sen. Susan Collins, etc. are saying that those 3 to 5 Justices lied to them in interviews in their offices about how they would not rule to overturn Roe v Wade. Lying to a Federal officer is a crime. Lying to one to get a lifetime job in the US Gov. seems like something that should not be allowed to stand. If we can find a remedy to fix this problem we should do it, right? Impeaching them will not work, because even though we can prove the case beyond a doubt, the Repuds in the Senate will not vote to convict.

So, is there another remedy? Yes, we can carve out another exception to the filibuster rule. Remember, the Senate has carved out an exception to the filibuster rule, that lets USSC Justices be confirmed by a simple majority vote. So we should carve out another exception to add Justices to the court, right?

Link to where I saw this => It is 1hr. 14 min. long. Remove the [==] and post it to your browser to view it.
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=kG_n5MiX25g&list=TLPQMjgwNjIwMjK0fQK0rCdQbQ&index=5

.
#15236405
The ACLU’s David Cole: Supreme Court Conservatives Imposing “Truly Radical Ideology” on U.S. Population

david Cole said that there have been 116 USSC Justices since the beginning, counting Justice Jackson who joins tomorrow. Of those 116 5 have been women. David said that just 6 of those 116 have believed that the Constitution should be interpreted as how the Founders thought, i.e. originalism. The other 111 have believed that the Constitution is a living document, sort of lie Common Law is evolving to stay in sync with the time as tech forces changes on how people think.

So, just 5% disagree with me that the Constitution is a living document, and 95% agree with me. I'm in good company.

The originalists are out voted 19 to 1. IMHO, this ratio make the originalists radicals and out of sync with American thought.



____________________________.________________________________________

Chris Hayes: The Fight For Democracy Must Go Beyond Jan. 6 Committee

AOC says that she and all Congressmen swore an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. She and I see the current USSC and the Repud Party that put them there as being a domestic threat.
. . . I just saw a report that the USSC has taken a case for next year's term about 'can state legislatures get massively involved in deciding who won elections. Or, who wins elections. It was a short report, with no details. This is exactly the sort of idea that I'm afraid of. Who wins elections should be simple, the candidate who got the most votes wins or goes on to a run-off.

AOC is right. What ever is legal, necessary, and possible should be done. We should impeach 2 or 3 Justices, even if the Senate will not vote to convict. We should end the filibuster and UNPACK the court by adding 4 more Justices, before the Repuds (if they win control of the House or Senate) take control next year. I have zero doubt that the Repuds would do the same if the situation was reversed. I have zero doubt that as soon as the Repuds control the Presidency, Senate, and House they will end the filibuster and ram through many laws to end democracy. Zero doubt.

The Dems would have to decide now and act fast to get that all done this year in or with a lame duck Congress. It has to be complete this year.


.
#15236445
A repost of the case I mentioned above that the USSC will decide in their next term. The case is about the power of state legislatures to regulate elections in their states. One panelist said the legislatures might even be granted the ability to just throw out the vote and decide who won the election.

The Constitution grants to Congress the duty and power to see that all the states have "republican" systems of governance. It also grants to Congress to power to instruct states about how to run federal elections, at least federal ones.

This new idea that state legislatures have plenary power is crazy.

CNN News -- Supreme Court to hear case with major implications for voting rights



.
#15236523
Steve_American wrote:The problem with your do nothing decision, based on fear of the long term consequences, is that in 2024 the USSC can make rulings on the "stolen" election that lets the Repuds corruptly take control of the Gov. in 2025 after they lost the election.

Right now no Dem or independent voter should ever vote for any Repud at any level of gov. They are all controlled by the leadership and will vote for terrible things. This situation needs to last for a while.

I think that the Repuds will get sick of always losing, so they will agree to the below solution and let 3/4 of the states ratify the amendment.

My solution to the problem with the USSC is =>
1] The Dems unpack the court with 4 added Justices by nixing the filibuster and passing a law to do it.
2] The Dems propose an amendment. It does these things =>
. . a] It requires a 2/3 majority to confirm a SC Justice.
. . b] It encourages the 2 parties to cooperate and confirm middle of the road Justices because of the 2/3 requirement and a system of temporary Justices when the parties after 2 (or 3?) tries have not agreed on a Justice
. . c] My suggested system involves some luck. It has 5 groups nominate Justices (Senate Dems, Senate Repuds, American Bar Assoc. Assoc. of state governors, and Assoc. of Labor Union Presidents). There is a random lottery using a lottery machine with 10 copies of balls each with a number from 1 to 5. Run the machine for 5 min. and have a ball come out in with the lottery. The number of the ball determines who sits in that set on the court until the next Senate is sworn in and then the Pres. can try to get his pick(s) for the Justice or Justices confirmed.
. . d] I predict that the rich who control Congress would not like the uncertainty of this system, so they would get the 2 parties to agree on Justices who can get 2/3 majority to be confirmed.
. . e] Any system that gives someone the power to select the temporary Justice would give power to the side that includes that someone (Pres. party and opposition party) to want to sabotage the confirmation process so they get an extreme temporary Justice.
.


Image

Maybe I have to read up on it, but is the Koch […]

Seems so. B.t.w. "I grew up speaking Russi[…]

Why did you spend so much time stalking CNN. […]

Several polio vaccines were a US invention, if I […]