Actually there is a poll https://www.axios.com/poll-ginsburg-replacement-election-e79bdca9-36c5-4ce9-9d3f-9781c7c505b2.html By the numbers: About 62% of American adults agreed the vacancy should be filled by the winner of November's election, according to the poll, which was conducted after Ginsberg's death was announced. About 23% disagreed, and the rest said they were not sure. 8 in 10 Democrats and 5 in 10 Republicans said the nomination should wait until after the election. About 30% of those surveyed said that Ginsburg’s death will make them more likely to vote for Biden, while 25% said they were now more likely to support Trump. About 38% said that it had no impact on their interest in voting, with the rest saying they were not sure.
I'm going to add another thing to the follow up on my previous posts. Reiterating again the importance of elections as all of this is hypothetical until and if the Democrats win the Senate. If the idea is that the system is so broken now that Democrats can't win. Will this argument is already moot. Even if the Democrats win the Senate as other posters have pointed out it is likely going to be a very narrow majority. There's no guarantee that even every Democratic Senator will go along with expanding the court.
And yet he acted like he just found out when from a reporter while walking to his helicopter. Surely his aides told him after the rally
Basically you are arguing that elections matter - except when Dems win they can't change the number of Supreme court justices. So Dems winning the Senate doesn't matter in that case? Regardless, the Dems can change the purview of the SCOTUS and limit it - exclude health care, voting issues, campaign funding, etc and basically reduce its power significantly. Do you support that path?
Yes it is and his voters probably have al ready factored that in since they keep up on the SC. Don't see how this really changes that equation. Did you see the poll?
A portion of the Democratic base decided they were so pissed it was Hillary in 2016 that they stayed home. If they didn't care about the seat open then, I don't know why they do now. I wasn't thrilled with Hillary but I did go vote mainly so I could be pissed about the court seat (now seats) now.
Not at all. I'm not denying that they could I don't think it's a good idea. That would be like saying well the Democrats won the House in 2018 but can't impeach Trump. I will have to defer to others about how much Congress could change the purview of the USSC. I don't think they can but I admit that's not something I've seen or thought much about it. What I will continue to say though is that there are ways around the USSC. The USSC might strike down a federal voting rights act but has less say about how the states operate. The ruling in 2012 that struck down parts of the Voting Rights act I agree was a blow but in returning more sovereignty to the states does give the ability to expand the vote. Understandably that seems a strange argument given that we are seeing GOP state houses enact more limits. Those state houses are changing and we've seen previously reliably red states going blue and states like NC and WI that have long been dominated by Republicans already electing Democratic governors and making major gains in the state legislators. VA not that long ago was a reliably red state but it is now a dominated by Democrats. The argument that we need to change the rules because current rules mean current rules mean that Democrats can never win isn't true given what we've seen recently.
Yes I saw the poll but as I said I think it's too early. It takes some time for these things to shake out. Also that poll was a national poll and specifically on the question of replacing Ginsburg. I am more interested in seeing if there is any bump in the battleground state polls either way. As said though I agree this might all be a wash..
You continue IMO to look at negatives that are not there. I will chalk it up to your peoples cautious nature. JK.
LOl, I know what's going on in Wisconsin and I don't think I've set foot in the state in like 20 years or more, and you live a shortish drive away. For all intents and purposes, the Wisconsin legislative GOP has carved itself an unbreakable majority, with the full blessing of John Roberts and the US supreme court. Democrats can smash the Republicans in statewide elections but the maps are drawn so that teh Republicans not only not lose - they gain seats to form a supermajority even when they lose. The process is literally called "Rat****ing" There is such a thing as an unbreakable majority - that is it. There is no remedy for it other than for maybe getting the state supreme court to declare it illegal - but the legislature can screw with the elections and the state supreme court can sign off on it, and there is no alternative for the majority of citizens of Wisconsin - many of whom are hurt daily by this and don't have the luxury of your "do nothing and maybe in 20 years things will change" plan. This unbreakable majority can do all kinds of bad things - salt the earth for the incoming governor (done), steal the presidential election for Trump (in progress). Sitting aroudn and waiting is not an alternative. It maybe worked in Virginia but it's not going to work everywhere. As a worrywart, I don't know why you're not more worried about permanent minority governemtn of a what is basically an authoritarian white nationalist friendly party than you are about procedural reforms that are good ideas by themselves - but since you've been challeneged on the internet about it, better stick to your guns. Expanding the federal courts is good policy, full stop. Adding more states is good policy, full stop. If we have the chance to enact good long run policies we should, full stop. Hopefuly we have the chance in January. It's mathematically a recipe for less division. Control by an unpopular, unaccountable minority that routinely passes policies that have no popular support (Obamacare Repeal, Tax Cuts, etc ad nauseum) is the ultiamte form of division. And we're already there. Making democracy more participatory is good for democracy - you can argue till you're ****ing blue in the face that it's not but it obviously is. Adding states like DC and Puerto Rico, diluting the power of decrepit dead hand Supreme court justices, getting rid of vote-rigging and diluting - these are the cures, not the disease.
Hold on a second while I rearrange the furniture in this new home for better Feng Shui.. For someone who just admitted you haven't been to WI you are claiming a lot of knowledge about it. Just to catch you up to speed WI has a Democratic governor now. Conservatives lost a state supreme court seat in a special election. Yes the legislature is very titled but again not impossible to change. In regards to Roberts blessing the WI's district map I presume you're referring to Gill v Whitford. If you recall that case was a unanimous decision. Under your reasoning then Ginsburg also gave her blessing to WI's district map. Except when you end up the minority. Case in point is that WI's legislature wasn't always dominated by Republicans. They won the majority and then put in new rules and used things like redistricting to limit the minority. Given the massive protests, recall votes and etc.. in WI for the last 10 years it hasn't made things better. As stated I'm for statehood for DC and Puerto Rico having nothing to do with partisan makeup. My belief is that both deserve representation and a say in their governance and also that Hurricane Maria exposed how much Puerto Ricans are treated as second class citizens. Leaving that aside though this shows again a fundamental difference in philosophy and as you say perspective. That you talk about things like "unbreakable majorities" shows a far shorter term view and a darker sense that to correct things is by breaking the rules as they are now. I'm willing to say that you might actually be right but we don't know for sure and at the moment all of this is just hypothetical. My own view isn't just centrism for centrist sake. I am do believe in the philosophical ideas of the Enlightenment that are enshrined in our founding documents. That means separation of powers, protection of minority viewpoints and that the Senate should be a very deliberative body even if it means frustrating prevailing opinions. Everything that I've seen with the Trump Administration and McConnell Majority only strengthens my belief and that if the Democrats decide to also undermine those principles for their own gains will not be good for the country in the long run.
Yes friend, I know, I'm referring to these events in particular, let me post it again so you can actually read it if you care to: For all intents and purposes, the Wisconsin legislative GOP has carved itself an unbreakable majority, with the full blessing of John Roberts and the US supreme court. Democrats can smash the Republicans in statewide elections but the maps are drawn so that teh Republicans not only not lose - they gain seats to form a supermajority even when they lose*. The process is literally called "Rat****ing" *this is hyperlink, you can click it, but basically the Democrats won 200,000 more votes in the last statewide Governor election - and lost 27 seats in the legislature No I'm not referring to Gil v. Whitford, which was a standing-based punt in 2018 based on the particular plaintiff, I'm referring to Rucho v. Common Cause, 2019 which basically said federal courts can never stop political gerrymandering under any circumstances (5-4, of course!) Good try with the wikiburn though PerryMasonJudoka
It's not a blood match. Sam and I have had similar disagreements going back to the when the Democrats enacted the "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster on the Senate. Besides that I don't think he would disagree with being called a Progressive and in the words of Glynch I'm a "contended moderate" Nothing wrong with having an involved and intense debate. I am entertained though that he's taken it so far as to make me the centerpiece of another thread. I'm liking the view in this residence.
We are talking about WI and Gill was specifically about WI not NC. Leaving that aside I will agree the Rucho did give a lot of power to gerrymandering and I won't deny that WI is pretty badly gerrymandered. I will still point out this isn't an unbreakable majority. Leaving aside the question of winning a majority back in the state legislature to draw up new maps in a census year in Rucho did put more power back to states. In MN there have been successful challenges to redistricting in the MN SC and for the last few decades the maps have ended up essentially being drawn by the courts. Given that WI is down to a one vote conservative majority in WI SC if that court can be flipped their could be a successful challenge to the map. Again there are rarely things that are unbreakable or not ways around.
Sure, but Rucho in 2019 closed the door to any and all protests about political gerrymanders in federal courts nationwide. 5-4. Gill could not even be brought at all in the wake of Rucho, the standing argument in Gill is irrelevant. It's over. THE END. THere is no gray area of "NC not WI " - it simply is and it will be until something changes it, which means the unbreakable WI majority will stand until the state court gets rid of it - but wait the WI state legislature can rig the game with state court elections as well, so it's a perfect circle of game-rigging. It's just some stupid bullshit for you to argue there's theoretical possibilities around it that don't happen in the real world and we should focus on them while accepting an otherwise unaccpetable status quo that actively hurts people There's a theoretical possibility I could quantum tunnel over to your house and bake you a chicken dinner - but it's not going to happen. Same thing with the Wisconsin autocracy and in the meantime, while you're waiting for democracy, needless crime and harms will be visited on people. Elect a new justice in 6 years! The democratic emergency is right now. Waiting 10 years for redistricting is not caution, it is accepting 10 years of autocracy. IT's the same thing on the national level and callous and shameful to deny it. I mean for ****'s sake, if 200,000 dead, the West in flames, the countless harms visited in teh last 4 years dont' convince you - nothing will. BUt of course internet honor is at stake so... Very few people who actually study this issue agree with you. You pivot to the middle and bring along some high school civics platitudes about how we shouldn't do these things. You know what? I can cite some platitudes from those same thinkers that say we shouldn't just enlarge the court (like we have many times) or enalrge the states (again, like we have many times) but instead engage in violent revolution and overthrow our government. But the evidence before our own eyes is that if we do those things, you can win and they're actually good policy independent of political considerations.
No one's faith should be subject to attack, but this conservative writer got caught in his own hypocrisy...
