YOu are correct much of this is to blame with the failure of the Legislative Branch as such they have ceded a lot of power over to the Executive Judicial Branch. A lot of this can be fixed by making the Legislative branch work better. To me that requires getting back to comity.
How do you hope to redraw districts when the GOP is using the judiciary to legitimize their jerrymandering and vote suppresion?
Where was the comity when Obama's nominees were being blocked. Even as the minority,the GOP were simply being obstructionists and were proud of it. (Probably revert back to it even if the lose the white house and senate).Yet same group of people kept voting these cancerous cells into office. There is no getting back to comity when some parts of the country continue to blindly vote for people whose primary objective seems to be keeping a minority group in power, at the exoense of the majority and democracy. If the Democrats do not make the needed changes when the opportunity presents itself, then more extremisim is sure to follow and this country is headed for a civil war. The GOP's avenues for undermining democracy need to be cutoff before the damage is irreparable. We can talk about comity after the GOP has been defanged.
We are more stable than many European countries with Parliamentary systems. Consider how many governments countries like Italy and Greece have gone through. While I agree few developed countries have had a full blown civil war in recent years that doesn't mean that many countries are stable. As noted Greece, Italy and many other developed countries have been very unstable regarding their governments. Spain has also had unstable governments while dealing with separatists movements with both Basques but also with Catalonian independence. France even before COVID-19 has been wracked with paralyzing protests for years and we've all saw the chaos around Brexit.. In Asia Japan's parliamentary system suffered decades of political instability also which greatly hampered there economic recovery during the 1990's into the 2000's. Taiwan about 15 years ago was in a very deep crisis regarding Chen Tsui Bien, a Trump like figure, and how he was gaming the election. I will say again how you use "content" as an epithet always reveals a lot about you. I think for the most part most people want stability and want predictability. If you're going to talk about a lack of contentment Trump is by far the greatest force against contentment. If anything Trump is a big example of why we should be careful of the politician that promises to come in as the outsider and radically shake things up.
There wasn't and you and others are reading my call for comity as somehow supporting the GOP because most people view this as a binary argument. I've said all along that that the GOP is the problem.
I will say it again. You have to win the state legislatures, especially in census years. Just saying we shouldn't gerrymander means nothing unless you actually control the state legislature. The failure of the Democrats has long been that they didn't put enough into winning down ballot races while Republicans have long seen the importance of winning races from school board to President.
That ship has sailed when the GOP has already gerrymandered to keep those legislatuire in their control. Yes the Democrats can try to control more state legislatures but that is almost impossible when the GOP is using the judiciary to keep the playing field heavily in their favor. The state legislature is a problem but the bigger problem is the politicization of the judiciary at every level by the GOP. The problem with the judiciary cant be so easily fixed.
Nothing assumed about your support (or not) for the GOP, but that your call for comity at this point is naive when the GOP is only interested in entrenching their control by any means fair or foul.
AP: Despite rhetoric, GOP has supported packing state courts Republican claims that Democrats would expand the U.S. Supreme Court to undercut the conservative majority if they win the presidency and control of Congress has a familiar ring. It’s a tactic the GOP already has employed in recent years with state supreme courts when they have controlled all levers of state political power. ...
It will be a step by step process, but change at the top will influence change at the State and local level. Perceptions change, fear of the dominant party changes and more importantly, money flows change as legislative power changes. As more Republicans lose, money spent on them will be seen as a waste. The entire dynamic could change in 2 Democratic administrations. And the GOP isn't gaining voters
If Biden wins the white house and the senate, and this ABC person turns out to be what we feared, Biden should absolutely add more justices to the court or take power away from the court. The Republicans played a very questionable game to get this kind of a court. They are claiming they have the power to do so and elections matter. Ok then, why shouldn't the Dems apply the same principle? To all those say the Republicans will just add more seats anyway. The Republicans would do anything to gain an advantage. They dropped the 60 vote threshold for the Supreme Court so they could make it what it is now anyway. They already played dirty, and they can blame Harry Reid all they want but they forced him to make it 50 for judges as Mitch was stonewalling every judge no matter what. So you might as well pack the court. Yes when the Republicans gain power they will do the same. So what? They already made the court a joke and delegitimized it.
Let me explain why this conversation is so insanely ignorant. IF HRC won the election, the supreme court would have been 6-3 in favor of leftist. Somehow, in a very typical hypocritical manner many leftist display, they would have zero problems with this. And it would be the Republicans crying foul and wanting to pack the courts. RBG the extreme idealist refused to listen to her peers and Obama (stating she is not going to let men tell her what to do and retire). Clearly she knew better than everyone else. RBG placed her arrogance over her ideals. Leftist, your team ****ed up. They fumbled the ball in typical fashion. By suggesting to pack the supreme court is no different than Trump suggesting he should get a 3rd term for some ignorant reason. Moderates need to step up and start shutting out extremist on both sides.
I have no problem with a 6-3 court of any kind. I have problem with the GOP lying and taking back their words. That's what cause the pressure for escalation by the left - to pack. That pressure would NOT be anywhere here if the GOP has done either one of two things: 1- allow Obama nomination to move forward and vote it down 2- not allow Obama nomination to move forward and make the argument because they can, not because let's wait for the people to make the choice I also dispute that it would be 6-3 in a hypothetical way. First, if Clinton won, the Senate would also be D control and she would get a 5-4 (one Judge wouldn't retire) by now. But if somehow the R control the Senate, it's not that far out that it would be 4-3 conservative. With that said, your post seems to imply this is all the D fault. This is not a one-sided issue. Thinking that way is based on total ignorant.
I completely disagree. There is no way that McConnell would have given HRC ANY supreme court or lower court seats. If she won, she would not have taken the Senate... no way. Even if McConnell felt like he just had to fill the seat (there is NOTHING in the Constitution that would have forced him to do so), that Justice would have had to be the most moderate Democratic member of the Supreme Court ever nominated. Also... there is NO WAY Kennedy would have retired. None. He would be there till his death. This argument is out of touch with reality and shows you really aren't as smart as you think you are. And of all the stupidly ignorant things you've spouted, this might be the topping on the cake. There is precedent to expanding the court in order to balance out power. It's considered political because voters still have the ability to vote you out if you tamper with the courts, and make you pay. Where the founders were smart is putting in safeguards to protect Democracy where power is given only when if you abuse that power, you pay a price with voters. If the voters CANNOT have a say in correcting your bad behavior (like if you become a dictator who steals elections) then the Constitution is pretty clear about keeping that power out of the hands of those effected (IE why the Executive branch does not control election, and it's run by State Electors, etc.) "Packing the Court" being an argument that Democrats are having now is a perfectly healthy thing for a Democracy to put through the process of argument, public support/public backlash, and ultimately through preliminary legislative process. It is something that a Democratic SENATE AND President would then weight, and make a decision on based on how the public would react, and make them pay or reward them as the ballot box. THAT is how Democracy works. Democracy does NOT work by staying in office by force or corruption after your second term and becoming a dictator above the law. Even comparing the two just shows you are not someone here arguing in good faith, and you 100% have a side you are fairing in this argument... which is Trump. Enjoy that branding of everyone here knowing you are obviously just a Trumper Troll who ineffectively tries to pose as independent who is OOHHHHH SOOO MUCCH SMARTER than everyone else. F off.
The good ol' 'You disagree with me, so therefore you absolutely must be a Trumper' line. I just dislike extremist. Its time us moderates take back our government.
Doesn't change the fact that your argument was flawed. It's unlikely that McConnel would've allowed the Garland nomination to proceed and HRC would've had to find someone even more moderate. Kennedy would not have retired. RBG likely would've retired earlier in a HRC administration, avoiding the problem of nominating a justice in an election year (or, you know, within a couple of weeks of one). At best, it would be 5-4 right now and no discussion of court packing at all.
Curious, two candidates are left... which of the two will need to win for "us moderates" taking back our government?
I will acknowledge a Republican congress would have yielded more moderate candidates under an HRC presidency. That said, I make it a policy not to listen to politicians. Republicans had the authority to block Garland. They gave a (bad) excuse on why they chose not to. If you actually believe the reason the Republicans did not nominate Garland, to be completely honest, you probably shouldn't be voting. We all know why they did not nominate Garland. You can't pick and choose what to believe what politicians say. That said, in this very specific case of RBG/ACB, it was absolutely RBG's fault. She should have retired years ago, regardless of politics. We really need to start getting these fossils out of government. For as much as liberals like to throw compliments to left leaning countries, they should observe the age of their politicians.
Maybe you should re-examine your idea of what an extremist is. Your shtick of "both sides have extensors" with no context is getting old dude. Your biased distaste for "leftists" has clo your judgement where anyone left of you is an extremist. You aren't the moderate you think you are. You play into divisive rhetoric also.
