Political Parties

[kalm]

Interesting take by HCR on the history and the ascension of MAGA (Hint…it goes back further than 2015), and why guys like Robinson likely won’t step down.

This is why we need both parties to be strong, effective, and thriving. To avoid tyranny of either the majority or the minority. Or for that matter, authoritarian leadership.

What may save the Republican Party is a thorough ass kicking in November where they have no choice but to course correct.

And they do far more than that. Before political thinkers legitimized the idea of political opposition to the king, disagreeing with the person in charge usually led to execution or banishment for treason. Parties allowed for the idea of loyal and legitimate opposition, which in turn allowed for the peaceful transition of power. That peaceful exchange enabled the people to choose their leaders and leaders to relinquish power safely. Parties also create a system for criticizing people in power, which helps to weed out corrupt or unfit leaders.

But those benefits of a party system depend on a level political playing field for everyone, so that a party must constantly compete for voters by testing which policies are most popular and getting rid of the corrupt or unstable leaders voters would reject.

In the 1980s, radical Republican leaders set out to dismantle the government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. But that system was popular, and to overcome the majority who favored it, they began to tip the political playing field in their direction. They began to suppress voting by Democrats by insisting that Democrats were engaging in “voter fraud.” At the same time, they worked to delegitimize their opponents by calling them “socialists” or “communists” and claiming that they were trying to destroy the United States. By the 1990s, extremists in the party were taking power by purging traditional Republicans from it.

And yet, voters still elected Democrats, and after they put President Barack Obama into the White House in 2008, the Republican State Leadership Committee in 2010 launched Operation REDMAP, or Redistricting Majority Project. The plan was to take over state legislatures so Republicans would control the new district maps drawn after the 2010 census, especially in swing states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It worked, and Republican legislatures in those states and elsewhere carved up state maps into dramatically gerrymandered districts.

In those districts, the Republican candidates were virtually guaranteed election, so they focused not on attracting voters with popular policies but on amplifying increasingly extreme talking points to excite the party’s base. That drove the party farther and farther to the right. By 2012, political scientists Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein warned that the Republican Party had “become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

At the same time, the skewed playing field meant that candidates who were corrupt or bonkers did not get removed from the political mix after opponents pounced on their misdeeds and misstatements, as they would have been in a healthy system. Social media poster scary lawyerguy noted that the story about Robinson will divert attention from the lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets, which diverted attention from Trump’s abysmal debate performance, which diverted attention from Trump’s filming a campaign ad at Arlington National Cemetery.

When a political party has so thoroughly walled itself off from the majority, there are two options. One is to become full-on authoritarian and suppress the majority, often with violence. Such a plan is in Project 2025, which calls for a strong executive to take control of the military and the judicial system and to use that power to impose his will.

The other option is that enough people in the majority reject the extremists to create a backlash that not only replaces them, but also establishes a level playing field.

The Republican Party is facing the reality that it has become so extreme it is hemorrhaging former supporters and mobilizing a range of critics. Today the Catholic Conference of Ohio rebuked those who spread lies about Haitian immigrants—Republican presidential candidate Trump and vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance were the leading culprits—and Teamsters councils have rejected the decision of the union’s board not to make an endorsement this year and have endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris. Some white evangelicals are also distancing themselves from Trump.

And then, tonight, Trump told a Jewish group that if he loses, it will be the fault of Jewish Americans. "I will put it to you very simply and gently: I really haven't been treated right, but you haven't been treated right because you're putting yourself in great danger."

Mark Robinson has said he will not step aside.

https://open.substack.com/pub/heatherco ... dium=email

[BDKJMU]

Interesting take by HCR on the history and the ascension of MAGA (Hint…it goes back further than 2015), and why guys like Robinson likely won’t step down.

This is why we need both parties to be strong, effective, and thriving. To avoid tyranny of either the majority or the minority. Or for that matter, authoritarian leadership.

What may save the Republican Party is a thorough ass kicking in November where they have no choice but to course correct.

And they do far more than that. Before political thinkers legitimized the idea of political opposition to the king, disagreeing with the person in charge usually led to execution or banishment for treason. Parties allowed for the idea of loyal and legitimate opposition, which in turn allowed for the peaceful transition of power. That peaceful exchange enabled the people to choose their leaders and leaders to relinquish power safely. Parties also create a system for criticizing people in power, which helps to weed out corrupt or unfit leaders.

But those benefits of a party system depend on a level political playing field for everyone, so that a party must constantly compete for voters by testing which policies are most popular and getting rid of the corrupt or unstable leaders voters would reject.

In the 1980s, radical Republican leaders set out to dismantle the government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. But that system was popular, and to overcome the majority who favored it, they began to tip the political playing field in their direction. They began to suppress voting by Democrats by insisting that Democrats were engaging in “voter fraud.” At the same time, they worked to delegitimize their opponents by calling them “socialists” or “communists” and claiming that they were trying to destroy the United States. By the 1990s, extremists in the party were taking power by purging traditional Republicans from it.

And yet, voters still elected Democrats, and after they put President Barack Obama into the White House in 2008, the Republican State Leadership Committee in 2010 launched Operation REDMAP, or Redistricting Majority Project. The plan was to take over state legislatures so Republicans would control the new district maps drawn after the 2010 census, especially in swing states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It worked, and Republican legislatures in those states and elsewhere carved up state maps into dramatically gerrymandered districts.

In those districts, the Republican candidates were virtually guaranteed election, so they focused not on attracting voters with popular policies but on amplifying increasingly extreme talking points to excite the party’s base. That drove the party farther and farther to the right. By 2012, political scientists Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein warned that the Republican Party had “become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

At the same time, the skewed playing field meant that candidates who were corrupt or bonkers did not get removed from the political mix after opponents pounced on their misdeeds and misstatements, as they would have been in a healthy system. Social media poster scary lawyerguy noted that the story about Robinson will divert attention from the lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets, which diverted attention from Trump’s abysmal debate performance, which diverted attention from Trump’s filming a campaign ad at Arlington National Cemetery.

When a political party has so thoroughly walled itself off from the majority, there are two options. One is to become full-on authoritarian and suppress the majority, often with violence. Such a plan is in Project 2025, which calls for a strong executive to take control of the military and the judicial system and to use that power to impose his will.

The other option is that enough people in the majority reject the extremists to create a backlash that not only replaces them, but also establishes a level playing field.

The Republican Party is facing the reality that it has become so extreme it is hemorrhaging former supporters and mobilizing a range of critics. Today the Catholic Conference of Ohio rebuked those who spread lies about Haitian immigrants—Republican presidential candidate Trump and vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance were the leading culprits—and Teamsters councils have rejected the decision of the union’s board not to make an endorsement this year and have endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris. Some white evangelicals are also distancing themselves from Trump.

And then, tonight, Trump told a Jewish group that if he loses, it will be the fault of Jewish Americans. "I will put it to you very simply and gently: I really haven't been treated right, but you haven't been treated right because you're putting yourself in great danger."

Mark Robinson has said he will not step aside.

https://open.substack.com/pub/heatherco ... dium=email

Lol keep dreaming. Even IF Commiela eeked out a close win andIF the donks flipped the House (gonna be close either way) 90+% conks going to flip the Senate. Frontrunners in 2028 are MAGA: Desantis and Vance. The neocon Bush/Cheyney/Haley warmongers no longer control the party. The conk party is no longer a quasi conservative, neocon one. It is a quasi conservative populist, nationalist one.

And the author ignores the fact that the Democrat Party is facing the reality that it has become so extreme it is hemorrhaging former supporters and mobilizing a range of critics. Conks have made huge gains among the private sector white working class, union types, who used to be solid donk block, have become a solid conk one. Trump is actually doing better among minorities than any conk president since at least Reagan. And as millions and millions and millions more illegals & back door amnesty (TPS, refugee, abuse of asylum) flood this country, you will see more and more balkanization and gains for conks on that issue.

The deck chairs have gotten rearranged, some on the right moved to the left, and vice versa, but this is still, and will continue to be, a roughly 50/50, very polarized country.

[BDKJMU]

You shouldn’t post when you are drunk. It’s how you start 2 threads with the exact same article.

[kalm]

You shouldn’t post when you are drunk. It’s how you start 2 threads with the exact same article.

I’ve been sober for 4 years and two months, thank you.


You should try not being a douche all of the time and recognize accidents happen.

(Not sure how I managed this one though lol)

[BDKJMU]

You shouldn’t post when you are drunk. It’s how you start 2 threads with the exact same article.

I’ve been sober for 4 years and two months, thank you.


You should try not being a douche all of the time and recognize accidents happen.

(Not sure how I managed this one though lol)

I’m not a douche. I’m an asshole.

[kalm]

I’ve been sober for 4 years and two months, thank you.


You should try not being a douche all of the time and recognize accidents happen.

(Not sure how I managed this one though lol)

I’m not a douche. I’m an asshole.

That’s better.

[GannonFan]

Where BDK is right is that no matter how the parties have changed, some groups shifting from GOP to Dem some switching from Dem to GOP, and some still caught in between or around those two, what hasn't changed, and probably won't without significant Constitutional upheaval, is that we'll always have two main political parties in this country. We've had that for close to 230 years, and we'll keep having it going forward. Beyond just simple human nature (someone says "I believe this", prompting someone else to say "I disagree" - boom, political division) the way elections at the federal level are setup and how government itself is structured means that we will always have a party in power (either full or partial) and another party trying to dislodge that. Sure, we'll have temporary, ephemeral parties spring up (think the Socialist Party, embodied by Debs at the turn of the 20th century, think Ross Perot and the party he attached to in the 90's, etc), but they won't last terribly long and will be absorbed by the other two parties. And yes, you could see main parties fade away or split (i.e. Federalists, the original Democratic Republicans, the Whigs, the No-Nothing's, etc) but they are always replaced by another to create two parties again.

Like I said, in this country it's the structural layout of the federal government that results in two parties, no more or less, and because you'd need a super, super majority to change that foundational structure, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

[UNI88]

Where BDK is right is that no matter how the parties have changed, some groups shifting from GOP to Dem some switching from Dem to GOP, and some still caught in between or around those two, what hasn't changed, and probably won't without significant Constitutional upheaval, is that we'll always have two main political parties in this country. We've had that for close to 230 years, and we'll keep having it going forward. Beyond just simple human nature (someone says "I believe this", prompting someone else to say "I disagree" - boom, political division) the way elections at the federal level are setup and how government itself is structured means that we will always have a party in power (either full or partial) and another party trying to dislodge that. Sure, we'll have temporary, ephemeral parties spring up (think the Socialist Party, embodied by Debs at the turn of the 20th century, think Ross Perot and the party he attached to in the 90's, etc), but they won't last terribly long and will be absorbed by the other two parties. And yes, you could see main parties fade away or split (i.e. Federalists, the original Democratic Republicans, the Whigs, the No-Nothing's, etc) but they are always replaced by another to create two parties again.

Like I said, in this country it's the structural layout of the federal government that results in two parties, no more or less, and because you'd need a super, super majority to change that foundational structure, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

I do think that the article is consistent with my posts on the impact of gerrymandering and where we are today.

[kalm]

Where BDK is right is that no matter how the parties have changed, some groups shifting from GOP to Dem some switching from Dem to GOP, and some still caught in between or around those two, what hasn't changed, and probably won't without significant Constitutional upheaval, is that we'll always have two main political parties in this country. We've had that for close to 230 years, and we'll keep having it going forward. Beyond just simple human nature (someone says "I believe this", prompting someone else to say "I disagree" - boom, political division) the way elections at the federal level are setup and how government itself is structured means that we will always have a party in power (either full or partial) and another party trying to dislodge that. Sure, we'll have temporary, ephemeral parties spring up (think the Socialist Party, embodied by Debs at the turn of the 20th century, think Ross Perot and the party he attached to in the 90's, etc), but they won't last terribly long and will be absorbed by the other two parties. And yes, you could see main parties fade away or split (i.e. Federalists, the original Democratic Republicans, the Whigs, the No-Nothing's, etc) but they are always replaced by another to create two parties again.

Like I said, in this country it's the structural layout of the federal government that results in two parties, no more or less, and because you'd need a super, super majority to change that foundational structure, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

The article and my comments were t about the R’s going away. Rather, there are times where extremism or lack of popularity can significantly tip the balance of power between the two.

We could be on the verge of this with one man’s total control of over one party and his alliance with the extremists to retake the Whitehouse and Congress. There are very few to zero adults left on that bench so moderate conservatives may have to suffer through a few cycles of losses while the crazies are purged.

Or…in the case of a Trump victory, coupled with a friendly SCOTUS, an earnest push toward totalitarianism.

[Caribbean Hen]

Where BDK is right is that no matter how the parties have changed, some groups shifting from GOP to Dem some switching from Dem to GOP, and some still caught in between or around those two, what hasn't changed, and probably won't without significant Constitutional upheaval, is that we'll always have two main political parties in this country. We've had that for close to 230 years, and we'll keep having it going forward. Beyond just simple human nature (someone says "I believe this", prompting someone else to say "I disagree" - boom, political division) the way elections at the federal level are setup and how government itself is structured means that we will always have a party in power (either full or partial) and another party trying to dislodge that. Sure, we'll have temporary, ephemeral parties spring up (think the Socialist Party, embodied by Debs at the turn of the 20th century, think Ross Perot and the party he attached to in the 90's, etc), but they won't last terribly long and will be absorbed by the other two parties. And yes, you could see main parties fade away or split (i.e. Federalists, the original Democratic Republicans, the Whigs, the No-Nothing's, etc) but they are always replaced by another to create two parties again.

Like I said, in this country it's the structural layout of the federal government that results in two parties, no more or less, and because you'd need a super, super majority to change that foundational structure, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

The article and my comments were t about the R’s going away. Rather, there are times where extremism or lack of popularity can significantly tip the balance of power between the two.

We could be on the verge of this with one man’s total control of over one party and his alliance with the extremists to retake the Whitehouse and Congress. There are very few to zero adults left on that bench so moderate conservatives may have to suffer through a few cycles of losses while the crazies are purged.

Or…in the case of a Trump victory, coupled with a friendly SCOTUS, an earnest push away from totalitarianism.

corrected your post

[kalm]

The article and my comments were t about the R’s going away. Rather, there are times where extremism or lack of popularity can significantly tip the balance of power between the two.

We could be on the verge of this with one man’s total control of over one party and his alliance with the extremists to retake the Whitehouse and Congress. There are very few to zero adults left on that bench so moderate conservatives may have to suffer through a few cycles of losses while the crazies are purged.

Or…in the case of a Trump victory, coupled with a friendly SCOTUS, an earnest push away from totalitarianism.

corrected your post

As any cultist completely ignoring facts and what’s actually said would.

You should probably leave post corrections to ‘88.

[GannonFan]

Where BDK is right is that no matter how the parties have changed, some groups shifting from GOP to Dem some switching from Dem to GOP, and some still caught in between or around those two, what hasn't changed, and probably won't without significant Constitutional upheaval, is that we'll always have two main political parties in this country. We've had that for close to 230 years, and we'll keep having it going forward. Beyond just simple human nature (someone says "I believe this", prompting someone else to say "I disagree" - boom, political division) the way elections at the federal level are setup and how government itself is structured means that we will always have a party in power (either full or partial) and another party trying to dislodge that. Sure, we'll have temporary, ephemeral parties spring up (think the Socialist Party, embodied by Debs at the turn of the 20th century, think Ross Perot and the party he attached to in the 90's, etc), but they won't last terribly long and will be absorbed by the other two parties. And yes, you could see main parties fade away or split (i.e. Federalists, the original Democratic Republicans, the Whigs, the No-Nothing's, etc) but they are always replaced by another to create two parties again.

Like I said, in this country it's the structural layout of the federal government that results in two parties, no more or less, and because you'd need a super, super majority to change that foundational structure, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Or…in the case of a Trump victory, coupled with a friendly SCOTUS, an earnest push toward totalitarianism.

No matter who wins in November, totalitarianism is simply not going to happen in this country. Oh, I don't doubt that folks will try - Project 2025, Presidential executive orders, pressuring of social media sites to censor information, restructuring of the SCOTUS jurisdiction and court packing etc, could be things that drive us in that direction, but the Constitution is well engrained at this point, and the steps to change it so significant, that they just aren't going to happen in our lifetimes.

[kalm]

Or…in the case of a Trump victory, coupled with a friendly SCOTUS, an earnest push toward totalitarianism.

No matter who wins in November, totalitarianism is simply not going to happen in this country. Oh, I don't doubt that folks will try - Project 2025, Presidential executive orders, pressuring of social media sites to censor information, restructuring of the SCOTUS jurisdiction and court packing etc, could be things that drive us in that direction, but the Constitution is well engrained at this point, and the steps to change it so significant, that they just aren't going to happen in our lifetimes.

Dobbs and presidential immunity disagree.

MAGA cannot nor are they even seeking to be a majoritarian party any more. It’s why they’re no longer attempting to avoid saying the quiet parts out loud from fascistic governance to body autonomy. All efforts are focused on voter suppression and refusal to certify election results. Red and some purple state SOS’s are attempting to or already have purged voter rolls by the 100’s of thousands. Citizen challenges to voter eligibility and ballot integrity. Refusal to certify. Fake electors.

I’m not saying it’s going to work but it’s a real threat that’s driven by a highly motivated cult of the strong leader that has zero problem with certain infringements on freedom and democracy as long as it’s to the opposing side.

[kalm]

The article and my comments were t about the R’s going away. Rather, there are times where extremism or lack of popularity can significantly tip the balance of power between the two.

We could be on the verge of this with one man’s total control of over one party and his alliance with the extremists to retake the Whitehouse and Congress. There are very few to zero adults left on that bench so moderate conservatives may have to suffer through a few cycles of losses while the crazies are purged.

Or…in the case of a Trump victory, coupled with a friendly SCOTUS, an earnest push away from totalitarianism.

corrected your post

Shhhh, quiet. We’re having adult discussions here.

[Bobcat]

Thank god a grown up will be back in office soon. Trump will restore the freedoms taken way by Biden and Kumala

[GannonFan]

No matter who wins in November, totalitarianism is simply not going to happen in this country. Oh, I don't doubt that folks will try - Project 2025, Presidential executive orders, pressuring of social media sites to censor information, restructuring of the SCOTUS jurisdiction and court packing etc, could be things that drive us in that direction, but the Constitution is well engrained at this point, and the steps to change it so significant, that they just aren't going to happen in our lifetimes.

Dobbs and presidential immunity disagree.

MAGA cannot nor are they even seeking to be a majoritarian party any more. It’s why they’re no longer attempting to avoid saying the quiet parts out loud from fascistic governance to body autonomy. All efforts are focused on voter suppression and refusal to certify election results. Red and some purple state SOS’s are attempting to or already have purged voter rolls by the 100’s of thousands. Citizen challenges to voter eligibility and ballot integrity. Refusal to certify. Fake electors.

I’m not saying it’s going to work but it’s a real threat that’s driven by a highly motivated cult of the strong leader that has zero problem with certain infringements on freedom and democracy as long as it’s to the opposing side.

As for Dobbs, abortion, until we get artificial wombs for any stage in pregnancy up and running, is always going to be a contentious issue in this country, and pretty much will be evenly split. It's one of the most static issues of the past half century. Sure, Roe being overturned upset the cart a lot, and the GOP going absolutely overboard with skipping over details (i.e. forcing people to carry already stillborn babies to term) has and will cost them elections, but that's part of the voter correction.

Presidential Immunity? Come one, stop being fatalistic in misreading what SCOTUS decided. It really wasn't all that far flung from what had already been established in terms of immunity for civil cases, just now extended to criminal cases. And besides, the vast majority of it they punted to the lower courts to be adjudicated so they didn't even settle all that much at this point anyway.

For voter suppression, how come when the right claims voter fraud they are rightfully held to task to prove it (and they often can't), but when the left cries voter suppression we don't hold that hysteria to the same standard? I've seen the same news stories on some states removing 50k to 200k off the voter rolls, but a few sentences down past those headlines they detail that many of those being removed are actually deceased but were still on the rolls. Cleaning up the voter rolls to make them correct is not a harbinger of totalitarianism.

Again, the right is not alone, sadly, in doing things that infringe on people's freedoms. Just because the left says they're doing something to restrict freedoms but are only doing so to counter what they think is "worse" from the right doesn't make it any better. Have more faith in the Constitution - we had four years of Trump and the Constitution withstood that just fine.

[Bobcat]

And it will again after the next 4 years of Trump

[kalm]

Dobbs and presidential immunity disagree.

MAGA cannot nor are they even seeking to be a majoritarian party any more. It’s why they’re no longer attempting to avoid saying the quiet parts out loud from fascistic governance to body autonomy. All efforts are focused on voter suppression and refusal to certify election results. Red and some purple state SOS’s are attempting to or already have purged voter rolls by the 100’s of thousands. Citizen challenges to voter eligibility and ballot integrity. Refusal to certify. Fake electors.

I’m not saying it’s going to work but it’s a real threat that’s driven by a highly motivated cult of the strong leader that has zero problem with certain infringements on freedom and democracy as long as it’s to the opposing side.

As for Dobbs, abortion, until we get artificial wombs for any stage in pregnancy up and running, is always going to be a contentious issue in this country, and pretty much will be evenly split. It's one of the most static issues of the past half century. Sure, Roe being overturned upset the cart a lot, and the GOP going absolutely overboard with skipping over details (i.e. forcing people to carry already stillborn babies to term) has and will cost them elections, but that's part of the voter correction.

Presidential Immunity? Come one, stop being fatalistic in misreading what SCOTUS decided. It really wasn't all that far flung from what had already been established in terms of immunity for civil cases, just now extended to criminal cases. And besides, the vast majority of it they punted to the lower courts to be adjudicated so they didn't even settle all that much at this point anyway.

For voter suppression, how come when the right claims voter fraud they are rightfully held to task to prove it (and they often can't), but when the left cries voter suppression we don't hold that hysteria to the same standard? I've seen the same news stories on some states removing 50k to 200k off the voter rolls, but a few sentences down past those headlines they detail that many of those being removed are actually deceased but were still on the rolls. Cleaning up the voter rolls to make them correct is not a harbinger of totalitarianism.

Again, the right is not alone, sadly, in doing things that infringe on people's freedoms. Just because the left says they're doing something to restrict freedoms but are only doing so to counter what they think is "worse" from the right doesn't make it any better. Have more faith in the Constitution - we had four years of Trump and the Constitution withstood that just fine.

Like I said, I don’t think it will be enough to overturn results but the fact we’re even discussing it and what’s currently being attempted are way closer than I want to be. At the least it’s highly likely Nov. 5th - Jan 6th will be a shit show again.

1) A SC woman was charged and jailed for 20 sone days after a miscarriage.

2). Immunity hasn’t been tested and common sense and basic understanding of the intent the founders is clear on how stupid it is. Not to mention practically every non-MAGA legal scholar disagrees with it.

3). See Georgia’s election board ordering all votes be hand counted which would delay certification. Or the Montana SoS failing to put Harris on approved digital absentee ballots. Just two examples of many. Voter fraud should investigated and prosecuted. Oh wait it already is.

I expected this reply. Both sides do it…equally. Trust in the history of the constitution and that things permanently fine in every ascendent empire in history.

[kalm]

Dobbs and presidential immunity disagree.

MAGA cannot nor are they even seeking to be a majoritarian party any more. It’s why they’re no longer attempting to avoid saying the quiet parts out loud from fascistic governance to body autonomy. All efforts are focused on voter suppression and refusal to certify election results. Red and some purple state SOS’s are attempting to or already have purged voter rolls by the 100’s of thousands. Citizen challenges to voter eligibility and ballot integrity. Refusal to certify. Fake electors.

I’m not saying it’s going to work but it’s a real threat that’s driven by a highly motivated cult of the strong leader that has zero problem with certain infringements on freedom and democracy as long as it’s to the opposing side.

As for Dobbs, abortion, until we get artificial wombs for any stage in pregnancy up and running, is always going to be a contentious issue in this country, and pretty much will be evenly split. It's one of the most static issues of the past half century. Sure, Roe being overturned upset the cart a lot, and the GOP going absolutely overboard with skipping over details (i.e. forcing people to carry already stillborn babies to term) has and will cost them elections, but that's part of the voter correction.

Presidential Immunity? Come one, stop being fatalistic in misreading what SCOTUS decided. It really wasn't all that far flung from what had already been established in terms of immunity for civil cases, just now extended to criminal cases. And besides, the vast majority of it they punted to the lower courts to be adjudicated so they didn't even settle all that much at this point anyway.

For voter suppression, how come when the right claims voter fraud they are rightfully held to task to prove it (and they often can't), but when the left cries voter suppression we don't hold that hysteria to the same standard? I've seen the same news stories on some states removing 50k to 200k off the voter rolls, but a few sentences down past those headlines they detail that many of those being removed are actually deceased but were still on the rolls. Cleaning up the voter rolls to make them correct is not a harbinger of totalitarianism.

Again, the right is not alone, sadly, in doing things that infringe on people's freedoms. Just because the left says they're doing something to restrict freedoms but are only doing so to counter what they think is "worse" from the right doesn't make it any better. Have more faith in the Constitution - we had four years of Trump and the Constitution withstood that just fine.

Here’s another problem with presidential immunity. No carve out for treason like there is with Congress.

Whitehouse goes on to talk about how a lack of immunity was itself a check on an abusive executive branch…their biggest fear….

[GannonFan]

As for Dobbs, abortion, until we get artificial wombs for any stage in pregnancy up and running, is always going to be a contentious issue in this country, and pretty much will be evenly split. It's one of the most static issues of the past half century. Sure, Roe being overturned upset the cart a lot, and the GOP going absolutely overboard with skipping over details (i.e. forcing people to carry already stillborn babies to term) has and will cost them elections, but that's part of the voter correction.

Presidential Immunity? Come one, stop being fatalistic in misreading what SCOTUS decided. It really wasn't all that far flung from what had already been established in terms of immunity for civil cases, just now extended to criminal cases. And besides, the vast majority of it they punted to the lower courts to be adjudicated so they didn't even settle all that much at this point anyway.

For voter suppression, how come when the right claims voter fraud they are rightfully held to task to prove it (and they often can't), but when the left cries voter suppression we don't hold that hysteria to the same standard? I've seen the same news stories on some states removing 50k to 200k off the voter rolls, but a few sentences down past those headlines they detail that many of those being removed are actually deceased but were still on the rolls. Cleaning up the voter rolls to make them correct is not a harbinger of totalitarianism.

Again, the right is not alone, sadly, in doing things that infringe on people's freedoms. Just because the left says they're doing something to restrict freedoms but are only doing so to counter what they think is "worse" from the right doesn't make it any better. Have more faith in the Constitution - we had four years of Trump and the Constitution withstood that just fine.

Here’s another problem with presidential immunity. No carve out for treason like there is with Congress.

Whitehouse goes on to talk about how a lack of immunity was itself a check on an abusive executive branch…their biggest fear….

Sweet Moses, Whitehouse is an absolute loon and has been for years now. He thinks there's a conspiracy everywhere. He's the left's one man answer to Qanon.

There's no carve out for treason 1) because immunity itself, for criminal Presidential cases, has not even been established or adjudicated yet - this is being developed and will be developed over the winding of these cases through the lower courts and then ultimately back to the SCOTUS and 2) even the "carve out" for treason for legislators isn't the carve out that Whitehouse is pretending it is, the Constitution only says that legislators can be arrested for treason (as well as a felony, or breach of the peace) anytime (whereas otherwise they can't be arrested while in session or going to or coming from session). Considering that legislators are out of session for large chunks of time, that's not really that big of a deal.

And remember, it wasn't Trump judges that decided the Fitzgerald case, the predecessor of defining Presidential immunity, back in 1982, more than 40 years ago. Most of the current judges were keeping meticulous youth calendars or still in school back then. Really, up to then, taking a President to court for things they did while President certainly wasn't something that the Founders, or anyone, thought of as a check on an abusive executive branch. The evidence of that is the complete lack of court cases brought specifically against Presidents. And it's not like there weren't potential crimes through the years that could've been prosecuted - heck, most of Andrew Jackson's term could've been brought to court and there were plenty of Founders still around even then if they thought that was an actual "check" on the President.

As for the Founders biggest fear, I don't think there was a lot of consensus on that. Some feared an executive with king-like powers, sure, but some feared a standing army, some feared an abusive legislature (like they just had with Parliament), some feared the common man getting the vote, some feared the eradication of slavery, some feared women getting the vote, some feared the dominance of large states and large population centers, and the list really goes on. 1787 was a scary time apparently.

[Bobcat]

Way less scary than now with the idiots currently in the white house

[kalm]

Here’s another problem with presidential immunity. No carve out for treason like there is with Congress.

Whitehouse goes on to talk about how a lack of immunity was itself a check on an abusive executive branch…their biggest fear….

Sweet Moses, Whitehouse is an absolute loon and has been for years now. He thinks there's a conspiracy everywhere. He's the left's one man answer to Qanon.

There's no carve out for treason 1) because immunity itself, for criminal Presidential cases, has not even been established or adjudicated yet - this is being developed and will be developed over the winding of these cases through the lower courts and then ultimately back to the SCOTUS and 2) even the "carve out" for treason for legislators isn't the carve out that Whitehouse is pretending it is, the Constitution only says that legislators can be arrested for treason (as well as a felony, or breach of the peace) anytime (whereas otherwise they can't be arrested while in session or going to or coming from session). Considering that legislators are out of session for large chunks of time, that's not really that big of a deal.

And remember, it wasn't Trump judges that decided the Fitzgerald case, the predecessor of defining Presidential immunity, back in 1982, more than 40 years ago. Most of the current judges were keeping meticulous youth calendars or still in school back then. Really, up to then, taking a President to court for things they did while President certainly wasn't something that the Founders, or anyone, thought of as a check on an abusive executive branch. The evidence of that is the complete lack of court cases brought specifically against Presidents. And it's not like there weren't potential crimes through the years that could've been prosecuted - heck, most of Andrew Jackson's term could've been brought to court and there were plenty of Founders still around even then if they thought that was an actual "check" on the President.

As for the Founders biggest fear, I don't think there was a lot of consensus on that. Some feared an executive with king-like powers, sure, but some feared a standing army, some feared an abusive legislature (like they just had with Parliament), some feared the common man getting the vote, some feared the eradication of slavery, some feared women getting the vote, some feared the dominance of large states and large population centers, and the list really goes on. 1787 was a scary time apparently.

Solid post.

Fitzgerald was 5-4 and written by Lewis Powell, the godfather of SCOTUS politicization. If you haven’t, look up the Powell Memo. It’s very revealing regarding the originations of far right dominance within the GOP and SCOTUS which is supposed to be apolitical.

Yes, the current court left the door open a bit in the grander scheme of things but the immediate and more narrow issue at hand - whether Trump’s crimes while in office are prosecutable - could have been litigated starting back in January.

The delay and the punt clearly helped Trump. Whether that’s the slow clock of justifiable SCOTUS decision making or legal sophistry to protect an ideological ally against the hordes of sociomarxistcommiefascist liberals is for each of us to decide.

Based on current SCOTUS rulings, public statements, and common sense, I’m going with the latter as are most legal scholars and former judges.

[GannonFan]

Sweet Moses, Whitehouse is an absolute loon and has been for years now. He thinks there's a conspiracy everywhere. He's the left's one man answer to Qanon.

There's no carve out for treason 1) because immunity itself, for criminal Presidential cases, has not even been established or adjudicated yet - this is being developed and will be developed over the winding of these cases through the lower courts and then ultimately back to the SCOTUS and 2) even the "carve out" for treason for legislators isn't the carve out that Whitehouse is pretending it is, the Constitution only says that legislators can be arrested for treason (as well as a felony, or breach of the peace) anytime (whereas otherwise they can't be arrested while in session or going to or coming from session). Considering that legislators are out of session for large chunks of time, that's not really that big of a deal.

And remember, it wasn't Trump judges that decided the Fitzgerald case, the predecessor of defining Presidential immunity, back in 1982, more than 40 years ago. Most of the current judges were keeping meticulous youth calendars or still in school back then. Really, up to then, taking a President to court for things they did while President certainly wasn't something that the Founders, or anyone, thought of as a check on an abusive executive branch. The evidence of that is the complete lack of court cases brought specifically against Presidents. And it's not like there weren't potential crimes through the years that could've been prosecuted - heck, most of Andrew Jackson's term could've been brought to court and there were plenty of Founders still around even then if they thought that was an actual "check" on the President.

As for the Founders biggest fear, I don't think there was a lot of consensus on that. Some feared an executive with king-like powers, sure, but some feared a standing army, some feared an abusive legislature (like they just had with Parliament), some feared the common man getting the vote, some feared the eradication of slavery, some feared women getting the vote, some feared the dominance of large states and large population centers, and the list really goes on. 1787 was a scary time apparently.

Solid post.

Fitzgerald was 5-4 and written by Lewis Powell, the godfather of SCOTUS politicization. If you haven’t, look up the Powell Memo. It’s very revealing regarding the originations of far right dominance within the GOP and SCOTUS which is supposed to be apolitical.

Yes, the current court left the door open a bit in the grander scheme of things but the immediate and more narrow issue at hand - whether Trump’s crimes while in office are prosecutable - could have been litigated starting back in January.

The delay and the punt clearly helped Trump. Whether that’s the slow clock of justifiable SCOTUS decision making or legal sophistry to protect an ideological ally against the hordes of sociomarxistcommiefascist liberals is for each of us to decide.

Based on current SCOTUS rulings, public statements, and common sense, I’m going with the latter as are most legal scholars and former judges.

Well, most of those "legal scholars and former judges" are also folks on the payrolls for various news services so I tend to take what they say, while taking money from those sources to give up their opinions, with a grain of salt.

As for common sense, you're asking SCOTUS to make a major Constitutional opinion that will have ramifications for the next century and beyond as it relates to Presidential immunity. It took the SCOTUS 7 months from argument to decision to decide Fitzgerald, why do you think something of more even weightier impact would be decided even more quickly? Besides, we've been over this before. January 6th happened in 2021. You and I could see what happened that day in real time. It took the Jan 6th commission until the end of 2022 (two years) to issue a final report, and then it took another year for the prosecution to finally get charges against Trump. If you're going to complain about slow-walking things, the first place to complain about is why it took almost 3 years to bring charges for one of the most documented and visual abuses of power we've ever seen.

As for Powell being the godfather of politicization, that's a bit of a reach. Powell was in the majority who voted in favor of Roe, against capital punishment, and in favor of race-based admissions. He was certainly no firebrand when it came to politics and the SCOTUS.

[kalm]

Solid post.

Fitzgerald was 5-4 and written by Lewis Powell, the godfather of SCOTUS politicization. If you haven’t, look up the Powell Memo. It’s very revealing regarding the originations of far right dominance within the GOP and SCOTUS which is supposed to be apolitical.

Yes, the current court left the door open a bit in the grander scheme of things but the immediate and more narrow issue at hand - whether Trump’s crimes while in office are prosecutable - could have been litigated starting back in January.

The delay and the punt clearly helped Trump. Whether that’s the slow clock of justifiable SCOTUS decision making or legal sophistry to protect an ideological ally against the hordes of sociomarxistcommiefascist liberals is for each of us to decide.

Based on current SCOTUS rulings, public statements, and common sense, I’m going with the latter as are most legal scholars and former judges.

Well, most of those "legal scholars and former judges" are also folks on the payrolls for various news services so I tend to take what they say, while taking money from those sources to give up their opinions, with a grain of salt.

As for common sense, you're asking SCOTUS to make a major Constitutional opinion that will have ramifications for the next century and beyond as it relates to Presidential immunity. It took the SCOTUS 7 months from argument to decision to decide Fitzgerald, why do you think something of more even weightier impact would be decided even more quickly? Besides, we've been over this before. January 6th happened in 2021. You and I could see what happened that day in real time. It took the Jan 6th commission until the end of 2022 (two years) to issue a final report, and then it took another year for the prosecution to finally get charges against Trump. If you're going to complain about slow-walking things, the first place to complain about is why it took almost 3 years to bring charges for one of the most documented and visual abuses of power we've ever seen.

As for Powell being the godfather of politicization, that's a bit of a reach. Powell was in the majority who voted in favor of Roe, against capital punishment, and in favor of race-based admissions. He was certainly no firebrand when it came to politics and the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS could have reviewed the indictment and ruled on immunity to this specific case in a week while leaving the constitution intact and allowing for further appeals down the road. They ruled on Bush V Gore in less than that time due to the urgency of the case.

Like said regarding Powell, start with reading up on the Powell Memo and its relationship to corporatism. A brief search of his history should remove all doubt.

[GannonFan]

Well, most of those "legal scholars and former judges" are also folks on the payrolls for various news services so I tend to take what they say, while taking money from those sources to give up their opinions, with a grain of salt.

As for common sense, you're asking SCOTUS to make a major Constitutional opinion that will have ramifications for the next century and beyond as it relates to Presidential immunity. It took the SCOTUS 7 months from argument to decision to decide Fitzgerald, why do you think something of more even weightier impact would be decided even more quickly? Besides, we've been over this before. January 6th happened in 2021. You and I could see what happened that day in real time. It took the Jan 6th commission until the end of 2022 (two years) to issue a final report, and then it took another year for the prosecution to finally get charges against Trump. If you're going to complain about slow-walking things, the first place to complain about is why it took almost 3 years to bring charges for one of the most documented and visual abuses of power we've ever seen.

As for Powell being the godfather of politicization, that's a bit of a reach. Powell was in the majority who voted in favor of Roe, against capital punishment, and in favor of race-based admissions. He was certainly no firebrand when it came to politics and the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS could have reviewed the indictment and ruled on immunity to this specific case in a week while leaving the constitution intact and allowing for further appeals down the road. They ruled on Bush V Gore in less than that time due to the urgency of the case.

Like said regarding Powell, start with reading up on the Powell Memo and its relationship to corporatism. A brief search of his history should remove all doubt.

I've read the Powell Memo plenty of times over the years. It's been out there since the early '70's so it's not breaking news or anything. And what he wrote in that memo versus how he adjudicated while on the bench aren't necessarily related. Powell didn't cause politicization of the SCOTUS, he just happened to be around when plenty of other folks did. But really, it's also not as if the federal judiciary hasn't been politicized anytime in our history. Heck, the Adams to Jefferson handover of power and how that was manipulated with midnight judges because of politicization happened more than 100 years before Powell was even born.

As for the urgency of the case, I'd certainly argue that Bush v Gore was far more urgent than anything we have right now and was far more specific and less impact on future case law.. And it didn't need to go to SCOTUS at the stage where Smith decided to do that. Like I said, don't wait 3 years to bring to court what was obvious the day it happened, as you and I and millions of people all saw it happen live in front of us. Your real argument with urgency is with the Jan 6th commission and Smith. Once he decided to ask SCOTUS for a deep Constitutional ruling on something they hadn't really ruled on before, and would have a tremendous impact on Constitutional law going forward, it was only natural that it would take time. Again, comparing it to Bush v Gore is disingenuous.