I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
This could in theory threaten abortion and gay marriage being legal in the US. That doesn't mean it will, but the reeeeeing is going to be insane. I'm already seeing people saying this is a sign of facism incoming despite the fact that hes a right wing judge.
Swing vote on certain issues. Gay marriage and abortion hes pretty moderate by modern standards, on basically everything else Roberts is actually more likely to be the swing vote than he is.
Lmao, the Republicans will totally go after gays in the with their court nominee. Gay marriage is the easiest issue to rile up their crazy Christian base besides abortion. It also gets some of them hard right immigrant haters too.
one republican appointed justice died (assassinated by kike pedos at a vineyard) already and was replaced by another, and now another Republican justice is retiring, and will be replaced by yet another Republican justice.
Basically the hillshills are crying because if she won the election they could have more easily turned the country into Sodom/Gomorrah by replacing these guys with her pedo pals and thus flipping the political ratio of the SC
God-Emperor Trump is going to get to appoint another Supreme Court Justice for life. POZZED commie degeneracy will be delayed for another thirty years. POZZED commie degenerates distraught that they will not be allowed to experience transexual gulags in this timeline.
You know how the gay cake thing was 7-2? One of the judges died a while ago and now another retired giving trump 2 fresh faced far right Republicans. Any high level arguements are settled by these 9 people. If 5 are far right Republicans guess what, trump always wins in any argument he brings up or the media brings up. No, he doesnt have to make a christian make a gay cake and no, he doesnt have to give a shit about illegals. These people only die or retire and theres 9 of them. Their replacements are appointed under whatever president is in charge. Since trump knows everyone he pulls strings and grabs what the left might call nazis. Oh you know these people arent retiring this is an awesome ass job too. Unless half of them get assassinated were looking at a right wing future for possibly DECADES.
If 5 are far right Republicans guess what, trump always wins in any argument he brings up or the media brings up.
The American Left should have considered that possibility a long time ago instead of making the court the final authority on every issue. The minute FDR suggested stacking the court and we got decisions that turned the Constitution on its head, like Wickard v. Filburn that changed the clearly understood definition of "interstate commerce," it was inevitable that the American Right would eventually take power and either undo those mistakes or embrace and abuse them.
The Democrats have only managed to pass on major policy goal through legislation in my lifetime: Obamacare/PPACA. It was a miserable failure by any objective metric, and one of the reasons we've seen the electorate shift governing power towards republicans. Every other political victory they've had didn't come from the will of the voter, but from the edicts of the Supreme Court. Democrats are now frustrated, frightened, and furious that republicans might be in a position to undo all their illegitimate victories.
When you live by the sword, you eventually die by the sword. It's the way of the world. Give any person or group of people enough rope and eventually they'll find themselves hoisted by their own petard.
The guy is a closeted gay Republican. He's been fairly liberal on social issues in the past. He's likely going to be replaced by someone less into man on man action. Liberals are pissed because this could interfere with their plans to convert elementary schools into tran-gender indoctrination camps and a to give illegal immigrants to right to vote.
The Supreme Court is the final authority on case law in the US. They've decided many controversial decisions, an example would be Roe vs. Wade, which paved the way for legalizing abortion in the US.
The court has usually been at a slight conservative or liberal slant. There are 9 members, so right now being a slight conservative slant means that they'd rule in a 5-4 majority on cases in favor of conservative viewpoints, usually (the two cases that made the news today were restrictions on union rights and approval of Trump's travel ban, both conservative decisions).
The ability to appoint a Supreme Court justice only happens when one dies or retires, so it's very rare. And your appointee is appointed for life, so you're appointing someone who will be there for the next 40 years or so.
The Republicans famously delayed in 2015 when Obama appointed Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It paid off, as when Trump won, he was able to appoint a hyper-conservative by the name of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, keeping it a 5-4 conservative slant.
With another liberal justice retiring, he would be able to appoint a second conservative judge, making it a 6-3 slant. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires or dies as well before 2020, he could make it 7-2.
What this means is that the Supreme Court could be hyperconservative for the next 20-40 years. Tons of incredibly important and wide-impacting cases could be decided on minority rights, womens rights, gay rights, healthcare, etc.
Said it in another post, and I wil say it again, after reading the r/politics thread on Kennedys retirement, I had to cancel my plans for the evening, 'cause my schadenboner is gonna last more than four hours.
For the love of god, the next Dem president needs to purge the Supreme Court....
/u/Daemontherogueprince I too think people should only be allowed to have believes identical to mine, after all, what's a democracy for, if not for me to get my way?
This is as bad as 9/11 for everyone but white men.
The hyperbole is amazing! And this is after yesterday's thread, when people called the immigration Supreme Court ruling "the worst decision since Dredd Scott"
this is not good for civil rights or progressive thought. the way the dem's handle the approval of whoever trump nominates is going to be absolutely essential to the goal of the american left over the next 25 years. this is a big fuckin deal
In an ironic twist of fate, america 250ish years later turns into a papal state from being one of the first goverments to have separation of church and state.
Maybe in retarded ergot poisoned European Mayoland, but in the grand ol' USA we have a rich and diverse history of moronic paranoid fantasies that goes well beyond the standard anti-semetic monoculture.
It is taboo in our republic. The /r/drama poster is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a /r/drama poster and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I've been found out.”
My prediction is that there will never be another justice appointed and as the years pass and they die off we're going to be left with a seemingly immortal Clarence Thomas deciding the law of the land through an arcane system of grunts and sexual harassment.
Good. Something shouldn't be imposed on the whole nation because partisan judges voted for one thing either way.
I'm in favor of gay marriage, but the lawsuit against the legitamately voted for California ban was not the correct way to implement it nation wide. It is against the 10th amendment.
Its pretty bizzare watching conservatives circle jerk over this as if they actually care about zygotes, gonna be fun watching americtards end up with less rights than mc donalds as a person tho.
By the way it doesn't matter. People become more conservative as they age. Everyone says rainbows, unicorns, puppies and world peace when you're in college.
Then when you start paying taxes you go lol, I'm a republican now.
Good. Something shouldn't be imposed on the whole nation because partisan judges voted for one thing either way.
That's been happening for decades and is happening with conservatives.
I'm in favor of gay marriage, but the lawsuit against the legitimately voted for California ban was not the correct way to implement it nation wide. It is against the 10th amendment.
Scouts said gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment, and the 10th amendment doesn't take precedence over any other amendment.
Why? The law is incredibly clear on this. You can't discriminate based on gender or sexuality in terms of marriage. Equal protection? You don't get to start your own constitutional violations after the supreme court found that your neighbouring state was violating the constitution by doing the exact same thing.
If California passed a law saying the only legal weapons were sticks, have they banned guns or not? They have. So it was be a constitutional violation like every state that offered opposite sex marriage without offering gay marriage. So every single one of them was in violation of the constitution but your argument is that the supreme court should just act as a state supreme supreme court?
The entire point of a federal court is that they're a federal court. They interpret how laws affect the entire country. If their rulings only affected a single state then why would they even exist?
Child marriage is legal in like every single USA state. You can marry a ten year old in a few of them. Children generally can't consent to contracts though. Which is not to equate gay marriage to paedophilia. Also the 14th amendment doesn't apply to age.
The government has a compelling interest in preventing incest because it has a higher rate of birth defects and is ripe for abuse between children and parents. Again legal in the USA to marry your cousin basically everywhere.
The 14th amendment basically says if you want to treat groups differently under the law, you've got to have a good reason. It does a few other things but we'll keep it simple.
Opponents of gay marriage basically said we don't like and that's not a good enough reason to fail to offer equal protection under the law.
It doesn't have anything to do with age. It's the group of adults that would want child marriage.
Delaware became the first state to ban child marriage without exceptions
Like California became the first state to ban gay marriage without exception, so it's basically the same situation.
Opponents of gay marriage basically said we don't like and that's not a good enough reason
Not really, the dissenting opinions were basically saying that defense of traditional families is in the interest of the US to maintain successful childrearing.
The state doesn't give a fuck if you fuck. You're married when it says you're married. In the state's eyes marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's a contract between two people that sets out additional rights and responsibilities you have towards each other.
So when people who wanted to get married to a same sex partner went to court, they didn't just say I want to marry my partner. They said the United States' constitution guarantees me certain rights. This rights cannot be violated by either state or federal government.
The court said that prop 8 in California which forbid them from accessing this standard legal contract granting them additional rights violated same sex couple's right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment applies to both state and federal government due to itself.
So if someone trying to marry a child tried to argue that they were being denied equal protection under the law, then the court would tell them to fuck off because the 14th amendment does not prohibit the government from discriminating based on age which is what a prohibition on child marriage is legally.
Yeah the four dissenting opinions that carry the same legal weight as my morning shit. The majority of the court found that was not a valid reason to restrict the rights of same sex couples.
Dems threw away their right to use that line against trump when they decided to run a bunch of candidates in the midterms this year with super anti-gun stances. That's one line from Trump vs several candidates running TV spots where they talk about all the guns they want to outright ban and throw cheapo tacticool 22s into fire pits.
Dems threw away their right to use that line against trump when they decided to run a bunch of candidates in the midterms this year with super anti-gun stances
So because some Dems are anti gun they can't point out that the GOP president is anti gun too? Sorry you can't pretend Trump cares about the 2nd amendment but that's the way it is.
I'm not saying Trump is pro gun, he's a New York republican after all.
I'm saying that a lot of candidates out there are going pretty hard on the anti-gun stuff, so quoting a single dumb statement from our dumb president won't turn gun owners over to the democrats that are outlining in great detail all the guns and gun accessories they want to make illegal.
Janus literally today. You can't force a government employee to be a member of a third party (and a political third party at that) just to be employed.
No, Obama had a whole scam going where the DOJ would levy massive regulatory fines against corporations and funnel the proceeds to various DNC operative-led causes.
Man I just realized this whole thing was just so you can deflect from the Trump administration supporting civil asset forfeiture, flag burning bans and threatening to take away media licenses.
That’s criminal asset forfeiture, in civil you don’t have to be convicted or even charged with a crime. The police can take your stuff because they “suspect” it’s been part of a crime. Then you have to fight to get it back
that was so stupid you gave me an aneurysm i dont feel bad at all for when you inevitably get fucked by some new anti consumer / employee ruling because unless you are a corporation or super rich this is inevitably a bad thing and no amount of making up retarded shit about different kinds of liberalism will change that.
Its actually pretty hilarious after taking out the super rich america is nearly on par with countries like new zealand a island with farms
farms vs global economic superpower with endless natural resources and you barely pull ahead mate.
Im saying america is a massive shithole considering its economic clout that it loses it some categories to shitty countries that sell milk to the chinese.
Im from NZ you fucking mong jesus christ how stupid are you im making the point we nearly have the same standard of living and all we have is a bunch of grassy hills.
You can say that about nearly any political upset and be right. The US has gotten so big, it’s laughable to think anyone can control its progression anymore.
free speech is normally pretty progressive. just not after you’ve already reached peak liberalism (or “the horseshoe’s bend” as well call it) as a society.
The potus railed against flag burners and said we need more restrictive libel laws, and he tried threatening licenses of certain news organizations for having negative coverage of him. Conservatives also reed to the FCC over Colbert's cock holster joke and Bush had his "free speech zone" nonsense.
People in the Clinton camp, and the Dem leadership really have no idea how much people had a seething hatred for Clinton. Like willing to let a moron reality show star run the country rather than .... her.
They forced Clinton as the only choice and smugly thought Trump never had a chance and that's why we're here. Anyone who wants to blame Sanders or Stein is really missing the pulse.
"It's her turn"
How fucking dumb is that. Democracy isn't about people getting their turn it's about the right person for the job. No one is entitled to the fucking presidency.
Their current session just ended. Democrats (and maybe Flake/McCain till he croaks) will stall this out as long as possible, but he decided he wants to go out on his own terms and let Trump pick his successor.
The Dems have 49 votes, Flake and if McCain shows up as one last fuck you that's 51 to shoot down a nominee. If Trump sends up a crazy one of the moderate republicans could say no and that also blows it up.
That will never happen. All 49 Democrats aren't going to block a SC nominee and I really doubt Flakes and McCain are going to vote against it. Despite the love from reddit for argueing with Trump, they are still conservatives who want a conservative court.
Depends on the kind of conservative court they want. Flake right now is intentionally slowing shit down because of the tarriffs, every single democrat in America is pissed over Garland still, and if Trump throws out a lunatic fringe case Collins and or Murowski could also get involved in it. If theres a pro torture position McCain and Graham might go for one last hurrah as well.
Lol, no, the supreme court will be rigged for delusional conservatives because Berntards are too fucking stupid to understand what's at stake.
If I had a dime for every Berntard that told me "the supreme court isn't a good enough reason to vote Clinton" I'd be fucking rich.
They were literally willing to undo all progress made over the last 40 years because Clinton said mean things about Beanie Sanders.
I can not stress enough how fucking retarded these people are.
The second the GOP decided to steal a supreme court seat in the way they did everyone that leans left should have seen the big picture and voted. Our only chance now is to sweep the senate/house and simply add more justices.
What I am saying is no decent hotel would be within walking distance of a scummy place like Denny's. If I book a hotel and find out a Denny's is near it I will take my business elsewhere. I dont want the filth (this includes you and your ex) coming in and out of that shithole anywhere near me.
Reagan was a suave ass motherfucker that talked the world into embracing liberty. Bill Clinton was pudgy car salesmen that talked insecure fat bitches into polishing his knob. I'm comfortable letting history judge their relative greatness.
Those must have been some pretty fuckin bomb cartoons. They should be pasted in every k-12 classroom in America and make Canada do it too while we're at it.
No one had ever entered the White House so grossly ill informed. At presidential news conferences, especially in his first year, Ronald Reagan embarrassed himself. On one occasion, asked why he advocated putting missiles in vulnerable places, he responded, his face registering bewilderment, “I don’t know but what maybe you haven’t gotten into the area that I’m going to turn over to the secretary of defense.”
So President Reagan delegated the job of answering a question about missile defense to a man he hired to be an expert on missile defense? That's what good managers do. And this is the articles opening example, the one that's really supposed to hook me in.
What? I'm not fact checking that gish gallop. It wouldn't matter anyway. Something can be uncharitable and cherry picked and still be technically accurate. For example, if you pushed and old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, it would be technically accurate for me to say that you are the type of person that pushes old lady around.
Then you're dismissed. Sorry, I have a set of rules, the second someone dismisses something I link they either have to put out what is factually incorrect or they're dismissed.
So the fun thing about this particular book, which I fucking own you sperg, is that it’s not footnoted and has some opinions added in.
It’s a really good book, and does a fantastic job of giving an overview of the presidents and how the political machine that is the executive branch works and how it has evolved and expanded,The book isn’t even overly critical of Reagan as the article would suggest, but there are opinions placed here and there and a lot of uncited sources, (because no footnotes because it’s not a text book) which makes it a hell of a lot easier to read, but also difficult to defend on some of the claims.
You could say the same for a great majority of the presidents. Because if you knew how the executive branch works, most presidents are unqualified in a wide variety of areas. Obama’s first two years were marked with legislative defeats and poor choices because you can’t just go in and be a great president.
It takes a team to run a country well, which is what this book cited in the article likes to focus on, because the executive branch operates like a team that focuses on specific goals and how to achieve them.
The reason trumps executive branch is so chaotic is because he’s a shitty leader and pits his team against one another.
Nope, but I’m also not going to defend the idiotic concept that utilizing visual aides to help non-experts understand things is something to be criticizing, especially when that concept is in direct contention with all currently accepted standards for technical communication designed around informing non-technical users.
You’d be highly surprised if you knew how many private companies operate with a ceo who is basically absent and when they are not, they understand nothing.
I’m not saying Reagan was perfect or a genius, but he wasn’t a literal retard like you are claiming. Delegation is a very good skill to have, and waiting for people smarter then you to tell you what to think is highly underrated in society. I guarantee you if trump was more like Reagan we’d be in a much better place.
November 13th 1986: "The charge has been made that the United States has shipped weapons to Iran as ransom payment for the release of American hostages in Lebanon, that the United States undercut its allies and secretly violated American policy against trafficking with terrorists.... Those charges are utterly false.... We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
March 4 1987: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
You mean that Reagan? The traitor that lied to all of America on television many many times? The one that experts agree was suffering from severe mental decline in his second term? The same Reagan that oversaw the HUD scandal where they illegally awarded HUD contracts to Reagan donors, eventually culminating in 16 convictions of various administration officials and conspirators? The same Reagan whos' Chief of Staff was convicted of lying under oath regarding illegal lobbying activities?
Tell us more about the Keating Five why don't you? Remember what Reagan's tax "deregulation" did? I do, so do many taxpayers that were on the hook for $160 billion for it..
BUT my absolute favorite "Reagan" to remember? The Reagan that stole the debate questions in 1980 from Jimmy Carter, you know, like that big Hillary Clinton "scandal" of getting what the questions were likely to be on before the debate, only actually a scandal since they were Carter's private notes and not some bullshit "scandal" where it's like sooooo bad to be told "hey, that debate coming up, they're probably going to ask about the economy and what you would do for coal towns"..
Reagan was a mentally decrepit criminal traitor that committed nearly every fraud the right has tried to pin on various Democrats since his time, because projection is the right's bread and fucking buttery males!
Berntards are too fucking stupid to understand what's at stake.
Inb4 "More Hillary voters switched to McCain in 2008 than Bernie voters to Trump in 2016"
...which completely ignores the fact that the Berntards in 2016 that did, decided to vote for a literal retard and gave full control of the government to one party. That whole subset of the left that wouldn't settle for anything less than a socialist, progressive politician in a country that has built its empire on the foundation of capitalism is probably one of the most damaging groups of stupid people in recent politics, 2nd to Trumpies, but right above the Tea Party.
Honorable mention to the third part protest voters, the people that will eventually stab themselves to protest poor healthcare.
Don't worry, there's tons of time for them to become #1. I'm sure they'll show up at the convention to screech with Jill Stein when a sane democrat wins the primary and not some delusional Berntard.
Who is retarded? All rural people? Or the guy who said this:
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."
All of the centrist Democrats are clueless as to how to win general elections. They haven't won a single election in the last 20 years that wasn't handed to them on a platter, and 2016 shows they can even lose those elections.
Imagine thinking voters or humans in general are rational actors.
Imagine thinking "rational actor" is well defined when there's still a bunch of nerds bickering about oracle paradoxes and similar wankery.
They still weren't big enough to control the Reichstag. Hitler got lucky with Hindenburg appointing him chancellor and then dying fairly shortly thereafter. That, combined a shitty Weimar constitution that granted suspension of civil liberties in times of "emergency" was what allowed Hitler to eliminate all domestic opponents to the Nazis and secure total unchallenged control.
None of the sourced material in your other comment seems to single out the rural population specifically. Post-WWI Germany was a complete clusterfuck, trying to pin the rise of Nazism on one thing is retarded, let alone a thing that your own sources don't seem to fixate on at all.
What? It does though, but I should have copy pasted the relevant data:
Yet the Nazis’ gains reflected deep-seated anxieties in many parts of the electorate. In some rural constituencies in the north the Nazi vote amounted to a landslide: 68 per cent in Wiefelstede in the Weser-Ems constituency, 57 per cent in Brünen in the Düsseldorf West constituency, 62. per cent in Schwesing in Schleswig-Holstein.68 To some extent, Brüning might have seen this coming, since elections for state legislatures and town councils all over Germany had been registering strong gains for the Nazis since 1928. His chances of getting what he wanted from the elections of 1930 were therefore very small even before the campaign started. Yet the triumph of the Nazis in the Reichstag election was much greater than anyone had anticipated. In many places, indeed, it far outran the impact of Nazi propaganda, and the Party scored votes of 25 to 28 per cent in remote rural areas of the Protestant north to which its organizational effort had barely penetrated.69
How can this dramatic success be explained? The Nazis were seen, particularly by Marxists of various hues, as the representatives of the lower middle classes, but in this election they had clearly burst the bounds of this particular constituency and succeeded in winning the support not only of white-collar workers, shopkeepers, small businessmen, farmers and the like, but also of many voters further up the social scale, in the professional, mercantile and industrial bourgeoisie.70 It was above all the Nazis who profited from the increasingly overheated political atmosphere of the early 1930s, as more and more people who had not previously voted began to flock to the polls. Roughly a quarter of those who voted Nazi in 1930 had not voted before. Many of these were young, first-time voters, who belonged to the large birth-cohorts of the pre-1914 years. Yet these electors do not seem to have voted disproportionately for the Nazis; the Party’s appeal, in fact, was particularly strong amongst the older generation, who evidently no longer considered the Nationalists vigorous enough to destroy the hated Republic. Roughly a third of the Nationalist voters of 1928 voted for the Nazis in 1930, a quarter of the Democratic and People’s Party voters, and even a tenth of Social Democratic voters.
The Nazis did particularly well among women, whose previous tendency to stay away from the polls sharply diminished in 1930, an important change since there were many more female voters than male as a result both of military casualties in the First World War and of the growing tendency of women to live longer than men. In the city of Cologne, for instance, the percentage poll amongst women jumped from an average of 53 per cent in 1924 to 69 per cent in 1930; in the East Prussian commune of Ragnitz, from 62 per cent to 73 per cent. Their previous avoidance of radical parties such as the Nazis disappeared, though their over-proportional support for the Centre largely remained. For all the speculation of contemporaries, and some later historians, about the special reasons why women might have voted Nazi - ranging from their supposed greater susceptibility to the emotional appeal of the Party’s propaganda to their alleged disillusion with the Republic for failing to bring them equality - the fact is that there is no indication that they cast their votes for any different reasons than those which led men to support the Party. But cast them they now did.72
All this says in regards to your argument is that the Nazis took landslide wins in some rural districts.
How can this dramatic success be explained? The Nazis were seen, particularly by Marxists of various hues, as the representatives of the lower middle classes, but in this election they had clearly burst the bounds of this particular constituency and succeeded in winning the support not only of white-collar workers, shopkeepers, small businessmen, farmers and the like, but also of many voters further up the social scale, in the professional, mercantile and industrial bourgeoisie.70 It was above all the Nazis who profited from the increasingly overheated political atmosphere of the early 1930s, as more and more people who had not previously voted began to flock to the polls. Roughly a quarter of those who voted Nazi in 1930 had not voted before. Many of these were young, first-time voters, who belonged to the large birth-cohorts of the pre-1914 years. Yet these electors do not seem to have voted disproportionately for the Nazis; the Party’s appeal, in fact, was particularly strong amongst the older generation, who evidently no longer considered the Nationalists vigorous enough to destroy the hated Republic. Roughly a third of the Nationalist voters of 1928 voted for the Nazis in 1930, a quarter of the Democratic and People’s Party voters, and even a tenth of Social Democratic voters.
Nothing here describes the urban/rural divide playing a significant contribution to the rise of the Nazis.
It was all of them. I'm telling you, the more you dig into these worldviews the more it becomes clear they're basically fueled by rural discontent, conservative fear, and the belief the "liberal cities" are destroying the country.
There's a reason they're at the center of every demagogue or Tyrant.
Lolwut. Historically, most tyrants don't like their people and their people don't like them: hence the emphasis on a strong military and guards since ancient Greek tyrants.
Totalitarians are a fairly new thing, and their attempts to turn the population on their side are usually post power grab, when elections are no longer a thing.
Hitler didn't win the elections until they were little more than a formality, with him and his goons freely engaging in acts of terrorism before then.
Also lul at putting Trump and Hitler on the same level as tyrants.
Blatant fucking bullshit lmao.
Totalitarianism was basically born in the 20th century, not my fault you didn't pay attention in history class.
For most of mankind it was hard enough to keep the peasants from revolting, let alone turn them into true followers.
Hitler didn't win the elections until they were little more than a formality, with him and his goons freely engaging in acts of terrorism before then.
Well this is fucking historical illiteracy. The Nazi party was the largest party in Germany, and they did it legally. In fact, after Hitler's failed Putsch he vowed to only seize power legally after that.
The nazi share of the vote in rural areas amounted to a fucking landslide. Hitler was put into power, democratically, and completely legally.
Hitler himself was put there by conservatives. And he was only put there because of the fact the Nazi party was the largest party in Germany, any government either had to include them, or the socialists. And the conservatives would rather roll around in the mud with fascists than the left.
Totalitarianism was basically born in the 20th century, not my fault you didn't pay attention in history class.
Something that came to being in the early 1900s is not "new."
Also lul at putting Trump and Hitler on the same level as tyrants.
That was the move that granted the Nazis the majority of seats: tell me how that was legal?
Are you actually this clueless? They were the largest party in Germany before any of this. Evans in the third Reich trilogy:
The second major factor was the Nazi movement itself. Its ideas evidently had a wide appeal to the electorate, or at least were not so outrageous as to put them off. Its dynamism promised a radical cure for the Republic’s ills. Its leader Adolf Hitler was a charismatic figure who was able to drum up mass electoral support by the vehemence of his rhetorical denunciations of the unloved Republic, and to convert this into political office, finally, by making the right moves at the right time. Hitler’s refusal to enter a coalition government in any other capacity but Reich Chancellor, a refusal that was terminally frustrating to some of his subordinates like Gregor Strasser, was proved right in the end. As deputy to the unpopular Papen or the equally unloved Schleicher, he would have lost heavily in reputation and surrendered a good deal of the charisma that came from being the Leader. The Nazi Party was a party of protest, with not much of a positive programme, and few practical solutions to Germany’s problems. But its extremist ideology, adapted and sometimes veiled according to circumstance and the nature of the particular group of people to whom it was appealing, tapped into a sufficient number of pre-existing popular German beliefs and prejudices to make it seem to many well worth supporting at the polls. For such people, desperate times called for desperate measures; for many more, particularly in the middle classes, the vulgar and uneducated character of the Nazis seemed sufficient guarantee that Hitler’s coalition partners, well educated and well bred, would be able to hold him in check and curb the street violence that seemed such an unfortunate, but no doubt temporary, accompaniment of the movement’s rise to prominence.
Hitler was put into power by conservatives because the Nazi party was the largest one in Germany.
You're confusing time periods. Why do you think he was put into the chancellery?
The substantial overlap between the Nazis’ ideology and that of the conservatives, even, to a considerable extent, that of German liberals, was a third major factor in bringing Hitler into the Reich Chancellery on 30 January 1933. The ideas that were current among almost all German political parties right of the Social Democrats in the early 1930s had a great deal in common with those of the Nazis. These ideas certainly bore enough resemblance to the Nazis’ for the bulk of the liberal and conservative parties’ supporters in the Protestant electorate to desert them, at least temporarily, for what looked like a more effective alternative. Nor were Catholic voters, and their representative, the Centre Party, any more committed to democracy by this time either. Moreover, even a substantial number of Catholics and workers, or at least those who for whatever reason were not as closely bound into their respective cultural-political milieu as the bulk of their fellows, turned to Nazism too. Only by striking a chord with pre-existing, often deep-seated social and political values could the Nazis rise so rapidly to become the largest party in Germany. At the same time, however, Nazi propaganda, for all its energy and sophistication, did not manage to win round people who were ideologically disinclined to vote for Hitler. Chronically underfunded for most of the time, and so unable to develop its full range of methods, excluded until 1933 from using the radio, and dependent on the voluntary work of often chaotic and disorganized local groups of activists, Goebbels’s propaganda offensive from 1930 to 1932 was only one of a number of influences driving people to vote for the Nazis at the polls. Often, indeed, as in the rural Protestant north, they voted without having been reached by the Nazi propaganda machine at all. The Nazi vote was above all a protest vote; and, after 1928, Hitler, Goebbels and the Party leadership recognized this implicitly by removing most of their specific policies, in so far as they had any, from the limelight, and concentrating on a vague, emotional appeal that emphasized little more than the Party’s youth and dynamism, its determination to destroy the Weimar Republic, the Communist Party and the Social Democrats, and its belief that only through the unity of all social classes could Germany be reborn. Antisemitism, so prominent in Nazi propaganda in the 1920s, took a back seat, and had little influence in winning the Nazis support in the elections of the early 1930s. More important by far was the image the Party projected on the street, where the marching columns of stormtroopers added to the general image of disciplined vigour and determination that Goebbels sought to project.
1
You mean, "or the communists". The commies were the ones above 15%.
No, the socialists were the second largest party in Germany during the period Hitler was levered into power. From the anatomy of fascism:
The nearest thing to a putsch in Weimar Germany in the early 1930s came not from the Nazis but from their conservative predecessor, Chancellor Franz von Papen. On July 20, 1932, von Papen deposed the legitimately elected government of the state (Land) of Prussia, a coalition of socialists and the Catholic Center Party, and prevailed upon President Hindenburg to use his emergency powers to install a new state administration headed by von Papen. That act might legitimately have triggered strong counteraction from the Left. The SPD leaders, however, deterred by strong legalitarian convictions, advancing age,11 the futility of the strike weapon during mass unemployment, and perhaps legitimate fears that action by the Left might perversely throw even more middle-class Germans into the arms of the Nazis, limited their response to a futile lawsuit against Chancellor von Papen. Having failed to offer effective opposition to von Papen’s illegal action in July 1932, the socialists—still the second largest party in Germany—had even less occasion to act against Hitler, who avoided any direct assault on legality until he was already in unshak-able control in spring 1933.
1
Don't create dumb categories that mix up very different things.
They were the largest party in Germany before any of this.
They weren't the major party in 1921, but they created the SA back then, kept them after the rehabilitation in 1925, and had them causing an incredible amount of fights after 1930.
They didn't get to 35% honestly, just like they didn't get to 50% honestly.
Hitler was put into power by conservatives
Hitler was supported by conservatives, yes: so we can't just blame it on rural people can we?
You're confusing time periods. Why do you think he was put into the chancellery?
I am saying he never played by the rules, at any moment of his rise to power.
They aren't different things.
Pretending that populists and tyrants are the same thing is retarded.
They weren't the major party in 1921, but they created the SA back then, kept them after the rehabilitation in 1925, and had them causing an incredible amount of fights after 1930.
You understand that in some of the last free elections Weimar had, the Nazies legally won large shares of the vote, right?
They didn't get to 35% honestly, just like they didn't get to 50% honestly.
Where do you keep getting this bullshit?
The nazi party got up to 33% of the vote legally, legitimately. You're repeating historically illiterate myths.
Hitler was supported by conservatives, yes: so we can't just blame it on rural people can we?
??
Rural conservatives were the majority of his support:
et the Nazis’ gains reflected deep-seated anxieties in many parts of the electorate. In some rural constituencies in the north the Nazi vote amounted to a landslide: 68 per cent in Wiefelstede in the Weser-Ems constituency, 57 per cent in Brünen in the Düsseldorf West constituency, 62. per cent in Schwesing in Schleswig-Holstein.68 To some extent, Brüning might have seen this coming, since elections for state legislatures and town councils all over Germany had been registering strong gains for the Nazis since 1928. His chances of getting what he wanted from the elections of 1930 were therefore very small even before the campaign started. Yet the triumph of the Nazis in the Reichstag election was much greater than anyone had anticipated. In many places, indeed, it far outran the impact of Nazi propaganda, and the Party scored votes of 25 to 28 per cent in remote rural areas of the Protestant north to which its organizational effort had barely penetrated.69
How can this dramatic success be explained? The Nazis were seen, particularly by Marxists of various hues, as the representatives of the lower middle classes, but in this election they had clearly burst the bounds of this particular constituency and succeeded in winning the support not only of white-collar workers, shopkeepers, small businessmen, farmers and the like, but also of many voters further up the social scale, in the professional, mercantile and industrial bourgeoisie.70 It was above all the Nazis who profited from the increasingly overheated political atmosphere of the early 1930s, as more and more people who had not previously voted began to flock to the polls. Roughly a quarter of those who voted Nazi in 1930 had not voted before. Many of these were young, first-time voters, who belonged to the large birth-cohorts of the pre-1914 years. Yet these electors do not seem to have voted disproportionately for the Nazis; the Party’s appeal, in fact, was particularly strong amongst the older generation, who evidently no longer considered the Nationalists vigorous enough to destroy the hated Republic. Roughly a third of the Nationalist voters of 1928 voted for the Nazis in 1930, a quarter of the Democratic and People’s Party voters, and even a tenth of Social Democratic voters.
The Nazis did particularly well among women, whose previous tendency to stay away from the polls sharply diminished in 1930, an important change since there were many more female voters than male as a result both of military casualties in the First World War and of the growing tendency of women to live longer than men. In the city of Cologne, for instance, the percentage poll amongst women jumped from an average of 53 per cent in 1924 to 69 per cent in 1930; in the East Prussian commune of Ragnitz, from 62 per cent to 73 per cent. Their previous avoidance of radical parties such as the Nazis disappeared, though their over-proportional support for the Centre largely remained. For all the speculation of contemporaries, and some later historians, about the special reasons why women might have voted Nazi - ranging from their supposed greater susceptibility to the emotional appeal of the Party’s propaganda to their alleged disillusion with the Republic for failing to bring them equality - the fact is that there is no indication that they cast their votes for any different reasons than those which led men to support the Party. But cast them they now did.72
1
I am saying he never played by the rules, at any moment of his rise to power.
And I'm telling you he did, and providing credible academic sources supporting this.
Pretending that populists and tyrants are the same thing is retarded.
Pretending that populists and Tyrants often aren't the same thing is retarded.
Imagine losing an election to a retard because the right has been destroying and defunding the public education system for generations to the point where their voters are easily controlled by a 2 bit demagogue, and even with MOUNTAINS of evidence they still proudly claim it's all "fake news".
That doesn't explain why the public education system is often garbage even in places where there's total Democratic control at every level of governance.
Federal is the only relevant level with regards to the department of education, and if you google "why are all textbooks decided on by texas" you might start to understand why even schools in democrat areas are shit.
I'm appealing to all of you stupid idiots to vote Democrat in 2018. That is if you have the basic education enough to read a ballot, anyway. I understand the majority of you racist rednecks can't even read this post, though. But those who can, please pass my message on to the rest of your inbred family.
We Democrats are morally, culturally and intellectually superior to you in every way. I will qualify myself by noting that I have a Liberal Arts degree from a college, which you obviously have never been to, if you even know what one is. I also have a black friend. I have been told by several professors that everything you hold dear is terrible. Therefore you, personally, are also terrible.
I don't know you, but I know that you're racist. I also know that you hate gay people and still get scared during lightning storms.
The religion which you hold closely, greatly believe in, and which brings you comfort--you are wrong because I'm smarter than you and I'm telling you so. It is one of the many reasons why you are stupid and I'm better than you.
You see, us Democrats want a system which helps everyone in the world. Our system is designed around love and kindness to everyone. If you don't agree, I hate you.
It's not too late to change. If you knew your history, which of course you don't, you'll remember a time in America when Indians were dragged away from their homes and forced to assimilate into white society. Well, we want to change that kind of behaviour (sorry for my spelling, as I'm not from your country) by making sure you go to college and have a small apartment in a big, busy coastal city, where you belong. That will help you rid yourselves of your backward, incorrect culture and way of thinking. We'll do everything we can to make sure you agree with us and say all the right things and not be brainwashed against thinking the same way we do.
All of you stupid, backward, redneck, racist, homophobic, uneducated yokels need to realize we're trying to build a classless society where we all get to live in harmony with each other, where we're all equal. If you only understood that you wouldn't be so much worse of a person than I am.
So please vote Democrat. Help me help you, you worthless motherfuckers.
Maybe you should nominate a candidate who has the potential to win the general election (when running against a sleazy grifter with no qualifications).
The electoral college was a known part of our electoral system at the time. Hillary could have campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, but she didn't because she hates the people in flyover country.
It really doesn't matter how many consolation prizes you point out about how Clinton got more of something than Trump, because in the end she isn't making choices about who goes in the Supreme Court.
The electoral college was a known part of our electoral system at the time. Hillary could have campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, but she didn't because she hates the people in flyover country.
Because Clinton spent a lot of time in Florida, Ohio, and PA. If spending time in PA didn't win her PA, it wasn't going to win her Michigan and Wisconsin.
You're repeating talking points you heard from other places with no basis in reality, not supported by data.
So what went wrong with Clinton’s vaunted ground game? There are certainly some things to criticize. There’s been good reporting on how Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn ignored warning signs on the ground and rejected the advice of local operatives in states such as Michigan. And as I wrote in a previous installment of this series, Clinton did not allocate her time and resources between states in the way we would have recommended. In particular, she should have spent more time playing defense in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Colorado and less time trying to turn North Carolina into a blue state or salvage Iowa from turning red.
Here’s the thing, though: The evidence suggests those decisions didn’t matter very much. In fact, Clinton’s ground game advantage over Trump may have been as large as the one Obama had over Mitt Romney in 2012. It just wasn’t enough to save the Electoral College for her.
There are several major problems with the idea that Clinton’s Electoral College tactics cost her the election. For one thing, winning Wisconsin and Michigan — states that Clinton is rightly accused of ignoring — would not have sufficed to win her the Electoral College. She’d also have needed Pennsylvania, Florida or another state where she campaigned extensively. For another, Clinton spent almost twice as much money as Trump on her campaign in total. So even if she devoted a smaller share of her budget to a particular state or a particular activity, it may nonetheless have amounted to more resources overall (5 percent of a $969 million budget is more than 8 percent of a $531 million one).
But most importantly, the changes in the vote from 2012 to 2016 are much better explained by demographics than by where the campaigns spent their time and money. Let me start with a couple of simple comparisons that I think pretty convincingly demonstrate this, and then we’ll attempt a more rigorous approach.
Embarrassing. You legitimately blame progressives for shit that conservatives are doing.
It’s not that I disagree with the specifics of your comment but ffs have some perspective. A tiny amount of Berniebots flipped votes. Literally all the problems in politics are coming directly from conservatives. If you’re going to point fingers at least point them in the right direction.
Kennedy is going to look like bleeding heart lib compared to who replaces him. This is going from a soft 5-4 on most issues to a haaard 5-4 on everything.
He didn't swing on that much. Anyway stuff like Roe is likely untouchable no matter who gets appointed. RBG being replaced would be much worse for the libs.
At least right wing judges tend to be more strict constructionists than left wing ones. I’d rather the Supreme Court do nothing than something. But then that’s how I feel about pretty much all branches of government.
I hate this argument for two reasons , 1) the strict constructionists on the Supreme Court have no problem expanding executive power at the expense of the legislative branch way beyond what the founders intended and 2) the world is a vastly different place than it was in 1776. Women have the right to vote, black people are no longer considered 3/5TH’s subhuman and the industrial/technical revolution has transformed our country into something our fore-bearers couldn’t have imagined in their wildest dreams.
It’s the Missouri compromise and it has to do with census counts of slaves in relation to electoral representation of states that have a high proportion of slaves amongst their population. So yes, it is exactly what I think it means.
If you know what it means, you wouldn't have used the word "subhuman", since the compromise had zero to do with their rights and counting them as full citizens would have been worse for them.
Only if you’re being a pedant. I used it to illustrate how different America is now versus than even though the Missouri compromise was passed 40 years after the writing of the constitution.
How did I misrepresent the issue? My broader point is that during the time of our founders we were debating how we should count slaves in government censuses used as a metric to apportion representation. America is almost 180 degrees different now than it was back than.
you are objectively wrong, dude. i dunno why you're trying to defend this position. many people think its that black people GOT a 3/5s vote, rather than it was 3/5s for CENSUS
I explained that in a later comment my guy. I know what the Missouri compromise is. Just forget about that example if you’d like because the border point about how different our America is from that of our founders is astronomical.
The cuck sub is another modmail circlejerk, but ill give you the cartoon profile pic. My patheticness doesnt make constituitional conservativsm any less of a cancer though.
No you see, the founding fathers were geniuses who set up a flawless system, it's just coincidence that almost everything about US governance is now a completely retarded garbage fire with no viable way to reform any of it
Why don't we do what Jefferson did once and defund it so that they can't hold any sessions? That way they wouldn't be able to do anything at all! And conveniently they could leave no lasting precedent.
eah the reeees if trump gets to replace her will be epic.
That would be astounding. The current reeeees, while somewhat justified, are pretty impressive. I see lots of people blaming Obama for not pushing Garner harder, and if the Democrats actually put up effective opposition the drama that follows will be amazing. Both parties will have people climbing up the walls screaming. And thats just for Kennedy, if RGB croaks theyre going to start killing and eating each other.
I dont think he saw any viable way to force McConnells hand and decided to pick his battles. I mean, what could he do? The real failure was on the part of Senate Democrats who should have been so furious that they made the Senate floor look like a WWE battle royale with cheese.
Obama was always bad at using the bully pulpit to coerce Congress into action. Behind his foreign policy it's my biggest issue with him.
In 2009 he was Black Jesus in terms of opinion among his party and the media yet he used none of that leverage to force fucks like Lieberman to keep in the public option for ACA.
Yeah. Obama was very good at his public image. But was always dodging the responsibilities of even meeting people he didn't like. I doubt Trump loves Schumer but he's been willing to talk to him. Bill Clinton met with opposition during Whitewater investigations.
About all he could do is make it abundantly clear to the public that "this person is why you haven't had a full court bench for the longest period in US history", which wouldn't matter anyway because dismantling the government is their wet dream.
I actually saw a guy in /r/politics posting about how the overturn of Roe v Wade would lead to wide scale rioting. It was like, lol you dumb fuck this is America the only thing white people riot over is sports.
This is kind of a big deal since the one dude on the court who wasnt a straight up ideologue and at times could be swayed by a reasonable argument is going to be replaced by a partisan hack. Oh, and Roe v Wade could be going bye bye. Combine that with how things went down with the Garner nomination and I can understand the outrage. It is of course being expressed in a bat shit crazy manner by slacktivist jack asses who wont do a damned thing but talk a big game online.
With all that said Trump has to be overjoyed about how this changes his prospects for 2018 and 2020 elections. Judicial nominations are a huge deal for conservative voters and a big fight to replace Kennedy definitely could get them to the polls.
Abortion will probably devolve to the states, such that there are 22-odd states where bans are upheld. But I doubt that the new majority would uphold a federal ban.
If Trump gets three in, I'm not sure any party has ever controlled so much of the supreme court with so little popular support before. Not a recipe for a stable society.
Why would the Republicans actually overturn Roe? It is a guaranteed turnout issue for them right now. Without abortion to rile them up some of the christcucks might remember that certain religious groups (like Catholics) are usually slightly economically left.
Well the next judge will be pro-life as hell and then party can't really control which cases get to the Supreme Court. Republican state governments love putting up abortion restrictions and all it takes is a case on one of those running up the federal judiciary.
The ruling was based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Any law banning abortion would be deemed unconstitutional by that precedent. It would have to be overturned by the courts or an amendment to the constitution. Hence why the legislative approach has been to chip away at access by shutting down centers, adding extra hurdles, etc rather than outright bans.
I agree we’re going to see aggressive action on it in the courts as soon as the replacement is confirmed. Hell pro-life interests are probably already looking through potential opportunities
So they can be abused after they vote. Many years in the Catholic education system have successfully convinced me that most pro lifers are full of shit.
You're not wrong, but once the justices are there, they're there. They're not gonna say "Well, I want conservatives to turn up to vote so I'm going to punt on this case." If there's a case that reaches their desk, they're either going to hear it or say why they won't. And simple party politics aren't going to dissuade them from that.
cathbols becoming a visible political demographic would almost be a hilarious enough silver lining to make up for what a nightmare overturning roe would be
What makes you think roe will remain untouched when Kennedy was the 5th vote on all abortion related cases brought to the Supreme Court? Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito and Thomas are all firmly anti abortion.
The question is whether the GOP party leaders can hold back the anti-abortion hardliners in their activist base. There will be essentially no excuse for them not to initiate a rollback of abortion rights after this justice is confirmed, assuming that everything goes as planned. I absolutely buy that the higher-ups want to keep abortion on the table in the future to rile up their voters, but I'm not sure they can manage that going forward given how far to the right the base has shifted (meaning, people who vote in primary elections).
This is an unironically great analysis. I don’t think there is any way the GOP leadership can dissuade the true believers from seeing this as a golden opportunity to overturn roe v wade.
Yeah but the party leaders are the ones who will pick the justice. They might pick someone who is very conservative but is on board with keeping the abortion debate alive. We'll have to wait and see who's on the short list.
Iirc Daddy released a list of judges that he would appoint to the Supreme Court if he were elected and one of the criteria’s was their stance on choice.
People forget about issues pretty quickly. Plus many Christians lean fiscally liberal. If social conservatism seems more assured (such as with a young conservative SC justice holding the line on abortion) some might vote dem.
They might be firmly anti-abortion but it's gonna be hard to put a novel argument before the court that can pass the strict scrutiny test to take away someone's right to privacy and ban abortion again; and all of the justices (except kagan really) have shown that they are very much pro-individual rights in recent decisions. A conservative court decided roe initially with 3 justices appointed by nixon voting in favor.
Trump announces resignation, Pence nominates Trump, senate confirms, Trump haunts liberals for twenty more years and they're literally powerless to do shit about it.
He may be called the "swing vote" but he barely ever breaks from the pack.
Kennedy has reliably issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005.[67] In his first term on the court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the time—more than any other justice.[68]
After 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor, who had previously been known as the court's "swing vote", retired, Kennedy began to receive the title for himself. Kennedy is more conservative than former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, religion, and abortion, and intensely dislikes being labeled a "swing vote".[69]
On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008–2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.[70]
In the 2010–2011 term, 16 cases were decided by a 5–4 vote, and Kennedy joined the majority in 14 of the decisions.[1]
Voting with the conservatives 92% of the time is not a swing vote by any stretch of the imagination. And he votes party line on key stuff like abortion and religion, so he's not even a swing on the controversial stuff.
I think the only major difference is going to be on abortion and gay rights. Kennedy was more of a lolibertarian than a social conservative and thus usually ruled in favor of individual freedoms.
It will be nice telling our children what it was like to live in a free country.
Honestly I think we're going to be a single party dictatorship in 10 years at least. We're already headed that way. Voting is pointless. America is lost.
Would help if the Democrats weren't so fantastically retarded and came back towards the middle from the absolutely far left. Right now the only sane party is the GOP.
You serious? Did you forget about the whole movement in 2010 to vote out moderate Republicans and replace them with farther-right counterparts? And now several of those replacements like Paul Ryan are hated and considered not conservative enough?
You serious? Did you forget about the whole movement in 2010 to vote out moderate Republicans and replace them with farther-right counterparts? And now several of those replacements like Paul Ryan are hated and considered not conservative enough?
You seriously think Paul Ryan was a far right for 2010? What the fuck do you think far right is?
You either have the memory of a goldfish or you’re a dishonest conservatard arguing in bad faith. Probably both. Maybe you’re part of the 60% of your party that literally switches opinions when your president tells you to. Not an exaggeration, Republicans had a 60 point swing when Trump did the same thing Obama did compared to a 1-point swing for Democrats.
If you want names I’d say quite clearly administration members like Miller and Bolton are far right, though in a different way than Pence who is also far right. There’s obviously room to go further to the right but not much.
The ever-present "reeeeeeee" just means the democracy is still somewhat functional. I'd start being concerned if the radical screechers went silent and society appeared to have a weird amount of ideological alignment.
As a mostly center-left liberal, I can't help but observe that the Democrats have a long history of (1) stretching the law, and then (2) getting BTFO by conservatives when that very law-stretching is used against them.
In the 1960s, liberals were all about granting exemptions for people on the basis of religious beliefs (mostly having to do with Native Americans and hippy retards smoking drugz). Guess what basis the Hobby Lobby was decided on! And the gay wedding cake case!
Obama used executive orders to do a shitload of stuff that he couldn't get Congress to agree to (cough, DACA and DAPA), and now liberals REEEE when Trump disposes of them just as summarily.
Let's give the President near-plenary control over immigration! Whoops, Trump used it to ban Muslims!
Don't like hate speech? Well guess what, it's protected, unless it incites imminent unlawful action!
I could go on, but I don't want to give the Democrats further ideas about how to pwn themselves.
that's because the only smart people in the democratic party are children. Once they grow up a little and realize they are surrounded by idiots they shift to republican.
There are plenty of reasons to be an independent as well depending where you are. It’s just stupid to say that party membership is for brainlets. It’s a clear sign of someone who only pays attention for the memes and doesn’t actually have a valuable opinion
No they're not, Democrats don't have a monopoly on obstruction and the Republicans would have done it anyway. If anything, Democrats are like Pepsi to Republicans' Coke
In the 1960s, liberals were all about granting exemptions for people on the basis of religious beliefs (mostly having to do with Native Americans and hippy retards smoking drugz). Guess what basis the Hobby Lobby was decided on! And the gay wedding cake case!
Basically every single thing you said in there is completely wrong.
I mean, I'm being hyperbolic and grossly simplifying the issues, but not really. Liberals were all about Sherbert v. Verner (yay religoius exemptions!) when it was decided in the '60s. The liberals were in the minority when Employment Division v. Smith (boo) rolled that shit back in the '80s (which involved use of peyote for religious reasons or some BS, I don't remember). The Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, which was all about YAY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS, was sponsored by Chuck Cucking Schumer in the 90s. Hobby Lobby was indeed decided on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause / RFRA. So.... My ultimate point is that Dems / liberals used to be all about YAY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS until the GOP and Evangelicals figured out they could use that shit for their own ends and now by some astonishing coincidence liberals are against the idea which only exists because they pushed for it in the first place.
I'm being hyperbolic and grossly simplifying the issues
It's not a "simplification" to talk about a bipartisan bill that passed unanimously in the house, and with only 3 opposing votes in the senate, as "liberal" or "Democrat." That's just a lie, or charitably an error. It's not simpler than the truth, it's just falser.
In reality, the GOP was always more in favor of the RFRA type acts in the various states. Almost all of the states that passed state versions of RFRA are red states; CA and NY did not. The Democrat minority filibustered the Missouri state version. The bills were backed by conservative Christian groups from the very beginning.
It is completely insane (or, less charitably, dishonest) to suggest that the applicability to Christianity was in any way lost on anyone.
.... My ultimate point is that Dems / liberals used to be all about YAY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS until the GOP and Evangelicals figured out they could use that shit for their own ends
Democrats were basically forced to support the bill by its massive popularity. In total three members of congress did not support it. Were the Democrats or Republicans?
Okay, let me make this simpler for you. In the 1960s, the liberals were in favor of religious exemptions. Look who wrote the majority opinion in Scherbert. Look at what side the ACLU submitted an amicus brief for. Nowadays, conservatives are all about religious exemptions. Look at Hobby Lobby and liberal REEEEing about it. You pointing out that only red states have state RFRAs only furthers this point. That is my point. I choose initially to make that point in a hyperbolic manner because I am shitposting on /r/drama and not writing a treatise on the development of Free Enercise Clause jurisprudence. Make sense?
That's what you said before. The problem isn't that what you're saying is complex. The problem is the inaccuracies.
In the 1960s, the liberals were in favor of religious exemptions. Look who wrote the majority opinion in Scherbert
Who cares who wrote the majority opinion? This is just like you pointing out who sponsored the RFRA. It is just a deceptive little trick. It doesn't justify these general assertions about conservatives and liberals. It is just non sequitur.
The opinion was 7-2. The two dissenting judges were White (appointed by Kennedy) and Harlan (appointed by Eisenhower). It wasn't a partisan divide.
Scherbert
A case that had to do with a Christian refusing to work on the sabbath, by the way.
Nowadays, conservatives are all about religious exemptions
So you're claiming that back in the 1960s, conservatives were against the religious exemption in Sherbert??
Dude, read what I said. You are just being totally inaccurate.
And Hobby Lobby had entirely to do with the applicability of religious exemptions to corporations. The partisan divide had nothing to do with their religion being evangelical Christianity and everything to do with their religious freedom involving freedom from Democrat worker protection type regulations (i.e. employee rights).
Democrats aren't big on the concept of individual rights applying to corporations, hence the extremely similar divide over Citizen's United.
The actual conflicts were over these questions:
Is spending money a form of speech?
Is denying healthcare benefits a form of religion?
Is baking cakes a form of speech or religion?
Democrats fairly consistently deny that exemptions to economic regulations (regulations that they support and Republicans oppose, usually) can constitute speech or religion.
Bruh Hobby Lobby came out the way it did because RFRA exists, which only exists because Sherbert v. Verner exists, which only exists because Justice Brennan and the ACLU wanted it to. More generally, if you ask your standard liberal on the street what they think about granting religious exemptions to complying with laws of general applicability they're going to be against it. That was not so in the 1960s.
if you ask your standard liberal on the street what they think
Why do you think so? Remember, the RFRA passed in the early 1990s with massive support from both conservatives and liberals. Why do you think anything changed since then?
Yes liberals TOTALLY support getting out of things like healthcare requirements and antidiscrimination laws because of religion right dipshit?
Further, I'm not really sure what you're getting at re: RFRA. Again, liberals used to support religious exemptions. Now they do not because conservatives like them. It seems you're contesting this while also going LIBERALS SUPPORTED RFRA TOO, which makes no sense.
What's your point at this juncture? In the 1960s, liberals liked religious exemptions and conservatives didn't. Now, the opposite is true. That is really the only claim I'm making. Obviously the path and history of how they arrived at this point is messy and complicated. Obviously I am not inclined to recapitulate the whole thing in a reddit comment.
Because liberals hate Hobby Lobby? And liberal states don't have state RFRAs (which uses the same standard as the YAY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS Sherbert decision)? And liberals don't like the the gay wedding shop thing? And liberals in general shudder when you mention "religious liberty" to them? I could go on. Why do you think they don't, and why are you being such a cunt about it?
Well, for starters the title is "Many liberals’ (sensible) retreat from the old Justice Brennan/ACLU position on religious exemptions". I'm sure you can guess the gist of it.
>Why don't you just tell me what the actual evidence is because I can't read more than 500 words in one sitting
[Summarizes article]
>Why don't you provide evidence?
Are you functionally retarded? Why the aversion to reading the article that you yourself begged for? I'll summarize it because I have to do that for you apparently.
So, in the olden days, liberals liked religious exemptions! Excerpt from article you can't bring yourself to read:
RFRAs largely implement the religious exemption rules that Justice Brennan and the ACLU [WHO ARE LIBERALS] had long argued for
However, now liberals don't like them. Excerpt from article:
"Religious freedom restoration acts” (usually called RFRAs), once broadly supported, are now controversial. Many people, chiefly on the left [emphasis mine], have criticized such laws, in large part on the grounds that RFRAs might let religious objectors claim exemptions from antidiscrimination law — especially with regard to state and local laws that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Now do you see how you're wrong and I'm right, or do I have to summarize more of the article for you?
Lul you've lost the debate because I've linked to a well-sourced article that discusses exactly the thing I've been discussing and you have to go all BUT WHAT EVEN IS EVIDENCE and have to pretend like you can't read a 2000-word article yourself to weasel out of the fact you lost. Absolutely pathetic. The actual evidence btw is that liberal groups lobbied for the whole religious exemptions thing in the 1960s and now oppose that very same concept now.
have to pretend like you can't read a 2000-word article yourself
I could read it myself. I've concluded that I don't have to, because it probably doesn't actually have anything to support your case. Otherwise you'd have shown it by now.
Supreme Court precedent? Laws? Legislative history of those laws?
General knowledge of the current political climate? The professed ideological positions of special interest groups like the ACLU?
>I've concluded that I don't have to, because it probably doesn't actually have anything to support your case.
I never claimed the ACLU reversed its position, though? Just that liberals, writ large, have. Way to conflate things while continuing to ignore outside sources that prove you wrong. You argue like a creationist.
The actual evidence btw is that liberal groups lobbied for the whole religious exemptions thing in the 1960s and now oppose that very same concept now.
What groups? Name one. You only named the ACLU so far.
How am I to PRUUV IT when you're going to ignore any online sources I provide, even when I summarize them for you and exert the pertinent passages? This is infantile at this point.
You claim the article is "well sourced" just list the sources. You claimed the "groups" reversed position just name the groups. I'm telling you exactly what to do.
The wedding cake wasn’t decided based on religious liberty. It was a narrow procedural ruling that basically said the baker was treated unfairly by the state of Colorado. Not to mention that those situations share only the shallowest of similarities.
Executive orders are just a power that presidents have. Did it occur to you that people are upset by the content of Trump’s policies, rather than the simple fact that he’s allowed to set policies? I know it’s tiring, but try to exercise the one brain cell you have.
I’m not even sure what you’re on about with the immigration and hate speech shit. The Muslim ban was blocked left and right by courts until it got to a stacked SCOTUS. Obama had no equivalent.
-He doesn’t believe climate change is real, meaning we won’t take any meaningful action on it
-Tariffs on our allies only isolate us on the world stage and trade wars harm everyone involved
-Restricting legal immigration harms the economy as there is a smaller talent pool and fewer consumers spending money
-Barring trans people from the military who are otherwise fit to serve strictly limits the talent pool of the military
-Reversing the ACA with no replacement (had he managed to do that) leaves millions in the same position they were pre-Obama: uninsured or vulnerable to insurance companies dropping them for bullshit reasons. Defunding the ACA simply causes premiums to rise which is exactly what caused anti-ACA sentiment in the first place
-Ending DACA literally just kicks people who are for all intents and purposes American out of the country for no reason. It removes contributing members of society from the US for no gain whatsoever.
I could go on but I doubt you even read this far without your eyes glazing over
Honestly what did you expect the response to be? Like did you think that people only hate Trump because it’s popular to do? Ffs I think his supporters are braindead morons but at least I understand that they have motivations and reasons for their beliefs.
I dont understand why there is even any confrontation around immigration. What on Earth can lead a normal human being to believe that an open-door policy is good or that vetting your applicants is bad? Its literally the refuge of overly empathetic people who really shouldnt be deciding what to have to eat that night never mind the immigration policies of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Simple solutions, all illegals out and barred re-entry for a decade, all applicants vetted for skills and labour needs and if they dont meet the requirements they dont get in, ever. How can anyone disagree with this?
You’re right, there really shouldn’t be any debate about immigration. It’s unequivocally good for everyone involved.
BTW no party currently supports an open-door policy. But they should.
I absolutely love when people claim have “simple solutions” to persistent problems. You really think nobody’s thought of that before? There are some obvious issues without even getting into why immigration is good:
-Most illegal immigration comes from people who entered legally but overstayed their visas, so your vetting practically does nothing to halt illegal immigration
-Do you have any idea how much it would cost to round up all illegals, put them through deportation proceedings, and send them off? You remind me of the morons who support the death penalty. It costs way more than the alternative, the only reason you support it is your own bloodthirstiness, stop pretending otherwise.
-What if someone applies, gets rejected, then gains skills that would allow them to contribute? Permanent rejection might be the dumbest proposal I’ve ever heard.
-if you couldn’t keep illegals out the first time, what makes you think you’ll be able to bar then from reentering?
I also avoided appealing to empathy because I know you people are devoid of it anyway. It’s nice when empathetic policies are also rational policies. Turns out it happens constantly.
The Founding Fathers specified that only a "free white person" of "good character" could become a naturalized citizen. Do you think you know more about what makes an American than they did?
Climate change is an issue that I will forever vote against the Repubs for. Fucking greedy retards.
I approve of most of the other policies though. Ending DACA creates less oil-guzzling Amerifats. No ACA means more dead Amerifats. IDK about the trans thing, since I believe that should be decided by somebody who actually has to deal with them. Tariffs are going to be shit, yep, but a silver lining is that they fuck the CCCP.
they’ve been ramping up the anti-abortion propaganda lately.
You must be a politics newfag. I've paid close attention since I was a kid in the 90s, and if anything they're talking less about abortion now than before.
a: don't say, "We" like anyone here is your friend. There is no, "we"... just because you filled out a subreddit census poll doesn't mean you've finally made a friend.
B: people IRONICALLY drumpfpost here. that's the difference
wooooooooooooooooooooooooah you combined my username with the obongo thing, oh shit it's a shame you're probably against SNL's use of cultural marxism, you could be their head writer.
unironically suckstart a shotgun please and thank yo
If RBG passes I hope r/politics goes full Scalia conspiracy. Sudden health crisis in a really fucking old person with a stressful and sedentary job? _Likely story, Donald "Hitler" Putin._
I feel like Roe v Wade is kind of big and to go back on it would be a huge situation. I don't think it will be overturned, but I also don't know shit. I post on /r/drama
It’s funny that you say this now. The court overturned Korematsu v US this week while ruling on Trump v. Hawaii. That’s not just an overturned Supreme Court case, it’s an overturned landmark case.
McConnell is a liar like all Republicans. No one let it happen, that turtle son of a bitch did it all on his own. He is literally why basic human rights are going to be stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans.
the politics thread makes me do a takeaway at reddit as a whole, and start going, fuck it, back to old forums I used to frequent and maybe the old IRC channels I frequented in 2000s
You should be happy you have corporate puppets like McConnell in the republican leadership. If he wasn't in the back pocket of the US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests we'd probably have an immigration bill and funding for border security.
I'm not sure what the Dems could do though. If they had retained control of the Senate in 2014, they probably could've replaced Scalia with Sri Srinivasan and the court would've been 5-4 in favor of Dems (he's no Ginsburg or Sotomayor, but probably on par with Breyer or Kagan). As it was, the Republicans could block the appointment and Schumer could only complain.
Republicans simply know how to do more with their autism sperg-outs. Democrats have been sperging every day during trump and it remains to be seen if they can get anything done.
Hey he's in NY, what the fuck do I care who he votes for? He's still a moron. I'm talking to other family members who voted Trump, but who are consistent in their tax reasons.
Wow you're a real peace of work dude. Very shortsighted
Not a dude, but thanks white dude who judges others and isn't affected by the current administration :p. Yeah "stonersmokerboy420" I really value your informed opinion.
Something tells me that the irony here is completely lost on /u/hello_cerise ...
He should resign, give Pence the presidency, get appointed and confirmed to the open seat, and haunt liberals in a position they have zero power to do anything about.
I think if the Blue wave fails miserably, like how clinton lost 2016, then there will be a civil revolution. Sparked by antifa cunts that havent studied any history about geopolitics or real fascism, and just know that OMG ORANGE CHEETO BENITO REEE
anyways, catch me on the flipside as I start prepping for Civil War 2.0, started by memes and twitter streams
They're all gonna try to rush to buy guns for their revolution.
Then they're gonna be like 'oh right we banned the gun stores in the area' and since they have nothing but longboards and fixie bicycles to get around with they can't make the 130 mile journey to the next nearest gun store.
Then they're gonna Uber and then be like 'oh right we supported 1,000% taxes on guns' and they aren't going to be able to afford one.
Then they're gonna be like 'oh right we banned any weaponry that could be useful in a revolution, all we have are .38 revolvers'.
Then they're gonna look on Armslist and be like 'oh right we supported background checks on private sales, and almost all of us have drug convictions or were committed after we self-harmed every day since Trump won'.
Then they're gonna try to get ammo and be like 'oh right we banned lead ammo so just two boxes costs $75 and we spent all our money on chai pumpkin spice lattes and avocado toast on the way over.'
Then their militia is going to consist entirely of four guys who found grandpa's old .22 break-action rifle rusting in their attics, the ones they've been using to justify starting every sentence about gun control with 'as a gun owner...'
And then promptly get droned by the government, as they keep reminding gun owners what would happen to them.
And then promptly get droned by the government, as they keep reminding gun owners what would happen to them.
It wouldn't even come to that. Depending on the locale either the riot police will do another Kent State or, worse, step aside in a Rodney King type of scenario and leave it to the local tankies and three percenters to duke it out. Most right-wing militias are a joke but much less so than their tankie equivalents and much more bloodthirsty than real cops.
Who's that one judge lady from Fox News? The one who'd catch a trolley to Hell and collude with the devil to get dirt on Hillary? Betcha she gets picked.
The point is both sides fucked that up with dems on the lesser side.
dems did that for lower courts because reps kept blocking every nominee dems proposed just for the hell of it.
Reps did that for supreme court because dems retaliated for the, again, historically unheard level of act done rep senate leader by not filling supreme court for 1 year.
It seems to me democrats are the ones who even attempt at some kind of governance here.
This shit is a circus. Having political leaders appoint supreme court judges is insane. We're honestly not that far away from Supreme court judges getting assassinated for political gain. All it takes is one crazy pro-life bible thumper to think that if he slipped RBG some sleeping pills and Roe v Wade is no more.
All it takes is one crazy pro-life bible thumper to think that if he destroys RBG's phylactery and every woman in America spontaneously becomes pregnant
Having political leaders appoint supreme court judges is insane.
No, it's not. It's one of the few checks on the judiciary that the other two branches can actually exercise. I'll grant that the system made more sense when our Senate's members were appointed by state governments and everything wasn't turned into a political sideshow. Of course, there wasn't much need for a political sideshow because back then the Supreme Court wasn't held up as the final arbiter of any and all law and public policy the way it is now.
I mean the current makeup is 5 Republican appointed justices. Just because one isn't quite as much of a batshit insane right wing ideologue as the others, doesn't make it not conservative.
There has been, but always 5-4 at best and Reagan's appointments of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were relatively centrist, the latter the result of Joe Biden stonewalling the nomination of hard-conservative Robert Bork (probably the closest to an actual threat to Roe) in 1987. One of H.W. Bush's justices, David Souter (arguably chosen in part because of the Bork fiasco), also turned out to be an outright liberal.
The tension here is that had Hillary Clinton won (presuming the Democrats would've taken the senate in this scenario) she'd have been able to replace Scalia (due to McConnel's gamble) with someone more liberal than Obama's suggestion of Merrick Garland, Ginsburg and Breyer (Bill Clinton's justices, both old and Ginsburg's health is at least as bad as Scalia's was during the Obama administration), and possibly Kennedy and/or Thomas, both of whom are rather old, making for the most liberal court since Rehnquist.
Trump's victory inverts all that, especially if the GOP can keep the senate and/or Trump wins a second term. At the least replacing Kennedy with a more conservative candidate makes for a stronger 5-4 and provides insurance against Roberts waffling toward the center (as he did in the Obamacare case). If Trump and the GOP win again in 2018/2020, they'll likely replace Justice Thomas and at least one of Breyer and Ginsburg, making for a 6-3 (if Breyer or Ginsburg) or 7-2 (if Breyer and Ginsburg) conservative majority, i.e. the most conservative court since Herbert Hoover was in office. Trump seems willing to defer to the GOP in terms of his nomination choices and the GOP is very good at using court nominations to turn out their base for the midterms (so expect Justice Thomas to be on the schedule for 2020).
I wouldn't necessarily expect the abortion or gay marriage cases to be at risk of being overturned but the likelihood of any seriously liberal economic policy getting past the courts would be greatly reduced, and there'd the possibility of further regulatory rollback through the court. Also, any serious gun control measures would likely go from being highly difficult to outright impossible, again with there being the possibility of judicial rollback of existing regulations, particularly in blue states.
I'm legitimately sad to lose the only Justice who bothered to think about issues instead of just voting with their bloc. Radical centrist justice best justice. Goodbye :(
I would really like to see Lucy Koh or Tani Cantil-Sakauye nominated. Won't happen, but I would love to see the party of identity politics explain why they cannot confirm the first female Asian justice to the SCOTUS.
814 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-27
I don't give a fuck how much you call your flimsy delusions "enlightenment." There is no amount of ceaseless self-deception that will make you accept the charred hellscape of being a miserable useless destitute fucking junkie piece of shit. You know what you are, and it is deeply ugly on every level.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 headasplodes 2018-06-27
I don't follow americuck politics someone explain this to me
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
This could in theory threaten abortion and gay marriage being legal in the US. That doesn't mean it will, but the reeeeeing is going to be insane. I'm already seeing people saying this is a sign of facism incoming despite the fact that hes a right wing judge.
1 Trumputinazisis 2018-06-27
Appointed by Reagan but generally the swing vote
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
Swing vote on certain issues. Gay marriage and abortion hes pretty moderate by modern standards, on basically everything else Roberts is actually more likely to be the swing vote than he is.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Only swinging against the conservatives when he had to rule on some piece of retarded social conservatism, unironically the best justice.
1 Prysorra 2018-06-27
Liberals will have a collective embolism over the coming gay apocalypse.
And then the jackholes will rage when that actually doesn't happen.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Austria just deported a pair of gay swans, the global gaypocalypse has already been kicked off.
1 GaySwansMakeMeCry 2018-06-27
ಥ_ಥ
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-27
Vintage imgur humor, impressive.
1 The_runnerup913 2018-06-27
Lmao, the Republicans will totally go after gays in the with their court nominee. Gay marriage is the easiest issue to rile up their crazy Christian base besides abortion. It also gets some of them hard right immigrant haters too.
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
one republican appointed justice died (assassinated by kike pedos at a vineyard) already and was replaced by another, and now another Republican justice is retiring, and will be replaced by yet another Republican justice.
Basically the hillshills are crying because if she won the election they could have more easily turned the country into Sodom/Gomorrah by replacing these guys with her pedo pals and thus flipping the political ratio of the SC
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
I bet if I took your keyboard and flipped it over, an absolute MOUNTAIN of cheeto dust would fall out
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
nah, i prefer bbq chips
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
let me seriously suggest Pop Chips.
They are just as good as regular bbq chips and the macros are a lot better
1 menvaren 2018-06-27
Hmmm
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
And, they're vegan friendly :D
1 menvaren 2018-06-27
Well now I've lost interest.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
awwwww D:
1 snizarsnarfsnarf 2018-06-27
They're actually really good though
And i don't know what foods are and aren't vegan because I'm not into larping
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
omnivore scum get off my fucking board
1 Fnhatic 2018-06-27
Do they have Mountain Dew flavored doritos yet?
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
they have JACKED hot wings dipped in ranch flavor, i think
1 OsseousAnnulment 2018-06-27
Alex Jones told me they were satanists.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
INFOWARS.COM
1 TRANSPHOBOS 2018-06-27
Same thing
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-06-27
Is this sarcastic or just /u/captainpriapism alt
1 MG87 2018-06-27
Imagine being retarded enough to believe any of this.
Scalia was an obese chain smoker. Do the world a favor and get your tubes tied /u/scrivenontheedge
1 TRANSPHOBOS 2018-06-27
Soto mayor is an obese diabetic retard. Be sure to mail her some sugary treats!
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
Also 80.
1 GreatTelephone 2018-06-27
Um sweetie, it was actually the cloud people.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-27
Wow, hottest take possible
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
https://i.imgur.com/URxfTiK.jpg
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-27
Tell me you had this saved to your computer.
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
nah T_D was reposting it because SCOTUS is in the news again
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
God-Emperor Trump is going to get to appoint another Supreme Court Justice for life. POZZED commie degeneracy will be delayed for another thirty years. POZZED commie degenerates distraught that they will not be allowed to experience transexual gulags in this timeline.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
even on /r/drama this comment reads like dog shit.
try harder to get into character better, sweaty! 😘
1 AggressionSsb 2018-06-27
You know how the gay cake thing was 7-2? One of the judges died a while ago and now another retired giving trump 2 fresh faced far right Republicans. Any high level arguements are settled by these 9 people. If 5 are far right Republicans guess what, trump always wins in any argument he brings up or the media brings up. No, he doesnt have to make a christian make a gay cake and no, he doesnt have to give a shit about illegals. These people only die or retire and theres 9 of them. Their replacements are appointed under whatever president is in charge. Since trump knows everyone he pulls strings and grabs what the left might call nazis. Oh you know these people arent retiring this is an awesome ass job too. Unless half of them get assassinated were looking at a right wing future for possibly DECADES.
1 jubbergun 2018-06-27
The American Left should have considered that possibility a long time ago instead of making the court the final authority on every issue. The minute FDR suggested stacking the court and we got decisions that turned the Constitution on its head, like Wickard v. Filburn that changed the clearly understood definition of "interstate commerce," it was inevitable that the American Right would eventually take power and either undo those mistakes or embrace and abuse them.
The Democrats have only managed to pass on major policy goal through legislation in my lifetime: Obamacare/PPACA. It was a miserable failure by any objective metric, and one of the reasons we've seen the electorate shift governing power towards republicans. Every other political victory they've had didn't come from the will of the voter, but from the edicts of the Supreme Court. Democrats are now frustrated, frightened, and furious that republicans might be in a position to undo all their illegitimate victories.
When you live by the sword, you eventually die by the sword. It's the way of the world. Give any person or group of people enough rope and eventually they'll find themselves hoisted by their own petard.
1 OdinSQL 2018-06-27
The guy is a closeted gay Republican. He's been fairly liberal on social issues in the past. He's likely going to be replaced by someone less into man on man action. Liberals are pissed because this could interfere with their plans to convert elementary schools into tran-gender indoctrination camps and a to give illegal immigrants to right to vote.
1 Kilo_G_looked_up 2018-06-27
Trump's legacy will last for literal decades now.
1 liamemsa 2018-06-27
The Supreme Court is the final authority on case law in the US. They've decided many controversial decisions, an example would be Roe vs. Wade, which paved the way for legalizing abortion in the US.
The court has usually been at a slight conservative or liberal slant. There are 9 members, so right now being a slight conservative slant means that they'd rule in a 5-4 majority on cases in favor of conservative viewpoints, usually (the two cases that made the news today were restrictions on union rights and approval of Trump's travel ban, both conservative decisions).
The ability to appoint a Supreme Court justice only happens when one dies or retires, so it's very rare. And your appointee is appointed for life, so you're appointing someone who will be there for the next 40 years or so.
The Republicans famously delayed in 2015 when Obama appointed Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It paid off, as when Trump won, he was able to appoint a hyper-conservative by the name of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, keeping it a 5-4 conservative slant.
With another liberal justice retiring, he would be able to appoint a second conservative judge, making it a 6-3 slant. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires or dies as well before 2020, he could make it 7-2.
What this means is that the Supreme Court could be hyperconservative for the next 20-40 years. Tons of incredibly important and wide-impacting cases could be decided on minority rights, womens rights, gay rights, healthcare, etc.
This is a really big deal.
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
The /r/politics mega thread is already full of people freaking out,
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8uby4h/megathread_justice_anthony_kennedy_to_retire_from/
I don't even need to sort by conterversial to see reeing.
1 AmitabhBakchod 2018-06-27
Probably the best /r/politics thread I've ever seen, save for the one November 9th 2016
1 cutman 2018-06-27
I think this one may become better because of the hysteria that has built up in that sub during Trump's reign, like a good marinade.
1 EagerJewBear 2018-06-27
Highly volatile marinade.
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-27
Is there a link for that? I never got to see that golden goodnesss
1 Lorevmaster 2018-06-27
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5bzh35/ap_projects_donald_trump_wins_2016_us/
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-27
...why does that thread say one year ago, and not two?
1 Lorevmaster 2018-06-27
Because it wasn't 2 years ago...
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-27
Trump won back in November 2016. I remember, he was inaugurated the following January. 2016 is 2 years ago...
1 Lorevmaster 2018-06-27
November 2016 was 19 months ago. 19/24 months so not 2 years which is the way reddit works. If you have RES you can see the date it was posted anyway.
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-27
I'm a mobile user....do any of the reddit apps have res support?
1 Jimbo_B_Beterson 2018-06-27
No but your maps app can help find a solution
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-27
Uh.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-27
This sustains me on a deeply spiritual level
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-06-27
The 2016 election was the best thing to happen for Dramacoin since WW2.
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-27
Anyone got a link to that thread?
1 Tarrock 2018-06-27
You missed yesterday's on the travel ban ruling.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
THE GOOD OLD DAYS AFTER 9/11
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
I really enjoyed ShareBlue getting banned from there, as well
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-27
If RBG passes in the next two years, it’s gonna get turnt in there.
1 RilesUpRedditors 2018-06-27
the average /r/politics comment reads like something straight off a Yahoo news article, jesus christ.
1 Barton_Foley 2018-06-27
Said it in another post, and I wil say it again, after reading the r/politics thread on Kennedys retirement, I had to cancel my plans for the evening, 'cause my schadenboner is gonna last more than four hours.
1 NormanImmanuel 2018-06-27
No need to go that far, this very thread is full of them.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
That was my first thought, this entire thread is nothing but seriousposting and pizzaposting
1 Bronafide 2018-06-27
Truely the reason daddy will win again
1 constantinople_2053 2018-06-27
/u/Daemontherogueprince I too think people should only be allowed to have believes identical to mine, after all, what's a democracy for, if not for me to get my way?
Btw, what's your position on pineapple on pizza?
1 DaemonTheRoguePrince 2018-06-27
Democracy is idiotic, and pineapple on pizza is an abomination.
1 keepittropical 2018-06-27
Thems fitin words. Where you at so i can come beat your ass and then use your unconscious body as a table for my delicious pepperoni pineapple pizza?
1 Neon_needles 2018-06-27
Lol fag
1 DaemonTheRoguePrince 2018-06-27
What a clever, cogent, and all around deep thought for you there.../s
1 Wololol0w 2018-06-27
Urmomgay you fucking homo
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
FYI your username indicates to me that you're an edgelord NEET fag who's never seen boobs IRL
1 DaemonTheRoguePrince 2018-06-27
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
What's your favorite anime to jerk it to?
1 rnjbond 2018-06-27
The hyperbole is amazing! And this is after yesterday's thread, when people called the immigration Supreme Court ruling "the worst decision since Dredd Scott"
1 Kanarkly 2018-06-27
If you actually go to the thread, this is the top comment:
It seems most of the comments are like that. I don’t see how that’s freaking out or reeing.
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
fucking no flairs out out out
1 hexane360 2018-06-27
Flairs are gay
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-27
Literal fema death camps coming
1 thegroundedsirloin 2018-06-27
Regardless of all that, we are gonna find out some crazy shit on at least half of the people he picks.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
I'm going to seriouspost for one second:
this is not good for civil rights or progressive thought. the way the dem's handle the approval of whoever trump nominates is going to be absolutely essential to the goal of the american left over the next 25 years. this is a big fuckin deal
unironically
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
ftfy
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
supreme court justice Ted Nugent is gonna' fuck up all the commies n diddlers
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Got communists in a stranglehold, baby!
1 MG87 2018-06-27
Fuck yeah Christian Sharia
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
In an ironic twist of fate, america 250ish years later turns into a papal state from being one of the first goverments to have separation of church and state.
1 TRANSPHOBOS 2018-06-27
It turns out having “rawdog” as your religious policy didn’t work very well
1 [deleted] 2018-06-27
[removed]
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Godless communism IS a historical outgrowth of certain degenerate strains of Christianity. You are almost there!
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
ha it’s funny because that’s his good song
1 better_bot 2018-06-27
This is your country on fentanyl.
1 Tzcar 2018-06-27
Hopefully not for long.
1 MG87 2018-06-27
This but ironically
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-06-27
Ah it’s not ironic
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Fact: Trump's a New and probably a pedo.
1 ItsSugar 2018-06-27
Vintage Retardation
1 AlecOzzyHillPitas 2018-06-27
Fucking
crypto-Franco IlluminatielitesFucking
[masonic](web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masons/Essays/anti-Masonic.html)elitesFucking
JesuitelitesFucking
crypto-CommunistelitesFucking Jewish elites <-- You Are Here
People Are Reading 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'
Also, Q Anon is a LARP. Hitler was a meth addict. Your counter-culture is a lie.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
pretending the Jews haven't been the #1 Mayo scapegoat since like 1290, eh?
1 AlecOzzyHillPitas 2018-06-27
Maybe in retarded ergot poisoned European Mayoland, but in the grand ol' USA we have a rich and diverse history of moronic paranoid fantasies that goes well beyond the standard anti-semetic monoculture.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
...
touche (i'm not going to do the accent mark cuz fuck that)
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
SHAPE
SHIFTERS
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
It is taboo in our republic. The /r/drama poster is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a /r/drama poster and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I've been found out.”
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
CTRL+H, "/r/drama", replace with: "/r/subredditdrama", ENTER
fixed!
1 anothga 2018-06-27
Gay
frogs?
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
LEARN MORE AT INFOWARS.COM
1 better_bot 2018-06-27
The masons did nothing wrong.
1 bigwordalt 2018-06-27
My prediction is that there will never be another justice appointed and as the years pass and they die off we're going to be left with a seemingly immortal Clarence Thomas deciding the law of the land through an arcane system of grunts and sexual harassment.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
god i hope so
1 [deleted] 2018-06-27
[removed]
1 Going_up_the_Country 2018-06-27
"Six Members of the Court, or one Clarence Thomas, constitute a quorum."
1 Tzcar 2018-06-27
Wtf would Thomas do without anybody else's homework to copy?
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
Good. Something shouldn't be imposed on the whole nation because partisan judges voted for one thing either way.
I'm in favor of gay marriage, but the lawsuit against the legitamately voted for California ban was not the correct way to implement it nation wide. It is against the 10th amendment.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-06-27
Federal tax regulations on marriage have to be applied the same way nationwide
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
Roe v Wade is also a very legally wonky decision, but jesus christ just let women have abortions.
1 Up-The-Butt_Jesus 2018-06-27
jesus christ actually disagrees, if you read the bible
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
lol which part does jesus say "suffer the little unaborted babies come onto me?"
He aborted the shit out of that fig tree
1 Ace4929 2018-06-27
Thou shalt not kill
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
If the religious right really interpreted that as broadly as that they would be anti-war and definitely anti-death penalty.
1 Ace4929 2018-06-27
I am
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Well props for being consistent.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
Jesus didn't say that...
...I mean, there is that moment with peter, but that feels like a stretch
1 Ace4929 2018-06-27
The whole point of the Sermon on the Mound is Jesus saying “yo you guys have heard about the 10 commandments, well I got more for you”
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
Jesus fucking Christ, he wasn't a pitcher
1 alphetasauce 2018-06-27
It didn't give him figs. Of course unborn fetuses don't give me figs either so I guess I'm fine with abortion.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
QED
1 Ls777 2018-06-27
Yes that's why he's asking Jesus Christ to let woman have abortions
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
upvoted
1 [deleted] 2018-06-27
[removed]
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
Its pretty bizzare watching conservatives circle jerk over this as if they actually care about zygotes, gonna be fun watching americtards end up with less rights than mc donalds as a person tho.
1 siempreloco31 2018-06-27
You do realize that this intense triggering the libs will have a cataclysmic backlash someday right?
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
The intense triggering is a very vocal minority that gets unrepresentative coverage by the media.
You only like 10% of people interviewed trust the media? That's the vocal minority.
1 siempreloco31 2018-06-27
Millenial women are D+44 now. They will never vote for Republicans ever again for fear of their rights. Deal with the aftermath.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
🙄 That number totally seems accurate (not).
By the way it doesn't matter. People become more conservative as they age. Everyone says rainbows, unicorns, puppies and world peace when you're in college.
Then when you start paying taxes you go lol, I'm a republican now.
1 siempreloco31 2018-06-27
http://imgur.com/j3c7qcf
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
old myth is old
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
FUCK it's just hitting me that boomers are about to ruin reddit just like they ruined facebook
thanks for nothing grandpa
1 GenitalGesticulation 2018-06-27
Lots of people think they'll never vote republican, and then they turn 30.
1 siempreloco31 2018-06-27
This is a myth. I hope you're not really banking on millenial SJW women to fall in Republican ranks in 20 years
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
You know all your "baby boomer old woman" were alive during the 60s right?
I hope you're not banking on them staying democrat.
1 siempreloco31 2018-06-27
You know that the baby boomer Republicans weren't very left in the 60s right?
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
That's been happening for decades and is happening with conservatives.
Scouts said gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment, and the 10th amendment doesn't take precedence over any other amendment.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
14th amendment.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
That's fine. Repeal the California law then, but don't implement the decision to states that didn't implement a ban.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
Why? The law is incredibly clear on this. You can't discriminate based on gender or sexuality in terms of marriage. Equal protection? You don't get to start your own constitutional violations after the supreme court found that your neighbouring state was violating the constitution by doing the exact same thing.
Just do a fucking Alabama.
http://www.businessinsider.com/alabama-may-eliminate-marriage-licenses-because-of-same-sex-marriage-2017-3
You don't have to issue licences for gay marriage but you can't issue licences for opposite sex marriage if you don't issue them for gay marriage.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
The thing was there were states that hadn't made gay marriage illegal nor had they legalized gay marriage. It just didn't exist as a concept.
It's like if I passed a ban that said you can't claim a dog for the child tax credit. It's not like it was legal before, it just didn't exist at all.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
If California passed a law saying the only legal weapons were sticks, have they banned guns or not? They have. So it was be a constitutional violation like every state that offered opposite sex marriage without offering gay marriage. So every single one of them was in violation of the constitution but your argument is that the supreme court should just act as a state supreme supreme court?
The entire point of a federal court is that they're a federal court. They interpret how laws affect the entire country. If their rulings only affected a single state then why would they even exist?
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
I suppose it just doesn't make sense legally to me. I think social and cultural limitations need to be placed on the 14th amendment.
Why couldn't I sue to have pedophile or incestual marriage legal under the 14th amendment?
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
Child marriage is legal in like every single USA state. You can marry a ten year old in a few of them. Children generally can't consent to contracts though. Which is not to equate gay marriage to paedophilia. Also the 14th amendment doesn't apply to age.
The government has a compelling interest in preventing incest because it has a higher rate of birth defects and is ripe for abuse between children and parents. Again legal in the USA to marry your cousin basically everywhere.
The 14th amendment basically says if you want to treat groups differently under the law, you've got to have a good reason. It does a few other things but we'll keep it simple.
Opponents of gay marriage basically said we don't like and that's not a good enough reason to fail to offer equal protection under the law.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
It doesn't have anything to do with age. It's the group of adults that would want child marriage.
Like California became the first state to ban gay marriage without exception, so it's basically the same situation.
Not really, the dissenting opinions were basically saying that defense of traditional families is in the interest of the US to maintain successful childrearing.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
The state doesn't give a fuck if you fuck. You're married when it says you're married. In the state's eyes marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's a contract between two people that sets out additional rights and responsibilities you have towards each other.
So when people who wanted to get married to a same sex partner went to court, they didn't just say I want to marry my partner. They said the United States' constitution guarantees me certain rights. This rights cannot be violated by either state or federal government.
The court said that prop 8 in California which forbid them from accessing this standard legal contract granting them additional rights violated same sex couple's right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment applies to both state and federal government due to itself.
So if someone trying to marry a child tried to argue that they were being denied equal protection under the law, then the court would tell them to fuck off because the 14th amendment does not prohibit the government from discriminating based on age which is what a prohibition on child marriage is legally.
Yeah the four dissenting opinions that carry the same legal weight as my morning shit. The majority of the court found that was not a valid reason to restrict the rights of same sex couples.
1 shallowm 2018-06-27
a
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Choose one.
1 Prysorra 2018-06-27
Trade off is slightly different.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-06-27
Gotta love president “just take the guns away”
Or did we forget hat part
1 AggressionSsb 2018-06-27
That was a ploy to get them to stop talking about guns. He intentionally went full hitler.
1 GenitalGesticulation 2018-06-27
Dems threw away their right to use that line against trump when they decided to run a bunch of candidates in the midterms this year with super anti-gun stances. That's one line from Trump vs several candidates running TV spots where they talk about all the guns they want to outright ban and throw cheapo tacticool 22s into fire pits.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
So because some Dems are anti gun they can't point out that the GOP president is anti gun too? Sorry you can't pretend Trump cares about the 2nd amendment but that's the way it is.
1 GenitalGesticulation 2018-06-27
I'm not saying Trump is pro gun, he's a New York republican after all.
I'm saying that a lot of candidates out there are going pretty hard on the anti-gun stuff, so quoting a single dumb statement from our dumb president won't turn gun owners over to the democrats that are outlining in great detail all the guns and gun accessories they want to make illegal.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
You are the least funny agendaposter I have ever seen. Utter!y humourless and with a pathological inability to laugh at your own side.
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
give me one example apart from guns that conservative judges rather than the liberal ones were pro civil rights.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
Janus literally today. You can't force a government employee to be a member of a third party (and a political third party at that) just to be employed.
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
Holy shit the delusion lmao.
1 DaveLeBarbarian 2018-06-27
REEE ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO BECOME A SERF OR SOMETHING? UNION DUES MUST BE MANDATORY TO PREVENT FEUDALISM
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Ok that's one but overall conservatives have an abysmal record on rights and freedoms on things other than guns.
Gay marriage, drugs, civil asset forfeiture, flag burning, their boot licking defense of abusive cops, and so on.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Not a right.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Yes it is.
He scaled it back a bit and Sessions is expanding it.
The fuck does that have to do with anything? The nation doesn’t burn when a flag burns.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
No, Obama had a whole scam going where the DOJ would levy massive regulatory fines against corporations and funnel the proceeds to various DNC operative-led causes.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Regulatory fines and civil asset forfeiture are two very different things.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Yes. Channeling regulatory fines to private political operatives is far, far worse.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Any evidence for this co spiracy theory?
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Its a pretty well-known thing. It wasn't even hidden.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Ok where did it happen?
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/25/house-republicans-target-slush-funds-created-by-doj-lawsuits/#17ab9f6c44a8
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat-activist-groups/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/14017/report-obama-admin-funneled-billions-left-wing-amanda-prestigiacomo
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-justice-department-settlement-slush-fund/
https://nypost.com/2017/08/05/sessions-investigating-slush-fund-used-by-left-wing-groups/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/Holder_DOJ_Shakedown
Try the last link if you need a left-wing source to trust.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Man I just realized this whole thing was just so you can deflect from the Trump administration supporting civil asset forfeiture, flag burning bans and threatening to take away media licenses.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Actually, the whole thing was an Alinsky tactic to funnel money to socialist agitators.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
I don’t know if it is worse since civil asset forfeiture is stealing from the innocent instead of from the guilty.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
lolwut
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Do you not know how civil asset forfeiture works?
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Yeah. You get caught moving weight, so they take your boat.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
That’s criminal asset forfeiture, in civil you don’t have to be convicted or even charged with a crime. The police can take your stuff because they “suspect” it’s been part of a crime. Then you have to fight to get it back
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Ah. Communism.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
The cops that steal shit aren't redistributing it to the poor, they're just keeping it for their department.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Ah.
Communism.
1 jubbergun 2018-06-27
Scalia was pretty good on 4th and 5th Amendment protections.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Conservative judges ARE liberals, booboo.
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
that's not how it works you cant simply say you are the opposite gender and now its suddenly true
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
The US Bill of Rights is like the ur-document of liberalism. Constitutionalist judges are the keepers and preservers of Western liberalism.
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
that was so stupid you gave me an aneurysm i dont feel bad at all for when you inevitably get fucked by some new anti consumer / employee ruling because unless you are a corporation or super rich this is inevitably a bad thing and no amount of making up retarded shit about different kinds of liberalism will change that.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
All Americans are the oppressive global rich, my friend. :WOKE:
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
Its actually pretty hilarious after taking out the super rich america is nearly on par with countries like new zealand a island with farms farms vs global economic superpower with endless natural resources and you barely pull ahead mate.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
You aren't really conveying anything coherent here, but I acknowledge there is a certain ingenuity to your brain-spasm.
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
Im saying america is a massive shithole considering its economic clout that it loses it some categories to shitty countries that sell milk to the chinese.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Is there going to be a conclusion to this line of thought or ?
1 allendrio 2018-06-27
Im from NZ you fucking mong jesus christ how stupid are you im making the point we nearly have the same standard of living and all we have is a bunch of grassy hills.
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
lol what do you think civil rights are
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
those are civil liberties dawg
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Proggo ideals are in conflict with:
1st
2nd
4th
5th
10th
as well as various important bits of the Constitution, such as "the existence of the United States of America"
1 Death_Trolley 2018-06-27
There’s literally nothing they can do but sit on the sidelines and complain. What exactly do you think is going to make difference here?
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
well that is kind of their specialty
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
not vote for it, and hope trump never removes the tariffs so Flake won’t vote for it either
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Ideals are ignoring the will of the people or the constitution?
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
well which is it?
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-27
I'm willing to bet a mountain of bussy that nothing will change of any significance
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-27
You can say that about nearly any political upset and be right. The US has gotten so big, it’s laughable to think anyone can control its progression anymore.
1 lifesbrink 2018-06-27
Seriously though, we have had very few things change this nation, and they were all outside influences, like 9/11
1 GreatTelephone 2018-06-27
Impeachment of SCOTUS judge would probably be the political debacle of the decade. Never been done before, I think.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
yeah if this happens, I'm going to sell my house and invest the equity in dramacoin
1 aqouta 2018-06-27
Decade? This would literally be one of the most significant dramas in American legal history.
1 GreatTelephone 2018-06-27
The last few years make me doubt that.
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
I think Watergate and Clinton's impeachment have that beat.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
This article is very informative, ignore the stupid beginning It's happened once with no conviction and almost happened but the Justice resigned
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
i wanna say they tried to impeach someone in the 19th century but it didn’t take
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-06-27
Fdr tried to stack the court I believe.
1 GreatTelephone 2018-06-27
I think the idea of the Court has become more 'sacred' since. Similar to what happened with the US constitution over the last few decades.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-27
[removed]
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-06-27
Retard.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
shut up hillbilly, nobody asked what swamp people thought about it
1 OdinSQL 2018-06-27
Good! America keeps getting a little bit greater!
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
Seems pretty good of civil rights like free speech, association ect. Janus is a great example of that
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
free speech is normally pretty progressive. just not after you’ve already reached peak liberalism (or “the horseshoe’s bend” as well call it) as a society.
Janus? that two-face god?
1 Nulono 2018-06-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
The potus railed against flag burners and said we need more restrictive libel laws, and he tried threatening licenses of certain news organizations for having negative coverage of him. Conservatives also reed to the FCC over Colbert's cock holster joke and Bush had his "free speech zone" nonsense.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
But you always seriouspost
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
I really dont
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2018-06-27
It was a good run while it lasted. 1776-2018.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-06-27
Any young people who wrote in Bernie in Wisconsin or Michigan will have the next 30 years to 🤔
1 but-uh 2018-06-27
People in the Clinton camp, and the Dem leadership really have no idea how much people had a seething hatred for Clinton. Like willing to let a moron reality show star run the country rather than .... her.
They forced Clinton as the only choice and smugly thought Trump never had a chance and that's why we're here. Anyone who wants to blame Sanders or Stein is really missing the pulse.
How fucking dumb is that. Democracy isn't about people getting their turn it's about the right person for the job. No one is entitled to the fucking presidency.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-27
[removed]
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
can't tell if serious
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
obvious joke my dude
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
I mean we had chapoheads in here earlier
1 LizWarrenBuffett 2018-06-27
1788*
1 hexane360 2018-06-27
We don't talk about the Articles
1 Maxwyfe 2018-06-27
Retiring July 31! He's not wasting any time, is he?
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
Their current session just ended. Democrats (and maybe Flake/McCain till he croaks) will stall this out as long as possible, but he decided he wants to go out on his own terms and let Trump pick his successor.
1 Akitten 2018-06-27
They can’t stall shit, the requirement is a simple majority
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
The Dems have 49 votes, Flake and if McCain shows up as one last fuck you that's 51 to shoot down a nominee. If Trump sends up a crazy one of the moderate republicans could say no and that also blows it up.
1 CollaWars 2018-06-27
That will never happen. All 49 Democrats aren't going to block a SC nominee and I really doubt Flakes and McCain are going to vote against it. Despite the love from reddit for argueing with Trump, they are still conservatives who want a conservative court.
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
Depends on the kind of conservative court they want. Flake right now is intentionally slowing shit down because of the tarriffs, every single democrat in America is pissed over Garland still, and if Trump throws out a lunatic fringe case Collins and or Murowski could also get involved in it. If theres a pro torture position McCain and Graham might go for one last hurrah as well.
1 CollaWars 2018-06-27
Flakes will flop. The nominee will just be another Gorsuch and it'll pass. Democrats in Trump states are going to block his justice.
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
Manunchin is a wild card.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
all 49 will vote lockstep, that's how the democratic party largely works
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
idk dude they’re still pretty mad about the last one
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
You need two nos because Pence breaks ties.
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
There are at least two pro-choice Republican senators, gonna have to convince them that Roe v. Wade isn't worth it.
1 BasicallyADoctor 2018-06-27
Lord knows several of the others are on death's door. This will be a fun time
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
>tfw the Supreme Court will lean to the right until I retire because Shillary was too big of a boomer to manage two separate email accounts
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Lol, no, the supreme court will be rigged for delusional conservatives because Berntards are too fucking stupid to understand what's at stake.
If I had a dime for every Berntard that told me "the supreme court isn't a good enough reason to vote Clinton" I'd be fucking rich.
They were literally willing to undo all progress made over the last 40 years because Clinton said mean things about Beanie Sanders.
I can not stress enough how fucking retarded these people are.
The second the GOP decided to steal a supreme court seat in the way they did everyone that leans left should have seen the big picture and voted. Our only chance now is to sweep the senate/house and simply add more justices.
1 SexyTaft 2018-06-27
based pizzashill
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
thats an oxymoron if I've even seen one
1 Assy-McGee 2018-06-27
more like “free-based” amirite?
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
do you have some kind of moral obligation to always use 3X more words than necessary to get your point across?
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Do you have some moral obligation to suck dick for crack money behind your local Denny's?
1 Prysorra 2018-06-27
Delete your comment and reply with something funnier. We deserve better from you.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
I knew you were a pleb but jesus fucking christ.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Some of my best memories are walking to Denny's with my ex and enjoying a nice meal while mocking the local trash.
1 BigBlackWeiners 2018-06-27
Anybody that is within walking distance of a Denny's is trash
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
I mean, it was a hotel and a fairly nice one.
1 BigBlackWeiners 2018-06-27
Any hotel within walking distance of a Denny's is also trash. Same goes for the people that stay at that hotel.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Well, I'm starting to suspect you don't have any idea what you're talking about tbh.
1 BigBlackWeiners 2018-06-27
What I am saying is no decent hotel would be within walking distance of a scummy place like Denny's. If I book a hotel and find out a Denny's is near it I will take my business elsewhere. I dont want the filth (this includes you and your ex) coming in and out of that shithole anywhere near me.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Imagine thinking you can be a Trumptard and not trash.
1 OnionBits 2018-06-27
Imagine being so far up your own ass that you think everyone who disagrees with you is trash
Literally worse than cb2
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Anyone that votes for an infowars tard is trash.
1 OnionBits 2018-06-27
Please stop taking the b8 so easily, it's not even fun anymore
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Ok, infowars tard.
1 BigBlackWeiners 2018-06-27
Daddy's😍 bussy taste better than anything from Dennys
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
pizzashill living in midwest cluster fuck, confirmed.
YIKES!
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-27
Mmmmmmmm...Moon over My Hammy.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
cold eggs over old meat
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-27
Reminiscing over what it was like to shag the mrs when you used to be able to get it up, gramps?
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
Only in Florida is Denny’s considered a viable option even for modestly discerning customers
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Shit tastes good dude.
1 I-need-MAYO 2018-06-27
Well, that explains it.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
maybe he wouldn't be your ex if you'd taken him somewhere that seasons their food with more than sadness
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Yeah I considered myself in the friendzone when she was blowing me tbh.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down that pipe in your mouth for a friend
John 15:13
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
There's a reason your ex left you.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
I left her.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
Half of your comments are about her, you're not fooling anyone
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Lmao what? I literally dumped that bitch.
1 Feanorfanclub 2018-06-27
How else would you prevent potential incels?
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-27
Sorosbux are paid by the word
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
like Dickens
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-27
no, to get your Dickens he charges by the inch
1 Prysorra 2018-06-27
Trump's first SC pick was less conservobot than Scalia, and all the Trumpkins seem happy.
I seriously want to see Trump nominate someone vaguely liberal just for maximum drama.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
He was a fucking corporate shill.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
Gorsuch is pretty conservative my guy
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
Merrick Garland. Or Barack Obama
1 Prysorra 2018-06-27
Oh I really want to see him choose Garland. /r/politics will shit on him.
1 preserved_fish 2018-06-27
/r/politics shit on him already. They're just mad that they're getting something much, much worse (to their minds).
1 jorio 2018-06-27
You're right, there's been a lot of progress in this country since President Reagan saved this country from an insipid communist.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Reagan was a mentally feeble moron. He didn't do shit.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
He gave Iran all those weapons...
So that is something
1 jorio 2018-06-27
Reagan was a suave ass motherfucker that talked the world into embracing liberty. Bill Clinton was pudgy car salesmen that talked insecure fat bitches into polishing his knob. I'm comfortable letting history judge their relative greatness.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Reagans staff literally had to show him cartoons to get him to agree to anything.
1 jorio 2018-06-27
Those must have been some pretty fuckin bomb cartoons. They should be pasted in every k-12 classroom in America and make Canada do it too while we're at it.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
https://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/
1 jorio 2018-06-27
Gimmie a break. Bullshit.com? Seriously?
So President Reagan delegated the job of answering a question about missile defense to a man he hired to be an expert on missile defense? That's what good managers do. And this is the articles opening example, the one that's really supposed to hook me in.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
You have 1 reply to point out what was factually incorrect in that article before you're dismissed.
1 jorio 2018-06-27
What? I'm not fact checking that gish gallop. It wouldn't matter anyway. Something can be uncharitable and cherry picked and still be technically accurate. For example, if you pushed and old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, it would be technically accurate for me to say that you are the type of person that pushes old lady around.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Then you're dismissed. Sorry, I have a set of rules, the second someone dismisses something I link they either have to put out what is factually incorrect or they're dismissed.
1 jorio 2018-06-27
Haha, you do whatever you need to do over there buddy.
1 istural 2018-06-27
Are you quoting a salon article from late 2015 to prove a political point?
Pizza, please don’t be retarded. Conservatives are idiots, but Reagan did well in several areas.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Read the fucking article.
1 istural 2018-06-27
You mean the article primarily quoted from an end of career book that is highly subjective?
Reagan wasn’t perfect, but there were notable policy triumphs in his presidency,
Have you read the book pizza?
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
This is hilarious. Like this sub has to be populated by literal fucking mongs.
"highly subjective" lmao.
1 istural 2018-06-27
So the fun thing about this particular book, which I fucking own you sperg, is that it’s not footnoted and has some opinions added in.
It’s a really good book, and does a fantastic job of giving an overview of the presidents and how the political machine that is the executive branch works and how it has evolved and expanded,The book isn’t even overly critical of Reagan as the article would suggest, but there are opinions placed here and there and a lot of uncited sources, (because no footnotes because it’s not a text book) which makes it a hell of a lot easier to read, but also difficult to defend on some of the claims.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Literally mentally feeble. His staff did everything.
1 istural 2018-06-27
You could say the same for a great majority of the presidents. Because if you knew how the executive branch works, most presidents are unqualified in a wide variety of areas. Obama’s first two years were marked with legislative defeats and poor choices because you can’t just go in and be a great president.
It takes a team to run a country well, which is what this book cited in the article likes to focus on, because the executive branch operates like a team that focuses on specific goals and how to achieve them.
The reason trumps executive branch is so chaotic is because he’s a shitty leader and pits his team against one another.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
TIL every admin has people showing them cartoons so they can comprehend basic topics.
1 istural 2018-06-27
The concept of visual aides must have been left out of your community college education.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Are you unironically going to pretend this cartoon shit is true of other admins?
1 istural 2018-06-27
Nope, but I’m also not going to defend the idiotic concept that utilizing visual aides to help non-experts understand things is something to be criticizing, especially when that concept is in direct contention with all currently accepted standards for technical communication designed around informing non-technical users.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Falling asleep at meetings, cartoons, not understanding anything.
Just standard president stuff.
1 istural 2018-06-27
You’d be highly surprised if you knew how many private companies operate with a ceo who is basically absent and when they are not, they understand nothing.
I’m not saying Reagan was perfect or a genius, but he wasn’t a literal retard like you are claiming. Delegation is a very good skill to have, and waiting for people smarter then you to tell you what to think is highly underrated in society. I guarantee you if trump was more like Reagan we’d be in a much better place.
1 shallowm 2018-06-27
You were put down, in the future please refrain from discussing subjects you have no education in.
1 istural 2018-06-27
Of course master Jew.
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
> Just standard president stuff.
So is whipping out your dick as a way to justify a war, or well, for any reason.
Good ol' Democrats set the standard back in the 60's, bud.
1 JumbledFun 2018-06-27
So conservatives prefer actual retarded people to alpha males, you pussies
1 istural 2018-06-27
Conservacucks
1 TotesMessenger 2018-06-27
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
sometimes literally
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-27
So you're saying he was ahead of his time?
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
holy shit imagine actually believing this, I'm dying
you just reek of flyover state yokel
1 jorio 2018-06-27
Suck it.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
> can't into meme arrows
I never knew, "the right can't meme" was this literal
1 djlewt 2018-06-27
Ah yes Reagan.
November 13th 1986: "The charge has been made that the United States has shipped weapons to Iran as ransom payment for the release of American hostages in Lebanon, that the United States undercut its allies and secretly violated American policy against trafficking with terrorists.... Those charges are utterly false.... We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
March 4 1987: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
You mean that Reagan? The traitor that lied to all of America on television many many times? The one that experts agree was suffering from severe mental decline in his second term? The same Reagan that oversaw the HUD scandal where they illegally awarded HUD contracts to Reagan donors, eventually culminating in 16 convictions of various administration officials and conspirators? The same Reagan whos' Chief of Staff was convicted of lying under oath regarding illegal lobbying activities?
Tell us more about the Keating Five why don't you? Remember what Reagan's tax "deregulation" did? I do, so do many taxpayers that were on the hook for $160 billion for it..
BUT my absolute favorite "Reagan" to remember? The Reagan that stole the debate questions in 1980 from Jimmy Carter, you know, like that big Hillary Clinton "scandal" of getting what the questions were likely to be on before the debate, only actually a scandal since they were Carter's private notes and not some bullshit "scandal" where it's like sooooo bad to be told "hey, that debate coming up, they're probably going to ask about the economy and what you would do for coal towns"..
Reagan was a mentally decrepit criminal traitor that committed nearly every fraud the right has tried to pin on various Democrats since his time, because projection is the right's bread and fucking buttery males!
1 jorio 2018-06-27
Jesus Christ.
Yes, some Reagan administration officials were too enthusiastic in their efforts to prevent a communist, child molester from getting to own a country. They broke the law and they were wrong to do so.
1 ItsSugar 2018-06-27
Inb4 "More Hillary voters switched to McCain in 2008 than Bernie voters to Trump in 2016"
...which completely ignores the fact that the Berntards in 2016 that did, decided to vote for a literal retard and gave full control of the government to one party. That whole subset of the left that wouldn't settle for anything less than a socialist, progressive politician in a country that has built its empire on the foundation of capitalism is probably one of the most damaging groups of stupid people in recent politics, 2nd to Trumpies, but right above the Tea Party.
Honorable mention to the third part protest voters, the people that will eventually stab themselves to protest poor healthcare.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Don't worry, there's tons of time for them to become #1. I'm sure they'll show up at the convention to screech with Jill Stein when a sane democrat wins the primary and not some delusional Berntard.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
>Being surprised NEET 20-year-old quasi-socialist Berntards acted retarded
Unironically it is kind of their fault tho
1 nysgreenandwhite 2018-06-27
Imagine losing to the worst candidate for president in 100 years and thinking it's anything but your fault.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Imagine thinking being a bad candidate in the US is a disadvantage.
Imagine thinking rural people aren't the most retarded people on the planet.
1 FirearmThrowaway 2018-06-27
WWAAAaaa! I don't like how a certain people group voted! WWAAAAAaaAAA. They are clearly retarded! WWAAA.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
No. Tons of people vote differently than me all over the world and they aren't retarded.
Rural people, very specifically, are retarded.
1 nysgreenandwhite 2018-06-27
Who is retarded? All rural people? Or the guy who said this:
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."
All of the centrist Democrats are clueless as to how to win general elections. They haven't won a single election in the last 20 years that wasn't handed to them on a platter, and 2016 shows they can even lose those elections.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
about 85% of rural people. This is where I stopped reading.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2018-06-27
You didn't miss much by stopping there
1 I-need-MAYO 2018-06-27
lol, imagine being this bootyblasted on r/drama. MDEfugees have to go back.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Imagine losing an election to a retard because the rural population thinks you don't give a shit about them.
Imagine being such a liberal urbanite stereotype that you're helping to prove them right.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Imagine thinking rural people are rational actors or have any idea how the world works.
A) Group up in rural America.
B) They are absolutely retarded.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
inb4 Trump wins 2020 and you're just as surprised and butthurt about it as you were the first time.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
Imagine thinking voters or humans in general are rational actors.
Imagine thinking "rational actor" is well defined when there's still a bunch of nerds bickering about oracle paradoxes and similar wankery.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Some humans are rational actors. Of those humans, very few of them are rural people.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
[citation needed]
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Hitler?
Rural.
Putin?
Rural.
Trump?
Rural.
Erdogan?
rural.
Weird.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Well I can't argue with all that persuasive evidence, guess you win again.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
What? Go look at vote totals. How do you think the Nazies became the largest party in Germany?
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
They still weren't big enough to control the Reichstag. Hitler got lucky with Hindenburg appointing him chancellor and then dying fairly shortly thereafter. That, combined a shitty Weimar constitution that granted suspension of civil liberties in times of "emergency" was what allowed Hitler to eliminate all domestic opponents to the Nazis and secure total unchallenged control.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
What? He was levered into power specifically because the Nazi party was the largest right-wing party in Germany.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
None of the sourced material in your other comment seems to single out the rural population specifically. Post-WWI Germany was a complete clusterfuck, trying to pin the rise of Nazism on one thing is retarded, let alone a thing that your own sources don't seem to fixate on at all.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
What? It does though, but I should have copy pasted the relevant data:
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
All this says in regards to your argument is that the Nazis took landslide wins in some rural districts.
Nothing here describes the urban/rural divide playing a significant contribution to the rise of the Nazis.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
M8, they were overwhelmingly supported by rural people. They didn't do well in cities.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
That's a very poor tl;dr of your quoted source.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
It's not. They were supported by rural people. Much of nazi rhetoric was focused on "lifting the common man up."
Hitler himself was obsessed with this idea of a rural German farmer. Blood and soil.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Because rural = literally just farmers = common man.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
It was all of them. I'm telling you, the more you dig into these worldviews the more it becomes clear they're basically fueled by rural discontent, conservative fear, and the belief the "liberal cities" are destroying the country.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Well you haven't made a convincing argument for it.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Except, you know, showing you the numbers proving the basis of nazi support was rural Germany.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Nothing could have ever played a bigger role in Germany's Nazi takeover, it's the only factor that matters.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
My argument isn't that rural people caused it. My argument is at the center of every demagogue is a base of rural support.
They always tend to fail in cities.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Except, you know, showing you the numbers proving the basis of nazi support was rural Germany.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
Lolwut. Historically, most tyrants don't like their people and their people don't like them: hence the emphasis on a strong military and guards since ancient Greek tyrants.
Totalitarians are a fairly new thing, and their attempts to turn the population on their side are usually post power grab, when elections are no longer a thing.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Hitler?
Rural.
Putin?
Rural.
Trump?
Rural.
Erdogan?
rural.
Weird.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
Hitler didn't win the elections until they were little more than a formality, with him and his goons freely engaging in acts of terrorism before then.
Also lul at putting Trump and Hitler on the same level as tyrants.
Totalitarianism was basically born in the 20th century, not my fault you didn't pay attention in history class.
For most of mankind it was hard enough to keep the peasants from revolting, let alone turn them into true followers.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Well this is fucking historical illiteracy. The Nazi party was the largest party in Germany, and they did it legally. In fact, after Hitler's failed Putsch he vowed to only seize power legally after that.
The nazi share of the vote in rural areas amounted to a fucking landslide. Hitler was put into power, democratically, and completely legally.
Hitler himself was put there by conservatives. And he was only put there because of the fact the Nazi party was the largest party in Germany, any government either had to include them, or the socialists. And the conservatives would rather roll around in the mud with fascists than the left.
Something that came to being in the early 1900s is not "new."
I said, demagogues or Tyrants.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
That was the move that granted the Nazis the majority of seats: tell me how that was legal?
Or what about the night of long knives?
The Nazis seized power "legally" only because they weren't caught and prosecuted.
You mean, "or the communists". The commies were the ones above 15%.
Compared to tyranny, something that existed for most of human history, yes that's relatively new.
Don't create dumb categories that mix up very different things.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Are you actually this clueless? They were the largest party in Germany before any of this. Evans in the third Reich trilogy:
Hitler was put into power by conservatives because the Nazi party was the largest one in Germany.
You're confusing time periods. Why do you think he was put into the chancellery?
1
No, the socialists were the second largest party in Germany during the period Hitler was levered into power. From the anatomy of fascism:
1
They aren't different things.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
They weren't the major party in 1921, but they created the SA back then, kept them after the rehabilitation in 1925, and had them causing an incredible amount of fights after 1930.
They didn't get to 35% honestly, just like they didn't get to 50% honestly.
Hitler was supported by conservatives, yes: so we can't just blame it on rural people can we?
I am saying he never played by the rules, at any moment of his rise to power.
Pretending that populists and tyrants are the same thing is retarded.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
You understand that in some of the last free elections Weimar had, the Nazies legally won large shares of the vote, right?
Where do you keep getting this bullshit?
The nazi party got up to 33% of the vote legally, legitimately. You're repeating historically illiterate myths.
??
Rural conservatives were the majority of his support:
1
And I'm telling you he did, and providing credible academic sources supporting this.
Pretending that populists and Tyrants often aren't the same thing is retarded.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
Is it really legal when you party militia is intimidating people left and right, and using violence where threats don't work?
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
They won legit elections dude. This is a common myth people believe about fascists.
The same is true in Italy - the myth of the Italian coup. They were literally put in power, they didn't seize it.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
>"it's legal if you only threathen and beat the opposition"
The absolute state of modern education
1 djlewt 2018-06-27
Imagine losing an election to a retard because the right has been destroying and defunding the public education system for generations to the point where their voters are easily controlled by a 2 bit demagogue, and even with MOUNTAINS of evidence they still proudly claim it's all "fake news".
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
That doesn't explain why the public education system is often garbage even in places where there's total Democratic control at every level of governance.
1 djlewt 2018-06-27
Federal is the only relevant level with regards to the department of education, and if you google "why are all textbooks decided on by texas" you might start to understand why even schools in democrat areas are shit.
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-06-27
Imagine losing an election because YOU convinced the rural population that you don't give a shit about them.*
1 asdfman2000 2018-06-27
1 ItsSugar 2018-06-27
Imagine benefiting from living in the 1st world and still thinking socialism is the better economic model.
1 nysgreenandwhite 2018-06-27
The 1st world benefits from stealing the resources of everyone else for centuries. Any economic system will work when you start on easy mode.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
You mean follow the actual constitution vrs someone who doesn't think the constitution should be a thing like RBG?
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
They literally fucking stole a supreme court seat using absurd logic.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Sorry, only two leftwing lesbians per president allowed.
I'm imagining you jerking off to thinking about this.
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-06-27
Joe Biden's logic to be fair. Blame him for empowering the Turtle
1 UmmahSultan 2018-06-27
Maybe you should nominate a candidate who has the potential to win the general election (when running against a sleazy grifter with no qualifications).
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
More people voted for Clinton than Trump.
Clinton won more demographics than Donald Trump.
Quit confusing a broken system for a democracy.
1 UmmahSultan 2018-06-27
The electoral college was a known part of our electoral system at the time. Hillary could have campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, but she didn't because she hates the people in flyover country.
It really doesn't matter how many consolation prizes you point out about how Clinton got more of something than Trump, because in the end she isn't making choices about who goes in the Supreme Court.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Guess how I know you're politically illiterate?
1 UmmahSultan 2018-06-27
Go ahead and put forth your argument, assuming you're still capable of something other than your canned stock responses.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Because Clinton spent a lot of time in Florida, Ohio, and PA. If spending time in PA didn't win her PA, it wasn't going to win her Michigan and Wisconsin.
You're repeating talking points you heard from other places with no basis in reality, not supported by data.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-ground-game-didnt-cost-her-the-election/
You can read the rest yourself.
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
god i hope you're streaming when you keep yourself safe
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
REEEEEE HE USED FACTS TO PROVE MY DELUSIONS WRONG REEE!!
1 scrivenontheedge 2018-06-27
i haven't even paid attention to this conversation, I just think that would be some great footage
1 shallowm 2018-06-27
You were put down, in the future please refrain from discussing subjects you have no education in.
1 Hydrium 2018-06-27
No, more people in California voted for Hillary than Trump. California should not decide who is President.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
TIL a citizen in California is less of a citizen than somewhere else.
1 Hydrium 2018-06-27
You got it.
1 FirearmThrowaway 2018-06-27
Lol, that's some good fucking drama.
1 EyeseeFN 2018-06-27
Autism levels are off the charts. Hows it feel knowing the democratic party is literally done?
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Yes, just like the Republican party was literally done in 2008.
1 EyeseeFN 2018-06-27
The democrats demographics are about to get BTFO by Two words: HUGE WALL
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-06-27
Great! We can then ask people if they thought it was a good idea. Those that did we load into trebauchets and let Mexico to deal with their idiocy.
1 djlewt 2018-06-27
Brown people are massively outbreeding white people in America.
1 InevitableDiscussion 2018-06-27
You seriously think democrats would consider someone with your opinions on femoids one of them?
1 Hydrium 2018-06-27
Please continue to pour salt while I rub my nipples.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
Ans they still wouldn't be wrong lol.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
This, my friends, is what mental illness looks like.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
You think Hilary wouldn't fuck the court up in a way Berniebros don't like?
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
Embarrassing. You legitimately blame progressives for shit that conservatives are doing.
It’s not that I disagree with the specifics of your comment but ffs have some perspective. A tiny amount of Berniebots flipped votes. Literally all the problems in politics are coming directly from conservatives. If you’re going to point fingers at least point them in the right direction.
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Indifference is just as bad as what the conservatives are doing.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
Indifference enables them but conservatives are still the ones doing it
1 telandrias 2018-06-27
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
A Republican appointed justice being replaced by another Republican justice isn't really anything to write home about
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-27
Kennedy is going to look like bleeding heart lib compared to who replaces him. This is going from a soft 5-4 on most issues to a haaard 5-4 on everything.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
He didn't swing on that much. Anyway stuff like Roe is likely untouchable no matter who gets appointed. RBG being replaced would be much worse for the libs.
1 ry8919 2018-06-27
I'd be shocked if she makes it to 2020. She looks in poorer health than the crypt keeper.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Yeah the reeees if trump gets to replace her will be epic. Such strong right wing control of the SC would probably be disastrous tho
1 ry8919 2018-06-27
Yea at a certain point drama isn't fun anymore.
1 Ennui2778 2018-06-27
Speak for yourself.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-06-27
. . . Fuck yourself. More drama leads to better drama.
Look how November 2016 has been a god send to us all.
1 SlackBabo 2018-06-27
Thank god I’m white, straight, come from a rich family, and know how to use condoms. Time for everyone who isn’t to get fucked.
1 EagerJewBear 2018-06-27
I mean using condoms is pretty fucking easy.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
but soooooo lame
1 EagerJewBear 2018-06-27
Idk man, I like being STD free and still having fun without the side affect of babies.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
yes, please dont breed
1 EagerJewBear 2018-06-27
That's what the condoms are for bud ;)
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-27
Just get a vasectomy. Way easier.
1 EagerJewBear 2018-06-27
If only vasectomy's protected from STD's I'd be all over that.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
You'd be surprised apparently
1 DaveLeBarbarian 2018-06-27
No it's not the racist complexity of acquiring a condom is why STDs are so rampant in the homosexual community
1 EagerJewBear 2018-06-27
What are you even saying? Can you repeat it differently?
1 OdinSQL 2018-06-27
Just think in another few years slavery could be legal again.
1 Nutritionisawesome 2018-06-27
Literally what republicans want. The humans rights issues in China? A republican wet dream
1 SWIMsfriend 2018-06-27
We all saw the survey most of us are here
1 Nutritionisawesome 2018-06-27
well... when you look at the comments. thats is pretty obvious.
1 TripperDay 2018-06-27
Fuck. Yes. I'm poor, but I can only get so poor because eventually I can move in with my parents.
It's going to be open season on poor people.
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-06-27
God I hope so
1 doughboy011 2018-06-27
So why do you support killing poor people?
Get this on CNN NOW
1 Nutritionisawesome 2018-06-27
Right? then they would learn how to fucking vote so we can become the next France.
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-27
Cucking your brain this much lmao
1 thegroundedsirloin 2018-06-27
Condoms are for people with no pullout game.
1 anothga 2018-06-27
It is... if you're watching from Europe.
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2018-06-27
This is the time when we Europeans properly appreciate the American invention of popcorn.
1 anothga 2018-06-27
Like I said in my other comment, I was actually eating some popcorn while reading about this.
1 Chancehighfill1 2018-06-27
After awhile you want to get of Mr bones ride.
1 Rodomite 2018-06-27
Mr Funnybones is a great book.
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-06-27
dis nigga actually cares about gay rights 😂😂😂
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-06-27
lmao look at this fag
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-06-27
At least right wing judges tend to be more strict constructionists than left wing ones. I’d rather the Supreme Court do nothing than something. But then that’s how I feel about pretty much all branches of government.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
I hate this argument for two reasons , 1) the strict constructionists on the Supreme Court have no problem expanding executive power at the expense of the legislative branch way beyond what the founders intended and 2) the world is a vastly different place than it was in 1776. Women have the right to vote, black people are no longer considered 3/5TH’s subhuman and the industrial/technical revolution has transformed our country into something our fore-bearers couldn’t have imagined in their wildest dreams.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
It’s the Missouri compromise and it has to do with census counts of slaves in relation to electoral representation of states that have a high proportion of slaves amongst their population. So yes, it is exactly what I think it means.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
ummm, no
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-06-27
If you know what it means, you wouldn't have used the word "subhuman", since the compromise had zero to do with their rights and counting them as full citizens would have been worse for them.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
Well OK, let me put it this way. It doesn't mean what you implied.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
Only if you’re being a pedant. I used it to illustrate how different America is now versus than even though the Missouri compromise was passed 40 years after the writing of the constitution.
1 Thhueros 2018-06-27
Its not pedantic, you completely misrepresented the issue.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
How did I misrepresent the issue? My broader point is that during the time of our founders we were debating how we should count slaves in government censuses used as a metric to apportion representation. America is almost 180 degrees different now than it was back than.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
Exactly. You used it to illustrate that, but in reality it doesn't illustrate that.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
you are objectively wrong, dude. i dunno why you're trying to defend this position. many people think its that black people GOT a 3/5s vote, rather than it was 3/5s for CENSUS
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
I explained that in a later comment my guy. I know what the Missouri compromise is. Just forget about that example if you’d like because the border point about how different our America is from that of our founders is astronomical.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
That and they often have 0 problem eroding personal freedoms and privacy rights in the name of national security.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
So you would have rather have had slaves be counted in full for their slave masters?
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
this was a compromise between the north wanting slaves/coloreds to NOT have a vote at all, and the south wanting every slave to count as one vote.
its the 3/5ths compromise. BIGOT! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-27
What do you call 5 black people fuckin'?
A threesome.
1 Sarge_Ward 2018-06-27
Imagine unironically seeing the piece of toilet paper used to clean the shit of a bunch of retards from the 1700s as something worth being followed.
Barry Goldwater was a mistake.
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-06-27
I always knew you were retarded, but damn.
1 Sarge_Ward 2018-06-27
Cĺearly someone cant handle the freshest and hottest takes
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2018-06-27
Never let these low T males get you down sarge
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-27
Nah, the DEMs made a huge mistake in 2013 going to a simple majority...
1 RainbowSama 2018-06-27
Language, sarge
1 DaveLeBarbarian 2018-06-27
Cartoon profile picture and moderator of a cuck subreddit. Shocking.
1 Sarge_Ward 2018-06-27
The cuck sub is another modmail circlejerk, but ill give you the cartoon profile pic. My patheticness doesnt make constituitional conservativsm any less of a cancer though.
1 hobocactus 2018-06-27
No you see, the founding fathers were geniuses who set up a flawless system, it's just coincidence that almost everything about US governance is now a completely retarded garbage fire with no viable way to reform any of it
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-06-27
Ah, America......
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
Why don't we do what Jefferson did once and defund it so that they can't hold any sessions? That way they wouldn't be able to do anything at all! And conveniently they could leave no lasting precedent.
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-06-27
I would imagine their funding is protected now. There is so much useless shit that has protected funding I would hope the courts would.
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
Well what are they going to do? Ask the supreme court to step in?
1 preserved_fish 2018-06-27
As if the founding fathers agreed on anything. They were more argumentative than a room full of rabbis.
1 gnrlysrs 2018-06-27
Narrator: he will.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
That would be astounding. The current reeeees, while somewhat justified, are pretty impressive. I see lots of people blaming Obama for not pushing Garner harder, and if the Democrats actually put up effective opposition the drama that follows will be amazing. Both parties will have people climbing up the walls screaming. And thats just for Kennedy, if RGB croaks theyre going to start killing and eating each other.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Tbh Obama did drop the ball on the Supreme Court. He should've fought it harder, but he probably assumed HRC would win.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
I dont think he saw any viable way to force McConnells hand and decided to pick his battles. I mean, what could he do? The real failure was on the part of Senate Democrats who should have been so furious that they made the Senate floor look like a WWE battle royale with cheese.
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
He's the fucking POTUS. It's good fucking job to negotiate. If he couldn't do that then he's shit at his job.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
Interesting, what approach do you feel Obama should have taken with the Gardner nomination?
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
Useless abstract question. It's his job to figure out an approach that works, not mine. If he can't, then he's not a great president.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
So you feel its the job of the executive branch to force the legislative branch to do its bidding?
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
Did I say force? Did you see that? Tell me what word I used and we'll take it from there.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
If there was any other approach that would have gotten the Garner nomination past committee Id like to hear it.
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
Close. But I already answered that in my post above. I'm not repeating myself because you're dense.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
Awww, someone's crabby!
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
Dealing with stupid people does that
1 -absolutego- 2018-06-27
Obama was always bad at using the bully pulpit to coerce Congress into action. Behind his foreign policy it's my biggest issue with him.
In 2009 he was Black Jesus in terms of opinion among his party and the media yet he used none of that leverage to force fucks like Lieberman to keep in the public option for ACA.
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
Yeah. Obama was very good at his public image. But was always dodging the responsibilities of even meeting people he didn't like. I doubt Trump loves Schumer but he's been willing to talk to him. Bill Clinton met with opposition during Whitewater investigations.
1 ClaireBear1123 2018-06-27
Who cares about furious liberals? What are they going to do, call you racist?
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
Well, in the case of Senate Democrats I dont think they can even get up the nerve to do that much.
1 acct_118 2018-06-27
About all he could do is make it abundantly clear to the public that "this person is why you haven't had a full court bench for the longest period in US history", which wouldn't matter anyway because dismantling the government is their wet dream.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-27
Did you see some of the comments in /r/politics? People were openly calling for a revolt because a slightly right wing Justice is retiring.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
I actually saw a guy in /r/politics posting about how the overturn of Roe v Wade would lead to wide scale rioting. It was like, lol you dumb fuck this is America the only thing white people riot over is sports.
This is kind of a big deal since the one dude on the court who wasnt a straight up ideologue and at times could be swayed by a reasonable argument is going to be replaced by a partisan hack. Oh, and Roe v Wade could be going bye bye. Combine that with how things went down with the Garner nomination and I can understand the outrage. It is of course being expressed in a bat shit crazy manner by slacktivist jack asses who wont do a damned thing but talk a big game online.
With all that said Trump has to be overjoyed about how this changes his prospects for 2018 and 2020 elections. Judicial nominations are a huge deal for conservative voters and a big fight to replace Kennedy definitely could get them to the polls.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-27
Hot take: nothing major will change with gays and abortion, but the 2nd Amendment will be preserved more or less as is for the next few decades.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2018-06-27
If Trump were to appoint a justice who doesnt help overturn Roe v Wade it would be absolutely hilarious. I wouldnt count on it though.
1 preserved_fish 2018-06-27
Abortion will probably devolve to the states, such that there are 22-odd states where bans are upheld. But I doubt that the new majority would uphold a federal ban.
1 thegroundedsirloin 2018-06-27
You can't call someone slightly when they vote 89% of the time with them.
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-06-27
I hope he appoints Ann Coultair, for the drama.
1 preserved_fish 2018-06-27
She'd be the first equine-American on the Supreme Court.
1 libelecsBlackWolf 2018-06-27
Yeah, but imagine the memes when they reinstate slavery!
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
If Trump gets three in, I'm not sure any party has ever controlled so much of the supreme court with so little popular support before. Not a recipe for a stable society.
1 Terrance021 2018-06-27
Reeeeereeeee
1 OdinSQL 2018-06-27
She would need to make it to 2024. The trump train is unstoppable!
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-27
She snorts half a jar of protein powder every morning, she’ll be fine.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-27
He was about at the center of the court. I hope you are right on Roe, but with 5 strongly conservative judges I think just about everything is in play.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Why would the Republicans actually overturn Roe? It is a guaranteed turnout issue for them right now. Without abortion to rile them up some of the christcucks might remember that certain religious groups (like Catholics) are usually slightly economically left.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-27
Well the next judge will be pro-life as hell and then party can't really control which cases get to the Supreme Court. Republican state governments love putting up abortion restrictions and all it takes is a case on one of those running up the federal judiciary.
1 Minimum_T-Giraff 2018-06-27
Is it really about pro-life or pro-choice? Isn't their job simply to interpret the law rather than to decide it?
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
They’d need to repeal the 14th amendment to bypass the SCOTUS
1 Minimum_T-Giraff 2018-06-27
Then if they want to ban abortion correctly then do so. Instead of this wanking in the forest attitude.
1 acct_118 2018-06-27
Something tells me they're scared to do so directly through congress, or else they already would have.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
The ruling was based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Any law banning abortion would be deemed unconstitutional by that precedent. It would have to be overturned by the courts or an amendment to the constitution. Hence why the legislative approach has been to chip away at access by shutting down centers, adding extra hurdles, etc rather than outright bans.
1 acct_118 2018-06-27
Right; it would just get thrown away as soon as it was challenged. Now..
..they're on this step.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
I agree we’re going to see aggressive action on it in the courts as soon as the replacement is confirmed. Hell pro-life interests are probably already looking through potential opportunities
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
To save innocent lives being slaughtered.
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2018-06-27
No human is innocent
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
Then no one is free to be the judge either
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2018-06-27
I agree. Kill em all
1 istural 2018-06-27
Says you.
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2018-06-27
Only reason to have a judge is if you think some should be spared
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2018-06-27
"lives"
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
So they can be abused after they vote. Many years in the Catholic education system have successfully convinced me that most pro lifers are full of shit.
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
Is it better to break your arm or be shot in the face?
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Shot in the face. That way I wouldn't have to actually grow the balls to off myself.
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
You don't GROW balls to off yourself, silly.
First, you REMOVE the balls and tell everyone you are a lesbian.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
I wouldn't have to remove my non existant balls to be a lesbian 😘
1 v_is_one_person 2018-06-27
1 rhyme-ocerus 2018-06-27
You're not wrong, but once the justices are there, they're there. They're not gonna say "Well, I want conservatives to turn up to vote so I'm going to punt on this case." If there's a case that reaches their desk, they're either going to hear it or say why they won't. And simple party politics aren't going to dissuade them from that.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
cathbols becoming a visible political demographic would almost be a hilarious enough silver lining to make up for what a nightmare overturning roe would be
1 better_bot 2018-06-27
If the GOP keeps control of congress for this next census, they have zero reason to give a shit about turnout.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
I feel like if you have the chance to put a ridiculously pro-life justice on the SC and don't, that's just a recipe for getting primaried.
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2018-06-27
So her was ourguy then.
F
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
What makes you think roe will remain untouched when Kennedy was the 5th vote on all abortion related cases brought to the Supreme Court? Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito and Thomas are all firmly anti abortion.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Because without abortion the Republicans lose one of their biggest wedge issues.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
I don’t think the activists that bring cases before the courts really give af about republican electoral priorities
1 disgruntled_chode 2018-06-27
The question is whether the GOP party leaders can hold back the anti-abortion hardliners in their activist base. There will be essentially no excuse for them not to initiate a rollback of abortion rights after this justice is confirmed, assuming that everything goes as planned. I absolutely buy that the higher-ups want to keep abortion on the table in the future to rile up their voters, but I'm not sure they can manage that going forward given how far to the right the base has shifted (meaning, people who vote in primary elections).
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
This is an unironically great analysis. I don’t think there is any way the GOP leadership can dissuade the true believers from seeing this as a golden opportunity to overturn roe v wade.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Yeah but the party leaders are the ones who will pick the justice. They might pick someone who is very conservative but is on board with keeping the abortion debate alive. We'll have to wait and see who's on the short list.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
Iirc Daddy released a list of judges that he would appoint to the Supreme Court if he were elected and one of the criteria’s was their stance on choice.
1 Fnhatic 2018-06-27
I mean it's the same thing with guns. Republicans haven't even pretended to do anything pro-gun. They just want to keep the drama alive to get votes.
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
Banning abortion and then stopping child killers is always a duty
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
No the duty is to give people the right to expel parasites from your body.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-06-27
1 Hydrium 2018-06-27
It's not like those people are all of a sudden going to start voting Democrat, that just leads to abortion being legal again.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
People forget about issues pretty quickly. Plus many Christians lean fiscally liberal. If social conservatism seems more assured (such as with a young conservative SC justice holding the line on abortion) some might vote dem.
1 acct_118 2018-06-27
You act like they won't just move on to a new one and get their certified pastors to repeat it ad nauseum
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Few things get the people going like baby murder. Even letting the gays get married doesn't piss off the religious right as much.
1 acct_118 2018-06-27
On the plus side, we'll get to see the cryfest at /r/rightwinglgbt when that gets revoked.
1 Barton_Foley 2018-06-27
Punt. Simply turn Roe into a federalism issue, and allow each state to decide for themselves.
1 preserved_fish 2018-06-27
This is the most likely outcome.
1 Potatoe_away 2018-06-27
They might be firmly anti-abortion but it's gonna be hard to put a novel argument before the court that can pass the strict scrutiny test to take away someone's right to privacy and ban abortion again; and all of the justices (except kagan really) have shown that they are very much pro-individual rights in recent decisions. A conservative court decided roe initially with 3 justices appointed by nixon voting in favor.
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
Roe is untouchable under normal understanding.
Simply install an Ultra-Partisan to the seat and have them ignore anything but the will of the party.
Kennedy swung for fags and now his replacement can undo his error
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-27
As if it wont be 6-3 before long, how long do you think Ginsberg has?
1 Fnhatic 2018-06-27
Trump announces resignation, Pence nominates Trump, senate confirms, Trump haunts liberals for twenty more years and they're literally powerless to do shit about it.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-27
Lol @ Trump living twenty more years
1 puckshack 2018-06-27
Wow, as a Canadian it's fun to watch Feminazi/LIbtards lose their shit.
1 Neronoah 2018-06-27
The guy was a swing vote.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
He may be called the "swing vote" but he barely ever breaks from the pack.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Soooo a swing vote.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Voting with the conservatives 92% of the time is not a swing vote by any stretch of the imagination. And he votes party line on key stuff like abortion and religion, so he's not even a swing on the controversial stuff.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
68% conservative on ideological lines.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
Lol those math skills. It's 78.3% in the 2008-2009 term you absolute mong, but it varies by year. Other years, he is more party line.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
Since Sandra Day O'Connor retired, he's been the singular swing vote
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-27
I think the only major difference is going to be on abortion and gay rights. Kennedy was more of a lolibertarian than a social conservative and thus usually ruled in favor of individual freedoms.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-06-27
Guns as well. Kennedy has been reluctant to jump back on the train.
1 acct_118 2018-06-27
They like hentai now too?
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-27
They've always been pedos.
1 GreatTelephone 2018-06-27
Kennedy is 81, his replacement will be far younger. Look at Scalia, if Obama hadn't been a pussy the GOP would have been fucked.
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
Kennedy’s was the leftmost of the righties though. It’s not like Scalia again.
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
It will be nice telling our children what it was like to live in a free country.
Honestly I think we're going to be a single party dictatorship in 10 years at least. We're already headed that way. Voting is pointless. America is lost.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Let me help you return to your people --> r/politics
1 Hydrium 2018-06-27
Would help if the Democrats weren't so fantastically retarded and came back towards the middle from the absolutely far left. Right now the only sane party is the GOP.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-06-27
As if the Republican party hasn't gone just as far to the right. Both parties need to move more toward the center.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Where has the republican party gone more right?
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
You serious? Did you forget about the whole movement in 2010 to vote out moderate Republicans and replace them with farther-right counterparts? And now several of those replacements like Paul Ryan are hated and considered not conservative enough?
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
You seriously think Paul Ryan was a far right for 2010? What the fuck do you think far right is?
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
Tea Party dicksucking circa 2015:
http://theweek.com/articles/585385/speaker-paul-ryan-tea-partys-greatest-triumph
Tea Party dicksucking circa 2012:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tea-party-gets-man-ryan-vice-president-073903869.html
Actual numbers showing Paul Ryan as the most conservative VP nominee in recent memory and at least as conservative as Michelle Bachmann, circa 2012:
https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan
You either have the memory of a goldfish or you’re a dishonest conservatard arguing in bad faith. Probably both. Maybe you’re part of the 60% of your party that literally switches opinions when your president tells you to. Not an exaggeration, Republicans had a 60 point swing when Trump did the same thing Obama did compared to a 1-point swing for Democrats.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
So what is far right these days?
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
For starters Mike Pence clocks in as more conservative than Paul Ryan: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mike-pence-would-be-a-really-conservative-and-mostly-unknown-vp-pick/amp/
And check the table in the first section of this article to see rightward swing since 2010 quantified: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-we-seeing-the-start-of-a-liberal-tea-party/ (the rest of the article is only loosely related)
This data doesn’t go all the way to 2018 but the trend is clear: https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm
If you want names I’d say quite clearly administration members like Miller and Bolton are far right, though in a different way than Pence who is also far right. There’s obviously room to go further to the right but not much.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
😂😂😂
1 Kanarkly 2018-06-27
I can tell they’re sane because they lock children in cages!
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
This is objectively the opposite of true
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
can't tell if joking
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
watermark is some lefty chapo fag house tankie that somehow got stuck in dramanaut land and continues to stay
or a dedicated troll/larper for lulz
1 NormanImmanuel 2018-06-27
>empower the supreme court to basically take over legislative duties
>complain now that the other side gets to use it
American law is the worst and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
1 istural 2018-06-27
Reeeee checks and balances and a functioning government make us mad!
“Conservatives and liberals everywhere”
1 constantinople_2053 2018-06-27
"thats not what I wanted from democracy, reeeee"
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
The ever-present "reeeeeeee" just means the democracy is still somewhat functional. I'd start being concerned if the radical screechers went silent and society appeared to have a weird amount of ideological alignment.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-06-27
That sounds like a writing prompt.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
As a mostly center-left liberal, I can't help but observe that the Democrats have a long history of (1) stretching the law, and then (2) getting BTFO by conservatives when that very law-stretching is used against them.
In the 1960s, liberals were all about granting exemptions for people on the basis of religious beliefs (mostly having to do with Native Americans and hippy retards smoking drugz). Guess what basis the Hobby Lobby was decided on! And the gay wedding cake case!
Obama used executive orders to do a shitload of stuff that he couldn't get Congress to agree to (cough, DACA and DAPA), and now liberals REEEE when Trump disposes of them just as summarily.
Let's give the President near-plenary control over immigration! Whoops, Trump used it to ban Muslims!
Don't like hate speech? Well guess what, it's protected, unless it incites imminent unlawful action!
I could go on, but I don't want to give the Democrats further ideas about how to pwn themselves.
1 neutralvoter 2018-06-27
that's because the only smart people in the democratic party are children. Once they grow up a little and realize they are surrounded by idiots they shift to republican.
1 NormanImmanuel 2018-06-27
You don't seem so neutral.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Being part of any political party is a brainlet move.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
Like 80% of the country lives in areas dominated by one side, so you have to be in a party to vote in the real election, the primary
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Fair enough, I've never thought about it that way.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
If you haven’t thought of that then you don’t know nearly enough about politics to be smug about it
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
look at this fag who thinks he needs to know things
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
That isn't even true in 23 states, though
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
There are plenty of reasons to be an independent as well depending where you are. It’s just stupid to say that party membership is for brainlets. It’s a clear sign of someone who only pays attention for the memes and doesn’t actually have a valuable opinion
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
I mean, you're right, I just assume most Americans are only inches away from being literally retarded about politics.
I'm not sure the chief executive understands the government right now.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
You're not wrong, but you seem to forget this is a shitposting safe space.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-27
There are only 50 states. That description is valid for a lot of people.
1 acct_118 2018-06-27
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-06-27
Literally China
1 Fnhatic 2018-06-27
https://i.redd.it/8tlp28y3pym01.jpg
1 drvgyn4 2018-06-27
nope. green party buddy
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-06-27
Joe Biden's words from 1992 is why we have Gorsuch on the SC now. Top fucking kek
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Yup, great example, though this is more politicing than actually changing the black-letter law.
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-06-27
True but deliciously ironic nonetheless
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-27
No they're not, Democrats don't have a monopoly on obstruction and the Republicans would have done it anyway. If anything, Democrats are like Pepsi to Republicans' Coke
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-27
They do currently.
1 thereturnofjagger 2018-06-27
What does that mean?
1 GoGo_Ratchet 2018-06-27
So by that logic Bitch McConnell should follow his own advice.
1 PMMEYOURDINNERTABLE 2018-06-27
from GoGo_Ratchet sent 3 minutes ago
No how about, I come and kill you fucking family while you watch? I rather die than live with whites let alone be "equal".
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-06-27
?????????????
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2018-06-27
Didn't the EO stuff start under Bush and then continue and get expanded on Obama?
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
iirc the excessive EO stuff actually started under Reagan or arguably Carter (less effectively).
the excessive SURVEILLANCE stuff started under GWB.
1 -absolutego- 2018-06-27
Can't help but laugh that almost every time one compares presidential actions and mentions Carter that parenthetical aside is most likely relevant.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-27
Clinton has the highest number of EOs since Eisenhower. FDR was the fuckin' champ with 3,728. Source.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-06-27
Four terms will do that
1 preserved_fish 2018-06-27
Yeah, rate is the more important index here.
1 preserved_fish 2018-06-27
EOs started peaking with TR and stayed high through LBJ. Their rate declined with each following president (until Daddy).
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
Basically every single thing you said in there is completely wrong.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
I mean, I'm being hyperbolic and grossly simplifying the issues, but not really. Liberals were all about Sherbert v. Verner (yay religoius exemptions!) when it was decided in the '60s. The liberals were in the minority when Employment Division v. Smith (boo) rolled that shit back in the '80s (which involved use of peyote for religious reasons or some BS, I don't remember). The Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, which was all about YAY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS, was sponsored by Chuck Cucking Schumer in the 90s. Hobby Lobby was indeed decided on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause / RFRA. So.... My ultimate point is that Dems / liberals used to be all about YAY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS until the GOP and Evangelicals figured out they could use that shit for their own ends and now by some astonishing coincidence liberals are against the idea which only exists because they pushed for it in the first place.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
It's not a "simplification" to talk about a bipartisan bill that passed unanimously in the house, and with only 3 opposing votes in the senate, as "liberal" or "Democrat." That's just a lie, or charitably an error. It's not simpler than the truth, it's just falser.
In reality, the GOP was always more in favor of the RFRA type acts in the various states. Almost all of the states that passed state versions of RFRA are red states; CA and NY did not. The Democrat minority filibustered the Missouri state version. The bills were backed by conservative Christian groups from the very beginning.
It is completely insane (or, less charitably, dishonest) to suggest that the applicability to Christianity was in any way lost on anyone.
Democrats were basically forced to support the bill by its massive popularity. In total three members of congress did not support it. Were the Democrats or Republicans?
1 Kanarkly 2018-06-27
Yeah but you’re using facts. He needs his feelings to push his narrative.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Okay, let me make this simpler for you. In the 1960s, the liberals were in favor of religious exemptions. Look who wrote the majority opinion in Scherbert. Look at what side the ACLU submitted an amicus brief for. Nowadays, conservatives are all about religious exemptions. Look at Hobby Lobby and liberal REEEEing about it. You pointing out that only red states have state RFRAs only furthers this point. That is my point. I choose initially to make that point in a hyperbolic manner because I am shitposting on /r/drama and not writing a treatise on the development of Free Enercise Clause jurisprudence. Make sense?
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
Hyperbole usually means exaggerating not lying
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
That's what you said before. The problem isn't that what you're saying is complex. The problem is the inaccuracies.
Who cares who wrote the majority opinion? This is just like you pointing out who sponsored the RFRA. It is just a deceptive little trick. It doesn't justify these general assertions about conservatives and liberals. It is just non sequitur.
The opinion was 7-2. The two dissenting judges were White (appointed by Kennedy) and Harlan (appointed by Eisenhower). It wasn't a partisan divide.
A case that had to do with a Christian refusing to work on the sabbath, by the way.
So you're claiming that back in the 1960s, conservatives were against the religious exemption in Sherbert??
Dude, read what I said. You are just being totally inaccurate.
Your facts aren't correct, that's the issue here.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
And Hobby Lobby had entirely to do with the applicability of religious exemptions to corporations. The partisan divide had nothing to do with their religion being evangelical Christianity and everything to do with their religious freedom involving freedom from Democrat worker protection type regulations (i.e. employee rights).
Democrats aren't big on the concept of individual rights applying to corporations, hence the extremely similar divide over Citizen's United.
The actual conflicts were over these questions:
Is spending money a form of speech?
Is denying healthcare benefits a form of religion?
Is baking cakes a form of speech or religion?
Democrats fairly consistently deny that exemptions to economic regulations (regulations that they support and Republicans oppose, usually) can constitute speech or religion.
Your portrayal of the divide is so so wrong.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Bruh Hobby Lobby came out the way it did because RFRA exists, which only exists because Sherbert v. Verner exists, which only exists because Justice Brennan and the ACLU wanted it to. More generally, if you ask your standard liberal on the street what they think about granting religious exemptions to complying with laws of general applicability they're going to be against it. That was not so in the 1960s.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
Why do you think so? Remember, the RFRA passed in the early 1990s with massive support from both conservatives and liberals. Why do you think anything changed since then?
It was not so in the 1990s either, was it?
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Yes liberals TOTALLY support getting out of things like healthcare requirements and antidiscrimination laws because of religion right dipshit?
Further, I'm not really sure what you're getting at re: RFRA. Again, liberals used to support religious exemptions. Now they do not because conservatives like them. It seems you're contesting this while also going LIBERALS SUPPORTED RFRA TOO, which makes no sense.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
You never answered the question.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
What's your point at this juncture? In the 1960s, liberals liked religious exemptions and conservatives didn't. Now, the opposite is true. That is really the only claim I'm making. Obviously the path and history of how they arrived at this point is messy and complicated. Obviously I am not inclined to recapitulate the whole thing in a reddit comment.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Because liberals hate Hobby Lobby? And liberal states don't have state RFRAs (which uses the same standard as the YAY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS Sherbert decision)? And liberals don't like the the gay wedding shop thing? And liberals in general shudder when you mention "religious liberty" to them? I could go on. Why do you think they don't, and why are you being such a cunt about it?
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
I don't see any evidence that anything changed. (You didn't actually provide any.)
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Oh look, an extremely well-sourced article describing exactly the ideological trend I've been discussing.. What's it like to be so insistent despite being so wrong?
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
What a surprise, you have nothing to say now.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
I didn't read the content of your link, I will maybe get back to it though.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
So can I officially declare victory now or what?
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
Still didn't read it.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
>bitch about me providing support
>I provide support
>never read or address the support I provided because it proves you wrong
Arguing with women in a nutshell
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
It's too long so I didn't read it. Why don't you just tell me what the actual evidence within it is?
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Well, for starters the title is "Many liberals’ (sensible) retreat from the old Justice Brennan/ACLU position on religious exemptions". I'm sure you can guess the gist of it.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
Why don't you just tell me what the actual evidence within it is?
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
1960s: Liberals love religious exemptions
Current year: Liberals hate religious exemptions
[thinking emoji]
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
Why do you keep replying here?
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
>Why don't you provide me with evidence?
[Provides evidence]
>Why don't you just tell me what the actual evidence is because I can't read more than 500 words in one sitting
[Summarizes article]
>Why don't you provide evidence?
Are you functionally retarded? Why the aversion to reading the article that you yourself begged for? I'll summarize it because I have to do that for you apparently.
However, now liberals don't like them. Excerpt from article:
Now do you see how you're wrong and I'm right, or do I have to summarize more of the article for you?
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
What's the actual evidence from the article? Don't "summarize" it, tell me what the evidence is. Do you understand the concept of evidence?
What I'm looking for is some kind of opinion poll, for example.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Lul you've lost the debate because I've linked to a well-sourced article that discusses exactly the thing I've been discussing and you have to go all BUT WHAT EVEN IS EVIDENCE and have to pretend like you can't read a 2000-word article yourself to weasel out of the fact you lost. Absolutely pathetic. The actual evidence btw is that liberal groups lobbied for the whole religious exemptions thing in the 1960s and now oppose that very same concept now.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
What are its sources then?
I could read it myself. I've concluded that I don't have to, because it probably doesn't actually have anything to support your case. Otherwise you'd have shown it by now.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
Supreme Court precedent? Laws? Legislative history of those laws? General knowledge of the current political climate? The professed ideological positions of special interest groups like the ACLU?
>I've concluded that I don't have to, because it probably doesn't actually have anything to support your case.
Lul sure
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
The ACLU didn't reverse its position on religious exemptions though. I checked.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
I never claimed the ACLU reversed its position, though? Just that liberals, writ large, have. Way to conflate things while continuing to ignore outside sources that prove you wrong. You argue like a creationist.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
What groups? Name one. You only named the ACLU so far.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
How am I to PRUUV IT when you're going to ignore any online sources I provide, even when I summarize them for you and exert the pertinent passages? This is infantile at this point.
1 MelissaClick 2018-06-27
You claim the article is "well sourced" just list the sources. You claimed the "groups" reversed position just name the groups. I'm telling you exactly what to do.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
Please do, its great for drama coin and my political views/agenda!
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
Democrats don’t even have a long history of being opposed to conservatives though
1 ZMowlcher 2018-06-27
Well Obama had to deal with a shit congress while Trump couldn't shit done even when he had party dominance.
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
ORLY
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
For like 3/4 of his presidency yes.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
Yes. This is not controversial.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
The wedding cake wasn’t decided based on religious liberty. It was a narrow procedural ruling that basically said the baker was treated unfairly by the state of Colorado. Not to mention that those situations share only the shallowest of similarities.
Executive orders are just a power that presidents have. Did it occur to you that people are upset by the content of Trump’s policies, rather than the simple fact that he’s allowed to set policies? I know it’s tiring, but try to exercise the one brain cell you have.
I’m not even sure what you’re on about with the immigration and hate speech shit. The Muslim ban was blocked left and right by courts until it got to a stacked SCOTUS. Obama had no equivalent.
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-27
Go on then, describe the reasons Trumps policies are bad.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
-He doesn’t believe climate change is real, meaning we won’t take any meaningful action on it
-Tariffs on our allies only isolate us on the world stage and trade wars harm everyone involved
-Restricting legal immigration harms the economy as there is a smaller talent pool and fewer consumers spending money
-Barring trans people from the military who are otherwise fit to serve strictly limits the talent pool of the military
-Reversing the ACA with no replacement (had he managed to do that) leaves millions in the same position they were pre-Obama: uninsured or vulnerable to insurance companies dropping them for bullshit reasons. Defunding the ACA simply causes premiums to rise which is exactly what caused anti-ACA sentiment in the first place
-Ending DACA literally just kicks people who are for all intents and purposes American out of the country for no reason. It removes contributing members of society from the US for no gain whatsoever.
I could go on but I doubt you even read this far without your eyes glazing over
t. someone who cares about policy not personality
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
Honestly what did you expect the response to be? Like did you think that people only hate Trump because it’s popular to do? Ffs I think his supporters are braindead morons but at least I understand that they have motivations and reasons for their beliefs.
1 Aivias 2018-06-27
I dont understand why there is even any confrontation around immigration. What on Earth can lead a normal human being to believe that an open-door policy is good or that vetting your applicants is bad? Its literally the refuge of overly empathetic people who really shouldnt be deciding what to have to eat that night never mind the immigration policies of the most powerful nation on Earth.
Simple solutions, all illegals out and barred re-entry for a decade, all applicants vetted for skills and labour needs and if they dont meet the requirements they dont get in, ever. How can anyone disagree with this?
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/openborders
You’re right, there really shouldn’t be any debate about immigration. It’s unequivocally good for everyone involved.
BTW no party currently supports an open-door policy. But they should.
I absolutely love when people claim have “simple solutions” to persistent problems. You really think nobody’s thought of that before? There are some obvious issues without even getting into why immigration is good:
-Most illegal immigration comes from people who entered legally but overstayed their visas, so your vetting practically does nothing to halt illegal immigration
-Do you have any idea how much it would cost to round up all illegals, put them through deportation proceedings, and send them off? You remind me of the morons who support the death penalty. It costs way more than the alternative, the only reason you support it is your own bloodthirstiness, stop pretending otherwise.
-What if someone applies, gets rejected, then gains skills that would allow them to contribute? Permanent rejection might be the dumbest proposal I’ve ever heard.
-if you couldn’t keep illegals out the first time, what makes you think you’ll be able to bar then from reentering?
I also avoided appealing to empathy because I know you people are devoid of it anyway. It’s nice when empathetic policies are also rational policies. Turns out it happens constantly.
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2018-06-27
Trannies are net dead weight in the military, our labor supply is too high as it is, and no, DACA recipients aren't Americans.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
Objectively false, immigrants also increase demand, and if they walk talk speak think and work like an American they’re American in my book.
1 Diddu_Sumfin 2018-06-27
The Founding Fathers specified that only a "free white person" of "good character" could become a naturalized citizen. Do you think you know more about what makes an American than they did?
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-27
Caring about beaners and Chinese caused climate this much
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-06-27
Climate change is an issue that I will forever vote against the Repubs for. Fucking greedy retards.
I approve of most of the other policies though. Ending DACA creates less oil-guzzling Amerifats. No ACA means more dead Amerifats. IDK about the trans thing, since I believe that should be decided by somebody who actually has to deal with them. Tariffs are going to be shit, yep, but a silver lining is that they fuck the CCCP.
1 Feanorfanclub 2018-06-27
You guys seriously forget just how few trannies there actually are, they're just in the news a lot because it goes hand in hand with mental illness.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-06-27
“Strictly limit” doesn’t mean “decrease by a lot.” It means in this context “decreases without causing an increase in other respects”.
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-27
Worse. They REEEE that somehow it's unconstitutional to use his own executive orders to remove Obama's executive orders.
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
wait how though
didn’t they just... start doing it again
1 BoboOrbani55 2018-06-27
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
18 year old boomer?
we invoking time travel here? or are they just a boomer at heart?
1 191132 2018-06-27
Las test 4chang meme
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-27
Shareblue gonna Shareblue.
1 SlackBabo 2018-06-27
It will be though they’ve been ramping up the anti-abortion propaganda lately. Within 2 years it’ll be gone.
1 UnexpectedLizard 2018-06-27
You must be a politics newfag. I've paid close attention since I was a kid in the 90s, and if anything they're talking less about abortion now than before.
1 SlackBabo 2018-06-27
Lmaoing @ your life if you actually wasted your childhood being forced to watch whatever politics your parents wanting to indoctrinate you into.
1 UnexpectedLizard 2018-06-27
On the contrary, I was always an autistic loser, so I watched it because I enjoyed it.
1 siempreloco31 2018-06-27
1 UmbellateSaxhorn 2018-06-27
Good emails in both accounts
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-27
2nd Amendment might be safe for 40 years. I can age with my pew pews.
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
The salt flavors the popcorn
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
It's also hilarious that RBG is most likely going to die in a few years, giving Trump a 3rd pick.
The hubris to not retire while Obongo was in office will screw the left for decades.
1 Kaladin_MemeBlessed 2018-06-27
MDEmmigrant please leave, we don't suffer your kind here.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-06-27
The fact that you couldn't tell I used it ironically says a lot more about you than me.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
sure you did buddy
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
ITT - Democrat drama posters trying their best to not reeeeee along with the lolcows.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
We GRUMPFT and DRUMPF post here all the time, retard. how is that different really? oh, because you hate trump? cool story!
1 Kaladin_MemeBlessed 2018-06-27
Um no I am a radical centrist. It’s just nobody uses obongo at all save for autistic spergs
1 RainbowSama 2018-06-27
Ur an obongo lol gottem
1 piper06w 2018-06-27
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
a: don't say, "We" like anyone here is your friend. There is no, "we"... just because you filled out a subreddit census poll doesn't mean you've finally made a friend.
B: people IRONICALLY drumpfpost here. that's the difference
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
what?
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
Whatever Ob0ngeauxtard
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
wooooooooooooooooooooooooah you combined my username with the obongo thing, oh shit it's a shame you're probably against SNL's use of cultural marxism, you could be their head writer.
unironically suckstart a shotgun please and thank yo
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
why would I do it that way, when the simplest method is just
TRIGGERED
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
I like saddertadder. You're kind of a dick and you're not funny, though.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
I'm on this sub like 3 hours a day most weekdays and I've never encountered either of you at all aka good job hitting your alts
1 Isabuea 2018-06-27
imagine being proud of this
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
I'm not proud of anything that happens here
1 Thulean-Dragon 2018-06-27
Drumpfposting here is also ironic, though.
1 cheagz 2018-06-27
he doesn't post there you're just unironically upset
obongo obongo hahahahaha nerd
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
RBG will die on the same day as Paul McCartney: February 28, 2039
1 sticky3004 2018-06-27
But Paul died in 1966.
1 _MAGAMEMNON_ 2018-06-27
Now for diabetes to catch up to Sotomayor. Everyone send her cookies.
1 TheButtholeOfBravery 2018-06-27
This is EXTREMELY good for DramaCoin.
1 Blue9390 2018-06-27
Broke: Thanks BernieBros!
Woke: Thanks Hillbots!
1 respaaaaaj 2018-06-27
Its pretty hilarious, both of those groups hate this decision and their first reaction is to shit on each other.
1 dat_nyukka 2018-06-27
¡Winning!
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
I didn't notice at first but omg they're eating each other.
1 RilesUpRedditors 2018-06-27
D I V I D E
AND
C O N Q U E R
1 thegroundedsirloin 2018-06-27
Well Hillary did rig the primary's even if Bernie could of ran as a third party or something. At the very least fight the Democrats harder.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Now RBG can have a stroke and we can watch /r/politics burn.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
If RBG passes I hope r/politics goes full Scalia conspiracy. Sudden health crisis in a really fucking old person with a stressful and sedentary job? _Likely story, Donald "Hitler" Putin._
1 OdinSQL 2018-06-27
She looks like she had a stroke about 15 years ago.
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-27
They’ve been Weekend at Bernie’s-ing her for nigh on a decade.
1 thesoundabout 2018-06-27
She stays for 2 years unless she gets real sick. If Trump gets a second term I can't sew here holding out another 4 years.
1 EyeseeFN 2018-06-27
2 scoops, 2 terms, 2 scotus
1 lolyougotreallymad 2018-06-27
2 genders 2 testicles 2% milk 2 womps
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
WOMP
WOMP
1 micronenis 2018-06-27
how triple quadruple to the fourth power dog dare you?
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
HOW DARE YOU!
HOW DARE YOU!
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-06-27
2 china
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-06-27
More like 5 lol.
1 thisisnotpaulyshore 2018-06-27
On one hand, I'd like to get married someday. On the other, it makes r/politics sperg out like none other.
Worth it.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
you post in /r/drama, i would let that dream go now
1 thisisnotpaulyshore 2018-06-27
2tru
1 CollaWars 2018-06-27
People who think Roe v. Wade will be repealed have no idea how the SC or law works. But it's r/politics soo..
1 rockidol 2018-06-27
Scotus can overturn other scotus rulings. It’s happened before.
1 Verlieren_ist_Unser 2018-06-27
But it is rather rare. SCOTUS dislikes going back to correct itself, since it opens up more of their past decisions for challenges.
1 houinator 2018-06-27
It's not that rare. SCOTUS has overturned like 2 precedents this week alone.
1 Barton_Foley 2018-06-27
The SCOTUS overturns itself without overturning itself.
1 t3hryan 2018-06-27
I feel like Roe v Wade is kind of big and to go back on it would be a huge situation. I don't think it will be overturned, but I also don't know shit. I post on /r/drama
1 glassFractals 2018-06-27
It’s funny that you say this now. The court overturned Korematsu v US this week while ruling on Trump v. Hawaii. That’s not just an overturned Supreme Court case, it’s an overturned landmark case.
https://nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/korematsu-supreme-court-ruling.html
1 Verlieren_ist_Unser 2018-06-27
I’m just assuming Kennedy decided to get his kicks in on basically the last couple cases he’s rule on before dipping out.
🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-27
People think SCOTUS not be like it is. But it do.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
Just let the children pretend the world's ending. It's very amusing to watch
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
Probably not, although the legal argument for it is really shaky.
An actual right to privacy amendment would probably be something right and left could agree on (that would inevitably backfire on the Democrats lol)
1 drvgyn4 2018-06-27
it doesn't matter. they just have to start restricting abortion and suddenly the country's full of
niggersdisenfranchised peoples again1 MLK-Junior 2018-06-27
He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
We're fucked.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
What "we"?
1 shallowm 2018-06-27
ca
1 UserUnknown2 2018-06-27
I'll put my state deep in your butthole.
..nah that didn't work
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
/u/shallowm was just awarded a free Rush Limbaugh LIBERTY Edition subscription for 1 year!
Learn more about conserving traditional American values the MAIN STREAM MEDIA won't tell you!
1 OdinSQL 2018-06-27
Trannies, pedophiles and illegal immigrants.
1 hexane360 2018-06-27
>actually this stupid
1 AggressionSsb 2018-06-27
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
can't tell if serious
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
could you seriouspost somewhere else please, we're memeing here
1 leSnowdenFace 2018-06-27
Well, it would be wrong to select a judge in an election year, right, Republicans? Such hypocrites.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
I mean, McConnell had the fig leaf of it being a presidential election year.
It was still fucked up for sure, but Dems let it happen because they figured Hilldog would get to nominate a liberal firebrand.
1 leSnowdenFace 2018-06-27
McConnell is a liar like all Republicans. No one let it happen, that turtle son of a bitch did it all on his own. He is literally why basic human rights are going to be stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
I mean, that happens to black people all the time and you don't see us complaining about it.
...wait...
you dont care about us complaining about it.
1 LightUmbra 2018-06-27
This thread is retarded.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
the politics thread makes me do a takeaway at reddit as a whole, and start going, fuck it, back to old forums I used to frequent and maybe the old IRC channels I frequented in 2000s
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
based on your fervent agendaposting, I think that's a good idea
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
You mean like speech, religion, association, press, consciousness, ability to petition and to bear arms right?
1 jubbergun 2018-06-27
You should be happy you have corporate puppets like McConnell in the republican leadership. If he wasn't in the back pocket of the US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interests we'd probably have an immigration bill and funding for border security.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-06-27
I'm not sure what the Dems could do though. If they had retained control of the Senate in 2014, they probably could've replaced Scalia with Sri Srinivasan and the court would've been 5-4 in favor of Dems (he's no Ginsburg or Sotomayor, but probably on par with Breyer or Kagan). As it was, the Republicans could block the appointment and Schumer could only complain.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
What do Republicans do when they've been outmaneuvered politically and are in the minority?
Rile up the idiots about it. Freak out about it every day all day.
If liberals are so smart, why do they lose so goddamn always?
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-06-27
Isn't that what Dems did? I'm still hearing about Garland/Gorsuch and the nuclear option.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
I was referring to win McConnell decided not to give Garland a confirmation Hearing in the first place
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-06-27
I was referring to that too. Dems couldn't do anything about that aside from "freak out about it every day all day," which they did in droves.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
Democrats were not freaking out every day during the Obama administration
They barely showed up to vote against donald trump.
Nothing compared to the austism of say, the tea party or freedom caucus.
1 cutman 2018-06-27
Republicans simply know how to do more with their autism sperg-outs. Democrats have been sperging every day during trump and it remains to be seen if they can get anything done.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
The right can unite under a big tent to get shit done.
Meanwhile, Hilldogs and BernieBros are eating each other alive over in the megathread.
1 cutman 2018-06-27
Don't forget the people saying that republicans are going to become nazis. They're the best font of drama for me.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
oh hey, its an idiot who doesn't know its called the Biden rule and applies to the general election not the midterm.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-27
Trump is running again? Are you from the future?
1 Kilo_G_looked_up 2018-06-27
He's geniunely been campaigning since he became president. The 2020 election has been going on for almost two years now.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-27
I love this exchange:
Something tells me that the irony here is completely lost on /u/hello_cerise ...
1 reptilia987 2018-06-27
lol of course /u/hello_cerise is a mayo too
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
only white dudes say white dude
everyone else says white boy
1 im-a-koala 2018-06-27
What about white boi
1 doughboy011 2018-06-27
/u/hello_cerise
Stop ignoring us, this is rude you white male.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-27
It's like 9/11 never happened, but Iraq and Afghanistan somehow still did.
Make of that what you will.
1 istural 2018-06-27
A wonderful sentiment and deep comment.
1 istural 2018-06-27
A wonderful sentiment and deep comment.
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
explain
1 Nulono 2018-06-27
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
1 Magehunter_Skassi 2018-06-27
just need ginsburg to retire.......
FROM LIFE...
>:)
1 GreatEmuWarVeteran 2018-06-27
JUDEN RAUS
1 Kat_B0T 2018-06-27
surely this is the end of drunpf?
1 Fnhatic 2018-06-27
He should resign, give Pence the presidency, get appointed and confirmed to the open seat, and haunt liberals in a position they have zero power to do anything about.
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
TFW the Blue wave won't take the senate and Ginsberg and Breyer go to hell next year
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
I think if the Blue wave fails miserably, like how clinton lost 2016, then there will be a civil revolution. Sparked by antifa cunts that havent studied any history about geopolitics or real fascism, and just know that OMG ORANGE CHEETO BENITO REEE
anyways, catch me on the flipside as I start prepping for Civil War 2.0, started by memes and twitter streams
1 Tzcar 2018-06-27
Go outside more, please.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-27
the whole post was ironic, ya dingus.
1 Tzcar 2018-06-27
That doesn't make a difference, your mother is worried about you.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
Sorry mayo, food is cheap and plentiful. There will be no revolution.
1 ferretleader 2018-06-27
Feels good man.
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-27
(X) Doubt
1 Fnhatic 2018-06-27
They're all gonna try to rush to buy guns for their revolution.
Then they're gonna be like 'oh right we banned the gun stores in the area' and since they have nothing but longboards and fixie bicycles to get around with they can't make the 130 mile journey to the next nearest gun store.
Then they're gonna Uber and then be like 'oh right we supported 1,000% taxes on guns' and they aren't going to be able to afford one.
Then they're gonna be like 'oh right we banned any weaponry that could be useful in a revolution, all we have are .38 revolvers'.
Then they're gonna look on Armslist and be like 'oh right we supported background checks on private sales, and almost all of us have drug convictions or were committed after we self-harmed every day since Trump won'.
Then they're gonna try to get ammo and be like 'oh right we banned lead ammo so just two boxes costs $75 and we spent all our money on chai pumpkin spice lattes and avocado toast on the way over.'
Then their militia is going to consist entirely of four guys who found grandpa's old .22 break-action rifle rusting in their attics, the ones they've been using to justify starting every sentence about gun control with 'as a gun owner...'
And then promptly get droned by the government, as they keep reminding gun owners what would happen to them.
1 solowng 2018-06-27
It wouldn't even come to that. Depending on the locale either the riot police will do another Kent State or, worse, step aside in a Rodney King type of scenario and leave it to the local tankies and three percenters to duke it out. Most right-wing militias are a joke but much less so than their tankie equivalents and much more bloodthirsty than real cops.
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2018-06-27
If the blue wave fails and Mueller cant find anything/Trump won't get impeached I'm bailing ship to the UK. I have dual citizenship and enough money.
1 Letterbocks 2018-06-27
Please no
1 [deleted] 2018-06-27
[removed]
1 [deleted] 2018-06-27
[removed]
1 LSU_Coonass 2018-06-27
Lmao the reeeeeeing is coming from inside the thread.
1 Tiepilot789 2018-06-27
This is not good, but excellent for bitcoin.
1 Tarrock 2018-06-27
r/politics is on day 2 of their meltdown
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
Try Year 2.
1 MayoIsSpicy 2018-06-27
They've been melting down since the California Democratic Primary
1 anothga 2018-06-27
I'm eating popcorn while reading this and dear God, all this salt is going to kill me.
1 OdinSQL 2018-06-27
America is about to get a little bit greater!
1 ReBurnInator 2018-06-27
I hope Trump nominates Judge Judy.
1 egalroc 2018-06-27
Who's that one judge lady from Fox News? The one who'd catch a trolley to Hell and collude with the devil to get dirt on Hillary? Betcha she gets picked.
1 hyledog 2018-06-27
You joke but Jeannine Pirro is actually being considered
1 egalroc 2018-06-27
Wouldn't that just be surreal? I mean more than it already is?
1 hyledog 2018-06-27
I’m of the opinion the world did end in 2012 and we are stuck in the DMT fever dream of the slowly dying collective human consciousness
1 cimarafa 2018-06-27
She's pro-choice and supports affirmative action so probably not.
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-27
The people are real, the cases are real.
1 MrSmallANDLoud 2018-06-27
Democrats ... GROW A BACKBONE, AND BLOCK THE NOMINATION LIKE THE REPUBLICANS DID TO OBAMA
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Democrats fucked that up when they went nuclear on a nomination. Sorry, your side already fucked it for themselves.
1 tritter211 2018-06-27
The point is both sides fucked that up with dems on the lesser side.
dems did that for lower courts because reps kept blocking every nominee dems proposed just for the hell of it.
Reps did that for supreme court because dems retaliated for the, again, historically unheard level of act done rep senate leader by not filling supreme court for 1 year.
It seems to me democrats are the ones who even attempt at some kind of governance here.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Like how they passed the health care bill which plagues us currently?
Bitch please.
1 Nulono 2018-06-27
Historically unheard of? Seats on the Supreme Court have gone vacant for longer than that.
1 Alexlincoln2 2018-06-27
You mean with a majority in the Senate? During a general election using the Biden rule?
1 Nulono 2018-06-27
Block the nomination how, exactly?
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
Everybody dance (doo doo doo) Clap your hands, clap your hands!
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
How can we survive having traditional American values?
If we cease POZzing ourselves for even a moment, America is doomed!
Reeee.
1 69TEKASHI6IX9INE69 2018-06-27
Bwahaha someone just posted a suicide thread hotline on the /r/politics megathread.
1 PresidentialSophist 2018-06-27
Oh no, /r/Drama is being brigaded by serious posters.
1 Antigonus1i 2018-06-27
This shit is a circus. Having political leaders appoint supreme court judges is insane. We're honestly not that far away from Supreme court judges getting assassinated for political gain. All it takes is one crazy pro-life bible thumper to think that if he slipped RBG some sleeping pills and Roe v Wade is no more.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Why do you people always project like this?
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-27
I'm not sure, but I'm going to stay away from baseball fields for a while.
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
1 jubbergun 2018-06-27
No, it's not. It's one of the few checks on the judiciary that the other two branches can actually exercise. I'll grant that the system made more sense when our Senate's members were appointed by state governments and everything wasn't turned into a political sideshow. Of course, there wasn't much need for a political sideshow because back then the Supreme Court wasn't held up as the final arbiter of any and all law and public policy the way it is now.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-27
Every day we are closer to this reality
1 CholentPot 2018-06-27
BLUUUUUU WAAAAAAAAYYYVVVEEEEEE
1 libelecsBlackWolf 2018-06-27
Has there never been a conservative majority in the SCOTUS since Roe v. Wade? Even with two Reagan administrations and three Bush administrations?
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
I mean the current makeup is 5 Republican appointed justices. Just because one isn't quite as much of a batshit insane right wing ideologue as the others, doesn't make it not conservative.
1 solowng 2018-06-27
There has been, but always 5-4 at best and Reagan's appointments of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were relatively centrist, the latter the result of Joe Biden stonewalling the nomination of hard-conservative Robert Bork (probably the closest to an actual threat to Roe) in 1987. One of H.W. Bush's justices, David Souter (arguably chosen in part because of the Bork fiasco), also turned out to be an outright liberal.
The tension here is that had Hillary Clinton won (presuming the Democrats would've taken the senate in this scenario) she'd have been able to replace Scalia (due to McConnel's gamble) with someone more liberal than Obama's suggestion of Merrick Garland, Ginsburg and Breyer (Bill Clinton's justices, both old and Ginsburg's health is at least as bad as Scalia's was during the Obama administration), and possibly Kennedy and/or Thomas, both of whom are rather old, making for the most liberal court since Rehnquist.
Trump's victory inverts all that, especially if the GOP can keep the senate and/or Trump wins a second term. At the least replacing Kennedy with a more conservative candidate makes for a stronger 5-4 and provides insurance against Roberts waffling toward the center (as he did in the Obamacare case). If Trump and the GOP win again in 2018/2020, they'll likely replace Justice Thomas and at least one of Breyer and Ginsburg, making for a 6-3 (if Breyer or Ginsburg) or 7-2 (if Breyer and Ginsburg) conservative majority, i.e. the most conservative court since Herbert Hoover was in office. Trump seems willing to defer to the GOP in terms of his nomination choices and the GOP is very good at using court nominations to turn out their base for the midterms (so expect Justice Thomas to be on the schedule for 2020).
I wouldn't necessarily expect the abortion or gay marriage cases to be at risk of being overturned but the likelihood of any seriously liberal economic policy getting past the courts would be greatly reduced, and there'd the possibility of further regulatory rollback through the court. Also, any serious gun control measures would likely go from being highly difficult to outright impossible, again with there being the possibility of judicial rollback of existing regulations, particularly in blue states.
1 Hemingwavy 2018-06-27
I can't wait for this justice to tell us the exact circumstances under which it's legal to fire an employee for refusing to die.
1 freet0 2018-06-27
I'm legitimately sad to lose the only Justice who bothered to think about issues instead of just voting with their bloc. Radical centrist justice best justice. Goodbye :(
1 Theresmyshoe 2018-06-27
Already know this is good drama 👌👌👌
1 AggressionSsb 2018-06-27
On comments alone this is the 5th highest post i think
1 Barton_Foley 2018-06-27
I would really like to see Lucy Koh or Tani Cantil-Sakauye nominated. Won't happen, but I would love to see the party of identity politics explain why they cannot confirm the first female Asian justice to the SCOTUS.
1 Orsonius 2018-06-27
for non americlaps what does this mean? who is this dude and why is there so much uproar?
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-06-27
Meanwhile, on ChapoTrapHouse
1 Elestra_ 2018-06-27
😅