1162
AOC launches effort to impeach Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
1162 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19233 readers
2292 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Moderate Dems don't want to actually fix the SC.
They love complaining about it. And saying that's why they can't fix anything.
But they refuse to even bring up that we can fix it by impeaching the problematic ones or just expanding the court.
People say "if we do it, trump will do it" which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?
So when Biden and the party said 50 was enough to do stuff...
Are you saying they were lying, or that you know more about it than Biden and his admin and they were just ignorant?
And did you really just call AOC a moderate?
I'm just not logically following what you're saying. Like, I understand what you're trying to say. It's just not logically sound.
Quick edit:
Also, 50 was enough for Kamala to cast the tiebreaking vote to expand domestic fracking...
Why is 50 enough to do what republicans want. But not enough to do what Dems want?
Are you going to double down and say that's what Dem voters want? More fracking?
50 is enough for republicans to get what they want, just not enough for Dem voters to get what they want
If you just forget that Biden and the party said 50 was enough when we knew two of them was Manchin and Sinema.
So again:
And for this:
We're just ignoring the two years we also had the House?
Is any of this getting thru to you? Because honestly you're not the only one here about to write off any chances of you understanding this...
Math isn’t your strong point is it? 51 - 2 != 50. Go pick up your crayons and practice your numbers and stop with your bullshit spewing you always seem to be doing.
The Democrats have not controlled both the house and senate for more than a few months in the last decade+. When they did, they got the ACA passed. Manchin and Sinema are DINOs at best.
Because Mancin and Sinema will vote together with republicans but not dems
So when Biden and the party said 50 was enough to pass the party platform...
That was a __________
And Kamala voted to expand domestic fracking because_____
Yeah, he said 50 votes was. And with Mancin and Sinema voting elsewhere, that means they have how many votes?
Let's work together!
If you have 50 apples, and 2 of them end up being full of worms and rotten, how many apples do you have to eat?
That's right! 48 apples!
Good job!
So ..
During the GA runoffs when Biden told us 50 senators with a D by their name was enough to pass party platform:
That was a ______
Because Manchin was already in office, everyone knew what he was and what he would do. Except the Dem party leaders.
Just not sure why you won't answer if they were lying or ignorant of what the Senators in their party was like.
Keep in mind, Biden got the nomination because he said he was a "senate whisperer" and never expected to actually get 50/50 till he won the election.
Either Biden didn't know what he was talking about. Or he lied.
You seem to be saying Biden was ignorant of who Manchin is
Acting like a campaigning politician in a tight race could say "I don't know if I'll be able to actually get these things done, sorry guys. Please vote for me anyway though because I'm being realistic instead of optimistic" and still win.
He thought he could put enough pressure on Manchin. He was wrong, but it's still better that Democrats won the runoff and that he tried to get 50 senators in line like he said he would. He failed. He didn't lie. No one knew what was going to happen. It's politics.
If you think every politician on the campaign trail is given you the most realistic version of what they will accomplish, I have a bridge to sell you buddy.
This is just a terrible take. Is your point that Joe Biden is a secret Republican and doesn't support the policies he pushes for? Or that Kamala will somehow be more moderate than Biden?
If so, fucking lol dude.
The Inflation Reduction Act passed only because of that extra senator. So it was true. 50 is good enough to do stuff. 50 is not good enough to do everything, only as progressive as the least progressive "democract" (which at the time were Manchin and Sinema
Party leadership said it was enough for the Dem party platform...
That's why the GA runoffs got an insane amount of donations from the entire country, hell I gave.
It's not that I'm arguing against you. I'm pointing out voters were lied to and that causes turnout depression for a significant amount of time, and for that reason alone the party needs to stop lying.
It may help short term, but it hurts more long term
The person you're replying to basically explains this - the two "democratic" senators (Manchin/Sinema) were not reliable votes so specifically on more rightwing issues you could usually get Manchin to be #50. Sinema is batshit as far as I'm concerned so it was pretty hard to ever get her to vote with the Dems.
Something I've explained multiple times...
What I could use help understanding is why you dropped your comment chain to comment here asking questions I've already attempted to explain.
Seems like something people do when they're just looking to argue and not trying to learn anything.
If that's what's going on. It's an easy fix on my end
I'm sorry I don't follow - what do you mean by dropped my comment chain?
Don't worry about it
This is not happening in the Senate, it is happening in the House. Additionally, anything that would face a filibuster requires 60 votes to pass, not 51.
Details are important.
So annoying that Democrats propose something, the Republican majority opposes and entirely quashes it, and the "take" is that we should blame Democrats for not getting it done.
See also, filibuster and gerrymandering.
Republicans absolutely will do something if it benefits them. We can safely assume current filibuster rules benefit them otherwise they would have removed them themselves already. Dems do actually stand on tradition (which is why they haven't eliminated the filibuster even though it would greatly benefit them), often to their own detriment and I would say it's far more likely that they are actully concerned about norms (I would say overly so) when they're hesitant to do something like impeach justices.
Really?
Everyone else always say it's just Manchin and maybe Sinema that won't, and that Biden and the rest want to...
To be honest I think you're right and there's a hell of a lot more moderates that would refuse even if we had 60 D senators, and Schumer refusing to hold a vote is to block for them so people don't replace them in their next primary.
That's pretty much the whole point of my original comment...
It's true that Manchin and Sinema are a pain and kill a lot of things that otherwise would get through majority votes. I mean I'm no expert or anything but I sure don't get the sense that ending the filibuster would be something that would get the necessary unanimous support from the rest of the sitting Dems. It just seems like a lot of them believe it's there for a good reason.
Yup. It keeps them from being expected to keep their campaign promises.
"Moderate" Dems have been trying to appear palatable to an increasingly unhinged conservative voter for decades now, so they won't push for anything too controversial
Should be noted how many conservative Democrats are genuinely happy to have a SCOTUS do the dirty work of deregulation, dismantling of the administrative state, and legalization of bribery at all levels of government.
The Republican strategy, to date, has been to rely on liberal apathy and "norms" that favor their reactionary policies in order to ratchet their way into a judicial permanent majority. But for policies that this ratchet effect won't work fast enough - funding of Trump's Wall, illegal surveillance under Bush, police harassment of minority groups in Texas and Florida, police harassment of women's health clinics, police harassment of GOTV efforts by liberals - the Republicans simply do as thou wilt and leave it to the Democrats to pound sand in response.
To the idea of court packing, I do have to ask... why are we afraid of more SCOTUS judges? What happens if the court swelled from nine to nineteen over the course of a couple of D/R/D/R administrations? Is that actually a problem? Will court rules be meaningfully worse as a result. I've yet to hear how a larger court with a more diffuse power base would be bad for the American public.