Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[A_B]

Who led the league in assists? Check and mate.

But seriously I think if they fill this seat before election and Biden wins they will pack the court. Actually, I think even if trump wins and Reps keep senate THEY pack the court.

[travzilla]

I feel like I saw a tweet last night saying the government still has another must-pass spending bill due before the election. If true, couldn't the Demecrats force a full shutdown? That's gotta be some kind of leverage right, even if a senate confirmation is a seperate thing?

[mister d]

What are YOU doing, homie? How much money have you given to swing state Senate PACs? How much time have you spent on the phone? How many emails or letters have to sent to swingy Congresspeople in your state? What are you doing except fucking complaining? Steve goes and canvasses and calls for people. I send money and call bank for my local state senate race. What the fuck are you doing, Homes? I’m doing this stuff even as I need to save money to leave. Go fuck yourself with your know it all crocodile tears while you sit on the sideline and kick your feet in the dirt like a baby. Fuck off.

Homie dogg bro, I’m doing exactly what normal people do and stating that I expect/demand already elected officials act on behalf of the people they’re supposed to represent and complaining when they don’t. If you’d feel better if I pretend I flushed $100 down the toilet on a no-chance challenger to McConnell who I have little politically in common with, I can do that for you.

[psunate77]

Couldn’t even sleep last night. Thinking how bad another 4 years plus of him would be, but it’s looking like it is happening. Whatever the result is for Biden he will contest. His people will investigate. His SCOTUS will decide.

[Steve of phpBB]

You can’t rely on an Intercept article by Ryan Grim for reliable information about Biden - or any other Dem.

The Thomas nomination was 29 years ago. How can that be a more reliable indicator than the ACA passage?

Anyway, weren’t you 4 or 5 at the time? You can’t possibly remember it, or the climate in the country or the Senate, especially about Supreme Court nominations. And if you’re relying on ideologues like Grim, you’re not going to get the full context by reading about it.

Ginsburg herself was approved 96-3 two years after Thomas. That
should give a big clue that things were massively different in the early 1990s, and you can’t really look at how people responded to situations in the 1990s as a reliable indicator for what they’d do in today’s climate.

(Even in the 1990s, Biden voted for Clinton’s big tax increase. Another time when the Ds pushes a big law through over unanimous R opposition. The final vote was 50-50. So Biden was “the deciding vote” and could have accommodated the Republicans if it was important to him.)

[mister d]

Steve, there’s a huge difference between “votes against his own party to side with the Republicans” (not sure anyone implied this) and “will seek to actively harm or destroy the Republican party and his friends in it” (which is the mindset necessary).

[brian]

I’ve never been more jealous of a person than I am of brian right now. This country is over.

Before you say that, you should see what kind of a disaster area my house is right now while we're trying to get it ready to sell. I have anxiety on top of anxiety on top of anxiety.

[Steve of phpBB]

Steve, there’s a huge difference between “votes against his own party to side with the Republicans” (not sure anyone implied this) and “will seek to actively harm or destroy the Republican party and his friends in it” (which is the mindset necessary).

Agreed. But I think that if the Rs put a Justice on the bench, and Biden wins, and there’s a majority in the House and Senate in support of expanding the Court, expansion would fall into the first category.

[Johnnie]

One small thing to note: Mark Kelly's election is technically a "special election," so he'll get sworn in immediately if he wins.

If the confirmation extends past 3 November, we'd only need 3 Republican senators to defect to stop the confirmation.

[degenerasian]

Lots of good discussion here. Republicans just know how to play the game.

A lot of Monday morning quarterbacking today that Ginsberg should have retired in 09 or 13. Like Kennedy did in 2018.

I've talked many times about the 4 Conservatives pillars. The Republicans fully understand that if they don't like gay people loving each other in public, they don't like that, they have to have the court. Republicans fully understand that if they don't like brown people coming to America for freedom, they have to have Supreme Court. Whatever cultural war issue they want, whatever strain of bigotry, or xenophobia they want, whatever economic policy they want, they understand they have to have the Supreme Court. Democratic voters, base liberal voters, do not understand that because the party leadership has not made that one to one connection for them, and they haven't been making that one to one connection for them for the past 30 years.

[Joe K]

Steve, there’s a huge difference between “votes against his own party to side with the Republicans” (not sure anyone implied this) and “will seek to actively harm or destroy the Republican party and his friends in it” (which is the mindset necessary).

Spot on. Court packing would be the biggest political fight in decades, full stop. It’s miles beyond the ACA or a tax bill. Again, it simply cannot be overstated how crucial of an issue the Courts are to the GOP because of the abortion issue. I live less than a mile from a Planned Parenthood that is the only abortion clinic in Missouri. Until the pandemic, there were anti-abortion protesters there every single day, rain or shine, snow or 100 degree heatwave. We all might disagree with their value and their views, but I have no doubt that they feel incredibly strongly about them. No issue will mobilize the religious right and the activist core of the GOP like court expansion.

[Steve of phpBB]

Republicans just know how to play the game.

Yeah. Folks on the right vote for the Republican even when they disagree on some things. This lets them win elections and gain majorities.

[Moreta]

I don’t know where most of you live, but if you have republican senators, now is the time to call, write, fax, and email.

I am despondent that this country let it come to this. My husband, trying to bring me comfort, suggested that perhaps Trump would wait on a nomination until after the election, to dangle the nomination as a way of luring reluctant Trump voters back to the fold. I hold little hope that it will go this way. The only hope is pressuring moderate R senators to hold to the precedent set with Garland and delay hearings until the election (or the inauguration in the case of Biden’s victory).

I’m getting drunk tonight.

[mister d]

Yeah. Folks on the right vote for the Republican even when they disagree on some things. This lets them win elections and gain majorities.

That's totally it, just a loyalty game. Never about gerrymandering or disenfranchisement or obstructionism, they just have a better base.

[Steve of phpBB]

Yeah. Folks on the right vote for the Republican even when they disagree on some things. This lets them win elections and gain majorities.

That's totally it, just a loyalty game. Never about gerrymandering or disenfranchisement or obstructionism, they just have a better base.

Well, yes! For two reasons.

First, you can’t gerrymander a Senate race or Presidential race.

Second, folks on the left withhold their vote for purity reasons even though they know gerrymandering and voter suppression are happening.

[mister d]

It’s fucking amazing that you still do the whole “the left is withholding their vote” and never consider “the Dems didn’t appeal to the left”. If this is the party you want, fine, but no one has an obligation to maintain that without compromise for you.

[degenerasian]

I don’t know where most of you live, but if you have republican senators, now is the time to call, write, fax, and email.

I am despondent that this country let it come to this. My husband, trying to bring me comfort, suggested that perhaps Trump would wait on a nomination until after the election, to dangle the nomination as a way of luring reluctant Trump voters back to the fold. I hold little hope that it will go this way. The only hope is pressuring moderate R senators to hold to the precedent set with Garland and delay hearings until the election (or the inauguration in the case of Biden’s victory).

I’m getting drunk tonight.

He could also dangle an female nomination to lure all voters and get Collins and Murkowski back on side.

[mister d]

It’s fucking amazing that you still do the whole “the left is withholding their vote” and never consider “the Dems didn’t appeal to the left”. If this is the party you want, fine, but no one has an obligation to maintain that without compromise for you.

I guess to spell out my question, if 2024 were a Romney-esque Republican vs someone like Omar or Pressley campaigning on M4A, pre-Reagan tax brackets and a wealth tax, are you still locked in?

[Steve of phpBB]

It’s fucking amazing that you still do the whole “the left is withholding their vote” and never consider “the Dems didn’t appeal to the left”. If this is the party you want, fine, but no one has an obligation to maintain that without compromise for you.

“Sorry about your deportation and loss of gay marriage and loss of voting rights and insurance denial for pre-existing conditions and Covid death and being shot by cops with impunity and death from climate change fueled wildfire and death from unsafe food, but the Dems just didn’t appeal to me.”

Edit: Trump didn’t appeal to many many folks on the right. But they still voted for him, and now they have complete control over the Supreme Court. (Which was exactly my point.)

[Steve of phpBB]

It’s fucking amazing that you still do the whole “the left is withholding their vote” and never consider “the Dems didn’t appeal to the left”. If this is the party you want, fine, but no one has an obligation to maintain that without compromise for you.

I guess to spell out my question, if 2024 were a Romney-esque Republican vs someone like Omar or Pressley campaigning on M4A, pre-Reagan tax brackets and a wealth tax, are you still locked in?

Hell Fucking Yes.

[tennbengal]

As soon as I heard the news last night I was overcome with anxiety. I am already not in a good emotional state, and have been considering insulating myself from news period for the next several months. Think I might have to try and do that.

Right there with you. Ahead of you in fact.

[mister d]

“Sorry about your deportation and loss of gay marriage and loss of voting rights and insurance denial for pre-existing conditions and Covid death and being shot by cops with impunity and death from climate change fueled wildfire and death from unsafe food, but the Dems just didn’t appeal to me.”

This board is like 90% middle-upper class white dudes; we can and will settle for Biden because we face no personal losses from his presidency. To think that’s the universal case, that there isn’t a massive class of people actively harmed by the continuation of our current political system, is oblivious at best. For people whose situations are dire now and will only get worse as time progresses under either admin, their only leverage is having the gall to demand something in return for their vote and prove they actually mean it.

[Steve of phpBB]

“Sorry about your deportation and loss of gay marriage and loss of voting rights and insurance denial for pre-existing conditions and Covid death and being shot by cops with impunity and death from climate change fueled wildfire and death from unsafe food, but the Dems just didn’t appeal to me.”

This board is like 90% middle-upper class white dudes; we can and will settle for Biden because we face no personal losses from his presidency. To think that’s the universal case, that there isn’t a massive class of people actively harmed by the continuation of our current political system, is oblivious at best. For people whose situations are dire now and will only get worse as time progresses under either admin, their only leverage is having the gall to demand something in return for their vote and prove they actually mean it.

The funny thing is that I completely agree with your theory but disagree with the application, at least as it applies to the general election for the presidency.

It seems to me that it’s mostly the well-off and privileged who are willing to let the Rs win on the ground that the Ds haven’t done enough to appeal to them personally. The disadvantaged don’t have the luxury of such arrogance. Winning a national election requires appealing to a *majority*. The left is not a majority. To make the election contingent on appealing to a narrow subset of the left is a privileged white person move.

Also, that reasoning appears to assume that letting Republicans win is somehow better for the disadvantaged. That seems nuts to me. Just look around.

I guess the argument is that if things get bad enough, a left majority will eventually emerge. But I don’t see any evidence of that, in either the short or long term. Twenty years ago, the “Green” Party torpedoed the greenest presidential candidate we’d ever had. And that gave us Bush, who was terrible. Now it’s two decades later. I don’t see how letting Bush beat Gore improved the lives of the downtrodden. (Or helped the environment.)

To me, the left’s approach is like tanking in football. Maybe eventually it’ll pay off. But maybe not. And either way letting the Rs have power causes real suffering to millions of real people.

[mister d]

Do you really think “well-off privileged leftists” are really a material demo among the 40%(?) of eligible voters who don’t show up?

[Joe K]

Do you really think “well-off privileged leftists” are really a material demo among the 40%(?) of eligible voters who don’t show up?

Yeah; that’s been pretty conclusively disproven by data. Non-voters are on average less affluent, less educated and less white than voters. In fact, I posted a link to an article with the below data several months ago but Steve just dismissed it, without addressing the Pew survey data, because the article was authored by Glenn Greenwald who he dislikes.

[Steve of phpBB]

I don’t dismiss Greenwald because I dislike him. I dismiss him because he’s demonstrated for years that he’s fundamentally dishonest and is motivated primarily by opposition to establishment Democrats.

Anyway, think we’re talking about different groups of people. Yes there are millions of people who don’t vote. They are mostly disengaged or busy. Or they don’t think it matters. So of course those folks will be on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

But that’s not who we’ve been talking about. We’ve been talking about the folks who oppose what the Rs want to do, *claim* to care about the marginalized, but refuse to vote for Ds because the Ds haven’t done enough to appeal to them personally. That’s a sign of privilege.

But if you want to bring those masses of nonvoters into it, are you claiming that letting Rs beat Ds helps them? Motivates them to vote? Did that work in 2000? Or 2016?

[mister d]

I’m saying the Republicans are a lost cause so the only chance those non-voters have is the Dems being forced to value citizens over corporations.

[Joe K]

I’m saying the Republicans are a lost cause so the only chance those non-voters have is the Dems being forced to value citizens over corporations.

Yeah, there seems to be a significant overlap between policies that would please the small number of privileged leftists that enrage Steve so much and the much larger group of low-income non-voters who are disengaged or don’t think it matters. Maybe a more populist economic platform would backfire, but I’d be more than willing to take that chance. This is why I think it’s awesome that AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush (my House district!), etc. will be in the next Congress. It’s great to have Dem elected officials who actually know what it’s like to be working class.

[sancarlos]

This may be the most depressed I’ve ever been in my life over a woman in whom I had no sexual interest.

[A_B]

This may be the most depressed I’ve ever been in my life over a woman in whom I had no sexual interest.

Either your mom is still alive or...

[sancarlos]

This may be the most depressed I’ve ever been in my life over a woman in whom I had no sexual interest.

Either your mom is still alive or...

My Mum is just fine, buddy!

[sancarlos]

Too soon?

[Brontoburglar]

I’m saying the Republicans are a lost cause so the only chance those non-voters have is the Dems being forced to value citizens over corporations.

Yeah, there seems to be a significant overlap between policies that would please the small number of privileged leftists that enrage Steve so much and the much larger group of low-income non-voters who are disengaged or don’t think it matters. Maybe a more populist economic platform would backfire, but I’d be more than willing to take that chance. This is why I think it’s awesome that AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush (my House district!), etc. will be in the next Congress. It’s great to have Dem elected officials who actually know what it’s like to be working class.

I think this post is the best summation of how most everyone in this thread is playing blackjack with the same goal of winning. it's just that some people are willing to hit on 17 while others are standing pat.

[Steve of phpBB]

I’m saying the Republicans are a lost cause so the only chance those non-voters have is the Dems being forced to value citizens over corporations.

Yeah, there seems to be a significant overlap between policies that would please the small number of privileged leftists that enrage Steve so much and the much larger group of low-income non-voters who are disengaged or don’t think it matters. Maybe a more populist economic platform would backfire, but I’dbe more than willing to take that chance. This is why I think it’s awesome that AOC, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush (my House district!), etc. will be in the next Congress. It’s great to have Dem elected officials who actually know what it’s like to be working class.

I think that’s the part that should be emphasized, and it sums the whole thing up.

How many lives of *other people* are *you* willing to sacrifice on the chance that a country that is 75% non-liberal will approve a radically liberal economic platform?

[mister d]

1. We’ve already said, over and over and over, we’re still voting Biden and this is an exercise in explaining to you why other people won’t.

2. It’s not “radically liberal” except through a US-only lens.

[Steve of phpBB]

1. We’ve already said, over and over and over, we’re still voting Biden and this is an exercise in explaining to you why other people won’t.

2. It’s not “radically liberal” except through a US-only lens.

1. Understood. FWIW, I’m not talking about you or Joe or anyone on this board personally, but those other folks.

2. Perhaps, but we live in the US only.

[Joe K]

1. We’ve already said, over and over and over, we’re still voting Biden and this is an exercise in explaining to you why other people won’t.

2. It’s not “radically liberal” except through a US-only lens.

An implicit premise of Steve’s “sacrificing lives” question seems to be that the US under Democratic rule is a good place to live that can only be spoiled by GOP misrule. (See Hillary’s “America is Already Great” slogan as an example of this line of thinking.) And that is largely true for affluent people — and not just the “1%” that Sanders focuses his rhetorical energy on. I don’t know exactly where the line is but if you’re in the top-25% or so of the income/wealth distribution this is a great place to live, especially under Dems.

But even under Democratic Party governance, this is a pretty terrible country for people who are poor, working class or otherwise down on their luck, when compared to much of Europe, Canada, etc. GOP stubbornness is part of this but even in wealthy states with single party Dem rule (like NY and California) the social safety net lags far behind acceptable standards. It may not be as bad as what the GOP wants but it’s still woeful when compared to other countries.

So non-voters for the most part aren’t privileged people “sacrificing lives of others” out of stubbornness, but rather people who understandably believe that they’ll live lives of hardship regardless of what happens in elections. And I would argue that the “Blue No Matter Who” voices are showing a different breed of privilege by failing to acknowledge this.

[mister d]

[A_B]

That was a plot point in a show. New Amsterdam?

[Johnnie]