Portarossa t1_iynhdcj wrote
If you could pinpoint a moment in political history that led to this being treated as a serious threat to democracy rather than a fringe theory that no one really ever thought would come to pass, what would it be?
Where's the branch in the timeline that got us here?
TheBrennanCenter OP t1_iynogad wrote
The ISLT emerged as a serious threat to democracy once a few Justices of the Supreme Court began issuing writings suggesting their openness to, at the very least, considering it.
During the 2020 elections, litigants seeking to keep then-President Trump in office deployed the ISLT in cases designed to change which votes counted (for example, trying to invalidate certain mailed ballots). The Court rejected all those challenges. That could have been the end of the road for the ISLT. But a few Justices in concurrences, dissents, etc. suggested there might be something there.
Other litigants around the country picked up the signal. For example, in this case, the gerrymanderers have been trying to use the ISLT to defend their gerrymanders.
Because of this dynamic, it’s very important that a majority of the Court send a strong message in this case that the ISLT isn’t valid.
– Tom
Portarossa t1_iynquj5 wrote
Respectfully, that really just sort of kicks the can down the road. (That's probably on me; I could have worded it better.) What is it that made these Justices suddenly so open to promoting this idea in their opinions? Have the Justices changed their views on it (or at least found it suddenly more 'acceptable' to start discussing it openly), or was it baked into the nomination of people like Alito, Thomas and Scalia (and now the new batch of Trump's nominated Justices)?
I guess what I'm really asking is how far back this goes. It's easy to view the modern GOP as just throwing any old shit at the wall to see what sticks, as long as it keeps them in power -- and I definitely think there's a strong case to be made for that -- but it also kind of feels like it's been seeded for a long time, and we're now seeing the direct result of that because the Trump administration fluked/scammed their way into three SCOTUS seats in four years. (I guess the parallel would be with the overturning of of Roe v. Wade, where it seemed to fall apart very quickly but there's also evidence that the GOP have been setting up their little chess pieces for a long time through things like the Federalist Society.)
When we're looking for a cause for this -- and with the understanding that situations are nuanced and events are very rarely caused by only one thing -- is it a 'modern' (post-2016) issue, or do we need to be looking a lot further back into history to get the context for this?
Patrickk_Batmann t1_iyr3ue2 wrote
I suggest doing some research on “The Federalist Society”. That’s where the theory originated and that’s where all the conservative judges originate. There’s has been a concerted effort for 40+ years by the republicans and the federalist society to stack the courts with their judges. Remember, every single conservative judge said that Roe was “settled law” before they were appointed. They have no problems lying about their views as long as it gets them to power.
bobans30 t1_iyqvj3t wrote
Why would Trump try to win another election, he's worse than Hitler right? The mail in ballots are a sure way to fraud the election. Every voter should be supposed to vote in person, excluding the ones that are disabled and cannot move. Are the democrats really that desperate to keep power?
TheGazelle t1_iysfaqr wrote
What about people who aren't going to be in their electoral district when voting is done?
They just don't get a vote because they were on a business trip or visiting family?
Daripuff t1_iynm2hi wrote
Mitch McConnell cementing obstructionism of Democratic leadership (and then blaming the Dems for failing to get anything done) as the GOP core strategy.
[deleted] t1_iynnouo wrote
[removed]
Portarossa t1_iynote2 wrote
Are there legitimate criticisms to be made of the Democrats? Yes, absolutely. Is 'they do the same thing lol' in any way a meaningful comment that's built on anything except edgy grumbling, contrarianism, ignorance or some magical cocktail of the three? Not even close.
At least start paying attention if you want to be taken seriously.
UltraVires33 t1_iynog7r wrote
This is absolutely not true. Both parties have their problems but at least the Democrats are trying to legislate and get things done, while the GOP is just interested in breaking everything and blaming the Democrats for it. Disagree with the policy goals or substance of the bills all you like, but it's pretty clear at this point that only one of the major parties is actually interested in governing.
SuperSocrates t1_iyoylov wrote
Getting things done like forcing rail workers to cancel their strike right
Aneuren t1_iype8rr wrote
Biden and the Democrats completely fucked this up - but what of the Republicans that would have essentially given them nothing at all? I can't pretend to understand the Democrat strategy here - I don't understand why they didn't force more favorable conditions on the railways if they have the power to do so in this limited situation.
But if they did nothing - then they really got nothing done right? And even if they did nothing (thus paving the way for the strike), can you imagine the attacks by Republicans when the country started losing billions of dollars caused by lost transportation?
I won't say they did right, but they got something done, and more than what the opposition was going to do. Which makes zero sense when you think of how much of their rich backers would lose of the strike did happen.
Zalachenko t1_iyqoev5 wrote
The counter to any right-wing attack on worker solidarity is "why would railroad bosses grind transportation to a halt rather than give their workers sick leave?", not "Biden moves in mysterious ways."
Aneuren t1_iyrmt2k wrote
You aren't wrong, it just hasn't worked super well in the past. Tell me if I am wrong - they would need a full majority in the Senate. If everything was included in one bill, it would have met the same fate as the second bill with sick days. This isn't one of the kinds that can be passed with a simple majority?
So then the bill fails to pass and everyone piles it on the Democrats. Whenever that's happened in the past, like Obama era debt ceiling bullshit, it didn't really turn out how logical people would have expected it should have. Republicans then won't budge because they'd rather destroy America then give hard-working people their due, then don't have any actual platform so they're immune to criticism anyway, and Democrats are accused of failing to govern. Meanwhile the economic fallout is supposedly catastrophic.
In a functioning democracy, Democrats should be able to full court press this and grind the fucking rich overlords into the ground. But they can barely get a little aggressive before popular opinion shifts against them, because for some reason a huge percent of our population expects them to be honorable and act like adults, the Republicans are absolutely never held to task for their bullshit stunts, and then the Democrats get slammed (while also doing their own damn best go crush the progressive wing, thanks JJ). And the dumbass outrage voters sit out the election cycle and then we have an overwhelmingly illegitimate supreme court that fucks us even harder for an entire generation.
I personally would love nothing more than to see the Democrats rake the railway over the fucking coals and give the workers everything they asked for and then 100% more that they didn't even have the hope to imagine much less request.
Edit: the same fate, not the same "'date."
Zalachenko t1_iyrpyr6 wrote
I mean, any bill could be one of the ones that passes with a simple majority if Democrats would bother to get rid of the filibuster with the majority they do have, which they could if they wanted to enforce any kind of party discipline in favor of the average American - who supports progressive things like single payer healthcare, marijuana legalization, and abortion rights regardless of party affiliation. There's no excuse for a party to run on flipping both houses, do it, and then spend two years conceding on every issue that was portrayed as contingent on such a victory.
It's true - we don't live in a functioning democracy - but it's not because one or another ruling-class party is prevented from carrying out their stated agenda. It's because they're both complicit in acting against popular will.
Aneuren t1_iyrw3rt wrote
Still no disagreement. My only response to this point is that people use this particular observation mainly against Democrats as well. "Both parties suck so why should I bother." True enough except one of those parties will do the bare minimum to keep things roughly how they are while the other one will literally turn back all progress made in the last 200+ years. I'll still stick up for the Democrats then, while urging people for more, because we have a better chance to actually progress one day from where we are now rather than from a degrading society caused by Republican control.
Voting is for sure important but it's the bare minimum to get the bare minimum results. Without massive change in driving progressive policies at a very wide grass-roots level we will eventually be lost. Bernie was one person who pushed the Democrats wildly left compared to where they were, but he isn't enough and we won't just stumble into two or three more of him by luck alone.
Zalachenko t1_iys1f7u wrote
Certainly - not that the right to vote shouldn't be vigorously defended, it should, but like any other right it was won in the streets first. I don't fault anyone for choosing to disengage, but we're only powerful organized and fighting. Half the work of getting that done is restoring hope in the doing of it.
Aneuren t1_iys3k6y wrote
Rock on.
Trinition t1_iytqk7x wrote
What was the GOP for the railroad labor disagreement?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments