Almost. It’s the “you will be fucked in ten years and there is not much we can do about it, but thanks for notifying your insurance company so we can rack up the prices accordingly.”
when you’re conditioned to respond to literally everything you don’t like with “fake news,” then it’s easy to believe whatever you’re told to believe, evidence or not
welcome to america.
where reality is made up and the facts don’t matter
It is shocking, scary, how republicans just eat these lies up without even a smidge of consideration.
I was recently reminded that it’s even worse than I thought.
I took my son in to have bloodwork done recently. The woman who did it was a wizard with the needle. 3 different hospital teams had recently struggled to find the vein, she all but tossed it into his arm and got it on the very first poke.
So we were chatting about that, and somehow I brought up some difficulties we’ve had with his supplemental insurance recently (he has special needs) to which she said, “that’s because they are cancelling it for everyone else to be sure they can give it to the illegals.”
The conversation cooled down a little after that.
(I’m fairly sure my son’s issue with it is a paperwork problem, and likely one caused by me. I’m 100% sure it’s not that they cancelled it to give it to “the illegals.”)
Every time someone pretends the shit-ass healthcare in the US is Democrats’ or immigrants’ fault it makes my blood boil. Republicans have done every single thing they can to keep healthcare fucked up and you can be sure they will keep doing so. But sure, it’s people’s fault who are trying to find a better life and who do the jobs that people like that nurse think she is above.
I don’t get the appointing of a new judge every two years for 18 years. Does that mean that the courts are gonna like fill up with a bunch of justices or is it just every two years you can replace an empty seat?
I don’t get the appointing of a new judge every two years for 18 years. Does that mean that the courts are gonna like fill up with a bunch of justices or is it just every two years you can replace an empty seat?
Once the lifetime appointees have been dealt with in whatever way, the Court will have nine members, each appointed one after the other with two years in between, with the next-most-senior member’s term expiring every two years to keep the number stable at nine.
I expect they might retire and replace the existing judges, one every two years, in order of length of time already served. This would make it so they start this new system off already having 9 seats filled.
I’m curious to see how they plan to transition to that system. Force one of the current Justices out every two years? If so, which one? Or do they plan on just starting fresh? Then who gets ousted in two years? To be clear, I fully support this plan, I’m just curious how the transition will go if/when this passes.
To expand on what AirBreather said, the new justices would have an 18 year term, replacing one every two years.
this is actually a reasonable solution I pushed a while back. Basically, it would keep the aspect of the court changing slowly (an intentional feature,) but it would still let it change. Further, each president gets two SCOTUS peeps at predictable times, removing the ability of the senate to play games and game the system. (or installing relatively young judges who will serve for forty+ years.)
I was pleasantly surprised to see him propose this too. I’ve heard a lot of people online throw around the idea. I’m glad it’s getting more mainstream attention too.
Not to mention, this also ensures the court is keeping up with modern society. You won’t have 80 year old judges using outdated interpretations
Exactly. You get steady change lacking wild swings, and no president will have the ability to change the majority in a single term (unless it was already close to that.)
As I understood how this would work is the next appointment will be “term limited”. After 18 years they would assume senior justice status. This will do two things. First, allow for someone new to be appointed. Second, ensure they don’t run afoul of the lifetime appointment status.
Under the senior status, the most recent to leave the court can step in again as a sub after a death pending installation of a new “starter”.
So in one way yes, there will be many more justices… But there will be a starting 9, and more in a pseudo retirement. This will be a long road to get there, as they need to wait for the first vacancy, and then the next, etc.
It is a dog whistle for racism. The facts do not matter and the issues don’t matter. It is just another opportunity put out their message of hate and intolerance.
Texas gets more redistribution money from other states than it pays in to the Union. The rest of the US supplements Texas’ inability to develop a self-sustaining society.
If we ever get a progressive president maybe we’ll actually fix it.
Until “bad apples” fuck up the rest of the cops money, they won’t care.
Start taking the settlements out of their union/pension accounts. And all of a sudden I think cops will start electing different kinds of unions reps, ones that won’t fight hardest to keep the worst cops on duty
Even tho he wanted more and the two parties unified against him.
An actually progressive president can guilt their party into progress, because he’ll go to their voters and flat out say the Dems they voted for is holding the whole country back, so next primary he’s supporting a challenger.
Strangely enough, just the threat of that is often enough.
Hell, Bernie is just a senator but that didn’t stop him from going to WV and telling voters that about Manchin.
And Manchin started supporting the party more.
Worked a hell of a lot better than Bidens strategy of publicly admitting he would even try to change someone’s mind.
Not really under the purview of a president though (nor are they really a king, even with the insane Scotus decision.)
People need to vote in local elections for people to fix this as most departments are locally run and overseen. At most you might get your state to pass something but even then that would be only blue states.
It would be nice to have Congress do something but i don’t ever see that happening as Republicans wouldn’t go near it and even some Democrats wouldn’t.
Problem is a lot of people don’t really care as much about this as other things.
taxes get high enough that localities are motivated to put actual pressure on their police
Yes, but then you see politicians cutting funding to schools and such first, no? Taking settlements from “their own” money (such as pensions) is one of the better solutions I’ve heard.
Real change has to come from congress or state governments. The president has very limited powers here. Mostly they can only impose rules on federal officers, not local police.
Maybe you blocked the other person that asked me, but here’s what I told them:
FDR got a lot of shit done.
Even tho he wanted more and the two parties unified against him.
An actually progressive president can guilt their party into progress, because he’ll go to their voters and flat out say the Dems they voted for is holding the whole country back, so next primary he’s supporting a challenger.
Strangely enough, just the threat of that is often enough.
Hell, Bernie is just a senator but that didn’t stop him from going to WV and telling voters that about Manchin.
And Manchin started supporting the party more.
Worked a hell of a lot better than Bidens strategy of publicly admitting he would even try to change someone’s mind.
See where it gets them? It gets them right where we are now, with them on the precipice of turning the country over into a russian style dictatorship with billionaire oligarchs and their bought politicians running little fiefdoms?
Have you not being paying attention to how fucking enthusiastic a not-insignificant chunk of the country is for fascism and enshrining their teams power as dominate and eternal?
You make a fair point. I do think there are signs the democrats and progressive are finally seeing that they need to play hardball. Amendments are a long play, and if the democrats have “candidate x thinks Clarence Thomas should be able to go on million dollar vacations in exchange for his vote on the Supreme Court” to smack every republican with for the next decade or so, it makes winning the necessary states a real possibility.
The issue here isn’t that the Democratic Party isn’t playing hardball. The issue is that while the Dems are playing Baseball, the Republicans are playing Blernsball, and the blue continues to lose points and players due to following the old ruleset. The worst thing though is Team Blue has the better players. We have the home run strikers. We have down-the-line pitchers. Left, center, AND right field golden gloves. Our team are winners by any measure of the old system.
We’re just playing a wholly different type of game now.
The point is to pull the cloak off and get bigger wins in the future to get the reforms through. There’s enough people who still don’t know what’s really going on
So the article admits that Democrats aren’t just relying solely on rhetoric, they have 2 bills needing to be voted on. It even goes so far as to call out the actual problem within the Democrat party, Manchin and Sinema, for flip flopping about what they support and don’t support: either HR1, the John Lewis voting rights act, and/or removing/adjusting the filibuster.
But it suggests that if Democrats just lean on them a little bit, they’ll cave.
…
Right. Let’s blanket blame the Democrats for being the reason nothing in the the house passes and is currently R220-D213, and nothing leaves the senate and is currently D49-R49, minus the 2 above.
We need to call out the actual reasons much more, and much louder.
Most republicans I know believe that their party, like their country and their religion, needs to be followed blindly; if their party supports it, it’s good, and if their party rejects it, it’s bad. End of story. No more thought will, or should, be put into it.
The people who go on and on about how America is the best because “freedom” are now working out whatever mental gymnastics they need to perform to justify voting for the man who said if you vote for him you won’t need to vote anymore. They already chose to support Trump and his party - nothing they say or do anymore will change that decision.
It seems like republican voters deeply believe that their way is the “right” way and they’re willing to do anything to impose it on the nation in perpetuity.
I’m sure most aren’t really comfortable with trump, but they’re willing to overlook his rough edges if he can establish a republican government.
It’s an Authoritarian Personality Disorder. You are correct, and I have not found an effective means of countering it, given the material conditions we find ourselves in.
They can kill it by doing nothing, or having it tied up in procedure. If the amendment has a time limit clause for ratification (the one’s submitted over the last century have), then they can just sit on it. Otherwise, it might become like the 27th amendment, ratified over two centuries after congress signed off.
They have been doing this for decades… sure, there was a time people just didn’t understand it. But they literally voted against cheaper insulin.
I am not saying these bills should not be presented even if the Republicans will kill them, but the expectation that Republicans voting against thing that benefit the working class would eventually make their base shrink is a complete fallacy at this point.
There are still other options if this goes nowhere. If they have the numbers, they can impeach the sitting justices and/or pack the court with more.
Also, it’s possible that if the republicans see a string of back-to-back democrat presidents, maybe presidential immunity would be less popular. Especially after trump finally kicks the bucket.
Of course none of this matters if the dems don’t win in November.
An amendment needs to be proposed by 2/3 of both houses of congress, or 2/3 of states can call a convention where any amendments can be proposed. Then an amendment needs to get 3/4 of states to ratify.
If I’m reading this right, that is.
So we need 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to agree. A large hurdle, but doable and necessary for our democracy. We’ve done it before, and now is a time in our history begging for amendments/reform.
It needs 2/3 of both houses to be proposed by Congress, but Congress has no power over ratification. The end of Article V is simply saying that Congress may propose one of the modes of ratification (by state legislatures or convention), not that Congress can unilaterally ratify an amendment.
You’re optimistic about it being doable. Maybe if it was put to a vote in each of the states or maybe if it wasn’t currently relevant to one party’s head. But not put to a vote by the state legislatures. There only needs to be 13 state legislatures that say no to keep it from happening. The last time we passed an amendment was over 30 years ago and was just not allowing congress to give themselves a pay raise in the same term. Not a super contentious thing like presidential immunity when it the previous republican president is facing several criminal trials.
eye-roll Need to stop pretending that Republicans are just being cutesy and cryptic, and recognize that large parts of the country fully endorse a fascist federal government.
In another thread someone suggested we resize the court first, as an incentive for Republican states to embrace regulation and pass the amendment. Still need the supermajority, but it’s a great carrot/stick approach to get the job done or at least leave us in a good spot for a while if they want to be stubborn.
Absolutely right but it does also make this a more concrete election issue. This sets up Harris clearly for reform and makes a strong argument against Trump’s criminality and the corruption he spreads.
It won’t happen even if the Dems do win in a landslide. There are always enough Manchins in the Senate to keep anything meaningful from actually getting passed.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.