Permanently Deleted

  • eduardog3000 [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    If we're enacting laws, we're packing the Supreme Court. They both require the same amount of control, actually enacting laws requires the House so more control.

    • gringosoldier [comrade/them]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Not gonna happen again until the left is big enough to control congress and the presidency.

      • eduardog3000 [he/him]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        Of course. Though as far as the SCOTUS is concerned we just need the Senate and presidency.

        That's why the "conservative SCOTUS for the next 50 years" argument is bullshit. Whoever controls the presidency and Senate can do whatever they want with the SCOTUS, no matter what the last guy did.

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 years ago

          Whoever controls the presidency and Senate can do whatever they want with the SCOTUS, no matter what the last guy did.

          This would require court packing, and court packing would require both houses of Congress plus the presidency. And while it's technically a possibility with that, it would still be a long shot.

          • eduardog3000 [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Court packing doesn't need the House. It's literally just nominating a new Justice and having the Senate approve.

            • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              That's just nominating a Justice, and it requires an opening.

              Court packing is increasing the size of the Supreme Court to create those openings. Increasing the size of the Court can be done by statute, but passing a new statute requires control of both the House and Senate.

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 years ago

      Realistically it's going to be way harder to get Dems on board with court packing than it is with about anything else.

      • eduardog3000 [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        If we're relying on Dems, we won't be passing any meaningful laws anyway.

        • asaharyev [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Or picking any decent SC justices, from a left perspective.

          Although I guess Sotomayor is actually pretty cool.

          • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Obama threw is a bone in exchange for one of the most massive wealth consolidation scandals in history.

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 years ago

          Dems are shit overall, but they could easily come up with something like marijuana legalization, which would have an enormous impact on ending mass incarceration. They already have a vote scheduled on it in the House, and at the local level Dems have passed it a dozen times over. It's not ridiculous to think about Medicare or All, either, although that's probably at least 4-5 years off.

          • captchaintherye [any]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            Dems are shit overall, but they could easily come up with something like marijuana legalization, which would have an enormous impact on ending mass incarceration.

            Biden would veto it

            It’s not ridiculous to think about Medicare or All, either, although that’s probably at least 4-5 years off.

            Biden would veto it

            • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              4 years ago

              Biden doesn't actually believe in anything. If he ever did, he's too senile now to still believe it. What he's saying now isn't what he believes -- because he doesn't believe in anything -- it's what he thinks will get him elected.

              If Democrats win the Senate and are looking for a midterm boost, it's realistic that Biden could "evolve" on marijuana legalization the same way Obama "evolved" on LGBT rights. These people are pandering, not making lifelong commitments.

              • Civility [none/use name]
                ·
                edit-2
                4 years ago

                The LGBT rights the Dems are pushing don’t significantly impact capital. The US state didn’t decide to enslave a tenth of the population for shits and gigs. If it was allowed to significantly impact incarceration rates Marijuana legalisation would cost private prisons (massive dem donors btw) hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Do you really believe the US Democratic Party is capable of going against US capital in general and their donors in particular to that extent?

          • Civility [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Do you seriously believe the US Democratic Party would pass legislation that would cost their donors (private prisons & health insurance companies) Trillions of dollars?

          • joshuaism [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Just like republicans stopped trying to repeal Obamacare after Trump took office, you'll see Dems give up on marijuana legalization and the Green New Deal. These policies are too popular to be passed. The two parties intentionally lose the culture wars so they can rail against the other side when they are trying to win your vote.