US Politics Thread

[SkyBlueFlux]

Yes, the college has had its day. Total popular vote needed, but you can see the right kicking against that.

Who was the last Republican president that won the popular vote? Bush v Kerry in 2004? I think it’s happened once in 35 years.

Heaven forbid the Republicans might have to actually moderate their stance to stand any chance of actually winning.

 

[Blue and true]

The Justices lending credence to Sauer's belief that a president should be immune from prosecution because it can affect the legitimacy of the presidency is a dangerous precedent. Where does it end? All senators to be immune? What about lowlier civil servants?

Sizeable can of worms, which the Supreme Court need to have the good sense not to open.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Perhaps then there is no point to a SCOTUS where the separation of powers has been subverted by partisan appointments by the other branches of the balance of power.

One of many reasons why the USC is a pile of wank. The whole system is based on arbitrary vacancies being filled by placement. Small time and tin pot.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

One of many reasons why the USC is a pile of wank. The whole system is based on arbitrary vacancies being filled by placement. Small time and tin pot.

I guess I kind of understand the general idea that everybody has biases and so it’s preferable to know what they are rather than assume they don’t exist.

Even so, there are far better ways of addressing that than this partisan nonsense the US has cooked up. How anybody can think it is a good idea defeats me.

They need electoral reform, judicial reform, and if the office of President turns into King by another name, they will also need executive reform. In a way, it’s quite impressive:

An executive that’s above the law.
An overtly political judiciary.
A legislative that doesn’t represent the people.

They’ve managed to fuck up every branch of government so that they run counter to their founding principles.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I guess I kind of understand the general idea that everybody has biases and so it’s preferable to know what they are rather than assume they don’t exist.

Even so, there are far better ways of addressing that than this partisan nonsense the US has cooked up. How anybody can think it is a good idea defeats me.

They need electoral reform, judicial reform, and if the office of President turns into King by another name, they will also need executive reform. In a way, it’s quite impressive:

An executive that’s above the law.
An overtly political judiciary.
A legislative that doesn’t represent the people.

They’ve managed to fuck up every branch of government so that they run counter to their founding principles.

Yep. Been saying this for months but it seems to agitate the natives. Dont see why, some realism is needed

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I guess I kind of understand the general idea that everybody has biases and so it’s preferable to know what they are rather than assume they don’t exist.

Even so, there are far better ways of addressing that than this partisan nonsense the US has cooked up. How anybody can think it is a good idea defeats me.

They need electoral reform, judicial reform, and if the office of President turns into King by another name, they will also need executive reform. In a way, it’s quite impressive:

An executive that’s above the law.
An overtly political judiciary.
A legislative that doesn’t represent the people.

They’ve managed to fuck up every branch of government so that they run counter to their founding principles.

It’s the inevitable consequence of a working constitution that has barely changed in two and a half centuries. It’s actually insane the reverence this document commands when it is plainly no longer fit for purpose.

How can anyone justify a system that by weight of happenstance a particular President (who didn’t even win the popular vote) can load the judicial dice in his favour and change the balance of power in relation to the interpretation and application of law, for a generation?

If a country was being formed today, and someone came up with that as a suggestion for the constitutional framework, they’d be roundly mocked.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

It’s the inevitable consequence of a working constitution that has barely changed in two and a half centuries. It’s actually insane the reverence this document commands when it is plainly no longer fit for purpose.

How can anyone justify a system that by weight of happenstance a particular President (who didn’t even win the popular vote) can load the judicial dice in his favour and change the balance of power in relation to the interpretation and application of law, for a generation?

If a country was being formed today, and someone came up with that as a suggestion for the constitutional framework, they’d be roundly mocked.

The best you can say is that it was a great constitution for the 1770s. Probably a hundred years ahead of its time in many ways. You could say they almost did too good of a job, leading to their work being revered instead of revisited as they intended.