US Politics Thread

[SebastianBlue]

AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective

See issues and political news with news bias revealed. Non-partisan, crowd-sourced technology shows all sides so you can decide.

www.allsides.com

I read all sides. No one here has a monopoly on the truth.

The only thing Breitbart would have a monopoly on is far-right propaganda and clickbait. It’s not a journalistic source of fact and cogent analysis, so I hope you don’t read it as such.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

They are either appointed or elected. Who do you suggest does it? How does politics not play a role? Plenty of examples of SCJs turning out a LOT differently than their appointers/approvers expected to. Some are activists; some are strict interpreters, same as how different religious types/scholars read/view the Bible or the Koran. The debate between the two has been going on for nearly 250 years. It’s not new.

I suggest the judiciary do it. A system of meritocracy and promotion like in other countries.

Now we have that most political of appointments from a few decades ago Clarence Thomas being a twat. How will that be resolved?

Facts below.

The process of impeaching a Supreme Court judge is the same as that used to impeach other officials, and begins with the House of Representatives drafting articles of impeachment.

While only a narrow majority is needed to impeach a federal judge in the House, a conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds majority.

The current 50-50 split in the Senate between Republicans and Democrats means that a conviction is extremely unlikely.

Mr Thomas is one of six conservative-leaning justices of the nine-member Supreme Court

.

Political and imbalance of powers. This means the place is inherantly fucked, how can anything ever be meaningfully resolved?

I read your point last night about Watergate and reflected on it. Nixon resigned. It may have been a dark place after it, but it would have been worse had he not. This last bloke was impeached twice and didnt resign. He is more emboldened than ever actually.

Fucked

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I suggest the judiciary do it. A system of meritocracy and promotion like in other countries.

Now we have that most political of appointments from a few decades ago Clarence Thomas being a twat. How will that be resolved?

Facts below.

The process of impeaching a Supreme Court judge is the same as that used to impeach other officials, and begins with the House of Representatives drafting articles of impeachment.

While only a narrow majority is needed to impeach a federal judge in the House, a conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds majority.

The current 50-50 split in the Senate between Republicans and Democrats means that a conviction is extremely unlikely.

Mr Thomas is one of six conservative-leaning justices of the nine-member Supreme Court

.

Political and imbalance of powers. This means the place is inherantly fucked, how can anything ever be meaningfully resolved?

I read your point last night about Watergate and reflected on it. Nixon resigned. It may have been a dark place after it, but it would have been worse had he not. This last bloke was impeached twice and didnt resign. He is more emboldened than ever actually.

Fucked

I’m confused. Someone has to elect or appoint the judiciary in the first place. Whether it’s the executive, the legislative or the people, any or all of these processes could be political. And in fact now, the executive nominates the SC justices, the legislative votes on them, and the people elect both the executive and the legislative so all three are connected.

It’s not a bad thing that there have been so few impeachments in US history — it’s a good thing. But the entire system is built on trust (just like the monetary system), so bad actors can wreck it, and are certainly causing it problems. What’s the solution? Vote of course — which is why one side is attempting to destroy the legitimacy of elections. Is that tactic working? No. If it were, Trump would be President and the Senate would be red. Trump is “more emboldened” — why? Because he, given his unconscionable venality which I called out long before a lot of others, is using a political process to attempt to defend himself from the growing pack of legal wolves at his door.

The process IS working, just more slowly than rational folks would like (just, by the way, like Watergate). But it’s working — hence why the GOP is going to cornered-rat extremes to retain power as I’ve pointed out about 428 times now.

 

[TinFoilHat]

 

[domalino]

The GOP just unwittingly made this guy an absolute star

 

[idahoblues]

The GOP just unwittingly made this guy an absolute star

They certainly did

 

[BobKowalski]

The GOP just unwittingly made this guy an absolute star

I all but stood and applauded.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

The GOP just unwittingly made this guy an absolute star

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

The GOP just unwittingly made this guy an absolute star

Wow, I think he is 29 years old? I don't remember hearing somebody this articulate and eloquent in any modern US political debate setting.

If words like that don't stir you then you are either brainwashed beyond saving or dead inside. Unfortunately, many state GOP reps seem to be determined to demonstrate to the average voter that they tick both of those boxes.

 

[BayernMan]