How the Supreme Court could radically reshape federal elections
June 30, 2022 6:33 PM Subscribe
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it has agreed to hear a case next term that could upend election laws across the country with the potential endorsement of a fringe legal theory about how much power state legislatures have over the running of congressional and presidential elections.
... Republican lawmakers argue that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause gives state legislatures the power to determine how congressional elections are conducted without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts.
This could do even more to cement a downward spiral of the USA.
... Republican lawmakers argue that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause gives state legislatures the power to determine how congressional elections are conducted without any checks and balances from state constitutions or state courts.
This could do even more to cement a downward spiral of the USA.
So, it's a foregone conclusion that they will bake in election-rigging / theft - the only real question is right now how many Americans are willing to risk their comfort and safety to make it too costly, chaotic, and appalling to the outside world for the fascist right to maintain its stranglehold on the rest of us.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:41 PM on June 30, 2022 [19 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 6:41 PM on June 30, 2022 [19 favorites]
Assuming they accepted or ignored that risk, ryanshepard, what would they do and how would they do it?
posted by armoir from antproof case at 6:46 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by armoir from antproof case at 6:46 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Assuming they accepted or ignored that risk, ryanshepard, what would they do and how would they do it?
I have serious doubts that Americans are capable of it (me included), but massive, sustained economic and civil disobedience coupled, possibly, with sabotage and assassinations? The general toolkit of civil unrest seems to be fairly standard through the ages.
My guess is the pain is going to have to get much more acute before we get to that point, though.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:51 PM on June 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
I have serious doubts that Americans are capable of it (me included), but massive, sustained economic and civil disobedience coupled, possibly, with sabotage and assassinations? The general toolkit of civil unrest seems to be fairly standard through the ages.
My guess is the pain is going to have to get much more acute before we get to that point, though.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:51 PM on June 30, 2022 [28 favorites]
The times just keep getting more and more interesting.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:56 PM on June 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:56 PM on June 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
I’m afraid i find myself agreeing with assessment, ryanshepard.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 6:59 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by armoir from antproof case at 6:59 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think just as Trump was counting on counter-protestors to allow him to call a state of emergency, the fascist forces expect and are counting on protests they'll dub riots. Then they'll create an equivalency with the insurrectionists--each group crossing civilized lines when they do get their way with one branch of government. Thus they'll normalize Trump at the same time as giving state legislatures the power to deny legitimate votes.
Of course the present has been arrived at via a lot of shady politics. That huge debt of Kavanaugh being mysteriously paid off. The way Democrats aren't allowed to appoint justices in the same circumstances Republicans can.
Our side doesn't seem to have anyone willing to push the system to the limit to defend an open society. We always pull punches rhetorically and procedurally.
posted by Schmucko at 7:04 PM on June 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
Of course the present has been arrived at via a lot of shady politics. That huge debt of Kavanaugh being mysteriously paid off. The way Democrats aren't allowed to appoint justices in the same circumstances Republicans can.
Our side doesn't seem to have anyone willing to push the system to the limit to defend an open society. We always pull punches rhetorically and procedurally.
posted by Schmucko at 7:04 PM on June 30, 2022 [18 favorites]
Well, it was the 17th Amendment that gave direct election of Senators to the people. And since we've already seen that Alito is looking to 13th century common law and disgraced Court Opinions for his inspiration, and has said basically anything after the 13th Amendment is somehow illegal, I can only assume this will not end well.
posted by hippybear at 7:05 PM on June 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:05 PM on June 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
this ends in catastrophe, but i think the eventual outcome, after a fascist catastrophe that we can’t even imagine, is going to be a disintegration of the federal system, devolution into loose alliances between states and a weak or nonexistent federal government, maybe only made up of the eastern seaboard (think of it like the dissolution of the soviet union). it’s either that or a radical social movement of leftist change (lol). in any case this can’t go on without provoking real disaster, we live in a terrifying time
posted by dis_integration at 7:06 PM on June 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 7:06 PM on June 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
These guys are just hell-bent on burning it all to the ground, aren’t they.
posted by heyitsgogi at 7:09 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by heyitsgogi at 7:09 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Kind of sad our last president was Biden
posted by Jacen at 7:14 PM on June 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 7:14 PM on June 30, 2022 [14 favorites]
I'm getting sick and tired of states. Can't we have a nation instead?
posted by zardoz at 7:16 PM on June 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by zardoz at 7:16 PM on June 30, 2022 [6 favorites]
I mean, the case still has to be argued!
posted by rhizome at 7:18 PM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:18 PM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
There really isn't any good news coming from SCOTUS, is there?
In my work last century with BigLaw, one of the key marketing propositions for big commercial clients, was the ability to have a predictable legal setting. When the client had multinational operations, domicile and jurisdiction were a matter of choice.
So a robust legal system that is well-resourced and with a depth of talent means that if there is a problem or unforeseen event, the fallout is manageable because the insurers will deal with the bulk of the issues, and you send in the lawyers to sort out the remnants. "Stare decisis", ie. binding precedent, was key.
Who is going to risk legal scrutiny from a bunch of ideologues if they can avoid it?
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 7:29 PM on June 30, 2022 [29 favorites]
In my work last century with BigLaw, one of the key marketing propositions for big commercial clients, was the ability to have a predictable legal setting. When the client had multinational operations, domicile and jurisdiction were a matter of choice.
So a robust legal system that is well-resourced and with a depth of talent means that if there is a problem or unforeseen event, the fallout is manageable because the insurers will deal with the bulk of the issues, and you send in the lawyers to sort out the remnants. "Stare decisis", ie. binding precedent, was key.
Who is going to risk legal scrutiny from a bunch of ideologues if they can avoid it?
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 7:29 PM on June 30, 2022 [29 favorites]
I feel like we’re rapidly running out of moves that don’t involve the late-stage capitalism-meets-climate collapse version of guillotines.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:40 PM on June 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 7:40 PM on June 30, 2022 [26 favorites]
Any good resources pointing to why the supreme court seems to be pumping out this stuff all of a sudden? (Am non American) - is it tied to the electoral cycle? The Jan 6 hearings ? Summer time? Something else?
Roe vs Wade, emissions, gun carry, this- why is it spewing out all at once?
posted by freethefeet at 7:43 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Roe vs Wade, emissions, gun carry, this- why is it spewing out all at once?
posted by freethefeet at 7:43 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
This one is just super odd. They have plenty of ways to subvert elections already, why weaken the entire judicial system? There are negative consequences way beyond the value conservatives think they'll get out of this.
Plus the very premise is completely bonkers. State legislators don't have to follow state constitutions? Really? How is that "originalism"? The entire concept of American government is predicated on the rule of law enforced by checks and balances.
I'm as mystified as I am horrified.
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:43 PM on June 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Plus the very premise is completely bonkers. State legislators don't have to follow state constitutions? Really? How is that "originalism"? The entire concept of American government is predicated on the rule of law enforced by checks and balances.
I'm as mystified as I am horrified.
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:43 PM on June 30, 2022 [8 favorites]
Can you make a guillotine out of a couple “Billy” bookshelves and the sharpened hood of a 2011 Mazda? My stupid modern windows don’t even have counterweights but I’ve got some scrap iron. Fuck I really didn’t think I’d be living out Oryx and Crake in middle age.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:45 PM on June 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 7:45 PM on June 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
The Independent State Legislature Theory Explained from the Brennan Center
I'm extremely concerned about this case as well, but some of these comments seem better suited to a "fucking fuck" thread in Metatalk. If people just want to howl into the void about all the (legitimately terrible!) things happening to and by the US government.
posted by the primroses were over at 7:51 PM on June 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
I'm extremely concerned about this case as well, but some of these comments seem better suited to a "fucking fuck" thread in Metatalk. If people just want to howl into the void about all the (legitimately terrible!) things happening to and by the US government.
posted by the primroses were over at 7:51 PM on June 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
*GOP: Whelp we're already a total dumpster fire, might as well just fan the flames and burn everything we can that could ever possibly interfere with our agenda 😃
posted by johnjohn4011 at 7:54 PM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by johnjohn4011 at 7:54 PM on June 30, 2022 [2 favorites]
Can you make a guillotine out of a couple “Billy bookshelves"?
Yup
posted by lalochezia at 7:54 PM on June 30, 2022 [7 favorites]
SCOTUSblog on Moore v Harper
posted by the primroses were over at 7:56 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by the primroses were over at 7:56 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
"Any good resources pointing to why the supreme court seems to be pumping out this stuff all of a sudden? (Am non American) - is it tied to the electoral cycle? The Jan 6 hearings ? Summer time? Something else? Roe vs Wade, emissions, gun carry, this- why is it spewing out all at once?"
The Supreme Court sits on a yearly schedule. Work goes on all year, but opinions are generally issued in May and June -- mostly June. Occasionally they go into July, but usually June is a flurry of opinions, and there's very little officially decided the rest of the year. (June is always really stressful for lawyers, even when the court doesn't suck, because on any given weekday your entire area of legal practice could be upended.)
In a more cosmic way, they're doing it fast and all-at-once because they've got a narrow window of opportunity to get this shit done. The US a highly polarized and control of Congress and the Presidency is consistently a tightrope -- a tightrope that structurally favors the GOP, but even with those built-in advantages, the Dems manage to win a lot. The GOP can't count on this situation lasting, so they're going to make hay while the sun shines and try to rig the rules even more in their favor.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:56 PM on June 30, 2022 [44 favorites]
The Supreme Court sits on a yearly schedule. Work goes on all year, but opinions are generally issued in May and June -- mostly June. Occasionally they go into July, but usually June is a flurry of opinions, and there's very little officially decided the rest of the year. (June is always really stressful for lawyers, even when the court doesn't suck, because on any given weekday your entire area of legal practice could be upended.)
In a more cosmic way, they're doing it fast and all-at-once because they've got a narrow window of opportunity to get this shit done. The US a highly polarized and control of Congress and the Presidency is consistently a tightrope -- a tightrope that structurally favors the GOP, but even with those built-in advantages, the Dems manage to win a lot. The GOP can't count on this situation lasting, so they're going to make hay while the sun shines and try to rig the rules even more in their favor.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:56 PM on June 30, 2022 [44 favorites]
Roe vs Wade, emissions, gun carry, this- why is it spewing out all at once?
Thanks to McConnell and Trump, they finally got an unassailable majority on the court. This is the culmination of a roughly 50-year-long march to eliminate the Federal government. It’s 1865 again, only the south wins. Plus fascism.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:57 PM on June 30, 2022 [48 favorites]
Thanks to McConnell and Trump, they finally got an unassailable majority on the court. This is the culmination of a roughly 50-year-long march to eliminate the Federal government. It’s 1865 again, only the south wins. Plus fascism.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:57 PM on June 30, 2022 [48 favorites]
Thanks Eyebrows and Thorzdad.
posted by freethefeet at 8:05 PM on June 30, 2022
posted by freethefeet at 8:05 PM on June 30, 2022
Kind of sad our last president was Biden
For FUCKS SAKE can people just KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE DEFEATISM.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:06 PM on June 30, 2022 [47 favorites]
For FUCKS SAKE can people just KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE DEFEATISM.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:06 PM on June 30, 2022 [47 favorites]
Seconded!
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:09 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:09 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Any good resources pointing to why the supreme court seems to be pumping out this stuff all of a sudden?
They now have a solid enough majority that they no longer have to make nice.
This week I've had the growing feeling that we've finally lost our country. While we've focused on the big showy coup attempt, the men in black robes finished the job.
John Adams advocated for a government of laws, not of men - meaning we should have clearly-defined rules rather than relying on individuals' whims.
In recent Court decisions, they've cherry-picked history, lied about easily disproven facts, and replaced clearly defined guidelines with "because we say so."
Given all the time & money spent overturning abortion & gun control, I was rather surprised by how poorly reasoned their arguments were.
But that's the point. They don't feel they have to make a convincing case, because it's just a show of power.
They're asserting that they don't need to be good at the framework of discourse that, supposedly, we had all agreed was our collective decision making process. They're insisting they have their way even with shoddy, clearly self-serving rationales.
Welcome to the Roberts Court, where the points are made up and the rules don't matter.
posted by cheshyre at 8:11 PM on June 30, 2022 [46 favorites]
They now have a solid enough majority that they no longer have to make nice.
This week I've had the growing feeling that we've finally lost our country. While we've focused on the big showy coup attempt, the men in black robes finished the job.
John Adams advocated for a government of laws, not of men - meaning we should have clearly-defined rules rather than relying on individuals' whims.
In recent Court decisions, they've cherry-picked history, lied about easily disproven facts, and replaced clearly defined guidelines with "because we say so."
Given all the time & money spent overturning abortion & gun control, I was rather surprised by how poorly reasoned their arguments were.
But that's the point. They don't feel they have to make a convincing case, because it's just a show of power.
They're asserting that they don't need to be good at the framework of discourse that, supposedly, we had all agreed was our collective decision making process. They're insisting they have their way even with shoddy, clearly self-serving rationales.
Welcome to the Roberts Court, where the points are made up and the rules don't matter.
posted by cheshyre at 8:11 PM on June 30, 2022 [46 favorites]
This is far from argued and even decided. I have a hard time seeing Roberts go for any of this nonsense. So he'd also likely work to pull over that one more vote needed to preserve... democracy.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:12 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:12 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Roberts has been going for the rest of the nonsense thus far.
I think he's given up on having a good legacy in the old US and wants to be a key founder of the new US.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:16 PM on June 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
I think he's given up on having a good legacy in the old US and wants to be a key founder of the new US.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:16 PM on June 30, 2022 [15 favorites]
But here's the thing, the elections clause has been read one way for the entire existence of the US Constitution. And now, they want to read it some other, basically opposite way? Just like that? That's crazy even for this group. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, I'm saying it's really, really above and beyond what they done so far... by a lot. Roberts, up to this point, has not bought into things this far out.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:27 PM on June 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:27 PM on June 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
One thin ray of light I see here is that it only takes four of the nine justices to vote to hear a case. It's possible Roberts can persuade one of the other conservatives not to go down this road (or already has them onside).
Overturning Roe was explosive but put the issue squarely in the realm of "normal" politics; making normal politics impossible by allowing gerrymandered state legislatures to hopelessly rig or outright nullify elections can only lead towards violence.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:30 PM on June 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
Overturning Roe was explosive but put the issue squarely in the realm of "normal" politics; making normal politics impossible by allowing gerrymandered state legislatures to hopelessly rig or outright nullify elections can only lead towards violence.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:30 PM on June 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
One thin ray of light I see here is that it only takes four of the nine justices to vote to hear a case. It's possible Roberts can persuade one of the other conservatives not to go down this road (or already has them onside).
Overturning Roe was explosive but put the issue squarely in the realm of "normal" politics; making normal politics impossible by allowing gerrymandered state legislatures to hopelessly rig or outright nullify elections can only lead towards violence.
Legal experts I've seen say it's probably going to all come down to Barrett.
posted by Gadarene at 8:36 PM on June 30, 2022
Overturning Roe was explosive but put the issue squarely in the realm of "normal" politics; making normal politics impossible by allowing gerrymandered state legislatures to hopelessly rig or outright nullify elections can only lead towards violence.
Legal experts I've seen say it's probably going to all come down to Barrett.
posted by Gadarene at 8:36 PM on June 30, 2022
OK, IANAL, but the argument seems nuts.
Obviously the current court can and will just make shit up, but this seems really bogus.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:39 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
The text of that clause, the legislators insisted “creates the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections and then vests that power in ‘the Legislature’ of each State.”We know that the states can not change the "manner" of elections to, for example, forbid Blacks or women from voting, so it's already not completely in the hands of the legislature.
Obviously the current court can and will just make shit up, but this seems really bogus.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:39 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
Can you make a guillotine out of a couple “Billy” bookshelves and the sharpened hood of a 2011 Mazda?
Remember everybody: the guillotine was invented as a merciful way to take care of your problems. If worse comes to worst, you can always just use a tree stump and an axe.
posted by nushustu at 8:40 PM on June 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
Remember everybody: the guillotine was invented as a merciful way to take care of your problems. If worse comes to worst, you can always just use a tree stump and an axe.
posted by nushustu at 8:40 PM on June 30, 2022 [13 favorites]
Of course guillotine cracks aside, here in 2022 the grim reality is that this country has more guns than people, our military has already shown itself to be perfectly capable of eliminating its own people by drone strike, and it’s highly unlikely that the former fact could in any way counteract the latter. Even though the former situation ostensibly was allowed to come about in case of some version of the latter.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:12 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by aspersioncast at 9:12 PM on June 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
John Adams advocated for a government of laws, not of men - meaning we should have clearly-defined rules rather than relying on individuals' whims.
He not only talked the talk, he walked the walk.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:18 PM on June 30, 2022
He not only talked the talk, he walked the walk.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:18 PM on June 30, 2022
No, because there is no SURELY THIS. There are no brakes. There are no rules or boundaries, except for what the Democrats bound themselves by. One side is at goddamn fucking war, and the other is trying to have, no pun intended, a tea party. Do we have a plan? Do we have faith that the Republicans aren't just going to continue couping everything? I'm just placing bets on whether or not they go full mass murder or the slow, drips and drabs death by a thousand cuts route. Seventy four million people voted for Coronavirus King trump, and have shown no signs about caring about the insurrection. There's no will to organize the kind of mass upheaval necessary to stop this coup in plain sight. Maybe, by some blessed miracle people will start caring and Blue Wave the heck out of November, but I'm not betting my life on it.
They don't care about our little protests, they don't care about rights or laws or decency. November might be a semi-fair election, but I would be entirely stunned if 2024 is. What makes anybody think the rule of law will last till then? Multiple existential fucking threats and people are worried that pointing them out is counterproductive. The game is almost entirely rigged at this point, and the answer is to overthrow the table. But we aren't. The blood sweat and tears put into democracy gave us a good run, but it's not going to last. Maybe if we occupy Fox, decide to arrest the leaders of the coup, stop pretending it needs to be bipartisan. There is no such thing as bipartisan any more. You can call it fucking defeatism all you want, I'll call it brutal realism. The right wing supreme court is perfectly clear on their goals to control elections. I'd be delighted if I saw a single sign anywhere near enough people cared, but they just don't.
posted by Jacen at 9:32 PM on June 30, 2022 [42 favorites]
They don't care about our little protests, they don't care about rights or laws or decency. November might be a semi-fair election, but I would be entirely stunned if 2024 is. What makes anybody think the rule of law will last till then? Multiple existential fucking threats and people are worried that pointing them out is counterproductive. The game is almost entirely rigged at this point, and the answer is to overthrow the table. But we aren't. The blood sweat and tears put into democracy gave us a good run, but it's not going to last. Maybe if we occupy Fox, decide to arrest the leaders of the coup, stop pretending it needs to be bipartisan. There is no such thing as bipartisan any more. You can call it fucking defeatism all you want, I'll call it brutal realism. The right wing supreme court is perfectly clear on their goals to control elections. I'd be delighted if I saw a single sign anywhere near enough people cared, but they just don't.
posted by Jacen at 9:32 PM on June 30, 2022 [42 favorites]
In related news, the Supreme Court has outlawed women's shoes, insisting women should be
both barefoot and pregnant.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:42 PM on June 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
both barefoot and pregnant.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:42 PM on June 30, 2022 [5 favorites]
When the GOP held CPAC in Hungary, that was more than a wish. That was a promise.
posted by Philipschall at 10:26 PM on June 30, 2022 [17 favorites]
posted by Philipschall at 10:26 PM on June 30, 2022 [17 favorites]
I'd be delighted if I saw a single sign anywhere near enough people cared, but they just don't.
and so your plan is to just say "I give up" and make sure the people who do still care give up too?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:41 PM on June 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
and so your plan is to just say "I give up" and make sure the people who do still care give up too?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:41 PM on June 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
My plan is to try to get out of the country, hopefully before I can't. If the vast majority of the party leadership seems to be accepting the sinking ship with a shrug and a smile, and I have zero faith in the masses of citizens, what else do you suggest? VOTE HARDER! Of course, is always an option. It's about the last chance we have. I haven't had faith in voting since I learned what the electoral college means about my vote (I still vote blue. Because the Republicans want me dead). And I certainly don't see the math on our side. It's all rearguard actions, retreating to blue state strongholds and hoping that a war doesn't start.
Honestly, if my rantings on this fairly obscure site are the straw that breaks the back of any true believers, well, I apologize for that. But I'd think the massive defeats in all areas of USA life are a bigger factor. That in 2020 66% of voters turned out, for various reasons, and 47& of the vote went to the worst president in modern history. That Biden's 81 million was barely enough. That the fascists are openly plotting their coup. That they have built the groundwork to toss out the few tens of thousands of votes that swing electoral college differences. That the Supreme Court is 6/3 entirely partisan and unconstrained by.... anything at all.
Keep on fighting. Believe in that power, please. But I live in a world where I don't feel like the good guys are winning. I don't believe in miracles. Dunno what you want me to say. Fascism wins, sometimes, and the question then is how many lives they destroy.
posted by Jacen at 11:14 PM on June 30, 2022 [24 favorites]
Honestly, if my rantings on this fairly obscure site are the straw that breaks the back of any true believers, well, I apologize for that. But I'd think the massive defeats in all areas of USA life are a bigger factor. That in 2020 66% of voters turned out, for various reasons, and 47& of the vote went to the worst president in modern history. That Biden's 81 million was barely enough. That the fascists are openly plotting their coup. That they have built the groundwork to toss out the few tens of thousands of votes that swing electoral college differences. That the Supreme Court is 6/3 entirely partisan and unconstrained by.... anything at all.
Keep on fighting. Believe in that power, please. But I live in a world where I don't feel like the good guys are winning. I don't believe in miracles. Dunno what you want me to say. Fascism wins, sometimes, and the question then is how many lives they destroy.
posted by Jacen at 11:14 PM on June 30, 2022 [24 favorites]
Maybe if we occupy Fox, decide to arrest the leaders of the coup, stop pretending it needs to be bipartisan.
“We” only have so much power to do these sorts of things. Occupying FOX would be a pretty strong statement before the cops or the National Guard broke it up, but I don’t see it having any concrete results. Worth a try.
I think people advocating for bipartisanship are probably a pretty small minority ATM, and most of them are likely just giving lip service.
Supporting Democratic candidates who are explicitly non-bipartisan is a great long-term strategy, and that is some thing that grassroots effort can affect. At this particular moment, we don’t really have the numbers in either house to go over the heads of the Republican legislators. A lot of this work would have had to start 20 years ago.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 11:54 PM on June 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
“We” only have so much power to do these sorts of things. Occupying FOX would be a pretty strong statement before the cops or the National Guard broke it up, but I don’t see it having any concrete results. Worth a try.
I think people advocating for bipartisanship are probably a pretty small minority ATM, and most of them are likely just giving lip service.
Supporting Democratic candidates who are explicitly non-bipartisan is a great long-term strategy, and that is some thing that grassroots effort can affect. At this particular moment, we don’t really have the numbers in either house to go over the heads of the Republican legislators. A lot of this work would have had to start 20 years ago.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 11:54 PM on June 30, 2022 [4 favorites]
“We” only have so much power to do these sorts of things. Occupying FOX would be a pretty strong statement before the cops or the National Guard broke it up, but I don’t see it having any concrete results. Worth a try.
Why is this the default belief of the non-fascist side? The fascists fucking occupied the capital and largely got away with it. Why is it that non fascists don't have the power to occupy a propaganda arm of 1 party to put some fear of the people in them (because we know they are all soft cowards behind their bullshit). The fascists have already shown us how to get results. You have to not be afraid of the law. Since that's now the known way to get things done, you could argue that the country is already failed. But there's still like 300 million some people on the land plot and there needs to be some system going forward so might as well keep steering the ship in the ant fascism direction even if that means accepting that the former framework is dead and laws with not save or help you, but disregard for laws might.
I own that my argument is basically "become a sovereign citizen to save democracy" and it sounds rediculous, but the laws are set up so you lose and fascism wins. Democrats keep trying to work in a system built over decades to keep them irrelevant. The system wasn't designed to work for everyone, so work outside it.
posted by WeekendJen at 1:31 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
Why is this the default belief of the non-fascist side? The fascists fucking occupied the capital and largely got away with it. Why is it that non fascists don't have the power to occupy a propaganda arm of 1 party to put some fear of the people in them (because we know they are all soft cowards behind their bullshit). The fascists have already shown us how to get results. You have to not be afraid of the law. Since that's now the known way to get things done, you could argue that the country is already failed. But there's still like 300 million some people on the land plot and there needs to be some system going forward so might as well keep steering the ship in the ant fascism direction even if that means accepting that the former framework is dead and laws with not save or help you, but disregard for laws might.
I own that my argument is basically "become a sovereign citizen to save democracy" and it sounds rediculous, but the laws are set up so you lose and fascism wins. Democrats keep trying to work in a system built over decades to keep them irrelevant. The system wasn't designed to work for everyone, so work outside it.
posted by WeekendJen at 1:31 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
The cops were taking smiling selfies with the January 6 fascist insurrectionists. Maybe I am a pessimist, but I do not think us non-fascists would get such a welcoming reception.
Like I said, it’s worth a try and would make a strong statement. But I think people would get killed, and then written off as looters.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:54 AM on July 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
Like I said, it’s worth a try and would make a strong statement. But I think people would get killed, and then written off as looters.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:54 AM on July 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
Why is this the default belief of the non-fascist side? The fascists fucking occupied the capital and largely got away with it. Why is it that non fascists don't have the power to occupy a propaganda arm of 1 party to put some fear of the people in them (because we know they are all soft cowards behind their bullshit).
The fascists who don't care about rule of law will just shoot the occupiers. Hell, in America they can probably castle doctrine their way into a position of insisting that they shot all the occupiers because they respect rule of law.
Either way, the fascists will just shoot you.
posted by Dysk at 1:58 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
The fascists who don't care about rule of law will just shoot the occupiers. Hell, in America they can probably castle doctrine their way into a position of insisting that they shot all the occupiers because they respect rule of law.
Either way, the fascists will just shoot you.
posted by Dysk at 1:58 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by NotLost
please please please be epony-come-true-ical
posted by Sockin'inthefreeworld at 2:11 AM on July 1, 2022
please please please be epony-come-true-ical
posted by Sockin'inthefreeworld at 2:11 AM on July 1, 2022
For those of you so inclined and lacking information...
Some books to look for in your library tomorrow:
Run For Elected Office
How to Run For Political Office and Win
So You Want to Start a SuperPAC (because it's easy and not as regulated)
The Citizen Lobbyist: A How-to Manual for Making Your Voice Heard in Government
Political Action: A Practical Guide to Movement Politics
and finally, because what the hell
Ariianna Huffington - How to Overthrow the Government
Beau has some thoughts on running for office.
If nothing else, you'll gain some insight on how Boebert, Greene and Cawthorn got elected.
PS: Sorry for the derail, but, is it me, or does Matt Gaetz look a lot like Evil Donny Osmond (sans goatee)?
posted by zaixfeep at 3:32 AM on July 1, 2022 [16 favorites]
Some books to look for in your library tomorrow:
Run For Elected Office
How to Run For Political Office and Win
So You Want to Start a SuperPAC (because it's easy and not as regulated)
The Citizen Lobbyist: A How-to Manual for Making Your Voice Heard in Government
Political Action: A Practical Guide to Movement Politics
and finally, because what the hell
Ariianna Huffington - How to Overthrow the Government
Beau has some thoughts on running for office.
If nothing else, you'll gain some insight on how Boebert, Greene and Cawthorn got elected.
PS: Sorry for the derail, but, is it me, or does Matt Gaetz look a lot like Evil Donny Osmond (sans goatee)?
posted by zaixfeep at 3:32 AM on July 1, 2022 [16 favorites]
People were killed during the insurrection. Turning the tide will not be comfy. Even running for office is not comfy and safe. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head in 2011 and the fascists have only been emboldened since.
posted by WeekendJen at 3:40 AM on July 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by WeekendJen at 3:40 AM on July 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
If we had a Democratic majority that was willing to use the powers that they've been given, they could be Constitutional originalists, use the guarantee clause (Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"--this is, of course, NOT referring to the party of that name), and dissolve state governments that have misbehaved.
There's historical precedent in the United States managing the affairs of states that needed punishing. This time around, why not just skip the violence of the Civil War and go directly to Reconstruction?
Saying the above with a certain degree of sarcasm.....but if there are no legal precedents to be followed anymore and everything is calvinball, it ought to be doable. As has been hashed out in previous threads, it's unlikely that the people we have voted in to defend us will take bold action to defend us, based on the actions they've taken so far.
posted by gimonca at 3:42 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
There's historical precedent in the United States managing the affairs of states that needed punishing. This time around, why not just skip the violence of the Civil War and go directly to Reconstruction?
Saying the above with a certain degree of sarcasm.....but if there are no legal precedents to be followed anymore and everything is calvinball, it ought to be doable. As has been hashed out in previous threads, it's unlikely that the people we have voted in to defend us will take bold action to defend us, based on the actions they've taken so far.
posted by gimonca at 3:42 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
- For news/commentary, another source to follow is Marc E. Elias (@marceelias), election rights advocate and partner at Elias Law Group, lead counsel in two major elections law cases on the SCOTUS docket, including this one (link to their press release). One of his latest tweets:
> This is the single most important story of the day and the most important story of democracy this week. Yes, it is more significant for the long-term future of democracy than the news from the January 6th hearings.
----
- When I first saw the headline, I thought it was the case that was cited as a nightmare-for-democracy scenario in a legal affairs podcast episode some months ago. After hunting down the ep (Opening Arguments) to relisten to the nightmare hypotheticals, I realized that the details don't exactly match (even though NC was specifically mentioned as an example) so have only added to and revived the fresh hell visions in my mind...
posted by Sockin'inthefreeworld at 3:57 AM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
> This is the single most important story of the day and the most important story of democracy this week. Yes, it is more significant for the long-term future of democracy than the news from the January 6th hearings.
----
- When I first saw the headline, I thought it was the case that was cited as a nightmare-for-democracy scenario in a legal affairs podcast episode some months ago. After hunting down the ep (Opening Arguments) to relisten to the nightmare hypotheticals, I realized that the details don't exactly match (even though NC was specifically mentioned as an example) so have only added to and revived the fresh hell visions in my mind...
posted by Sockin'inthefreeworld at 3:57 AM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'd say that the specific decision in Moore v. Harper is fairly irrelevant anyway. Regardless of what precedents are in place, if there are any legal challenges to the 2024 election in any state, and they reach the Supreme Court--most likely it will be an automatic win for the team based at Four Seasons Total Landscaping, no matter how flimsy, repugnant, irrational, or just flat-out false the arguments given are.
In a world where precedents don't really mean anything--one more precedent also doesn't really mean anything on its own.
posted by gimonca at 3:59 AM on July 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
In a world where precedents don't really mean anything--one more precedent also doesn't really mean anything on its own.
posted by gimonca at 3:59 AM on July 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
In my work last century with BigLaw, one of the key marketing propositions for big commercial clients, was the ability to have a predictable legal setting. When the client had multinational operations, domicile and jurisdiction were a matter of choice.
So a robust legal system that is well-resourced and with a depth of talent means that if there is a problem or unforeseen event, the fallout is manageable because the insurers will deal with the bulk of the issues, and you send in the lawyers to sort out the remnants. "Stare decisis", ie. binding precedent, was key.
Who is going to risk legal scrutiny from a bunch of ideologues if they can avoid it?
Recalling this from memory (so apologies if this is misremembered), but in the mid-1980s, the government of Indonesia under Suharto had to contract out their customs management to the Swiss, because of the rampant corruption combined with the lack of any trustable legal recourse. It got that bad.
One would think that the corporate class in the United States would exert pressure to stop actions being taken by Republicans that put their United States assets at risk. Now, many multinationals could just move away, a certain number of smaller and privately-held companies would support a fascist takeover regardless of how ugly it gets, but what about the rest?
I have to remind myself that people themselves don't take action that's in their own very clear interest--persons who vote Republican consistently vote against their own benefit. And, that maybe there's the rueful unintended close reading of what Mr. Romney told us a few years ago: "corporations are people, too". Yes, they can also be subject to psychosis and delusion.
Nevertheless, it seems like the reaction from the corporate establishment is a future domino to fall. How soon? In which direction? I genuinely don't know.
(I could speculate on good outcomes, really bad outcomes, and unexpected mixed outcomes, but I'd hate to derail the discussion too much.)
posted by gimonca at 4:35 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
So a robust legal system that is well-resourced and with a depth of talent means that if there is a problem or unforeseen event, the fallout is manageable because the insurers will deal with the bulk of the issues, and you send in the lawyers to sort out the remnants. "Stare decisis", ie. binding precedent, was key.
Who is going to risk legal scrutiny from a bunch of ideologues if they can avoid it?
Recalling this from memory (so apologies if this is misremembered), but in the mid-1980s, the government of Indonesia under Suharto had to contract out their customs management to the Swiss, because of the rampant corruption combined with the lack of any trustable legal recourse. It got that bad.
One would think that the corporate class in the United States would exert pressure to stop actions being taken by Republicans that put their United States assets at risk. Now, many multinationals could just move away, a certain number of smaller and privately-held companies would support a fascist takeover regardless of how ugly it gets, but what about the rest?
I have to remind myself that people themselves don't take action that's in their own very clear interest--persons who vote Republican consistently vote against their own benefit. And, that maybe there's the rueful unintended close reading of what Mr. Romney told us a few years ago: "corporations are people, too". Yes, they can also be subject to psychosis and delusion.
Nevertheless, it seems like the reaction from the corporate establishment is a future domino to fall. How soon? In which direction? I genuinely don't know.
(I could speculate on good outcomes, really bad outcomes, and unexpected mixed outcomes, but I'd hate to derail the discussion too much.)
posted by gimonca at 4:35 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
The insurrectionists are all rubes, all dumbasses. Yeah, maybe the cops sided with them and didn't tommy gun them in the streets like they would have if it had been a bunch of lefty zealots, but they all wound up in jail, while their leader disavowed them. They did not succeed. I don't know what will work, but that is not an example that I would follow. Don't.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:46 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:46 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
These guys are just hell-bent on burning it all to the ground, aren’t they.
To me it feels a lot like the high risk phase of a domestic partnership breakup where unstable violent men threaten to murder their own children and the estranged partner that is finally formally leaving them.
posted by srboisvert at 4:51 AM on July 1, 2022 [17 favorites]
To me it feels a lot like the high risk phase of a domestic partnership breakup where unstable violent men threaten to murder their own children and the estranged partner that is finally formally leaving them.
posted by srboisvert at 4:51 AM on July 1, 2022 [17 favorites]
Also, in terms of people organizing like Jan 6th, the Jan 6th people had to be flown in. You know that old republican lie of, “they’re bussing in X to wreck town!” Well, they did it. There were not enough people who would actively attack “The Enemy” in the rural parts of the eastern seaboard to do it. And that’s a shitload of possible people.
France (most notably but other EU countries included) will start up the Car-b-ques and have a massive, violent, anti-government paroxysm in the street that cuts across all sectors of society. That WILL NOT HAPPEN HERE. The squishy middle has been conditioned not to by finger wagging democrats for literal decades.
Like, Jesus Christ, Biden was lecturing us on non-violence while snipers looked down on the Roe protestors from the roof of SCOTUS.
posted by Slackermagee at 4:55 AM on July 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
France (most notably but other EU countries included) will start up the Car-b-ques and have a massive, violent, anti-government paroxysm in the street that cuts across all sectors of society. That WILL NOT HAPPEN HERE. The squishy middle has been conditioned not to by finger wagging democrats for literal decades.
Like, Jesus Christ, Biden was lecturing us on non-violence while snipers looked down on the Roe protestors from the roof of SCOTUS.
posted by Slackermagee at 4:55 AM on July 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
Things are bad. I have left the US and will not return, at least not for more than a visit, and even that gets more and more consideration these days. I recognize the great privilege in that. It is important to be able to talk about how bad it is. So bad that fixing it might not be possible without things getting even worse. It is also important to want to fix it. The danger on either side is complacency: both defeatism and vote harder potentially let you avoid facing the fact that we have hard choices to make. I have seen people in other threads saying they could not participate in a general strike because they would lose their jobs. I get it. But we might have to do it anyway. And I also get that it’s easy for me to say that. But that doesn’t make it wrong.
We too easily forget that democracy is not a feel-good ideal. It is a difficult and fragile compromise to prevent the cycle of violent oppression and violent revolution. One side feels confident in breaking our democratic norms, and it is not done thoughtlessly: there is a reason they lie about antifa terrorism and supposed left wing violence. They are priming the narrative, because they know that once the norms break down completely, violence is the only option against oppression.
posted by Nothing at 5:31 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
We too easily forget that democracy is not a feel-good ideal. It is a difficult and fragile compromise to prevent the cycle of violent oppression and violent revolution. One side feels confident in breaking our democratic norms, and it is not done thoughtlessly: there is a reason they lie about antifa terrorism and supposed left wing violence. They are priming the narrative, because they know that once the norms break down completely, violence is the only option against oppression.
posted by Nothing at 5:31 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
for those railing against defeatism, what should we do when the democrats already hold the elected branches of power? flip 10 senate seats in the midterms? lol, those are like R+8 states at least, good luck! i can only vote in one state and it’s not like a 2500 donation from every democrat to every candidate would change that. am i supposed to protest? to march? we’re so divided that the marching has no impact, it won’t change joe manchins mind so there’s no chance it’s having an impact on mcconnell. so maybe direct action. well now we’re talking, but the actions i have in mind would get me the death penalty. no, there’s basically nothing i can do, politically. the democrats already have the majority: THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING. if they did maybe i wouldn’t feel so defeated
posted by dis_integration at 5:37 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 5:37 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
I personally don't think people should force themselves to feel hope/faith in the electoral politics if they don't feel it, but I will say that all the Democrats need to do is
- win *2* more Senate seats (because Sinema and Manchin seem to be the only Dems unwilling to get rid of the fillibuster), which is actually pretty possible due to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (states that Biden won!) having Republican senators and being up for election, and
- keep the house (that one's a bit harder, but not impossible)
Then the Dems could actually do many many things, like have a federal abortion law, gay marriage law, climate action, child care, and much more...
posted by nightcoast at 6:11 AM on July 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
- win *2* more Senate seats (because Sinema and Manchin seem to be the only Dems unwilling to get rid of the fillibuster), which is actually pretty possible due to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (states that Biden won!) having Republican senators and being up for election, and
- keep the house (that one's a bit harder, but not impossible)
Then the Dems could actually do many many things, like have a federal abortion law, gay marriage law, climate action, child care, and much more...
posted by nightcoast at 6:11 AM on July 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
Republicans literally staged a coup. Their president rejected the peaceful transfer of power and very obviously incited a violent insurrection with the intent of remaining in power. He even cheered when the mob declared that they were going to hang his own vice president. Lots of prominent Republicans including members of congress were so aware of their guilt potential to be prosecuted that they begged for preemptive pardons.
And yet Democrats are the ones at a disadvantage here and completely helpless to do anything despite controlling 2/3rds of the government because Mitch McConnell outsmarted them on a stupid procedural matter half a decade ago?
I just can't reconcile that.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:12 AM on July 1, 2022 [30 favorites]
And yet Democrats are the ones at a disadvantage here and completely helpless to do anything despite controlling 2/3rds of the government because Mitch McConnell outsmarted them on a stupid procedural matter half a decade ago?
I just can't reconcile that.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:12 AM on July 1, 2022 [30 favorites]
Any good resources pointing to why the supreme court seems to be pumping out this stuff all of a sudden? (Am non American) - is it tied to the electoral cycle? The Jan 6 hearings ? Summer time? Something else?
Roe vs Wade, emissions, gun carry, this- why is it spewing out all at once?
This is unfortunately a culmination of nearly half a century of work, starting with the efforts that ultimately put Reagan in power, largely in order to counter New Deal and Civil Rights Era changes in what many in the United States thought a federal government was supposed to do. In 2004, the book What's the Matter with Kansas? laid out a convincing argument about efforts in this regard. It has been criticized on various grounds, but I do think it holds up.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:21 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
Roe vs Wade, emissions, gun carry, this- why is it spewing out all at once?
This is unfortunately a culmination of nearly half a century of work, starting with the efforts that ultimately put Reagan in power, largely in order to counter New Deal and Civil Rights Era changes in what many in the United States thought a federal government was supposed to do. In 2004, the book What's the Matter with Kansas? laid out a convincing argument about efforts in this regard. It has been criticized on various grounds, but I do think it holds up.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:21 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
OK take a deep breath everyone. Things are terrible but I'm not convinced that this particular case is a foregone conclusion.
The theory of the case is that, for purposes of administering federal elections, state legislatures should have unchecked power without regard for state courts or constitutions. Agreeing with that theory would require the justices to take the position that courts are not all-powerful.
More importantly, as far as I know, this is not a typical Federalist Society talking point like abortion, climate change, or excessive regulation. In fact, it would make their blessed "states' rights" thing much more complicated.
Yes, some of the justices (Thomas) just care about the outcome and not how you get there, and are going to vote in favor of whatever the Republicans want. But I think Roberts will be appalled by this, and if he can get even one other justice on his side (my guess is Gorsuch), the good guys will win.
I'm not even certain that anyone other than the stupidest, fringiest Republicans will actually want this. It's advantageous in the short term because it allows GOP-led legislatures in NC and elsewhere to put up whatever horrible maps they want, but legislatures shift, and I'm not sure they want to put that kind of power in the hands of future Democrats.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:36 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
The theory of the case is that, for purposes of administering federal elections, state legislatures should have unchecked power without regard for state courts or constitutions. Agreeing with that theory would require the justices to take the position that courts are not all-powerful.
More importantly, as far as I know, this is not a typical Federalist Society talking point like abortion, climate change, or excessive regulation. In fact, it would make their blessed "states' rights" thing much more complicated.
Yes, some of the justices (Thomas) just care about the outcome and not how you get there, and are going to vote in favor of whatever the Republicans want. But I think Roberts will be appalled by this, and if he can get even one other justice on his side (my guess is Gorsuch), the good guys will win.
I'm not even certain that anyone other than the stupidest, fringiest Republicans will actually want this. It's advantageous in the short term because it allows GOP-led legislatures in NC and elsewhere to put up whatever horrible maps they want, but legislatures shift, and I'm not sure they want to put that kind of power in the hands of future Democrats.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:36 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
For folks wondering about what to do or feeling defeatist, I strongly recommend reading up on US labor history, as well as resistance to slavery. In practice, free speech and freedom of assembly rights for ordinary people came after and as a result of these struggles. Also recommend reading up on Native American/First Nations resistance to colonialism, if you need some (more realistic than post-apocalyptic movies) sense of what happens and what you can do after a culturally-targeted apocalypse.
A couple good places to start, with the caveat that this is not my area of expertise really, so probably there are some better options out there, but these are ones I’ve read and would recommend:
Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy
From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend: An Illustrated History of Labor in the United States
500 Years of Indigenous Resistance (also available in comic book format)
Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail
A People’s History of the United States is also excellent, of course, but doesn’t have the space to go into as much detail about how struggles were won. The website libcom.org has a lot of resources including some of the above works available. They also have an organizing guide, and the IWW is working on making materials related to their organizer training more widely available as well. But reading some of the history is a good place to start, since it gives the grounding for understanding the organizing principles in a manner that will help you and your communities apply them more successfully.
posted by eviemath at 6:55 AM on July 1, 2022 [25 favorites]
A couple good places to start, with the caveat that this is not my area of expertise really, so probably there are some better options out there, but these are ones I’ve read and would recommend:
Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy
From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend: An Illustrated History of Labor in the United States
500 Years of Indigenous Resistance (also available in comic book format)
Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail
A People’s History of the United States is also excellent, of course, but doesn’t have the space to go into as much detail about how struggles were won. The website libcom.org has a lot of resources including some of the above works available. They also have an organizing guide, and the IWW is working on making materials related to their organizer training more widely available as well. But reading some of the history is a good place to start, since it gives the grounding for understanding the organizing principles in a manner that will help you and your communities apply them more successfully.
posted by eviemath at 6:55 AM on July 1, 2022 [25 favorites]
I don't understand the complaints about "defeatism"--as though it's a coherent philosophy some of us have adopted, rather than what it really is, a sort of spiritual concussion due to too much political trauma. How can your head not be ringing right now? We've just had a two-year-long example of state and federal government being absolutely incapable of solving large problems. We watched two different administrations fumble COVID response, and a million fellow citizens dying because of it. With all the amazing tools at our disposal, we failed. To this day, only about a third of the entire population of the states has had the booster necessary to stand a chance against omicron.
And that was all before a basic human right was snatched from us last week--a right that somehow only existed as a shadow, a decision in a court case, millions and millions of people's bodies affected at the whim of a tiny, tiny handful of people.
It's not defeatism, I think, to say that there is something so deeply wrong with us, that it's difficult to see how we get out of this. For many of us, voting is already useless, tossing a little blue ballot into a blood-red sea. The upcoming case threatens to make voting even more useless. We talk about this all the time, the basic antidemocratic structure of the US. It's not news.
We are coming up against some hard limits in the right's quest to be ruled by a monarch and hereditary aristocracy. My first comment on this thread was going to be a response to and agreement with Barbara Spitzer's point above--how do we maintain a complex economy without rules and predictability? (I know the recent EPA decision was not as disastrous as it could have been, but I kept wondering, what if it had been the SEC being dismantled instead?) We've seen how non-resilient the economy is in the face of unpredicted shocks. If state legislatures can overrule courts, if the country presses even further to the right, how exactly do they propose to keep the economy going? They're not very good at philosophy, or economy, or, well, anything except grudges and revenge. Will the trains run on time?
In the face of this, any proposal that starts, "If we just--" or "If we can all come together to--" does seem a little unrealistic. If we all call our senators...well, mine isn't interested. He celebrated Dobbs as a victory for unborn babies. Maybe yours will be interested in what you have to say. Take to the streets? By all means, but you'll recall we just did that, only to watch a popular movement get co-opted, its energy fizzling out, turned into an effective talking point to rally the conservatives.
I am not sure that it's true that the masses as such have power. I know we always say, if we just get organized, if we just have a general strike, whatever, but...where is the evidence? We, a divided population, are blunt weapons in the hands of actual power. We are so easily distracted. Our society is built specifically with repression of dissent in mind.
So I really sympathize with people whose energy is spent, whose despair is high, who think maybe the best course is to say fuck it and try to marshal their strength for the difficulties of ordinary life. I am a huge believer in the old bible verse, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." I think that's so important--that our hope be communicated on a foundation of solid reason rather than blind optimism. But...but I'm still waiting to hear why people think there's hope. I would like to see the evidence.
posted by mittens at 6:59 AM on July 1, 2022 [31 favorites]
And that was all before a basic human right was snatched from us last week--a right that somehow only existed as a shadow, a decision in a court case, millions and millions of people's bodies affected at the whim of a tiny, tiny handful of people.
It's not defeatism, I think, to say that there is something so deeply wrong with us, that it's difficult to see how we get out of this. For many of us, voting is already useless, tossing a little blue ballot into a blood-red sea. The upcoming case threatens to make voting even more useless. We talk about this all the time, the basic antidemocratic structure of the US. It's not news.
We are coming up against some hard limits in the right's quest to be ruled by a monarch and hereditary aristocracy. My first comment on this thread was going to be a response to and agreement with Barbara Spitzer's point above--how do we maintain a complex economy without rules and predictability? (I know the recent EPA decision was not as disastrous as it could have been, but I kept wondering, what if it had been the SEC being dismantled instead?) We've seen how non-resilient the economy is in the face of unpredicted shocks. If state legislatures can overrule courts, if the country presses even further to the right, how exactly do they propose to keep the economy going? They're not very good at philosophy, or economy, or, well, anything except grudges and revenge. Will the trains run on time?
In the face of this, any proposal that starts, "If we just--" or "If we can all come together to--" does seem a little unrealistic. If we all call our senators...well, mine isn't interested. He celebrated Dobbs as a victory for unborn babies. Maybe yours will be interested in what you have to say. Take to the streets? By all means, but you'll recall we just did that, only to watch a popular movement get co-opted, its energy fizzling out, turned into an effective talking point to rally the conservatives.
I am not sure that it's true that the masses as such have power. I know we always say, if we just get organized, if we just have a general strike, whatever, but...where is the evidence? We, a divided population, are blunt weapons in the hands of actual power. We are so easily distracted. Our society is built specifically with repression of dissent in mind.
So I really sympathize with people whose energy is spent, whose despair is high, who think maybe the best course is to say fuck it and try to marshal their strength for the difficulties of ordinary life. I am a huge believer in the old bible verse, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." I think that's so important--that our hope be communicated on a foundation of solid reason rather than blind optimism. But...but I'm still waiting to hear why people think there's hope. I would like to see the evidence.
posted by mittens at 6:59 AM on July 1, 2022 [31 favorites]
Yeah, I'm not ruling out this particular court endorsing the independent state legislature theory. But I think it's equally likely they rule against this theory while further dismantling the VRA in Merrill v Milligan.
That way the media can talk up the court's balanced approach to disenfranchisement. Truly the moderate middle way ... ignore the overt endorsement of racism, at least they didn't greenlight unchecked state legislature power to overturn elections. The terrible op eds write themselves.
posted by the primroses were over at 6:59 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
That way the media can talk up the court's balanced approach to disenfranchisement. Truly the moderate middle way ... ignore the overt endorsement of racism, at least they didn't greenlight unchecked state legislature power to overturn elections. The terrible op eds write themselves.
posted by the primroses were over at 6:59 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
(I know the recent EPA decision was not as disastrous as it could have been, but I kept wondering, what if it had been the SEC being dismantled instead?)
Just wait until Jarkesy or something similar reaches the illegitimate Court.
posted by Gadarene at 7:10 AM on July 1, 2022
Just wait until Jarkesy or something similar reaches the illegitimate Court.
posted by Gadarene at 7:10 AM on July 1, 2022
i'm not sure there's much cause to trust the court, given how in this past term it's said:
but that also assumes they're reasonable people, so it's better to prepare for the worst case scenario instead of sitting with thumbs up the ass like the democratic leadership has been.
the court has no legitimacy. burn it down and dismiss the rulings.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:11 AM on July 1, 2022 [54 favorites]
- if you don't get read your miranda rights, lol, lmao, get fucked and rot in jail (vega v tekoh)
- if you and your fellow citizens in your state wanted reasonable restrictions on conceal carry, no you didn't, lol, lmao, get fucked and go die in a mass shooting (nysrpa v bruen)
- if you didn't want border patrol to do whatever they want with you, lol, lmao, get fucked and lick the boot (egbert v boule)
- if you didn't want your taxes to fund religious zealot schools that love bigotry, tough tittles, lol, lmao, get fucked and gdiaf (carson v makin)
- if you're on death row and were wrongfully convicted because you had a shit lawyer who didn't even try their best, lol, lmao, get fucked and gdia lethal injection bed (shinn v ramierez)
- if you made a mistake on one page of your massive, massive stack of immigration forms and don't get a chance to fix them, lol, lmao, get fucked and go back to where you came from foreigner (patel v garland)
- if you thought maybe there were limits on qualified immunity for cops as they beat the everliving shit out of you or murdered you, lol, lmao, get fucked and eat the curb (rivas-villegas v cortesluna, tahlequah v bond)
- if you don't want your kids to be forced to pray to someone else's god, lol, lmao, get fucked you stupid heathen (kennedy v bremerton)
- if your people, culture, and heritage were exterminated over multiple centuries by a colonialist state and then that state said "okay, you can govern your homes in these small reservations", lol, lmao, get fucked and we had our fingers crossed (oklahoma v castro-huerta)
- if you thought that the executive branch could, y'know, execute on rules and guidelines it makes, lol, lmao, get fucked and what are you, some kind of fuckin' nerd (west virginia v epa)
- if you think maybe beating a pandemic is more than just personal responsibility, you're wrong and plagues are people with rights too, unlike women, minorities, and trannies, lol, lmao, get fucked and catch these viruses (biden v missouri)
- if you thought that you and a bunch of other people about to be deported could sue the government for locking you up indefinitely together, lol, lmao, get fucked and rot in jail (garland v gonzalez)
- if you have a uterus and thought a 50-year-old precedent would protect you, lol, lmao, get fucked (dobbs v jackson)
- if you thought it would be a bad idea for state legislatures to gerrymander districts to weaken minority groups, lol, lmao, get fucked and your vote doesn't count (wisconsin legislature v wisconsin elections commission, ardoin v robinson)
but that also assumes they're reasonable people, so it's better to prepare for the worst case scenario instead of sitting with thumbs up the ass like the democratic leadership has been.
the court has no legitimacy. burn it down and dismiss the rulings.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:11 AM on July 1, 2022 [54 favorites]
Anyone here remember Dick Tuck? The man, I mean, not the standard modern Democratic response of 'yep, you're right, that and our tails, too.' Hey, as long as Roger Stone is unencumbered and practicing the craft anyway...
posted by zaixfeep at 7:20 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by zaixfeep at 7:20 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
One would think that the corporate class in the United States would exert pressure to stop actions being taken by Republicans that put their United States assets at risk.
Why would they? The Supreme Court just gutted the EPA and seems to be on a path towards significantly reducing the government's ability to regulate anything. The corporate class is getting exactly what they want out of this, they can tolerate whatever friction catering to the Bible-thumpers causes. It's been that way since the late 70s and has worked out very well for them.
Contra comments above, I really don't think we're going to see any dissolution of the country or wholesale change of the system. Our future is going to look something like Orban's Hungary today: an illiberal, overtly Christian "democracy". Conservatives and their corporate allies seem to want to maintain the outward form of the current system, they just want it carefully controlled. Things will be shitty for people under the theocrat boot, but probably the same or maybe even potentially better for those not. The more liberal states will reach some state of equilibrium with this illiberal system where they are tolerated to some extent as pockets of relative openness. I really don't think Americans are going to actually revolt or take mass action to stop this, but prove me wrong!
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:35 AM on July 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
Why would they? The Supreme Court just gutted the EPA and seems to be on a path towards significantly reducing the government's ability to regulate anything. The corporate class is getting exactly what they want out of this, they can tolerate whatever friction catering to the Bible-thumpers causes. It's been that way since the late 70s and has worked out very well for them.
Contra comments above, I really don't think we're going to see any dissolution of the country or wholesale change of the system. Our future is going to look something like Orban's Hungary today: an illiberal, overtly Christian "democracy". Conservatives and their corporate allies seem to want to maintain the outward form of the current system, they just want it carefully controlled. Things will be shitty for people under the theocrat boot, but probably the same or maybe even potentially better for those not. The more liberal states will reach some state of equilibrium with this illiberal system where they are tolerated to some extent as pockets of relative openness. I really don't think Americans are going to actually revolt or take mass action to stop this, but prove me wrong!
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:35 AM on July 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
The Onion, on point, as ever, already posted an entire front page worth of bad mock Supreme Court rulings, such as "Supreme Court Votes 5-4 To Throw Beer Bottle At Slut." The only thing that made it less spot-on, is you know those rulings would be 6-3.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:41 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:41 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
See, this is a problem. (Sorry to pick on you i used to be someone else, but this was the first entry in your list.)
All that Vega says is that you cannot subsequently sue the police for civil damages under § 1983 for a violation of your civil rights. Still a shitty decision, but not "get fucked and rot in jail."
We are right to be upset and discouraged, but we have to be better than the other side about getting the facts right.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 8:06 AM on July 1, 2022 [16 favorites]
if you don't get read your miranda rights, lol, lmao, get fucked and rot in jail (vega v tekoh)This is absolutely NOT what the Vega v. Tekoh decision does. If you arrested and don't get your Miranda warnings, it is still the case that any confession cannot be used against you in court. That evidentiary rule stays in place. In fact, Tekoh was found not guilty in that case.
All that Vega says is that you cannot subsequently sue the police for civil damages under § 1983 for a violation of your civil rights. Still a shitty decision, but not "get fucked and rot in jail."
We are right to be upset and discouraged, but we have to be better than the other side about getting the facts right.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 8:06 AM on July 1, 2022 [16 favorites]
Remember the warnings/advice to document our ethics,privileges,outrages and losses lest we become inured to what we lost when things start happening too fast?
Might be good to revisit that, the advice from ages ago, when the predictions about Life Today felt like a fever dream.
I'm ashamed to say that personally, for this morning at least, I can't bring myself to look.
posted by bindr at 8:16 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
Might be good to revisit that, the advice from ages ago, when the predictions about Life Today felt like a fever dream.
I'm ashamed to say that personally, for this morning at least, I can't bring myself to look.
posted by bindr at 8:16 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
besides, what do facts matter? you can spout facts until you're blue in the face, and not a single one will matter because the reason you're blue in the face is that they have a boot on your neck.
i mean, yes. theoretically, they should. but when you're a minority, a marginalized person, you can amass the equivalent of the wikimedia foundation, google, and the library of alexandria and all the fascist republicans need to do is make shit up and in short order the mainstream media will be laundering those talking points as "a debate".
ask trans people how we know.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:22 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
i mean, yes. theoretically, they should. but when you're a minority, a marginalized person, you can amass the equivalent of the wikimedia foundation, google, and the library of alexandria and all the fascist republicans need to do is make shit up and in short order the mainstream media will be laundering those talking points as "a debate".
ask trans people how we know.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:22 AM on July 1, 2022 [9 favorites]
the democrats already have the majority: THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING
The kind of itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny majority the Democrats currently have is a plastic spoon, not a crowbar.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:27 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
The kind of itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny majority the Democrats currently have is a plastic spoon, not a crowbar.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:27 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Has Biden called for Sinema to be primaried yet? No? I'll wait here.
(Acknowledging that that election isn't this year, but still...)
posted by gimonca at 8:31 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
(Acknowledging that that election isn't this year, but still...)
posted by gimonca at 8:31 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm so tired of treating these two contradictory statements as givens:
1) having the presidency and a narrow majority is all the GOP needs to ruthlessly enact their agenda
2) having the presidency and a narrow majority is not sufficient enough power for the Democratic party to achieve anything from their agenda
These two things cannot both be true.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:32 AM on July 1, 2022 [23 favorites]
1) having the presidency and a narrow majority is all the GOP needs to ruthlessly enact their agenda
2) having the presidency and a narrow majority is not sufficient enough power for the Democratic party to achieve anything from their agenda
These two things cannot both be true.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:32 AM on July 1, 2022 [23 favorites]
(Acknowledging that that election isn't this year, but still...)
Not to mention that Sinema's likely response to such an announcement would be to switch parties, thus turning a 50-50 Senate majority for the Democrats into a 51-49 Republican majority, and all that that implies.
(Manchin is a conservative Democrat, but at least he's a Democrat, and the only one who likely could be elected in West Virginia. Sinema has been fairly obviously on a power trip since her election and has been looking to conservative, not liberal, sources for support.)
posted by Gelatin at 8:36 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Not to mention that Sinema's likely response to such an announcement would be to switch parties, thus turning a 50-50 Senate majority for the Democrats into a 51-49 Republican majority, and all that that implies.
(Manchin is a conservative Democrat, but at least he's a Democrat, and the only one who likely could be elected in West Virginia. Sinema has been fairly obviously on a power trip since her election and has been looking to conservative, not liberal, sources for support.)
posted by Gelatin at 8:36 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
These two things cannot both be true.
They can be if the Democrats don't actually have a Senate majority if Manchin and/or Sinema don't play ball. Biden hasn't been in negotiations with Manchin about enacting his economic agenda just for laughs.
posted by Gelatin at 8:38 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
They can be if the Democrats don't actually have a Senate majority if Manchin and/or Sinema don't play ball. Biden hasn't been in negotiations with Manchin about enacting his economic agenda just for laughs.
posted by Gelatin at 8:38 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
And that was all before a basic human right was snatched from us last week--a right that somehow only existed as a shadow, a decision in a court case, millions and millions of people's bodies affected at the whim of a tiny, tiny handful of people.
Not to mention that the concurring decision named several other basic rights they're willing to eliminate for the same reason.
I'm a grandchild of Holocaust survivors. So I can empathize with anyone who wants to leave their state or the country. If I had kids, I'd probably be looking too.
For now, I'm still emotionally reeling, and will probably spend the holiday weekend processing.
posted by cheshyre at 8:48 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Not to mention that the concurring decision named several other basic rights they're willing to eliminate for the same reason.
I'm a grandchild of Holocaust survivors. So I can empathize with anyone who wants to leave their state or the country. If I had kids, I'd probably be looking too.
For now, I'm still emotionally reeling, and will probably spend the holiday weekend processing.
posted by cheshyre at 8:48 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
That's crazy even for this group.
Have we been watching the same train wreck?
I think just about the worst thing you could do is underestimate these people.
posted by rustybullrake at 9:24 AM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Have we been watching the same train wreck?
I think just about the worst thing you could do is underestimate these people.
posted by rustybullrake at 9:24 AM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
these are [labor history books] I’ve read and would recommend:
I'd enthusiastically add Kim Kelly's Fight Like Hell to that list.
posted by box at 9:51 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
I'd enthusiastically add Kim Kelly's Fight Like Hell to that list.
posted by box at 9:51 AM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
They can be if the Democrats don't actually have a Senate majority if Manchin and/or Sinema don't play ball.
In less hyper-partisan times it would be perfectly normal to have several Senators who are more-conservative or more-liberal than the majority of their party and the defection of Manchin or Sinema would be balanced out by a few crossover votse from the GOP and Democrats would still have a functional majority.
But those times are long gone, and I don't think party leadership understands how bad the optics are when signature legislation gets canned or never even considered because selfish babies don't want to play ball. Likewise, the definition most people have of a majority is "a party that occupies more than 50% of seats in Congress" not "a party that occupies more than 50% of seats in Congress and they all agree on everything". It's also painful listening to Democrats hamfistedly explain why they don't actually have a majority, or why we need to elect more Democrats without casting too much shade on Manchin and Sinema lest they have a pout and switch parties out of spite.
Something needs to be done because the present situation is unsustainable. I don't know what that thing might be, but I'm not an expert at 11-dimensional chess.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:07 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
In less hyper-partisan times it would be perfectly normal to have several Senators who are more-conservative or more-liberal than the majority of their party and the defection of Manchin or Sinema would be balanced out by a few crossover votse from the GOP and Democrats would still have a functional majority.
But those times are long gone, and I don't think party leadership understands how bad the optics are when signature legislation gets canned or never even considered because selfish babies don't want to play ball. Likewise, the definition most people have of a majority is "a party that occupies more than 50% of seats in Congress" not "a party that occupies more than 50% of seats in Congress and they all agree on everything". It's also painful listening to Democrats hamfistedly explain why they don't actually have a majority, or why we need to elect more Democrats without casting too much shade on Manchin and Sinema lest they have a pout and switch parties out of spite.
Something needs to be done because the present situation is unsustainable. I don't know what that thing might be, but I'm not an expert at 11-dimensional chess.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:07 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
the democrats already have the majority: THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING
The kind of itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny majority the Democrats currently have is a plastic spoon, not a crowbar.
this is a lack of imagination. mitch mcconnel just used his majority to overturn roe. give him a one vote majority and he’ll move the world. why don’t we fight barenuckle too? there are no norms left worth keeping. LBJ wouldn’t stand for this chickenshit party
posted by dis_integration at 10:34 AM on July 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
The kind of itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny majority the Democrats currently have is a plastic spoon, not a crowbar.
this is a lack of imagination. mitch mcconnel just used his majority to overturn roe. give him a one vote majority and he’ll move the world. why don’t we fight barenuckle too? there are no norms left worth keeping. LBJ wouldn’t stand for this chickenshit party
posted by dis_integration at 10:34 AM on July 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
parliamentarian says you can’t do what you want through reconciliation? get a parliamentarian who says you can. that’s just one thing we could have done
posted by dis_integration at 10:36 AM on July 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 10:36 AM on July 1, 2022 [8 favorites]
I don't think party leadership understands how bad the optics are when signature legislation gets canned or never even considered because selfish babies don't want to play ball.
Or maybe they do, which is why they keep negotiating with Joe Manchin to get their signature legislation passed.
It still comes down to, optics or otherwise, there are two unreliable votes in the Senate Democratic caucus and not much Biden can do about it. Sinema can cause much more damage to Biden by switching parties -- and really, what does she have to lose? -- than Biden or Schumer could do to her.
posted by Gelatin at 10:42 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Or maybe they do, which is why they keep negotiating with Joe Manchin to get their signature legislation passed.
It still comes down to, optics or otherwise, there are two unreliable votes in the Senate Democratic caucus and not much Biden can do about it. Sinema can cause much more damage to Biden by switching parties -- and really, what does she have to lose? -- than Biden or Schumer could do to her.
posted by Gelatin at 10:42 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
parliamentarian says you can’t do what you want through reconciliation? get a parliamentarian who says you can. that’s just one thing we could have done
Okay, but the parliamentarian is moot if you don't have 50 votes. What do you do to make Kristen Sinema vote your way?
posted by Gelatin at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Okay, but the parliamentarian is moot if you don't have 50 votes. What do you do to make Kristen Sinema vote your way?
posted by Gelatin at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Okay, but the parliamentarian is moot if you don't have 50 votes. What do you do to make Kristen Sinema vote your way?
You have a bully pulpit and you FUCKING use it.
The actual goddamn fate of the republic, the nation, and humanity in general is at stake.
posted by Gadarene at 10:56 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
You have a bully pulpit and you FUCKING use it.
The actual goddamn fate of the republic, the nation, and humanity in general is at stake.
posted by Gadarene at 10:56 AM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
And what you DON'T do is forswear any of that to enter a deal with notorious liar Mitch McConnell--who will never be your friend no matter how hard you try, Joe--to nominate an anti-abortion conservative to a lifetime judgeship because you can't conceive of doing anything that seditionist Republicans don't agree with, in a stunning betrayal of your party's core principles in the wake of Dobbs.
Biden would rather put a radical Federalist Society member on the bench for life than make the passionate public case why outdated and regressive Senate procedures (filibuster and blue slips) are genuinely threatening the foundations of democracy. Because in the end he likes the filibuster and he thinks that blue slips--the same things that Orrin Hatch disregarded when convenient for him when the Republicans had the majority--are only right and proper and worthy of preservation, whatever the practical consequences.
I am just so incensed about that.
posted by Gadarene at 11:02 AM on July 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
Biden would rather put a radical Federalist Society member on the bench for life than make the passionate public case why outdated and regressive Senate procedures (filibuster and blue slips) are genuinely threatening the foundations of democracy. Because in the end he likes the filibuster and he thinks that blue slips--the same things that Orrin Hatch disregarded when convenient for him when the Republicans had the majority--are only right and proper and worthy of preservation, whatever the practical consequences.
I am just so incensed about that.
posted by Gadarene at 11:02 AM on July 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
You have a bully pulpit and you FUCKING use it.
Okay! But how does that make Kristen Sinema vote your way? Remember, all she has to do is switch parties and it's really game over for the Democrats. So what magic words can Biden say from the "bully pulpit"? How does a "passionate public case" actually make Sinema change her mind about reforming the filibuster, since she's the one who has a vote, and Biden doesn't?
posted by Gelatin at 11:19 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Okay! But how does that make Kristen Sinema vote your way? Remember, all she has to do is switch parties and it's really game over for the Democrats. So what magic words can Biden say from the "bully pulpit"? How does a "passionate public case" actually make Sinema change her mind about reforming the filibuster, since she's the one who has a vote, and Biden doesn't?
posted by Gelatin at 11:19 AM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Okay! But how does that make Kristen Sinema vote your way? Remember, all she has to do is switch parties and it's really game over for the Democrats. So what magic words can Biden say from the "bully pulpit"? How does a "passionate public case" actually make Sinema change her mind about reforming the filibuster, since she's the one who has a vote, and Biden doesn't?
You win. I'm done.
posted by Gadarene at 11:22 AM on July 1, 2022
You win. I'm done.
posted by Gadarene at 11:22 AM on July 1, 2022
Forget the bully pulpit, and pull up to her house with a gigantic armored car full of money. I mean, come on. Can't we just be cynical and say, clearly there is a price for her vote? Have you seen how much money pours into her PAC? Just double it. Triple it. Whatever it takes.
posted by mittens at 11:28 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by mittens at 11:28 AM on July 1, 2022 [7 favorites]
The whole situation has been engineered by the minority party for decades, and this whole "hanging on by our fingernails" thing is entirely a part of that. Sinema's threats, Manchin's obstinance... it's all part of it.
I really want this Nov to be something remarkable in the direction I prefer. Maybe all these events will make that happen. It's the uncertainty that is so undoing.
posted by hippybear at 11:29 AM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
I really want this Nov to be something remarkable in the direction I prefer. Maybe all these events will make that happen. It's the uncertainty that is so undoing.
posted by hippybear at 11:29 AM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
The whole situation has been engineered by the minority party for decades, and this whole "hanging on by our fingernails" thing is entirely a part of that. Sinema's threats, Manchin's obstinance... it's all part of it.
Yes, it is. Sinema went from a Green Party candidate to courting billionaire donors in a remarkably short time. Manchin is a rarity -- a conservative Democrat -- but he knows he's the only Democrat likely to be elected from West Virginia in quite a while.
But maybe the fact that Democrats are working under actual constraints doesn't mean they're all actually on the Republican side.
posted by Gelatin at 11:35 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes, it is. Sinema went from a Green Party candidate to courting billionaire donors in a remarkably short time. Manchin is a rarity -- a conservative Democrat -- but he knows he's the only Democrat likely to be elected from West Virginia in quite a while.
But maybe the fact that Democrats are working under actual constraints doesn't mean they're all actually on the Republican side.
posted by Gelatin at 11:35 AM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
These two things cannot both be true.
Because they're not? Republicans, even with full control of Washington, were not able to accomplish their long-stated goal of repealing Obamacare thanks to opposition from their own stubborn moderates. Meanwhile, Democrats this term have been able to pass COVID relief, infrastructure funding, and may yet be able to resurrect the reconciliation package, in addition to confirming a large number of federal judges and one Supreme Court justice.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:27 PM on July 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
Because they're not? Republicans, even with full control of Washington, were not able to accomplish their long-stated goal of repealing Obamacare thanks to opposition from their own stubborn moderates. Meanwhile, Democrats this term have been able to pass COVID relief, infrastructure funding, and may yet be able to resurrect the reconciliation package, in addition to confirming a large number of federal judges and one Supreme Court justice.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:27 PM on July 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
Well.... The Republicans don't actually need the presidency and a narrow majority to ruthlessly enact their agenda, just a blatant power grab
posted by Jacen at 12:27 PM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Jacen at 12:27 PM on July 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
We live in a two party system during an era of hyper-polarization and partisanship.
Not being able to deliver on campaign promises because of one or two recalcitrant members of your own party is not an excuse.
Figure it out and do something.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:29 PM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Not being able to deliver on campaign promises because of one or two recalcitrant members of your own party is not an excuse.
Figure it out and do something.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:29 PM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Figure it out and do something.
Well, one thing that would be a big help is to get Democratic voters mobilized in more elections - specifically midterm and statehouse elections. Another thing that could really move the needle is more attention to primaries.
The conservatives slowly and steadily made this happen by voting their people into position.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:55 PM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Well, one thing that would be a big help is to get Democratic voters mobilized in more elections - specifically midterm and statehouse elections. Another thing that could really move the needle is more attention to primaries.
The conservatives slowly and steadily made this happen by voting their people into position.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:55 PM on July 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Figure it out and do something.
Same question, then -- what can be done to force Manchin and Sinema to vote with the rest of the Democratic Senate caucus?
posted by Gelatin at 1:42 PM on July 1, 2022
Same question, then -- what can be done to force Manchin and Sinema to vote with the rest of the Democratic Senate caucus?
posted by Gelatin at 1:42 PM on July 1, 2022
Not being able to deliver on campaign promises because of one or two recalcitrant members of your own party is not an excuse.
It is, by the way, given our stupid system, and one thing the Democrats should do is point out the many ways our system was designed to give the minority -- and the wealthy -- outsized power, and build support for changing that system. But that support won't materialize overnight.
posted by Gelatin at 1:44 PM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
It is, by the way, given our stupid system, and one thing the Democrats should do is point out the many ways our system was designed to give the minority -- and the wealthy -- outsized power, and build support for changing that system. But that support won't materialize overnight.
posted by Gelatin at 1:44 PM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
The congress, the white house, even the entire government does not represent anything close to the sum of actual power in this country. I think one reason the Democrats seem ineffectual is that they are in opposition, or at least stated opposition, to both the Republicans and the larger powers that be, that are not sympathetic to workers' rights, human rights, and other issues that do not benefit the top .01%.
The only counterbalance is the actual will of the people, and as long as the people remain divided and despondent, or wait around for corporate Dems to save them, they will be disappointed and never realize the potential to make change as a group. So if we are upset with our government, we can't let that be the end of it, we have to think of ways to express our power without them. They are not going to save us.
posted by chaz at 1:59 PM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
The only counterbalance is the actual will of the people, and as long as the people remain divided and despondent, or wait around for corporate Dems to save them, they will be disappointed and never realize the potential to make change as a group. So if we are upset with our government, we can't let that be the end of it, we have to think of ways to express our power without them. They are not going to save us.
posted by chaz at 1:59 PM on July 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
What does the president say to get the two rogue children in line?
I know what a GOP president would do. "I have video. I have audio. I have receipts. Very embarrassing, likely criminal. Fake? Does it matter, given the proven gullibility of your constituency? "After all, they elected you."
But of course, that's going low and D's only go low to hobble real progressives who threaten ball-playing incumbents.
posted by zaixfeep at 2:43 PM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
I know what a GOP president would do. "I have video. I have audio. I have receipts. Very embarrassing, likely criminal. Fake? Does it matter, given the proven gullibility of your constituency? "After all, they elected you."
But of course, that's going low and D's only go low to hobble real progressives who threaten ball-playing incumbents.
posted by zaixfeep at 2:43 PM on July 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
Okay! But how does that make Kristen Sinema vote your way?
You BUY her off. You ask her, straight up, "What's your price? How much does it cost to buy your votes?"
posted by mikelieman at 3:23 PM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
You BUY her off. You ask her, straight up, "What's your price? How much does it cost to buy your votes?"
posted by mikelieman at 3:23 PM on July 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
You BUY her off. You ask her, straight up, "What's your price? How much does it cost to buy your votes?"
Fuck that. What they need to do is just destroy her, scorched earth fashion. This is a huge difference from the Republican Party. When Republicans step out of line they strip them of all their committees and leadership, and if they go truly out of bounds, the entire apparatus comes down on them like God’s own truncheon (the speed with which Cawthorn’s career was obliterated was astonishing).
posted by Room 101 at 6:27 PM on July 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
Fuck that. What they need to do is just destroy her, scorched earth fashion. This is a huge difference from the Republican Party. When Republicans step out of line they strip them of all their committees and leadership, and if they go truly out of bounds, the entire apparatus comes down on them like God’s own truncheon (the speed with which Cawthorn’s career was obliterated was astonishing).
posted by Room 101 at 6:27 PM on July 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
I really want this Nov to be something remarkable in the direction I prefer. Maybe all these events will make that happen.
What are you willing to do for that? Make calls, knock doors, register voters, donate?
posted by NotLost at 7:51 PM on July 1, 2022
What are you willing to do for that? Make calls, knock doors, register voters, donate?
posted by NotLost at 7:51 PM on July 1, 2022
What are you willing to do for that? Make calls, knock doors, register voters, donate?
How about paying to send The Amazing Alexander door-to-door? "I love Democrats. Much better than Republicans. I will vote a straight Democratic ticket again and again." Silly? Perhaps, but some days it seems like that's what it's going to take.
posted by zaixfeep at 9:09 PM on July 1, 2022
How about paying to send The Amazing Alexander door-to-door? "I love Democrats. Much better than Republicans. I will vote a straight Democratic ticket again and again." Silly? Perhaps, but some days it seems like that's what it's going to take.
posted by zaixfeep at 9:09 PM on July 1, 2022
The kind of itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny majority the Democrats currently have is a plastic spoon, not a crowbar.
The Republican party achieved what they achieved in terms of their goals by relentlessly advancing them whether or not they had majorities, votes or the courts. That is how they built their base's incredible loyalty ranging form the moderates to the crazy far right. They planted their flag and rallied their troops to it.
The Democratic party is still designing their flag and consulting with 'moderate' Republicans on whether it should be a poop emoji with a halo or with odor waves.
posted by srboisvert at 9:40 AM on July 2, 2022 [8 favorites]
The Republican party achieved what they achieved in terms of their goals by relentlessly advancing them whether or not they had majorities, votes or the courts. That is how they built their base's incredible loyalty ranging form the moderates to the crazy far right. They planted their flag and rallied their troops to it.
The Democratic party is still designing their flag and consulting with 'moderate' Republicans on whether it should be a poop emoji with a halo or with odor waves.
posted by srboisvert at 9:40 AM on July 2, 2022 [8 favorites]
“You have the power to elect leaders who will defend and protect your rights,” -Vice President Kamala Harris
So.... She admitted the current leaders aren't going to do anything? Cool, cool. Not my surprised face.
posted by Jacen at 2:34 AM on July 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
So.... She admitted the current leaders aren't going to do anything? Cool, cool. Not my surprised face.
posted by Jacen at 2:34 AM on July 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
Judge J. Michael Luttig, who you may remember from the January 6th hearings, explains in a fairly succinct twitter thread why the NC Supreme Court judgment in Moore v Harper should not be overturned even if SCOTUS wants to endorse the independent state legislature theory:
Now, of course, none of that means SCOTUS won't ignore the facts of the case to get to the decision they want. But Luttig was the kind of federal judge who hired almost exclusively Federalist Society clerks and many of his clerks went on to work for Scalia or Thomas.
You can see a timeline of the case so far, as well as the briefs submitted by both sides to SCOTUS at Democracy Docket.
posted by the primroses were over at 5:36 AM on July 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides that, “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections . . . shall be prescribed in each State . . . by the Legislature thereof.”(Paragraph breaks my own, since twitter formatting is weird.)
Where, as in North Carolina, the legislature has “prescribed” the “Manner” in which the federal congressional “Elections” shall be “held” to include judicial review of the legislature’s own elections and congressional districting decisions, “the Legislature [has] prescribed the Manner of holding Elections” to incorporate judicial review of the legislature’s elections and congressional districting decisions -- within both the letter and intendment of the Constitution.
Any eventual conclusion by the Supreme Court of the United States otherwise would entail an unconstitutional commandeering of the powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Interpreting either the Elections Clause of Article I or the Electors Clause of Article 2 to authorize such commandeering would offend not only the fundamental structural command of the Tenth Amendment, but also the essential design of the Constitution of the United States.
Now, of course, none of that means SCOTUS won't ignore the facts of the case to get to the decision they want. But Luttig was the kind of federal judge who hired almost exclusively Federalist Society clerks and many of his clerks went on to work for Scalia or Thomas.
You can see a timeline of the case so far, as well as the briefs submitted by both sides to SCOTUS at Democracy Docket.
posted by the primroses were over at 5:36 AM on July 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
Sorry, one more link I meant to include from Rick Hasen, legal scholar and law professor, on the various degrees of extremity SCOTUS could take in embracing independent state legislature theory in a decision on this case.
posted by the primroses were over at 5:49 AM on July 3, 2022
posted by the primroses were over at 5:49 AM on July 3, 2022
Luttig was the kind of federal judge who hired almost exclusively Federalist Society clerks and many of his clerks went on to work for Scalia or Thomas.
I wonder if he has any regrets.
posted by ryanrs at 8:47 AM on July 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
I wonder if he has any regrets.
posted by ryanrs at 8:47 AM on July 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think one reason the Democrats seem ineffectual is that they are in opposition, or at least stated opposition, to both the Republicans and the larger powers that be, that are not sympathetic to workers' rights, human rights, and other issues that do not benefit the top .01%.
I think a far bigger issue is the capture of Democrats by those larger powers that be, which prevents Dems from taking sufficient action for the people, and dissuades them from adequately acknowledging incipient fascism. Things like Dems benefiting from inside information, Clinton making $600k per Goldman speech, etc. - these things are part of why we're here.
posted by Lyme Drop at 10:33 AM on July 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think a far bigger issue is the capture of Democrats by those larger powers that be, which prevents Dems from taking sufficient action for the people, and dissuades them from adequately acknowledging incipient fascism. Things like Dems benefiting from inside information, Clinton making $600k per Goldman speech, etc. - these things are part of why we're here.
posted by Lyme Drop at 10:33 AM on July 5, 2022 [1 favorite]
Encouraging news: New York Democratic governor signs law limiting concealed carry of firearms in wake of Supreme Court ruling
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:13 AM on July 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:13 AM on July 7, 2022 [2 favorites]
What are you willing to do for that? Make calls, knock doors, register voters, donate?
what is the local democratic party willing to do for our votes here in sw michigan? - one thing they weren't willing to do is to have someone get enough signatures to get on the primary ballot for congressperson
that's right, no one is an official candidate and i guess it's going to be whoever gets the most write-in votes
by the way, this district is right-leaning, but with kalamazoo in it, it's hardly a done deal
and yet the democrats aren't even trying for district 4
why would i make calls, knock doors, register voters, donate for a party that can't even bother to put a party backed nominee on the primary ballot?
90% of life is showing up
posted by pyramid termite at 12:39 PM on July 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
what is the local democratic party willing to do for our votes here in sw michigan? - one thing they weren't willing to do is to have someone get enough signatures to get on the primary ballot for congressperson
that's right, no one is an official candidate and i guess it's going to be whoever gets the most write-in votes
by the way, this district is right-leaning, but with kalamazoo in it, it's hardly a done deal
and yet the democrats aren't even trying for district 4
why would i make calls, knock doors, register voters, donate for a party that can't even bother to put a party backed nominee on the primary ballot?
90% of life is showing up
posted by pyramid termite at 12:39 PM on July 7, 2022 [1 favorite]
That's when you take a page from the dominionists and the MAGA hat brigade and take over the local party apparatus. If they can't be arsed to run a candidate, you can bet your sweet bippy that you and a few friends can make yourselves the Democratic Party of Kalamazoo easily enough.
posted by wierdo at 1:33 PM on July 7, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 1:33 PM on July 7, 2022 [3 favorites]
What if I don't want to be the Democratic Party of Kalamazoo? That sounds like a terrible idea tbh.
posted by ryanrs at 1:46 PM on July 7, 2022
posted by ryanrs at 1:46 PM on July 7, 2022
« Older Here Comes the Sun (hopefully not too close) | Country Roads, Let's a-Go Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:36 PM on June 30, 2022 [3 favorites]