Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

Yes, Rand, because putting innocent Japanese-Americans into camps is the same thing as preventing deportations and breaking up families.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) likened President Barack Obama's decision to take executive action on immigration to then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive order authorizing putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II.

Paul made the comments on Friday, a day after Obama formally announced the executive actions, at the Kentucky Association of Counties conference in Lexington, Kentucky.

"I care that too much power gets in one place. Why? Because there are instances in our history where we allow power to gravitate toward one person and that one person then makes decisions that really are egregious," Paul said. "Think of what happened in World War II where they made the decision. The president issued an executive order. He said to Japanese people 'we're going to put you in a camp. We're going to take away all your rights and liberties and we're going to intern you in a camp.'"

"We shouldn't allow that much power to gravitate to one individual. We need to separate the power."

 

[Oblivion]

Clearly not wanting to imprison people is the same thing as imprisoning them.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Yes, Rand, because putting innocent Japanese-Americans into camps is the same thing as preventing deportations and breaking up families.

He's got a point, though. He's not equating the two, he's using an analogy. Hilariously, there was a thread about bad arguments with that as the OP's example.

That said, while it's a fine stance to take in principle, I can't help but feel that as a member of the GOP (and the, you know, government), Paul should probably consider the wider implications. While an overly-strong executive is dangerous, getting shit done is sort of the government's job. By refusing to act on the issue, Congress stops being a check/balance on the executive and becomes an impediment, at which point a stronger executive branch is called for to balance them out.

 

[Dominican Power]

Haha, that dipshit said Clinton twice when Hayes pointed to Reagan. Wish he called him out on it.

Speaking of which, that interview is emblematic of something I noticed with journalists, even liberal ones. Whenever the subject of compromise is brought up, nobody ever bothers to ask the Republican what THEY will be willing to compromise on. It shouldn't be that hard.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/rep-mo-brooks-magically-turns-reagans

 

[B-Dubs]

He's got a point, though. He's not equating the two, he's using an analogy. Hilariously, there was a thread about bad arguments with that as the OP's example.

That said, while it's a fine stance to take in principle, I can't help but feel that as a member of the GOP (and the, you know, government), Paul should probably consider the wider implications. While an overly-strong executive is dangerous, getting shit done is sort of the government's job. By refusing to act on the issue, Congress stops being a check/balance on the executive and becomes an impediment, at which point a stronger executive branch is called for to balance them out.

It's still a bad analogy though since, as you point out, it ignores all context. He may as well be invoking Goodwin's Law for all the good it does.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It's still a bad analogy though since, as you point out, it ignores all context. He may as well be invoking Goodwin's Law for all the good it does.

Well, it's a decent analogy, and a solid argument. It's just rendered irrelevant by the wider political context, is all. If we were talking about a healthy, well-functioning government, then the President's actions would be highly suspect, and a discussion of executive overreach would be necessary. But, as has been noted, it's not. Senator Paul can be as right as he wants, but since he's discussing an issue that operates on an axis perpendicular to reality, it's pointless.

But it's not, as the original poster said, a bad argument in and of itself.

 

[CygnusXS]

He's got a point, though. He's not equating the two, he's using an analogy. Hilariously, there was a thread about bad arguments with that as the OP's example.

That said, while it's a fine stance to take in principle, I can't help but feel that as a member of the GOP (and the, you know, government), Paul should probably consider the wider implications. While an overly-strong executive is dangerous, getting shit done is sort of the government's job. By refusing to act on the issue, Congress stops being a check/balance on the executive and becomes an impediment, at which point a stronger executive branch is called for to balance them out.

Eh, I mean, is it really a power grab or act of tyranny if congress can override it at literally anytime?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Eh, I mean, is it really a power grab or act of tyranny if congress can override it at literally anytime?

It's not. That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that he's correct in that a stronger executive is a risky proposition. There have been any number of presidents (not in the US) in theory who have become dictators in fact, though this is obviously not the case here. The analogy is warranted, even though the argument as a whole is not.

 

[CygnusXS]

It's not. That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that he's correct in that a stronger executive is a risky proposition. There have been any number of presidents (not in the US) in theory who have become dictators in fact, though this is obviously not the case here. The analogy is warranted, even though the argument as a whole is not.

As it's the basis by which he insinuates his argument, I feel like it's valuable to point out that the metaphor he chose does not actually support his argument.

Yes, a stronger executive is probably bad. That does not make this analogy warranted outside of noticing that they both involve EOs. This metaphor does not advance a cogent argument.

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, it's a decent analogy, and a solid argument. It's just rendered irrelevant by the wider political context, is all. If we were talking about a healthy, well-functioning government, then the President's actions would be highly suspect, and a discussion of executive overreach would be necessary. But, as has been noted, it's not. Senator Paul can be as right as he wants, but since he's discussing an issue that operates on an axis perpendicular to reality, it's pointless.

But it's not, as the original poster said, a bad argument in and of itself.

It's not really an overreach though, if he was granting them citizenship then yes it would be but all he's done is excersize the powers granted to him. This isn't amnesty, which would be an overreach. This action wasn't seen as an overreach when Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush did it. The presidency has had this power for decades now, it's not something Obama just thought up out of the blue.

Also, in the space of an argument context absolutely matters otherwise no one would makes Goodwin's Law jokes.

 

[Poodlestrike]

As it's the basis by which he insinuates his argument, I feel like it's valuable to point out that the metaphor he chose does not actually support his argument.

Yes, a stronger executive is probably bad. That does not make this analogy warranted outside of noticing that they both involve EOs. This metaphor does not advance a cogent argument.

They're both EOs that represent actions that the executive normally does not take, and as such represent an expansion of executive power. The fact that the particulars operate in literally opposite directions is kind of irrelevant. If he'd decided to rename January after his dog, it'd still be an expansion. The metaphor supports the argument, even though (again) the argument itself is superfluous, since a stronger executive is demonstrably needed right now.

And a stronger executive isn't "bad," it's dangerous. The thing about dictatorships (and I'm going off on a tangent here) is that if you actually stumble across a moral, enlightened, intelligent, and capable leader for them, they can run amazingly well. The right kind of dictator can do more good in less time than any democracy ever. That said, the above criteria rarely exist in people interested in seizing absolute power, for obvious reasons. So... dangerous.

It's not really an overreach though, if he was granting them citizenship then yes it would be but all he's done is excersize the powers granted to him. This isn't amnesty, which would be an overreach. This action wasn't seen as an overreach when Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush did it. The presidency has had this power for decades now, it's not something Obama just thought up out of the blue.

Also, in the space of an argument context absolutely matters otherwise no one would makes Goodwin's Law jokes.

No, it's not an overreach. But in a healthy political climate, it would be. If we had actual, functioning immigration laws, then the executive suspending their function would absolutely be stepping over the line. His having the powers is so he can act as a balance to Congress (people tend to forget it works both ways) in situations like this, not so he can throw them around willy nilly (which, again, he's not doing here). Senator Paul's argument hinges on dealing with the hypothetical, rather than the actual, situation. All I'm saying is that the analogy has general merit, even though the argument as a whole does not.

 

[B-Dubs]

And my point is, that considering the context of the situation, he is an idiot for making that analogy. Arguing hypotheticals has no point, especially when said hypothetical ignores the reality of the argument. He's not making his argument in good faith and we should rightly ignore him until he decides to argue the actual situation and not a hypothetical of his own construction.

 

[Poodlestrike]

And my point is, that considering the context of the situation, he is an idiot for making that analogy. Arguing hypotheticals has no point, especially when said hypothetical ignores the reality of the argument. He's not making his argument in good faith and we should rightly ignore him until he decides to argue the actual situation and not a hypothetical of his own construction.

Oh, yeah. Totally. Again, I was just taking issue with the criticism of the analogy. The argument as a whole is garbage.

 

[Metaphoreus]

By refusing to act on the issue, Congress stops being a check/balance on the executive and becomes an impediment, at which point a stronger executive branch is called for to balance them out.

I think this is confused. If Congress won't act, they are acting as a check on the president's power. When the president bypasses them, he's refusing to be checked, not balancing Congress' inaction. That said, in this case, I'm not convinced the president has overstepped his bounds--the executive branch really does appear to have broad discretion in the immigration area.

 

[Necrovex]

Yes, Rand, because putting innocent Japanese-Americans into camps is the same thing as preventing deportations and breaking up families.

It's funny, I see Rand doing his interview with Bill Maher, and I think 'Maybe he isn't completely crazy like his father.' Then he says something like this.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes, Rand, because putting innocent Japanese-Americans into camps is the same thing as preventing deportations and breaking up families.

You guys are really bad with analogies; I notice this all the time on Media Matters. Paul isn't directly equating ending deportations to putting Japanese Americans in prison. He's arguing that the president's abuse of executive power is a threat, and has been used to do very bad things in the past (and present). The problem with this argument is that US presidents have vast power over deportation policy whereas FDR had no legal right to round up Japanese Americans, break their constitutional rights, and imprison them indefinitely.

A better example might be Obama ordering the assassination of two US citizens without a trial. There's no question the power of the executive branch has reached dangerous heights over the last 14 years but Thursday's actions aren't a part of that.

 

[demon]

You guys are really bad with analogies; I notice this all the time on Media Matters. Paul isn't directly equating ending deportations to putting Japanese Americans in prison. He's arguing that the president's abuse of executive power is a threat, and has been used to do very bad things in the past (and present). The problem with this argument is that US presidents have vast power over deportation policy whereas FDR had no legal right to round up Japanese Americans, break their constitutional rights, and imprison them indefinitely.

A better example might be Obama ordering the assassination of two US citizens without a trial. There's no question the power of the executive branch has reached dangerous heights over the last 14 years but Thursday's actions aren't a part of that.

It was an all around bad analogy. Clearly chosen for the bad connotation the J-A internment camps have even though it's a nonsensical comparison as far as abuse of executive powers.

 

[B-Dubs]

It was an all around bad analogy. Clearly chosen for the bad connotation the J-A internment camps have even though it's a nonsensical comparison as far as abuse of executive powers.

More likely chose for the proximity to the Nazis. I mean he could have picked the Korean War, I mean police action; Granada, a country invavded without telling us we were doing it until it was done; or even the entire presidency of Andrew Jackson, a man who told the supreme court to fuck off and make him when they told him what he was doing was unconstitutional. But he picks an event from WWII, I wonder why.

 

[Diablos]

I think this is confused. If Congress won't act, they are acting as a check on the president's power. When the president bypasses them, he's refusing to be checked, not balancing Congress' inaction. That said, in this case, I'm not convinced the president has overstepped his bounds--the executive branch really does appear to have broad discretion in the immigration area.

There is a difference between a check and outright stopping the President from doing anything. I think Congress has gone far beyond "checking" the President's power. Those days are over. If they wanted to legitimately "check" him then they'd legitimately compromise, not extort him (and the country) with government shutdowns and poison pills (i.e. defunding the ACA in unrelated bills). The immigration bill that passed the Senate is a perfect example of compromise while also checking the President's ideals. It wasn't the best immigration bill but it would have been a better solution than what Obama is doing via the executive branch.

The GOP's version of "checking" the executive branch is pure ideologically-driven obstructionism backed by lobbyists and deep pockets. To think otherwise is foolish. Congress is a shell of its former self.

 

[Metaphoreus]

There is a difference between a check and outright stopping the President from doing anything. I think Congress has gone far beyond "checking" the President's power. Those days are over. If they wanted to legitimately "check" him then they'd legitimately compromise, not extort him (and the country) with government shutdowns and poison pills (i.e. defunding the ACA in unrelated bills). The immigration bill that passed the Senate is a perfect example of compromise while also checking the President's ideals. It wasn't the best immigration bill but it would have been a better solution than what Obama is doing via the executive branch.

The GOP's version of "checking" the executive branch is pure ideologically-driven obstructionism backed by lobbyists and deep pockets. To think otherwise is foolish. Congress is a shell of its former self.

Congress doesn't have to do anything, and their failure to do anything doesn't empower the president to do what he otherwise wouldn't have the authority to do. Congress' "check" is not forcing the president to compromise; it's the power of Congress to do nothing and force a compromise (or overcome a veto by a two-thirds vote). Imagine the opposite situation, where the president vetoes every bill passed by the House and Senate, and there aren't enough votes to overcome the veto. In that scenario, the president would be the obstructionist--but would this empower Congress to suddenly make law through some other means that doesn't involve the president? Of course not. Just as Congress doesn't gain new powers when the president exercises his powers in a way that frustrates them, the president doesn't gain new powers when Congress exercises its powers in a way that frustrates him.

 

[RustyNails]

David Vitter and Rand Paul want to remove the clause from the constitution that says people born in US are US citizens (14th amendment).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

David Vitter and Rand Paul want to remove the clause from the constitution that says people born in US are US citizens (14th amendment).

They are right about its purpose to specifically overturn dread scott. But still the reason they want to overturn it is racist and nativist. So screw them. Its a wonderful part of our Constitution. Says being american isn't due to any blood line but by virtue of being here and being a part of our nation.

Its part of what makes the new world > old world.

Edit: I should clarify the prupose was to overturn dread scott and strengethn the civil rights act of 1866 but the people debating the amendment knew they were starting automatic birthright citizenship as well

Mr. Cowan: “I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”
Mr. Trumbull: “Undoubtedly.”
...
Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”
Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”
Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”

By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of these races, born in the United States, is by the bill made a citizen of the United States.

 

[lednerg]

There's a difference between an Executive Action and an Executive Order, and the GOP would obviously prefer their base remains ignorant of it.

 

[HylianTom]

David Vitter and Rand Paul want to remove the clause from the constitution that says people born in US are US citizens (14th amendment).

The fact that they advocate this type of amendment is an admission that they know they can't kick-out persons born here.

 

[zero shift]

David Vitter and Rand Paul want to remove the clause from the constitution that says people born in US are US citizens (14th amendment).

Rand Paul is such a snake. He plays the libertarian line but acts NOTHING like a libertarian.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Even "smart" conservatives are jumping on ending birthright citizenship.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._end_birthright_citizenship.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

I love the argument that we should do this to help other immigrants. Because everything is zero sum. (Also is there any data that shows birthright citizenship being a problem?)

Good thing they can't legislatively do anything (they can maybe try to fudge around what is 'under the jurisdiction of the United States"')

 

[Wilsongt]

Hm, since Cruz was born in Canada, can we revoke his American citizen ship?

Also, I know last name and all, lulz... But people consider Ted Cruz latino? Wat?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hm, since Cruz was born in Canada, can we revoke his American citizen ship?

Also, I know last name and all, lulz... But people consider Ted Cruz latino? Wat?

His father is cuban (and fought FOR castro for a time when he was young) of course he's latino. How is he not?

 

[kehs]

So I went to eat denny's today ( love the fish and chips, don't judge me euros).

Next door under the overpass, yes this was on the edge of town. There was a health fair, it was small, maybe the size of the dennys plus parking lot. It wasn't crowded at all, there were people milling about, workers looking bored.

Diabetes. Cancer. Flu.
That's what a few of the banners said. Poignant.

I decided to check it out because well, why not. Walked around the block to the entrance. The line to get into this free, health fair was about 40 deep. I admire and I'm glad those people are waiting to get in, but I've seen longer lines at the book fair with no standing room left.

I'm pretty upset.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

2018 is gonna suck you guys.

 

[ICKE]

Reading more about this issue has made me change my mind somewhat. I sort of agree that Presidential overreach can be problematic. but I was not fully aware of the senate bill that Boehner refuses to put up to a vote. The man is a frigging joke, how can you give interviews with a straight face and why is the media not calling him out for this? It is right there, bipartisan bill that has strict measures related to border control. Then again I can't blame him for opportunism if he is not going to pay any price for it.

 

[worldrunover]

Reading more about this issue has made me change my mind somewhat. I sort of agree that Presidential overreach can be problematic. but I was not fully aware of the senate bill that Boehner refuses to put up to a vote. The man is a frigging joke, how can you give interviews with a straight face and why is the media not calling him out for this? It is right there, bipartisan bill that has strict measures related to border control. Then again I can't blame him for opportunism if he is not going to pay any price for it.

Right. No one is even suggesting he twist arms or whip up his colleagues... just put it up for a vote and it'll pass (in theory). It's SO EASY. But he knows it will pass. So why is John Boehner so against the current bill? Has anyone actually asked him this?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Right. No one is even suggesting he twist arms or whip up his colleagues... just put it up for a vote and it'll pass (in theory). It's SO EASY. But he knows it will pass. So why is John Boehner so against the current bill? Has anyone actually asked him this?

Well, while I can't speak as to before, now if he puts it to a vote it'll look like he's following the President's lead, which could have serious consequences with his base.

 

[Oblivion]

.

 

[Poodlestrike]

.

New York Post never fails to disappoint.

 

[FyreWulff]

We hold these truths to be self evident.

Except fuck you in particular, got mine. I will never understand how some people went from "everyone should have these freedoms" to "we should minimize the amount of freedom we give out, because freedom is a finite resource".

Too much scary stuff becomes possible when you get rid of citizenship by birth.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Looking at 2018, we may just be looking at a reality in which the Democrats sacrifice gaining Congress for the Presidency.

The electoral college is stacked so far against whoever the R's nominate in 2016.

The blue wall = 257 electoral votes and winning VA or any one state sans combining IA and CO makes it game over. Republicans under any scenario will have to sweep to win.

However, a Hillary win means a possible doom scenario for 2018 if the D's dont fix their turnout problem.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Using the Thanksgiving holiday to complain about immigration

We're through the fucking looking glass people

There's just no sense of irony is there?

 

[CygnusXS]

Well, while I can't speak as to before, now if he puts it to a vote it'll look like he's following the President's lead, which could have serious consequences with his base.

If he had passed it before, the Crazy Caucus and the party base would have lost their minds. Of course, that's the establishment's fault for legitimizing the crazy during 2008-2010, so they're reaping what they sowed.

 

[kehs]

.

wow

Using the Thanksgiving holiday to complain about immigration

We're through the fucking looking glass people

There's just no sense of irony is there?

triple wow

 

[Poodlestrike]

Using the Thanksgiving holiday to complain about immigration

We're through the fucking looking glass people

There's just no sense of irony is there?

This can't possibly be real. It's gotta be like the Onion's political cartoons, right? There's just... there's just no way.

 

[thepotatoman]

Looking at 2018, we may just be looking at a reality in which the Democrats sacrifice gaining Congress for the Presidency.

The electoral college is stacked so far against whoever the R's nominate in 2016.

The blue wall = 257 electoral votes and winning VA makes it game over.

However, a Hillary win means a possible doom scenario for 2018 if the D's dont fix their turnout problem.

If Hillary gains white women in exchange for losing minorities and young, that would at least change the midterm math a little bit, because of her race and gender as well as her resume and her style of speaking to the center.

But I still have to feel we're due for some sort of shift of focus that'll mix everything up. I can't imagine seeing 8 straight years of a bad lower/middle class economy and Obamacare fears being the main topics of discussion without something breaking. Particularly this weird double economy of poor wages alongside a good overall economy. You gotta think either the economy's finally going to pick up the job market or the job market's going to drag down the economy eventually.

Also if we make it to 2018 without another recession, we'd be nearing the record for longest time without an official recession since before the great depression. Even come election day 2016 it'd be the third longest period without recession since the great depression, only behind the 9 year 60s boom and the 10 year 90s boom.

I'm guessing conditions aren't good enough for us to break that record, but who knows, I guess.

 

[B-Dubs]

Using the Thanksgiving holiday to complain about immigration

We're through the fucking looking glass people

There's just no sense of irony is there?

The sheer irony of this image is making me want to kill myself. There is no fucking way someone is that obtuse.

.

Never mind, this is actually worse.

 

[HylianTom]

Looking at 2018, we may just be looking at a reality in which the Democrats sacrifice gaining Congress for the Presidency.

The electoral college is stacked so far against whoever the R's nominate in 2016.

The blue wall = 257 electoral votes and winning VA or any one state sans combining IA and CO makes it game over. Republicans under any scenario will have to sweep to win.

However, a Hillary win means a possible doom scenario for 2018 if the D's dont fix their turnout problem.

If we were forced to choose, I hate to say it, but given the current landscape where the Republican Party has a high number of state legislatures, I prefer having the Presidency (and thus the judiciary) over having Congress. The Dems aren't getting back the House until at the very least 2022 (assuming that Dem turnout in 2020 helps with legislatures that'll be drawing districts for that decade), so there isn't much realistic hope of progress coming from the legislative branch until 2023. With Democratic control of the Senate likely between 2017 and 2019, executive orders and court rulings are going to be the only possible federal source of progressive happiness.

In the meantime, Republican legislatures across the country will be passing all sorts of bad laws, especially as they grow more and more bitter about being locked out of the White House. A judiciary that's willing to smack 'em down will be vital.

 

[thefro]

Using the Thanksgiving holiday to complain about immigration

We're through the fucking looking glass people

There's just no sense of irony is there?

The newspaper did pull it

On Friday, we posted a Gary Varvel cartoon at indystar.com that offended a wide group of readers.

Many of them labeled it as racist. Gary did not intend to be racially insensitive in his attempt to express his strong views about President Barack Obama's decision to temporarily prevent the deportation of millions of immigrants living and working illegally in the United States.

But we erred in publishing it.

The cartoon depicted an immigrant family climbing through a window of a white family's home as Thanksgiving dinner was served. I was uncomfortable with the depiction when I saw it after it was posted. We initially decided to leave the cartoon posted to allow readers to comment and because material can never truly be eliminated once it is circulating on the web. But we are removing the cartoon from the opinion section of our website, as well as an earlier version posted on Facebook that showed one character with a mustache.

This action is not a comment on the issue of illegal immigration or a statement about Gary's right to express his opinions strongly. We encourage and support diverse opinion. But the depictions in this case were inappropriate; his point could have been expressed in other ways.

Cartoons are seldom intended to be read literally. And Gary did not intend this one to be viewed that way. He intended to illustrate the view of many conservatives and others that the president's order will encourage more people to pour into the country illegally.

 

[VanMardigan]

The newspaper did pull it

Just leave it up if your idea of an apology is to justify the cartoon.

 

[kehs]

Facist Obama wins.

 

[thepotatoman]

If we were forced to choose, I hate to say it, but given the current landscape where the Republican Party has a high number of state legislatures, I prefer having the Presidency (and thus the judiciary) over having Congress. The Dems aren't getting back the House until at the very least 2022 (assuming that Dem turnout in 2020 helps with legislatures that'll be drawing districts for that decade), so there isn't much realistic hope of progress coming from the legislative branch until 2023. With Democratic control of the Senate likely between 2017 and 2019, executive orders and court rulings are going to be the only possible federal source of progressive happiness.

In the meantime, Republican legislatures across the country will be passing all sorts of bad laws, especially as they grow more and more bitter about being locked out of the White House. A judiciary that's willing to smack 'em down will be vital.

But can you imagine how bad the supreme court would be if Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsberg were replaced by conservatives? They'd get a 6-3 majority, and Kennedy would surely be replaced by someone more conservative than he is. Basically imagine every single controversial case you've ever seen go conservative, plus a few you've never even heard of.

Clarence Thomas would be the oldest conservative and he would turn 85 in 2033 so you could have a long time before you have a shot at turning just one of those seats from conservative to liberal.

You can definitely still play defense from the legislative side if you consistently have a super majority (changed to 51 senators after filibuster ends). But the second you lose just one of the senate, house, or presidency, things will actively trend back to conservatives and there's nothing you can do to stop it. And you can't even pin the blame on conservative politicians since people tend to think of SCOTUS and congress as separate.

 

[HylianTom]

But can you imagine how bad the supreme court would be if Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsberg were replaced by conservatives? They'd get a 6-3 majority, and Kennedy would surely be replaced by someone more conservative than he is. Basically imagine every single controversial case you've ever seen go conservative, plus a few you've never even heard of.

Clarence Thomas would be the oldest conservative and he would turn 85 in 2033 so you could have a long time before you have a shot at turning just one of those seats from conservative to liberal.

You can definitely still play defense from the legislative side if you consistently have a super majority (changed to 51 senators after filibuster ends). But the second you lose just one of the senate, house, or presidency, things will actively trend back to conservatives and there's nothing you can do to stop it. And you can't even pin the blame on conservative politicians since people tend to think of SCOTUS and congress as separate.

It would be HORRIFFIC if that were to happen. It's cliche, but 2016 is a do-or-die moment for progressive politics in this country, if only because of Supreme Court consequences. Like I say all the time - Presidents come and go in a relatively short span of time, but SCOTUS justices are generational.

If the Democrat wins, we have a chance at grabbing control of SCOTUS for at least a generation, for the first time in my lifetime (1978). Conservative policy still remains and will require legislative action to alter the inertia that it retains, but really egregious legislation from that side of the aisle will get judicially vetoed.. and liberal policy progress will survive the inevitable court challenges brought by conservatives (currently a pretty big issue).

If the GOP candidate wins, Dems and progressives everywhere begin sweating the health of Ginsburg. I adore the woman to bits, but I really wish she would've stepped down when she had a chance to be replaced by someone decent. If she dies while, say, a President Walker is in office, progressivism is dead for a generation. Their group of 5 or 6 will knock-down any progressive legislation that makes it through any legislative bodies. In a best-case scenario, many of us will be old or dead before we would get to see the Left recover from such a loss.

It's the topic of SCOTUS that really pisses me off when people express complaints like, "Candidate X is waaay too moderate/corporatist. If he/she gets the nomination, I'm going to vote Green! No one is entitled to my vote!" I see comments like that and think, "gee, you have no idea how this works, do you? Either that, or you willfully don't really care about progressive causes - and you're outright lying when you claim that you do. Because enabling a Scalia-clone to replace any one of the liberal justices is a death sentence for every cause that you say you care about."

I'm a pretty cheerful guy, but if the Dem loses in '16, my hope for progressive/scientific policy goes on life support.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It would be HORRIFFIC if that were to happen. It's cliche, but 2016 is a do-or-die moment for progressive politics in this country, if only because of Supreme Court consequences. Like I say all the time - Presidents come and go in a relatively short span of time, but SCOTUS justices are generational.

If the Democrat wins, we have a chance at grabbing control of SCOTUS for at least a generation, for the first time in my lifetime (1978). Conservative policy still remains and will require legislative action to alter the inertia that it retains, but really egregious legislation from that side of the aisle will get judicially vetoed.. and liberal policy progress will survive the inevitable court challenges brought by conservatives (currently a pretty big issue).

If the GOP candidate wins, Dems and progressives everywhere begin sweating the health of Ginsburg. I adore the woman to bits, but I really wish she would've stepped down when she had a chance to be replaced by someone decent. If she dies while, say, a President Walker is in office, progressivism is dead for a generation. Their group of 5 or 6 will knock-down any progressive legislation that makes it through any legislative bodies. In a best-case scenario, many of us will be old or dead before we would get to see the Left recover from such a loss.

It's the topic of SCOTUS that really pisses me off when people express complaints like, "Candidate X is waaay too moderate/corporatist. If he/she gets the nomination, I'm going to vote Green! No one is entitled to my vote!" I see comments like that and think, "gee, you have no idea how this works, do you? Either that, or you willfully don't really care about progressive causes - and you're outright lying when you claim that you do. Because enabling a Scalia-clone to replace any one of the liberal justices is a death sentence for every cause that you say you care about."

I'm a pretty cheerful guy, but if the Dem loses in '16, my hope for progressive/scientific policy goes on life support.

Why sweat Ginsburg. Kennedy and Scalia are 78 although I doubt they will retire under any circumstance unless they die or a republican is president.

You fear a Ginsburg death/retirement and a conservative nomination under a republican president and yet if the D's get the senate, they wont let a conservative walk away with it and vice versa if Hillary has to replace Ginsberg under a R senate. Tough option either way. Nor will a R senate let Kennedy and Scalia be replace by a liberal and vice versa with a R pres and D senate.

Best case is a D Pres and D Senate with Ginsberg retirement. Kennedy and Scalia aint going anywhere under a president hillary.