How are they going to be able to do that?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
How are they going to be able to do that?
TestOfTide
Banned
If you mean "how are they going to take back control", the same way they did with the 2006 and 2008 elections.
If you mean "how are they going to undo the law mentioned", by repealing it of course. And the best part is that a conservative SCOTUS wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it.
Valdfellgar
Banned
That would certainly be cool if it happened, might make the second set of Trump's term not suck quite so much.
TestOfTide
Banned
Well they seem to be willing to waste time talking about undoing the EC, which is much less doable considering that requires a constitutional amendment.
But repealing the Reapportionment Act? Doesn't even require a constitutional amendment. Just would require passing the house and senate then getting signed by POTUS.
And then suddenly the Blue states (and Texas) get a shitload more house seats, which would also mean that those blue states would be worth more in the EC AND would have the bonus of making it easier to create a "bench" of newcomers in the Democratic Party.
BoosterDuck
Banned
I don't know if I should be glad or horrified of Trump doing Dubya levels of damage to bring the DNC back in control.
oh well I'll just yell at everyone to vote in the midterms, hopefully Bernie and Keith can drum up support
How do they overcome a Trump veto?
TestOfTide
Banned
They don't. My point is that they undo the shit in 2021 and 2022. 2019 and 2020 will be Democratic congress investigating Trump and turning up a shitload of new dirt.
Like, the GOP has already set itself up with all the BS investigations they did on Hillary.
TestOfTide said:
If they take back control for 2 years (2018-2020), how do they repeal that law?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
They'll take back control (hopefully) from 2020 to 2022.
They aren't winning back the Senate in 2018, but hopefully will win back the House.
The fact that we probably have a better chance to win back the fucking house than the senate shows that we're in deep shit for 2018.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
It's not that bad!
If Trump's approval rating is at 25% or so, that will be a wave election and we'll win a lot of House seats.
TestOfTide
Banned
Wasn't 2006 looking gloomy for Dems after Bush won in 2004?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Hugh Hewitt's "Permanent Republican Majority!" book came out nine months before the Dems' domination in 2006.
balladofwindfishes
Member
2004 was the "death of the Democrat party," yes
Valdfellgar
Banned
and the circle of regression and progression continues!
Oh well at least we have the upswing to look forward to.
Well, the problem from what I've read is that gerrymandering done by Republicans in 2000 was no where near as bad as the ones done in 2010. The latter has been done with surgical precision and accuracy that wasn't available to Republicans in the Bush years.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
We have a narrow path to 2018 Senate! We just have to defend everything and pick up NV, TX, and AZ. Also need to make sure Manchin doesn't switch parties.
TestOfTide
Banned
Would that Gerrymandering have prevented the Dems from winning the House in 2006?
From what I've read, yes.
The fuckery that went on in 2010 is the stuff of legends.
TestOfTide
Banned
Not if you are willing to play dirty. The number of seats in SCOTUS isn't determined by the constitution. If Dems wanted to, they could sing back the court by just passing a law that increases the number of seats, then fill those new seats with liberals.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The Republicans would not keep the house with an 8% gap in popular vote.
Not happening. They would filibuster any such appointments even if there was a law (which is unlikely). Besides, that law would mean that the next Republican President packs in even more conservatives and that'll lead to a malfunctioning system.
spoiler: the system is already malfunctioning
I mean if you have the filibuster-proof majority to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court then you have the filibuster-proof majority to confirm all the extra justices.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Do you think about the ideas you have? Packing the court might be the worst suggestion you've given, and you've suggested that the best way to deal with NC's early voting restrictions is for Democrats to pay companies to give workers time off.
If we're proposing fantasy stuff though, I think Democrats should campaign on rewriting the constitution to make the United States a unicameral parliament with no president and PR elections.
TestOfTide
Banned
yes because precedent sure prevented the GOP from fucking around, right?
Democrats need to learn from the GOP that precedent doesn't mean shit.
My point is that you lock the house and POTUS for the democrats by increasing the number of house seats. Then you take care of the one thing blocking Dems (conservative SCOTUS) by just stuffing the court with more liberals. Suddenly instead of 6-3 conservative, you have 9-6 liberal.
The NC thing was me saying that you can just have democratic donors just start focusing money on making it easy for people to vote even WITH the voter suppression crap.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Maybe we should just make it illegal for the GOP to run for office too.
TestOfTide
Banned
You don't get what I am saying. All Dems have to do is take advantage of the fact that MOST Trump voters were mostly just voting AGAINST Hillary instead of FOR Trump.
And part of doing that is that Dems will need to play dirty. For fucks sake we have a new thread about how the GOP will be in control of whats supposed to be an independent body for the House.
Precedent and Ethics don't mean shit if they don't help you win.
Sirpopopop
Member
I doubt it.
The Chinese have been surprisingly mature about Trump's lashings at them.
The Chinese have been surprisingly mature about Trump's lashings at them.
I don't think they would need to filibuster the specific law (besides, they may try to further weaken the filibuster for laws, but not SCOTUS appointments). They have shown that they can filibuster appointments for political reasons for a year or more.
You did miss my edit. You would guarantee that the next Republican government makes it 12-9 conservative.
Any idea of being okay because you have secured a permanent Democratic government is short-sighted--there are always things that can happen that shift things to the other side. Think of a scandal that is worst than a simple private e-mail scandal.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
If FDR couldn't pack the court in 1937, there is zero chance of it happening anytime soon.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
That's because Trump hasn't actually taken office yet.
They will retaliate pretttty harshly if Trump actually tries his bullshit when president.
Let us not mince words here. MOST Trump supporters were voting FOR Trump not against Hillary. Trump was not picked by a committee but won his party's primary. Most Trump supporters will vote for whomever's the R on the ballot. Most Trump supporters will never support anything the Democrats do. They're not in play.
Now, on that note if they're not in play and can't be bargained or reasoned with I don't think the Democratic Party should be concerned with alienating or angering that core base and, hell, there's no denying that their core base love doing the same to us.
I think there are times when playing dirty wouldn't necessarily harm us, if Obama somehow got Garland on the court, for instance, the Right would have a hissy fit for sure but I'm not convinced the middle'd care enough to remember 2 years from now, at the least our party's so damaged right now I'm not sure a little bit more fallout from this election would even register. Already our chances for 2018 rely less on our party and more on what Trump does so there's probably little at stake in doing moves like that for now.
But long-term, especially with how you do indeed see the anxiety of white people(sorry guys) playing out I think there's a real danger in thinking of gaming the system too much with ideas like stacking the court with even more justices, something that could just be done each Presidency ad nauseum to no-one's benefit. We should be striving for some kind of stability in our governmental systems because we have no idea where this backlash truly ends.
Now, on that note if they're not in play and can't be bargained or reasoned with I don't think the Democratic Party should be concerned with alienating or angering that core base and, hell, there's no denying that their core base love doing the same to us.
I think there are times when playing dirty wouldn't necessarily harm us, if Obama somehow got Garland on the court, for instance, the Right would have a hissy fit for sure but I'm not convinced the middle'd care enough to remember 2 years from now, at the least our party's so damaged right now I'm not sure a little bit more fallout from this election would even register. Already our chances for 2018 rely less on our party and more on what Trump does so there's probably little at stake in doing moves like that for now.
But long-term, especially with how you do indeed see the anxiety of white people(sorry guys) playing out I think there's a real danger in thinking of gaming the system too much with ideas like stacking the court with even more justices, something that could just be done each Presidency ad nauseum to no-one's benefit. We should be striving for some kind of stability in our governmental systems because we have no idea where this backlash truly ends.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Destroying our institutions is basically giving up on American democracy. Why have a court if it's only purpose is to push the agenda of the party in power?
If you think American democracy as it has been should be done, I guess that's consistent, but you should probably be advocating armed rebellion then or something if you think we should just blow up what's left of our institutions.
If you think American democracy as it has been should be done, I guess that's consistent, but you should probably be advocating armed rebellion then or something if you think we should just blow up what's left of our institutions.
TestOfTide
Banned
Are most Trump voters out of play? probably, but it's a FACT that unlike with Bush, Romney, and McCain, MOST Trump voters were mostly voting AGAINST the Dem nominee rather than mostly FOR the GOP nominee:
http://ijr.com/the-political-edit/2...voting-against-hillary-clinton-not-for-trump/
Just FYI I'm not one of those guys who thinks the Dems should abandon civil rights issues on a national level.
HOWEVER, You can't have a democrat win an IOWA Senate Seat by running on BLM.
50 state strategy means that on a state and local level you have each candidate catered to their voting base. National is all about just energizing the Coalition to vote.
Except we know that the GOP is thinking of doing it if they ever get the chance. Dems are gonna need to play dirty or the GOP will walk all over them.
As opposed to the GOP gerrymandering the shit out of the House, blocking SCOTUS for nearly an entire year, all the bullshit the NCGOP has done, and Trump violating the Election Consent Decree?
I'm not saying we abandon the rules of the system. I am merely advocating that Democrats play the same games the GOP has played until the GOP stops playing those games.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
The GOP can stack the court right now and there's not really anything stopping them.
Maybe instead the GOP will make it illegal for Democrats to run and we won't have to worry about it.
Maybe instead the GOP will make it illegal for Democrats to run and we won't have to worry about it.
Lol, the only way Universal Healthcare's dead is if Trump actually does a great job and somehow does indeed make our current system better than ever. So really the only two outcomes I see are Universal Healthcare still has a chance or it's killed because Trump pulls out a miracle and makes everything better somehow without a Universal Healthcare.
I don't see the latter happening so I see no reason to give up on UHC right now.
TestOfTide
Banned
Well they have to deal with the fact that they don't have enough votes in the Senate to kill the filibuster.
excelsiorlef
Member
The court is already extremely partisan. The only reason you don't notice it as much is because Kennedy occasionally decides he cares about hos legacy and decides to vote on the right side of history
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
My point isn't that partisan courts don't exist or are bad, my point is that if you can pack the court so that it will never rule against you, it defeats the purpose of the court!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Greta joining MSNBC and her new show will be on soon. >_>
Okay but once the ACA is gutted even if there's a Dem wave in a few years there's no way a Trump and Bush SCOTUS uphold what comes next for UHC. That's just common sense.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Cable news is so absurdly conservative at this point that even MSNBC is hard right other than a couple of shows. :/
I think you could just re-fund Obamacare in reconciliation without having to make new laws.
- Status