|
Post by teenagefanclub on Jun 30, 2022 21:06:02 GMT
Making some baffling decisions recently, and we think we have some bonkers politicians/. Judges in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 30, 2022 21:23:17 GMT
Apparently Clarence Thomas told an aide he wanted to live as long as possible to make liberals suffer as much as he could.
The republican court makes sense if you see it through that lens. And thf that's why the Republicans worked so hard to pack the courts against the peoples' wishes.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jun 30, 2022 21:40:46 GMT
No changing it now. If only candidates would run on a platform that isn’t Trump-related, we may get somewhere.
It’s rare to hear a candidate for Senate/House be so outspoken during an election period. They are all too flimsy so that they have an out to fall back on.
They’re never going to get a blue wave in WV, so States that actually make money should commit to being a place to drive the cost of greener fuel down.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 30, 2022 22:00:33 GMT
No changing it now. If only candidates would run on a platform that isn’t Trump-related, we may get somewhere. It’s rare to hear a candidate for Senate/House be so outspoken during an election period. They are all too flimsy so that they have an out to fall back on. They’re never going to get a blue wave in WV, so States that actually make money should commit to being a place to drive the cost of greener fuel down. I think that was part of the plan all along. State Republicans have already realised that wind and solar power are cheap so they're trying to stop the market from choosing in some states. Subsidising coal, forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for cleanup, etc. Now that Republicans are basically above the law and soon expect to be able to kill off even the pretense of free and fair elections, I guess it'll come down to which industry can offer the best bribes.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jun 30, 2022 23:01:14 GMT
No changing it now. If only candidates would run on a platform that isn’t Trump-related, we may get somewhere. It’s rare to hear a candidate for Senate/House be so outspoken during an election period. They are all too flimsy so that they have an out to fall back on. They’re never going to get a blue wave in WV, so States that actually make money should commit to being a place to drive the cost of greener fuel down. I think that was part of the plan all along. State Republicans have already realised that wind and solar power are cheap so they're trying to stop the market from choosing in some states. Subsidising coal, forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for cleanup, etc. Now that Republicans are basically above the law and soon expect to be able to kill off even the pretense of free and fair elections, I guess it'll come down to which industry can offer the best bribes. It always has. Lobbying is the devil in my opinion. It’s such a contrast to the idea of a “free and fair election”. I also personally think that for President, House and Senate, the two parties should raise money centrally up to a specified maximum. The party then divies out what goes to what race. Candidate will have 2 weeks to run (6 weeks for President/Presidential Candidates) and the rest of the time they must remain off the campaign trail. It’s pathetic that after two years of work, the President will then spend two years campaigning for re-election = less time actually spent meeting their agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 1, 2022 7:02:26 GMT
I think that was part of the plan all along. State Republicans have already realised that wind and solar power are cheap so they're trying to stop the market from choosing in some states. Subsidising coal, forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for cleanup, etc. Now that Republicans are basically above the law and soon expect to be able to kill off even the pretense of free and fair elections, I guess it'll come down to which industry can offer the best bribes. It always has. Lobbying is the devil in my opinion. It’s such a contrast to the idea of a “free and fair election”. I also personally think that for President, House and Senate, the two parties should raise money centrally up to a specified maximum. The party then divies out what goes to what race. Candidate will have 2 weeks to run (6 weeks for President/Presidential Candidates) and the rest of the time they must remain off the campaign trail. It’s pathetic that after two years of work, the President will then spend two years campaigning for re-election = less time actually spent meeting their agenda. Said similar in this country. Each main party should get public money say £20 mill for campaigning during a five year electoral cycle. Political donations made illegal. At a stroke you'd remove a ton of sleaze from our politics.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jul 1, 2022 7:21:48 GMT
It always has. Lobbying is the devil in my opinion. It’s such a contrast to the idea of a “free and fair election”. I also personally think that for President, House and Senate, the two parties should raise money centrally up to a specified maximum. The party then divies out what goes to what race. Candidate will have 2 weeks to run (6 weeks for President/Presidential Candidates) and the rest of the time they must remain off the campaign trail. It’s pathetic that after two years of work, the President will then spend two years campaigning for re-election = less time actually spent meeting their agenda. Said similar in this country. Each main party should get public money say £20 mill for campaigning during a five year electoral cycle. Political donations made illegal. At a stroke you'd remove a ton of sleaze from our politics. “At a stroke you'd remove a ton of sleaze from our politics.” No you wouldn’t. You’d just drive it underground even further than it already is.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 1, 2022 7:30:11 GMT
Said similar in this country. Each main party should get public money say £20 mill for campaigning during a five year electoral cycle. Political donations made illegal. At a stroke you'd remove a ton of sleaze from our politics. “At a stroke you'd remove a ton of sleaze from our politics.” No you wouldn’t. You’d just drive it underground even further than it already is. Why? Provided an independent body had scrutiny of party accounts, and could see how everything had been funded, with appropriate penalties for those breaking the laws, what's the problem? I appreciate that requires the political parties to agree to it and that's the fundamental problem! But that's where we are now, it is underground, hidden and underhand and why much of our politics is influenced by rich, powerful individuals. A much more open and transparent system would stop that. I agree that it's vanishingly unlikely but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be the right way forward to clean up politics and restore some faith in it.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jul 1, 2022 7:41:34 GMT
“Why?”
Because it would require honesty and integrity from all polical parties and politicians and that is never going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jul 1, 2022 7:49:53 GMT
“Why?” Because it would require honesty and integrity from all polical parties and politicians and that is never going to happen. As much as I hate to agree with RWB he's right on this one. The only thing I'd add is to change the fines to mandatory jail sentences and extend it to lobbyists who also break the known rules. If there is to be lobbying and it's useful to educate politicians on issues it should be on some sort of public forum footing across the parties.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 1, 2022 7:53:06 GMT
“Why?” Because it would require honesty and integrity from all polical parties and politicians and that is never going to happen. If you can't trust them, and I agree that you can't, you'd obviously need effective laws and scrutiny of them, so that penalties and sentences are enough of a deterrent, combined with reducing the need for political donations by providing public money to the parties. I agree that it's unlikely, but then so were many things that have since come to pass. It's a shame just to shrug and say c'est la vie, to seemingly accept that sleaze and political corruption are unavoidable and it's impossible to do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 1, 2022 7:54:05 GMT
“Why?” Because it would require honesty and integrity from all polical parties and politicians and that is never going to happen. As much as I hate to agree with RWB he's right on this one. The only thing I'd add is to change the fines to mandatory jail sentences and extend it to lobbyists who also break the known rules. If there is to be lobbying and it's useful to educate politicians on issues it should be on some sort of public forum footing across the parties. Knew a 6music fan couldn't be a wrong 'un all the time
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jul 1, 2022 8:03:58 GMT
“Why?” Because it would require honesty and integrity from all polical parties and politicians and that is never going to happen. If you can't trust them, and I agree that you can't, you'd obviously need effective laws and scrutiny of them, so that penalties and sentences are enough of a deterrent, combined with reducing the need for political donations by providing public money to the parties. I agree that it's unlikely, but then so were many things that have since come to pass. It's a shame just to shrug and say c'est la vie, to seemingly accept that sleaze and political corruption are unavoidable and it's impossible to do anything about it. “Why?” Because it would require honesty and integrity from all polical parties and politicians and that is never going to happen. As much as I hate to agree with RWB he's right on this one. The only thing I'd add is to change the fines to mandatory jail sentences and extend it to lobbyists who also break the known rules. If there is to be lobbying and it's useful to educate politicians on issues it should be on some sort of public forum footing across the parties. Where there is power there is corruption. ‘Twas always thus and ‘twill always be.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jul 1, 2022 10:36:39 GMT
Interesting article on it here: www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/6/29/the-federalist-society-architects-of-the-american-dystopiaMillions of people who are infuriated, terrified or dismayed by the Supreme Court’s decisions have put the blame for these outcomes on different people: The conservative justices themselves who set aside precedent to enact their agenda; Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans who nominated and confirmed these judges; and of course ineffective Democrats who failed to heed warning signs that such results were on their way and do something to avert the looming threats. Amid all the recriminations, some opponents of the court’s recent decisions have held one organisation in particular responsible for these developments: The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, an organisation that is far from a household name, but that wields almost unparalleled power within the US government.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jul 1, 2022 10:42:52 GMT
For everything that comes before them now I think we will just get used to seeing "In a 6-3 decision"
The American system has always come across that it relies heavily on goodwill and acting in good faith from the people engaging with it to be politicians, and well the goodwill/good faith is all gone now.
|
|
|
Post by cerebralstokie on Jul 1, 2022 10:53:40 GMT
I thought, naively, that the Law should be above politics. The Supreme Court in the U.S. is biased 6 to 3 in favour of judges with conservative views and the recent rulings on Roe v Wade and the judgement effectively in favour of the coal mining industry are blatantly political. I fear that the same could happen here - remember the Daily Mail with their headline "Enemies of the People" with photos when our Judges ruled - on a matter of law - against the early proroguing of Parliament in 2019. I worry about the future if this trend continues.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Jul 1, 2022 12:05:17 GMT
I thought, naively, that the Law should be above politics. The Supreme Court in the U.S. is biased 6 to 3 in favour of judges with conservative views and the recent rulings on Roe v Wade and the judgement effectively in favour of the coal mining industry are blatantly political. I fear that the same could happen here - remember the Daily Mail with their headline "Enemies of the People" with photos when our Judges ruled - on a matter of law - against the early proroguing of Parliament in 2019. I worry about the future if this trend continues. Well, the trend will continue here until the conservative judges die, and do so during a Democratic President and Senate. That’s going to be a long time away now.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jul 1, 2022 15:23:37 GMT
Was it really just plain old good luck (for Republicans) that Trump managed to nominate three Supreme Court justices during his four years in office, which is more than Obama, Bush Jnr and Snr, and Clinton (all of who nominate two each) despite all of them serving two terms?
It does seem to be a huge stoke of luck.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 1, 2022 16:35:03 GMT
Was it really just plain old good luck (for Republicans) that Trump managed to nominate three Supreme Court justices during his four years in office, which is more than Obama, Bush Jnr and Snr, and Clinton (all of who nominate two each) despite all of them serving two terms? It does seem to be a huge stoke of luck. Obama nominated Garland but the Republicans used a senate rule trick to block it. That let them steal another seat. It was an extreme attack on the legitimacy of the court that afaik had never been done before, and they got away with it. They also made a guy retire so they could put in a younger one. Ginsburg didn't retire earlier so when she died the Republicans took that seat too. Dems finally learned and switched Breyer (age 83) for Brown Jackson (51) this time round. Finally, the Trump nominees just lied about Roe Vs Wade during their hearings so they got installed and now the Supreme Court is under complete republican control.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 1, 2022 16:42:47 GMT
I thought, naively, that the Law should be above politics. The Supreme Court in the U.S. is biased 6 to 3 in favour of judges with conservative views and the recent rulings on Roe v Wade and the judgement effectively in favour of the coal mining industry are blatantly political. I fear that the same could happen here - remember the Daily Mail with their headline "Enemies of the People" with photos when our Judges ruled - on a matter of law - against the early proroguing of Parliament in 2019. I worry about the future if this trend continues. They're looking to overrule presidential elections too, just having state governments decide on president. It's a ratchet. They used state governments to end fair elections in states, so they get more power to end fair federal elections, and then that power packs the courts with Republican loyalists who then support corruption, allow voter suppression and let them draw constituency lines. The current Republican party's war on democracy is really dangerous IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 1, 2022 16:46:53 GMT
As an example of how fucked elections are in many US states: in 2018 Wisconsin state elections, Democrats got 1.3 million votes and Republicans 1.1 million. The Democrats won by 7% and got 36 seats. The Republicans got 63.
This is what the Republicans are trying to do on a national scale. If the vote margin isn't something like 20% in favour of the Democrats, then the Republicans stay in power. And if it looks like Democrats might win, shut down polling stations or ban Democrat areas from using certain forms so their votes aren't counted.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 1, 2022 20:13:35 GMT
I think that was part of the plan all along. State Republicans have already realised that wind and solar power are cheap so they're trying to stop the market from choosing in some states. Subsidising coal, forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for cleanup, etc. Now that Republicans are basically above the law and soon expect to be able to kill off even the pretense of free and fair elections, I guess it'll come down to which industry can offer the best bribes. It always has. Lobbying is the devil in my opinion. It’s such a contrast to the idea of a “free and fair election”. I also personally think that for President, House and Senate, the two parties should raise money centrally up to a specified maximum. The party then divies out what goes to what race. Candidate will have 2 weeks to run (6 weeks for President/Presidential Candidates) and the rest of the time they must remain off the campaign trail. It’s pathetic that after two years of work, the President will then spend two years campaigning for re-election = less time actually spent meeting their agenda. It'd be great if there was more time governing and less begging for cash. But again, that's more a Democratic priority and they're probably going to be thrown out of power for at least a generation in November. Even 20 years ago Republicans mostly voted against simple rules to limit corporate campaign spending, but there were enough Democrats to get it over the line. But then the Republican supreme court decided that corporations can spend limitless, secret amounts of money on electioneering. The only way out seems to be for Republican voters to start kicking out their pro-corruption politicians IMO.
|
|