401
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
401 points (96.7% liked)
News
23296 readers
3368 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, sorry, four years of Trump vs. four years of Biden should really have put to rest the idea that both parties are the same, even if they sometimes support the same bad policies.
I mean to be fair the Democrats trotted out an obscenely draconian immigration bill that was basically every Republicans wet dream about the border and the only reason it didn't pass was because it included Ukraine funding and the Republicans didn't want to give Biden a win.
Call me crazy, but giving the Republicans everything they want just to gain small concessions is bonkers and makes it seem like Democrats really don't have that much of a problem with horrific policies that Republicans want.
The Democrats leaned on DREAMers for like a decade and were going to fucking throw them under the bus with that border bill in a way that screamed "Political capital is used up, fuck them DREAMers!"
They are not the same but Democrats spend way too much time trying to make deals with people who only want to hurt them and others so they can be seen "reaching across the aisle."
I'm pretty sure they did that knowing the Republicans would reject it. It was political brinksmanship.
The Senate Democrats also reintroduced the bill on its own, and let the Republicans vote against it. This was absolutely a political move on their part, letting the GOP tear itself apart arguing about whether they should've voted for or against it. They're taking advantage of the existing tensions and divisions within the party to weaken them.
and brinskmanship is a good thing? That's how you catch the car and end up the villain. It's the brinksmanship that Republicans played for a decade that led to Donald Trump getting elected. Do not make the mistake of thinking the Democrats are somehow immune to that effect.
It worked.
This time.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-immigration-executive-order-asylum-border-7cd0b0f28e298036ad1fc6b0c78961e1
It wasn't brinksmanship, in my opinion. As evidenced by this.
The best way party officials are spinning this is that he is expecting the courts to issue a stay right away and this run up is to give the ACLU enough warning to have the case ready to go.
This is just more brinksmanship.
And if they call his bluff, which leaning Conservative the courts just might, he's now got to either rescind the order in shame or deal with a Republican PR wet dream for the rest of the campaign season.
When you shut down the border based on numbers and automatically deny asylum to anyone who was too late it turns into a physical game at the border. The 2nd or 3rd time someone announces the border is back open everyone who wants asylum is going to run for it, creating huge crowds. The RNC is going to have cameras there and what do you think the headline is going to be? It's not going to be, "Biden Tough on Border". It's going to be stuff like, "Chaos at Border!", "Biden Loses Control", "Border States Deploy Armed National Guard"
Doubling down on the tactic doesn't make it not brinksmanship. And it does signal he has no problem abandoning his base.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-immigration-executive-order-asylum-border-7cd0b0f28e298036ad1fc6b0c78961e1
Is this political brinksmanship?
Fuck me, it's just like how Trump said "we need to stop testing for COVID" and then Biden never said it out loud, but he just stopped funding testing for COVID but didn't say the words "we need to stop testing for COVID." He just did it instead of saying it and somehow everyone was fine with it.
That is hardly giving the Republicans everything they want.
As I have already said- just because the parties can agree on some bad policies doesn't mean they are the same.
How do you think we got here exactly?
Reagan
And who did nothing to fix it since exactly?
An election nearly four years ago? What a strange question.
Now, please explain to me how Judge Jackson would be the same sort of justice Trump would have nominated to SCOTUS.
How come SCOTUS is so fucked exactly? Who could have done something to fix it in the forty plus years we've known this was an issue an didn't?
That is not an explanation.
Biden isn't on Twitter, so we can ignore the wars and the concentration camps and the Cop Cities and the deteriorating climate.
He picks different supreme court justices though and has some different head of agencies, though. That alone makes a big difference.
Dems had the opportunity to stop up the ACB nomination in 2020 the same way Repubs blocked Garland in 2016. In fact, it would have been easier. Feinstein only had to hold up the vote for three months compared to McConnell's twelve. Dems waved her through, the same way Joe Biden's Judiciary Committee waved through Clarence Thomas back in 1991, months before Bill Clinton took office.
Its not enough to say which Presidents are picking the nominees. The senatorial strategies are totally different. Republicans hold Dem nominees hostage while Dems rubber stamp whatever assholes the GOP cough up.
Had Dem Senators punted on Thomas and ACB when they had the opportunity, the SCOTUS of today would look totally different.
Since I didn't get a response from the other person, perhaps you could explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked.
That's pretty strawman of you. Assuming he's operating in bad faith; how does appointing Judge Jackson stop the ratchet effect? That's what we're talking about here. I happen to think he's operating in good faith, just to his donors instead of his constituency. But the effect is the same, holding the status quo that the GOP sets. Why hasn't Mayorkas purged ICE in an attempt to reform it? Where are the wide ranging investigations of the human rights abuses that were so well reported during the Trump administration? Biden's goal was never to bring things back in line, it was to keep the lights on and keep the money flowing to the donors. Some of whom run private detention centers.
No, we were talking about how the two parties are exactly the same. If they are exactly the same, Trump would have the same reason for picking justice Jackson as Biden. So what is that reason?
I understand that's your straw man. But that's not what the other people in this thread are saying.
That is not my straw man, that is exactly the order of the conversation. I was told both parties are the same, I asked if that was true, what Trump's reason for picking Jackson would be.
No one has come up with an answer.
But one person has tried to argue with me in this thread that Harriet Miers was a feminist and sent me to some Christian website to prove it, so that was amusing.
You know we can just read the thread right?
Can you?
The ratchet effect isn't the same thing as saying they're the same. It's saying the Democrats have no interest and have taken no action in rolling back Republican abuses.
https://lemmy.world/comment/10420523
What does any of that have to do with Judge Jackson? Just explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked since both parties are the same.
We would have more Judge Jacksons on the court if the Dem Senate had played hardball with Republican Presidents. And taking Thomas out of circulation in 1991 would have changed the Bush v Gore decision in 2000, which would have meant President Al Gore seating even more Judge Jacksons in his subsequent terms.
No Thomas means no Bush Jr. No Bush Jr means no gerrymandering greenlit by Ashcroft's DOJ. Which would have promised more state level liberal courts in places like Texas and Wisconsin (ie, more state court Judge Jacksons). Which would have curbed the rise of white nationalism following Obama's election in 2008. No GOP capture of Florida through mass disenfranchisement of black voters. No extended legacy of GOP rule in Georgia, for the same reasons. No War on Immigration in Arizona and Colorado and Texas, forcing those states farther and farther to the right. All of which would have precluded a Trump presidency in 2016.
No Trump means we don't have to worry about who he'd pick for SCOTUS.
That is still not an explanation for why judge Jackson would be the sort of SCOTUS judge Trump would pick if both parties are the same.
Its an explanation for why a judge approved by Joe Biden is going to give us another Trump presidency.
I didn't ask for that explanation.
If you aren't able to explain why Trump would pick a justice like Jackson when both parties are the same, just say so.
Because you don't want Joe Biden carrying any culpability for the current 6-3 Conservative Majority.
We've got multiple Republican SCOTUS nominees who took office on his watch. We know what that leads to, because we know the outcome of Bush v Gore. We know what eight years of Bush did to the country and how it led directly to the election of Trump.
So why would four more years of Biden - a man who gave us the courts that gave us Bush and Trump - produce a majority of Judge Jacksons? He appears far better at seating judges like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.
Why can't you just admit you won't give me the explanation I asked for a long time ago?
Why would I want a President who put Thomas on the bench?
Not relevant to what I asked. If you can't answer what I asked, I'm not going to talk to you about anything else, sorry.
A Democrat who concedes to Republican threats will be as likely to put a guy like Thomas up as Trump would. We got lucky with Jackson, but Biden's clearly in a state of deterioration. Very likely we end up with him compromising us down to another Thomas or ACB in his second term, as he and his friends on the Judiciary committee are known to do.
I wish you would just admit you can't answer what I asked.
For the very last time and please just answer and stop moving the goalposts: If the parties are the same, why would Trump have chosen Jackson as a SCOTUS justice?
Ask Bush Sr why he picked David Souter. I have no idea why he'd pick a justice like Jackson, but conservatives picking liberal judges has been known to happen.
All I know is that - between Biden Democrats and Trump Republicans - we've had a stacked conservative court despite Democrats holding the Presidency for twice as long. This would suggest that both parties endorse a conservative majority on the courts.
If the parties were both the same, you would have an idea since it would be the same reason Biden did it. But you can't say that since you know Trump would not pick a left-wing black woman for a justice as that is absolutely absurd.
So thank you for proving my point.
That's nonsense. Can you explain how Bush Sr picked both Souter and Thomas? He's the same guy, so explaining the gulf between the candidates should be easy.
Bush Jr picked liberal feminist Harriet Myers less than a month before he switched to rabid conservative fanatic Samuel Alito. Myers was shot down by Biden's judiciary committee. Can you explain that?
Can you explain the gulf between Merrick Garland and Sonya Sotomayer? Both Obama nominees. How about the distance between Sandra Day O'Conner and Robert Bork? Both Reagan nominees.
You don't know your judicial history. You certainly don't know how Trump or Biden make political decisions.
Souter and Thomas were right-wing and calling Harriet Miers a feminist or even suggesting she is a capable justice on the level of justice Jackson is proof that you are not serious.
Again- if the parties are the same, Trump and Biden would have the same reason to pick her.
Which you are claiming is not the case.
Which, again, proves my point.
Either they are the same or they're not the same. You want it both ways.
And no, I'm not going to explain anything while you insist on having it both ways, sorry.
But... since you know your judicial history and know why they pick justices, you can still explain what that same reason is.
So what is it?
Souter was a reliable liberal vote for the entirety of his term on the bench. And he was from the same Harvard legal school that dominates the Supreme Court to this day.
This is gibberish. She's not a feminist? She's not capable of the level of justice? What on earth are you even talking about? Miers had been a sponsor of the Women's Studies department at HBU since the 90s, ran multiple successful legal firms hearing cases at all levels of the judiciary in both Texas and California, and headed up the Texas State Bar before joining Bush Jr as his personal lawyer. She was right in line with conservative Democrats appointed by Carter, Clinton, and Obama, and could easily have stood in for Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Ketanji Brown Jackson as a professional judge.
They are the same. They consistently put up candidates from the same insular club of Harvard Ivy League SCOTUS clerks. When Presidents step outside of line - as with the Miers nomination or the Bork nomination - the Senate reins them back in, regardless of the quality of the candidate.
There's your reasoning. Its the Biden Judiciary that controls who has sat the bench and who has been disqualified for the last 40 years. And that's why the SCOTUS sucks today. Jackson is not exemplary. She's just another Harvard lemming, groomed to strictly defer to conservative hegemony that dominates legal jurisprudence.
Trump may well pick someone outside that niche, but the Senate will kill the nomination and force him back into his lane. Then he'll queue up yet one more cloistered nun of the Harvard Law Review, just like his peers in the Democratic Party.
You find me one feminist who agrees with your assessment of Harriet Miers and we'll move on from there.
Church Ladies vs Harriet Miers
"Christian Feminism Today."
Are you fucking serious?
No, no you're not. Because the entire argument that article makes for her being a feminist is her weakly indicating she wasn't entirely anti-abortion.
Either you didn't think I'd read that or you have an incredibly misogynistic idea of what a feminist is.
So I think there's no point in continuing.
My guy, you want news stories from a twenty year old story via a search engine that doesn't work. This is what you get. I'm sorry I couldn't find Gloria Steinem's "In defense is Harriet Miers" LiveJournal page, that URL was beyond me.
You're being nakedly dishonest. The article lauds her intelligence and independence and concludes she was ousted for being an unreliable conservative block vote.
This is exactly why both parties keep returning to the Harvard Law Review well when selecting candidates. Any deviance from that singular legal institution is intolerable.
It's central to the case that both of these parties are putting up the same people.