politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah thats never happened before.
Certainly not in the current political climate. You think a good chunk of Republicans can get on board with that when they have a 6-3 majority in the court right now?
you are the political climate. If you folks would put half the effort you put into trying to convince people everything is hopeless into fighting for reform like the people of the past who successfully achieved reform
That's true. It was a lot of effort to get this far. "Oh no, someone won't do it for me" is stupid.
As opposed to, like, passing my own constitutional amendment because someone won't do it for me?
What exactly is a realistic path to make a real one happen?
Working for and donating to a campaign to get what you want. I.e. democracy.
My Democratic rep and Senators are in pretty safely blue territory. What am I/they supposed to do about the other half of Congress they have to win over a good chunk of?
You can work for and donate to campaigns in other parts of the country. You aren't limited to your particular area.
Let's say you can get the 2/3 of Congress. Are you really going to get 3/4 of the states legislatures?
I guess lets give up and have a trump appointed supreme court for decades.
And that's an excellent segue to what I was going to bring up upstream: we only have so many resources to drive voters. There are plenty of relatable issues that can drive people to the polls so Trump doesn't have another opportunity to appoint anyone. Removing SCOTUS lifetime appointments isn't going to do it. But if we can keep a Democrat in the White House and control in Congress, we may still have lifetime appointments but at least there will be reasonably sane people in the court.
And before you say anything about a false choice fallacy, campaign resources and attention of the voting base are finite.
It all falls under court reform, the political viability isnt in question:
-amend the constution
-make a law restricting the courts ability to accept and decide cases
-pack the court
-retire aging justices
-have the senate subpoena clarence thomas and make him say why he won't recuse himself from cases involving his billionaire friend
The only approach that ever works politically is the "all of the above" approach because as soon as you start taking things off the table the opposition can laser focus down the "reasonable options". This isnt new:
thomas jefferson pioneered this strategy in the US where he kept agreeing slavery was immoral but it was "too hard" to free the slaves. In reality he loved owning people and designing his little slave town. The result of this tactic was it took a war to resolve slavery because politicians were too cowardly to address it.
What it means when something is too hard solve with politics, is that it needs to be solved with violence. What it doesn't mean is that is that people will stop talking about it just because it "doesn't seem politically viable".
You have throw so many things at fox news and other propaganda outlets that they can't just pick one and focus fire it into the ground with lies and fear. Something like an amendment will draw fire for sure but it lets all the other stuff sail by.
Term limits for supreme court justices is one of those issues to drive people to the polls, its a pretty popular idea. Heaven forbid democratic candidates actually try to win with popular ideas. They cant allow any reasons to support them other than not being republican.
Funny, I thought people are more likely to go to the polls over things that affect them and their families directly. Abortion and weed legalization being common examples. I'm assuming you have a source to back up the idea that supreme court justice term limits ranks up there in getting people to vote? Also, you do understand the difference between a "popular idea" and something that will motivate people to vote?
Not in your lifetime.
You're confident they were born on or after May 8, 1992?
I'm pretty confident they weren't born before 1789, when that amendment was proposed.
Pretty good odds no amendment has been proposed and ratified in that person's lifetime.