Topic: USA Politics (redux)

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Headline of the Day: Be careful about lionizing Jan. 6 witnesses. They failed to stop the insurrection.

[LKB]

Another example of what some in the GOP apparently find acceptable: encouraging the murder of fellow Republicans with differing points of view.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article262692472.html

( After further investigation, l've found it necessary to modify my opening comment. It seems the candidate in question is at least somewhat controversial within the GOP, and in fact does not enjoy universal support. LKB )

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Another example of what today's GOP apparently finds acceptable: encouraging the murder of fellow Republicans with differing points of view.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article262692472.html

Oh, but ya gotta kill the Reoublicans who ain't REAL Republicans ... and only Trump supporters iz REAL Republicans!

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

.

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Bowers also relayed what he thought might be a gaffe from Giuliani, that “we’ve got lots of theories; we just don’t have the evidence.” If ever Trump’s team made a confession of bad faith, this would be it.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

.

Outshoring of blue collar jobs, decreasing white population, and immigration probably cast a threat to some white people and activated white supremacy. When I was in Hawaii, a few (white) people told me that only few whites would like to live in Hawaii since some white people are not comfortable with a non-majority status. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I remember the statement. Some researchers say that without affirming or rejecting it, the public and media should hear the complaints by formal and latent white supremacists and have open discussions with them. It may be a good idea as many whites today think that they are stolen by the government, attacked by media, and discriminated against.

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Another example of what some in the GOP apparently find acceptable: encouraging the murder of fellow Republicans with differing points of view.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article262692472.html

( After further investigation, l've found it necessary to modify my opening comment. It seems the candidate in question is at least somewhat controversial within the GOP, and in fact does not enjoy universal support. LKB )

Charlie Sykes: Essentially, Greitens is weaponizing his own immorality.

And it may work. Writes Allahpundit: “That’s the sort of depravity to which nihilistic “own the libs” thinking leads some voters, and there may be enough of them in Missouri to win a Senate primary.”

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Justice Sotomayor continues her warnings of a dramatic conservative turn at the Supreme Court: CNN.


https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/sonia-sotomayor-conservative-supreme-court/index.html

[BasilValentine]

If anyone needs to atone for some horrible sin and is seeking an appropriate form of self-flagellation, might I suggest listening to Trump's full hour-long call to the GA Secretary of State and his office's lawyer? How could this criminal clown not be convicted of election tampering after this series of lies and threats?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-3VysGZA1M

[milk]

If anyone needs to atone for some horrible sin and is seeking an appropriate form of self-flagellation, might I suggest listening to Trump's full hour-long call to the GA Secretary of State and his office's lawyer? How could this criminal clown not be convicted of election tampering after this series of lies and threats?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-3VysGZA1M

It really feels like democracy is sort of over in America. Or, at least, bent to almost breaking. There are so many problems for the world to face and I'm really scared of its survival with this vacuum in leadership. (Trump) Republicans are just crackpots. Trump barely cobbled together a bunch who barely even knew enough to run a government.
I guess if I believed (like Todd) that this was the best argument for him...
Imagine the best argument for a candidate is that he's totally inept and only total morons are willing to stand next to him on a podium. Yikes.
And what about Dems? Yeah, I wonder. Does anybody think Biden can win again? Anybody? Harris? Seriously. Who's a serious candidate for Dems? Welcome The 27th POT(un)US Desantis?   

[Fëanor]

It really feels like democracy is sort of over in America. Or, at least, bent to almost breaking. There are so many problems for the world to face and I'm really scared of its survival with this vacuum in leadership. (Trump) Republicans are just crackpots. Trump barely cobbled together a bunch who barely even knew enough to run a government.
I guess if I believed (like Todd) that this was the best argument for him...
Imagine the best argument for a candidate is that he's totally inept and only total morons are willing to stand next to him on a podium. Yikes.
And what about Dems? Yeah, I wonder. Does anybody think Biden can win again? Anybody? Harris? Seriously. Who's a serious candidate for Dems? Welcome The 27th POT(un)US Desantis?

The necessary growth of the power of federal government power has undermined the "republican" (small 'R') concept of the "founding fathers" -- i.e. a federation of sovereign states.  Remember that the states were direct extrapolations of the pre-existing British colonies that had been separately created and had been very substantially self-governed.

Democracy as it is conceived in the contemporary world, is irrelevant to the US Federal government.  In several respects the states control the Federal government and the electoral process to the direct detriment of democracy:

• The Senate, the senior chamber, has two Senators per state, thus Wyoming has the same representation as California with 65X the population
• The Electoral College system allows states to define key aspects, thus in 48/50 states the "winner takes all" College seats however close the popular vote
• State committees define the Federal electoral districts thus encouraging "gerrymandering"
• States control Federal voter registration
• States control the on-the-ground voting processes.

All of the above State powers are under partisan control.  The rigid bi-partisanship of the USA is the result, more than the cause, of the need to control these powers.

That original "republican" concept was never democratic but, more to the point, today is no longer viable. Disfunction is the inevitable result.  However it is nowadays impossible in practical terms to change the Constitution  so the USA is in deep trouble.

[Johnnie Burgess]

The necessary growth of the power of federal government power has undermined the "republican" (small 'R') concept of the "founding fathers" -- i.e. a federation of sovereign states.  Remember that the states were direct extrapolations of the pre-existing British colonies that had been separately created and had been very substantially self-governed.

Democracy as it is conceived in the contemporary world, is irrelevant to the US Federal government.  In several respects the states control the Federal government and the electoral process to the direct detriment of democracy:

• The Senate, the senior chamber, has two Senators per state, thus Wyoming has the same representation as California with 65X the population
• The Electoral College system allows states to define key aspects, thus in 48/50 states the "winner takes all" College seats however close the popular vote
• State committees define the Federal electoral districts thus encouraging "gerrymandering"
• States control Federal voter registration
• States control the on-the-ground voting processes.

All of the above State powers are under partisan control.  The rigid bi-partisanship of the USA is the result, more than the cause, of the need to control these powers.

That original "republican" concept was never democratic but, more to the point, today is no longer viable.  However it is nowadays impossible in practical terms to change the Constitution.

The point was not to let 1 or 2 states pick the President.  Democrats would love it if we allowed California on New York do that.

[Fëanor]

The point was not to let 1 or 2 states pick the President.  Democrats would love it if we allowed California on New York do that.

... Uhmm ... actually it's about letting the people pick the President regardless of which State they live in.

And in any event, choice of President is one thing and control of Congress another.

As it stands according to the US Constitution, states have two sources of power:

• The powers the Constitution reserves to the States -- actually all the powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government, and
• The powers the States have over and within the Federal government itself.

I'm saying the latter powers are dysfunctional given  the realities of current society, economy, and the international situation, whatever those circumstance may have been in 1792.

[71 dB]

The point was not to let 1 or 2 states pick the President.  Democrats would love it if we allowed California on New York do that.

Why should "states" pick the President? Why not the people regardless of in which state they live in? Of course bigger states should have more say because they are bigger. Popular vote should matter and if popular votes are against Republicans then maybe Republicans should re-think their political agenda to get more votes in blue states. Biden got about 7 million (!) votes more than Trump. Of course he should be the president in democracy.

[Fëanor]

Justice Sotomayor continues her warnings of a dramatic conservative turn at the Supreme Court: CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/sonia-sotomayor-conservative-supreme-court/index.html

An obvious and egregious example of the looming trend is the SCOTUS decision to overturn a New York laws restriction the carrying of firearms outside the home ... see Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law

Basically it's crazy.

The only rational the 2nd Amendment provides for the right to bear arms is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."  Yet in 2008 the Court decided that the 2nd granted the right for personal protection -- a totally gratuitous interpretation, (coming Court members who claimed to be strict constructionist or textualists but who were actually hypocrite conservatives).

What next?  Will the SCOTUS some time soon decide that 2nd grants the right for citizens to arm against "oppressive governments"?  That would be the next ridiculously consistent extension of the meaning of the 2nd.  It would be an enormity, because the explicit purpose of the 2nd was to provide for a "well regulated Militia".  So I draw you attention to Article I, Section 8, C15.1:  "The Congress shall have Power . . .  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .". {emphasis add}.

[Fëanor]

Why should "states" pick the President? Why not the people regardless of in which state they live in? Of course bigger states should have more say because they are bigger. Popular vote should matter and if popular votes are against Republicans then maybe Republicans should re-think their political agenda to get more votes in blue states. Biden got about 7 million (!) votes more than Trump. Of course he should be the president in democracy.

Well yeah, as you and I outsiders see it that as democratic that it ought to be one-person-one vote for the POTUS.  But that was far from way the "founding fathers" saw it in the late 1780s.

And the reason the FFs saw it as they did is, maybe ironically, a hangover from the colonial era.  We should understand that the 13 colonies were all founded separately with separate charters and separate colonial assemblies.  Though the details differed, each colony was largely self-governing in all local matters.  In fact the colonies resented it when the British Parliament finally decided to exert a little "central" imperial control by collecting some new taxes;  (never mind that that Parliament wanted the taxes to pay for the defense of the colonies against the French in the Seven Years' War, a.k.a. French & Indian War).  This resentment against the new Parliamentary initiative was the impetus for the war of independence, (sometimes imprecisely called the "American Revolution").

When that war was won, (with the indispensable support of France), the power-that-were, (i.e. wealthy local elites), within the colonies cum states were unwilling give up the prerogatives they enjoyed under the largely unregulated colonial system to a new, United States federal government.  That's the reason the US Constitution is the way it is.

[DavidW]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned.  Funny enough just yesterday I read an article that Americans had only a 25% approval rating for the Supreme Court, an all time low.  I think life time appointments don't make any sense because they are partisan hacks just like everyone else.

[71 dB]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned.  Funny enough just yesterday I read an article that Americans had only a 25% approval rating for the Supreme Court, an all time low.  I think life time appointments don't make any sense because they are partisan hacks just like everyone else.

Just imagine if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016. Elections have consequences. People were warned, but they didn't listen. Now Americans will learn the hard way that rights are not to taken for granted. Soon the only right Americans have is the 2nd amendment...

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Eugene Robinson: I have to be consistent, and I believe Biden definitely runs only if Trump runs, and I said last week I thought Trump would pretend to run but not actually go through with it. With Trump on the sidelines, I think Biden decides that his mission — protecting the nation from four more years of Trump — is accomplished. Given the state of the world, what sane person (especially at his age) would want a second term of abuse and ingratitude?

[Fëanor]

Just imagine if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016. Elections have consequences. People were warned, but they didn't listen. Now Americans will learn the hard way that rights are not to taken for granted. Soon the only right Americans have is the 2nd amendment...

I gather that is about right.  The SCOTUS is saying that id a citizen/human right isn't very explicitly detailed in the Constitution, mainly Amendments 1-10, then only the States may define that right if they choose to do so;  (of course gun rights defined in the 2nd, albeit the Court has choose to expand the definition, notably in 2008).

Roe v. Wade is only the first of likely Court decisions based on this very restricted view of the authority of the Federal Constitution.

"States rights" have been used as excuse for a lot stupid shit including slave -- holy crap,  could there be and overturn of the 13th and/or 14th or 15th Amendments?  Well thank goodness probably not because, at least, they are duly passed Amendments.