i went into some detail explaining the difference beteen culture war issues and corporate power, it would have been more productive to talk to a wall.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Already seen all that. The major flaw in that type of one-dimensional analysis is that they presume all cases are of equal importance. Citizens United was of far more importance to politics than 99.9% of the cases that go before the Supreme Court. Roberts vote, in that case, mattered a helluva lot more than anything he sided with "the liberals" this term.
And to many conservatives, like the corporatists, abortion and Obamacare are nowhere near their most important cases. Conservatives that care about corporate power and power for the wealthy have had nothing to complain about with Roberts.
Most "normal people" don't follow the SC rulings and don't give a rat's ass if a fanatical neo-liberal rates Roberts milquetoast.
I read your post. Sounds like you think Roberts and McConnell are somehow in ideological cahoots to push a conservative agenda, despite the fact that one is a politician and another a Supreme Court justice.
You've completely missed the point. You also need to stop using buzz words like "conservative agenda" and understand that different conservatives have vastly different agendas. There is no single "conservative agenda". Culture war nuts are very different from corporatists who are different than true libertarians.
Which is why I highlighted earlier that all things Republican currently fall under Trumpism. As a judge, if you are not making Donald Trump happy by ruling favorably on important cases, then you are failing. It doesn't matter of one is a "corporatist" or a cultural conservative. Roberts has clearly run afoul of the entire Republican power structure at the moment which has been easily proven by the reactions to his rulings.
You can't just equate Donald J Trump to all Republicans. If you said Trump is not happy with Roberts, sure he is not. He's not happy with anyone that doesn't 100% fall in line and agree he is the greatest in the whole universe.
But it matters a great deal if a Republican is a corporatist or social conservative because the two have different priorities. The only people that were up in arms about Roberts extremely minor cases siding with liberals were Trump (for show) and the far-right loons on conservative talk radio. Most of the Republicans that matter (the large corporations and wealthy elites) have been quite happy with Roberts because he's never gone against them.
And again, not all cases are equal so some metric that just counts where a judge sides in all cases without taking into account the types of cases has limited meaning at best.
Also, the last time I saw a statistic only 1/3 of "normal people" as you would call them even know who John Roberts is.
He is better than the other 4 but that does not say much. I don’t hate him like the modern Republicans, but he is a shitc**t too (same as Bush and co.)
I agree. Also, consider what a nuisance it would be to libs and progressives if one of their own randomly voted with the other side on issues of importance to the left. It wouldn't be well received and would result in a lot of moaning, just as we're seeing with Roberts and Trumpers in the present.
True. The difference though is that GOP has moved to the right a lot which means that one of their own is not really one of their own. If Dems would have become Bernie’s party, you might have expect Breyer or Kagan to not vote everything left and would be called centrists etc.
There is a total lack of bipartisanship in the US which is beyond ridiculous.
Except the only people not getting exactly what they want are the far-right social conservatives. The power blocs of the Republican party (corporatists and the wealthiest) have gotten everything they could possibly want from Roberts. It's why there are tons of articles calling Roberts the pro-money/pro-business court. Sure a few minor decisions that didn't go all the way to reverse abortion as far-right extremists wanted received front-page news and upset a crazy far-right loon like Pence who, in another time he'd be seen as insane, but the majority of decisions have gone a long way toward pushing everything else very far right:
"Four of these 13 cases—FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Davis v. FEC, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC—systemically decimated both the historic Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold or BCRA) and prior Court precedents limiting corporate spending in elections.[11] "
"The Roberts Five also permitted aggressive racial and partisan gerrymandering,[18] limited the rights of minorities to challenge racially concentrated districts,[19] allowed purges of voting rolls that have been shown to disproportionately disqualify minority votes,[20] and permitted voting under electoral maps that a federal district court concluded were drawn with racially discriminatory intent.[21] Every single map and policy upheld had been crafted by Republican legislatures and politicians."
"In 33 cases—the largest category by far, full of hugely important decisions that rarely make front-page news—the Roberts Five have engaged in a two-front effort to insulate corporations from liability: they have limited the ability of government agencies to regulate corporate acts; and they have made it harder for individuals harmed by corporate acts to have their rights vindicated in court. "
"In 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, the Court held 5-4 that unions could bargain away workers’ rights to have age discrimination claims heard in court.[34] In Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, the same right-wing bloc held that would-be litigants challenging an arbitration agreement as unconscionable would have to challenge the unfairness of the arbitration before the very arbitrator whose legitimacy to hear the case they disputed.[35] Also in 2010, the Court prohibited the use of class arbitration unless all parties specifically agreed to it.[36] Less than a year later, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Robert Five prevented consumers from bringing class-action suits against corporations for low-dollar, high-volume frauds "
" In Carhart, Hobby Lobby, and NIFLA, the Roberts Five delivered anti-choice victories to the religious right.[58] This same constituency saw four partisan victories in cases involving the separation of church and state: Hein, Buono, Winn, and Galloway.[59]"
and much more:
https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Court-capture-IB-Appendix-Table-A-2.pdf
https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/...the-integrity-of-todays-supreme-court/#_ftn45
Last edited:
Yes that's true. Both sides have factions that are pulling the parties in opposite directions.
And for the record Kagan and Breyer have voted with the conservative bloc in ways akin to Roberts voting against it. Here are two from this latest term:
7-2
DECIDED JULY 8
Contraception
In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the court ruled that the Trump administration can allow employers to deny contraception coverage to female workers on religious or moral grounds.
7-2
DECIDED JULY 8
Religious Employers
In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the court ruled that employment discrimination laws do not apply to teachers at religious schools.
--
Also, the only really interesting decisions for me are the ones that split both blocks, Here you have Sotomayor and Ginsburg voting with Thomas and Kavanaugh against Kagan and Roberts:
Juries
In Ramos v. Louisiana, the court ruled that the Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants of serious crimes.
7-2
DECIDED JULY 8
Contraception
In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the court ruled that the Trump administration can allow employers to deny contraception coverage to female workers on religious or moral grounds.
7-2
DECIDED JULY 8
Religious Employers
In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the court ruled that employment discrimination laws do not apply to teachers at religious schools.
--
Also, the only really interesting decisions for me are the ones that split both blocks, Here you have Sotomayor and Ginsburg voting with Thomas and Kavanaugh against Kagan and Roberts:
Juries
In Ramos v. Louisiana, the court ruled that the Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants of serious crimes.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a counter argument. More of a republican talking point. This is a good thread on how unlivable the conditions are right now.
That’s my point though.
Does Newsom really want to have something like that happen in California and give the GOP that kinda political ammunition?
Who cares what the Republicans say? They are already saying it anyways. The more important question is, what are you doing to protect them, and are you going to just watch as thousands of inmates die? A prison sentence shouldn’t be a death sentence.
This is a fantastic post and a great illustration of the frustration progressives have with liberals and/or centrists. They'll take a few wins on issues like abortion and then say the guy's going a good job while ignoring him selling out the entire political and legal system to the rich and corporations.Except the only people not getting exactly what they want are the far-right social conservatives. The power blocs of the Republican party (corporatists and the wealthiest) have gotten everything they could possibly want from Roberts. It's why there are tons of articles calling Roberts the pro-money/pro-business court. Sure a few minor decisions that didn't go all the way to reverse abortion as far-right extremists wanted received front-page news and upset a crazy far-right loon like Pence who, in another time he'd be seen as insane, but the majority of decisions have gone a long way toward pushing everything else very far right:
"Four of these 13 cases—FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Davis v. FEC, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC—systemically decimated both the historic Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold or BCRA) and prior Court precedents limiting corporate spending in elections.[11] "
"The Roberts Five also permitted aggressive racial and partisan gerrymandering,[18] limited the rights of minorities to challenge racially concentrated districts,[19] allowed purges of voting rolls that have been shown to disproportionately disqualify minority votes,[20] and permitted voting under electoral maps that a federal district court concluded were drawn with racially discriminatory intent.[21] Every single map and policy upheld had been crafted by Republican legislatures and politicians."
"In 33 cases—the largest category by far, full of hugely important decisions that rarely make front-page news—the Roberts Five have engaged in a two-front effort to insulate corporations from liability: they have limited the ability of government agencies to regulate corporate acts; and they have made it harder for individuals harmed by corporate acts to have their rights vindicated in court. "
"In 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, the Court held 5-4 that unions could bargain away workers’ rights to have age discrimination claims heard in court.[34] In Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, the same right-wing bloc held that would-be litigants challenging an arbitration agreement as unconscionable would have to challenge the unfairness of the arbitration before the very arbitrator whose legitimacy to hear the case they disputed.[35] Also in 2010, the Court prohibited the use of class arbitration unless all parties specifically agreed to it.[36] Less than a year later, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Robert Five prevented consumers from bringing class-action suits against corporations for low-dollar, high-volume frauds "
" In Carhart, Hobby Lobby, and NIFLA, the Roberts Five delivered anti-choice victories to the religious right.[58] This same constituency saw four partisan victories in cases involving the separation of church and state: Hein, Buono, Winn, and Galloway.[59]"
and much more:
https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Court-capture-IB-Appendix-Table-A-2.pdf
https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/...the-integrity-of-todays-supreme-court/#_ftn45
Exactly how do you handle a prison population during a pandemic?
On one hand you have a humanitarian crisis with many enclosed. On the other hand which get released - all? non-violent convicted persons?
Simply cannot let all of them on the streets. Especially Cali prisons with massive gang membership, some of the most violent as well. Some of these offenders are a menace to society, such is the lack of prison reform.
It's a no-win situation IMO. All it takes is one released felon to commit something so heinous and the media and political fallout would be ridiculous.
On one hand you have a humanitarian crisis with many enclosed. On the other hand which get released - all? non-violent convicted persons?
Simply cannot let all of them on the streets. Especially Cali prisons with massive gang membership, some of the most violent as well. Some of these offenders are a menace to society, such is the lack of prison reform.
It's a no-win situation IMO. All it takes is one released felon to commit something so heinous and the media and political fallout would be ridiculous.
People who aren’t republicans who are trying to win elections. They kinda care a lot.
Exactly.
Please stop pushing this BS. Repeating a Republican talking point over and over doesn’t magically make it true or turn into some form of solution. 77% of covid infections are in prisons and we can do lot better than “no win” situation.
Stop living in a dream world where actions don’t have both real life and political consequences that politicians will consider before doing.
It's quite sad that someone suggesting that prisoners shouldn't be kept in inhuman conditions is told to stop living in a dream world.
Letting people die in prison because no one wants to shoulder the political fallout is emblematic of American politics today. Imagine the political fallout if someone wanted to free the slaves?
With all due respect, I’d suggest you read up on the subject or atleast know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, silence is always golden. Prison Abolition Movement has been around since the fecking 70s. It is the reason why Defund the Police isn’t some half arsed weekend protest. Repeating a republican talking point only makes you more complicit.
It’s really sad when you ignore that that’s not all he’s arguing here.
Should prison conditions in the US be massively improved? Obviously.
Should prisoners be released en masse into the public due to the pandemic? @MrMarcello covered that nicely.
With all due respect, come back to reality.
Ah yes, because tons of slaves were slaves because they’d killed or raped or attempted to kill and attempted to rape people.
As I said, @MrMarcello summed up the problem nicely. Ignoring the points there is just silly.
I am not the one advocating for mass genocide like some crazy eugenicist. Do your research before making an argument. It’s the least anyone could do.
And there it is. Your argument to absurdity.
Yeah, pointing out that prisons are full of dangerous people and politicians don’t want to be the one who let them out into the public is definitively equal to advocating genocide.
ffs
Eh? This must have happened in another thread, because I checked the last couple of pages and I couldn't find it here. Maybe you assume he wants that, and maybe he even does, but if so it's not at all been made clear to the rest of us who participate in the thread.
Did you miss the tweet he posted saying Newsom should release prisoners from California’s prisons and mine showing why politicians might not be too keen on doing that?
No I did not miss it, but it seems like a leap to take that tweet as a call to release all prisoners (or enough to count as "en mass"), as opposed to a call to selectively release non-violent offenders where possible.
Well, between the tweet and him pushing for the study of Prison Abolition, and suggesting I am a genocidal eugenics supporter, I’ve yet to see him say who should and shouldn’t be released from the prisons. Have you?
No, but to be fair you did jump straight to assuming he wanted to immediately release everyone from prison. He was out of line (and wildly unproductive) calling you a genocidal eugenics supporter, but you weren't exactly inviting a friendly debate, so you knew what kind of reaction you would get from him.
No, I “jumped in” offering a very real issue that could be used against Newsom in the election if something similar happened in Cali after a prisoner release.
I didn’t respond to you until he’d told me to study up on the Prison Abolition Movement because I had the nerve to suggest that a Democrat might not want to give the GOP ammunition to use against them this close to an election... especially seeing as how “BS republican talking points” have won so many of them in 2014, 2016, and 2018.
Do you even know what 77% of the prison population would amount to in terms of the number of deaths? I don't know what's worse, the fact that you think it is ok to let them die in lieu of some election or that you keep repeating Republican rhetoric from decades ago as a form of a valid argument.
I don’t know what’s worse, that you always immediately jump to these ridiculous arguments or the fact that I thought “maybe he will see the legitimate political concern that exists here”... but here we are.
As if it isn't bad enough that we won't let them vote. Now you think it is a legitimate argument to let them die because of some hypothetical election scenario.
Last edited:
It’s telling that you’ve addressed exactly 0 of this...
(And I couldn’t have put it better, so I didn’t try to)