What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

It's a bit unnerving to see so many prominent RW figures openly talk about gerrymandering into oblivion, suing, humiliating, imprisoning, and killing their deemed political opponents. Whether we're talking about educators who don't teach revisionist history, doctors who don't believe that vaccines are bad, or politicians who don't believe Jan 6 was a great and glorious day:

This entire thread:


One of Trump's former mouthpieces:


Former Speaker of the House and Fox News regular:


Two popular RW podcasters:

IMG_8434.JPG

Claremont Institute:
Let’s be blunt. The United States has become two nations occupying the same country. When pressed, or in private, many would now agree. Fewer are willing to take the next step and accept that most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.

I don’t just mean the millions of illegal immigrants. Obviously, those foreigners who have bypassed the regular process for entering our country, and probably will never assimilate to our language and culture, are—politically as well as legally—aliens. I’m really referring to the many native-born people—some of whose families have been here since the Mayflower—who may technically be citizens of the United States but are no longer (if they ever were) Americans. They do not believe in, live by, or even like the principles, traditions, and ideals that until recently defined America as a nation and as a people. It is not obvious what we should call these citizen-aliens, these non-American Americans; but they are something else...

Practically speaking, there is almost nothing left to conserve. What is actually required now is a recovery, or even a refounding, of America as it was long and originally understood but which now exists only in the hearts and minds of a minority of citizens.
Click to expand...
americanmind.org

"Conservatism" is no Longer Enough

All hands on deck as we enter the counter-revolutionary moment.
americanmind.org americanmind.org
 
The more **** I see about the collapse of our way of life and the bastardization of our political system, the more I kind of wish somewhere like California or Texas would secede and give people a secondary choice of countries to live in. Imagine American, alongside the Republic of Texas and the Republic of California as separate countries. That would be a shake-up for sure.
 
I see Breyer is retiring at the end of the term in June. I'm not surprised as they'll want to lock up a progressive voice for the next 25-30 years or more for sure.
 
Avery said:
I see Breyer is retiring at the end of the term in June. I'm not surprised as they'll want to lock up a progressive voice for the next 25-30 years or more for sure.
Click to expand...
He’s also old as hell. He should’ve retired a long time ago. He’s 83
 
Avery said:
I would actually prefer the SC to not have lifetime appointments. I'm not sure what the 'right' length is, but don't think it should be for as long as they want.
Click to expand...
I would do 10 year terms and prefer the SC to be expanded to something like 21 justices. Any given case would receive a randomized 9 justice hearing.

That would fulfill 3 things:
1. Ease the pressure on presidential elections. How many Americans might vote differently if they knew they weren't electing SC justices too? Would Trump have even been elected if there wasn't so much pressure to elect him for the SC? There wouldn't have been any point in obstructing Garland if he had been just filling 1 of 21 instead of 1 of 9.
2. De-politicize the court. Even if you had a conservative majority, the randomized 9 justice hearing would leave the court less politicized as it is today. Now? With it being 6-3, we know the outcomes of most cases before they're even heard.
3. Lead to better justice. Right now the 6 justices are nothing more than arms of the far right. There's a lot of nuance when it comes to abortion. But they aren't going to deal with that nuance. They want to retain all the gifts, speaking invites, and privilege of remaining in good graces with their Federalist Society and conservative circles.
 
Avery said:
I would actually prefer the SC to not have lifetime appointments. I'm not sure what the 'right' length is, but don't think it should be for as long as they want.
Click to expand...
I could support 2.5 presidential term appointments, so what, 10 years? And you can only be appointed once. Enough time to learn how it all works, have some impact, and enough time for congress and the presidency to be shaken up a bit between appointments. I do think the SC needs some continuity to be most effective.
 
The Thriller said:
I would do 10 year terms and prefer the SC to be expanded to something like 21 justices. Any given case would receive a randomized 9 justice hearing.

That would fulfill 3 things:
1. Ease the pressure on presidential elections. How many Americans might vote differently if they knew they weren't electing SC justices too? Would Trump have even been elected if there wasn't so much pressure to elect him for the SC? There wouldn't have been any point in obstructing Garland if he had been just filling 1 of 21 instead of 1 of 9.
2. De-politicize the court. Even if you had a conservative majority, the randomized 9 justice hearing would leave the court less politicized as it is today. Now? With it being 6-3, we know the outcomes of most cases before they're even heard.
3. Lead to better justice. Right now the 6 justices are nothing more than arms of the far right. There's a lot of nuance when it comes to abortion. But they aren't going to deal with that nuance. They want to retain all the gifts, speaking invites, and privilege of remaining in good graces with their Federalist Society and conservative circles.
Click to expand...

I actually like the idea of a lottery-style process for choosing nine out of another number, but we already know that we’d have allegations of fraud and what not just as it’s been integrated into voting by certain individuals.

I don’t think you can de-politicize the court as their past judgments bear future decisions, but would like to see a true moderate court that can be heavy in the middle and lean more vs. the weighted numbers we see today.
 
Avery said:
I actually like the idea of a lottery-style process for choosing nine out of another number, but we already know that we’d have allegations of fraud and what not just as it’s been integrated into voting by certain individuals.

I don’t think you can de-politicize the court as their past judgments bear future decisions, but would like to see a true moderate court that can be heavy in the middle and lean more vs. the weighted numbers we see today.
Click to expand...
Someone else in this forum (don't recall whom) once said 18-year terms, so each President is expected to nominate 2 each term. That seems good to me.
 
What about cancel culture? I thought the right hated cancel culture?

 
The Thriller said:
What about cancel culture? I thought the right hated cancel culture?
Click to expand...
Not really cancelled. Just removed from the curriculum, still in the library.

As a professional educator, do you feel Maus is age-appropriate for all groups 12-14 year-olds?

Mike Peterson, reliably liberal, does not:

CSotD: First the fury, then the facts

I don’t disagree with Steve Brodner (or Neil Gaiman)’s take on the idea of banning Art Spiegelman’s now-classic graphic memoir, Maus. Or, at least, I wouldn’t disagree if what is being reported were what had happened. As DD Degg noted here yesterday, the Daily Beast reports that “The McMinn...
www.dailycartoonist.com www.dailycartoonist.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top