David Perdue is also credibly accused of using secret information he's been briefed on as a Senator for insider stock trading. He very much does not want to be put in a public forum where he'd have to answer questions about that.
Fellow Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler is facing similar accusations, and here's how she handled the question in her recent debate with Raphael Warnock:
Q: Should members of Congress be barred from trading stocks?
Loeffler: Look, what’s at stake here in this election is the American Dream, that’s what’s under attack. When they attack me for a lie, a left-wing media lie, conspired with the Democrats by…This is an attack on every single Georgian who gets up every day to work hard, to provide a better life for their family, who wants to live the American Dream. It’s a distraction from the real issues, not the conspiracies in this election.
What’s at stake is the future of our country, our freedoms to live the American Dream, to not be taxed into bankruptcy, to not have to go onto government health care, government-run health care. They want to take away the health care that 180 million Americans rely on through their work. That’s why I’ve introduced a health care plan to make it more affordable, not government-run health care that would bankrupt those that rely on Medicare. And I’m going to continue to fight to keep our country free, to keep our borders secure, and make sure that our communities are safe and secure.
You can see why Perdue isn't particularly eager to do this kind of clumsy, unconvincing tap dance.
It should be noted that Loeffler's husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, owns the New York Stock Exchange.
From the looks of things, this is really becoming quite a kerfluffle. On the one hand, some Republican leaders are telling voters not to vote because it will be rigged, and then other Republican 'leaders' are encouraging Floridians to register in Georgia so they can vote.
Tell me again, who is committing voter fraud?
Who do you think will win?
Unfortunately, the Trumpistas are more fired up than ever, and Dems don't come out strongly in special elections ... so ... That, as they say, is that ...
OK. That is the pattern. Can anyone give me a credible explanation as to why the Dem voters enjoy rolling over and playing dead (very convincingly). They have a decent chance in Georgia and won't come out to vote? Why? Even if they lose, they can lose with the honour of saying, "Goddamnit, we tried." There's no honour in saying, "I was on the couch watching Wheel of Fortune. It looked like rain."
OK. That is the pattern. Can anyone give me a credible explanation as to why the Dem voters enjoy rolling over and playing dead (very convincingly). They have a decent chance in Georgia and won't come out to vote? Why? Even if they lose, they can lose with the honour of saying, "Goddamnit, we tried." There's no honour in saying, "I was on the couch watching Wheel of Fortune. It looked like rain."
I don't know the origin of the quote, but a wise observer once noted that, "Democrats fall in love; republicans fall in line ..." ... So, e.g., many passionate Bernie supporters back in 2016 simply REDUSED to vote fr Hillary, so the stayed home, or wre, voted f
I was once at a wedding in Cape Cod, after which I planned to spend a few extra days in Boston. While in Boston, I realised that I was going to miss a plebiscite - but meaningful plebiscite - in Toronto. I hauled my ass to Logan, got an early flight, and voted 20 minutes before the poll's closing - for the losing cause. Democracy is not a convenience. Georgians - turn off the TV and trudge to the voting booth - your children might thank you for redeeming your nation. My story doesn't make me a hero, just someone committed to democracy. The alternative is not worthy of our commitment, and it's purchased by indifference.
Buying a second house is not in the range of any non-rich person here.
That probably depends on how you define rich. As compared to the rest of the world, without a doubt. But I know quite a few people here who wouldn’t be described as rich or in high-paying work who do indeed have a second place, not at all fancy and not in a pricey place.
"Not at all fancy and not in a pricey place" being the key here. Waterfront is always pricey.
OK. That is the pattern. Can anyone give me a credible explanation as to why the Dem voters enjoy rolling over and playing dead (very convincingly). They have a decent chance in Georgia and won't come out to vote? Why? Even if they lose, they can lose with the honour of saying, "Goddamnit, we tried." There's no honour in saying, "I was on the couch watching Wheel of Fortune. It looked like rain."
Democratic voters have to make more of an effort to vote - they're more likely to be people of colour and/or less well off so if they live in a red state like Georgia they'll likely face longer lines at polling places, they're more likely to risk losing income or even their job(s) by taking time off to vote. They may also be impeded from voting by voter ID laws and the accompanying closure of DMV offices. The degree to which the GOP practises voter suppression cannot be overstated.
@Arethosemyfeet I know all that. None of it sufficiently explains the lack of will to vote. What must be done is tolerate the inconvenience; vote; win; change the laws to make it less inconvenient; continue voting and winning. Think of the inspiring sight of the 12 hour (or longer queues to vote in the 1994 South African elections. (Not that the all the ANC's subsequent behaviour has been laudatory, but you get my point.) While none of what you said is wrong, I think that there's a deeper problem - a lack of commitment, even to self-interest.
Democratic voters are, by definition, those who do actually vote. I think the question may be not so much "why don't Democrats turn out to vote more" but rather "why don't these people who I think would benefit from Democratic policies turn out to vote for Democratic candidates". I suspect the answer is that a disproportionate number of them are largely disengaged from politics. They're not lazy; they have a lot of stuff going on in their lives, and they don't share the idea that political activity like voting is likely to lead to a real change to their life circumstances.
@Arethosemyfeet I know all that. None of it sufficiently explains the lack of will to vote. What must be done is tolerate the inconvenience; vote; win; change the laws to make it less inconvenient; continue voting and winning. Think of the inspiring sight of the 12 hour (or longer queues to vote in the 1994 South African elections.
Yeah, that's one of those stories that's supposed to be inspiring (look at all those people willing to stand in line for half a day to cast a ballot) but is really illustrating a dismal systemic failure (someone somewhere decided that a city of one million only needed one polling place with two voting machines).
The big problem, of course, is that voter disenfranchisement is by definition one of the problems that can't be solved through the normal electoral process. It's kind of like those Segregation-era arguments that if black Americans wanted to end Segregation they needed to vote for it, ignoring the massive effort various states put in to keeping black Americans off the voter rolls.
As for Georgia turnout in the upcoming special election, it's not quite as cut-and-dried as @Fr Teilhard suggests. Special elections usually feature much lower turnout than regularly scheduled elections, but this is a runoff taking place not long after a presidential race so a lot of the November GotV apparatus (e.g. Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight) is still up and running.
One of the big dynamics in the 2018 mid-terms was that Trump was not on the ballot so voting against [ local Republican ] was a way of voting against Trump at one remove, hence the Blue Wave. With Trump actually on the ballot in 2020 people could vote against Trump directly rather than by proxy, one of the likely reasons Trump did worse than downballot Republicans. So on the one hand Trump is still around in politics but won't himself be on the ballot in Georgia's runoff elections, similar to the 2018 dynamic. On the other hand, Trump is kind of on his way out the door, diminishing the urgency to vote against him. I'd call that a wash, turnout-wise, depending on the success or failure of Trump's seditious lawsuits.
Buying a second house is not in the range of any non-rich person here.
That probably depends on how you define rich. As compared to the rest of the world, without a doubt. But I know quite a few people here who wouldn’t be described as rich or in high-paying work who do indeed have a second place, not at all fancy and not in a pricey place.
"Not at all fancy and not in a pricey place" being the key here. Waterfront is always pricey.
OK. That is the pattern. Can anyone give me a credible explanation as to why the Dem voters enjoy rolling over and playing dead (very convincingly). They have a decent chance in Georgia and won't come out to vote? Why? Even if they lose, they can lose with the honour of saying, "Goddamnit, we tried." There's no honour in saying, "I was on the couch watching Wheel of Fortune. It looked like rain."
Democratic voters have to make more of an effort to vote - they're more likely to be people of colour and/or less well off so if they live in a red state like Georgia they'll likely face longer lines at polling places, they're more likely to risk losing income or even their job(s) by taking time off to vote. They may also be impeded from voting by voter ID laws and the accompanying closure of DMV offices. The degree to which the GOP practises voter suppression cannot be overstated.
Yes ... Plus the Dem base people often don't see that they have as much at stake in a given election, since their actual circumstances don't improve greatly no matter which party is in power ... This happens as a general matter of course since the Republicans -- in recent decades -- tend to be an Opposition party, blocking Dem initiatives at almost every turn ... Witness the GOP controlled Senate under O'Bama turning aside an eminently qualified candidate for the US Supreme Court ...
Democratic voters are, by definition, those who do actually vote. I think the question may be not so much "why don't Democrats turn out to vote more" but rather "why don't these people who I think would benefit from Democratic policies turn out to vote for Democratic candidates". I suspect the answer is that a disproportionate number of them are largely disengaged from politics. They're not lazy; they have a lot of stuff going on in their lives, and they don't share the idea that political activity like voting is likely to lead to a real change to their life circumstances.
AND even when Progressive Dems are elected the GOP opposition does everything possible to derail their programs and initiatives ... So ... *shrug*
Yes ... Plus the Dem base people often don't see that they have as much at stake in a given election, since their actual circumstances don't improve greatly no matter which party is in power
The fact that this seems to be at least as true for the Republican base voter and their priorities (the U.S. isn't getting any whiter, jobs in heavy industry aren't coming back, etc.) would seem to rob this explanation of its power to explain anything.
Oh I think the Georgia Democratic voters will turn out to vote. Stacy Abrams has developed a very strong get out the vote program that gave Biden the victory. It is the Republicans (at least some of them) who think the voting is rigged and have said that they will not vote. In other words, they have drunk the Trump Kool-Aid.
I would say that to be disengaged from politics is to be lazy. You're not doing your job.
Would you say that? To someone who looks at the places where Democrats are in power and isn't particularly impressed by their initiatives to tackle problems with housing and schools?
Prepare for the string of obscenities coming your way in return. It's nobody's job to help you elect your candidate.
Do they do it by telling people they're lazy and shirking their job?
Don't move the goalposts. You said X. I disproved X. Now you change the subject.
I don't know what it is you think you've disproved. I'm telling Pangolin Guerre that it's a bad idea to tell disaffected people that they're lazy and shirking their job by not voting for PG's preferred candidate. Nobody is obligated to help PG get PG's candidate elected - that's nobody's "job" in any sense that would give PG a right to complain that they were shirking.
Yes ... Plus the Dem base people often don't see that they have as much at stake in a given election, since their actual circumstances don't improve greatly no matter which party is in power
The fact that this seems to be at least as true for the Republican base voter and their priorities (the U.S. isn't getting any whiter, jobs in heavy industry aren't coming back, etc.) would seem to rob this explanation of its power to explain anything.
But in 2017 the GOPs succeeded in hijacking the US Supreme Court ... and the GOP base salivated -- and voted -- for more of the same ... Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 ... and the hoped-for "Blue Wave of 2020" never came ...
But in 2017 the GOPs succeeded in hijacking the US Supreme Court ... and the GOP base salivated -- and voted -- for more of the same ... Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 ... and the hoped-for "Blue Wave of 2020" never came ...
Not really. The GOP hijacked Scalia's seat from Merrick Garland and installed Neil Gorsuch instead. The Republican response was . . . a substandard turnout in the 2018 mid-term elections. In 2020 turnout was boosted for both major parties (158 million ballots in 2020 vs. 137 million in the 2016 presidential race), resulting in a closer result than 2018. If stealing a Supreme Court seat in 2017 energized the Republican base we should see a GOP boost in 2018, which we didn't. The big factor for boosting Republican turnout seems to be whether Trump himself is on the ballot.
Can US friends please enlighten me what Trumps official position in Rep party will be after Bidens inauguration. Since I assume he has no role in either of the two houses he is not like Leader of Opposition in UK. Does he sit and wait it out in some sort of vacuum, to try again in 2024 as the sitting tenant in the party.
But in 2017 the GOPs succeeded in hijacking the US Supreme Court ... and the GOP base salivated -- and voted -- for more of the same ... Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 ... and the hoped-for "Blue Wave of 2020" never came ...
Did they hijack the Supreme Court, or did they continue what has sadly become the practice on both sides in the politicisation of the Court?
You can read the sorry tale yourself (Wikipedia), and decide whether that counts as hijacking or not:
On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died one month earlier. At the time of his nomination, Garland was the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This vacancy arose during Obama's final year as president. Hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year. Senate Democrats criticized the move as being unprecedented, and responded saying that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election.
...
This marked the first time since the Civil War that a nominee whose nomination had not been withdrawn had failed to receive consideration for an open seat on the Court.
...
Back in 2010, Republican Senator Orrin G. Hatch publicly said that he had urged Obama to nominate Garland as "a consensus nominee" who would easily win Senate confirmation. On March 11, 2016 (five days before President Obama nominated Judge Garland), Senator Hatch said: "The President told me several times he is going to name a moderate, but I do not believe him. ... [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably will not do that because this appointment is about the election. So I am pretty sure he will name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."
But in 2017 the GOPs succeeded in hijacking the US Supreme Court ... and the GOP base salivated -- and voted -- for more of the same ... Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 ... and the hoped-for "Blue Wave of 2020" never came ...
Did they hijack the Supreme Court, or did they continue what has sadly become the practice on both sides in the politicisation of the Court?
Bothsidesism is a hell of a drug. I'm trying to think of a similar instance where a Democratic-controlled Senate refused to hold either hearings or a vote on a Republican Supreme Court nominee. Maybe you can provide an example? There are certainly instances of a Democratically-controlled Senate voting down a Republican nominee (Bork, Carswell, Haynsworth), but I can't think of a case where Senate Democrats simply denied that a duly elected Republican president had the authority to appoint Supreme Court Justices and indicated a willingness to leave an open seat vacant in perpetuity. The only thing similar I can think of the Senate sandbagging John Tyler's nominees, but Tyler was a high-handed asshole who did things like re-nominating people the Senate had already rejected and was only president because William Henry Harrison had died. I'm not sure precedents from the years of the Second Party System have that much relevance today.
BTW, John Tyler still holds the record for most failed Supreme Court nominations of any president, which is pretty impressive for someone who had slightly less than one term in office.
Can US friends please enlighten me what Trumps official position in Rep party will be after Bidens inauguration. Since I assume he has no role in either of the two houses he is not like Leader of Opposition in UK. Does he sit and wait it out in some sort of vacuum, to try again in 2024 as the sitting tenant in the party.
I'm not American, but no, I don't think Trump will have any official position within the Republican Party after Biden is sworn in. I think he'll still enjoy some sorta status as a former POTUS, entitled to Secret Service protection and whatnot, but nothing conferred upon him by the GOP. If he continues to grace the public discussion with his opinions, he will do so as just another private commentator.
(That said, I'm not exactly certain what position he enjoys within the GOP as president, given that the presidency is a government, not a party, position. Is his presumed registration as a Republican his only formal link to the party?)
I believe Trump will officially announce his intention to run (stand) for the 2024 election which will mean he will have a great influence on the future of the party. However, four years is a very long time to run and as more revelations come down through the Manhattan District Attorney's office, he may be the first person to run from a jail. I don't know of any constitutional disqualification for a state felon to run.
But in 2017 the GOPs succeeded in hijacking the US Supreme Court ... and the GOP base salivated -- and voted -- for more of the same ... Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 ... and the hoped-for "Blue Wave of 2020" never came ...
Did they hijack the Supreme Court, or did they continue what has sadly become the practice on both sides in the politicisation of the Court?
Bothsidesism is a hell of a drug. I'm trying to think of a similar instance where a Democratic-controlled Senate refused to hold either hearings or a vote on a Republican Supreme Court nominee. Maybe you can provide an example? There are certainly instances of a Democratically-controlled Senate voting down a Republican nominee.
I should make it clear that I was referring to the general politicisation of the Court rather than this one incident.
I believe Trump will officially announce his intention to run (stand) for the 2024 election which will mean he will have a great influence on the future of the party. However, four years is a very long time to run and as more revelations come down through the Manhattan District Attorney's office, he may be the first person to run from a jail. I don't know of any constitutional disqualification for a state felon to run.
Thanks. Yeah, I guess filing the papers to run in primaries will give him some sort of official GOP status.
But even if he stays outta jail, I think he will of dwindling interest to the media, who will be increasingly disinclined to give his comments serious attention. (Even if he does manage to swing another reality-show, I don't think he'll get substantial exposure outside of that venue.)
But in 2017 the GOPs succeeded in hijacking the US Supreme Court ... and the GOP base salivated -- and voted -- for more of the same ... Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 ... and the hoped-for "Blue Wave of 2020" never came ...
Not really. The GOP hijacked Scalia's seat from Merrick Garland and installed Neil Gorsuch instead. The Republican response was . . . a substandard turnout in the 2018 mid-term elections. In 2020 turnout was boosted for both major parties (158 million ballots in 2020 vs. 137 million in the 2016 presidential race), resulting in a closer result than 2018. If stealing a Supreme Court seat in 2017 energized the Republican base we should see a GOP boost in 2018, which we didn't. The big factor for boosting Republican turnout seems to be whether Trump himself is on the ballot.
In any given election GOP activists/voters in general take "the Judiciary" more seriously as an election issue than do the Dems ... and yes, in 2017 they did hijack the SCOTUS by refusing to follow the Constitution in the matter ... and the Dem voters did NOT punish them for it ..
I believe Trump will officially announce his intention to run (stand) for the 2024 election which will mean he will have a great influence on the future of the party. However, four years is a very long time to run and as more revelations come down through the Manhattan District Attorney's office, he may be the first person to run from a jail. I don't know of any constitutional disqualification for a state felon to run.
Thanks. Yeah, I guess filing the papers to run in primaries will give him some sort of official GOP status.
But even if he stays outta jail, I think he will of dwindling interest to the media, who will be increasingly disinclined to give his comments serious attention. (Even if he does manage to swing another reality-show, I don't think he'll get substantial exposure outside of that venue.)
Trump's aggrieved base will love him all the more, clinging to him out of desperate loyalty ...
I would say that to be disengaged from politics is to be lazy. You're not doing your job.
Prepare for the string of obscenities coming your way in return. It's nobody's job to help you elect your candidate.
@Dave W Your job, as a citizen, is to vote, or, alternately, to make a compelling case for not voting. I'm not saying that it's equally easy in all jurisdictions, especially in the US, but you do the utmost to exercise the franchise. As to your second sentence, where the fuck did that come from?
I would say that to be disengaged from politics is to be lazy. You're not doing your job.
Prepare for the string of obscenities coming your way in return. It's nobody's job to help you elect your candidate.
@Dave W Your job, as a citizen, is to vote, or, alternately, to make a compelling case for not voting. I'm not saying that it's equally easy in all jurisdictions, especially in the US, but you do the utmost to exercise the franchise. As to your second sentence, where the fuck did that come from?
I reject the idea that anyone is obligated to vote, and certainly that they owe any kind of explanation for doing so or not to you or anyone else.
Can US friends please enlighten me what Trumps official position in Rep party will be after Bidens inauguration. Since I assume he has no role in either of the two houses he is not like Leader of Opposition in UK. Does he sit and wait it out in some sort of vacuum, to try again in 2024 as the sitting tenant in the party.
I'm not American, but no, I don't think Trump will have any official position within the Republican Party after Biden is sworn in. I think he'll still enjoy some sorta status as a former POTUS, entitled to Secret Service protection and whatnot, but nothing conferred upon him by the GOP. If he continues to grace the public discussion with his opinions, he will do so as just another private commentator.
(That said, I'm not exactly certain what position he enjoys within the GOP as president, given that the presidency is a government, not a party, position. Is his presumed registration as a Republican his only formal link to the party?)
Thanks, kind of on the lines of what I thought.
Just that since this has been an usual election. Usually defeated candidate shuffles off in a dignified manner to enable clearing of the decks by the losing party, but this time seems different. Can imagine him sitting there like some cuckoo chick, throwing any other aspiring Rep candidates out of the nest before they have time to fledge.
I should make it clear that I was referring to the general politicisation of the Court rather than this one incident.
As an independent branch of the federal government the Supreme Court has always been political, despite its pretensions otherwise. The John Roberts model of an independent umpire calling "balls and strikes" was always a load of crap. Cases that reach the Supreme Court aren't the kind of cases where there's one clear black letter precedent, they're cases where there are at least two plausible interpretations of the statute/Constitutional clause in question and the decision will always have some kind of political implication.
Can US friends please enlighten me what Trumps official position in Rep party will be after Bidens inauguration. Since I assume he has no role in either of the two houses he is not like Leader of Opposition in UK. Does he sit and wait it out in some sort of vacuum, to try again in 2024 as the sitting tenant in the party.
Thanks. Yeah, I guess filing the papers to run in primaries will give him some sort of official GOP status.
But even if he stays outta jail, I think he will of dwindling interest to the media, who will be increasingly disinclined to give his comments serious attention.
This has been the standard take on Trump's post-presidency. Ex-presidents tend to be regarded by their parties as beloved elder statesmen (Ronald Reagan) or unmentioned embarrassments (George W. Bush) or sometimes both (Bill Clinton). Never-Trump Republican Jonathan V. Last has a different prediction of Trump's post-presidency trajectory within the Republican party.
The counterargument to this — often expressed by Republican friends who hated Trump, but went along with things — went something like this:
Voters hate losers. After Biden crushes Trump, the GOP will turn its back on him and move on. This is the cycle of defeat and renewal which is constant in American politics. Five years from now, you won’t be able to find a single Republican who admits to having voted for him.
This wasn’t a crazy argument, but I think we can now say with rough certainty that it was incorrect.
And yet I think it’s an interesting lens through which to view the last five weeks.
Everyone laughs at how stupid the Trump lawsuits are. Can you believe these morons? They lose everywhere! Even Republican judges keep slapping them down! How embarrassing for Trump!
But that’s the wrong way to think about Trump’s actions since November 3. Because his goal hasn’t been to keep the office of the president. It’s been to keep the Republican party.
On the morning of November 4, Donald Trump faced two problems. The first was that he was going to lose the power of the presidency. The second was that this loss endangered his ownership of the GOP.
Now, owning a major political party isn’t as useful as being president. But it’s not nothing, either. In a two-party system, you can exert a great deal of power by being the head of a party. You have businesses and foreign governments that will pay tribute to you. You have capos spread across the country, ready to do your bidding. You have an audience of something like 40 million partisans who can be mined for contributions and mobilized as a flash mob whenever you need them.
A political party is, to paraphrase El Blago, a valuable forking thing. Why would anyone willingly let go of it?
So for Trump, the lawsuits, the posturing, the couping — yes, it would be nice if he wound up as president on January 21. But that’s the secondary objective. The primary objective was to stop the Republican party from leaving him and, if possible, tighten his grasp on it.
For those who are wondering, "El Blago" probably refers to Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic ex-governor of Illinois who famously tried to auction off Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, got sent to prison for it, and recently had his sentence commuted by Trump.
J.V. Last goes into further details about the steps Trump is taking, for those who want to click through and read his analysis.
This is of a piece with those cabinet meetings where they went around the table and everyone had to say something nice about Trump, or sending Sean Spicer out in front of the press to insist that the crowds for Trump's inauguration were bigger than Obama's. These weren't just about stroking Trump's ego, though I'm sure Trump liked having his ego stroked. These were demands for, and demonstrations of, loyalty. Kind of like a gang initiation. Do this one clearly insane and wrong thing to prove you're really one of us. This is not a new idea. Demanding prominent Republicans claim that Trump really did win the 2020 election is a similar demand for a public show of loyalty. Will this work in the long term? I have no idea, but it seems important to clearly see what's going on.
Obama, in his latest book, said the Cabinet Room is so cramped, his cabinet seldom met there, maybe once a quarter. Same with the Situation Room. It is not some futuristic room crammed with electronics. Remember the picture where Obama and his National Security Team are crammed into a small conference room watching the raid on Bin Laden's compound? Sitting at the head of the table was the four-star chief of staff with a portable computer. Obama was sitting on a step and everyone else was jammed around a small conference table? They were all watching the video feed from the Seal team (off-camera). That is the situation room.
I should make it clear that I was referring to the general politicisation of the Court rather than this one incident.
As an independent branch of the federal government the Supreme Court has always been political, despite its pretensions otherwise. The John Roberts model of an independent umpire calling "balls and strikes" was always a load of crap. Cases that reach the Supreme Court aren't the kind of cases where there's one clear black letter precedent, they're cases where there are at least two plausible interpretations of the statute/Constitutional clause in question and the decision will always have some kind of political implication.
I ought to have said "party politicisation". Don't forget that our High Court performs much the same role, although it does carry a heavier list of general work than does the US Supreme, and a correspondingly lighter list of constitutional cases.
That said, there have been a number of party politicians appointed here. Barwick CJ was probably an inevitable appointment regardless of his party affiliation (if if he was not as good a lawyer as he thought he was). There were the appointments of Dr Evatt and Edward McTiernan at the insistence of the Labor Party caucus. Evatt's scholarship was beyond doubt, but McTiernan was well out of his depth and knew it. But he sat there quietly, listened and took advice and help from other justices. He may never have been a brilliant lawyer, but made a good and courteous judge. Also helped a young law student - we lived a half mile from him and I think he was rather amused by a young law student living nearby who was a Labor supporter.
As an independent branch of the federal government the Supreme Court has always been political, despite its pretensions otherwise. The John Roberts model of an independent umpire calling "balls and strikes" was always a load of crap. Cases that reach the Supreme Court aren't the kind of cases where there's one clear black letter precedent, they're cases where there are at least two plausible interpretations of the statute/Constitutional clause in question and the decision will always have some kind of political implication.
I ought to have said "party politicisation".
Is that really the case, though? In what sense is the current Supreme Court more partisan than the Warren Court striking down school segregation? Or the Hughes Court blocking implementation of the New Deal? Or the Taney Court ruling on slavery in the territories? Those all seem like partisan issues to me.
Despite periods when it has kept a low profile, the court has always been “party political.” Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the federal judiciary’s authority to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional, was very much intertwined in party differences between the Federalist Party of Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote the opinion, and the Democratic-Republican Party of President Jefferson.
Very different to experience here, where the consequences of a decision will often have political ramifications (and the Mabo decision springs quickly to mind), but it's hard to say that the court itself has been party political in making its decision.
I should make it clear that I was referring to the general politicisation of the Court rather than this one incident.
As an independent branch of the federal government the Supreme Court has always been political, despite its pretensions otherwise. The John Roberts model of an independent umpire calling "balls and strikes" was always a load of crap. Cases that reach the Supreme Court aren't the kind of cases where there's one clear black letter precedent, they're cases where there are at least two plausible interpretations of the statute/Constitutional clause in question and the decision will always have some kind of political implication.
I ought to have said "party politicisation". Don't forget that our High Court performs much the same role, although it does carry a heavier list of general work than does the US Supreme, and a correspondingly lighter list of constitutional cases.
That said, there have been a number of party politicians appointed here. Barwick CJ was probably an inevitable appointment regardless of his party affiliation (if if he was not as good a lawyer as he thought he was). There were the appointments of Dr Evatt and Edward McTiernan at the insistence of the Labor Party caucus. Evatt's scholarship was beyond doubt, but McTiernan was well out of his depth and knew it. But he sat there quietly, listened and took advice and help from other justices. He may never have been a brilliant lawyer, but made a good and courteous judge. Also helped a young law student - we lived a half mile from him and I think he was rather amused by a young law student living nearby who was a Labor supporter.
Certainly the SCOTUS is a political body that makes political decisions about the Constitution (which is a political document) and laws passed by Congress and state legislatures (which are inherently political in nature) and policies enacted by government bodies (which again are political by design) ...
A decision of the High Court that was very much political concerned a political party - in this case, the Communist Party, which the Menzies Government sought to ban by legislation. By a majority of 6-1, the High Court found that the legislation was beyond constitutional power. One of the judges relied heavily in his decision upon Marbury v Madison, one of the early decisions of the US Supreme Court.
I would say that to be disengaged from politics is to be lazy. You're not doing your job.
Well maybe if voting was made easier, such as not being on a weekday in the middle of when people are attempting to complete a shift at one of their several jobs, in a country with very limited employee protections so that heading off to line up for 7 hours might get you sacked, more of those 'lazy' people would vote.
In other words, the American system is in many ways actively built on trying to discourage people, or at least the 'wrong sort' of people, from being engaged.
Trump let the cat out of the bag at one point, when he vocalised his worry that more people voting would mean he would lose. It's estimated the general American population leans several points more towards the Democrats than what comes out in the votes. Which leads Republicans to actively pursue measures to discourage or prevent voting.
It's utterly disgusting, but maybe it's best not to blame the victims and call them 'lazy'.
Well maybe if voting was made easier, such as not being on a weekday in the middle of when people are attempting to complete a shift at one of their several jobs, in a country with very limited employee protections so that heading off to line up for 7 hours might get you sacked, more of those 'lazy' people would vote.
In other words, the American system is in many ways actively built on trying to discourage people, or at least the 'wrong sort' of people, from being engaged.
One of the factors in the record turnout in the 2020 election (aside from strong feelings about the incumbent president*) was efforts by states to promote voting by mail and early voting as pandemic control measures. It turns out that when you make it easier to vote, more Americans will vote. Who knew?
Well maybe if voting was made easier, such as not being on a weekday in the middle of when people are attempting to complete a shift at one of their several jobs, in a country with very limited employee protections so that heading off to line up for 7 hours might get you sacked, more of those 'lazy' people would vote.
In other words, the American system is in many ways actively built on trying to discourage people, or at least the 'wrong sort' of people, from being engaged.
One of the factors in the record turnout in the 2020 election (aside from strong feelings about the incumbent president*) was efforts by states to promote voting by mail and early voting as pandemic control measures. It turns out that when you make it easier to vote, more Americans will vote. Who knew?
Yes ... We Minnesotans have long been proud of being the leader in voter turnout in nearly every round ... We were top again in 2020, with 80% of eligible voters taking part ... But that means that even in this crucial year, 20% DIDN'T vote ...
Comments
Fellow Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler is facing similar accusations, and here's how she handled the question in her recent debate with Raphael Warnock:
You can see why Perdue isn't particularly eager to do this kind of clumsy, unconvincing tap dance.
It should be noted that Loeffler's husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, owns the New York Stock Exchange.
Unfortunately, the Trumpistas are more fired up than ever, and Dems don't come out strongly in special elections ... so ... That, as they say, is that ...
I don't know the origin of the quote, but a wise observer once noted that, "Democrats fall in love; republicans fall in line ..." ... So, e.g., many passionate Bernie supporters back in 2016 simply REDUSED to vote fr Hillary, so the stayed home, or wre, voted f
Democratic voters have to make more of an effort to vote - they're more likely to be people of colour and/or less well off so if they live in a red state like Georgia they'll likely face longer lines at polling places, they're more likely to risk losing income or even their job(s) by taking time off to vote. They may also be impeded from voting by voter ID laws and the accompanying closure of DMV offices. The degree to which the GOP practises voter suppression cannot be overstated.
Yeah, that's one of those stories that's supposed to be inspiring (look at all those people willing to stand in line for half a day to cast a ballot) but is really illustrating a dismal systemic failure (someone somewhere decided that a city of one million only needed one polling place with two voting machines).
The big problem, of course, is that voter disenfranchisement is by definition one of the problems that can't be solved through the normal electoral process. It's kind of like those Segregation-era arguments that if black Americans wanted to end Segregation they needed to vote for it, ignoring the massive effort various states put in to keeping black Americans off the voter rolls.
As for Georgia turnout in the upcoming special election, it's not quite as cut-and-dried as @Fr Teilhard suggests. Special elections usually feature much lower turnout than regularly scheduled elections, but this is a runoff taking place not long after a presidential race so a lot of the November GotV apparatus (e.g. Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight) is still up and running.
One of the big dynamics in the 2018 mid-terms was that Trump was not on the ballot so voting against [ local Republican ] was a way of voting against Trump at one remove, hence the Blue Wave. With Trump actually on the ballot in 2020 people could vote against Trump directly rather than by proxy, one of the likely reasons Trump did worse than downballot Republicans. So on the one hand Trump is still around in politics but won't himself be on the ballot in Georgia's runoff elections, similar to the 2018 dynamic. On the other hand, Trump is kind of on his way out the door, diminishing the urgency to vote against him. I'd call that a wash, turnout-wise, depending on the success or failure of Trump's seditious lawsuits.
Yes ... Plus the Dem base people often don't see that they have as much at stake in a given election, since their actual circumstances don't improve greatly no matter which party is in power ... This happens as a general matter of course since the Republicans -- in recent decades -- tend to be an Opposition party, blocking Dem initiatives at almost every turn ... Witness the GOP controlled Senate under O'Bama turning aside an eminently qualified candidate for the US Supreme Court ...
AND even when Progressive Dems are elected the GOP opposition does everything possible to derail their programs and initiatives ... So ... *shrug*
Yeah, that's the only possible explanation for low voting turnout; laziness. Also shiftlessness. For example, here's supposed voting rights activist John Lewis lying down on the job in 1965.
The fact that this seems to be at least as true for the Republican base voter and their priorities (the U.S. isn't getting any whiter, jobs in heavy industry aren't coming back, etc.) would seem to rob this explanation of its power to explain anything.
Prepare for the string of obscenities coming your way in return. It's nobody's job to help you elect your candidate.
That's absurd. Organizers don't elect candidates. Voters do.
Do they do it by telling people they're lazy and shirking their job?
Don't move the goalposts. You said X. I disproved X. Now you change the subject.
But in 2017 the GOPs succeeded in hijacking the US Supreme Court ... and the GOP base salivated -- and voted -- for more of the same ... Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 ... and the hoped-for "Blue Wave of 2020" never came ...
Not really. The GOP hijacked Scalia's seat from Merrick Garland and installed Neil Gorsuch instead. The Republican response was . . . a substandard turnout in the 2018 mid-term elections. In 2020 turnout was boosted for both major parties (158 million ballots in 2020 vs. 137 million in the 2016 presidential race), resulting in a closer result than 2018. If stealing a Supreme Court seat in 2017 energized the Republican base we should see a GOP boost in 2018, which we didn't. The big factor for boosting Republican turnout seems to be whether Trump himself is on the ballot.
You fail to take into account how slow the average Republican really is.
Did they hijack the Supreme Court, or did they continue what has sadly become the practice on both sides in the politicisation of the Court?
Bothsidesism is a hell of a drug. I'm trying to think of a similar instance where a Democratic-controlled Senate refused to hold either hearings or a vote on a Republican Supreme Court nominee. Maybe you can provide an example? There are certainly instances of a Democratically-controlled Senate voting down a Republican nominee (Bork, Carswell, Haynsworth), but I can't think of a case where Senate Democrats simply denied that a duly elected Republican president had the authority to appoint Supreme Court Justices and indicated a willingness to leave an open seat vacant in perpetuity. The only thing similar I can think of the Senate sandbagging John Tyler's nominees, but Tyler was a high-handed asshole who did things like re-nominating people the Senate had already rejected and was only president because William Henry Harrison had died. I'm not sure precedents from the years of the Second Party System have that much relevance today.
I'm not American, but no, I don't think Trump will have any official position within the Republican Party after Biden is sworn in. I think he'll still enjoy some sorta status as a former POTUS, entitled to Secret Service protection and whatnot, but nothing conferred upon him by the GOP. If he continues to grace the public discussion with his opinions, he will do so as just another private commentator.
(That said, I'm not exactly certain what position he enjoys within the GOP as president, given that the presidency is a government, not a party, position. Is his presumed registration as a Republican his only formal link to the party?)
I should make it clear that I was referring to the general politicisation of the Court rather than this one incident.
Thanks. Yeah, I guess filing the papers to run in primaries will give him some sort of official GOP status.
But even if he stays outta jail, I think he will of dwindling interest to the media, who will be increasingly disinclined to give his comments serious attention. (Even if he does manage to swing another reality-show, I don't think he'll get substantial exposure outside of that venue.)
In any given election GOP activists/voters in general take "the Judiciary" more seriously as an election issue than do the Dems ... and yes, in 2017 they did hijack the SCOTUS by refusing to follow the Constitution in the matter ... and the Dem voters did NOT punish them for it ..
Trump's aggrieved base will love him all the more, clinging to him out of desperate loyalty ...
@Dave W Your job, as a citizen, is to vote, or, alternately, to make a compelling case for not voting. I'm not saying that it's equally easy in all jurisdictions, especially in the US, but you do the utmost to exercise the franchise. As to your second sentence, where the fuck did that come from?
As to my second sentence - do you not remember your own fucking posts?
For the record, I like the Australian approach on this question.
BroJames, Purgatory Host.
Thanks, kind of on the lines of what I thought.
Just that since this has been an usual election. Usually defeated candidate shuffles off in a dignified manner to enable clearing of the decks by the losing party, but this time seems different. Can imagine him sitting there like some cuckoo chick, throwing any other aspiring Rep candidates out of the nest before they have time to fledge.
As an independent branch of the federal government the Supreme Court has always been political, despite its pretensions otherwise. The John Roberts model of an independent umpire calling "balls and strikes" was always a load of crap. Cases that reach the Supreme Court aren't the kind of cases where there's one clear black letter precedent, they're cases where there are at least two plausible interpretations of the statute/Constitutional clause in question and the decision will always have some kind of political implication.
This has been the standard take on Trump's post-presidency. Ex-presidents tend to be regarded by their parties as beloved elder statesmen (Ronald Reagan) or unmentioned embarrassments (George W. Bush) or sometimes both (Bill Clinton). Never-Trump Republican Jonathan V. Last has a different prediction of Trump's post-presidency trajectory within the Republican party.
For those who are wondering, "El Blago" probably refers to Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic ex-governor of Illinois who famously tried to auction off Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, got sent to prison for it, and recently had his sentence commuted by Trump.
J.V. Last goes into further details about the steps Trump is taking, for those who want to click through and read his analysis.
This is of a piece with those cabinet meetings where they went around the table and everyone had to say something nice about Trump, or sending Sean Spicer out in front of the press to insist that the crowds for Trump's inauguration were bigger than Obama's. These weren't just about stroking Trump's ego, though I'm sure Trump liked having his ego stroked. These were demands for, and demonstrations of, loyalty. Kind of like a gang initiation. Do this one clearly insane and wrong thing to prove you're really one of us. This is not a new idea. Demanding prominent Republicans claim that Trump really did win the 2020 election is a similar demand for a public show of loyalty. Will this work in the long term? I have no idea, but it seems important to clearly see what's going on.
I ought to have said "party politicisation". Don't forget that our High Court performs much the same role, although it does carry a heavier list of general work than does the US Supreme, and a correspondingly lighter list of constitutional cases.
That said, there have been a number of party politicians appointed here. Barwick CJ was probably an inevitable appointment regardless of his party affiliation (if if he was not as good a lawyer as he thought he was). There were the appointments of Dr Evatt and Edward McTiernan at the insistence of the Labor Party caucus. Evatt's scholarship was beyond doubt, but McTiernan was well out of his depth and knew it. But he sat there quietly, listened and took advice and help from other justices. He may never have been a brilliant lawyer, but made a good and courteous judge. Also helped a young law student - we lived a half mile from him and I think he was rather amused by a young law student living nearby who was a Labor supporter.
Is that really the case, though? In what sense is the current Supreme Court more partisan than the Warren Court striking down school segregation? Or the Hughes Court blocking implementation of the New Deal? Or the Taney Court ruling on slavery in the territories? Those all seem like partisan issues to me.
Certainly the SCOTUS is a political body that makes political decisions about the Constitution (which is a political document) and laws passed by Congress and state legislatures (which are inherently political in nature) and policies enacted by government bodies (which again are political by design) ...
Well maybe if voting was made easier, such as not being on a weekday in the middle of when people are attempting to complete a shift at one of their several jobs, in a country with very limited employee protections so that heading off to line up for 7 hours might get you sacked, more of those 'lazy' people would vote.
In other words, the American system is in many ways actively built on trying to discourage people, or at least the 'wrong sort' of people, from being engaged.
Trump let the cat out of the bag at one point, when he vocalised his worry that more people voting would mean he would lose. It's estimated the general American population leans several points more towards the Democrats than what comes out in the votes. Which leads Republicans to actively pursue measures to discourage or prevent voting.
It's utterly disgusting, but maybe it's best not to blame the victims and call them 'lazy'.
One of the factors in the record turnout in the 2020 election (aside from strong feelings about the incumbent president*) was efforts by states to promote voting by mail and early voting as pandemic control measures. It turns out that when you make it easier to vote, more Americans will vote. Who knew?
Yes ... We Minnesotans have long been proud of being the leader in voter turnout in nearly every round ... We were top again in 2020, with 80% of eligible voters taking part ... But that means that even in this crucial year, 20% DIDN'T vote ...