I would say that we face a number of issues, even if the Democrats decide, for a change, to actually fight for anything as opposed to flinging meaningless phrases: 'using every tool in the toolbox', 'every arrow in the quiver', etc, etc.: 1) a percentage of the country doesn't care that the GOP doesn't care...they just want to win, even if the win will destroy their lives, 2) the media will never stop using the GOP framing for any and every argument--whatever you might think of Bernie Sanders, he's the only Democratic leader in the past decade who was able to effectively push back on the press, 3) social media platforms are rigged against logic and facts, much less the convoluted manner in which many Democratic leaders speak, and 4) almost every institution has fallen...this speaks not only to the cowardice of career civil servants but to an institutional rot that began long before Trump. If people quit FB, if the media gets its act together, if Democratic leadership starts speaking directly to the country and laying out the grave dangers of authoritarianism...so many 'ifs'.
I'd be curious to someday hear more about "stripping justices of the power to decide which cases to hear," which I haven't heard discussed. I was under the impression that the Supreme Court accept only about 1% of the appeals submitted. I can't see increasing that burden one hundred-fold. So would there be some separate mechanism to choose cases? A feeder court of other federal judges, for instance? A random draw? Something else? Or would we somehow limit the number of appeals? It's an interesting idea, but I'd love to hear more about a mechanism. Do you have references to any articles on this?
My significant other is, as I like to joke, of the Caucasian persuasion. She's a sweet, kind, and loving soul. It's difficult for her to experience great anger and rage. Since she hasn't had to face hardcore right wingers and racists during her lifetime, she's been somewhat reluctant to countenance Republican evil doing.
In recent months, her perspective has changed radically. She is getting wired for battle in response to what's going on. I've said to her repeatedly that the Republicans and their three-headed hydra of plutocracy, theocracy, and white supremacy have gotten greedy and don't realize the reaction they are provoking. Their placement of a new justice on SCOTUS under their grossly partisan terms will simply be the culmination of their perfidy.
My SO agrees with me and says that when she and people like her - liberal, open-minded, concerned about fairness and about others - get angry, then that anger will be deep, searing, and long-term. . If my read of her is accurate, the GOP will reap the whirlwind not just on November 3, but for years to come no matter what happens on Election Day.
I would say that we face a number of issues, even if the Democrats decide, for a change, to actually fight for anything as opposed to flinging meaningless phrases: 'using every tool in the toolbox', 'every arrow in the quiver', etc, etc.: 1) a percentage of the country doesn't care that the GOP doesn't care...they just want to win, even if the win will destroy their lives, 2) the media will never stop using the GOP framing for any and every argument--whatever you might think of Bernie Sanders, he's the only Democratic leader in the past decade who was able to effectively push back on the press, 3) social media platforms are rigged against logic and facts, much less the convoluted manner in which many Democratic leaders speak, and 4) almost every institution has fallen...this speaks not only to the cowardice of career civil servants but to an institutional rot that began long before Trump. If people quit FB, if the media gets its act together, if Democratic leadership starts speaking directly to the country and laying out the grave dangers of authoritarianism...so many 'ifs'.
I'd be curious to someday hear more about "stripping justices of the power to decide which cases to hear," which I haven't heard discussed. I was under the impression that the Supreme Court accept only about 1% of the appeals submitted. I can't see increasing that burden one hundred-fold. So would there be some separate mechanism to choose cases? A feeder court of other federal judges, for instance? A random draw? Something else? Or would we somehow limit the number of appeals? It's an interesting idea, but I'd love to hear more about a mechanism. Do you have references to any articles on this?
My significant other is, as I like to joke, of the Caucasian persuasion. She's a sweet, kind, and loving soul. It's difficult for her to experience great anger and rage. Since she hasn't had to face hardcore right wingers and racists during her lifetime, she's been somewhat reluctant to countenance Republican evil doing.
In recent months, her perspective has changed radically. She is getting wired for battle in response to what's going on. I've said to her repeatedly that the Republicans and their three-headed hydra of plutocracy, theocracy, and white supremacy have gotten greedy and don't realize the reaction they are provoking. Their placement of a new justice on SCOTUS under their grossly partisan terms will simply be the culmination of their perfidy.
My SO agrees with me and says that when she and people like her - liberal, open-minded, concerned about fairness and about others - get angry, then that anger will be deep, searing, and long-term. . If my read of her is accurate, the GOP will reap the whirlwind not just on November 3, but for years to come no matter what happens on Election Day.