2018 Democrats thread

[jasonxctf]

i hope RBG is surrounded by bubble wrap these days. If she leaves, this court would be super-conservative for decades.

[Soxbadger]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I'm uncertain whether they'll be able to bring back the full sodomy laws, they're still on the books in many states just unenforceable due to a 5-4 decision. The religious right will not let Roe v. Wade stand, that has been their singular demand for my entire adult life, and they have the power to do so.

If they were to overturn it, I bet it will be under the auspice of states rights and that states can regulate this as they see fit.

But in reality they are only for states rights when it helps their "cause."

Edited June 27, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

If they were to overturn it, I bet it will be under the auspice of states rights and that states can regulate this as they see fit.

But in reality they are only for states rights when it helps their "cause."

First of all, that's a disastrous situation on its own. Second of all, that is only true if the national congress chooses not to pass a law on that issue, which, without Roe v. Wade, they would be entirely within their power to do, as Congress has the ability to regulate the legality of medical procedures under a huge amount of precedent.

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, Jerksticks said:

I disagree.  I think those issues are pretty settled.  Roe v Wade isn’t Going anywhere, even if there were 9 conservative judges.  I’d bet everything I own on that.  

 

There really aren’t social issues to get mad about or fight for any more.  Gays have all the rights, women are thriving, everyone has the same right no matter who they are.  

I’d look into incarceration of non violent offenders as one of the last things worth protesting or being an activist about.  Just nothing worth being mad about anymore.  Progressive isn’t needed anymore, we made it.  

Progressive isn't needed anymore? We're on the verge of a fascist ruling class with income and wealth inequality worse than the gilded age, so named for how ridiculous income and wealth inequality was at the time, and you think progressives aren't needed? Progressives are needed now more than ever. The only path out of this death spiral the country is in is progressive policy.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and if anyone reading this happens to be the parent of a girl age 12-18, sometime in the next year you should have a conversation with them about an IUD, because you may not be able to have that conversation later. Ditto purchasing a package of plan B (probably good if you have a son also). The Hobby Lobby case established that they will not take into account what medical science says about how treatments actually work when they decide cases.

[illinilaw08]

2 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

Good god.  Things are going to be interesting. 

Could see huge hits to gay rights and women's right to choose. 

Dems can't filibuster this with the rules post-Gorsuch, so this probably going to a vote before the November election.  But they can attack some vulnerable, or socially moderate(ish) Republicans.  No, the Court's swing vote isn't changing like we thought it would post-Scalia passing.  Best case scenario here is that the Democrats lobby hard to get Collins/Murkowski/Heller to support a Kennedy clone.  Not ideal, but keeps Roe v. Wade around and doesn't put Obergfell at risk.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Dems can't filibuster this with the rules post-Gorsuch, so this probably going to a vote before the November election.  But they can attack some vulnerable, or socially moderate(ish) Republicans.  No, the Court's swing vote isn't changing like we thought it would post-Scalia passing.  Best case scenario here is that the Democrats lobby hard to get Collins/Murkowski/Heller to support a Kennedy clone.  Not ideal, but keeps Roe v. Wade around and doesn't put Obergfell at risk.

It's not a matter of what they'd support, they'd actually have to vote against a Republican nominee, because Donald Trump isn't going to nominate a swing vote. There would have to be 51 votes against the guy.

[illinilaw08]

12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

It's not a matter of what they'd support, they'd actually have to vote against a Republican nominee, because Donald Trump isn't going to nominate a swing vote. There would have to be 51 votes against the guy.

50, right?  No vote from McCain, so the numbers are actually 50-49.  They need one vote to cross the aisle without bleeding any votes the other way.  The best pressure point on the moderate(ish) Republicans is to not change the complexity of the Court.  

I'm not saying that a Republican Senator will vote against a Trump nominee, but it's literally the best chance that the Democrats have right now...

[Balta1701]

10 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

50, right?  No vote from McCain, so the numbers are actually 50-49.  They need one vote to cross the aisle without bleeding any votes the other way.  The best pressure point on the moderate(ish) Republicans is to not change the complexity of the Court.  

I'm not saying that a Republican Senator will vote against a Trump nominee, but it's literally the best chance that the Democrats have right now...

John McCain pledged before the 2016 election that he would never allow Hillary Clinton to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court. If he's alive and physically able...they might well truck him in.

[LittleHurt05]

6 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

Just to note, none of the money people pay in their union fees go to political campaigns. 

I seen Trump tweeted out today that they did and that isn't the case.  It will be used in the future to get people to not opt into unions. 

Unions are political organizations. 

[illinilaw08]

21 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Unions are political organizations. 

How are they political organizations when they aren't engaging in political speech?  So if a police union is collectively bargaining with the County on behalf of all of the officers in that County, how is that act political?

Unions do engage in political speech, but the IL law in question expressly forbade those dues from going toward lobbying efforts and the like...

[The Beast]

Hopefully Thomas Hardiman is the choice. I would also say Brett Kavanaugh, but he doesn’t appear to be a swing vote like his old boss was.

[Heads22]

This is what you get when someone gets the second most votes in an election; clearly they should be the arbiters of law and the Constitution in our country. You see, those people in Wyoming, they're real Americans. Moreso than any of you in Chicago.

[LittleHurt05]

6 hours ago, illinilaw08 said:

How are they political organizations when they aren't engaging in political speech?  So if a police union is collectively bargaining with the County on behalf of all of the officers in that County, how is that act political?

Unions do engage in political speech, but the IL law in question expressly forbade those dues from going toward lobbying efforts and the like...

Governmemt unions publicly throw all of their support at specific political candidates, they are the same as lobby groups.

[caulfield12]

The (Wall Street) Journal misses the central point that unions are advocacy organizations. The job of a union is to advocate on behalf of working men and women.

Moreover, the Journal ignores the fact that corporations outspend unions by more than 10 to one but are free to hide their spending while unions disclose everything.

 

this from an AFL—CIO rebuttal to a WSJ report in the days following Citizens United 

Edited June 28, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Trump said he wants someone who “can serve 40, 45 years,” this can’t go well...

At one point, Trump praised Kennedy for his service and said he was “honored” that the longtime justice decided to retire during his presidency — which he suggested was a deliberate choice.

“He felt confident in me to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy, that’s why he did it,” Trump said.

 

I’m finding it difficult to look backward, instead of ahead. Justice Kennedy was the man in the middle, who kept the already very conservative Supreme Court from moving ever more rightward. And he loved that role and all the attention that came with it. It is regrettable he is giving it up at this particular moment, however, because his resignation launches even more of an ideological war than we already were having—one that could end up overshadowing whatever one might believe (or he might believe) to be his legal legacy. I’ll make a prediction. I think he is likely to be replaced with another very conservative justice; I think the country’s politics are going to move left; and I think we might end up in a situation like 1937, when we had an epic collision between an entrenched conservative Supreme Court and a public who quite disagreed. The public was looking to the government to help pull it out of the Great Depression, and the Supreme Court was striking down both state and federal economic measures like they were clay pigeons on a range. I can’t say precisely what the coming issue(s) will be—I have my guesses, including campaign finance and a variety of civil liberties—but I may have to add a chapter to The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-legacy-supreme-court-218900

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-joe-crowleys-defeat-doesnt-mean-democratic-socialism-is-on-the-rise

At this point, I have zero faith the left and centrist wings of the party can successfully be united nationally

Edited June 28, 2018 by caulfield12

[illinilaw08]

8 hours ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Governmemt unions publicly throw all of their support at specific political candidates, they are the same as lobby groups.

Public sector unions do two things - they engage politically - donating to candidates, and making endorsements.  But they also engage in non-political speech - collectively bargaining on behalf of the teachers, police, firefighters, etc.  

Prior to Janus, the Illinois law said that if you opted out of the public union, you still had to pay for the non-political part.  Basically, you paid the union for the collective bargaining part - you weren't able to get the benefit of the union without paying.  That amount was audited by the state to ensure that people who opted out weren't paying for political speech.

But, now tell me how the collective bargaining side of things is political speech... 

[GoSox05]

Barbara Lee, a stalwart of the left, considering bid for House Democratic leadership

 

 

[greg775]

Holy Toledo. Hillary Clinton is back. She's still a popular choice to run in 2020.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/27/democrat-2020-field-poll/740370002/

[RichieZisk]

18 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Holy Toledo. Hillary Clinton is back. She's still a popular choice to run in 2020.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/27/democrat-2020-field-poll/740370002/

I highly doubt Hillary will run again.   Biden might and would probably win the nomination but his age will definitely be an issue.   Those other names mentioned will run but I think a democratic governor like John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Steve Bullock of Montana, or Andre Cuomo of New York would have the best chance again Trump.    Now if Oprah runs then all bets are off.   Remember how ludicrous it was to think of Trump becoming president.  Same goes for Oprah.  People tend to trust celebrities for some reason and she is, by far, the biggest celeb available to democrats.   The reason I think she won't run is because she would not want to give up her leisurely lifestyle for four years of being president.  We will also probably see some of these democrats start campaigning for the 2020 presidential election as soon as early 2019.     

[Dam8610]

10 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Trump said he wants someone who “can serve 40, 45 years,” this can’t go well...

At one point, Trump praised Kennedy for his service and said he was “honored” that the longtime justice decided to retire during his presidency — which he suggested was a deliberate choice.

“He felt confident in me to make the right choice and carry on his great legacy, that’s why he did it,” Trump said.

 

I’m finding it difficult to look backward, instead of ahead. Justice Kennedy was the man in the middle, who kept the already very conservative Supreme Court from moving ever more rightward. And he loved that role and all the attention that came with it. It is regrettable he is giving it up at this particular moment, however, because his resignation launches even more of an ideological war than we already were having—one that could end up overshadowing whatever one might believe (or he might believe) to be his legal legacy. I’ll make a prediction. I think he is likely to be replaced with another very conservative justice; I think the country’s politics are going to move left; and I think we might end up in a situation like 1937, when we had an epic collision between an entrenched conservative Supreme Court and a public who quite disagreed. The public was looking to the government to help pull it out of the Great Depression, and the Supreme Court was striking down both state and federal economic measures like they were clay pigeons on a range. I can’t say precisely what the coming issue(s) will be—I have my guesses, including campaign finance and a variety of civil liberties—but I may have to add a chapter to The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-legacy-supreme-court-218900

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-joe-crowleys-defeat-doesnt-mean-democratic-socialism-is-on-the-rise

At this point, I have zero faith the left and centrist wings of the party can successfully be united nationally

We'll likely have a 13 justice court in the next 20 years.

[Reddy]

On 6/27/2018 at 8:51 AM, Dam8610 said:

Hey, @Reddy, thoughts on Ocasio-Cortez?

Personally not a fan of the DSA, and hate that a red rose twitter handle will be in Congress, BUT representation matters and for that reason, I think it's a good thing. I think many of the hot takes are blowing it out of proportion, however. Yes - progressives can win in places like *gasp* New York City. But the "DEMOCRATS NEED TO TAKE NOTE" thing is silly when OR, DSA, and other socialist style candidates have been crushed everywhere that isn't on a coast.

Like, being 3 or 4 out of dozens isn't a great record.

[Dam8610]

3 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Personally not a fan of the DSA, and hate that a red rose twitter handle will be in Congress, BUT representation matters and for that reason, I think it's a good thing. I think many of the hot takes are blowing it out of proportion, however. Yes - progressives can win in places like *gasp* New York City. But the "DEMOCRATS NEED TO TAKE NOTE" thing is silly when OR, DSA, and other socialist style candidates have been crushed everywhere that isn't on a coast.

Like, being 3 or 4 out of dozens isn't a great record.

So you're upset that the person who better represented the values, ideals, and policies you claim to espouse won?

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Personally not a fan of the DSA, and hate that a red rose twitter handle will be in Congress, BUT representation matters and for that reason, I think it's a good thing. I think many of the hot takes are blowing it out of proportion, however. Yes - progressives can win in places like *gasp* New York City. But the "DEMOCRATS NEED TO TAKE NOTE" thing is silly when OR, DSA, and other socialist style candidates have been crushed everywhere that isn't on a coast.

Like, being 3 or 4 out of dozens isn't a great record.

If not for the two coasts, where did that 2.8 million popular vote margin come from?

Illinois?

It’s a wake up call about not being too complacent or really listening to constituents...getting out there and actually doing the hard work of politics, knocking on doors.  Supposedly, she spent a lot of time just going up and down the halls of tenement buildings, and thought bought her respect/credibility almost instantly.  And don’t call for a debate, NOT show up, then send a staff member who’s a Hispanic female in your place to represent you.  Nobody likes being condescended to/patronized.

And Reddy should know one thing as an Iowan...remember, which state gave Obama his huge shot of momentum in 2008?  Or Howard Dean?  At the time they ran, they were both to the left/progressive side of the mainstream candidates (Obama due to his anti-war stance.”   This was all in “relatively conservative” Iowa.   Especially in primaries, the more extreme/passionate members of both parties are going to be out there.   That’s also how you explain the likes of King, Grassley and Reynolds, and re-exploring what was once seemingly settled territory on abortion rights.

 

On the coasts, the moderates are going to be pushed...like Feinstein, for one.  Pelosi is going to be challenged by the younger members of her caucus, especially now with Crowley down and extreme frustration over having another arch-conservative Supreme Court justice jammed down our throats because Hillary couldn’t secure 77,000 votes in 3 states that she took for granted (especially WI.)

Just like the GOP learned with Eric Cantor going down。

[greg775]

10 hours ago, RichieZisk said:

I highly doubt Hillary will run again.   Biden might and would probably win the nomination but his age will definitely be an issue.   Those other names mentioned will run but I think a democratic governor like John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Steve Bullock of Montana, or Andre Cuomo of New York would have the best chance again Trump.    Now if Oprah runs then all bets are off.   Remember how ludicrous it was to think of Trump becoming president.  Same goes for Oprah.  People tend to trust celebrities for some reason and she is, by far, the biggest celeb available to democrats.   The reason I think she won't run is because she would not want to give up her leisurely lifestyle for four years of being president.  We will also probably see some of these democrats start campaigning for the 2020 presidential election as soon as early 2019.     

Good point on Oprah, Richie. If she runs she gets the nomination, period! If Oprah is going to run, I bet TMZ.com could find out. Talk to people around her and see if she's taking a lot of world history classes and studying world affairs and the globe. Does Oprah know all this stuff? Almost everybody I know is a dunce toward world history and the map. If Oprah is an expert already on those things, more power to her. I confess I did forget about Oprah. I'd say if Hickenlooper, McAuliffe, Bullock and Cuomo are the leading candidates, Oprah will run and run away with the nomination. If Biden, Hillary or Bernie run, Oprah would stay on the sidelines. She is not going to run for the nomination against Hillary or Biden for gosh sakes. maybe she'd run against Bernie.