Octopus Overlords

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:33 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:12 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:09 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:05 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:51 am And what can we do as citizensresidents? I mean when the ballot box is no longer viable and the ammo box is dwarfed by the opposition, what do you do?

I figure they're going to choke off the cities eventually so getting the bug-out cabin in order now. But is there a path to not-fucked anymore?

Sustained mass protests.

Like Occupy Wall Street? BLM?

Bigger. Everywhere. People would have to give up things and take a risk. Probably impossible for those reasons.

We are still VERY much in the 'nebulous' and 'political' stage of degradation. When shit starts to hit people's pocketbooks, or affects their immediate, daily lives, that is when you get the MASS protests, and not before. And I think it has to get a LOT more specific (like a Roe ruling, but still, that is not pocket-book hitting, so you get moderate protests like we saw) You aren't going to see millions of people in front of every state capitol because the SC essentially neutered the EPA for instance. Too abstract.

Unagi wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:05 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:33 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:12 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:09 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:05 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:51 am And what can we do as citizensresidents? I mean when the ballot box is no longer viable and the ammo box is dwarfed by the opposition, what do you do?

I figure they're going to choke off the cities eventually so getting the bug-out cabin in order now. But is there a path to not-fucked anymore?

Sustained mass protests.

Like Occupy Wall Street? BLM?

Bigger. Everywhere. People would have to give up things and take a risk. Probably impossible for those reasons.

We are still VERY much in the 'nebulous' and 'political' stage of degradation. When shit starts to hit people's pocketbooks, or affects their immediate, daily lives, that is when you get the MASS protests, and not before. And I think it has to get a LOT more specific (like a Roe ruling, but still, that is not pocket-book hitting, so you get moderate protests like we saw) You aren't going to see millions of people in front of every state capitol because the SC essentially neutered the EPA for instance. Too abstract.

Basically, people need to start feeling wet before they will insist the car is headed for the lake.

Zarathud wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:26 pm Congress could simply pass a law to change the EPA’s rules, too. Terrible analysis and completely disregards the dysfunction added by the filibuster.

Zaxxon wrote:There's also the point that if Biden is the nominee in 2024, what tangible concrete benefit are we protesting for? We'll get 4 years of antidemocratic backsliding and GOP wins either way.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:41 pm

Zaxxon wrote:There's also the point that if Biden is the nominee in 2024, what tangible concrete benefit are we protesting for? We'll get 4 years of antidemocratic backsliding and GOP wins either way.

Yeah at this point we're just kicking the can down the road.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:59 pm To be clear by what I mean by "sustained mass protests" it was a follow-on to the above discussion about the state legislative theory case and the SCOTUS laying the groundwork for the 2024 coup. Specifically in terms of what the potential remedy would be if the SCOTUS basically closes the door to any judicial relief to a legalized coup.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:28 pm You want to see mass marching, raise people's taxes to EU levels.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency strikes down a federal environmental regulation of power plants that never took effect, that the Biden administration has no intention of reinstating, and that would have accomplished absolutely nothing even if it had be enforced.

Nevertheless, the Court voted along ideological lines to strike down this regulation that the EPA drafted under authority granted by the Clean Air Act, claiming that it amounts to an “extraordinary” overreach by the EPA. And their decision has enormous implications both for the environment and for the federal government more broadly.

At the very least, the West Virginia decision strips the EPA of its authority to shift energy production away from dirty coal-fired plants and toward cleaner methods of energy production — although market forces have thus far accomplished much of this shift on their own, because coal-fired plants are often more expensive to operate than cleaner plants. The decision could also lead to additions limits on the EPA’s ability to regulate that industry going forward.

The West Virginia decision confirms something that has been implicit in the Supreme Court’s recent decisions governing federal agencies’ power to issue binding regulations under authority granted by Congress: When a majority of the Supreme Court disagrees with a regulation pushed out by a federal agency, the Court has given itself the power to veto that regulation — and it will do so by invoking something known as the “major questions doctrine.”

Under this doctrine, the Court explained in a 2014 opinion, “we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” Thus, if a majority of the Court deems a regulation to be too significant, it will strike it down unless Congress very explicitly authorized that particular regulation.

This doctrine comes from nowhere. Last week, the Court said that abortion is unprotected by the Constitution — leaning heavily on the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. But the the major questions doctrine is also mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Nor can it be found in any statute. The justices made it up. And, at least during President Joe Biden’s administration, the Court has wielded it quite aggressively to veto regulations that the Court’s conservative majority finds objectionable.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:46 pm Is there any mention of the "major questions doctrine" in any decisions prior to the 2014 one? I'd certainly never heard of it before today.

This stuff is just extra infuriating because of the thick layer of bullshit over all of it.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:59 pm
So like if the election turns on Wisconsin, Biden wins Wisconsin, but the Wisconsin legislature votes to award the state's delegates to Trump, the odds that the SCOTUS would step in to prevent that are (sadly, and horrifically) low. So the best chance of stopping that would be mass protests (probably first concentrated in Madison, then moving to DC if necessary).

Would that work? Sustained mass protests are among the more effective strategies against authoritarianism, though they certainly don't always work (especially if the authoritarian has loyal military / police forces willing to shoot protesters). Though it would also depend upon people believing that Biden won and that that was being reversed illegally, and it's not hard to imagine WI GOP legislators working hard to make sure that the vote counting is stopped at a moment when Trump appears to be ahead.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:44 pm I don't think moderate, slow Joe is up for this, as much as I seem to like him. He's just not.

Alefroth wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:53 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:44 pm I don't think moderate, slow Joe is up for this, as much as I seem to like him. He's just not.

Even if he did support eliminating the filibuster, what could he do?

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:46 pm

YellowKing wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:41 pm

Zaxxon wrote:There's also the point that if Biden is the nominee in 2024, what tangible concrete benefit are we protesting for? We'll get 4 years of antidemocratic backsliding and GOP wins either way.

Yeah at this point we're just kicking the can down the road.

He's looking like Schrodinger's Candidate--he must be and yet absolutely cannot be the Dem nominee.

Alefroth wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:53 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:44 pm I don't think moderate, slow Joe is up for this, as much as I seem to like him. He's just not.

Even if he did support eliminating the filibuster, what could he do?

Carpet_pissr wrote:I got some pushback when I suggested that he must not be the nom, after he was only in office a few weeks/months.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:43 pm

Alefroth wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:53 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:44 pm I don't think moderate, slow Joe is up for this, as much as I seem to like him. He's just not.

Even if he did support eliminating the filibuster, what could he do?

Speak up more. Louder. MOAR. Even if it's just theater resulting in nothing, I would like to see quotes so strong that it makes all the headlines, as he fights tooth and nail against our descent into proto-authoritarianism.

It's past time to use the traditional "strongly worded PR through my normal channels" shtick. These are not normal times, and they require a non-normal response from our President. In other words, CREATE any vibe (I don't really care how) other than 'business as usual' which is very much what I am getting now. It's time to get creative in his reaction. Think outside the box.

If the only thing he can do is act like a coach trying to fire up his losing team at halftime, DO THAT. Shit, at least PRETEND to be trying to do that! Something...

Defiant wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:32 pm

waitingtoconnect wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:14 pm Remember that thanks to the supreme court the next time the capitol is stormed it will be legal for them to carry arms most likely.

And all the Democrats can do is fight amongst themselves on petty points.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed support Thursday for a debunked claim that all Covid vaccines are made with cells from “aborted children.”

His dissent came in a decision by the Supreme Court to not take up a legal challenge by New York health care workers who opposed the state’s vaccine mandate on religious grounds.

Thomas, citing the plaintiffs, wrote that the health care workers “object” to the state’s vaccine mandate “on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

malchior wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:09 am Thomas cites debunked "science" about fetal lines in dissent

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed support Thursday for a debunked claim that all Covid vaccines are made with cells from “aborted children.”

His dissent came in a decision by the Supreme Court to not take up a legal challenge by New York health care workers who opposed the state’s vaccine mandate on religious grounds.

Thomas, citing the plaintiffs, wrote that the health care workers “object” to the state’s vaccine mandate “on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

The Supreme Court is a strange institution — the final word on the law, but with no way to enforce its decisions; clearly political, but supposed to stand above politics; composed of nine bickering individuals, but posing as the impartial voice of the Constitution — and we have papered over its peculiarities with traditions of continuity and restraint. We ask senators to judge nominees by their qualifications, not their ideas. We ask justices to uphold past decisions they believe are wrong, even immoral. At least, we did. In recent years, the political importance of the court has overwhelmed the norms that (somewhat) insulated it from politics.

As I wrote in my book, “There is perhaps no single vote members of the U.S. Senate take with as much long-term ideological importance than that of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and asking them to keep that vote, and that vote alone, separate from the ideological promises they make to their voters, and to themselves, is bizarre.” The old norm worked when party conflict was mild enough to create a court that felt, and perhaps was, largely nonpartisan. But those days are long gone.

Making matters worse is that the Supreme Court has gone from being undemocratic to being anti-democratic. Lifetime appointments are iffy under the best of circumstances, but the vagaries of retirements and deaths have given Republicans a control that makes a mockery of the public will. Five of the court’s six Republican justices were appointed by presidents who initially took office after losing the popular vote (and, in the case of George W. Bush, after a direct intercession by five of the court’s conservatives in Bush v. Gore). Donald Trump was able to make more appointments in one term than Barack Obama was able to make in two.

You might think that the minoritarian nature of this Supreme Court would produce a restrained majority, one fearful of falling too far afoul of public opinion. It has not. To read the flurry of decisions and concurrences and dissents in Dobbs is to read less about abortion and rights than you might expect. Much of the text is a debate over the legal principle of stare decisis, which directs the court to respect precedent when making decisions.

Stare decisis helps solve a particular problem for the Supreme Court, which must prove itself an institution operating across time, not simply an amalgamation of nine voices at any given moment. When it resists the impulse to overturn past decisions, the court builds in a continuity beyond what the opinions of its members would offer.

Roe was already revisited, in the 1992 Casey decision, and left mostly standing. Under the norms that have governed the court for decades, Roe should have been safe, not because the majority agrees with it today, but because the Supreme Court does not upend settled law based on what the majority believes today.

This is the subject of Chief Justice John Roberts’s disappointed concurrence. “Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis.” The dissent of the liberals thrums with even deeper anger: “Here, more than anywhere, the court needs to apply the law — particularly the law of stare decisis.”

But stare decisis, as the justices know far better than I do, is not a law. And so, in his majority opinion, Samuel Alito brushes it aside. “It is important for the public to perceive that our decisions are based on principle, and we should make every effort to achieve that objective by issuing opinions that carefully show how a proper understanding of the law leads to the results we reach,” he wrote. “But we cannot exceed the scope of our authority under the Constitution, and we cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work.”

The argument Alito makes throughout his opinion is simple: The court can err. When it has erred, it must correct itself. Make all the fancy arguments about stare decisis you want, but if a decision is wrong, then it’s wrong, and it must be revisited. To take his perspective for a moment: There is something maddening about being appointed to a seat on the land’s highest court but told to leave standing the decisions you and four of your colleagues consider most noxious.

On some level, he is right. Stare decisis makes little sense. The problem is that, without it, the Supreme Court itself makes even less sense. It is just nine costumed political appointees looking for the votes they need to get the outcomes they want. And the further we travel down that road, the more the mystique that sustains the court dissolves. There is no rule, really, that the Supreme Court must be obeyed as the final word in constitutional interpretation — that, too, is a norm, and one that the court has no power to enforce. If all the Supreme Court is left with are the rules, soon enough there will be no Supreme Court to speak of.

Defiant wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:31 pm

Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:42 pmThe Biden admin needs to jettison the SC and fast.

malchior wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:31 pm

Drazzil wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:42 pmThe Biden admin needs to jettison the SC and fast.

I'm not fan of the Biden administration or how they've reacted but how does one jettison a constitutional pillar?