Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!

https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unless I'm missing something though, neither the president nor congress can force a judge to retire, short of impeaching them.

What does it say about a party if it can't get members on their deathbeds out of positions of power? What does it say about a party if members on their deathbeds don't do this on their own?

A competent party should be preparing younger members to take the reigns, cultivating the mentality that members shouldn't cling to power until they keel over, and should remove members who stick around too long. It should shape the rules of the institutions of government to do this as well.

Democrats never did this, and haven't come close to taking these questions seriously for decades.

[–] notabot@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely. I agree with everything you've said there. That doesn't change the fact they can't force a judge to retire. As far as I can see, she was being obstinate for precisely the reason you outline, there was no suitable candidates to take over. It's catastrophic that it came to that, but it's the sort of problem that can only be addressed by enough people standing up and making their voices heard saying that it needs to be addressed. Electoral systems only work when the populous keep watch over them, and keep the participants on the right path.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

she was being obstinate for precisely the reason you outline, there was no suitable candidates to take over

Come on, you don't believe this. You're saying there were zero suitable Supreme Court candidates available between Kagan and Jackson? Not retiring was an indefensible decision, simple as that.

You're right that Democrats had failed to address the narrow issue of "what happens if a walking corpse is on the Supreme Court?" before it was too late. But don't they have any politicians in their ranks? You know, the kind that can talk to a fellow Democrat and get them to agree to an obviously good idea? Do you think Obama even tried? What's the media's excuse for not running the stories they're running right now against Biden?

it's the sort of problem that can only be addressed by enough people standing up and making their voices heard saying that it needs to be addressed

This is always good, but there are functional parties in other countries. Parties that show some political leadership and don't have to be browbeaten by a bunch of people risking imprisonment and police beatings to do anything decent.

What you are saying sounds a lot like "Democrats can't fail, they can only be failed."

[–] notabot@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You’re saying there were zero suitable Supreme Court candidates available between Kagan and Jackson?

I should probably have worded that slightly differently, what I meant was 'she was being obstinate for precisely the reason you outline, she felt there was no suitable candidates to take over'. I doubt she was correct, but I can understand wanting to be sure that your replacement is up to snuff. That she didn't consider her own mortality is, as you say, indefensible. Any reasonable replacement would have been better than what we got.

But don’t they have any politicians in their ranks? You know, the kind that can talk to a fellow Democrat and get them to agree to an obviously good idea?

I have noticed that parties that are to the left of the other parties in their system tend to be worse at acting as a coherent whole and are much more likely to hold differences of opinion and discuss them, sometime quite vigorously, in public, whereas the more right parties tend to fall into line behind their leader and act as a cohesive unit, right up to the point they metaphorically knife them in the back. I prefer the former approach, but it does tend to mean things don't get done.

Parties that show some political leadership and don’t have to be browbeaten by a bunch of people risking imprisonment and police beatings to do anything decent.

I agree, the question is how to get there from here, rather than just wishing for a better situation to start from as so many do.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

she felt there was no suitable candidates to take over

Yes, a ridiculous and indefensible position. Imagine the ego to think no one else in the country can do your job (where much of the legwork is done by your clerks, anyway). You really don't have to hand it to her, even a little.

I have noticed that parties that are to the left of the other parties

I don't see how this is responsive to the point that Democrats should have sat down with Ginsburg and tried to convince her to retire. There's no excuse for them not only not doing that, but doing the exact opposite.

the question is how to get there from here

Sure, and the answer starts with coming to terms with the fact that the Democratic Party needs to be replaced, or at least changed so radically that it's unrecognizable. It deserves no loyalty and gets no benefit of the doubt.

Anything short of that approach winds up in the same "oh but they're the lesser evil" excuse, which isn't even true (genocide is not lesser evil), and just leads to the rightward rachet effect we've seen for the last ~50 years.

[–] notabot@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago

I don’t see how this is responsive to the point that Democrats should have sat down with Ginsburg and tried to convince her to retire. There’s no excuse for them not only not doing that, but doing the exact opposite.

I think there were enough factions that it's hard to say Democrats as a whole did anything. I'm pretty sure some did sit down and try to convince her to retire, but then I suspect others told her she was too special and should hold on, which speaks to your next point.

Sure, and the answer starts with coming to terms with the fact that the Democratic Party needs to be replaced, or at least changed so radically that it’s unrecognizable.

That sounds like a good goal. In your opinion, how do we go about achieving it without leaving the country to the mercy of the republicans in the mean time?

genocide is not lesser evil

Whilst I do understand your point, I would say that magnitude plays a part too. The fact we even have to consider that is appalling.