The 2024 US Presidential Election

[Farm Boy]

f off doesn't imply getting busy, then.

<groan> Taxation is also the power to destroy, backed with the naked violence of the state*. Do we need to toddlerize this one?

*Edit: the bedrock of the principle of federal supremacy under our common law tradition, while we're at it.

 

[Gorbles]

We don't need to toddlerise anything, the point is our personal politics shape the the perception of things.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, though perhaps less the more you've been graded on your understanding of it by experts of varying politics themselves.

Familiarity helps too, Alb.

 

[Sommerswerd]

People can and definitely do have kids by accident, its just that "by accident" is in scare quotes. You have kids by accident the way you get completely s***faced, falling in the bushes, blackout drunk. While I've certainly at some point in my life, started out a night of drinking intending to get hammered, people don't usually start out the night intending to get plastered to the point of puking and peeing their pants. Sure, they knew what they were doing, drinking drink after drink, but ending up in the tank with a DUI wasn't their original plan.

Sometimes people are just out for a nice roll in the sack and don't intend for it to result in a brand new human for them to care for.

 

[Lexicus]

Sometimes contraceptives fail

 

[Farm Boy]

An abortion is legal for an extensive period of time. There is a lot of effort that happens before the human is there. Albeit less for you, or for me.

If I kill someone on the road, we don't consider it by accident if I was ****faced. A societal conceit.

 

[Lexicus]

An abortion is legal for an extensive period of time. There is a lot of effort that happens before the human is there. Albeit less for you, or for me.

If I kill someone on the road, we don't consider it by accident if I was ****faced. A societal conceit.

Actually abortion is completely illegal in 14 states and de facto illegal (6 weeks) in two more.

 

[Farm Boy]

zzZZZzzz

And it's de facto legal for no askable reason at all at any point in others. Fortunate freedom to travel is imbedded and the attempts to restrict that are slowly getting chewed apart by the courts. Abortificant availability by mail up in front of the big court now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

zzZZZzzz

And it's de facto legal for no askable reason at all at any point in others. Fortunate freedom to travel is imbedded and the attempts to restrict that are slowly getting chewed apart by the courts. Abortificant availability by mail up in front of the big court now.

And they do not seem ready to end it during this election year.

 

[Core Imposter]

I can't imagine the Supreme Court would be concerned with the election calendar. They are a non-partisan institution.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Shoving the Republican poll respondents out of the way for a second, how is it only 89% of Democrats and 73% of Independents agreed that "Prohibit[ing] health insurance companies from denying coverage to pregnant women" was a "very important" feature of the ACA (as of 2019)?

Well, if that's really how the question was phrased, one possible answer to your question is that when you pile up negations (here "prohibiting from denying") some people's minds boggle :shyly raises hand: This infirmity has been hell for me in the Trump era, when we've had judges "issuing stays on injunctions that had prohibited a ban from taking effect" (to make up a phrasing; I wish I'd kept an actual instance). I sit there and try patiently to reverse the negative, and then reverse what I've reversed, and eventually my mind loses the thread. Whether that cognitive limitation afflicts a full 11%, I can't say. But I would add to that the following other considerations. What if a particular respondent said no, thinking "that's not just very important, that's the single most important provision!" Or imagine one who thinks that "very important" means the most important, and says "Well, that's an important one, but I'm saving my 'very important' vote for provision X." Sommer's substantive answer is probably the heart of it, but 1 or 2% maybe lies in how respondents' minds work on poll questions (why I never trust my scores on those Haidt quizzes, b/c all through them, I was battling with the questions themselves).

 

[Cutlass]

I can't imagine the Supreme Court would be concerned with the election calendar. They are a non-partisan institution.

The Roberts Court has never been non-partisan. They make decisions as Republican legislators first. And only resort to established law once all else has failed.

 

[Narz]

Sometimes people are just out for a nice roll in the sack and don't intend for it to result in a brand new human for them to care for.

Don't put it in anyone you wouldn't be prepared to have a kid with.

Not that I've taken that advice myself...

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't put it in anyone you wouldn't be prepared to have a kid with.

Not that I've taken that advice myself...

Ultimately yes that's always a possibility.

 

[choxorn]

They are a non-partisan institution.

God I miss the laugh reaction

 

[Core Imposter]

If you think that the Supreme Court is not nonpartisan, how would you fix it? Here is the process:

Appointment Of U.S. Supreme Court Justices​

The nomination process for a new Supreme Court justice begins when one either retires from the court or passes away. Thereafter, the sitting U.S. President nominates a qualified replacement. After this occurs, the Senate Judiciary Committee takes over the next part of the appointment process. This committee then vets the nominee's background, history and credentials and holds a first hearing with him or her to question them on their qualifications. The committee then votes on the nominee and the nomination is then sent to the full senate to go forward or with the recommendation that the nominee be rejected. If the nominee is rejected then the president will have to pick a new nominee and the process will start over.

Once at the full Senate, a filibuster can take place if at least one senator decides to stall the nomination by refusing to yield their spot speaking on the floor. If this happens then a vote of cloture takes place, where a 60 vote super-majority would be needed to stop the filibuster. If the 60 vote tally is not reached then the nomination fails and a new nominee must be picked to start the whole process over. If there is no filibuster then the nomination proceeds as normal, with the senate needing only a simple 51 majority vote tally. If the senate reaches that number then the nomination is confirmed and if not then the nomination fails and the process must start with a new nominee from the beginning. One the nominee is confirmed then they usually go straight to the White House to be sworn in, usually buy the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Justices are appointed for life so that they can be free of partisan concerns. The average tenure is 16 years which is the length of 4 presidential terms. No one can force a justice out.

The longest serving justice was William O. Douglas, with a tenure of 13,358 days (36 years, 209 days). The longest serving chief justice was John Marshall, with a tenure of 12,570 days (34 years, 152 days). Among the current members of the court, Clarence Thomas's tenure of 11,847 days (32 years, 159 days) is the longest, while Ketanji Brown Jackson's 639 days (1 year, 274 days) is the shortest.

Certainly, you can argue that individual justices have partisan leanings but as an institution, the Supreme Court is non-partisan by design. If you have an idea as to how that can be improved, please feel free to post it. Respect for our institutions is at an all-time low so if there is a better way please do post it.

 

[Cutlass]

Respect in our institutions is at an all time low because the Republican justices don't give a flying fudge what the Constitution says. All they care about is rewriting it. And really no one thinks otherwise. The divide is between those conservatives who believe in legislating from the bench, who support what is undermining institutions, and those liberals who oppose legislating from the bench, who want the institutions to be strong.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Require that the vote to confirm be all 100 Senators.

 

[Core Imposter]

Respect in our institutions is at an all time low because the Republican justices don't give a flying fudge what the Constitution says. All they care about is rewriting it. And really no one thinks otherwise. The divide is between those conservatives who believe in legislating from the bench, who support what is undermining institutions, and those liberals who oppose legislating from the bench, who want the institutions to be strong.

You leave no ground upon which the sides can meet in respect. You leave no ground upon which the hate and bitterness can be absent. You leave only ground upon which blood and sweat will be met with blood and sweat under which the dead will bear witness.

 

[choxorn]

Require that the vote to confirm be all 100 Senators.

A great way to permanently fix the number of supreme court justices at Zero, I don't think there's a single person all 100 of them could agree on