These days Vote Blue No Matter Who means voting for a war criminal who supports genocide, mass incarceration, mass surveillance, has destroyed pandemic precautions and has undermined democracy. Instead Vote Green.
@rchusid
So you're saying; vote for trvmp?
Because that's exactly what you'll be doing.
@axeshun No, I"m voting Green. That means I'm voting against Trump.
Claims such as yours assume Democrats are entitled to the votes for others. This is an attack on democracy and one of the reasons I am reluctant to vote for Democrats.
@rchusid
If you don't understand, I won't bother explaining the logic.
If you're not voting for Biden, you'll be voting for trump.
@axeshun The logic, and the math is wrong. If your goal is to get people to consider voting for Biden I"d advise dropping this line. To independents, such a line is both an attack on democracy and makes you sound even worse than the Trumpers. Attacking democracy like this is just not a good idea politically.
@rchusid it's not even the equivalent of abstaining from voting. It's literally a reversal of the sensible compromise we're obligated to make to ensure the possibility of future progress we'd all like to see. No candidate is perfect..I disagree with many of Biden's decisions, but good luck with ANY future progressive legislation if you aid and abet another trvmp presidency.
@axeshun The chances of progressive change is less with someone like Biden. Biden has pulled so many Democrats far to the right as they defend Biden.
@TonyStark @axeshun @rchusid
I agree with your view that Ron is not worth listening to, as anyone who witnessed the Bush v Gore or Trump V Clinton debacle can attest. If Biden hasn’t performed well enough to earn your vote, you’re not a progressive, you’re a troll looking to damage Democrats. Biden has done an amazing job but limited by the coalition with which he has to work. If unsatisfied with R’s or D’s, work to enable third party viability with ranked choice voting. That’s the only way to effect change without shooting yourself in the foot
@CivilityFan @TonyStark @axeshun @rchusid@med-mastodon.com "I'm voting green"
*Block*
@CivilityFan @axeshun @philip_cardella Dude makes fun of blue by substituting green and thinks that’s a persuasive stance. If they ever pick a candidate with some qualifications or embody even one principle they say they stand for. Nope.
I’m interested in more parties at some point but not that one. Dems represent me just fine anyway, especially locally.
@TonyStark @axeshun @philip_cardella
Third parties aren’t going to be viable imo until ranked choice voting makes it possible without it resulting in just throwing away the vote.
@CivilityFan @axeshun @philip_cardella Wait, let me change that.
Exactly.
@TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun oh. For some reason it just occurred to me.
If Ralph Nader doesn't run Green in 2000 Al Gore wins Florida by a wide margin.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
Actually, that isn't true (technically *maybe*, assuming Nader voters showed up to vote for Gore.)
Let's focus on the TRUE cause: The brother of the #GOP nominee was the governor of Florida. The two of them exchanged "convict lists" to kick anyone with a "similar" name convicted of a crime off the voter roles (despite no evidence Texas convicts had voted in Florida.
Some 60,000 black & Hispanic voters were kicked off the voter roles.
@MugsysRapSheet
Ralph Nader received 97,488 "liberal" votes in Florida. Bush won* by 537 votes.
Technically, it's true. The other factors are also true. But Ralph Nader absolutely was ONE crucial factor in Bush winning. Period.
*Most analysis now says if the Brooks Brother Riot led by January 6 organizer and Nixon spawn Roger Stone hadn't happened the recount would have given Gore Miami Dade County and the State of Florida.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
In a statewide recount, #Gore would have beaten #Dubya, but the #SCotUS put a stop to it on the (insane) grounds that continuing to question the result "would hurt Bush's legitimacy."
Funny that SCotUS never said the same about T****'s endless call for recounts hurting #Biden (how many #RWNJ's to this day think Biden "stole" the election?)
@MugsysRapSheet that's because Trump's recounts never made it to SCOTUS in a way that warranted its action.
In Bush v Gore the Court was involved because a lower court had demanded a recount. When it comes to Trump it was the opposite: lower courts rebuked him already, so there wasn't anything for the SCOTUS to do.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@volkris @philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
The only reason the SCotUS injected themselves in Bush v Gore is b/c the Bush campaign asked them to.
Biden never did (or had to.) If just ONE state had refused to take up one of #TheOrangeMenace's whiny-ass calls for a recount, he would have sued and it would have gone to the SCotUS.
@MugsysRapSheet but Trump DID ask the SCOTUS to intervene and they rejected his invitation.
SCOTUS took up Bush v Gore because Bush made the case that a lower court screwed up, which needed correcting.
SCOTUS didn't take up Trump's cases because that campaign didn't make a solid case.
It had nothing to do with Biden, but about Trump's request being unpersuasive.
This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump's wants when they think he's blabbering nonsense.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@volkris wrote
This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump’s wants when they think he’s blabbering nonsense.
In Bush v Gore, they specifically qualified the ruling as not setting precedence for the future, displaying a knowledge of how political it was. I don’t think that this court can be trusted to rule impartially. If its legitimacy is questioned, it will lose the faith of the American people and that’s not a future anyone can predict.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
Where did they specifically qualify the ruling as not setting precedent?
I really don't see how a person can read the ruling and find it so political.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
@volkris To answer your question why the ruling is not setting precedent, here is a quote from the Yale Law Review:
And the first question they have to confront is whether they should be making sense of Bush v. Gore at all. For Bush v. Gore notoriously announced that “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances,” a line which some legal academics likened to a ticket good for one day only, or a self-destruct mechanism: after the President was chosen, the case blew up.
@CivilityFan if you read the ruling, it puts that line in context that suggests not the lack of precedent but rather the lack of generality.
Either way, no, they didn't "specifically qualify the ruling as not setting precedent" even if some might have read between lines to propose that meaning.
In other words, even if that's the correct interpretation--despite it being missing from the clear text of the opinion--it certainly wasn't specifically qualified. At best it was innuendo.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
Really? I was present and the idea that was communicated to me was that their use of that Latin phrase was unambiguous. I know it motivated a lot of discussion at the time. In any event, precedent doesn’t mean much to the majority of these Justices anyway
@CivilityFan the amount of time these justices spend citing precedent would suggest that precedent does, indeed, mean something.
They don't ignore precedent as meaningless. Quite the opposite. They spend a ton of time and ink addressing it because it has such meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
@CivilityFan Roe, which was absolutely not ignored in SCOTUS deliberations.
Rather, because they respected precedent, both Roe and generations of precedent that came after and even because of Roe, they wrote extensively about precedent in arriving at their ruling.
The tumult around Roe speaks exactly against your conclusion: it was a great example of how important precedent is to this court.
Should they be ignoring precedent as suggested above it would have been much easier to have settled the question. Instead, they respected precedent in their opinions, addressing precedent front and center.
What is the weather like on your planet?
If you see SCUTUS’s decision in overturning Roe as concern for precedent, then I see no point in pursuing a conversation with you, please exclude me in the future of this thread, goodbye.
I live on the planet where precedents were so important to the Supreme Court's process that the Dobb's opinion went out of its way to include two appendices doing nothing but laying them out.
People will often spread misinformation about what courts say. In any case that's important to you, there is no substitute for reading the ruling directly.
Here it is, so you can read it with your own eyes.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
@MugsysRapSheet Have you read the argument (that I linked above)? Where specifically do you think it gets it wrong?
You say there is NO intellectually honest way to say it's respecting precedent, and that makes for a dramatic statement, but it seems to me the argument is emphatically focused on doing exactly that.
So where exactly is the argument wrong?
@volkris
You are reading the #SCotUS decision from a point of view that they are being intellectually honest when they state the Roe decision did NOT in fact protect the right to an abortion, and therefore by nullifying it, they aren't breaking with precedent.
But that's simply not true or else nothing would have changed following their ruling.
#Roe was a #Federal ruling that superseded any state level decision to curb the right to an abortion.
#Dobbs nullified that.
@MugsysRapSheet I'm reading the SCOTUS decision from a point of view that if we want to know what SCOTUS said we should consult SCOTUS.
The rest doesn't actually matter, because that's how the US legal system works.
Again, where exactly do you find an error in their actual ruling, not in some strawman set up for dramatic sake?
@volkris
My last reply on the issue:
Last Sunday on ABC's "#ThisWeek", JD Vance was fuming when Steph-O ended the interview when he tried to argue CONGRESS could decide whether or not a SCotUS decision was Constitutional and it *wasn't* in fact the final word.
Republicans love to pick & choose what rules they choose to follow. Any law/rule that's inconvenient is suddenly open to interpretation (see T**** now claiming laws don't apply to POTUS.)
Saying states can ignore Roe WASN'T in Roe.
Yes, Republicans tend to be pretty dumb, what of it?
It doesn't at all change what the Supreme Court actually said, or all of the misrepresentations of what the Supreme Court said, from Republicans and others.
@volkris
I politely asked you to remove me from this thread.
Claiming you see a regard for precedent in the ruling that eviscerated Roe, when the real world effect of that decision has been to negate the right women previously had to have control over their own bodies.
I enjoy discussions with folks on Mastodon even when we have disagreements, but I expect them to stay respectful and intellectually honest. You are neither, so I shall mute you.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun