Scotus

[Crovash]

I read this assessment of the Supreme Court by Dave Leonhardt (NYT) and was dismayed by the two issues on which the current group are “aggressively conservative.”

The latest version of the Supreme Court is starting to come into focus. It is both ideologically predictable and unpredictable, depending on the issue. On many matters, including health care, immigration, crime and several social issues, the court is conservative but not uniformly so.

But there are two issues on which the court tends to be both predictable and aggressively conservative: democracy and business regulation.

The court’s conservative majority has ruled on multiple occasions that state officials can restrict voting access and redraw legislative districts without violating federal law…The six Republican-appointed justices are issuing decisions that benefit Republican politicians, even when doing so conflicts with principles of majority rule…The most recent example came last week, in a six-to-three decision — along partisan lines — that upheld two Arizona voting restrictions. The decision was sweeping enough that civil rights advocates will struggle to bring future cases alleging discrimination in voting access, legal scholars say.

The second area where the justices tend to be reliably conservative is business regulation. They generally take a laissez-faire approach that is skeptical of government oversight, hostile to labor unions and deferential to corporations. In the most recent term, the court made it harder for consumers to sue companies for misbehavior and harder for labor unions to organize farmworkers. These rulings continue a long tradition of the court siding with businesses over workers.

It appears that things will get worse before they get better.

[Scoots]

I read this assessment of the Supreme Court by Dave Leonhardt (NYT) and was dismayed by the two issues on which the current group are “aggressively conservative.”

The latest version of the Supreme Court is starting to come into focus. It is both ideologically predictable and unpredictable, depending on the issue. On many matters, including health care, immigration, crime and several social issues, the court is conservative but not uniformly so.

But there are two issues on which the court tends to be both predictable and aggressively conservative: democracy and business regulation.

The court’s conservative majority has ruled on multiple occasions that state officials can restrict voting access and redraw legislative districts without violating federal law…The six Republican-appointed justices are issuing decisions that benefit Republican politicians, even when doing so conflicts with principles of majority rule…The most recent example came last week, in a six-to-three decision — along partisan lines — that upheld two Arizona voting restrictions. The decision was sweeping enough that civil rights advocates will struggle to bring future cases alleging discrimination in voting access, legal scholars say.

The second area where the justices tend to be reliably conservative is business regulation. They generally take a laissez-faire approach that is skeptical of government oversight, hostile to labor unions and deferential to corporations. In the most recent term, the court made it harder for consumers to sue companies for misbehavior and harder for labor unions to organize farmworkers. These rulings continue a long tradition of the court siding with businesses over workers.

It appears that things will get worse before they get better.

They are being judicially conservative in that they are basically saying there isn't a constitutional reason to change. The real killer is that with our incredibly divisive political culture the chances of passing an amendment, like say election reform or getting money out of politics have essentially no chance of passing. If 1 democrat is for something near all republicans will be against it, and if 1 republican is for something near all democrats will be against it.

Honestly I think this generation of politicians in DC is lost and we have to wait for 100 or so of the oldest to die out. We can maybe start seeing some real change in 2040 or so.

[Sick Of It All]

They will protect their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

They will protect their own.

The justices have not typically needed protecting. They are kind of above the fray.

[Crovash]

The justices have not typically needed protecting. They are kind of above the fray.

Allegedly.

One of my points, though, is that this Supreme Court seems likely to continue — if not extend — its long-standing dedication to protecting the interests of corporations.

I am not saying that this is wrong as per an interpration of the constitution; in fact it may be in keeping with the wishes of the founders, who bent over backwards to make sure the document insured maintaining their own property (read business) rights.

But it means money — more than anything else of substance — will continue to propel elections.

[Scoots]

Allegedly.

One of my points, though, is that this Supreme Court seems likely to continue — if not extend — its long-standing dedication to protecting the interests of corporations.

I am not saying that this is wrong as per an interpration of the constitution; in fact it may be in keeping with the wishes of the founders, who bent over backwards to make sure the document insured maintaining their own property (read business) rights.

But it means money — more than anything else of substance — will continue to propel elections.

Yep. It will take a constitutional amendment to get the money out of politics.

[ciaban2.0]

Money is having a smaller and smaller effect on the outcome of elections. It's one of the few benefits of partisanship in this country.

[WES445]

You are freaking crazy or utterly uninformed. Campaign financing is getting bigger and bigger.

[Scoots]

Money is having a smaller and smaller effect on the outcome of elections. It's one of the few benefits of partisanship in this country.

More and more in elections and more in more in policy too.

[Crovash]

More and more in elections and more in more in policy too.

The inclinations of the Supreme Court insure both, but especially the latter. The more we protect businesses (and I mean for the most part the huge multinational corporations), the more they will influence policy. And policy dictates the use of influence in elections.

Of course, business has always influenced policy to varying degrees, the Guilded Age being the the closest to what we have now, which is weighted heavily in favor of capital.

[Scoots]

The inclinations of the Supreme Court insure both, but especially the latter. The more we protect businesses (and I mean for the most part the huge multinational corporations), the more they will influence policy. And policy dictates the use of influence in elections.

Of course, business has always influenced policy to varying degrees, the Guilded Age being the the closest to what we have now, which is weighted heavily in favor of capital.

The problem there is that the ONLY way it changes as far as I can project would be for either the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the fourth estate to decide to go against their masters and raise up the public en masse to force an amendment through that strips the free speech rights of money when it comes to elections and policy. And to disallow all contributions and media buys. That's a pretty big and pretty tough law to sell, and we can't even get close to getting there unless there is some major change somewhere in those aforementioned groups.

[Sluggo1]

I've said this before and I will say it again………

It should not be all that expensive to have a political campaign.

Most reps can travel their districts in one day. Outside of a few, their districts are not all that large. Senators the same only a little less so (Senators and Repsin Texas, Montana and Alaska have to cover a lot of ground.)

So why the need for so much $$$.

We are always being shown how much info is available in the internet to the point that we no longer need newspapers and TV. Why can't these jokers do the bulk of their campaigning on the internet??? Make it available to anyone with internet connections. If you are interested, you will be able to see them.

Make it mandatory for existing TV stations to dedicate a few hours a week a few months before elections to politicians to get their word out for free. If these stations need an FCC license to be on the air, make this part of the deal. If stations or newspapers want to interview a candidate for free fine but no $$$ should change hands and they should also ask the opposing party for an interview.

Make it mandatory for the parties that are running to get together early in the race and agree on several debates at several agreed upon locations. No avoiding debates.

Make it mandatory for each presidential candidate to appear in all 50 states.

Biggie……Make it illegal for anyone to contribute to a politician they cannot vote for.
Biggie……Limit contributions to a reasonable amount
Biggie……Do not allow rich candidates to pump in their own $$$$ over and above an allowable contribution
Biggie……Make it illegal for unions to contribute at all. Union members are being forced to contribute to politicians they do not like.
Biggie……Make it illegal for corporations, churches, charities, etc. to contribute to a political party.

Give each rep $250,000 of federal $$$$ to campaign and tell them to make it work (approx $110,000,000)
Give each Senator $500, 000 of federal $$$$ to campaign and tell them to make it work (50,000,000)
Give each presidential candidate $10,000,000 of federal $$$$ to campaign and tell them to make it work (20,000,000)

Total………approx $180,000,000 of taxpayer $$$$. A drop in the bucket of taxpayers $$$$ when you look at the size of our government and now much it wastes.

Any unused funds, (HAHAHAHAHAHA) including contributions, would be turned back in.

We should do whatever it takes to level the playing field and get $$$$ out of it.

[Crovash]

And how do you propose these changes get made?

[ciaban2.0]

You are freaking crazy or utterly uninformed. Campaign financing is getting bigger and bigger.

Campaigns are getting more money, but campaign dollars themselves are having a smaller and smaller effect.

[Sluggo1]

And how do you propose these changes get made?

Just legislate it to get it going.

No one allowed to donate to someone you cannot vote for……how hard could that be???

No unions, corps, churches, groups allowed to donate to any campaign……how hard could that be???

No one allowed to donate over a certain no,inal amount……how hard could that be???

The campaign budgets and appearance rules would be a little tougher but it all has to start somewhere.

Also add in no paid appearances. If Trump wants to be on Hannity or any of the loonies be on Joy Reid……the cannot be paid or pay to be on.

What we have now doesn't work.