• 0 Posts
  • 85 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle





  • Bang. That’s the way it could feasibly play out.

    I’m trying to think of other possible justifications that the Supreme Court could use. Could they possibly nullify or neuter the 22nd Amendment? What justification could they use based on historical precedent, which the Heritage Foundation members cling to so tightly?

    Could they just delay, delay, delay until making a decision after the election, then citing said election as precedent?

    I am not familiar with the majority opinion in Trump v Anderson which must have laid out the legal reasoning why the Supreme Court was able to keep Trump on the ballot. It looks like it uses a clause in the fourteenth amendment to simply devolve the decision making power which seems to be an effective dodge and deflection to political winds.




  • This statue of King was also thought to be an improper depiction.

    “We don’t even see his feet. He is embedded in the rock like something not yet fully born, suited and stern, rising from its roughly chiseled surface. His face is uncompromising, determined, his eyes fixed in the distance, not far from where Jefferson stands across the water. But kitsch here strains at the limits of resemblance: Is this the Dr. King of the “I Have a Dream” speech? Or the writer of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech?”

    -Edward Rothstein



  • I am also a bit of an accelerationist.

    I can’t help but think that if the Democrats could improve conditions for the common people without resorting to tactics that undermine the principle of one man = one vote, we’d see them getting a lot more votes.

    They could keep up the pressure to eliminate the electoral college, for example.

    Unfortunately there have been just enough shitty centrist dems elected, and a plurality of even shittier Republicans being elected, to block the best proposals. The best hope we had for universal healthcare, for example, was blocked by one man - Joseph Lieberman.

    To say nothing of the corporate interests and billionaire donors that influence policy making in the party, and the feckless leadership, that is.





  • I feel alone in my opposition to this proposition. Especially on this platform where most believe the ends justify the means.

    You can’t answer voter disenfranchisement with more voter disenfranchisement. District lines should always be determined in a nonpartisan way, full stop.

    That having been said we should implement more federal control of voting, at least for federal contests.

    I also have much more radically left views in some ways. For example that we should use jury nullification against the emerging American gestapo, have zero tolerance for sieging the fucking capitol building (including shooting those who try), remove corrupt Democratic leadership by prosecution if necessary, etc.

    But democracy is democracy. I still have loyalty to enlightenment ideals ffs.