2020 Presidential Election

[Sunsilver]

Obama pays tribute to RBG:

Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court––which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality––someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench––as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist––Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are––and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law––and of everyday fairness––is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years––with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures––are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process.

[Túrin Turambar]

I should say 4-4 potential. I don't feel comfortable predicting how anyone would vote under those circumstances.

While 5-3 is the most obvious ideological split, a 4-4 split has the potential to throw the country into an irresolvable constitutional crisis.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if we should move away from having even the President be elected by the voters. Maybe the original idea where Congress picks him or her makes more sense after all. As things stand, the President gets there as the outcome of a nation-wide contest/fight that *everyone* feels invested in. So if I voted for the other guy, I find it difficult to support the winner in anything at all, because he's there against my will and because I *lost*. It's just a bad arrangement given the way human psychology works.

Curiously, this is the argument for monarchy – the selection of the head of state is entirely arbitrary. Maybe throwing all that tea into Boston Harbor wasn’t a great idea after all…;)

[elengil]

Curiously, this is the argument for monarchy – the selection of the head of state is entirely arbitrary. Maybe throwing all that tea into Boston Harbor wasn’t a great idea after all…;)

Well it's not entirely arbitrary, it's basically you vote for the people who vote for president. It seems closer than what we have now which is you vote, and then an entirely unrelated group of people decide who is actually president with or without your vote.

[Túrin Turambar]

Curiously, this is the argument for monarchy – the selection of the head of state is entirely arbitrary. Maybe throwing all that tea into Boston Harbor wasn’t a great idea after all…;)

Well it's not entirely arbitrary, it's basically you vote for the people who vote for president. It seems closer than what we have now which is you vote, and then an entirely unrelated group of people decide who is actually president with or without your vote.

It's a monarchy that has an entirely arbitrary head of state.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I should say 4-4 potential. I don't feel comfortable predicting how anyone would vote under those circumstances.

While 5-3 is the most obvious ideological split, a 4-4 split has the potential to throw the country into an irresolvable constitutional crisis.

Not really. A 4-4 tie just means that the decision of the lower court that is being appealed from (whether a state's high court, or Circuit of the Court of Appeals) stands. In 2000 it would have meant that the decision of the Florida Supreme Court allowing the recount to go forward would have stood.

[RoseMorninStar]

ivoted.jpeg (12.05 KiB) Viewed 3434 times

[Snowdog]

i'm awaiting my email notification that my paper ballot has been mailed. Once I ge tthat, I can e-vote. I'm expecting it sometime this week.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is an interesting train of thought. Bear with me.

On November 10, the SCOTUS is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case in which the Trump administration and GOP-governed states (led by Texas) are trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. It would be unprecedented to have a nominee approved and on the court by then, but I would not at all discount the possibility. If there is no nominee, the law is almost certainly doomed as the only hope it had was for Chief Justice Roberts to side with the 4 more liberal justices again, and now there are only three. If there isn't a new appointee by then and they do hold oral argument, the case would probably be decided by the 8 existing justices, meaning that the best possible outcome would be a 4-4 tie, which would leave the decision of the Court of Appeals intact, and the case would then go back to the District Court for a decision about how much of the law to throw out (and if goes to the same judge that originally heard the case, which it should, the answer would be "all of it"). Most likely the law is doomed. Moreover, even if Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate, and they pass a new law reinstating the ACA in its current or a similar form, the new conservative court will likely just invalidate it probably on the original grounds that Congress did not have authority to pass it under the Commerce Clause (which Roberts agreed with) and that it also was not really a tax (regardless of what Roberts says because there will be 5 other justices willing and able to overrule him). So Biden and the Democrats will have no choice but to pass a different law - Medicare for All, which unquestionably would be authorized under the commerce clause.

[RoseMorninStar]

I hope something equitable comes out of this situation because it hardly seems right (good, moral, principled, democratic) that a president who was not elected by popular vote/the majority should get 3 supreme court justice picks that will influence our nation for more than a generation. Especially when it was denied to Obama/Merrick Garland. And super-extra especially as it's likely to benefit said president personally.

[elengil]

In 2016, February was too close to an election to hold a hearing for a new Justice. In 2020, September is just fine.

Republicans say this is fine because Democrats would do the same. But it wasn't Democrats who put forth the claim in 2016. It was Republicans who put forth the claim, then immediately backtracked on it at the first opportunity to do so (despite multiple claims they would do the same "if" it happened again).

Democrats in 2016 said the Senate should do its job and hold the hearings. In 2020, they say Republicans should stand by their previous "rule" of not holding hearings in an election year. Democrats aren't changing their position, they're wanting Republicans to uphold their own position. But Democrats are, ultimately, asking for the opposite that they asked for in 2016.

Had the positions in 2016 been reversed, I believe Democrats would have held hearings for a Justice. I believe it would have required an good middle-ground justice (just as Garland was) to get approved, but it would not have been pushed off under the guise of an upcoming election.

But everyone is trying to hold the other party to a standard they aren't holding themselves to.

Republicans want to hold Democrats to a standard they didn't create. Democrats want to hold Republicans to a standard they did create but didn't want at the time. Republicans say "Democrats would have done the same" which is almost like saying it's okay to be shady because we believe you would have been shady, too. It's using the other party to create your standards instead of having solid standards of your own.

So my question is, at some point you have to believe the other person is operating in good faith, and once you don't believe that any more it's much harder to try to hold to a standard instead of following the other down the road of "But they did" "But they didn't" "But they..." Until it becomes a race to the bottom.

I believe they should have held hearings for Garland in 2016, because the election that mattered had happened - the previous one.

Republicans argued vehemently against it and in fact refused to do it.

Now in 2020, I want to say well, you already decided that elections should happen first, but is that not changing the position to fit the adversary? I want to take a reasonable position, and to me that reasonable position is the president at the time gets a nomination and the Senate should hold hearings. But once that ship has sailed is it fair to expect one side to continue to uphold a standard that has already been rejected by the other?

It's frustrating to feel like one side is forced to play by rules while the other side isn't, and the solution cannot be to stop playing by the rules. But we have gerrymandering which thwarts the will of the people. We have voter suppression which thwarts the will of the people. We have a congress who flatly refuses to work with a president of the opposite party, or a congress who acts like they work for the president rather than the people, which thwarts the very foundation of the constitutional check of powers.

But what do we DO about it? When we feel one side has gone too far, the solution shouldn't be, "Well We'll just go further!" But holding back and sticking to a standard also doesn't correct the other side's having gone too far in the first place. So what do we do about it? How do we pull both sides back to be REASONABLE again?!?

[Cerin]

The idea that a Supreme Court seat shouldn't be filled in an election year is theoretical b-s. It was in 2016, and it is today. The idea that the people should have a voice in picking Supreme Court nominees is also b-s. It is a President's prerogative to choose a nominee subject to Senate approval or rejection.

However, in the realm of practicality, I heard today that it is actually rare for a seat to be filled in an election year if the Senate and White House are held by different parties, but not unusual for a seat to be filled in an election year if the Senate and White House are of the same party. I don't know the background of the occasions where these two scenarios happened. I had assumed that the 2016 scenario was unique, but maybe it has happened before that a party in control of the Senate refused to consider a nomination by a President of the other party, or maybe it is just a function of arbitrary timing that the one scenario is rare and the other common (my internet search skills suck, so I am not going to attempt to find out).

Politically speaking, it's logical that a Senate of the same party as a President would consider that President's nominee during an election year, and logical (especially in this hyper-politicized era) that a Senate of the opposing party would balk at doing so. What isn't logical or in any way constitutionally sound are McConnell's 2016 reasonings. I hope that we do not adopt these false ideas (people should have a say in choosing Supreme Court justices, Supreme Court justices should not be seated in an election year) going forward.

To me, principle is more important than specifics. I don't want McConnell's 2016 b-s to become an accepted part of Supreme Court nomination procedure. It defies logic that the Republicans would not move to fill the seat, and I find the orchestrated media chorus claiming that doing what the Constitution states as the normal course of events is an existential threat to our democracy to be the most dangerous thing about this whole scenario. A lot of ignorant people believe everything they hear from the media, and such people will undoubtedly get wired up based on the false idea that the President putting forward a nominee, and the Senate acting on it, is some kind of nefarious, unconstitutional, undemocratic plot.

So to answer your question -- various hypocrisies and 2016 McConnell nonsense aside -- the reasonable thing is to do what the Constitution says, which is for the Pres. to put up a nominee and the Senate to approve or reject him/her.

The prospect of having an even number of judges on the court for the upcoming election battle chills my blood.

[Túrin Turambar]

The idea that a Supreme Court seat shouldn't be filled in an election year is theoretical b-s. It was in 2016, and it is today. The idea that the people should have a voice in picking Supreme Court nominees is also b-s. It is a President's prerogative to choose a nominee subject to Senate approval or rejection.

However, in the realm of practicality, I heard today that it is actually rare for a seat to be filled in an election year if the Senate and White House are held by different parties, but not unusual for a seat to be filled in an election year if the Senate and White House are of the same party. I don't know the background of the occasions where these two scenarios happened. I had assumed that the 2016 scenario was unique, but maybe it has happened before that a party in control of the Senate refused to consider a nomination by a President of the other party, or maybe it is just a function of arbitrary timing that the one scenario is rare and the other common (my internet search skills suck, so I am not going to attempt to find out).

538 has the data on filling vacancies in election years. No vacancy has been filled this close to an election, the next most recent, in 1852, was filled when the Senate and Presidency were held by different parties. The one after that, in 1916, was filled when they were held by the same party, and the President went on to win re-election.

I find Mitch McConnell's distinction between same party/different parties to be pure opportunism and haven't seen any historical backing for it. That said, I don't think the Democrats have a firm principle to stand on either - how close to an election is too close to fill a vacancy? If February is fine, but September is not, is May OK? June? July? The election is close, but inauguration day is still four months away.

[elengil]

I don't think the Democrats have a firm principle to stand on either - how close to an election is too close to fill a vacancy? If February is fine, but September is not, is May OK? June? July? The election is close, but inauguration day is still four months away.

I don't believe that's really the issue, it was Republicans who said February was too close to an election, Democrats are just asking them to be consistent with their own rationale, which was not hinged at the time on who was in office but purely that it was too close and that "The American People" should get to decide. They should have held hearings for Garland in 2016 but they didn't. Not that they rejected him as a candidate, they rejected Obama's right to even nominate him even though he was firmly center of the road as a compromise to Republicans.

I don't for one second believe they meant any of their objections as for proximity of the election, they just relished the chance to refuse to consider a nominee by Obama. Now they are eating their words only because they never thought it would happen twice in a row.

[Túrin Turambar]

At the same time, though, the Senate Democrats do need a better argument than "this is wrong, but they did it, so we'll do it to". If they believe that September is too close to an election to fill a vacancy (which isn't entirely unreasonable, as no vacancy has been filled this close before) there must be some principle on when is and isn't too close.

[elengil]

At the same time, though, the Senate Democrats do need a better argument than "this is wrong, but they did it, so we'll do it to". If they believe that September is too close to an election to fill a vacancy (which isn't entirely unreasonable, as no vacancy has been filled this close before) there must be some principle on when is and isn't too close.

I am not disagreeing, which was the basis for my little nonrant-rant, I am sick of one side saying "They did it bad so we'll do it worse!" but the fact is it's the Republicans who decided February was too close, they need to be the ones who provide some principles here and uphold their own stated ideals. It isn't so much Democrats are saying September is too close, they're saying SINCE February was too close, September is definitely too close as well. Again, they're saying stick to the principle you already claimed to hold rather than putting forth the principle as their own.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Whatever the ethics of it, I have accepted that the seat is going to be filled by a deeply conservative justice who along with Justices Gorsuch and Kennedy (and to an extent Chief Justice Roberts) is going to form the core of the court for decades to come. That is why I am transitioning to the completely pie-in-the-sky aspiration to promote a new bill of rights to protect the rights that I believe are important.

[Cerin]

I've decided to bring these points up now rather than after the election, even though they might be moot after the election, because if they are relevant after the election, I doubt anyone will be in a frame of mind to give them consideration. (And you can keep in mind that this is from the person who thought Biden would be out of the race before the first primary vote was cast.)

There are three similarities I'm seeing this year to the last election. Last election showed the divide between the 'ruling elite'* worldview (that is, the Washington establishment, academia, big tech, the entertainment industry, the mainstream media and well-educated urbanites -- the people who run things) and the 'more traditional'* worldview found in mid-America (*these terms can be replaced with any you prefer). This divide is reflected in the red/blue electoral map. I think the divide is the same this year, only more clearly defined, with the ascendance of the Black Lives Matter organization, the woke cancel culture, the 1619 project and 'critical race theory' permeating corporate and government structures.

The second point is the blindness of the media to the fact that a second worldview exists in the country. I think last election it was said that the media was 'out of touch' with middle America; however, I think any useful introspection at the time was overwhelmed by the Russia narrative. I think the media is equally out of touch this year, if not moreso, than last election. My impression, albeit from limited exposure, is that they believe Twitter and the elite worldview they present represents all of America, and seem as oblivious to what I'll call the middle-American worldview as they were last time, or else dismiss it as the illegitimate brainchild of mental incompetents. They speak as though everything they say is a universally accepted given, rather than an expression of one of two competing worldviews.

The third point is something that was suggested, but I think dismissed after the polling related to the last election was rationalized/explained. That idea was, that there was a hidden Trump-voter faction that wasn't showing up in polling. I think this is even more likely to be the case this time around, since a person can actually be fired/cancelled these days for expressing Trump support or even for expressing insufficient public enthusiasm for the elite worldview agenda in their professional or social media lives.

My own impression is that while the election on the left is exclusively about Trump and the hatred of Trump, the election on the right is about the elite worldview being shoved down the throat of America as a whole (through the media, entertainment, academia, corporate policy, etc.), and that if Trump wins, it will in large part be a reaction to this heavy-handed troweling of the elite worldview over every surface aspect of American life. I think if Trump wins, the left will be prepared to blame election fraud, racism, Trump cultism and everything Trump-related, rather than recognizing a repudiation of the elite, so I just wanted to put this out there in case the unexpected happens again and before all of the rhetoric starts flying. (And I apologize if I've already posted on this; I know it's been on my mind for a while, but I don't recall if I have previously articulated it here.)

[yovargas]

Cerin - I loathe Trump more than I can ever remember loathing any person, and I agree with damn near every word in that post.

[River]

What exactly is this "elite worldview" you speak of and how is it being "shoved down throats"?

[elengil]

Yes, I am quoting Cerin's post, but this is not exactly meant to be an argument against it. In a way, it almost highlights Cerin's point, that there are two very different points of view in this country. Cerin expressed one, and these are my thoughts from the other in regard to the particular statements quoted. I does leave one to wonder if there can be any meeting at a middle ground when it seems that fundamentally we don't even seem to agree on what the disagreements are.

I am used to political disagreements being "Is it better to raise or lower taxes?" "Should we have a treaty with this country or not?" "Should consumer protections out-weigh corporate interests?"

To me this entire argument over point of view leave the realm of politics entirely - which makes Left/Right/Republican/Democrat/etc entirely unsatisfactory labels. Instead it seems to be a shattering at the social level of what society should be, how it should be ordered, and who or what should be dominant.

It makes the emotional investment in a position far more than political theory and perhaps contributes to the strength and depth to which each person holds their position almost beyond any attempt at rational debate or beyond hope for compromise.

My assigning of views below is not meant to be what people actually believe, but my perception of what their actions and words seem to indicate in broad strokes and not necessarily aligning to any individual wholly.

My own impression is that while the election on the left is exclusively about Trump and the hatred of Trump

The Left doesn't hate Trump for the sake of Hating Trump (tm). They abhor his actions, his appointments, his rhetoric, the very dangerous way he has not just broken every norm of our government but is being enabled every step of the way.

They don't hate Trump because he won, or because he's on the other side, or because he "Tells it like it is". They hate Trump because he lies even when it doesn't matter but worse because he lies when it very much does matter, his bigotry over the "Muslim" ban, Shithole countries, Hispanic judges who couldn't possibly be unbiased, his treatment of asylum's seekers and children, his expectation of loyalty to himself instead of to the country or the law, his secretive meetings with Putin where the American People still don't know what occurred, his trashing of judges, law enforcement agencies, military members, and anyone else who doesn't immediately fall in line with his rhetoric, the dangerous way he enables White Insecurities and caters to Alt Right conspiracies, the alarming claims that the sitting president can do *anything* in pursuit of reelection and it cannot be considered illegal or impeachable, the idea that the president is above the law while in office, etc, etc, etc.

That is what they are voting against, not just "We Hate Trump, Wah!" It's about absolutely fearing for where this country is headed, which seems to many of us to be gleefully skipping down the highway that Nazi Germany paved so long ago.

Though even if we concede that the Left simply Hates Trump, even if we say sure, maybe it's all irrational and unsupportable, maybe it's all just in our heads and all the stuff that he's done isn't as bad as we think, even that is no different than the Right simply Hating Hillary. They investigated her endlessly without any criminal charges, and yet everyone on the Right continually talks about Crooked Hillary, insisting she was guilty of practically anything they could think to accuse her of just because they did not like her. Or how they hated Obama but it Absolutely Was Not About His Skin Color (TM). It was that he had mustard on his hotdog, or wore a tan suit, or his wife's arms, or that he used Executive Orders, or didn't salute right, or he was Muslim (not that there was anything wrong with it but there was absolutely something wrong with it).

If we are going to justify all the reasons the Right had for Hating Hilary or Hating Obama, then we will once again point to all the reasons the Left has for Hating Trump. At best, both sides are equal in their distaste for the candidate of the other, and this cannot be put as some Irrational Left hatred. Honestly, the Right's battle cry of late has been "Owning the Libs!" Doing something purely to spite the other side, without any other seeming impetus than that. I've never heard comparable rhetoric from the Left, doing something *just* to spite the Right.

the election on the right is about the elite worldview being shoved down the throat of America as a whole

But the Right either wants to ignore or is ignorant of the Left ALSO not wanting the Right's worldview being shoved down the throat of America as a whole, which has been going on for a long time!

From the Left's side of things, we're tired of the Right's constant push of morals on everyone else
"We feel abortion is wrong so YOU shouldn't get one!"
"We feel gay marriage is against *our* religion so YOU shouldn't have one!"
"We feel segregation is right so YOU shouldn't be able to buy a house here."
"We feel Christianity is The One True so YOU shouldn't be able to freely practice your faith."

From freaking out over whether someone says Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas to whether Starbucks has the right color cups, to wanting to force prayers in school and the 10 Commandments on government buildings, the Right has its hands full of throat shoving and crying over not being catered to.

Whereas the Left more often than not (though not exclusively) says *I* may not be gay, but YOU should still have equal rights. *I* may never want an abortion but that shouldn't prevent YOU from making the choices that are right for you. I realize that the Left does sometimes slip into "We don't want guns so YOU shouldn't have them", and that is a fight on both sides (not everyone on the Left is anti-gun).

But this is not a case of one side just wants to be left alone and the other side is intent on throat-shoving. This is one side largely wants to use the full weight of law to legally enforce their worldview on the rest of America, and the other side wants to use the full weight of the law to give legal protections to many varied worldviews. That the Right takes their worldview no longer being given absolute supremacy and confuses it with being themselves actively oppressed.

When the Left says they represent all America, what they mean is the represent White working-class struggling families just as much as they represent Black inner-city families, and gay blended families, and traditional Muslim families, and immigrant families, and people without families, and people who don't want families, and transgender and disabled and neurodivergent, and everyone else that "liberty and justice for all" never seemed to include before.

When the Right says they represent "Traditional America" it seems that that definition means White Protestant Men, and everyone else either needs to conform, submit, or leave. They want to debate whether 'certain' people should get the same rights as others.

since a person can actually be fired/cancelled these days for expressing Trump support

Similar to being fired for being gay, or transgender, or socialist/communist, or black, or Muslim, or a woman - all reasons that people could or can be fired, or discriminated against, or paid less...

I agree that firing someone for their political views should not be acceptable, but it again highlights that the Right has often done to others what they are now crying is being done to them.

I think if Trump wins, the left will be prepared to blame election fraud, racism, Trump cultism and everything Trump-related,

And if he loses, the Right is prepared to blame election fraud and wage a second Civil War. Even Trump refuses to say if he loses he'll accept the results!

I continue to be baffled how the Right does not see Trump as elite. The Billionaire who inherited his wealth and became President of the United States and then demands absolute loyalty from the wealthy donors and industry execs he filled his administration with? You want to make this a race between "Middle America" and "Ruling Elites" who only care about themselves? Trump IS that Ruling Elite!



The Media is a whole different animal that I am not going to get into.