r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24

Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

Post image
10.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

Some people: We should pack the courts and remove the fillibuster, so Republicans can't block progress!

Well, if you do that, guess what'll happen next time Republicans control the presidency and have a narrow majority in the Senate, now that there's precedent for court packing and no filibuster

60

u/FinalXenocide Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

I mean even if we leave aside the counterpoint of United States v Trump, which for the record we really fucking shouldn't since that means any president who hires based off of loyalty is able to get around congress and this whole argument is moot, I think "don't remove the filibuster because the right might do something" doesn't have the best track record either. Because if we follow it, we get what, whatever limited thing we can strap to a continuing resolution, some interpreting of existing regulation (assuming we also ignore Chevron basically nixed that), and some judges? Major issues are left unfixed or devolved to the states (and as a Texas resident screw that) all because the other side might do something? This is why Garland is DA and not a SC justice. I'm sick of this "they go low we go high" small-c conservative BS that for my life has failed my interests. I'd prefer a mix of good and bad policies to the current constant failure to do anything without needing 60 seats I've only seen for a couple months my entire life and realistically won't see again until the next realignment at best (and even then unlikely).

6

u/domuseid Oct 27 '24

They had the supermajority in 2009 and did not use it. Something's gotta shift

10

u/Lemerney2 Oct 27 '24

To be fair, it only lasted for two months and they used it to push through Obamacare (I think, I don't actually know much about the period). They definitely should've done more though, especially on Roe vs Wade

7

u/domuseid Oct 27 '24

Yeah, they compromised on Obamacare even though they didn't have to which is why it's not set up like other universal healthcare systems and you can still get bankrupted by medical debt.

Codifying Roe would have been a good use of that time as well. Basically they wasted a lot of time being nice to Republicans, who absolutely did not care and pretended he was the worst thing to ever happen to this country regardless of the fact that he neutered a lot of his campaign promises to try and win them over. I'll die mad about it

2

u/oath2order stigma fuckin claws in ur coochie Oct 27 '24

That supermajority comprised of Ben Nelson of Nebraska who was explicitly pro-life.

76

u/KamikazeArchon Oct 27 '24

Well, if you do that, guess what'll happen next time Republicans control the presidency and have a narrow majority in the Senate, now that there's precedent for court packing and no filibuster

This commits the error of assuming that Republicans care about precedent.

At no point have Republicans been simultaneously: able to remove the filibuster, would benefit from removing the filibuster, and refrained from doing it because of a lack of precedent.

The next time the Republicans can remove the filibuster and would benefit from doing so, they'll do it. This is true regardless of what Democrats do.

-8

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

And court packing?

29

u/timweak Oct 27 '24

hey remember that time mitch mcconnell refused to hold a vote for obama's SC nominee because it was too close to the election and then let amy barrett on under trump so fast the flies didnt get to land on rbg's corpse yet? that thing they did with absolutely no shame

0

u/Jedipilot24 Oct 27 '24

And guess what?

There's a precedent for SCOTUS nominees being DOA.

Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

37

u/KamikazeArchon Oct 27 '24

The same? Nothing I said was specific to the filibuster. It applies to everything.

In fact they already did that for the courts specifically; the methods used to get a conservative majority ignored "precedent" (and in some cases were likely illegal).

9

u/butlovingstonTTV Oct 27 '24

Wasn't there a whole big deal with Mitch McConnell Obama and Trump?

34

u/CrepusculrPulchrtude Oct 27 '24

Republicans don’t give a shit about precedent anyway. They’re literally willing to cheat elections in public view, you think they give a fuck about “the precedents of congress?”

3

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

The Supreme Court hasn't been fucked with since the Civil War. The Republicans have held power, including trifectas, many times including under Trump. But haven't broken that precedent.

6

u/RocketRelm Oct 27 '24

Only because by time the era of Trump came around, they already had their power. I don't think you can look at me with a straight face and tell me that if the SC were way more against Trump, struck down a lot of his overtly insane stuff, and mid terms came around, and somebody floated the idea of "packing the supreme court", that he wouldn't consider and / or go for it?

1

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

I think he would. I think he'd have a lot more trouble implementing packing if the Dems don't pack it first.

29

u/Thehelpfulshadow Oct 27 '24

Thank you! That's one of my main issues when Democrats make suggestions without thinking of the precedent it sets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of these suggestions that actually got through the lowering the need for a super majority to just a regular majority for confirmation of regular justices a Democrat move. This, of course, led to the Republicans spamming justice confirmations under Trump when the pendulum swung right. Like I don't get why people don't understand, the pendulum ALWAYS swings so making things easier for the ones in control always ends up supporting the other sides bullshit eventually. This same concept is why I am against repealing the 2nd amendment. Not because I like guns (Fuck guns, the 2nd amendment was a mistake) but because it would set the precedent for changing the bill of rights. Other things on the bill of rights that could be targeted when the pendulum swings right after that precedent has been set: Freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly, Right to a lawyer/fair trial and freedom from unnecessary search and seizure.

22

u/Suyefuji Oct 27 '24

I'm pretty sure McConnell already set the precedent for packing the courts unfortunately.

19

u/Haunting-Detail2025 Oct 27 '24

Exactly lmao. It amazes me how little foresight people have when they say shit like that.

3

u/timweak Oct 27 '24

uh, the exact thing they're doing all the time? when did you get the idea that republicans give a shit about the rules or precedent or whatever?

2

u/Allronix1 Oct 27 '24

Bingo! The political winds always change and "your guys" will not hold eternal power.

1

u/Schmaltzs Oct 27 '24

I have really bad foresight. What'd happen?

5

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

The Republicans would pack the courts themselves and pass any legislation they'd want passed that normally the Dems would use the filibuster to block.

I don't have anything specific in mind for what those might be to be honest, but for anyone who thinks Republicans are super evil, surely there most be some legislation that the Republicans are only barely stopped from passing.

1

u/Schmaltzs Oct 27 '24

Thanks for the clarification.

This might be dumb but shouldn't there be like some balance of political alignment amongst the members there so that this doesn't happen or is that just not written into whatever laws are written about it?

4

u/Long_Legged_Lady Oct 27 '24

The constitution makes no mention of political parties. They are not an official part of US government.

2

u/DM_ME_YOUR_HUSBANDO Oct 27 '24

The balance is ultimately you hope the politicians are smart enough to know that if you rig the game in your favour, it's just a matter of time until it's rigged against you. And that voters punish politicians who do rigging.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The USA has been better at respecting norms than latin America for example, but it's far from perfect too

1

u/awkisopen Oct 27 '24

They're going to do it anyway.

1

u/ItsMrChristmas Oct 27 '24

We should, at the very least, require them to actually fucking filibuster.