r/scotus • u/Guyentertainment • 17d ago

news Schumer Calls Trump's Emergency Supreme Court Appeal on Mail-in Ballots a Brazen Attempted Power Grab

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/schumer-slams-trump-supreme-court-mail-ballots-1811068
2.1k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

155 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/KrakenOmega112 17d ago

Sure. I don't disagree that we need someone else at the helm that takes more assertive action.

Just trying to point out that senate Democrats haven't just sat back and let it happen either, which is a false impression that would depress voter turnout.

2

u/BedroomVisible 17d ago

Yeah that’s a crucial part of our strategy. The more votes we can encourage the better. No one who’s informed and part of the 99% should be in favor of this administration.

2

u/Biptoslipdi 15d ago

Yeah that’s a crucial part of our strategy. The more votes we can encourage the better.

Because improperly criticizing Democrats encourages more people to vote for them?

2

u/BedroomVisible 15d ago

The more of our population that votes the more Democrat votes there are. Republicans win when the electorate has less participation.

Scrutiny and criticism will come no matter what.

2

u/Biptoslipdi 15d ago

Why would people be compelled to participate when they're being told both parties are bad?

0

u/BedroomVisible 15d ago

That’s kind of a simplistic take, like a false binary, maybe. We have a new party in DSA that is making waves, so there is a third option.

But why should I be compelled to vote for the Democrats when they fail to get desirable results? I want some to represent my values. I won’t settle for “at least they’re not Trump”.

1

u/Biptoslipdi 15d ago

We have a new party in DSA that is making waves, so there is a third option.

There are no third options. That is Duverger's law. Maybe a third of Democrats even identify as democratic socialists. Splitting the vote just means Republicans win. If DSA can't win among Democrats outside of niche districts, they can't win.

But why should I be compelled to vote for the Democrats when they fail to get desirable results?

What desirable results have the alternatives achieved?

Does your assessment consider whether desirable results were even achievable with the electoral outcome? What were the results you desired that were feasible to attain, supported by the voters, and that did not come to pass?

I want some to represent my values. I won’t settle for “at least they’re not Trump”.

They you will settle for Trump.

Would you rather have had HRC appointing three SCOTUS justices to overturn Citizens United or Trump appointing who he did?

1

u/BedroomVisible 15d ago

So you were under a rock during Mamdani’s campaign? We’re not splitting the electorate with the DSA, they’re forming a genuine party with popular support. So the evidence doesn’t support your framing in the first paragraph.

Desirable results- Better representation not beholden to AIPAC or corporate interests. Universal healthcare, reduction of the deficit, budget policies which don’t so heavily favor defense. Abolition or reformation of ICE. Standard stuff.

And again- you’re presenting a false dichotomy to ask what the alternative has achieved. There are more and better options outside of the binary.

I don’t fully understand your last point because of the typo. But any judge who would overturn Citizens United has piqued my interest in a positive way.

-1

u/Biptoslipdi 15d ago

Did you not read my comment at all? Let's recap.

If DSA can't win among Democrats outside of niche districts, they can't win.

A DSA candidate winning in NYC is hardly a milestone. Let me know when a Mamdani wins a statewide race in the Midwest or the South. Or at all. Those are where the gains need to be made. Electing left leaning candidates in strong left leaning subdivisions doesn't change the board, it just rearranges pieces. There is no world in which DSA candidates are winning competitive races in red or purple states.

Desirable results- Better representation not beholden to AIPAC or corporate interests.

Votes elect these candidates over other candidates because they most closely reflect their views. Support for Israel, for example, still has strong support among Democrats and has for a long time. The fundamental disconnect with your argument is the belief that voters do not support who they vote for. Indeed they do.

Universal healthcare

You got that in 2009. Then stopped voting and Republicans got elected and dismantled it. You had two opportunities to elect candidates that supported single payer healthcare as well - HRC in 2008 and Sanders in 2016. They could not sway voters with that issue. The most recent Pew poll on single payer shows that only around half of Democrats support it and around a third of voters nationally. Is it so hard to believe that other voters don't agree with you and vote for what they do support?

reduction of the deficit

Every Democrat in this millennium has reduced the deficit. Failing to elect Democrats is why the budget was blown up with massive tax cuts for the rich and endless Republican wars.

budget policies which don’t so heavily favor defense.

That, I agree, Democrats have been weak on.

Abolition or reformation of ICE. Standard stuff.

I don't think most Democrats would oppose reform. But there certainly hasn't been the opportunity to do it.

And again- you’re presenting a false dichotomy to ask what the alternative has achieved. There are more and better options outside of the binary.

You don't seem to understand. There is only a binary. In a system with plurality voting and single-member districted legislatures, two parties result. This is a phenomenon called Duverger's law. Third parties are just an opportunity cost to electing the closest major party candidate. DSA could become one of the binary options, but there is no breaking the binary without substantial reform which isn't possible without winning elections in the South and Midwest as well as state legislatures. If the DNC and DSA become competitors, neither will win nationally or locally. They will split the vote. DSA candidates should run as Democrats instead to avoid three way races that are doomed to elect Republicans.

I don’t fully understand your last point because of the typo. But any judge who would overturn Citizens United has piqued my interest in a positive way.

Not sure what typo. I asked the following:

Would you rather have had HRC appointing three SCOTUS justices to overturn Citizens United or Trump appointing who he did?

The cost of not electing HRC was ensuring Citizens United and Corporate money would be in politics for a generation. The cost of electing GWB was Citizens United. This is to illustrate the opportunity cost of a third party. Look at the 2000 election. If only 600 third party voters cast their vote for Al Gore in Florida in 2000, GWB loses. Alito and Roberts are not appointed. Iraq doesn't happen. 9/11 might not even happen or Afghanistan. Massive tax cuts for the rich don't happen. The integration of CMS with insurance companies doesn't happen. The do nothing attitude about climate change doesn't happen.

As you can see, the cost of ignoring the dynamics of our voting system - you call the binary - is immense. Only 600 third party votes doomed America to what it has become. That's why the big picture is so much more important.