Follow the Money with $upreme Connections
January 7, 2024 11:37 AM Subscribe
ProPublica has created a database of Supreme Court financial filings searchable by various categories. After the groundbreaking reporting from ProPublica on Clarence Thomas' gifts and loans from billionaires which led to the new toothless "ethics code" in 2023 for the Supreme Court.
They should add pseudo-filings for all of the gifts that Thomas should have disclosed, with big asterisks.
posted by jedicus at 12:09 PM on January 7 [8 favorites]
posted by jedicus at 12:09 PM on January 7 [8 favorites]
I'd love to see Biden and Dems at large run on a platform of reining in an out-of-control court. There is no accountability and the effects on human rights have already been devastating.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:36 PM on January 7 [9 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:36 PM on January 7 [9 favorites]
They sucked his brains out! We'd all love to see the Dems act like they give a shit about anything except supporting genocide. But they never have yet, so it's unreasonable to expect them to start now.
If Biden was going to do something he'd have been doing something. Right now, less than a year from the elections, there is no possible way he'll start trying to address they systemic corruption and naked partisanship on the part of the Republican Justices. Shit man, the time to address that was in 2000 when the Republican Justices literally stole the Presidency, anointed the loser as the new President, and the Democrats shrugged and never even talked about it much less campaigned on it.
Our Supreme Court was never great, the idea of 9 wizards who hate technology and refuse to contemplate the idea of operating as anything but a clandestine secret society is terrible and always has been. I'd wager that the current degree of corruption, in the financial sense anyway, is actually lower than it was in the past simply because despite the best efforts of the Court to keep the rich and powerful as privileged and separate from the peons as possible, we live in a more open world so it's harder to hide corruption.
The solution is obvious to everyone except the Supreme Court and the Democrats: expand the Court. Not to some wimpy number like 13. Expand the Court to at least 50. Maybe 100 or more. Mandate live TV coverage in the Court's chambers, strip away the veil of secrecy the operate under. The idea that it's even POSSIBLE to leak a draft decision is evidence our system is hopelessly corrupt and awful. Every draft, every word of debate, every internal discussion, should be impossible to leak because they should be matters of public record.
The only cure for corruption is public scrutiny.
posted by sotonohito at 4:24 AM on January 8 [5 favorites]
If Biden was going to do something he'd have been doing something. Right now, less than a year from the elections, there is no possible way he'll start trying to address they systemic corruption and naked partisanship on the part of the Republican Justices. Shit man, the time to address that was in 2000 when the Republican Justices literally stole the Presidency, anointed the loser as the new President, and the Democrats shrugged and never even talked about it much less campaigned on it.
Our Supreme Court was never great, the idea of 9 wizards who hate technology and refuse to contemplate the idea of operating as anything but a clandestine secret society is terrible and always has been. I'd wager that the current degree of corruption, in the financial sense anyway, is actually lower than it was in the past simply because despite the best efforts of the Court to keep the rich and powerful as privileged and separate from the peons as possible, we live in a more open world so it's harder to hide corruption.
The solution is obvious to everyone except the Supreme Court and the Democrats: expand the Court. Not to some wimpy number like 13. Expand the Court to at least 50. Maybe 100 or more. Mandate live TV coverage in the Court's chambers, strip away the veil of secrecy the operate under. The idea that it's even POSSIBLE to leak a draft decision is evidence our system is hopelessly corrupt and awful. Every draft, every word of debate, every internal discussion, should be impossible to leak because they should be matters of public record.
The only cure for corruption is public scrutiny.
posted by sotonohito at 4:24 AM on January 8 [5 favorites]
The solution is obvious to everyone except the Supreme Court and the Democrats: expand the Court. Not to some wimpy number like 13. Expand the Court to at least 50. Maybe 100 or more.
I love it! What's your obvious solution for getting that plan through the Senate?
posted by Gelatin at 6:33 AM on January 8 [1 favorite]
I love it! What's your obvious solution for getting that plan through the Senate?
posted by Gelatin at 6:33 AM on January 8 [1 favorite]
> What's your obvious solution for getting that plan through the Senate?
Trying. Trying even if there's the possibility of losing. Trying even if it is entirely likely that it'll lose. And then keep trying.
It's worked amazing well for Republicans, hasn't it?
It's worked so well, Republicans don't even have to oppose Democrats. They can count on liberals to forfeit from the start and also drag down any other liberals who don't.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:20 AM on January 8 [6 favorites]
Trying. Trying even if there's the possibility of losing. Trying even if it is entirely likely that it'll lose. And then keep trying.
It's worked amazing well for Republicans, hasn't it?
It's worked so well, Republicans don't even have to oppose Democrats. They can count on liberals to forfeit from the start and also drag down any other liberals who don't.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:20 AM on January 8 [6 favorites]
I wouldn't count either Joe Manchin or Kristen Sinema as liberals, but their stated opposition in a 50-50 Senate made expanding SCOTUS neither a "possibility" or even an "entirely likely" prospect of losing, but rather a dead certainty. With their stated opposition, expanding SCOTUS goes nowhere in the Senate, any amount of "trying" notwithstanding.
But "trying" at an automatic, quixotic failure doesn't expand one's power, it diminishes it. It makes one look, rightly, weak. And no, it hasn't worked well for Republicans. Republicans haven't been able to pass much of their agenda out of the House even if they know it'll go nowhere in the Senate, let alone be signed by Biden.
No one is saying Johnson is a more powerful Speaker than Nancy Pelosi, even though she had barely a bigger House Majority and actually got Democratic priorities passed.
I'm sorry if it's a "drag" to point out the (admittedly stupid!) structural impediments that make expanding the Court more than a matter of "trying," but if one's plan is just "trying", wishing, and hoping, you can't expect anything other than failure.
But just maybe, the fact that expanding SCOTUS was a dead letter in the Senate means that the fact that Biden didn't "try" doesn't mean Democrats -- other than the aforementioned Manchin and Sinema, whose Senate careers are now over or about to be -- perceive that what's "obvious" about expanding the Court is that it can't happen as the Senate is currently constituted no matter what that might like.
posted by Gelatin at 10:18 AM on January 8 [2 favorites]
But "trying" at an automatic, quixotic failure doesn't expand one's power, it diminishes it. It makes one look, rightly, weak. And no, it hasn't worked well for Republicans. Republicans haven't been able to pass much of their agenda out of the House even if they know it'll go nowhere in the Senate, let alone be signed by Biden.
No one is saying Johnson is a more powerful Speaker than Nancy Pelosi, even though she had barely a bigger House Majority and actually got Democratic priorities passed.
I'm sorry if it's a "drag" to point out the (admittedly stupid!) structural impediments that make expanding the Court more than a matter of "trying," but if one's plan is just "trying", wishing, and hoping, you can't expect anything other than failure.
But just maybe, the fact that expanding SCOTUS was a dead letter in the Senate means that the fact that Biden didn't "try" doesn't mean Democrats -- other than the aforementioned Manchin and Sinema, whose Senate careers are now over or about to be -- perceive that what's "obvious" about expanding the Court is that it can't happen as the Senate is currently constituted no matter what that might like.
posted by Gelatin at 10:18 AM on January 8 [2 favorites]
Part of the issue though is that the Democrats aren't even talking about the corruption and blatant partisan favoritism among the Republican Justices. It's another example of the Democrats deciding that they don't have the votes and never doing anything again or even mentioning the problem.
We're back to that perception that the Democrats don't give a shit because in addition to doing nothing they don't even talk about the problem or bring attention to it. Yes there are definitely reasons, probably insurmountable, why the Democrats didn't do anything, but if they can't act they can at least talk.
As for the deeper problem of the Supreme Court being a corrupt, nakedly partisan, group of secretive wizards who decide our laws for us in darkness and hate the tiniest shred of light being thrown on their debates, if my proposal is bad what's yours?
posted by sotonohito at 11:44 AM on January 8 [2 favorites]
We're back to that perception that the Democrats don't give a shit because in addition to doing nothing they don't even talk about the problem or bring attention to it. Yes there are definitely reasons, probably insurmountable, why the Democrats didn't do anything, but if they can't act they can at least talk.
As for the deeper problem of the Supreme Court being a corrupt, nakedly partisan, group of secretive wizards who decide our laws for us in darkness and hate the tiniest shred of light being thrown on their debates, if my proposal is bad what's yours?
posted by sotonohito at 11:44 AM on January 8 [2 favorites]
Part of the issue though is that the Democrats aren't even talking about the corruption and blatant partisan favoritism among the Republican Justices. It's another example of the Democrats deciding that they don't have the votes and never doing anything again or even mentioning the problem.
Among the Democrats who aren't even talking about it are:
In fact, I agree that public scrutiny is a good idea, especially because the corrupt Republican partisans on SCOTUS and their benefactors don't seem to like it.
posted by Gelatin at 9:50 AM on January 9
Among the Democrats who aren't even talking about it are:
“The problem is not that the Supreme Court is just conservative,” Representative Katie Porter said on the House floor. “The problem is that it is corrupt.”I'm also going to take issue with your framing of "It's another example of the Democrats deciding that they don't have the votes and never doing anything again or even mentioning the problem." They didn't "decide" they don't have the votes; they don't. Manchin and Sinema -- who, again, aren't great Democrats, but at least one of them is getting replaced by a Republican next year -- both made it clear they wouldn't vote for SCOTUS expansion. Neither of us like that fact, but only one of us seems to want to spin that situation into a contention, unsupported by the facts, that the Democrats are totally oblivious or apathetic to the Court's partisanship and corruption.
“Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court,” Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts said.
“The Supreme Court is a cesspool of corruption devastating our communities,” Representative Cori Bush of Missouri said.
“Creepy billionaires ran an ‘op’ to capture the court, just like 19th-century railroad barons would capture the railroad commission that set their rates,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island said.
“This activist, extremist MAGA court faces a legitimacy crisis,” Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon said. “And a legitimacy crisis for the court is a crisis for our democratic republic.”
In fact, I agree that public scrutiny is a good idea, especially because the corrupt Republican partisans on SCOTUS and their benefactors don't seem to like it.
posted by Gelatin at 9:50 AM on January 9
I apologize, I phrased myself poorly.
"It's another example of the Democrats deciding that because they don't have enough votes..."
I don't dispute the vote count. Just the decision to do nothing because of it.
And yes we do get the occasional mention, Rep Porter is one of my favorite Democrats.
But it's not a major talking point and it should be. Biden should be using it as his Carthago delenda est style conclusion to every public statement he makes.
But that's not going to happen. The Democratic Party as a whole is apparently composed of robots who go "votes < votes needed == run subroutine surrender"
posted by sotonohito at 10:55 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
"It's another example of the Democrats deciding that because they don't have enough votes..."
I don't dispute the vote count. Just the decision to do nothing because of it.
And yes we do get the occasional mention, Rep Porter is one of my favorite Democrats.
But it's not a major talking point and it should be. Biden should be using it as his Carthago delenda est style conclusion to every public statement he makes.
But that's not going to happen. The Democratic Party as a whole is apparently composed of robots who go "votes < votes needed == run subroutine surrender"
posted by sotonohito at 10:55 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
Again, your contention that the Democrats have "done nothing" doesn't stand up to scrutiny, even though you move the goalposts from "never doing anything again or even mentioning the problem" to "not a major talking point."
In an election year, Biden isn't going to talk about nothing but the Supreme Court, corrupt as it is, because voters have other issues on their minds, thanks in large part to the so-called "liberal media." (You'll note that the Republican judges' corruption came to light not via the major news organizations but by ProPublica.)
One might hope, though, that after having both the "Democrats don't reform SCOTUS because they don't want to" and "they don't even talk about it" points shot down -- the latter by a simple Google search -- one might have the humility to dial back one's dislike of the Democrats just a little to acknowledge that admittedly stupid structural obstacles don't equate to "surrender."
posted by Gelatin at 1:09 PM on January 9
In an election year, Biden isn't going to talk about nothing but the Supreme Court, corrupt as it is, because voters have other issues on their minds, thanks in large part to the so-called "liberal media." (You'll note that the Republican judges' corruption came to light not via the major news organizations but by ProPublica.)
One might hope, though, that after having both the "Democrats don't reform SCOTUS because they don't want to" and "they don't even talk about it" points shot down -- the latter by a simple Google search -- one might have the humility to dial back one's dislike of the Democrats just a little to acknowledge that admittedly stupid structural obstacles don't equate to "surrender."
posted by Gelatin at 1:09 PM on January 9
I mean, come on. You admit that the Democrats didn't have the votes in the Senate to expand SCOTUS, so just what is it the Democrats are supposed to have done? Talk about it more, sure -- but they have been, and the so-called "liberal media" would rather talk about Biden' age and whether college administrators strictly adhered to citation best practices.
What Biden has been talking about is the threat Trump poses to American democracy. The corrupt Republicans in the Supreme Court do too, but if Trump gets elected, there will be less than nothing we can do about them and we'll have far bigger problems. But if Biden gets re-elected, the Democrats do acknowledge, publicly, that the partisan corruption on the Supreme Court is a problem.
Maybe they still won't have the votes in the Senate to do anything about it, but Manchin won't be there, and I doubt Sinema will either. Then again, maybe they will have the votes. I doubt Biden will forget that the Supreme Court shot down his student loan forgiveness program, or that his counsel doesn't see the bad faith with which the Republican justices operate.
If the Democrats have the votes and still refuse to do anything to reform the Court, then I will agree with you that they surrendered on the issue. But to complain about Biden warning about Trump instead of the Supreme Court seems like a singularly uncharitable accusation of political malpractice.
posted by Gelatin at 1:57 PM on January 9
What Biden has been talking about is the threat Trump poses to American democracy. The corrupt Republicans in the Supreme Court do too, but if Trump gets elected, there will be less than nothing we can do about them and we'll have far bigger problems. But if Biden gets re-elected, the Democrats do acknowledge, publicly, that the partisan corruption on the Supreme Court is a problem.
Maybe they still won't have the votes in the Senate to do anything about it, but Manchin won't be there, and I doubt Sinema will either. Then again, maybe they will have the votes. I doubt Biden will forget that the Supreme Court shot down his student loan forgiveness program, or that his counsel doesn't see the bad faith with which the Republican justices operate.
If the Democrats have the votes and still refuse to do anything to reform the Court, then I will agree with you that they surrendered on the issue. But to complain about Biden warning about Trump instead of the Supreme Court seems like a singularly uncharitable accusation of political malpractice.
posted by Gelatin at 1:57 PM on January 9
Gelatin I think, when I get down to it, I'm just afriad they're reusing the same election strategy they have in the past and that's not an election strategy that works well.
It looks like they're sleepwalking to a repeat of 2016 or 2022, and let's face it, they only won in 2020 because Trump was so awful he drove a lot of people to the polls who normally don't vote. And even with that advantage they came close to losing. I'm not sure they would have won without Trump's disasterous response to COVID.
If the Democrat's approach worked we wouldn't be having this conversation because President Clinton would have appointed a 6-3 Democratic majority in the Senate, people would still be laughing at the very concept of Roe being overturned, and there would be 60+ Democrats in the Senate.
But the Democrat's approach failed. We lost Roe, we lost the Supreme Court, we "won" the Senate with an iffy 50 which is close to worthless, we lost the House. We're clearly on a path to lose the Presidency and probably the Senate as well.
How much more do we need to lose before you'll admit that the way they run elections is a failure?
posted by sotonohito at 8:32 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
It looks like they're sleepwalking to a repeat of 2016 or 2022, and let's face it, they only won in 2020 because Trump was so awful he drove a lot of people to the polls who normally don't vote. And even with that advantage they came close to losing. I'm not sure they would have won without Trump's disasterous response to COVID.
If the Democrat's approach worked we wouldn't be having this conversation because President Clinton would have appointed a 6-3 Democratic majority in the Senate, people would still be laughing at the very concept of Roe being overturned, and there would be 60+ Democrats in the Senate.
But the Democrat's approach failed. We lost Roe, we lost the Supreme Court, we "won" the Senate with an iffy 50 which is close to worthless, we lost the House. We're clearly on a path to lose the Presidency and probably the Senate as well.
How much more do we need to lose before you'll admit that the way they run elections is a failure?
posted by sotonohito at 8:32 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
If the Democrat's approach worked we wouldn't be having this conversation because President Clinton would have appointed a 6-3 Democratic majority in the Senate, people would still be laughing at the very concept of Roe being overturned, and there would be 60+ Democrats in the Senate.
What are you talking about? Presidencies don't come with guaranteed Supreme Court vacancies. Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, and they were confirmed.
(Bill Clinton, and many Democrats, did react to Ronald Reagan's popularity by "triangulating" on a number of issues, wrongly thinking that compromise would take them off the table, and you and I probably agree that this policy was a mistake.)
The reason Democrats don't have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court is because in 2000, a partisan Republican majority decided they wanted George W. Bush to be president. In hindsight, with the Trump insurrection at all, acquiescing to that decision may have been a bad idea, but if so it raises the question, again, of what else should have been done, and "just will it to be so" is not an answer.
The American people lost Roe because Mitch McConnell refused to allow Obama an appointment, and because Ginsburg didn't retire while Obama had a Democratic Senate that could have confirmed her replacement.
Democrats have won the popular vote for president every election this century except 2004, which is an outlier because SCOTUS appointed the popular vote loser, and because George W. Bush (with the help of the so-called "liberal media") avoided blame for 9/11.
But they face headwinds in the Electoral College, in which the concentration of the Democratic vote in cities works to their disadvantage. They also don't have a full-time cable news network as a propaganda channel.
But despite that, Democrats have actually performed quite well in elections lately, including the midterms. Nancy Pelosi had the same governing majority in the House that Kevin McCarthy did, and managed to pass a number of Democratic priorities that benefit the nation -- indeed, that some Republicans who voted against it try to claim credit for.
Given all that, I don't see what "approach" you're talking about. Democrats can't make things happen just because they want to. There are constraints -- too many constraints, and too many stupid constraints -- including a media that constantly covers for Republicans. And Democrats do make mistakes, of course.
But again, the fact that Biden is warning of Trump's authoritarianism instead of complaining about Thomas' corruption doesn't mean that it's a losing strategy. Trump isn't actually popular except among his hardcore base, and as you just said emphasizing Trump's unpopularity has already worked. (And it doesn't need to drive people to the polls who normally wouldn't vote; it just needs to reduce Republican turnout among those who don't quite fully embrace his fascist approach.)
It's a hell of a thing for us to have to count on and the media is not going to help. But it seems that you're blaming Democrats for things that aren't actually in their control.
posted by Gelatin at 9:27 AM on January 10
What are you talking about? Presidencies don't come with guaranteed Supreme Court vacancies. Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, and they were confirmed.
(Bill Clinton, and many Democrats, did react to Ronald Reagan's popularity by "triangulating" on a number of issues, wrongly thinking that compromise would take them off the table, and you and I probably agree that this policy was a mistake.)
The reason Democrats don't have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court is because in 2000, a partisan Republican majority decided they wanted George W. Bush to be president. In hindsight, with the Trump insurrection at all, acquiescing to that decision may have been a bad idea, but if so it raises the question, again, of what else should have been done, and "just will it to be so" is not an answer.
The American people lost Roe because Mitch McConnell refused to allow Obama an appointment, and because Ginsburg didn't retire while Obama had a Democratic Senate that could have confirmed her replacement.
Democrats have won the popular vote for president every election this century except 2004, which is an outlier because SCOTUS appointed the popular vote loser, and because George W. Bush (with the help of the so-called "liberal media") avoided blame for 9/11.
But they face headwinds in the Electoral College, in which the concentration of the Democratic vote in cities works to their disadvantage. They also don't have a full-time cable news network as a propaganda channel.
But despite that, Democrats have actually performed quite well in elections lately, including the midterms. Nancy Pelosi had the same governing majority in the House that Kevin McCarthy did, and managed to pass a number of Democratic priorities that benefit the nation -- indeed, that some Republicans who voted against it try to claim credit for.
Given all that, I don't see what "approach" you're talking about. Democrats can't make things happen just because they want to. There are constraints -- too many constraints, and too many stupid constraints -- including a media that constantly covers for Republicans. And Democrats do make mistakes, of course.
But again, the fact that Biden is warning of Trump's authoritarianism instead of complaining about Thomas' corruption doesn't mean that it's a losing strategy. Trump isn't actually popular except among his hardcore base, and as you just said emphasizing Trump's unpopularity has already worked. (And it doesn't need to drive people to the polls who normally wouldn't vote; it just needs to reduce Republican turnout among those who don't quite fully embrace his fascist approach.)
It's a hell of a thing for us to have to count on and the media is not going to help. But it seems that you're blaming Democrats for things that aren't actually in their control.
posted by Gelatin at 9:27 AM on January 10
I meant that if the Democrats' approach to elections worked then hypothetical President Hillary Clinton would have appointed a 6-3 majority on the Court. I thought that was clear from contex, sorry about that I'll try to be more specific in the future.
I mean the approach to electoral politics isn't working.
I'm well aware of the structural issues in America and how they are a huge boon to Republicans. But I remain unable to believe that the Democrats' poll chasing, Republican chasing, cis het white due bootlicking, approach to elections is producing the best outcome we can hope for.
And no, I do not accept the proposal that the 2022 elections were anything but a loss for the Democrats. Becuse they lost the House. "Better than expected" but not keeping control of the House is still losing, let's not engage in self delusion here.
I will admit, as an almost side issue, ALSO think embracing a bit of the popular leftist issues would be beneficial to the Democrats in an electoral sense even if they can't bring themselves to admit they're just plain good ideas (universal single payer, for example, which polls at 57% as of last month).
But much as I love leftist politics, that's a side issue.
What matters most to me here is that Democrats, by which I mean the leadership fo the Democratic Party, admits that the way they've been running campaigns for the past 50 years isn't working very well and trying something, anything but rushing rightward, different.
Which is why I think they're making a mistake by not harping on Supreme Court corruption. There's an issue that really polls well for the Democrats. That 28% Democratic Mainstays in the Party are mostly women, and 59% of women don't trust the Court. Among Democrats in general 64% have a negative view of the Supreme Court.
And corruption sells. Attack ads with those pictures of Supreme Court Justices palling around with billionaires seem like a surefire winner to me. And you'd think that would make sense even to the cold oatmeal loving Democratic Party leadership. Find an issue people are already on your side about, fan the flames, get them hot and bothered, and they're more likely to turn out to vote, right?
Sure, attacking Trump is good too. But that's a given. No one has to say "Biden should campaing on Trump being bad for America" because that's kind of the core of the entire concept of running for office: claiming you're better for that office than your opponent. I don't say he needs to attack Trump for the same reason I dont' say he needs to breathe.
The Democrats keep leaving attack ad material unused and I don't know why. Or, rather, I do know why and it pisses me off.
Its because the people who DO like the Supreme Court are exactly the group the Democratic leadership is devoted to chasing at all costs: cis het white Christian men.
And I'm not saying they should go out of their way to alienate that group, but kissing their ass every election isn't working. So maybe trying something else might?
posted by sotonohito at 1:47 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
I mean the approach to electoral politics isn't working.
I'm well aware of the structural issues in America and how they are a huge boon to Republicans. But I remain unable to believe that the Democrats' poll chasing, Republican chasing, cis het white due bootlicking, approach to elections is producing the best outcome we can hope for.
And no, I do not accept the proposal that the 2022 elections were anything but a loss for the Democrats. Becuse they lost the House. "Better than expected" but not keeping control of the House is still losing, let's not engage in self delusion here.
I will admit, as an almost side issue, ALSO think embracing a bit of the popular leftist issues would be beneficial to the Democrats in an electoral sense even if they can't bring themselves to admit they're just plain good ideas (universal single payer, for example, which polls at 57% as of last month).
But much as I love leftist politics, that's a side issue.
What matters most to me here is that Democrats, by which I mean the leadership fo the Democratic Party, admits that the way they've been running campaigns for the past 50 years isn't working very well and trying something, anything but rushing rightward, different.
Which is why I think they're making a mistake by not harping on Supreme Court corruption. There's an issue that really polls well for the Democrats. That 28% Democratic Mainstays in the Party are mostly women, and 59% of women don't trust the Court. Among Democrats in general 64% have a negative view of the Supreme Court.
And corruption sells. Attack ads with those pictures of Supreme Court Justices palling around with billionaires seem like a surefire winner to me. And you'd think that would make sense even to the cold oatmeal loving Democratic Party leadership. Find an issue people are already on your side about, fan the flames, get them hot and bothered, and they're more likely to turn out to vote, right?
Sure, attacking Trump is good too. But that's a given. No one has to say "Biden should campaing on Trump being bad for America" because that's kind of the core of the entire concept of running for office: claiming you're better for that office than your opponent. I don't say he needs to attack Trump for the same reason I dont' say he needs to breathe.
The Democrats keep leaving attack ad material unused and I don't know why. Or, rather, I do know why and it pisses me off.
Its because the people who DO like the Supreme Court are exactly the group the Democratic leadership is devoted to chasing at all costs: cis het white Christian men.
And I'm not saying they should go out of their way to alienate that group, but kissing their ass every election isn't working. So maybe trying something else might?
posted by sotonohito at 1:47 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
I meant that if the Democrats' approach to elections worked then hypothetical President Hillary Clinton would have appointed a 6-3 majority on the Court.
Oh, come on. Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by millions and lost the Electoral College by a few thousand votes in a couple of states, after an election in which Trump appealed to white resentment and the so-called "liberal media" hounded her about alleged failure to conform to email server management best practices. Neither Clinton nor Trump expected him to win, based on polling that until then hadn't yet revealed its flaws.
And that was after Hillary Clinton campaigned as one of the most liberal Democratic presidential candidates in years, I might add. Not enough so for your tastes, I'll stipulate, but facts are facts.
She also specifically mentioned the vital importance of the Supreme Court on the campaign trail. The response I recall from leftists at the time was resentment at being "blackmailed" over the issue.
But since 2016, Trump's coalition hasn't grown; it has shrunk. Trump has hugely high negatives and decent people recoil from him when he's in the public eye.
I categorically reject your premise that the Democratic Party, which represents a much more diverse coalition that the Republicans and is well aware of the fact, is chasing the votes of cis het white Christian men "at all costs." I also doubt that any amount of evidence will make you change your opinion, but just for starters, Biden clinched the nomination thanks to the African-American vote in South Carolina, and he knows it.
I keep mentioning it, but since you were so admirably specific I will be too -- the problem, and the root of the problem you identify, is the media, which still can't get over its addiction to horse race / bothsides / falsely "balanced" clickbait coverage. For example, the media has of course had to compensate for Trump's unpopularity by harping on the economy and Biden's age, which has been effective at driving up Biden's negatives. (Other things, like publicly supporting Israel while using his influence privately urge restraint on Netanyahu -- whose political future depends on being a "wartime president," are choices that add to that perception, of course.)
I could point out again that a simple Google search revealed that Democrats do talk about Republican corruption on the Supreme Court, but you are free to find any amount they do so insufficient. As far as attack ads go, though, it's January. Most voters aren't paying any attention and the ones that do, like us, don't need to be told how obviously corrupt and partisan the Republicans are, so money spent on political ads now is wasted.
I will conclude that viewing the Democratic Party as "rushing rightward" is completely ignorant of the facts as to how it has actually been governing. For just one example, and a welcome improvement, they dropped Bill Clinton's fecklessness on abortion ("safe, legal, and rare") and have fully embraced supporting a woman's right to choose. And that stance has been winning elections.
Another place where your political analysis is all wet is your complaint about health care -- on which policy, to be clear, I agree with you 100%. But right now, Obamacare is more popular than ever, and the Republicans, including Trump, are the ones talking about replacing it, which appeals to no one but their base. If the Democrats were to start talking about single-payer, it would give the media an opportunity to bothsides the issue and let Republicans change the subject from their unpopular call to repeal the ACA -- we all know they don't have a replacement for it -- to criticizing the Democratic proposal as "socialized medicine," a phrase that polls well for them.
There's a saying, never interrupt the enemy when they're in the process of making a mistake. Republicans are making a mistake by campaigning on repealing the popular Obamacare, and the Democrats would be making one by giving them, and the media, something else to talk about.
Yes, the Democratic Party isn't leftist enough for you, but no, that doesn't make them right wing.
posted by Gelatin at 4:10 AM on January 11
Oh, come on. Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by millions and lost the Electoral College by a few thousand votes in a couple of states, after an election in which Trump appealed to white resentment and the so-called "liberal media" hounded her about alleged failure to conform to email server management best practices. Neither Clinton nor Trump expected him to win, based on polling that until then hadn't yet revealed its flaws.
And that was after Hillary Clinton campaigned as one of the most liberal Democratic presidential candidates in years, I might add. Not enough so for your tastes, I'll stipulate, but facts are facts.
She also specifically mentioned the vital importance of the Supreme Court on the campaign trail. The response I recall from leftists at the time was resentment at being "blackmailed" over the issue.
But since 2016, Trump's coalition hasn't grown; it has shrunk. Trump has hugely high negatives and decent people recoil from him when he's in the public eye.
I categorically reject your premise that the Democratic Party, which represents a much more diverse coalition that the Republicans and is well aware of the fact, is chasing the votes of cis het white Christian men "at all costs." I also doubt that any amount of evidence will make you change your opinion, but just for starters, Biden clinched the nomination thanks to the African-American vote in South Carolina, and he knows it.
I keep mentioning it, but since you were so admirably specific I will be too -- the problem, and the root of the problem you identify, is the media, which still can't get over its addiction to horse race / bothsides / falsely "balanced" clickbait coverage. For example, the media has of course had to compensate for Trump's unpopularity by harping on the economy and Biden's age, which has been effective at driving up Biden's negatives. (Other things, like publicly supporting Israel while using his influence privately urge restraint on Netanyahu -- whose political future depends on being a "wartime president," are choices that add to that perception, of course.)
I could point out again that a simple Google search revealed that Democrats do talk about Republican corruption on the Supreme Court, but you are free to find any amount they do so insufficient. As far as attack ads go, though, it's January. Most voters aren't paying any attention and the ones that do, like us, don't need to be told how obviously corrupt and partisan the Republicans are, so money spent on political ads now is wasted.
I will conclude that viewing the Democratic Party as "rushing rightward" is completely ignorant of the facts as to how it has actually been governing. For just one example, and a welcome improvement, they dropped Bill Clinton's fecklessness on abortion ("safe, legal, and rare") and have fully embraced supporting a woman's right to choose. And that stance has been winning elections.
Another place where your political analysis is all wet is your complaint about health care -- on which policy, to be clear, I agree with you 100%. But right now, Obamacare is more popular than ever, and the Republicans, including Trump, are the ones talking about replacing it, which appeals to no one but their base. If the Democrats were to start talking about single-payer, it would give the media an opportunity to bothsides the issue and let Republicans change the subject from their unpopular call to repeal the ACA -- we all know they don't have a replacement for it -- to criticizing the Democratic proposal as "socialized medicine," a phrase that polls well for them.
There's a saying, never interrupt the enemy when they're in the process of making a mistake. Republicans are making a mistake by campaigning on repealing the popular Obamacare, and the Democrats would be making one by giving them, and the media, something else to talk about.
Yes, the Democratic Party isn't leftist enough for you, but no, that doesn't make them right wing.
posted by Gelatin at 4:10 AM on January 11
I'm puzzled by your claim that the Democrats have not pursued a general election strategy of appealing to cis het whilte Christian men. That's so non-controversial I never even considered it might need sourcing.
But, here's a thread from a couple years ago, right here on MeFi, about one of the think pieces that crops up after every election (win or lose) scolding the Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to cis het white Christian men. I could dig up more if you'd like.
In that thread we saw people, right here, arguing that it was necessary to stop talking about equality and civil rights and so on because the cis het white Christian male vote sees everything as a zero sum game so they see talking about minority rights as antagonistic to that group.
Another person, who claimed to like her, argued that AOC should stop talking lefty and start using nationally approved talking points for party unity and, agian, to avoid scaring off cis het white Christian men.
The idea that the Democrats have an electoral strategy of trying to get the votes of suburban and exurban (though usually people incorrectly call that "rural") cis het white Christian men is not some weird hallucination I have because I'm a leftist.
Again, to reference that thread I linked, people argued it was essential because due to the way America structures elections those people's votes count for more than everyone else's. You can argue that's true, and I'd even sort of agree, but you can't argue that means the Democrats aren't running campaigns specifically to cater to those voters.
Here's one from just a few days ago from Axios about how the Democrats are very definitely going to need to cater to the exurban cis het white Christian male voters.
None of this is about the Democratic Party being insufficiently leftist for me.
All of this is about the Democratic Party's general electorial strategy being ineffective.
If it was effective then Clinton wouldn't have depended on razor thin margins in a few swing states, she'd have had a big enough buffer she'd have WON instead of just coming close to winning, which you have twice now equated to actually winning.
if it was an effective general electorial strategy then we'd have the House, and the Senate by more than 50(ish)+VP if we're lucky.
I'm judging this purely on the pragmatic basis that what the Democrats are doing demonstorably is not working. I'd like to see them try something different that might have a chance of working. If rushing rightward and kissing cis het white male ass worked I'd be grumpy and arguing for other things, but I would not be able to deny the efficiacy of that style of campaign.
Rushing rightward hasn't worked. You note that yourself, the Bill Clinton triangulation strategy was a failure both electorally and morally. So why are you so vehimently opposed to changing away from a strategy you think is a failure?
posted by sotonohito at 11:43 AM on January 12 [1 favorite]
But, here's a thread from a couple years ago, right here on MeFi, about one of the think pieces that crops up after every election (win or lose) scolding the Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to cis het white Christian men. I could dig up more if you'd like.
In that thread we saw people, right here, arguing that it was necessary to stop talking about equality and civil rights and so on because the cis het white Christian male vote sees everything as a zero sum game so they see talking about minority rights as antagonistic to that group.
Another person, who claimed to like her, argued that AOC should stop talking lefty and start using nationally approved talking points for party unity and, agian, to avoid scaring off cis het white Christian men.
The idea that the Democrats have an electoral strategy of trying to get the votes of suburban and exurban (though usually people incorrectly call that "rural") cis het white Christian men is not some weird hallucination I have because I'm a leftist.
Again, to reference that thread I linked, people argued it was essential because due to the way America structures elections those people's votes count for more than everyone else's. You can argue that's true, and I'd even sort of agree, but you can't argue that means the Democrats aren't running campaigns specifically to cater to those voters.
Here's one from just a few days ago from Axios about how the Democrats are very definitely going to need to cater to the exurban cis het white Christian male voters.
None of this is about the Democratic Party being insufficiently leftist for me.
All of this is about the Democratic Party's general electorial strategy being ineffective.
If it was effective then Clinton wouldn't have depended on razor thin margins in a few swing states, she'd have had a big enough buffer she'd have WON instead of just coming close to winning, which you have twice now equated to actually winning.
if it was an effective general electorial strategy then we'd have the House, and the Senate by more than 50(ish)+VP if we're lucky.
I'm judging this purely on the pragmatic basis that what the Democrats are doing demonstorably is not working. I'd like to see them try something different that might have a chance of working. If rushing rightward and kissing cis het white male ass worked I'd be grumpy and arguing for other things, but I would not be able to deny the efficiacy of that style of campaign.
Rushing rightward hasn't worked. You note that yourself, the Bill Clinton triangulation strategy was a failure both electorally and morally. So why are you so vehimently opposed to changing away from a strategy you think is a failure?
posted by sotonohito at 11:43 AM on January 12 [1 favorite]
I'm puzzled by your claim that the Democrats have not pursued a general election strategy of appealing to cis het whilte Christian men.
Because I never said that. You said:
Its because the people who DO like the Supreme Court are exactly the group the Democratic leadership is devoted to chasing at all costs: cis het white Christian men.
I said they are not "devoted to chasing" "cis het white Christian men" "at all costs." The Democratic coalition is broad, so they appeal to many interest groups.
Are they appealing to cis het white Christian men at all? Probably! As I said, the Democratic coalition is broad. But so what?
But because that coalition is broad, I disagree that Democrats are "chasing cis het white Christian men at all costs." And so you move the goalposts again to claim that I'm saying they aren't trying to appeal to cis het white Christian men at all. Nope.
It's things like that that make me feel -- I won't speak for anyone else -- that debating you is a waste of time. You make points, they get shot down, and then you response in a what that can very easily be interpreted as bad faith. At the very least, it's sloppy and does your arguments no credit.
I'll state it plainly: You can't be trusted to state your interlocutor's arguments fairly. I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to judge if I said, as you claim, that I "equated" Clinton's narrow loss to "actually winning" or if I am "vehimently opposed to changing away from a strategy [I] think is a failure" (here's a free hint on that one: I said the Democrats already did!).
Regardless, your goalpost moving isn't worth wasting time on, so I'm done here.
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on January 16
Because I never said that. You said:
Its because the people who DO like the Supreme Court are exactly the group the Democratic leadership is devoted to chasing at all costs: cis het white Christian men.
I said they are not "devoted to chasing" "cis het white Christian men" "at all costs." The Democratic coalition is broad, so they appeal to many interest groups.
Are they appealing to cis het white Christian men at all? Probably! As I said, the Democratic coalition is broad. But so what?
But because that coalition is broad, I disagree that Democrats are "chasing cis het white Christian men at all costs." And so you move the goalposts again to claim that I'm saying they aren't trying to appeal to cis het white Christian men at all. Nope.
It's things like that that make me feel -- I won't speak for anyone else -- that debating you is a waste of time. You make points, they get shot down, and then you response in a what that can very easily be interpreted as bad faith. At the very least, it's sloppy and does your arguments no credit.
I'll state it plainly: You can't be trusted to state your interlocutor's arguments fairly. I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to judge if I said, as you claim, that I "equated" Clinton's narrow loss to "actually winning" or if I am "vehimently opposed to changing away from a strategy [I] think is a failure" (here's a free hint on that one: I said the Democrats already did!).
Regardless, your goalpost moving isn't worth wasting time on, so I'm done here.
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on January 16
« Older India's Aditya-L1 spacecraft reaches Sun orbit | There is nothing good about the plant. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by anthill at 11:52 AM on January 7 [8 favorites]