If RBG’s seat is filled, Dems should go nuclear across the board

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Admitting DC and Puerto Rico isn't enough as it still leaves the Senate at an R+4.5 skew. Democrats need to at least admit DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands as states, which gets the Senate down to R+2.5. Still bad, but potentially liveable. Then you can add a couple of justices to the Supreme Court and expand the House and lower federal courts in line with population. Pass a Voting Rights Act and anti-gerrymandering legislation.

Ideally you want to abolish the Senate, the EC and institute proportional representation, and move to a parliamentary system permanently to avoid partisan gridlock, but those probably require constitutional amendments.

[Bojack Horseman]

Why stop at Puerto Rico? Add Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well for another 6 Senate seats.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Admitting DC and Puerto Rico isn't enough as it still leaves the Senate at an R+4.5 skew. Democrats need to at least admit DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands as states, which gets the Senate down to R+2.5. Still bad, but potentially liveable. Then you can add a couple of justices to the Supreme Court and expand the House and lower federal courts in line with population. Pass a Voting Rights Act and anti-gerrymandering legislation.

Ideally you want to abolish the Senate, the EC and institute proportional representation but those probably require constitutional amendments.

I'd also add American Samoa.  Five new states gets us to ten new Senators which would definitely help unskew the Senate even more.  

[President Johnson]

Why stop at Puerto Rico? Add Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well for another 6 Senate seats.

Isn't there a requirement for states to have a certain population? 100,000 or so?

Otherwise, I agree with statehood for Washington DC and Puerto Rico, as well as ending the filibuster. Court should be packed by two seats if RBG is replaced by Trump (assuming he loses).

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Silence Brit.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why stop at Puerto Rico? Add Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well for another 6 Senate seats.

Isn't there a requirement for states to have a certain population? 100,000 or so?

Otherwise, I agree with statehood for Washington DC and Puerto Rico, as well as ending the filibuster. Court should be packed by two seats if RBG is replaced by Trump (assuming he loses).

DC, PR, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands all have over 100,000 people.

[President Johnson]

Why stop at Puerto Rico? Add Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well for another 6 Senate seats.

Isn't there a requirement for states to have a certain population? 100,000 or so?

Otherwise, I agree with statehood for Washington DC and Puerto Rico, as well as ending the filibuster. Court should be packed by two seats if RBG is replaced by Trump (assuming he loses).

DC, PR, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands all have over 100,000 people.

I'm not sure that's the number, I just saw some number a while ago. Anyway, if their people want statehood, they should have their will.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Silence Brit.

TiltsAreUnderrated is supporting the """right-wing""" (actually the (normal, sane), but who's counting) position here by opposing the idea of Voting Restrictions But Woke, you realize. But why let the fact that someone is agreeing with you get in the way of a good jingoistic attack on them?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Yeah, I think that die was cast in much of Europe in the 80s with Thatcher and in the US in the 90s with Clinton (who--hot take alert--I believe makes more sense as an "American Thatcher" than Reagan does).

If you want room for optimism, some of the attitudes here seem to have changed again - there is much less of an emphasis on "scroungers" or even immigrants than there used to be and an acceptance that the level of inequality is problematic.

BoJo is very incompetent in his efforts and quite cynical in a lot of them, too, but his government has committed to a sort of economic protectionism beyond Brexit which I wouldn't have expected from solo Cameron, the coalition or even the Blair administration. In addition to problems caused by the government's ineptitude, there are pitfalls resulting from this (lockdown policy being the big one), but I think it's pretty promising that the plans to clear out PFI weren't immediately trashed after the election.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Silence Brit.

TiltsAreUnderrated is supporting the """right-wing""" (actually the (normal, sane), but who's counting) position here by opposing the idea of Voting Restrictions But Woke, you realize. But why let the fact that someone is agreeing with you get in the way of a good jingoistic attack on them?

I merely believe that everyone who disagrees with my opinions should be disenfranchised.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I don't think there's a population requirement. The only rule is that the affected states and territories consents. Democrats currently control all levers of power in American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Guam. I'm sure if the national Democrat signal to them that they try  I think they will all swiftly push to get statehood referendum passed before the 2022 elections. Not sure about N Mariana Islands but if they see Democrats giving statehood to all other territories I don't see why the won't join they not really integrated with the national GOP anyway.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Silence Brit.

TiltsAreUnderrated is supporting the """right-wing""" (actually the (normal, sane), but who's counting) position here by opposing the idea of Voting Restrictions But Woke, you realize. But why let the fact that someone is agreeing with you get in the way of a good jingoistic attack on them?

I merely believe that everyone who disagrees with my opinions should be disenfranchised.

Is there any particular reason why you have a Vatican avatar now, Jalaketu, or have you just bought into the "political Catholicism is when you're right-wing; the more right-wing you are, the more Catholic it is " nonsense-mongering of people like Bill Barr and Matteo Salvini?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Silence Brit.

TiltsAreUnderrated is supporting the """right-wing""" (actually the (normal, sane), but who's counting) position here by opposing the idea of Voting Restrictions But Woke, you realize. But why let the fact that someone is agreeing with you get in the way of a good jingoistic attack on them?

I merely believe that everyone who disagrees with my opinions should be disenfranchised.

Is there any particular reason why you have a Vatican avatar now, Jalaketu, or have you just bought into the "political Catholicism is when you're right-wing; the more right-wing you are, the more Catholic it is " nonsense-mongering of people like Bill Barr and Matteo Salvini?

The Bible is clear. Catholic social teaching is not opposed to support for the poor. It is opposed to the reckless moral degradations the Democrats push.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Yes, they should do all the things mentioned in the OP.

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting. 

You’d need to make sure you packed the Court with people radical enough to uphold this under Congress’s enforcement powers of the Reconstruction amendments.

But once you’ve done this, Democrats (and especially previously unrepresented minorities) should be able to win supermajorities in every state and amend the constitution however they with.

You first.

[Former President tack50]

IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS AN OUTDATED DOCUMENT.

Ignoring the constitution is dictatorship 101

In fact many military coups declare the constitution "suspended" as part of the military junta taking power.

[Former President tack50]

Yes, they should do all the things mentioned in the OP.

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting. 

You’d need to make sure you packed the Court with people radical enough to uphold this under Congress’s enforcement powers of the Reconstruction amendments.

But once you’ve done this, Democrats (and especially previously unrepresented minorities) should be able to win supermajorities in every state and amend the constitution however they with.

Never thought I'd have to use this argument against a maroon avatar but whatever:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Is there any particular reason why you have a Vatican avatar now, Jalaketu, or have you just bought into the "political Catholicism is when you're right-wing; the more right-wing you are, the more Catholic it is " nonsense-mongering of people like Bill Barr and Matteo Salvini?

Mmh care to explain?

Salvini doesn't strike me as someone who thinks that what he's doing is political Catholicism unless you want to count performative nonsense about going to sanctuaries and similar?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Silence Brit.

TiltsAreUnderrated is supporting the """right-wing""" (actually the (normal, sane), but who's counting) position here by opposing the idea of Voting Restrictions But Woke, you realize. But why let the fact that someone is agreeing with you get in the way of a good jingoistic attack on them?

I merely believe that everyone who disagrees with my opinions should be disenfranchised.

Is there any particular reason why you have a Vatican avatar now, Jalaketu, or have you just bought into the "political Catholicism is when you're right-wing; the more right-wing you are, the more Catholic it is " nonsense-mongering of people like Bill Barr and Matteo Salvini?

The Bible is clear. Catholic social teaching is not opposed to support for the poor. It is opposed to the reckless moral degradations the Democrats push.

Yes; as well as to those the Republicans push.

Is there any particular reason why you have a Vatican avatar now, Jalaketu, or have you just bought into the "political Catholicism is when you're right-wing; the more right-wing you are, the more Catholic it is " nonsense-mongering of people like Bill Barr and Matteo Salvini?

Mmh care to explain?

Salvini doesn't strike me as someone who thinks that what he's doing is political Catholicism unless you want to count performative nonsense about going to sanctuaries and similar?

"Performative nonsense about going to sanctuaries and similar" is about my understanding of what #right-wing populist political Catholicism consists of, yes.

[RINO Tom]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting. 

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

Or WhItE cOlLeGe GrAdS !

[Wakie77]

Statehood for PR & DC.  There is no valid argument against granting statehood to each.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Is there any particular reason why you have a Vatican avatar now, Jalaketu, or have you just bought into the "political Catholicism is when you're right-wing; the more right-wing you are, the more Catholic it is " nonsense-mongering of people like Bill Barr and Matteo Salvini?

Mmh care to explain?

Salvini doesn't strike me as someone who thinks that what he's doing is political Catholicism unless you want to count performative nonsense about going to sanctuaries and similar?

"Performative nonsense about going to sanctuaries and similar" is about my understanding of what #right-wing populist political Catholicism consists of, yes.

Uh ok it just sounded strange to put him right next to William Barr, whom I'd say fits more your original definition and less "performative nonsense".

Also I know some people *cough cough my father* who buy into more serious right-wing cEntRist mOdeRaTe political Catholicism and Salvini is generally hated in those circles, but you may already know these dynamics.

[Stuart98]

Statehood for PR & DC.  There is no valid argument against granting statehood to each.

In fairness for PR, there has yet to be a referendum there showing that a majority of the populace supports statehood. The 2012 referendum showed that of the 78.2% of voters who showed up, 54% wanted to change the status quo. Of those, 61.2% favored statehood. .782*.54*.612 = 25.8%. The 2017 referendum with 22.9% turnout showed 97.2% of voters favoring statehood. .229*.972 = 22.3%.

[Wakie77]

Statehood for PR & DC.  There is no valid argument against granting statehood to each.

In fairness for PR, there has yet to be a referendum there showing that a majority of the populace supports statehood. The 2012 referendum showed that of the 78.2% of voters who showed up, 54% wanted to change the status quo. Of those, 61.2% favored statehood. .782*.54*.612 = 25.8%. The 2017 referendum with 22.9% turnout showed 97.2% of voters favoring statehood. .229*.972 = 22.3%.

DC had a similar referendum in 2016 and vote 78% in favor.

But you know …. Republicans think it is better to disenfranchise 3.9 million Americans (total population of DC & PR combined).  But Wyoming's 500,000 get 2 Senators because …. cows.

[Splash]

It would probably take a lot longer to devise a system that would work, but I would be interested in a phased-in mandatory retirement scheme for the judiciary if it could be devised in such a way that it would kick Thomas off the bench within a year or so.

The problem with it is that it could create a lot of vacancies really fast if applied to the circuit and district courts, although I suppose you could let those judges continue to serve until their replacement was confirmed.

[Del Tachi]

Statehood for PR & DC.  There is no valid argument against granting statehood to each.

In fairness for PR, there has yet to be a referendum there showing that a majority of the populace supports statehood. The 2012 referendum showed that of the 78.2% of voters who showed up, 54% wanted to change the status quo. Of those, 61.2% favored statehood. .782*.54*.612 = 25.8%. The 2017 referendum with 22.9% turnout showed 97.2% of voters favoring statehood. .229*.972 = 22.3%.

DC had a similar referendum in 2016 and vote 78% in favor.

But you know …. Republicans think it is better to disenfranchise 3.9 million Americans (total population of DC & PR combined).  But Wyoming's 500,000 get 2 Senators because …. cows.

Because...Wyoming is a constituent part of the Federal system in a way DC and Puerto Rico are not?