Rightwing playbooks used in past election campaigns are being dusted off for an all-out assault on the vice-president
For Barack Obama there was “birtherism” and a name they said sounded like a specific Middle East terrorist. For Hillary Clinton there was “Lock her up” and merchandise that said, “Trump that bitch”, “Hillary sucks but not like Monica” and “Life’s a bitch: don’t vote for one.”
Rightwing playbooks deployed in past election campaigns are being dusted off for an all-out assault against Vice-President Kamala Harris, the de facto Democratic nominee aiming to become the first Black woman and first person of south Asian descent to be US president.
“It’s obvious that the Republicans are going to play the race and gender card, which we’ve seen already in some of the attacks on social media,” said Tara Setmayer, a Black woman who is co-founder and chief executive of the Seneca Project, a women-led super political action committee. “It may be catnip for their Maga base but it will be a turnoff for the moderate voters in the battleground states that will determine this election.”
The recent supreme court case reverses that
So what you’re saying is that conservatives are once again holding up stop signs when progress presents itself.
Because Democrats let them because they refused to attempt Court packing, which is the only way to stop the fascist agenda.
I’m for it, but increasing the size requires a Congressional majority. Sadly, we’re not there. FDR took a run at it and fractured the party. The fear is that if Democrats are able to do it, then the next Republican majority will do the same. I don’t think this consideration has merit. They are likely to do it anyway should they have the ability when the court doesn’t have a right bias.
I think there are better ways to go about it. The whole structure is flawed as it concentrates a wealth of power to small amount of people. Something like using a lottery composed of the federal appellate court judges for each case. In theory, many cases could be tried simultaneously as there are about 180. Those bringing the cases would also not have insight as to the court’s composition. They’d have to rely solely on the merit of their case.
I like this item. It’s a bit dated, and the source leans left; but so does reality:
https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/here-are-4-ways-to-expand-the-us-supreme-court
I used “refused” in the past tense. I’m pretty sure that route is gone. Democrats will never have the majorities they need because this Court has made so many anti-democratic and pro-corruption rulings as to render the electoral process into a joke.
Gratuities are legal now! It is now legal to give a politician money as thanks for passing legislation. It’s not “bribery” because it occurs after the act, you see, and so therefore it’s just protected speech. I’m sure Clarence Thomas is happy about that one.
But! Dems could still run on the issue as a way to sway voters! But they’re too scared because, as you said, then Republicans will just do it too and it’ll probably lead to a civil war. So. Uh. Whatever I guess, country is fucked.
Wow the ONLY way? That doesn’t sound right at all.
The Court is the key to the fascist’s agenda and the way they keep scoring victories despite being a minority Party.
Either the fascist Court is dealt with politically or… what? Tell me something that wouldn’t get us banned for talking about.
Do you mean the Raimondo decision? That has no direct bearing. At worst, it means the FTC rule is more susceptible to challenge. But if you look at the actual court cases, it is being upheld. One judge in Texas temporarily delayed the ban for a small number of employers, and that is the biggest challenge so far.