Justice Stevens to Retire Soon

[Kepor]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6321J220100403?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Justice John Paul Stevens plans to retire either at the end of this term or the next.

And... yeah. That's all I can really think to say on this right now. I understand why, but it still feels an incredible loss.

I dunno. Discuss, I guess.

[Solid Snake]

It'd seem like a much bigger deal if he were retiring prematurely (as some argued Souter did) or if he chose to retire during a Republican administration. As is, though, the plain facts of the matter are that he's well beyond retirement age (even by Supreme Court standards) and he's served an incredibly long time on the court. His loss won't shift the court's ideological perspective as Obama will replace him with a fellow liberal.

Stevens was, however, an extremely gifted diplomat insofar as he was able to convince moderates like O'Connor and Kennedy to join him in some past decisions. Obama could make a huge mistake by treading too far left with his nomination to replace Stevens, creating an increasingly polarized court and hurting the left's chances of courting Kennedy for those huge 5-4 decisions.

My guess is Breyer fills the void Stevens leaves behind and effectively leads that faction of the Court (Ginsburg is too soft-spoken and Sotomayor is a rookie.) I like Breyer a lot; though I frequently disagree with him (he's very much pro-federal government power, much moreso than even Stevens, so there will be a shift against libertarian ideology there) he's very assertive and quite clever in oral arguments. However, Breyer is also the most openly combative left-wing member of the Court, eager to take on the likes of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. That's either a very good thing (if you're a progressive who wants the left to have a louder voice in those 5-4 dissents) or a very bad thing (if you're a progressive who's worried that this development will prevent Kennedy from joining in liberal interpretations, as Stevens was huge in potentially swaying Kennedy before.)

In short: Stevens' retirement increases the odds that you'll see classic 5-4 conservative / liberal split decisions (with the conservatives winning those battles.) The schisms might grow deeper. Stevens has a huge reputation as a liberal on the court, but he wasn't quite as liberal as progressives like to paint him as; if Obama missteps by dipping too far left, he might further isolate liberals on the Court. On the other hand, if Obama settles for a moderate or a relative unknown, you could have reverse-Souter (stealth conservative) and that'd really fuck up the Court.

None of this is really remotely as interesting as what would happen if one of the conservative members of the Court were to leave us. If Kennedy in particular were to pass away or retire, Obama would have a huge opportunity; since Kennedy was known as a moderate swing vote, Obama could nominate a replacement who would simply be far more likely to swing the liberals' way on the Court, and conservatives would have a difficult time of objecting.

What's really intriguing but potentially far more hazardous is what Obama could or should do if a big-time conservative like Scalia or Thomas passes away (I doubt they would retire.) Replace them with even a likable moderate and conservatives would be up in arms. Attempt to replace them with a liberal progressive and the Tea Party / Fox News / Republicans would go apeshit. I'd see that as far more potentially devastating to the country's long-term health than this Health Care debate.

On the flip side, if Obama panders to conservatives by electing a member of the Federalist Society, he won't win many brownie points with the Fox News crowd (they'll look for reasons to hate him anyway) but progressives will be disenchanted. Obama effectively loses either way; either he sparks outrage and condemnation for brazenly shifting the ideological balance of the Court in a way never before seen, or he sparks outrage and condemnation for allowing the 5-4 conservative advantage to persist. I wouldn't want to be him in any of those circumstances. The ultimate irony is that Obama is probably hoping and praying for Scalia and Thomas' health as much as conservatives are, though for wildly different reasons. For him it's pure pragmatism. He'd prefer they pass away around 2013, when he's won his second term and conservative outcries (or depression among liberals) won't cost him a future election.

EDIT: It's only after typing this post that I've realized how much law school changes you; all these kinds of discussions are constants in my Constitutional Law class, and every one of them brazenly and matter-of-factly talks about the ramifications of Justices 'passing away' without once reminiscing on the lives lost.
...Just a part of the profession, I suppose.

[POS Industries]

What's really intriguing but potentially far more hazardous is what Obama could or should do if a big-time conservative like Scalia or Thomas passes away (I doubt they would retire.) Replace them with even a likable moderate and conservatives would be up in arms. Attempt to replace them with a liberal progressive and the Tea Party / Fox News / Republicans would go apeshit. I'd see that as far more potentially devastating to the country's long-term health than this Health Care debate.

On the flip side, if Obama panders to conservatives by electing a member of the Federalist Society, he won't win many brownie points with the Fox News crowd (they'll look for reasons to hate him anyway) but progressives will be disenchanted. Obama effectively loses either way; either he sparks outrage and condemnation for brazenly shifting the ideological balance of the Court in a way never before seen, or he sparks outrage and condemnation for allowing the 5-4 conservative advantage to persist. I wouldn't want to be him in any of those circumstances. The ultimate irony is that Obama is probably hoping and praying for Scalia and Thomas' health as much as conservatives are, though for wildly different reasons. For him it's pure pragmatism. He'd prefer they pass away around 2013, when he's won his second term and conservative outcries (or depression among liberals) won't cost him a future election.
So, basically, he's in the same position with this issue that he's been in with every other thing he's had to do in his presidency, wherein his choices are piss off conservatives by doing the liberal thing or piss off liberals by trying to compromise with conservatives, who aren't actually going to work with him anyway no matter how much he tries to appease them, which ends up with everyone hating him.

Welp, here's hoping against all odds that he can at least count on the Democrats to not be total fuckwads if he decides to go ahead and do the liberal thing this time.

[Solid Snake]

So, basically, he's in the same position with this issue that he's been in with every other thing he's had to do in his presidency, wherein his choices are piss off conservatives by doing the liberal thing or piss off liberals by trying to compromise with conservatives, who aren't actually going to work with him anyway no matter how much he tries to appease them, which ends up with everyone hating him.


That partisan argument may seem strong, but consider this: if Obama does 'the liberal thing' as you hope, and in 2012 or 2016 a Republican becomes President, would you want a Republican to feel free to cite Obama as precedent to appoint conservative justices to replace retiring (or dying) liberals?

...My guess is you'd feel appalled by the notion.

I'm against the notion of Democrats conceding to conservatives on certain issues (most notably the environment) but when it comes to procedural safeguards I have a slightly different perspective. Truth is, there's a reason why past administrations have generally attempted (within reason) to appoint decent matches to replace outgoing Justices, and it has to do with preserving the judiciary from brazen executive manipulation. If Obama were to start a new precedent of appointing only ideological bedfellows to the bench regardless of the philosophy of the Justice lost, we'd only continue to heighten the partisan divide in such a way that would have devastating consequences whenever the opposing party controls the White House.

And Obama's chances for reelection would be absolutely crushed by appointing a liberal justice to replace a conservative one -- conservative groups would be far more enraged by that action than any executive policy implemented in regards to issues like the environment (or even health care.) Electing an ideological comrade might benefit Obama in the judiciary, but it could dearly cost him (and Democrats in general) in the polls.

The strongest and most pragmatic move by Obama would be to replace a right-winger like Scalia or Thomas with someone who seems conservative, or at least holds conservative values in some traditional areas of thought, but trends slightly more moderate in other, less notable legal doctrines. A new Kennedy or a new O'Connor, say, to replace someone like Justice Thomas. That'd have the effect of gradually marginalizing conservatives on the Court without being so obvious as to risk control of Congress or the Presidency. Conservatives would lack an easy methodology to attack the candidate or galvanize its base.

Ironically, Obama would also benefit from continuing the tradition of electing white men to replace conservatives on the court (particularly Thomas), thus reinforcing the notion that conservatives all fit certain gender and ethnic stereotypes. I'm not sure if he'd go that far, but I wouldn't be shocked if he did. (After all, the majority of available candidates that fit the bill would be white men, anyway.)

On the other hand, if someone like Kennedy retires or passes away, I think then it's much more reasonable for Obama to use the opportunity to shift the court left. Kennedy was never a solid conservative vote, and he was never a card-carrying member of the Federalist society.

If it were Scalia or Thomas that left the Court, though, I wouldn't want to be Obama. Regardless of the decision he'd make, he'd be in the crosshairs. (Potentially literally, as well as metaphorically.) As I said earlier, if there's anyone who's praying for Scalia and Thomas' health, at least in the short-term, it's Barack Obama...as surprising as that may sound.

(Everything changes once Obama potentially wins re-election, though. If such an event were to happen at the end of his Presidency, Obama would be in a much better position to effectively sacrifice his remaining political agenda in order to preserve his legacy by re-balancing the court. After winning reelection, he'd have a much stronger argument that the changing electorate supported the change and there'd be no chance he'd be rebutted by the 2012 elections. Obama's immediate goal has to be to last to 2012, though, and I suspect that replacing Thomas with another Sotomayor would be the easiest way to condemn him and the Democratic party to extraordinary losses.)

[Kim]

The current conservative/republican party is actively against the best interests of the nation and its people. More democrats/liberals the better, assuming they can grow some goddamn balls, because if we can get some actual damn reform in, the republicans/conservatives will have a hell of a time getting rid of it, and will look worse for trying.

[bluestarultor]

Yeah, hey, Snake? Please cite a president who's directly put in a justice with an opposing political viewpoint just to preserve the status quo. Presidents ALWAYS find a way to pad the bench. Maybe not directly, but in some way. In fact, I think the biggest deviation of this is when one justice was appointed because a conservative president thought he was in bed with him and it turned out the guy was TOO conservative and cockblocked some conservative legislation because it meant bigger government. My memory's hazy on it, so forgive me. The point being that if you're not trying to keep some semblance of your term in place to mess up all the work of the opposing party for years to come, you're doing it wrong.

Besides, Obama really doesn't need to cater to conservatives at this point. They're going to hate him no matter what. Fortunately, the Republican party is a sinking ship and the rats are jumping (this metaphor is not intended to call conservatives rats), so there are plenty of centrist and liberal people to cater to who will enjoy the attention.

[POS Industries]

That partisan argument may seem strong, but consider this: if Obama does 'the liberal thing' as you hope, and in 2012 or 2016 a Republican becomes President, would you want a Republican to feel free to cite Obama as precedent to appoint conservative justices to replace retiring (or dying) liberals?

...My guess is you'd feel appalled by the notion.
No, I'd pretty much feel that it was how every president ever has done it. And, honestly? The fact that Obama has been bending over backwards to get conservatives to work with him is precisely why his reelection is in such potential jeopardy at the moment. The left is, on the whole, all the man has, and he has so far done little to keep it in favor of trying in vain to win over people who will never support him.

I mean, I'm not saying he needs to put a hardline, uncompromising liberal up for nomination, but to put a conservative of any nature up for the job will accomplish nothing in terms of the spin against him. He could nominate Glenn Beck and Glenn Beck himself would go on TV and blast Obama for nominating that communo-fascist America-hater Glenn Back to further his radical left wing agenda. He cannot win with these people no matter how hard he tries, and the people who follow them will not listen to reason. It's time he stopped trying.

[Solid Snake]

I love how sometimes I'm absolutely shocked to find that something I've said that I consider not remotely controversial is actually, well, apparently incredibly controversial.

No, I'd pretty much feel that it was how every president ever has done it.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-jc/balkin.php

Court-packing with ideological allies is neither a recent development nor has it always been the way the process has worked, and some Presidents (Roosevelt) have relied on using the judiciary as an ideological device to further policy initiatives more than others (Eisenhower.)

Personally, I'm very much against the notion that the judiciary branch should be a political instrument. Their role is to interpret the Constitution and follow the black-letter laws of the United States, not to push their desired policies. The sign of a true Justice is the ability to make a decision against one's own political beliefs, yet in correspondence with the law: it always impresses me when, say, a conservative Justice rules in favor of abortion rights (despite a personal position against it) or a liberal Justice rules against an over-broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. That always impresses me because it's how judges should act; as mere interpretative agents digesting and espousing the law as it is written, not openly advocating what they think is justice over those rules set in stone. The latter is destructive subjectivist bullcrap that leads to thousands of ever-changing definitions of "wrong" and "right" that fit the particular thoughts of any particular Justice at any particular time.

Of course, this works both ways, and these days I find myself equally disappointed with the conservative and liberal factions of the Court, who are too busy fighting policy battles as if they were Congressmen to remember that they're actually Judges and that their personal opinion on a particular subject isn't worth shit.

Anyway, my point is this: Obama (and his liberal supporters) can respond to the bullshit advocated by the Tea Party and recent autocratic, horrifyingly partisan decisions made by the likes of George W. Bush by:
1) Joining them by implementing their exact methods against them, or
2) Standing above the fray and actually acting like the dignified statesmen and better politicians they claim to be.

The former may be politically expedient, but you won't beat the Republicans by joining them. You'll simply become the left-wing, progressive version of the Republicans, and leave moderates and independents throughout the country utterly disenchanting. And if you indulge in hyper-partisanship with a Democrat in office, don't you forfeit your right to complain about the effects of hyper-partisanship when a Republican takes the Democrat's place? To what extent are you now forgetting the very arguments you made prior to the 2008 elections?

The best possible solution isn't one brand of partisanship over the other, it's a system of governance where neither side is excessively partisan or unnecessarily divisive. We've been there before. (See: Democrats and Republicans in the 1970s, particularly post-Nixon, though even Nixon was surprisingly moderate compared to Reagan and Bush II. Nixon's bad rap stems from his arrogance and lust for power, but in power he was fairly centrist. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford would all probably be called Democrats today.)

[Kim]

Except I actually want the liberals to be partisan and whatnot so long as they actually get some reform done. The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats don't seem to have their heads quite as far up their asses. When the Republicans stop being violently opposed to socialized health care, stop being opposed to gay marriage, stop trying to continue Don't Ask Don't Tell, and just generally grow the fuck up, then maybe I'll consider bipartisanship a thing that should happen.

[Wigmund]

I love how sometimes I'm absolutely shocked to find that something I've said that I consider not remotely controversial is actually, well, apparently incredibly controversial.

What controversy? You're just saying that it would be for the best if Obama replaced judges with more moderate ones. Meanwhile everyone else here (myself included) think the President should grow a pair, go bounce them off the heads of the leading Republicans, and nominate more liberal justices so we don't have to worry about stupid shits like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

[Solid Snake]

When the Republicans stop being violently opposed to socialized health care, stop being opposed to gay marriage, stop trying to continue Don't Ask Don't Tell, and just generally grow the fuck up, then maybe I'll consider bipartisanship a thing that should happen.

You shouldn't generalize everyone who calls him or herself a "Republican" like that.

I mean I don't even consider myself a Republican anymore, I'm officially an Independent, but I know plenty of people (including friends and family members) who consider themselves Republican or conservative and who don't actively oppose gay marriage or hate minorities, and who actually have brains in their heads and treat their opponents with respect.

The Tea Party and the likes of Beck and Limbaugh have hijacked the movement, but that doesn't mean everyone's on board with their shenanigans.

Insofar as you might believe that every Republican or conservative is violently opposed to everything you hold dear, and given the attitude permeating through your argument, the ultimate irony may well be that you're every bit as much a part of the problem as the members of the Tea Party you're probably so upset with. They, like you, are driven by the irrational beliefs that all those who disagree with their positions on certain complex policy issues are violent, destructive, and immature malcontents brazenly attempting to force their extremist agenda.

The real world's a heck of a lot more complicated with that, with a great many shades of grey coloring the beliefs and actions of each individual. And the real question is whether you fall into the hyper-partisan trap of assuming that your opponents are all eeevviiilll, heartless enemies deserving only of being crushed on a metaphorical battlefield, or if you see them as fellow human beings -- flawed, yet genuinely decent people striving to improve the lives of their friends and family, possibly misled by leaders they've invested in but earnestly hoping for a better future -- and actually attempt to persuade them that your side is just without resorting to all the pointless divisive name-calling and mud-slinging.

What controversy? You're just saying that it would be for the best if Obama replaced judges with more moderate ones. Meanwhile everyone else here (myself included) think the President should grow a pair, go bounce them off the heads of the leading Republicans, and nominate more liberal justices so we don't have to worry about stupid shits like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

No, if that's the message you've gotten from my arguments I think you've misunderstood my point.
(Strange, however, that I seem capable of going from being perceived as "mainstream liberal" in one topic and back to "sinister conservative" in another.)

I'm arguing in favor of Obama's best interests. I'm arguing, in a roundabout way, for the progression of his ideals and policies. In the long-term, sometimes the most counterintuitive route is the necessary one to take to ensure that Obama and Democrats stay in power so the majority of their policy goals can be fulfilled. (This argument was coincidentally used against me in the recent environmentalism thread, but I generally draw a bright line between "Issues That Will Destroy Our Planet" and "Procedural Issues Regarding a Branch of Government that Will Not Destroy Our Planet."

I mean, I dunno, it's just bizarre to me that a perspective from someone at worst ambivalent towards (at best mildly favoring) Obama would be met with so much hostility. It's not as if I'm arguing Obama should appoint more moderate justices because I want Obama to fall into a sinister trap and I want the Federalist Society's originalist interpretations to win the day. My own personal "plain meaning" libertarian philosophy of the judiciary favors neither Obama's likely appointees nor the Scalia-Thomas neoconservative approach of enlarged Executive powers. But my own personal preferences have nothing to do with my objective feelings on this subject, as my argument against partisanship cuts against any ideological bent and I'd apply the same philosophy if I myself were President and responsible for appointing judicial nominees.

(But based on your strenuous and rather livid objections, you'd think I just wrote "OBAMA SUKS SOCIALISM MUS DYE TEA PARTEYS 4EVA." I'm not the enemy!)

[Kim]

You know what? Your friends and family who call themselves republicans/conservatives but aren't the way I'm generalizing the party don't matter. Why? Because they aren't the ones in charge of the party. Glenn Beck and all those assholes who are the way I generalize the party are the ones running the republican show. When your progressive republican friends and family are the ones whose opinion matters to the uppity ups, let me know.

The real world's a heck of a lot more complicated with that, with a great many shades of grey coloring the beliefs and actions of each individual. And the real question is whether you fall into the hyper-partisan trap of assuming that your opponents are all eeevviiilll, heartless enemies deserving only of being crushed on a metaphorical battlefield, or if you see them as fellow human beings -- flawed, yet genuinely decent people striving to improve the lives of their friends and family, possibly misled by leaders they've invested in but earnestly hoping for a better future -- and actually attempt to persuade them that your side is just without resorting to all the pointless divisive name-calling and mud-slinging.

Glenn Beck and everyone who fellates his opinion deserves every demeaning, rude, and dismissive insult I can think up, and probably plenty that haven't even occured to me.

[POS Industries]

Well, the nominee can still be moderate. That's fine, and if Obama was able to find someone who didn't particularly give a flying fuck about political wedge issues and was purely interested in coming in and working with everyone on the Court in order for them to all do their jobs proper, I'd be perfectly okay with that.

What I do not want is for him to specifically nominate a conservative--even a moderate one--just for the sake of trying to make himself look better in the eyes of the rest of the conservatives, because that's not going to make anything better. Fox News will still call it a socialist plot and the Teabaggers will eat it up and continue hating him.

Meanwhile, the whole thing would pretty much be political suicide for most of the Democratic Party, as they either disenfranchise their base by going along with Obama's conservative pick or they further tear themselves apart with infighting and publicly waste everyone's time by fighting it. In both cases, they basically hand the Republicans control over both legislative and executive branches, as they've divided their voter base against itself and against them while the Republicans continue with their unified supporters.

So they either risk voter backlash by getting stuff accomplished or guarantee it by just rolling over and giving the Republicans what they want. But hey, with the latter at least they won over that handful of swing voters, amirite?

[Solid Snake]

Glenn Beck and everyone who fellates his opinion deserves every demeaning, rude, and dismissive insult I can think up, and probably plenty that haven't even occured to me.

Glenn Beck himself? Heck yes. Absolutely. I completely agree with you. All his beliefs are in the public forum, and he's an easy and meritorious target for your vitriol.

But: All of his followers? Everyone who believes in him? That's where you lose me. Because generalizing everyone who agrees with Glenn Beck is...well...generalizing an awful lot people.

Example: My grandparents watch Glenn Beck. They love him. They also have relatives who are gay (and married), and they aren't terribly interested in opposing their rights to a happy marriage. They also have grandchildren who've aborted, and they remain blissfully ignorant regarding those "sins." Though I doubt they have a strong opinion about abortion, or about gays in the military. Ethnic minorities are a somewhat tougher issue, because they grew up in a different time. But much to my surprise, they were accepting of my cousin when she chose to marry a Turkish man and equally accepting of another cousin of mine who is in a relationship (and has had a child) with a Hispanic man.

It'd be easy to implement your criterion and say my grandparents are "bad people." Without even meeting them. Without even tasting my grandmother's delicious baked cookies or enjoying their wondrous hospitality. Truth of the matter is, my grandparents are jaded, and Glenn Beck speaks to the fact that they feel isolated and unrepresented by the political process. Problem really is, Glenn Beck doesn't fully represent their own political beliefs. They just don't think about the political ramifications of many of Beck's positions. They enjoy the entertainment, and the sense that someone shares in their general rage against the government that taxes them and seems to forget they exist. Beyond that, they really don't care about many of the issues Glenn turns into apocalyptic disaster scenarios. They agree with Glenn almost after the fact, after he's persuaded them with his rants and raves and they've heard no voice of opposition.

I'm sure a Democrat who met with them could convince them that Glenn Beck's positions were wrong, in large part because (unlike me, perhaps unlike you) my grandparents aren't expressly political people and they don't think constantly about their lives in terms of political developments. It's very much on the backburner. Their families, their health, their livelihoods have all come first. For the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority who watch and "support" Beck or Limbaugh, this is the truth. They were born and raised conservative, but never were expressly involved in the political scene long enough to think about their beliefs. They had other areas of concern, other goals to pursue, and analyzing the consequences of a particular policy initiative wasn't among their strengths. Some people are great at government, as some are great at math and some are great at writing -- and some people just aren't built to consider socio-political issues in depth. I'd consider my grandparents wonderful people, with many strengths that have helped them build wonderful relationships with friends and family over the years, but they're not particularly savvy or gifted political thinkers.

And there are many more out there like them.

Just because the most vocal advocates of Glenn Beck are the zany Tea Partiers protesting with their giant signs around Washington D.C. and making ludicrous statements, doesn't mean you should associate everyone with the most extreme crazies of the bunch. That's just stereotyping -- the same stereotyping we decry when applied to minorities (even when it could be argued that those stereotypes have a degree of accuracy to them, we still decry them as they're far from universal constants. A disproportionate percentage of African Americans may live in the city and like rap music, but we can't generalize and apply that to every African American, just as we can't say every African American is a liberal Democrat.)

I'm just sayin', it's funny how you're actually a part of the problem you're decrying. By perpetuating the notion of Us against Them, pure good against pure evil in their starkest terms, and by colorizing all those who listen to a certain person or act a certain way as evil and unredeemable, you're only serving to heighten the civil discordance that threatens to topple over this nation. You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.

[Archbio]

You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.

That's assuming that "The Problem" is this divide, that there's no underlying problem with regressive politics.

Edit: Just generally, the idea that people should assume that the people who support and vote for politicians and pundits who run on platform of depriving people of their rights just don't really share these opinions isn't just asking really too much charity; it's not actually relevant. Results speak for themselves.

[POS Industries]

Well, Snake, it's great that your grandparents are nice people, and I'm sure that if the large share of Republicans were like them that America would probably be a much better place where we all got along great when it came to political discourse. But the sad truth is that they're not, and every attempt you make to liken complaints about the obstructionist partisanship and outright petty and childish behavior currently being displayed by the Republican Party in general to insults directed squarely at poor, innocent Grammy and Grampy Snake aren't really doing anything to prove your point.

[Kim]

Glenn Beck himself? Heck yes. Absolutely. I completely agree with you. All his beliefs are in the public forum, and he's an easy and meritorious target for your vitriol.

But: All of his followers? Everyone who believes in him? That's where you lose me. Because generalizing everyone who agrees with Glenn Beck is...well...generalizing an awful lot people.

Do you want to personalize it? Do you really want to play that game? Everyone who agrees with Glenn Beck, by necessity, falls into two categories. Terrible people and stupid people. Either they're stupid enough to believe the shit that Glenn Beck spews, or their terrible enough to actually agree with his views. If you want to personalize it and say that I'm saying your grandparents are terrible/stupid people, you go right ahead and do that. I'm not going to stop you. When I make this argument, I'm already know I'm saying that my parents, whom I love, are terrible/stupid people. If that doesn't change my opinion, your grandma's cookies certainly won't.

EDIT: I believe it was George Carlin who said everyone is stupid, but not everyone is stupid about everything or all the time. Please keep that in mind.

[POS Industries]

There. Now you may object to insults directed squarely at your grandparents and be well within your right to do so.

Christ...

[Wigmund]

It'd be easy to implement your criterion and say my grandparents are "bad people." Without even meeting them. Without even tasting my grandmother's delicious baked cookies or enjoying their wondrous hospitality. Truth of the matter is, my grandparents are jaded, and Glenn Beck speaks to the fact that they feel isolated and unrepresented by the political process. Problem really is, Glenn Beck doesn't fully represent their own political beliefs. They just don't think about the political ramifications of many of Beck's positions. They enjoy the entertainment, and the sense that someone shares in their general rage against the government that taxes them and seems to forget they exist. Beyond that, they really don't care about many of the issues Glenn turns into apocalyptic disaster scenarios. They agree with Glenn almost after the fact, after he's persuaded them with his rants and raves and they've heard no voice of opposition.

Most of the general rage I hear from Beck and his followers (sensible or not) is that they're terrified that the country is changing. It's no longer majority white, majority Christian. We've entered the beginning of a time where there's no true majority in this country. Some people can't handle it, others embrace it.

I'm just sayin', it's funny how you're actually a part of the problem you're decrying. By perpetuating the notion of Us against Them, pure good against pure evil in their starkest terms, and by colorizing all those who listen to a certain person or act a certain way as evil and unredeemable, you're only serving to heighten the civil discordance that threatens to topple over this nation. You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.

That's the joy of American politics, every once in awhile we hit a point where everything violently explodes and there's bloodshed and pillaging and all sorts of fun uncivil stuff going on.

[Solid Snake]

Well, Snake, it's great that your grandparents are nice people, and I'm sure that if the large share of Republicans were like them that America would probably be a much better place where we all got along great when it came to political discourse. But the sad truth is that they're not, and every attempt you make to liken complaints about the obstructionist partisanship and outright petty and childish behavior currently being displayed by the Republican Party in general to insults directed squarely at poor, innocent Grammy and Grampy Snake aren't really doing anything to prove your point.

But, don't you see?

(Or maybe I'm just doing a really poor job of making my case.)

The Republicans you rightfully despise are hoping you call their actions as obstructionist partisanship and decry their outright petty and childish behavior!

They benefit from your doing so!

The more you buy into the Us v. Them psychology, the more you buy into the notion that Republicans are all ubiquitously evil and irredeemable, the more you (and Democrats of all shapes and sizes) fall into the exact trap of performing the exact actions the Republicans in positions of power want you to take. They want you to segregate yourselves from anyone who's ever watched a Glenn Beck show or anyone who's ever attended a Tea Party rally, for any reason whatsoever. They want you to espouse the notion that all those individuals, with their disparate backgrounds and different socioeconomic situations, are all collectively the big bad boss that must be slain.

It empowers them. It only justifies their narrative. Their narrative, after all, relies on your hatred -- just as yours relies on theirs. To keep their supporters in line, the Republicans rely on paranoia...just as the Democrats do. They take the statements you and Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart and exasperated Democrats in the House and Senate say and hold them up and declare: "They hate you! They view you and everything and everyone you love as parasites to destroy! They want the government to succeed in forcing socialized Health Care upon us, on making us pay for their privileges! They want us to lose every war we fight, sacrifice human lives to protect animals, destroy cherished American values of family and freedom! They want to enslave us in a despotism, and these hateful comments prove just how much they despise you!"

And you're buying into the same exact logic, only reversed! Olbermann and Stewart and liberal interest groups pull you aside and declare: "They hate us! They view us and everyone we love as parasites to destroy! They want to restrict the rights of minorities and prevent gays from marrying! They want to limit a woman's rights to choose! Why? Because they're monsters, every last one! They're inconsiderate subhuman degenerates, rednecks from a past era, who want to enslave us in a despotism, and have us fight these senseless wars in far-off lands. You must despise them! They are savages!"

And in the end, what do both sides really gain?
...Your support. Preferably in the form of your money, towards the interest groups and lobbyists that fund the hyper-partisan machine.

Both sides play off fears of their respective opponents so that Washington's K Street can revel in excess. The entire system is built on a mutual adoration for hyper-partisanship. Democratic interest groups love Glenn Beck and Limbaugh and the Tea Party. Without them, they'd make no money! Likewise, Republican interest groups feed off the generalized animosity from liberals. Olbermann's next broad statement comparing all Republicans to rapists becomes a rallying cry for the Tea Party movement!

That's my point. Yeah, Republicans right now are almost certainly acting more childish than Democrats. But by giving into your hatred and joining them in the mud-slinging cesspool, you're deepening the divide...and you're strengthening the very people you oppose. The more partisan this society becomes, the more power will belong to the few on each extreme. I'd rather we find a way to return to an America that truly represented the will of the people, all of the people, the ~50% who call themselves Democratic and the ~50% who call themselves Republican. (Although it's more like ~33% each, with an additional ~33% independent or apolitical.)

To clarify: I entirely support hatin' on politicians and public figures in the media. You want to bash Limbaugh, Beck, or the current Republican senator from North Dakota or something, be my guest. They're public figures, after all. But here's the thing: you have an incredible opportunity with private citizens who appear to disagree with you. Instead of buying into the stereotypes perpetuated by conservatives and liberals to keep the hyper-partisan machine going, a truly smart liberal (or conservative, I suppose) politician will realize that the vast majority of these people are amenable to being convinced that a better political option exists. Your beloved progressivism can focus on maintaining the status quo or it could attempt to win converts to the cause, and drive its opposition to extinction through acts of generosity (as opposed to malignancy.)


But this has gone incredibly off-topic, hasn't it? I apologize.

EDIT: NonCon: To an extent, I actually agree with you. I would classify my grandparents as "politically stupid," in a sense. They're certainly not politically gifted. But politics, like any other skill or area of knowledge, has its gifted minds and its lousy ones. My grandfather probably has terrible political theories, but as an engineer he also could construct just about anything far better than I ever could (or will.) This world needs all types to function, and just because I'm a fairly gifted political / legal mind due to my interests and backgrounds (at least compared to most others out there) doesn't mean I have the right to an aura of condescension that I can impose among those who don't get politics like I do.

Unfortunately, the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world exploit a lot of people who aren't intelligent when it comes to analyzing political issues. Doesn't mean the right Democrat couldn't convince them otherwise. Doesn't mean they'd necessarily remain uninformed. But it doesn't mean they're awful people, either. Everything is shades of grey, after all. And buried deep within my Grandparents' irrational support for Glenn Beck are actually a few decent concerns about the growing size and scope of government that I think (mis)inform their political decisions. Most Glenn Beck supporters among the 'commoners' actually probably have decent reasons to be upset with the political process, but then Beck comes around and uses those few legitimate issues, combines them with their more irrational fears, overdramatizes everything into life-or-death apocalyptic crises, demonizes imaginary enemies, and makes a stew of reactionary, yet somewhat entertaining (in the eyes of his followers) hell-brewin'.

[Mirai Gen]

Man I'm not going to touch on Beck's supporters or nothing but let me just say...
I'm just sayin', it's funny how you're actually a part of the problem you're decrying. By perpetuating the notion of Us against Them, pure good against pure evil in their starkest terms, and by colorizing all those who listen to a certain person or act a certain way as evil and unredeemable, you're only serving to heighten the civil discordance that threatens to topple over this nation. You're arguably every bit as much a part of the problem as the Tea Partiers are, only you're on the opposite side of the divide.
It really wasn't an Us Vs. Them up until the Republican party turned it into one. As it's been said, trying to make peace flat out will not work because then FOX News will use it as more fuel to the fire and it will keep spiraling out of control.
The more you buy into the Us v. Them psychology, the more you buy into the notion that Republicans are all ubiquitously evil and irredeemable, the more you (and Democrats of all shapes and sizes) fall into the exact trap of performing the exact actions the Republicans in positions of power want you to take.
Snake, you yourself even have left the Republican party. You aren't the only one. Thousands have fled that sinking ship.

I'm not going to say that all Republicans are evil but it's worth noting that the only ones with any power pretty much fit the bill perfectly, so maybe it's time to get out while you still can?

[Kim]

Fuck the divide. Making nice at the expense of progress is bullshit, and since Conservative philosphy according to the only Conservatives with the power to matter is about actively opposing change, bipartisanship can die in a goddamn ditch.

EDIT: I was probably out of line with the whole "You're saying mean things about my grandma!" "Okay. Sounds good to me." bit, and I apologize, but you know what Snake? The personalizing thing was a complete and utter bullshit move. It's a shitty attempt at trying to manipulate people into feeling guilty and backing out of what they said, and I'm not in the mood to play that game.

Your whole argument boils down to "Anything mean you say about the Republican party is invalid because of these people I know who aren't the way you say!" and that's not how it works. A party is nothing more than the people in charge, when all is said and done, like it or not, Glenn Beck and the people who are everything bad I say about the Republican party are in charge. That's who the political party is and those are the beliefs that the Republican party currently supports. Unless I've heard wrong, not one Republican voted in favor of the health care bill, and I cannot respect a party that walks the party line so blindly. You want to bring the people you know into this? Don't. They aren't the people who matter. The Republican party actively opposes everything I am in favor of and doesn't seem to question any of it. I don't think any party like that is worth working with or trying to compromise with, and the President should not be pandering to the people who support such a party, regardless of reason.

[Solid Snake]

Your whole argument boils down to "Anything mean you say about the Republican party is invalid because of these people I know who aren't the way you say!" and that's not how it works.

You know what, you're...just completely not even reading what I'm writing.

I mean, because if you think the point I'm trying to make is that criticism of the Republican party is invalid, then yeah, you've missed my point by a fairly wide margin. Whether that's my fault (for advocating bad arguments to attempt to make the points) or yours is up for debate, that I'll readily concede, but it doesn't change the fact that you're trying to transform my argument into something it's not.

First: I wish I hadn't used the grandparents analogy because it's thrown you off-track under an assumption that I was using it to personalize the narrative. That wasn't the intent. Frankly, if I knew of any John Q. Friend or Jane Q. Acquaintance who fit the bill better than my grandparents, I would've used them. My intent was simply to reference the existence of regular, common people who watched Glenn Beck and weren't as outrageously extremist as you've labeled them. I used my grandparents because they're the ones I actually know. I can't use another, less personalized example without delving into fiction. (Though I'm sure many such examples exist.)

But strangely enough, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was offended by your decision to label my grandparents as stupid -- far from it! If I was trying to personalize the argument in an attempt to diffuse any counterargument you could make, your point regarding illicit motives would be accurate, but that wasn't my intent at all, and nothing better expresses that fact than...well, just read my edit above: I wasn't offended by your comments about my grandparents. I practically agreed with you, there! I'm not sure how more obvious I could have been in establishing that I wasn't trying to use my grandparents as a convenient shield.

As for your characterization of my arguments: The first thing you miss is that it applies only to individual citizens who perceive themselves as falling into those party lines for a wide variety of disparate reasons. That argument isn't the same as defending the Republican party or its leadership figures. Furthermore, my argument works both ways, a fact you conveniently omit in an attempt to paint me as an illogical defender of the Republican party. I have no interest, in fact, in defending the Republican party's often untenable official positions. I've abandoned my ex-political party a few years ago, and I don't intend to return to the fold. A characterization that "everything (you) say about the Republican party is invalid!" misses the point. For one, I'm saying the same exact thing about the Democratic party, and I'm chastising Republican critics and talking heads for the exact same grotesque errors. In that sense, I'm defending...both political parties? Except not really, because I'm not defending the leadership figures that de facto constitute said parties.

My point is simple: that the sinister objectives of fringe groups and ideological lobbyists on both political extremes benefit immensely from heightening a political divide by demonizing everyone and anyone who happens to find themselves on the opposite side of the fence. I've been fairly clear about the fact that the Republicans have done this more (and have mastered the trade far better) than Democrats. If anything, my argument thus puts a preponderance of the blame on Republicans. But merely ascribing a preponderance of the blame to them does not mask the fact that a great deal of Democrats, including some of you, have fallen into virtually identical traps in your arguments.

...You know, maybe I should just give up. It's late, and I've really run out of anything new or intelligent to add. At this point I could just keep repeating myself, but that would be more annoying than insightful.

[Kim]

And my argument is that working with the Republican party as it exists now is bad for the country and is a thing we really should not do. Bipartisanship will have no benefits in the long run because the Republicans will twist anything the Democrats say or do, even if it was originally a Republican idea, against them. This is a thing they have actually been doing. You can't work with a party like that, yet you keep arguing in favor of this love and peace teamwork yeah philosophy that just doesn't work, because at this point the only thing the Republican party is is the party that hates the Democrats. Trying to work with a party like that only holds the country back, and no matter how much you seem to think that if Obama just tries one more time to do the right thing (right by your standards, at least) then suddenly the political parties will be able to work together to achieve peace and harmony, when it is very and absolutely clear that the Republican party wants anything but that. Obama should put a liberal judge in because honestly the more that can be done to cockblock the Republicans the better. The Republican party should have as absolutely little power as possible because they aren't remotely interested in using that power to do the right thing, even according to their beliefs.

[POS Industries]

The Republicans you rightfully despise are hoping you call their actions as obstructionist partisanship and decry their outright petty and childish behavior!

They benefit from your doing so!
But they benefit even more from our not doing so!

And I don't think you understand me here. I don't hate them. I am just really really pissed off at them, and exasperated at them as I would a child throwing a temper tantrum, because that's what they're acting like right now. And you know what? When you've got a kid that's kicking and screaming and crying because he doesn't want to go to school but, of course, he has to fucking go to school, you have to show him whose boss or he's just going to keep doing it.

What Obama has currently been doing is giving the screaming brat candy and video games and then asking nicely if the Republicans would like to go to school now and getting, "NO!! I DON'T WANNA GO TO SCHOOL! AND I DON'T LIKE THESE GAMES AND CANDY ANYMORE! I WANT THAT CANDY!" and Obama just sorta sighs and goes out to the store with the candy the Republicans are now demanding and will invariably throw on the floor upon receipt.

There's more to being the bigger person than patience and compromise. Sometimes you really do have to be the grownup and spank your stupid kid so he'll stop being so stupid.

[CABAL49]

This popped up while I was reading. Thought it was relevant.
7202

Snake. I really do like your outlook on this issue, but Noncon is right on a lot of the issues here. One of the biggest problems right now, is that there are not any Republican/Conservative leaders who are actually trying to reach out to the Democratic Party. Democrats who want bipartisanship are being snuffed out because of others who say, "well we tried, they don't want to play with us." In many respects, that is not wrong. We have Republican representatives and senators talking about how Democrats are going to kill our grandmothers in their sleep. Then we had then a few Democrats started doing it.

I also have to disagree with you on your idea on who Obama should appoint to the Supreme Court. The Democratic party support is wanning now, and seeing Obama appointing a conservative would not help that. But I do agree that a straight up left-winger would not help his situation. I think the better compromise would be a slightly left moderate. It would consolidate power with progressives and show moderates that the Democrats care about them. Obama could then talk nice about Roberts and Alito, leaving the door open for conservatives.

[Solid Snake]

I also have to disagree with you on your idea on who Obama should appoint to the Supreme Court. The Democratic party support is wanning now, and seeing Obama appointing a conservative would not help that. But I do agree that a straight up left-winger would not help his situation. I think the better compromise would be a slightly left moderate. It would consolidate power with progressives and show moderates that the Democrats care about them. Obama could then talk nice about Roberts and Alito, leaving the door open for conservatives.

Well, if you're talking about who should replace Stevens, the answer actually is a committed left-wing progressive. Anything less would shift the balance of power in entirely the wrong direction.

For replacing the likes of Scalia and Thomas...that's where it gets more difficult for me (and more difficult for Obama.) As I said long before the Supreme Court conservation got derailed into a discussion about the American electorate, it's a lose-lose proposition for him, at least until after 2012. He probably ultimately finds a moderate replacement (I wouldn't want another Scalia to replace Scalia. Thomas is another matter; I'm just crazy libertarian enough to enjoy several of his opinions, but my personal preferences don't effect the objective view that Obama would be best off replacing him with someone less on the fringe.)

Finally, I'll try clarifying this one last time: When I'm speaking about Democrats and/or Obama "reaching out to" or "being patient with" conservatives and/or Republicans, I'm speaking about the everyday citizens who happen to perceive themselves as conservatives or Republicans. I do not expect, nor do I want, Obama to show the same level of "respect" or "courtesy" (or whatever you want to call it) for Republican politicians and members of the Fox News media (the Palins, Hannitys and Becks of the world.) They deserve nothing less than unequivocal condemnation (even moreso from intelligent conservatives than liberals, but that's another point entirely.)

I'll try to make my point in one more unique way one last time before hanging up my cleats: The difference is that I think most everyday people who presently associate themselves with the Republican or conservative parties are not actually batshit crazy like the people in the media and Congress that they follow. Those people in power are feeding them canned lines, and they're being deceived. It's not always as simple as labeling the deception a matter of blind stupidity, sinister intolerance or ignorance; the majority simply aren't "politics-smart," but that doesn't translate into their worth as human beings.

So when people try to generalize or stereotype the entire Tea Party movement into a bunch of Neanderthals, I become slightly concerned. Their policy positions are barbaric, to be sure. But that's precisely the thing: their policy positions are so barbaric that if most Tea Partiers truly understood the ramifications of the arguments made by their "superiors," they'd run the hell away.

I strongly believe that most human beings are not, in fact, genuinely evil people. So when I see the Tea Party do it what does, my response is that a number of varying factors have come into play that go well beyond sinister intentions of the masses.

It's partially political ignorance. A lot of supporters of the Republican party presently are 'common folk' who haven't gotten the educations most of us have enjoyed. They're plenty skilled and intelligent in other facets of life, but they're likely to be manipulated by savvy politicians with clever talking points that mask the true intentions of their platforms.

It's also a number of other factors. Some associate themselves with Republicans out of loyalty instilled through their parents and close friends when they were young; that factor explains my own political convictions way back in '04 and '05, when you all hated my stinkin' guts. That's not stupidity or pure unadulterated evil talking, it's just a strong sense of (in a twisted sense, almost admirable) loyalty applied for all the wrong reasons. Many individuals vote Republican simply because their parents or others around them did, and they lack the curiosity or insight into politics to make independent determinations. We're all intelligent in some facets of life and mediocre or worse than others. (Don't expect me to make adequate nutritional or exercise-related decisions, or to understand the complexities of biochemistry or physics.)

Additionally, there's the appeal of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as sheer entertainment figures. Yes, their approach is lost on us, but not on many, apparently. Just look at how Fox News is creaming the competition. Some of it does have to do with individuals genuinely believing terrible things, but much of it is simply that Fox News dumbs down news into a flashy, extravagant, notoriously generalized series of formulas that's easy and intuitive to understand (Us v. Them! Look at all the pretty graphics! Hot blondes reporting the news!) Fox News is popular for its entertainment value as much as anything else.

Hell, I even have a Facebook friend who's attended Tea Party rallies and gotten involved because a girl he has a crush on apparently is a huge libertarian. I thought that was hysterical. (Sad, too. Also hysterical.)

You can weaken the Republican party tremendously by simply reaching out to those everyday people who have been deceived. Don't forget they're real people, struggling with real everyday problems, and don't forget that most (though admittingly, not all) of them are not barbaric monsters hellbent on watching people suffer. People just aren't like that. We can say they're wrong. But you're hurting the efficacy of the Democratic Party's ability to win converts that will establish their future dominance for generations to come by antagonizing them needlessly. Antagonize their leaders, and rightfully so, for misleading them onto a path to oblivion.

I may no longer be a Republican, but I'm naive enough to believe that most current Republicans are just like I was five years ago. And if that's the case, they can be saved. Maybe not brought into full-blown Democrats. Many of them, like me, might be drawn to new interpretations of libertarianism or even simply a more respectful, less jingoistic or socially suppressive version of conservatism (like Republicans in the 1970s.) Maybe a new political party will be born.

But we can at least restore some degree of dignity to this country. We won't if the Democrats respond to the inflammatory comments of Republican leaders by falling into their trap and dehumanizing the masses in the Tea Party. That just strengthens the horde. And it ultimately leaves the Dems looking nearly as bad as the Reps they're holding themselves out to be better than.

[MFD]

This whole argument is really weird. I thought that, for the most part, justices just wait until someone ideologically similar is in the Oval, and then they retire. As in, they don't actually trust the President to not pack the Court with justices he agrees with.

And of course Obama is going to appoint someone whose beliefs are close to his own to the court. It's not the Stevens seat, it's a freaking Supreme Court nominee. Obama will appoint whoever the hell he wants. It's why we have the Senate to confirm (which is going to be a circus in and of itself, but that's another story).

Hee, remember Harriet Miers?

[POS Industries]

Finally, I'll try clarifying this one last time: When I'm speaking about Democrats and/or Obama "reaching out to" or "being patient with" conservatives and/or Republicans, I'm speaking about the everyday citizens who happen to perceive themselves as conservatives or Republicans.
Then those people need to step up and get their party back on track, or at least prove they exist to the public at large, because as it stands all they're doing is supporting the loud crazies because they still share more the same opinion on more issues with the Republican leaders than they do the Democrats. It's up to the Republicans to fix the GOP, not the Democrats.

[Kepor]

Just for the record, I pretty much agree with Snake here.

For potential nominees, I'm kinda leaning towards Diane Wood.

[Kim]

Snake, very few of the conservatives/republicans/tea party people are even remotely interested in hearing what the other side has to say. Nobody wants to hear that what they think is wrong, no matter how nicely it is dressed up. It is far easier, and far better, for the democratic party to do everything it can to take the country in the direction it thinks is right. That way they'll be able to bring some actual change to a country in dire need of it, rather than tearing themselves apart trying to make nice with people who would rather do anything than admit that their core beliefs are wrong or flawed. For however many swing voters the democratic party won the favor of by playing nice, they'd lose at least twice as many by not doing what they're supposed to be. You may think that bipartisanship and teamwork is feasible in the near future, but I disagree because I don't think people are that good, and I think any idea that functions on the assumption that they are is doomed to fail.