Political Cartoons, Memes & Amusing Videos

[Kulindahr]

 

[cityboy-stl]

View attachment 2445617

Absolutely. Democracy is not just voting for who you want. Democracy is also the rule of law. It's the fundamental principle that no one is above the law. And that those who do not abide by the rule of law are held accountable to the law. Yes, we need to start acting like it, and soon. Because if we don't, the rule of law is nullified and our country is over.

 

[Kulindahr]

 

[rareboy]

As long as there's unlimited money in politics, an auction is exactly what the US has. It has degraded the integrity of the legislative branches at the state and federal level to the point where it is almost unrecognizable...what used to be shocking and a scandal is now the standard operating procedure.

 

[Kulindahr]

As long as there's unlimited money in politics, an auction is exactly what the US has. It has degraded the integrity of the legislative branches at the state and federal level to the point where it is almost unrecognizable...what used to be shocking and a scandal is now the standard operating procedure.

We need a "human rights" amendment that specifies that only living, breathing human citizens and legal residents have political rights. That would shut out corporations, unions, churches, lodges, foundations, etc. The only organizations that could get involved in politics would be those formed by individual citizens and/or legal residents specifically for the purpose of acting together in politics -- and they would only be allowed to get money from individual citizens or legal residents.

That wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would cut the corrupt money in politics by a large factor.

As part of that amendment, only money from inside a state would be allowed in state elections.

 

[rareboy]

Good luck.

There isn't a politician alive in the US today that would want this.

It isn't that the people are corrupted...the entire system is now irrevocably corrupted. All of them have tasted that sweet free cash.

 

[Kulindahr]

Good luck.

There isn't a politician alive in the US today that would want this.

It isn't that the people are corrupted...the entire system is now irrevocably corrupted. All of them have tasted that sweet free cash.

Senator Ron Wyden agreed with me that this would be the best way to go but said it wouldn't even get out of committee in today's Congress.

 

[KaraBulut]

Good luck.

There isn't a politician alive in the US today that would want this.

It isn't that the people are corrupted...the entire system is now irrevocably corrupted. All of them have tasted that sweet free cash.

In the US Congress, a significant amount of their time is spent playing "dialing for dollars" and eating rubber chicken at fundraiser dinners. They would love to get out of the fundraising business.

But the leadership in Congress and at the party level is addicted to money. They truly believe that more money equals winning. The donors have no interest in democracy when they can buy their way into getting what they want.

Probably the only things that can be accomplished is a change in SCOTUS to undo the Citizens United damage and reform of the tax code to require full disclosure and elimination of the tax loopholes that enable it all.

 

[rareboy]

And Biden did nothing to force change to the stolen court.

The SC won't be the way to fix this. It is lost as a tool of healthy democracy for at least the next 10 to 20 years.

 

[TX-Beau]

And Biden did nothing to force change to the stolen court.

The SC won't be the way to fix this. It is lost as a tool of healthy democracy for at least the next 10 to 20 years.

There is nothing Biden can do. Any "reform" comes from Congress, and all of it will die in the House.

 

[rareboy]

Biden could have expanded the court.

Even though we all know the reasons he won't. And they are all sound.

All I can say is that the only way to have addressed Citizens United is gone in the US.

And I am so thankful that Canada has no such thing.

 

[KaraBulut]

Biden could have expanded the court...

One of the best things that he could have done is to have put the justices on rotating term limits so that every president has a fair shot at nominating a replacement. The fact that Trump appointed 3 justices should have never happened.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Biden could have expanded the court.

Even though we all know the reasons he won't. And they are all sound.

All I can say is that the only way to have addressed Citizens United is gone in the US.

And I am so thankful that Canada has no such thing.

Biden could have advocated for and supported expanding the court, but Biden cannot just "do it" by executive order. It takes legislation to expand the Supreme Court.

It also takes legislation to impose term limits on the Supreme Court. The President cannot "just do that" either.

 

[TX-Beau]

Biden could have expanded the court.

Even though we all know the reasons he won't. And they are all sound.

All I can say is that the only way to have addressed Citizens United is gone in the US.

And I am so thankful that Canada has no such thing.

All Biden can do is encourage. He doesn't even have the authority to introduce legislation. Any and all reform will die in the House; everyone knows this. Even when the Democrats controlled the House, the usual suspects would have tanked Judicial reform—not the Trog usual suspects either. This was a dead issue from day one.

The only way to do any of this is a substantial majority in the House, a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president. Even then you'd probably have enough defectors to stop it.

To get there, it will take years of building public sentiment and millions of dollars over several elections—if we have that opportunity.

 

[KaraBulut]

Biden could have advocated for and supported expanding the court, but Biden cannot just "do it" by executive order. It takes legislation to expand the Supreme Court.

It also takes legislation to impose term limits on the Supreme Court. The President cannot "just do that" either.

When the Republicans rushed through all of the Trump justices, they also discussed trying to pass an Amendment to fix the size of the court at 9 justices. That's a hint that they knew that the Democrats had the ability to change the makeup of the Court if Trump lost the election. Court-packing has value as a threat; it could be used to get other reforms passed.

There is already legislation on the books that would allow for the "retirement" of SCOTUS justices. Justices aren't required to be voting members of the Court or hear cases to receive a salary. All it would take is some clarifying legislation to "promote" justices after an 18 year term, at which time they would no longer hear cases and would take on other duties, which would allow the sitting President to bring on a new justice to sit on the bench.

 

[cityboy-stl]

When the Republicans rushed through all of the Trump justices, they also discussed trying to pass an Amendment to fix the size of the court at 9 justices. That's a hint that they knew that the Democrats had the ability to change the makeup of the Court if Trump lost the election. Court-packing has value as a threat; it could be used to get other reforms passed.

There is already legislation on the books that would allow for the "retirement" of SCOTUS justices. Justices aren't required to be voting members of the Court or hear cases to receive a salary. All it would take is some clarifying legislation to "promote" justices after an 18 year term, at which time they would no longer hear cases and would take on other duties, which would allow the sitting President to bring on a new justice to sit on the bench.

Nevertheless, Biden cannot just change the size of the court or mandate retirement by executive order....like people are saying Biden could do.

 

[KaraBulut]

Nevertheless, Biden cannot just change the size of the court or mandate retirement by executive order....like people are saying Biden could do.

That is true. But the difference is that Biden plays by the old rules. If a Republican were in office, he would do it and let it take years for the Courts to argue about it while it were in effect.

 

[rareboy]

 

[Kulindahr]

a change in SCOTUS to undo the Citizens United damage

Citizens United was decided correctly; if it had gone the other way it would have handed Congress the authority to silence anyone they wished. What needs to be changed in SCOTUS terms goes back to Buckley v. Valeo (1976) where money was equated with speech, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) where the court ruled that corporations have free speech rights. The biggest damage the ruling did was to throw out all restrictions on spending by "other parties" in elections, i.e. anyone not part of the actual campaign or the party.

Ironically, the combination of Buckley and First National Bank effectively granted the richest 0.25% in the country the ability to use other people's money for their speech: That portion of the population controls all major corporations, which means they are the ones who decide to use corporate funds for politics -- but they don't 100% own those corporations, which means the super-wealthy are using money that belongs to all the stockholders without having to consult the stockholders. We have have a phenomenon of stolen speech: if money is speech, and the super-wealthy can use money that belongs to huge numbers of people for their own purposes, then the super-wealthy have used those people's speech without permission.

 

[Kulindahr]

They would love to get out of the fundraising business.

That would be the best argument for public funding I've ever encountered.

In a rational situation the fact that the elected folks have to spend so much of their time not representing those who elected them would fail the "appearance of corruption" standard that SCOTUS used to apply, the argument being that not only corruption but the mere appearance of corruption constitutes a compelling state interest.