• notabot@lemm.eeEnglish
    12·
    4 kuukautta sitten

    You’re saying there were zero suitable Supreme Court candidates available between Kagan and Jackson?

    I should probably have worded that slightly differently, what I meant was ‘she was being obstinate for precisely the reason you outline, she felt there was no suitable candidates to take over’. I doubt she was correct, but I can understand wanting to be sure that your replacement is up to snuff. That she didn’t consider her own mortality is, as you say, indefensible. Any reasonable replacement would have been better than what we got.

    But don’t they have any politicians in their ranks? You know, the kind that can talk to a fellow Democrat and get them to agree to an obviously good idea?

    I have noticed that parties that are to the left of the other parties in their system tend to be worse at acting as a coherent whole and are much more likely to hold differences of opinion and discuss them, sometime quite vigorously, in public, whereas the more right parties tend to fall into line behind their leader and act as a cohesive unit, right up to the point they metaphorically knife them in the back. I prefer the former approach, but it does tend to mean things don’t get done.

    Parties that show some political leadership and don’t have to be browbeaten by a bunch of people risking imprisonment and police beatings to do anything decent.

    I agree, the question is how to get there from here, rather than just wishing for a better situation to start from as so many do.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      4·
      4 kuukautta sitten

      she felt there was no suitable candidates to take over

      Yes, a ridiculous and indefensible position. Imagine the ego to think no one else in the country can do your job (where much of the legwork is done by your clerks, anyway). You really don’t have to hand it to her, even a little.

      I have noticed that parties that are to the left of the other parties

      I don’t see how this is responsive to the point that Democrats should have sat down with Ginsburg and tried to convince her to retire. There’s no excuse for them not only not doing that, but doing the exact opposite.

      the question is how to get there from here

      Sure, and the answer starts with coming to terms with the fact that the Democratic Party needs to be replaced, or at least changed so radically that it’s unrecognizable. It deserves no loyalty and gets no benefit of the doubt.

      Anything short of that approach winds up in the same “oh but they’re the lesser evil” excuse, which isn’t even true (genocide is not lesser evil), and just leads to the rightward rachet effect we’ve seen for the last ~50 years.

      • notabot@lemm.eeEnglish
        12·
        4 kuukautta sitten

        I don’t see how this is responsive to the point that Democrats should have sat down with Ginsburg and tried to convince her to retire. There’s no excuse for them not only not doing that, but doing the exact opposite.

        I think there were enough factions that it’s hard to say Democrats as a whole did anything. I’m pretty sure some did sit down and try to convince her to retire, but then I suspect others told her she was too special and should hold on, which speaks to your next point.

        Sure, and the answer starts with coming to terms with the fact that the Democratic Party needs to be replaced, or at least changed so radically that it’s unrecognizable.

        That sounds like a good goal. In your opinion, how do we go about achieving it without leaving the country to the mercy of the republicans in the mean time?

        genocide is not lesser evil

        Whilst I do understand your point, I would say that magnitude plays a part too. The fact we even have to consider that is appalling.