Comment by notmypenguin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by notmypenguin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The MAGAS have taken over the GOP. Rank and file GOP now openly espouse Qanon precepts. It’s standard fare to speak of gutting support for Ukraine and of support for Putin. We witnessed a physical coup attempt Jan 6th, rallied by Mr Trump and yet his GQP colleagues are literally running interference for Trump, attempting to stymie any attempts at accountability.

Barring some extremists who call FDR “radical”, I cannot see the case for “both sides ism” It’s apparent to me that ONE party has chosen attempting to gain ABSOLUTE POWER in lieu of helping the nation or staying true to the constitution.

The stacked Supreme Court is a point in case: McConnell blocked Obamas single appointee that he had a right to appoint and this was a violation of the constitution.(no mention of election calendar in appointments)

Trump then railroaded through Congress an unprecedented 3 justices! Unheard of. Absolute power grab. No surprise that they overturned Roe v Wade.

I see América on the precipice and the GQP trying to push it over the edge.

If Trump gets in in 2024, we won’t see presidential elections again. He admires banana republic dictators and hates due process

I mostly agree. Especially with the alarm you are expressing.

I don’t like to be one sided, and certainly have heard people on the left falling for the idea that due process isn’t necessary to make important enough changes (in there opinion), I.e. supporting extreme judicial activism, institutional capture by ideologues, etc.

But elements of the Republican Party are preparing to wash away formal and legal limits and bipartisan/non-partisan fire walls to unfettered power for their faction, in an organized way, if they get Trump elected. [0]

A lot has been learned about the vulnerabilities of our voting and executive branch systems.

Those efforts are unlikely to evaporate post-Trump.

It is a rather scary time.

Scary enough for a recent Republican presidential candidate to express great worry about his own party.

That’s a colossal red flag.

And I see the far left’s less extreme loss of respect for the constitution as counter productively providing right extremists with soft targets for their own otherwise manufactured “alarm”.

[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/conservatives-aim-...

Not speaking to the broader questions, and I certainly have problems with Trump and the current court, but calling 3 appointments unprecedented is just wildly off base. The record is held by Washington on a technicality, but 4 or more successful SCOTUS appointments isn't uncommon in our history - the most recent was Reagan.

3 appointments in one term is unprecedented.

Especially because of the dubious nature of the first one. The vacancy lasted over a year, because the opposition party refused to vote. This is an enormous shift in power, for purely partisan reasons.

It was not illegal, but it's a complete breakdown of any sense of civil order. It's "fair" in the sense that two can play at that game, but that would lead to a complete logjam of the system.

Had it not been for that, he'd have nominated two members of the Court in a single term. That would be more than most, but not nearly the push of a permanent partisan majority with explicit intent of marginalizing the opposition.

> 3 appointments in one term is unprecedented.

This is simply false. For instance, Hoover successfully appointed 3 justices and only served a single term. Taft appointed 6! Harding appointed 4 despite only living 2 years of his term.

"Unprecedented in recent times" is weaselly but accurate. "Unprecedented" gives those who don't know better an inaccurate picture of the past and makes those who do know better wonder what else you're confidently wrong about.

None of that is to say I don't object to the shenanigans - I do.

That is not the gotcha you think it is…

It doesn't undermine the argument but I wasn't speaking to the argument. It's just not the case that more than 2 appointments per term is all that unusual. Calling it unprecedented deserves pushback.

Sure, unprecedented is too strong. In the last 12 presidencies, all of them have appointed 2 or fewer justices except for Nixon and Reagan at 4, and Trump at 3. It’s precedented for Republican presidents to appoint an extraordinary amount of justices…

FDR was 9 over his 3 terms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com