• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Between “Democrats say ‘Vote’” and “Democrats do nothing to fight back,” they didn’t vote in 2016.

    This Supreme Court is a result of that inaction.

    Congratulations on demonstrating how voter abstention hands the government to Republicans.

    Let’s not do that any more.

    • EchoCT@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      We had 8 good years before that and didn’t set up any protections.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        During the last year of that, Obama was denied the ability to nominate a Supreme Court Justice on an Election Year. Then, Trump got 2 nominees appointed to the SCOTUS, one of which was on an election year.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            As in the Republican Senate decided they weren’t going to vote on any nominations from Obama.

            • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              As in republicans could veto the nomination?

              Could dems veto the new justices?

              Sorry im not American and am trying to understand. I thought dems could have but chose not too due to integrity.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Ahh okay. When the President wants to nominate a new federal judge the Senate has to approve them. At the time the other party controlled the Senate. The effect was to leave the Supreme Court with an even number of Judges for a while, making tie decisions possible. They also broke their own rule once they had the Senate and Presidency. So they aren’t making arguments in good faith.

              • candybrie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                The Senate has to confirm the president’s picks. The Republicans controlled the Senate during Obama’s last years in office. So they just didn’t confirm his pick. Their reasoning was that it was an election year. When Trump faced the same situation (supreme court vacancy in an election year), the Republicans still controlled the senate and confirmed his pick.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                How to appoint SCOTUS judges:

                1. Vacancy on Court (usually means the old Judge died)

                2. Presidential Nomination

                3. Senate votes to confirm


                How to remove judges:

                1. Impeachment hearings in congress

                2. Senate votes to remove Judge

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You had the first 2 years of Obama. Obama’s thanks for the ACA was voters not showing up and losing the house of representatives for year 3 and 4. And again for year 5 and 6. And then both the house and Senate in years 7 and 8. So no you didn’t have 8 years with Obama, you had 2 years with Obama because voters did not show up. Congress is what passes laws and has power. They even shut down the freaking government under Obama.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Only Congress can increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. We had two years of congressional majority in the last twenty. They focused on healthcare.

        How could they have possibly predicted that they’d need to expand and pack the Supreme Court to prevent the next President from becoming a dictator?

          • thallamabond@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            5 months ago

            And even that was a monumental task. One vote away in the Senate, and that one guy got rid of the single payer option for the cost of his vote. Joe Lieberman if you want to look him up, the guy who started no labels political party (without a platform).

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          4 years, or 3 because of Scott Brown. But we just had 2 years. And Obama had 1 year.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      More people (as a percentage of the eligible voting population) voted in 2016 than 2012, and more in 2020 than in 2016.

      Finger wagging at people for criticizing the current ruling party (which is sending weapons to a country that is using them to commit genocide) instead of recognizing that we live in an undemocratic system is taking it out on the wrong people. Clinton literally won more votes in the election you’re saying people didn’t vote hard enough in. It’s spitting in the face of everyone whose votes were shat on by the Electoral College to turn around and blame the people who were disenfranchised.

      • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        No one is finger wagging for criticizing. They’re being chastised because they whining to everyone how they’re refusing to vote.

        Criticize the fuck out of him. I don’t see anyone giving a shit about that-

        FUCKING VOTE ANYWAY.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I get your point, but only 48% of registered Democrats voted in 2016. 25% were abstention due to dislike of the candidate.

        Unfortunately, more Democrats need to vote than Republicans, because of the disproportionate weight of Republican states’ electoral votes.

        https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/06/01/dislike-of-candidates-or-campaign-issues-was-most-common-reason-for-not-voting-in-2016/

        https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m not seeing where in those links it says only 48% of registered Democrats voted? If I’m missing it please point it out. The overall turnout was about 60% of eligible voters, so Democrats pulling in less than that and STILL getting more votes would be shocking.

          Getting angry at voters for not voting hard enough after turnout increases every election cycle should illustrate that yelling at people to vote harder isn’t a solution, it’s a stopgap. It doesn’t change that it’s an intentionally undemocratic system, and it doesn’t prevent the exact same “the person with less votes wins” result from happening again.

          • doctordevice@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not sure who’s downvoting you for asking for clarification. I think the person you responded to misinterpreted the first figure in their second link. It says among validated voters, 48% voted for Clinton and 45% for Trump.

            Nowhere in those links does it say the percentage of voters by party registration that voted, and I can’t find it in any other searching either. Your 60% turnout of voting-eligible population comes up all over the place though.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              I don’t see the downvotes since I’m on Blahaj, that’s funny though. Sorry for reading the sources I guess? The 60% figure was straight from one of the linked articles!

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          25% were abstention due to dislike of the candidate.

          Sounds like the problem is with who the DMC puts up, then. If 25% of your own team refuse to participate you’ve got s fucking problem

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Run better candidates to get more votes, it really is that simple. Blaming the voters just makes you look like a tool.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            And thinking that Democrats are primarily progressive makes you look like one.

            A better candidate for progressives would have been Bernie. DNC fuckery aside, he was very polarizing to half of the party.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s true. Had Obama appointed a Justice we’d just have 5-4 rulings instead of the 6-3 we have now. Trump’s immunity would still have passed.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Ελληνικά
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not just voter abstention, but ineffective voting too. Voting 3rd in this election is a surefire way to get trump back in office. If you wanted to stick it to Biden and get someone else, your chance was 4 years ago during the primary.

      You’re not voting Biden because you like him, you’re voting Biden because you want to be able to vote for someone else in 2028. That is literally what is at stake here, and it can’t be said loud enough or often enough.

      Before the “real left” quisling trolls respond, please tell us two things… Who is the 3rd party candidate you are supporting instead? What are their chances of winning this election?

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        your chance was 4 years ago during the primary.

        I’m sorry I didn’t realize we elected presidents for 8 year terms?

        Edit- just preserving this quote.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before. The DNC and White House however worked very hard to shut down any criticism during the primary timeframe, refused to have debates, disburse money, etc

            So if they’re going to treat this full election as a preference poll on Biden, then so will the people. And his approval numbers are bad.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I said aborted the campaign, not lost the nomination. Usually the candidates have the good sense to bow out before that happens.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Ελληνικά
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Are you talking about Truman? One guy who started to seek the presidency, after serving 1.5 terms, and then pulling out before being the presumptive nominee? I don’t think history is on your side for this one.

                  Also, answer the questions please.

                  Edit: You actually said “We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before.” Implying that the candidate did not win their nomination. Let’s go ahead and put those goalposts back where they were initially.

    • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well said, but sadly they are a lot of people here that don’t care. Which is ironic, considering the meme.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      This Supreme Court is a direct result of Ruth Bader Ginsberg refusing to retire because ???.

      Thanks again DNC. Couldn’t have done a worse job.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Don’t bring up reality.

        Blame Republicans for the Democrats forcing the Supreme Court to be used as a voting carrot.

        It’s all the lefties fault that they didn’t vote for corporate overlord Hillary Clinton.