RIP, RBG. 2020, just STOP Already.

I now have a canned response to any and "it's hopeless" comments I get. "I am not engaging in or with naysaying or defeatism. I am honoring RBG by taking concrete action, whatever I can do." And I mean that. I've said it when the "it won't help" posts start on friends' social media calls to action. I think it was Al Sharpton this morning on AMJoy who called out white liberals who are sitting on the sidelines telling those doing the work that they're doing it wrong and it's futile anyway. They've always been there, and they'll always be the friend who comes to help you move but sits on the couch, scarfing down your pizza and beer, and yelling that you're doing it wrong. No matter the issue, no matter the odds of success, they'll scoff at the work they're too lazy to do.

I've donated to a bunch of races, and will do so as I can.

The Senate seats most likely to flip in November

I'll reach out to my senators, but they're Markey and Warren, so they're already where they need to be. I'm urging friends with Republican senators to contact them, using their own words if they opposed a vote on Merrick Garland in 2016.

A Long List of GOP Senators Who Promised Not to Confirm a Supreme Court Nominee During an Election Year

There's a Postcards to Hypocrites project.

Just as John Lewis did, RBG fought for us until the very end. For them, for us, it's worth fighting. I'm even fighting for those who support Trump and don't know the danger they're in. They'd do me as much harm they could get away with, but I'm going to try to save our democracy for them, too.

People must vote, because our best hope is to hand Biden such a resounding victory Trump will have no basis for challenging it that even conservative-biased courts will countenance.

However, one thing we must be prepared to do, if things do go badly in November, or if a now-stacked SCOTUS hands Trump a victory that is far from clear, is the power of protest. I know a lot of pundits have been saying that protests don't work, that they actually turn public opinion against the protesters, and any violence done by even peripheral people during protests, or in response to police violence against peaceful protesters, will be emphasized to the advantage of the Right. We should all stay home and be good little children and just vote harder next time. If there is a next time.

But protest is an important tool. Protests do affect public awareness and policy.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/08/28/protesting-is-as-important-as-voting/

https://www.niskanencenter.org/how-protests-change-parties-and-elections/

If the election is handed to Trump by the courts, or even if he wins it again via the vagaries of the electoral college, there need to be prolonged protests, sustained protests, protests by such large numbers that they prevent business as usual from resuming, not through violence but through sheer volume.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/why-protests-work/613420/

We have to be prepared for things to get ugly, though, because right-wing counter protesters will show up, and the police will feel empowered and supported in brutal crackdowns.

Florida and its dangling chads were a cakewalk compared to what we're facing this year.

I'm not even much of a biology teacher, since can't convince my conservative friends and family members that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, or that wearing a mask does reduce the spread of Covid, or convince my religious students that evolution is real.

Click to expand...

You are beating yourself up by trying to fix the unfixable.
You are a biology teacher, yet you're aiming to do the job of a professional debater, a psychologist and, in some cases, a hypnotist.
You cannot change the minds of 'true believers'. There are places that deprogram people who were in cults, but that's full-time work.
Teach your student and family about the scientific theory, about reasoning, and evidence and logic. About proof.

You may not get them to slap themselves on the head and say "Aha, the Earth is getting warmer, but explain how warm water makes hurricanes. Point out that glaciers are melting. That water levels are rising. Let them have the happy (and memorable) feeling of putting it all together themselves. Simpler than arguing, and with luck, they'll pay more attention to things they see on the news.

As to mask-wearing, you can't cure stupid. Or uncaring. You can't do what news stories, ads, public officials and their own families aren't.

As to your religious objectors to evolution, their big objection seems to be that you're saying that man (God's most perfect creation, in their eyes) is just some kind of jumped-up monkey.
Center on the science - the mechanisms. Why did God make so many kinds of sparrows, each one different in some minor way? In the Creation story, God made the birds, the beasts, the fish. There is no mention of trout vs. salmon, or eagle vs. sparrow. Presumably, God made the archtypes and sent them down to be fruitful, multiply, and fit all the available niches. But ostriches and chickadees are basically the same.
Let them try to find an argument.

TLdr:
Don't beat yourself up for not leading the revolution. You are not alone, and never give up.
If the gift you have to give is science, put the science out there on a plate. Why are the oceans warming, and what does it do? You're a biologist - how are species being affected - it's not just polar bears and penguins.
Teach the mechanism of evolution, don't use man as your first example - let them come to it on their own.
Push the science, not the politics, because science lasts, even though the politics change.

Roxxsmom said:

People must vote, because our best hope is to hand Biden such a resounding victory Trump will have no basis for challenging it that even conservative-biased courts will countenance.

Click to expand...

Apparently McConnell was served a warning today by the Dems (saw this as a commentary on CNN, so no hard source on this) - rush a judge today in total defiance of your own word and we'll add 2 more of our own choosing tomorrow.

-cb

I live across the street from a polling place, and Virginia is in early voting. The voting line has snaked around the corner for at least a few hours if not more each day it's been open.

cbenoi1 said:

Apparently McConnell was served a warning today by the Dems (saw this as a commentary on CNN, so no hard source on this) - rush a judge today in total defiance of your own word and we'll add 2 more of our own choosing tomorrow.

-cb

Click to expand...

This is something that makes me very anxious. Yes, it's possible for the Dems to increase the number of justices on the courts (assuming they take the Senate back). But threatening to do this will certainly galvanize the GOP base and may turn off some moderates who were planning on voting for Democrats as well. Never mind that the GOP has already been playing a dirty, hypocritical game. For some reason, the Democrats are always held to a higher standard.

Plus, there is nothing to stop the GOP from doing the same thing once they control the senate and the presidency again. It could get ridiculous over the next several presidential terms. Could we end up with 21 justices? 53?

But on the other hand, I've little doubt they'd have eventually done this anyway if Ginsberg had held on until Jan 20 and Biden won--and another GOP justice died or retired during Biden's term and was replaced, tipping the court to the Dems for the first time in decades. The GOP would be all about court packing the next time they were in control again.

It makes be very anxious that our courts--often the last line of defense when legislators passed ridiculously cruel and discriminatory laws--are basically going to be stripped of their legitimacy and integrity no matter what happens. No decision by the high courts will ever be seen as anything other than strongly political as opposed to an application of a Constitutional principle and possibly a sense of what is best for the country as a whole.

Ultimately, our social and government institutions are no better than the people elected and appointed to uphold them.

Chris P said:

I live across the street from a polling place, and Virginia is in early voting. The voting line has snaked around the corner for at least a few hours if not more each day it's been open.

Click to expand...

This is great. We're in Gainesville and plan to vote early. I'm glad to hear the polling places are still packed. I was afraid the first day was packed just to make a statement.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/scotus-nomination-congress-latest-mitt-romney/index.html

Romney confirms he'll support a nomination vote. He's joined by Grassley, Capito, Alexander, and Roberts, leaving only Collins and Murkowski saying they don't support a vote. This makes the McSally/Kelly situation irrelevant.

Bottom line, McConnell has the votes to confirm and will do so. There is literally nothing procedurally the Democrats can do to stop it.

While we can lament about the hypocrisy, this was all started in 2013 by Harry Reid. McConnell said at the time Democrats would regret this and it looks like he is determined to make good on that.

Prozyan said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/scotus-nomination-congress-latest-mitt-romney/index.html

Romney confirms he'll support a nomination vote. He's joined by Grassley, Capito, Alexander, and Roberts, leaving only Collins and Murkowski saying they don't support a vote. This makes the McSally/Kelly situation irrelevant.

Bottom line, McConnell has the votes to confirm and will do so. There is literally nothing procedurally the Democrats can do to stop it.

While we can lament about the hypocrisy, this was all started in 2013 by Harry Reid. McConnell said at the time Democrats would regret this and it looks like he is determined to make good on that.

Click to expand...

I'm so sick of people praising Mitt Romney for being "not as bad as other Republicans." He's an invertebrate.

ConnorMuldowney said:

I'm so sick of people praising Mitt Romney for being "not as bad as other Republicans." He's an invertebrate.

Click to expand...

Yep. It is exactly like people thinking Jeff Flake was going to ride in to save the day at the Kavanaugh confirmation.

Prozyan said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/scotus-nomination-congress-latest-mitt-romney/index.html

Romney confirms he'll support a nomination vote. He's joined by Grassley, Capito, Alexander, and Roberts, leaving only Collins and Murkowski saying they don't support a vote. This makes the McSally/Kelly situation irrelevant.

Bottom line, McConnell has the votes to confirm and will do so. There is literally nothing procedurally the Democrats can do to stop it.

While we can lament about the hypocrisy, this was all started in 2013 by Harry Reid. McConnell said at the time Democrats would regret this and it looks like he is determined to make good on that.

Click to expand...

So we're blaming the Democrats now? Seriously? McConnell's Senate already had their "tit for tat" with the confirmation of their own POTUS's non-fillibusterable court picks many times over. And about the fact that the GOP was so determined to deny our first Black POTUS any kind of legacy that they blocked every single court nomination? Remember, they weren't just blocking particular nominees, or angling for more moderately liberal justices, the way the Senate did back with the Bork situation (when a Reagan pick was eventually confirmed, just not that one). The Senate planned to block every single Obama nominee.

I'm putting the blame squarely where it belongs: on lying, hypocritical Mitch McConnell and a GOP that has been aching to return women to the dark ages since the Reagan era.

It's going to be interesting to see the effect this appointment, and the subsequent decisions but the High Court, will have on the politics of the younger generation of women in particular, once they realize what it feels like to have no say over your own body and life. And I'm afraid Roe v Wade won't be the only casualty of our new court makeup. I see life becoming a lot more miserable and unfair for most people--several steps back.

Yes, and Romney has no principles at all. He was pro choice when governor of a pro choice state, but now that he's a senator for Utah, he's willing to throw women under the bus, just as he was when running for POTUS.

Roxxsmom said:

So we're blaming the Democrats now? Seriously?

Click to expand...

No, "we're" not blaming Democrats for the actions of Republicans. "We're" pointing out Reid is the one who opened Pandora's Box, despite dire warnings from both sides of the aisle that his actions would blowback terribly down the road.

That's a simple fact, whether "we" want to deal with it or not.

Not to mention it didn't matter what Reid did, McConnell only made that threat to see if he couldn't get Reid to forego any federal bench appointments. McConnell all along planned to stuff the courts with as many Federalist recommended judges as he possibly could as soon as he got the change. And he followed through on that.

Prozyan said:

No, "we're" not blaming Democrats for the actions of Republicans. "We're" pointing out Reid is the one who opened Pandora's Box, despite dire warnings from both sides of the aisle that his actions would blowback terribly down the road.

That's a simple fact, whether "we" want to deal with it or not.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Blaming Reid was just part of the plan.

Roxxsmom said:

This is something that makes me very anxious. Yes, it's possible for the Dems to increase the number of justices on the courts (assuming they take the Senate back). . . .

Plus, there is nothing to stop the GOP from doing the same thing once they control the senate and the presidency again. It could get ridiculous over the next several presidential terms. Could we end up with 21 justices? 53?

Click to expand...

Yes. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. We already have Circuit Courts of Appeals that have twenty or more judges. When an appeal is to be heard, a 3-judge panel is randomly selected, and if two out of the three judges agree on a decision, that's the ruling of the Court. (On certain occasions, the Court will hear an appeal en banc, meaning all the judges get into the act, but that is very rare.) There's really no reason why the Supreme Court couldn't operate the same way, and the larger number of justices, combined with the random nature of the draw could well have the effect of diluting the extreme partisanship we are facing now.

Ketzel said:

Yes. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. We already have Circuit Courts of Appeals that have twenty or more judges. When an appeal is to be heard, a 3-judge panel is randomly selected, and if two out of the three judges agree on a decision, that's the ruling of the Court. (On certain occasions, the Court will hear an appeal en banc, meaning all the judges get into the act, but that is very rare.) There's really no reason why the Supreme Court couldn't operate the same way, and the larger number of justices, combined with the random nature of the draw could well have the effect of diluting the extreme partisanship we are facing now.

Click to expand...

That assumes the “system” desires to dilute partisanship. To function fairly. There absolutely is a reason why the Supreme Court won’t operate in that way: Because the people currently in power don’t want that. They want to remain in power. They don’t want Democracy if it means relinquishing power.

@Ketzel: (reply with quote isn't working for me at the moment) This article in Politico mentions the lottery option. It says that is easier than limiting the length SCOTUS justices serve, as the former only requires legislation while the latter requires an amendment. As to adding justices, the article mentions the Biden opposed it as recently as 2019. My thought is doing so now would not only spiral as Roxxsmom says, but I think in as few as 20 years we could be in exactly the same position.

Call me cynical, but I agree with the article that probably not much is going to change. From the looks of it, we will have a new person on a 9-member court by January, and we'll continue our work as best we can.

Introversion said:

That assumes the “system” desires to dilute partisanship. To function fairly. There absolutely is a reason why the Supreme Court won’t operate in that way: Because the people currently in power don’t want that. They want to remain in power. They don’t want Democracy if it means relinquishing power.

Click to expand...

Expanding the Supreme Court is one of the few ways the Democrats can effectively undermine the Republicans' extremely successful effort to tilt the courts to the conservative side for decades to come. My fingers are crossed that, come Inauguration Day, the people currently in power will be out on the street, planning their criminal defense strategy. My hope is that if/when the Democrats regain control of the the Presidency and the Senate, they will be willing to redress the McConnell imbalance in any way they can.

Because the last attempt to expand the court worked out so well.

Prozyan said:

Because the last attempt to expand the court worked out so well.

Click to expand...

Did you look into those circumstances? They pretty much have nothing in common with the current situation.

Yes, I'm sure this time will be totally different and won't come back to bite Democrats in the ass 4 or 6 years down the road.

Just like I'm sure what the Republicans are doing now isn't going to come back to bite them in the ass in the next few years.

We do seem to have strayed somewhat from the thread-topic...

mccardey said:

We do seem to have strayed somewhat from the thread-topic...

Click to expand...

So has the entire country. Because instead of honoring someone who did so much for equality, everything is about trying to erase her legacy.

She's going to be the first woman to lie in State in the US Capitol (as someone not a government official, Rosa Parks lay in Honor).

Roxxsmom said:

So has the entire country. Because instead of honoring someone who did so much for equality, everything is about trying to erase her legacy.

She's going to be the first woman to lie in State in the US Capitol (as someone not a government official, Rosa Parks lay in Honor).

Click to expand...

Little, But Fierce

Quite a woman.

Prozyan said:

Yes, I'm sure this time will be totally different and won't come back to bite Democrats in the ass 4 or 6 years down the road.

Just like I'm sure what the Republicans are doing now isn't going to come back to bite them in the ass in the next few years.

Click to expand...

What is it about the last time that you think makes it relevant to today's issue?

The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869.

The last time a POTUS wanted to change the number of justices it was proactive, a change to get something. This time around we have one political party that pulled shenanigans (not holding a vote on Garland). No doubt a bunch of anti-abortionists and some other Evangelicals are very happy with those shenanigans. But more than a majority of voters are not happy with the shit McConnell pulled. People like me want Biden to stand up to McConnell. By taking no action the Democrats have let the Republicans walk all over them.

Of course this is all dependent on the voters changing control of the Senate. Without that, nothing can be done.