Hacker News Reader

Comment by tootie | Hacker News Reader

You can see the hot emotions right in the dissent. Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight.

Try this live reaction from the Lawfare crew:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-live--scotus-ru...

They are ripping this apart not just on it's merits, but how oddly it's constructed. They established a framework for assigning immunity and then leave completely open what the test is to assign actions to the framework, then list a bunch of Trump's activities that are definitely immune and none that are not, and then Clarence Thomas says the DOJ can't empower special counsels apropos of nothing (except the documents case that is not before the court).

View on HN

You're right, this is a high-emotion one and probably doesn't belong on HN at all, since it is just devolving into a poorly informed flame war. (although Lawfare itself is not an objective observer either.)

Lawfare is a very well-informed source and I think at this point we should really quit pretending that "liberal" sources are biased in any meaningful way and that their staunch opposition to the political right is thoroughly justified on objective grounds. This decision is a bad one. Previous decisions by the conservative justices that were derided by the left have been bad for the country in tangible ways. They were appointed by a guy who lead an insurrection. Who committed a load of crimes they are fine with him getting away with. Strict construction isn't even a fig leaf on much of what they're writing

Rhetoric like this is how we got Trump in the first place. You don't even try to understand the other side, you rest easy in knowing that you are objectively right and they're objectively wrong.

It doesn't even particularly matter if you're right or wrong on the merits, as long as the Left talks like this the Right will be ascendant. You don't tame populism by being condescending, that only fans the flames.

I don't need to understand the voters to know they're causing a very bad outcome. Trying to assert some sort of equivalence is what got us here.

What got us here is a huge percentage of the population feeling disenfranchised and cut off by a condescending elite. A sociopathic demagogue recognized those people and made them feel seen, and you and the Democratic party still just don't get it. That's why we're here, and we'll stay here as long as the Left continues to condescend to them.

Ok… so looking from the outside in Australia… a country with mandatory voting that always happens on weekends to make it incredibly easy for people to do their civic duty, thus allowing us to levy a fine against anyone who doesn’t vote… with electoral divisions and regional boundaries managed by a specific government department that has been structured so as to prevent politicians doing any gerrymandering…

In the USA it’s clear that voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed for partisan groups of elites with both progressive and conservative views to hold onto power for decades as the voting public they represent feels more and more like their vote does not matter, or that they are unable to vote due to their financial situation (no time off, no money for transit, no money for required identification, required identification needs a fixed address and their homeless, etc)… it’s pretty dire… and I have always been kind of shocked how it’s managed to limp along with such statically low voter turnout for decades… money is speech (citizens united) and media are allowed to treat made up news as entertainment with no need to distinguish really from fiction (FCC vs Fox News)…

I don’t see any way the situation doesn’t eventually lead to demagoguery… because at some point your public is just so disenfranchised that a demagogue doesn’t have much work to do beyond “I’m not them, get the fuck out and vote for me so I can change things”…

But the problem with a demagogue is that even if they don’t turn dictator, they are by nature of their rise to power, going to be very dictator like, it’s their choice, their charisma, their force of will that motivated the voting public… the only problem is that the checks and balances to prevent the demagogue from becoming a dictator, have only been barely tested, first with FDR, then with Nixon, one who died before the change to the system was relevant, the other begrudgingly bowed out before the system had to fully engage with the issue...

How would you do it better?

> How would you do it better?

Many political scientists believe that the parliamentary system used in most of Europe, and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, is superior to the presidential system in producing political stability and good policy

Many have also said that Latin America has experienced the brunt of the negatives of the presidential system, while the US largely escaped them due to wealth, cultural norms, and maybe even good luck. But over the last few years, things in the US have been degenerating to the point that maybe they aren’t escaping those negatives any more

Maybe one of these days it will get so bad that Americans will listen to these political scientists and switch to the Westminster system. Maybe what America really needs is a Prime Minister. The Westminister system doesn’t require a monarchy, see Ireland and Malta for examples of parliamentary republics with predominantly British political traditions. In a parliamentary republic, you have a figurehead President while the Prime Minister holds the real power. Other examples of parliamentary republics (albeit non-Westminster) include Austria, Germany and Israel

So them being vindictive over losing elections made them pliable enough to reject democracy and it's our fault so we should apologize? No. There's no excuse. At some point you have just admit that some people have bad intentions.

You're mixing up the voters with the politicians. Trump voters aren't vindictive about losing elections, they're frustrated that their lives are falling apart and they have no control over it.

The world is changing and it's leaving people behind. Not the people in the coastal cities, the people in the middle of America. They see a government that not only doesn't care about them but that actively works to shut down the industries that they rely on. They saw a Republican Party that just assumed it would get their vote and a Democratic Party that wished they didn't exist, and they felt powerless.

Then Trump came along and he spoke to them. For the first time in decades they felt seen and heard, for the first time in decades they felt like there was a politician who understood them.

They can't see that it's a fraud, they can't see Trump for who he is, because Trump gives them the attention that they so desperately need.

The "condescending elite" that I referred to wasn't the Democrats, it was both Democrats and Republicans who didn't think that these people mattered. Trump proved that they did, and the only way we're getting out of this situation is for more honest politicians to recognize that and solve these people's very real problems.

I understand all that but you're the one being condescending assuming they're so utterly gullible. I'm sure they have plenty of grievance. Everyone does. They chose a conman because he promised revenge. That is their fault and also very worthy of scorn. I can blame them for their poor character the same way you could blame slave states for starting the civil war. They were just wrong.

Do you know any Trump voters? Have you ever spoken with one?

You probably have and didn't even know it, precisely because of angry rhetoric like this. Even the Bay Area broke 20% for Trump in the last election.

That's one out of every five voters, but I bet very few people walked around wearing a MAGA hat in the Bay area, and you can't really blame them if they valued their physical safety. And now, according to Nate Silver's latest model, it looks like now you're angry at more than half the country.

I don't want to offend you, but it seems like you very much misunderstand both the Trump voters and actually what Trump stands for.

I remember/r/the_donald. I saw a Trump parade in 2015 where they flew those green Nazi flags. I see what they cheer for at rallies. What he says to get approval. It's absolutely disgusting. Is this their version of punishing the establishment for manufacturing jobs or something? No. These are the people who insisted Obama was from Kenya. The people who punished Democrats for the Civil Rights Act. The same people who seceded to protect slavery. Are they nice, polite, well-meaning salt of the earth people? Maybe some of them. But nice isn't the same as good. I'm sure that telling them how stupid they are isn't a great way to win their vote but it doesn't mean it's not true.

> Sonia Sotomayor is writing this is a threat to democracy. That carries a lot of weight.

Frankly, it doesn't carry much weight with me. The dissents this cycle have increasingly felt like they're more political tools to try to rile up the Democratic base for the next election than they are legal opinions sincerely held. They're written to have maximum quotability and memetic transmission, and that means they're constantly emotionally charged.

(Note that I'm saying this as a Biden voter who really wishes that Trump weren't poised to take office.)

> (Note that I'm saying this as a Biden voter who really wishes that Trump weren't poised to take office.)

I don't understand people going on an obviously one sided political rant and then going "don't hit me I vote for the good guys trust me !", it's not subtle.

I don't understand people who can't believe that someone could actually hold a complicated set of political perspectives that don't align well with any one party's platform.

There's obviously no way for me to prove it, but I cast a protest vote in 2016 and voted Biden in 2020. I'm exhausted by both parties but currently hate Trump enough to vote Democrat. Hating Trump doesn't mean I have to approve of manipulative hyperbole in Supreme Court dissents.

I think they're written by people observing the real world and not quoting the federalist papers as gospel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com