If Trump Wins Re-Election - Will It Be The End Of America?

[Dalak]

This isn't some kangaroo court where they can just dictate things, though. There actually has to be a sound legal argument based on precedent. Every single SCOTUS decision has laid out a case using precedent and sound legal arguments, if you go through the history of their decisions. Nevertheless you can have disagreements (see - Plurality Decisions). Also majority opinion, dissenting opinion, concurring opinions.

Even if those conservative judges wanted to just sit there in power like Judge Dredd and declare "no more abortions" - its really not possible for them to do that. I just think too much focus is made on the court, and its largely due to conservatives making it such a focus for all the wrong reasons, not accepting that by design its a secular court that makes secular decisions.

State courts are a different matter and get confused with the SCOTUS at times. A state court can make some pretty whackadoodle judgements, which is why we see odd racist legal shenanigans that no one understands in places like Alabama.

Scott, if you just read the recent Kavanaugh opinion on voting, you can see that is not true.

There has already been the groundwork laid for outlawing abortion by places like the Federalist Society. Barrett has written about the basis for outlawing abortion. This is why she was put on the Court.

Barrett, Thomas and Alito have all said Roe can be overturned.

I'll take a look at the Kavanaugh opinion. I'm no lawyer but hopefully I can see the same thing you are seeing.

There is no way it would overturn RvW, even though that term gets used. RvW is always going to be on the books. The way it is practiced might be modified, however.

We'll see. The SCOTUS would still have to have a case set before them that gives them a reason to address the specifics of RvW. While that is possible, they still aren't the legislature, developing and approving laws. Even if four of the judges somehow modify RvW, that opinion would be tempered by the minority members, resulting in a plurality decision. A compromise. Its not so cut and dried.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I've been seeing the past several years the GoP has been packing whatever vacancies they can in courts high and low across the country in order to get those 'whackadoodle' judgements sent all the way to the SCOTUS so they can be ruled on by those highly biased justices in a way where they've proven they can ignore any precedent they choose.

[Kirby101]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I've been seeing the past several years the GoP has been packing whatever vacancies they can in courts high and low across the country in order to get those 'whackadoodle' judgements sent all the way to the SCOTUS so they can be ruled on by those highly biased justices in a way where they've proven they can ignore any precedent they choose.

Pretty much, through Trump they have confirmed at least 6 judges rated not qualified by the ABA. Some with no trial experience.

[DrNewGod]

Do the states in the United States have something like a notwithstanding clause that allows them to do things against the Bill of Rights? In Canada, provinces can use the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the 1982 constitution, to circumvent matters in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (upon which many Supreme Court decisions depend).

CANADIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA:

I thought "states' rights" was a big issue for you guys and the Republicans are supposed to support the rights of the states to do as they please, rather than bowing to Federal edicts.

No, the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution is the overriding law in all the States. Often State laws are overturned om Constitutional grounds.

"States Rights" is code for allowing discrimination. It is something they claim the Civil War was fought over to divert from Slavery. Either way the treasonous South lost and States law don't supersede Federal law.

There is leeway for States to have laws that don't go against the Constitution.

Kirby101 is correct that States' Rights has very frequently been used as cover for codifying discriminatory practices, and against a wide range of vulnerable populations. He is also correct in saying that it was the "polite" rationale put forward by Confederate States for the secession; although I seem to recall that it got more prominent as the excuse after the Civil War than before.

However, in the US' infancy, independence from a central authority was very much a driving imperative of the former colonies. Their first attempt at unified government, The Articles of Confederation, provided for a far weaker framework, which they found resulted near-complete impotence in managing interstate trade and legal disputes. There was a good bit of tug of war over how much power the central government should have, and seeds of state independence still exist in The Constitution, which states that all other powers not specifically granted to the federal government reside with the states. That said, as Kirby101 mentioned, US federal law does take presidence over all state laws.

Although never expressed in terms of "states rights" (at least, not that I've noticed) many states do exercise their individual authority on a variety of matters. California, for example, often drives the nation on environmental issues by laws and regulations that it enacts that are more stringent than those of other states, or of the US federal regulations. They can do so, in part, because their economy represents such a large percentage of national GDP, that a national firm would find it near suicidal to refuse compliance and simply write off California as a market. Such cases are, nonetheless, examples of states exerting their individual rights to a degree of self-governance.

[Scott Taylor]

Although never expressed in terms of "states rights" (at least, not that I've noticed) many states do exercise their individual authority on a variety of matters. California, for example, often drives the nation on environmental issues by laws and regulations that it enacts that are more stringent than those of other states, or of the US federal regulations. They can do so, in part, because their economy represents such a large percentage of national GDP, that a national firm would find it near suicidal to refuse compliance and simply write off California as a market. Such cases are, nonetheless, examples of states exerting their individual rights to a degree of self-governance.

Marijuana laws are an interesting microcosm of this effect. The federal government still outlaws it, as a controlled substance under DTSC. There is only one place in the entire nation where it can be grown legally according to federal laws. But several states, including California and Colorado, have passed laws allowing Cannabis to be grown, marketed and sold. Which puts those states in an interesting quandry if they need a federal permit for anything Marijuana-related. So states can exert their influence even to the point of actively contradicting a federal law, if they want to do that. And as long as they don't need federal buyoff on anything related.

California is the most populous state and has the most influence federally because it has the biggest state presence in Congress. But they have little influence over what other states choose to do. Arizona and Nevada are right next to California and you won't find more anti-Cali sentiments anywhere else.

[PwrdOn]

Kirby101 is correct that States' Rights has very frequently been used as cover for codifying discriminatory practices, and against a wide range of vulnerable populations. He is also correct in saying that it was the "polite" rationale put forward by Confederate States for the secession; although I seem to recall that it got more prominent as the excuse after the Civil War than before.

However, in the US' infancy, independence from a central authority was very much a driving imperative of the former colonies. Their first attempt at unified government, The Articles of Confederation, provided for a far weaker framework, which they found resulted near-complete impotence in managing interstate trade and legal disputes. There was a good bit of tug of war over how much power the central government should have, and seeds of state independence still exist in The Constitution, which states that all other powers not specifically granted to the federal government reside with the states. That said, as Kirby101 mentioned, US federal law does take presidence over all state laws.

Although never expressed in terms of "states rights" (at least, not that I've noticed) many states do exercise their individual authority on a variety of matters. California, for example, often drives the nation on environmental issues by laws and regulations that it enacts that are more stringent than those of other states, or of the US federal regulations. They can do so, in part, because their economy represents such a large percentage of national GDP, that a national firm would find it near suicidal to refuse compliance and simply write off California as a market. Such cases are, nonetheless, examples of states exerting their individual rights to a degree of self-governance.

The problem with "states' rights" is that any kind of good faith and intellectually honest definition of the term has long been discredited as a failed ideology by just about the entirety of human history. Whether this sits well with people on a philosophical level or not, having a strong central government that can whip local authorities into line whenever needed has proven to be the ONLY way that nations can survive in a hostile geopolitical climate. Dividing your country into these squabbling little fiefdoms that spend most of their energy trying to undermine each other just makes it easy for your enemies to pick them off one by one. In fact, this is exactly the sort of thing that the US tries to do to our rivals, when we fund and arm separatists and freedom fighters in faraway countries it's assuredly NOT because we care so much about their right to self-determination, but because breaking off a chunk of territory weakens any country. After all, nobody was celebrating the breakup of the USSR as some triumph of states' rights or envisioning that what would emerge from its ashes would somehow be better for anyone, but the disintegration of our biggest rival was good for us. No matter where or when you look, empowering local governments at the expense of centralized authority weakens the entire country, period.

[DrNewGod]

The problem with "states' rights" is that any kind of good faith and intellectually honest definition of the term has long been discredited as a failed ideology by just about the entirety of human history. Whether this sits well with people on a philosophical level or not, having a strong central government that can whip local authorities into line whenever needed has proven to be the ONLY way that nations can survive in a hostile geopolitical climate. Dividing your country into these squabbling little fiefdoms that spend most of their energy trying to undermine each other just makes it easy for your enemies to pick them off one by one. In fact, this is exactly the sort of thing that the US tries to do to our rivals, when we fund and arm separatists and freedom fighters in faraway countries it's assuredly NOT because we care so much about their right to self-determination, but because breaking off a chunk of territory weakens any country. After all, nobody was celebrating the breakup of the USSR as some triumph of states' rights or envisioning that what would emerge from its ashes would somehow be better for anyone, but the disintegration of our biggest rival was good for us. No matter where or when you look, empowering local governments at the expense of centralized authority weakens the entire country, period.

Redacted. I disagree with PwdOn's position.Nuff Said

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It's pretty obvious the great experiment that's democracy in this country is on the ropes, if not on life support, thanks to the one-two punch of an immoral sociopath in the Oval Office and a Republican Party hellbent on torching the Constitution to stay in power. The Founding Fathers never factored in the actions of a lunatic like Trump or a political party that gleefully turned it's back on the American people out of simple greed, and the only way the people can rectify the problem, that is, by voting, is under near constant threat by the GOP and their dirty tricks and schemes. Still, the people HAVE to go out and make their voices heard by any means necessary, because if Trump does win next week, America as we know it will be effectively over.

[DrNewGod]

It's pretty obvious the great experiment that's democracy in this country is on the ropes, if not on life support, thanks to the one-two punch of an immoral sociopath in the Oval Office and a Republican Party hellbent on torching the Constitution to stay in power. The Founding Fathers never factored in the actions of a lunatic like Trump or a political party that gleefully turned it's back on the American people out of simple greed, and the only way the people can rectify the problem, that is, by voting, is under near constant threat by the GOP and their dirty tricks and schemes. Still, the people HAVE to go out and make their voices heard by any means necessary, because if Trump does win next week, America as we know it will be effectively over.

IMO, the Founders never expected a Senate majority that largely distained a presidential candidate transforming into said candidates boot-licking bitches.

[Kirby101]

The problem with "states' rights" is that any kind of good faith and intellectually honest definition of the term has long been discredited as a failed ideology by just about the entirety of human history. Whether this sits well with people on a philosophical level or not, having a strong central government that can whip local authorities into line whenever needed has proven to be the ONLY way that nations can survive in a hostile geopolitical climate. Dividing your country into these squabbling little fiefdoms that spend most of their energy trying to undermine each other just makes it easy for your enemies to pick them off one by one. In fact, this is exactly the sort of thing that the US tries to do to our rivals, when we fund and arm separatists and freedom fighters in faraway countries it's assuredly NOT because we care so much about their right to self-determination, but because breaking off a chunk of territory weakens any country. After all, nobody was celebrating the breakup of the USSR as some triumph of states' rights or envisioning that what would emerge from its ashes would somehow be better for anyone, but the disintegration of our biggest rival was good for us. No matter where or when you look, empowering local governments at the expense of centralized authority weakens the entire country, period.

Huh? Everybody was celebrating the break up as better for most of the people in the satellite States. And it has turned out better for most of the countries. Especially the ones that joined the EU. Where on Earth did you get the those countries were better off under the USSR?

[C_Miller]

I struggle with all the folks who have enough trust in our systems to not be concerned. As if America is some exceptional country that is inherently free from having bad things happen to us whose consequences won’t last longer than an election cycle. Now, I’m not saying that if Trump gets elected again, the United States will fall. But we as a society need to stop pretending that we have some kind of plot armor. Empires fall, Democracies crumble, Dictators get elected in elections. There is nothing that makes America inherently protected from this.

Again, I’m not saying that you have to live in fear. But it’s an important thing to keep in the back of mind. That said, probably my biggest concern that I have for that happening is that the last two Republican presidents have arguably been the most powerful in American history related to executive power, yet the Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government. Leads me to believe that no one really cares about policy as long as their team is winning.

[Tami]

I struggle with all the folks who have enough trust in our systems to not be concerned. As if America is some exceptional country that is inherently free from having bad things happen to us whose consequences won’t last longer than an election cycle. Now, I’m not saying that if Trump gets elected again, the United States will fall. But we as a society need to stop pretending that we have some kind of plot armor. Empires fall, Democracies crumble, Dictators get elected in elections. There is nothing that makes America inherently protected from this.

Again, I’m not saying that you have to live in fear. But it’s an important thing to keep in the back of mind. That said, probably my biggest concern that I have for that happening is that the last two Republican presidents have arguably been the most powerful in American history related to executive power, yet the Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government. Leads me to believe that no one really cares about policy as long as their team is winning.

We have had a painful lesson in the inherent flaws, limitations, and weaknesses in the U.S. Democratic system. What we do with those lessons is what matters most. I am hopeful because there are many former Trump Voters and life-long Republicans who are speaking out in support of removing Trump from office, repairing the damage Trump did and moving forward.

This means that the issue isn't a Party versus Party conflict, that it is something more than that. This election will tell a lot about this country and it's chances of survival.

[Jack Dracula]

We have had a painful lesson in the inherent flaws, limitations, and weaknesses in the U.S. Democratic system. What we do with those lessons is what matters most. I am hopeful because there are many former Trump Voters and life-long Republicans who are speaking out in support of removing Trump from office, repairing the damage Trump did and moving forward.

This means that the issue isn't a Party versus Party conflict, that it is something more than that. This election will tell a lot about this country and it's chances of survival.

I understand your point but the same Republicans who give you hope are the same who’ve been totally on board with exploiting and worsening those systemic weaknesses you spoke of. That they’re now unhappy with the monster they’ve created doesn’t mean they can be trusted not to resume their f#@kery after he’s gone or to have even learned any lesson from it. The GOP has reaped only profit from this arrangement at the mere cost of their spines and ethics.

[Tami]

I understand your point but the same Republicans who give you hope are the same who’ve been totally on board with exploiting and worsening those systemic weaknesses you spoke of. That they’re now unhappy with the monster they’ve created doesn’t mean they can be trusted not to resume their f#@kery after he’s gone or to have even learned any lesson from it. The GOP has reaped only profit from this arrangement at the mere cost of their spines and ethics.

Let's just say that it has been a learning experience for everyone. You can't stop a person from being hypocritical, but you can check them on it in public and in the media to let the people decide.

I don't hold it against Republicans for following basic Conservative tenets, so long as they do so with the purpose of supporting the county, not undermining it.

Anti-trumpers have to think deeply about their own future, the country's future, and the Republican' party's future.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country is going to be watching them closely. Basically, if Biden wins, Republicans will be on Probation. They will have to work hard to earn trust, and if they fail to do so they will be held accountable.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

If Trump wins re-election, it could be the end of American democracy as we know it. The GOP in the last 20 years have gone off-the-spectrum and reached a point where they can no longer win elections through popular vote (the GOP won the popular vote only once in the last 30 years, and that was in 2004 when the US was in the middle of a major war). By 2024 Trump and the Tea Party Republicans would have been in power for almost a decade, and I can imagine them not wanting to let it go. All the ingredients are there for a coup. Not saying it will happen, but it's not implausible.

That said, all a Biden win would do is buy time for a strong grassroots movement to get its **** together and put pressure on the Democrats to enact change. If that doesn't happen, an even worse Trump will come in 2024 or 2028. The next Trump could be an actual Fascist, as in someone who holds Fascism as a serious ideology the way Hitler did.

[babyblob]

I think Trump losing could be just as bad (Not saying I want him to win or that Trump will be better. Dont freak out and give me a second) His lose will not be a lesson to the GOP. It will cause them to go Batshit crazy more then they are now. They will not see a Trump lose as a referendum on what he has done. Because a Trump loss could never happen fair. It would have to be through a rigged election. So of course they will double down on vote Suppression and if they keep the senate they will block everything that Biden or Harris want to do. If something does get by or they Lose the Senate then the Gop diehards will go to court and have things over turned in a GOP controlled SC.

The only way to save America is to get rid of the GOP as it stands right now.

They will groom the next Hardcore nutjob for the president. We think trump is bad? Wait until a Trump 2.0 that will be coming.

Everyone seems to think Biden winning will be the end of the problems. He is not going to be the great unite everyone thinks. This country is too far opposite to be fixed in one election. No matter who wins things are going to be bad for a long time.

I do think he will try hard to do much better. But a lot of problems cant be fixed just because he is voted president. Cops are still going to be racist. That is going to take major reform to change and get rid of bad cops.

The virus will still be bad. Its great he is all for a mask mandate. But how many Trumpers or Republicans or anti science people will ignore it?

Electing Biden is a start in the right direction. but he is not the savior.