New Deal Coalition Retained III: A New World
- Thread starter Redcoat
- Start date
- Status
Deleted member 87099
Wow. Romney, Trump, and the rest of the gang must be real monsters if they're willing to cover up Bundy's heinous crimes to save their own political careers.
They're politicians, after all, and interested on saving their careers. However, let's not forget that they came with the initiative to keep an eye on Bundy, so they at least deserve this credit.
Uhhh, that doesn't mean that they're gonna keep Bundy's misdeeds under wraps forever-they're just waiting for the right moment to expose them..
Deleted member 87099
No, they don't deserve credit. They're preventing a serial killer's victims from getting justice because their self-interest out weighs their concern for their fellow man, They're not doing all this because they need to stop Bundy, they're doing all this because if it gets out - which it seems pretty close to - it would destroy their careers. Any politician that would miscarry justice in this way would be awful.
It sounds like they're gonna keep this stuff under wraps for as long as possible. I don't trust that any of them would be willing to say "oh yeah and that GOP President from a few years ago? We murdered him because he's a serial killer but we also destroyed evidence of his crimes so that we could all stay in office. I guess you could say we're pretty cool
" If they're not willing to out Bundy now for the greater good then I doubt they ever will.There is an argument that a President being exposed as a serial killer who started a war in order to vicariously get off on the death of tens of millions would end up being worse to the national psyche than Watergate, the Great Depression, and the civil war all put together.No, they don't deserve credit. They're preventing a serial killer's victims from getting justice because their self-interest out weighs their concern for their fellow man, They're not doing all this because they need to stop Bundy, they're doing all this because if it gets out - which it seems pretty close to - it would destroy their careers. Any politician that would miscarry justice in this way would be awful.
It sounds like they're gonna keep this stuff under wraps for as long as possible. I don't trust that any of them would be willing to say "oh yeah and that GOP President from a few years ago? We murdered him because he's a serial killer but we also destroyed evidence of his crimes so that we could all stay in office. I guess you could say we're pretty cool
Deleted member 87099
Then maybe, if the actions of the President are that despicable, that creates an even greater imperative that people know about it. Watergate, the Great Depression, and the Civil War were all terrible periods in our nation's history but they each taught many very important and valuable lessons that were arguably necessary for the United States to continue as a credible global power.
I don't buy into this morale bullshit. It's not right that a government would morally justify its grotesque coverup of nearly unprecedented crimes with the same logic that parents use to spare their young children from certain tragedy. People should learn the truth about how their government operates and if its so bad that it would be devastating to hear, then that means they have even more reason that they have to hear it.
A self-interested coup like the one described is nothing short of an unaccountable miscarriage of democratic government.
It might be just me, but I feel like a group of Cabinet officials consciously preventing the President being exposed as a psychotic serial killer out of pure self-interest and partisanship would be much more damaging to the national psyche and the stability of the party that the officials happen to be part of.
Last edited:
Did you even read this part?It sounds like they're gonna keep this stuff under wraps for as long as possible. I don't trust that any of them would be willing to say "oh yeah and that GOP President from a few years ago? We murdered him because he's a serial killer but we also destroyed evidence of his crimes so that we could all stay in office. I guess you could say we're pretty cool
Deleted member 87099
Yes, I read the whole thing. They explicitly say that they're not gonna go to the press and instead just off Bundy on their own.
The issue with what you say is that... honestly, America hasn't ever endured anything close to what having the twice-elected President as someone who's crimes could honestly rival Hitler or Stalin or Mao in scope and dwarf them in sheer audacity (not as part of a program, just for his own sick ends). Watergate comes closest but still undershoots it by miles (Nixon's wrongdoing was fundamentally harmless in the scheme of things since the Watergate break in did nothing in terms of real world harm; the wrongdoing was in that it actually happened). With Watergate the blow to the national psyche to see Nixon go through that was huge... the Bundy crimes would be far, far, far worse, akin to the most brutal of depressions for the nation.
Ironically and tragically for the US system, Bundy has gotten so high that he's become too big to fail.
Granted, there are more selfish reasons for them to go about this don't get me wrong. What we find is a moral grey area where you have both selfless and selfish reasons for this to happen. There are ultimately no good options.
Rosa Luxemburg
Banned
Ya know it would be one thing for the President to be a serial killer, but, it would be a whole other thing for it to come out later that not only was their President a serial killer but that his party, half of the government, worked to actively cover it up
Deleted member 87099
Covering up the actions of a monster to save your own skin is not a morally grey area.
Human beings can never be "too big to fail" I doubt the country is built around Bundy and even if it was its necessary that people understand the kind of man he truly is. You're papering over the good that uncovering Watergate did (it made many Americans value government transparency for the first time ever) and I imagine that uncovering Bundy's crimes would do similar good, or at least make Americans take mental health or their elected officials more seriously. I highly doubt that "national morale" or whatever would be so damaged that Americans masochistically walk around blaming themselves for Bundy's crimes or whatever.
Also, this nation, on a much broader level, has seen far worse things than a serial killer President. For hundreds of years the people of this country helped prop a system of slave labor, and for 100 years after that propped up a system of racial apartheid. The United States played an active role in the genocide of the Native Americans. I could go on but you should get the point by now. Just as with those tragedies, we only overcome them by learning from them, so it's not like there isn't historical precedent to show that that argument is bullshit.
Supreme Court Replacements
While Ted Bundy had made an impact on the courts, he’d never wanted to make it a core of his legacy. However, Robert Bork, a Supreme Court Justice from the times of the Reagan administration, had different ideas. That August, he suddenly announced that he would retire on September 3rd, requesting that his replacement be added by the 7th at the latest. Bundy had already made a shortlist of potential justices before the 2000 election, but within it “there were as many options as one finds in an ice cream shop”, to quote the New York Post. While generally conservative or moderate, the flavors were numerous. Many suspected Bundy would select an urbane or northern judge, especially after winning New York in 2000. It would be a good way to shore up the vote of Rockefellerites, by picking a moderate judge which would appeal to their interests. However, Bundy, always looking to avoid looking like he was appearing “too elitist”, would go the other way, continuing his habit of turning the political establishment on its head. During a recent court battle over the Citizen Donor Responsibility Act, Senator Shelby had taken time off of his senatorial duties to help defend the law. Moreover, as one of the most conservative Democratic senators, he had broken Bundy’s way on a few key votes, almost as often as Zell Miller. Moreover, Bundy also needed to reassure cultural conservatives that he would stay with them, and appear bi-partisan. Lastly, Shelby was currently haggling with Nick Modi over which state would get the majority of the pork for the new Mars Program. A promotion would remove him from this battle, and Shelby projected to be pretty consistent with Bundy’s judicial philosophy, although more civil rights-oriented Liberty Cons were wary of an Alabaman, especially prominent black Republicans. The choice seemed clear to Bundy. However, as an individual who hadn’t practiced the law in some time, he couldn’t become Chief Justice then and there. Justice Garza, a solid conservative in the Bork’s vein, a catholic Hispanic, and a Rumsfeld appointee would be an easy replacement. His vote would be uneventful, even if the usual suspects opposed his nomination.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Shelby’s nomination would prove more controversial. Firstly, Dick Lamm forced Vice-President Meredith to force the Senate to lengthen the current session of Congress past its end date set for August 31st to September 7th.
Besides their recess being shortened by a week, complicating the plans of members of the Washington elite, there was also the issue of Bundy’s choice. During the hearings process, Shelby would reveal his “authoritarian streak” (The Nation)- believing in a looser interpretation of the commerce clause than many of his cohorts, and generally favoring granting the government the freedom to act “in the common interest” (from his Senate Testimony). His main differing point of opinion relative to Bork was with regards to anti-trust law.
Both the urban and rural wings of the Progressive Party were opposed to his nomination. Moreover, opposition Leader Lamm felt that he could win over enough liberal-leaning Rockefeller Republican types if he not only attacked Shelby’s record but went personal. Lowell P. Weicker, the highest-ranking Progressive on the Judiciary Committee, and one of the first ex-Republicans to join the Progressive Party, would launch the attack. Dick Lamm encouraged Weicker, who was rarely the adversarial type, to be “more aggressive than he’d ever been” and to “embrace his inner Ted”.
“What we have here is a mediocrity who wants to become part of the highest court in the land. He was a mediocre student who attended the mediocre University of Alabama followed by an unremarkable tenure at a no-name law school, this mediocrity leveraged his machine connections to become a mediocre senator for dare I say it...a mediocre state. He has a backwoods judicial philosophy not ingrained in any serious intellectual tradition...this stream of thought, none dare legitimize it as a philosophy... Merely rubber-stamps whatever the executive branch or the baptist church would demand. Regressive appointments like him are why I left the President’s Party and joined the Progressive Party early on. I can think of no better symbol for why my party endorses a return to the 9-justice system our founders intended instead of this 11-man zoo instituted by Mr. George Corley Wallace.”-Lowell P. Weicker
Needless to say, this failed spectacularly. The message, nor the messenger, were good choices. The debacle alienated more liberal Democrats who might have opposed Shelby ideologically, but now felt that Weicker had attacked prosecutors and trial lawyers who had graduated from state universities: many of whom they relied upon for support. The South, needless to say, was unhappy. Senator Andy Griffith expressed an attitude many held, even if in more of a comedic tone: “I think mediocrities and Southerners deserve representation on the court too”. Furthermore, all but the most liberal of northern Republicans had wanted to disassociate themselves from ex-Republicans like Weicker who had left for the Progressives, and overall, they didn’t want urban Democrats attacking them for being elitist or for being soft on crime. Shelby would pass in a close vote, with unanimous Democratic support and unanimous Progressive opposition. Only a few members of the Republican party defected to oppose the nomination, including Scott, Schwarzenegger, Whitman, and Herer. State House Leader and fellow “Bundycrat”, Jeff Sessions, would replace Shelby in the Senate. Dick Lamm came out of the mess looking incompetent, dropping the overall approval ratings of the Progressive Party as a result. After a streak of bad decisions, it seemed his time as part of leadership was coming to a close. The party was ready for a change, and many were already shaping up to contest him for this role.
The irony, of course, would be that Shelby did become as mediocre a man as one could be after joining the list of those greats who have served on the Supreme Court. He would never prove to be the key vote in any one case and generally took other judges' leads both in oral and written arguments. While generally socially conservative, predictably, he had a rather expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and a closed definition of civil liberties that irritated more stringent Liberty Conservative types, who hoped that one of their own, if nominated, would have continued to press for government enforcement of these rights. He did ease some concerns by voting generally in favor of allowing state and local governments leeway in acting in the interest of civil rights. Amusingly, his most notable characteristic as a judge would be his tendency to defect from the Conservative camp whenever Dershowitz defected from the Liberals. Rumors abound that the two had come to hate each other, even on a personal level (unsurprising given their prickly personalities), but this has never been proven, as the two have never publicly mentioned their working relationship.
The New Justice
---
“Alright, so we’re changing the date to September 12th?”
“Yep.”
“And that’s when you’ll go down to Capitol Hill to testify about the you-know-what to Congress?”
“I thought you didn’t want to do that.”
“We really don’t have any other choice, do we Mitt? We’ve got a really big problem, huge really, and I can’t think of anything besides-”
“Right, right. I’ll see you then. I’ll see if we can extend this session any longer than we already have.”
“Beautiful. I’ll see what I can do to help out. I will see you then.”
---
While Ted Bundy had made an impact on the courts, he’d never wanted to make it a core of his legacy. However, Robert Bork, a Supreme Court Justice from the times of the Reagan administration, had different ideas. That August, he suddenly announced that he would retire on September 3rd, requesting that his replacement be added by the 7th at the latest. Bundy had already made a shortlist of potential justices before the 2000 election, but within it “there were as many options as one finds in an ice cream shop”, to quote the New York Post. While generally conservative or moderate, the flavors were numerous. Many suspected Bundy would select an urbane or northern judge, especially after winning New York in 2000. It would be a good way to shore up the vote of Rockefellerites, by picking a moderate judge which would appeal to their interests. However, Bundy, always looking to avoid looking like he was appearing “too elitist”, would go the other way, continuing his habit of turning the political establishment on its head. During a recent court battle over the Citizen Donor Responsibility Act, Senator Shelby had taken time off of his senatorial duties to help defend the law. Moreover, as one of the most conservative Democratic senators, he had broken Bundy’s way on a few key votes, almost as often as Zell Miller. Moreover, Bundy also needed to reassure cultural conservatives that he would stay with them, and appear bi-partisan. Lastly, Shelby was currently haggling with Nick Modi over which state would get the majority of the pork for the new Mars Program. A promotion would remove him from this battle, and Shelby projected to be pretty consistent with Bundy’s judicial philosophy, although more civil rights-oriented Liberty Cons were wary of an Alabaman, especially prominent black Republicans. The choice seemed clear to Bundy. However, as an individual who hadn’t practiced the law in some time, he couldn’t become Chief Justice then and there. Justice Garza, a solid conservative in the Bork’s vein, a catholic Hispanic, and a Rumsfeld appointee would be an easy replacement. His vote would be uneventful, even if the usual suspects opposed his nomination.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Shelby’s nomination would prove more controversial. Firstly, Dick Lamm forced Vice-President Meredith to force the Senate to lengthen the current session of Congress past its end date set for August 31st to September 7th.
Besides their recess being shortened by a week, complicating the plans of members of the Washington elite, there was also the issue of Bundy’s choice. During the hearings process, Shelby would reveal his “authoritarian streak” (The Nation)- believing in a looser interpretation of the commerce clause than many of his cohorts, and generally favoring granting the government the freedom to act “in the common interest” (from his Senate Testimony). His main differing point of opinion relative to Bork was with regards to anti-trust law.
Both the urban and rural wings of the Progressive Party were opposed to his nomination. Moreover, opposition Leader Lamm felt that he could win over enough liberal-leaning Rockefeller Republican types if he not only attacked Shelby’s record but went personal. Lowell P. Weicker, the highest-ranking Progressive on the Judiciary Committee, and one of the first ex-Republicans to join the Progressive Party, would launch the attack. Dick Lamm encouraged Weicker, who was rarely the adversarial type, to be “more aggressive than he’d ever been” and to “embrace his inner Ted”.
“What we have here is a mediocrity who wants to become part of the highest court in the land. He was a mediocre student who attended the mediocre University of Alabama followed by an unremarkable tenure at a no-name law school, this mediocrity leveraged his machine connections to become a mediocre senator for dare I say it...a mediocre state. He has a backwoods judicial philosophy not ingrained in any serious intellectual tradition...this stream of thought, none dare legitimize it as a philosophy... Merely rubber-stamps whatever the executive branch or the baptist church would demand. Regressive appointments like him are why I left the President’s Party and joined the Progressive Party early on. I can think of no better symbol for why my party endorses a return to the 9-justice system our founders intended instead of this 11-man zoo instituted by Mr. George Corley Wallace.”-Lowell P. Weicker
Needless to say, this failed spectacularly. The message, nor the messenger, were good choices. The debacle alienated more liberal Democrats who might have opposed Shelby ideologically, but now felt that Weicker had attacked prosecutors and trial lawyers who had graduated from state universities: many of whom they relied upon for support. The South, needless to say, was unhappy. Senator Andy Griffith expressed an attitude many held, even if in more of a comedic tone: “I think mediocrities and Southerners deserve representation on the court too”. Furthermore, all but the most liberal of northern Republicans had wanted to disassociate themselves from ex-Republicans like Weicker who had left for the Progressives, and overall, they didn’t want urban Democrats attacking them for being elitist or for being soft on crime. Shelby would pass in a close vote, with unanimous Democratic support and unanimous Progressive opposition. Only a few members of the Republican party defected to oppose the nomination, including Scott, Schwarzenegger, Whitman, and Herer. State House Leader and fellow “Bundycrat”, Jeff Sessions, would replace Shelby in the Senate. Dick Lamm came out of the mess looking incompetent, dropping the overall approval ratings of the Progressive Party as a result. After a streak of bad decisions, it seemed his time as part of leadership was coming to a close. The party was ready for a change, and many were already shaping up to contest him for this role.
The irony, of course, would be that Shelby did become as mediocre a man as one could be after joining the list of those greats who have served on the Supreme Court. He would never prove to be the key vote in any one case and generally took other judges' leads both in oral and written arguments. While generally socially conservative, predictably, he had a rather expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and a closed definition of civil liberties that irritated more stringent Liberty Conservative types, who hoped that one of their own, if nominated, would have continued to press for government enforcement of these rights. He did ease some concerns by voting generally in favor of allowing state and local governments leeway in acting in the interest of civil rights. Amusingly, his most notable characteristic as a judge would be his tendency to defect from the Conservative camp whenever Dershowitz defected from the Liberals. Rumors abound that the two had come to hate each other, even on a personal level (unsurprising given their prickly personalities), but this has never been proven, as the two have never publicly mentioned their working relationship.
The New Justice
---
“Alright, so we’re changing the date to September 12th?”
“Yep.”
“And that’s when you’ll go down to Capitol Hill to testify about the you-know-what to Congress?”
“I thought you didn’t want to do that.”
“We really don’t have any other choice, do we Mitt? We’ve got a really big problem, huge really, and I can’t think of anything besides-”
“Right, right. I’ll see you then. I’ll see if we can extend this session any longer than we already have.”
“Beautiful. I’ll see what I can do to help out. I will see you then.”
---
Last edited:
- Status