Supreme Revenge: Frank Luntz Interview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2019
- Frank Luntz is a political consultant, pollster, and "public opinion guru" best known for developing key messages for Republican causes.
Watch Luntz's candid, full interview conducted with FRONTLINE during the making of the May 2019 PBS documentary "Supreme Revenge."
This interview is part of FRONTLINE's Transparency Project, an effort to open up the source material behind FRONTLINE’s reporting. View a version of this interview that includes an interactive text transcript, and explore dozens of other interviews shedding light on three decades of Supreme Court confirmation battles, on FRONTLINE’s website: www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/in...
Watch the full documentary, Supreme Revenge, here: www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fi...
Subscribe on RUclips: bit.ly/1BycsJW
Twitter: / frontlinepbs
Facebook: / frontline
FRONTLINE is streaming more than 200 documentaries online, for free, here: to.pbs.org/hxRvQP
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Major funding for FRONTLINE is provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation, the Park Foundation, The John and Helen Glessner Family Trust, and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation.
Good interview. The interviewer asks the questions let’s him answer and does not turn it into a debate.
Yes true hey. I almost forgot how a normal interwiew is conducted
This must be your first time watching Frontline PBS.
At 11:30 he talks about how hyperpartisanship from the left in the nomination of SCJ is destroying democracy then, later on, goes to bravo Mitch McConnel for somehow being able to hold off the nomination of new SCJ until the next presidential administration. How is that not hyperpartisanship? 20 min in, he's contradicted himself a number of times. This interview is a great example of hyperpartisanship.
Yeah f*ck Frank Luntz.
You didn't listen very carefully. In your quote he criticizes both sides, he just uses different terms for his criticisms... Why are you such a piece of shit liar?
"Republicans did not obstruct the Obama presidency.." How he said that with a straight face I don't know...
This man is ALWAYS playing the game. Even when he is explaining the game.
@@JL-mn9on well said
Because we didn't
Republicans turned a tan suit into a “controversy” Obama had a pristine presidency with literally no legitimate controversies but because he was black they tried to turn mole hills into mountains day after day
@@blaineboyle5997
YUP!!!
I always watch the extended interviews with Frank. Such a great speaker.
Great interview. Thanks for posting.
Such a deep , informative and eye opening conversation, thank you.
Mr. Luntz cherry picks his views. About Kavanaugh, Mr. Luntz fails to recognize that there were, indeed, opinions as he wrote as an Appellate Judge that were a problem. There was a young woman, an undocumented immigrant, who was pregnant and at the time she was detained she was within the time limits spelled out by the Roe line of cases. Kavanaugh intentionally delayed any action so as to leave her outside of those time limits. He is a forced birther and he lied under oath during his hearing.
Guess you missed the slant to the conversation, totally.
As bad as this sounds, I am glad to hear the truth about how really bad our country is being run.
You could say the same about the Right: The Right also likes a Black man or woman that they can put on a pedestal as an example to other Blacks as "See, I'm not racist, if you agree 100% with me, I can even love you." So all you get are hard Right Black Conservatives on the Republican side, no room for dissent...and most certainly no President Colin Powell!
I became aware of Frank Luntz mostly during the GWB years. Couldn't stand him then. I thought he enabled everything that was wrong with GWB and Cheney and the lies that started these endless wars. After listening to this interview and seeing Luntz's maturity in his observations and experiencing my own since then, I respect his views as presented in this interview.
it was all cheney
He was stupid when he said Republicans respect the Constitution. That's laughable in this context. Maybe in the past. But this guy is in denial. His party is mutated and very different than what he identifies.
well; thanks
@@humanonearth1 - Hear, hear. I could not agree with you more.
No. you should trust your first "take" on this fraud. He's just covering his Be-hind. don't fall for his self serving rhetoric.
Great comments by Luntz. He’s right-it’s chaos.
Evil cannot be destroyed by good, try that we might. Evil does not create, it only destroys and ultimately destroy itself.
Restore American Values I wish that were true. Evil builds nations and empires and rules with tyranny.
Very wise. Stand firm, don't give ground, watch them cannibalize and implode.
This guy is painfully hyperbolic and melodramatic.
The first two minutes set this up.
My observation as well. It's painful to watch.
He is what he is, as Republicans we accept people for who they are.
This is not hyperbole. It's the straight take.
My wife said she voted for Trump specifically to get conservative judges. To overturn Roe v. Wade. That "list" mattered here in AL
Well your wife is an idiot not wanting the best for women, and you're no better that you let him happen.
@@prevosfr DId you not hear the message of the interview? You should not attack the character of others and tell them in a condescending tone about what's best for them. You need to respect everyone.
Your wife got her wish. The Supreme Court struck down Roe vs Wade about a week ago.
It’s just so bizarre to see someone think this way and have this understanding of how the world works and thinks, etc. He’s in his own little world and has no concept of the false dichotomies and equivalencies that he builds up and knocks down.
I meant to say equivalencies not acquaintances so I edited the above. Wanted to be transparent about that fact.
"McConnell takes the long view..." also "Kavanaugh is not a reaction to Bork."
Kavanaugh has no business being on the surpreme court. Everyone including me a 65 year old woman knows what a devil's triangle is. He said it was a drinking game. He also babbled about a calenders he was 14 the first time his father read it. I'm disgusted with the guy
Excellent interview and this take on the Bork confirmation is absolutely correct.
It was the passing of John Sydney McCain is where Lindsey Graham got his MOJO.
What do you mean by that?
@@anthonychaboude1548 the two were very close. Lindsey used to be a somewhat very moderate Republican (like McCain). After John’s passing, however, he moved further to the right, became one of Trump’s key supporters etc... to many people’s surprise.
Lindsey Graham has always craved a strong man by his side...
Luntz’s view of history seems to extend only so far as his own experience.
So he says with dramatic flourish that Supreme Court nominations before Bork we’re generally being civil affairs and after we’re bloodbaths.
Perhaps he should qualify thus a bit with “in my lifetime” or “according to me”.
Lots in politics has changed with media and cultural shifts, including Supreme Court nominations. But the process has seen plenty of pre-Bork controversy dating back to Washington.
See for example, John Routlege, John Parker, Harry Carswell.
By the way...where is the Democratic counterpart to Bork? The Democratic counterpart to Thomas? The Democratic counterpart of Kavanaugh?
@coffeeinthemorning I mean that the video talks as if "both sides do it" which is incorrect. Republicans generally allow Democrats to choose who they want (check out the vote totals for Ginsburg for instance) but Democrats will do anything to prevent a Republican from picking a Conservative. The Republicans have never treated a Democratic nominee the way Democrats treated Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh.
@@jardy630 they do nomimate sexual predators for president though
gahrie Merrick Garland would like to speak with you...
@@jnayvann What happened to Garland is neither unique nor unusual. Out of 48 failed nominations to the Court, 12 of them were because the Senate didn't take any action on the nominee. What the Republicans did not do, was assassinate Garland's character.
@@gahrie kavanaugh goes around with mitch McConnell and speaks at political rallies, that kinda hyper partisanship doesnt belong on the supreme court. That nonsense is contributing to Americas decline, get the fuck off it
Now, the only thing you get out of nominees is "Senator, thank you for the question."
I swear, sometimes it's like Frank has a key to people's minds
And also a bachelor's degree from an ivy league college and a PHD from Oxford in history and politics. I learn something new every time I hear him speak. It's refreshing to hear someone willing to just tell the damn truth. He's amazing.
@@cathybell2899 Now if only he'd do it without betraying his own partisanship, it would have been even better.
Frank Luntz is spot on here.
Except for the fact that he's trying to sound bipartisan about it when only the Democrats try to destroy nominees. Also, Bork's answers had nothing to do with his borking. The Democrats had planned it out before he said anything. The object was to keep a conservative off the bench.
"You expect Cory Booker to cry, because he's an actor as much as he is a senator". Actually, he's not much of either...
Such a great interview.
He failed to mention Trump's anti-judicial bully pulpit. He talks about popular opinion being divided now because of political battles. I'm sure Trump's impact is great.
He identified both Bork and Thomas as dividing the nation long before Trump. You're either young, ignorant or stupid.
Rip RBG
How true.
As I see this, it seems that his comments are from his perspective. With authority of opinion, he asserts his point of view, and that's what we've become! It seems warlike. Tribal.
Is America actually listening to what this Man is saying? Our freedom is on the line! If we don’t stand as one we will be shut out/down one at a time. United we stand! Divided we fall! The state motto of “my” Kentucky home! We need to keep the next generation awake and informed of what is happening and what could be, better or worse! Stand up!
It's kind of interesting to see the number of people bemoaning the absence of this kind of interview on TV.
Seems a bit rediculous to do that to me given the whole point of uploading these is to show the full interviews from documentaries where they've used parts of it.
I like the transparency project. Wish all interviews were put online in entirety
Luntz is absolutely positive about absolutely everything.
I know. he's a total A-hole.
Nice job with the sound mix. Can't hear anything.
"Now you have to live with it; and the problem is you can't."
Such an important point made by FL at the very end (31:55): "Now we have to live with it; and the problem is we can't."
Luntz has been the moderator in many of these debates, yet he never "moderated" he never chastised those that stepped over the line, he never lead participants into civility. Now he complains that we have lost civility. The failure is a failure in leadership, hypocrisy in leadership, greed for power,...
Seriously, this guy is an idiot. He wants to give every bigot an opportunity to slither out of their racism and hate. How does sexual harassment and assault become a situation where everyone has their side?
How truly awful it is to have been born an American citizen.
Yeah, sure it is. I'm sure you're moving out, right? What a dope.
It may not be perfect but I'm in no hurry to get out..!!
Maybe you'd like to tell us all where the "great" countries are and how you're doing outside the U.S. ??
I'm proud to be a US citizen a d I'm a Lefty. Been to other countries and when I come home I kiss the ground. I appreciate this country with all it's blemishes, not perfect but I'm so grateful to have had the good fortune to be born here. By the way, I can't stand Lutz!
Numerous justices have been confirmed without great controversy -- Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch and Kagan all were confirmed without incident. What happened with Kavanaugh is that liberals lost their lock on Roe v. Wade. That's what sparked the conflagration. I'm very proud and appreciative of the work Trump and Kavanaugh did in the process. People have to stand up against what is wrong.
So it's okay to have an emotionally and mentally unstable man on the highest court in the country? Nevermind two sides of the story, there's little evidence to support either. But when confronted with a tense and consequential situation, a now-Supreme Court justice threw a fit and promised revenge. His mind is not well. He's unfit to serve.
Then again, based on your blind praise of Don the Con, I suppose you have no issue with mentally unstable men leading our country.
What is wrong is politicizing women’s bodies:
@@andrewfrisch7002 your mendacity is transparent. Kavanaugh acted as rationally as any virtuous family man subjected to nationally organized hyper-slander could ever be expected to...the very act of questioning his outrage discredits all who do so.
he acted as any human should.
@@andrewfrisch7002 I do hope you get to somehow personally experience your own demented behavioral standards when a national movement decides that smearing you with horrific felonies is the easiest way to politically defeat you...and national media joins in.
of course that's unlikely, you probably have little impact. that would explain your self-serving behavioral standards.
oh well...Justice Kavanaugh is there now, and Trump will probably get 2 more Justices by 2025. ;-)
Frank makes a salient point about civility AND respect, e.g. Chief Justice Roberts' "flip" on the Obamacare decision. Rumors of the Executive Branch strong-arming the Judicial Branch -- that's a history-making "first"!
Talk to Schumer about it.
*On the point of ' Do you see the merits of this side and the other side, YES !*
I have noted this very same dilemma within myself and I must say, I have to err on
the side, of the fair intent, within the Constitution and common decency. Sorry ! all
else has to fall the Boo Hoo side in life.
I thought Republicans should have confirmed Garland, but McConnell pulled it off, but it would be just if he were appointed now, but he probably won't be, much as the Republican Ginsberg was used as a pawn.
I'm not moved... If we want to address civil discourse going down the toilet meaningfully then address the elephant in the room...
The Best & least biased interview out of the entire Anti-Trump circus. If you could only continue this way when it comes to everything (Trump included), our country wouldn't be in the terrible divided place we're in
Not knocking your observation 4 months later. My observation is that as a country we are all using a different playbook so to speak. There are reactionaries and there are those that act after much thought. We are all products of our micro environments. I am grateful for these interviews. When one interacts with those outside their comfort zones it's then and only then one learns. To be honest inside my micro environment I am the only that is even aware of Frontline.
frank's a smart guy
Souter was a mistake, because after Bork they wanted someone who had no paper trail, and he happened to be from New Hampshire.
Mitt Romney is the conscious that frank talks about at the end.
Artemis Karazai Romney has no conscious He is just another swamp creature
Whelp, I guess its over, folks.
You are insightful.
“McConnell takes the long view”. Really?
For his party, perhaps.
For the institution, not hardly.
For the country, not even close.
Lots of thoughtful, reflective comments, but no answers. If you’re interested in the roots of all this madness and real solutions, look up Strong Towns. Good luck America maybe we can move past this
Don’t get Borked
Byron White, appointed by JFK, turned out to be a great conservative.
VIEW
•
VIEW
•
I watched this doc. I was surprized by it's republican take on that history because it sure wasn't the facts and context. And This Guy built the modern republican lexicon along with Newt Gingrich and was trained by Lee Atwater. Willie Horton! He was and is a dishonest purveyor of lies! the fact there is no disclaimer as to what this guy has done is appalling. This calls into question the veracity of past Frontline Docs.
No one thought Bork could write an opinion so persuasively that it couldn’t be undone. He wasn’t qualified because he was hyper-partisan. Anyone who thinks the 9th Amendment is an “inkblot” shouldn’t be a lawyer or a judge.
This guy I notice plays to his audience, says one thing for one channel, another thing for another. Some things are right but some things he's outright wrong. He just said voters don't care judges, that's true. Then he says voters do care judges...
Wtf does "do care judges..." mean?
Care “about” is what he meant, I think.
McConnell is a mafia Don. We are all hostages. Great interview 👍
Agree, he is rotten to the Core, one minute no the people should have a Say ,the next let's get this done immediately, damn the people
The gun in his hand is one that you people made yourselves. That's the beauty of the strategy.
I was too young to remember the R. Bork hearings.
Trump voters didnt vote based on the list? I really question that idea from Frank.
I had never heard of the list, during the campaign.
@@bodyloverz30
So what? You are one guy, I think a lot of voters cared about the supreme court. I recall seeing 2 girls I went to high school with stress the importance of the supreme court on facebook despite their reservations on Trump for other moral reasons.
Who know? It seems impossible to understand what people base their understanding of how the world works on. Most people are ignorant of most things. For good reason--there are no simple solutions to complex issues.
I agree that it didn't effect the average Trump voter, but if you were a Cruz or Rubio guy, or borderline never trump, that list and the Supreme Court made Trump worth voting for.
I heard about the list but I couldn’t tell you one that was on it. I did however know he would nominate strict constructionist judges and I was all for that.
What an amazingly smart man
Correction Mr. Luntz - we have a representative republic not a democracy.
FBI still needs to look into Kavanaugh's finances.
RB Gingsberg couldn’t carry Borks briefcase.
Ahahaha oh 😲 wow you really don’t know anything about Chief Justice Ginsberg do you? Your comment is incredibly rude and incorrect.
Outstanding interview, MUCH better than his bizarre Bill Mahr interview with the sneakers.
Luntz tries to appear nonpartisan but his lean to the right always shines through. He’s a hypocrite if I’ve ever seen one. The support for MConnell’s treatment of Merrick Garland is just one example.
this is amazing stuff. We have to reinstate the filibuster. we have to go back to 60/40 for confirming the judiciary.
0:26 1:49 3:33 4:20 6:47 8:34 10:24 11:29 11:53 12:23 13:39 14:56 16:36 18:48 19:11 20:41 21:26 22:42 25:10 26:09 28:39 /////
Lindsey Grahams was "freed" by Trump...
Graham was freed to be the insane fool he always was. He will pay the price in the long term along with all the other GOP traitors to America.
Mr. Luntz, we are not living in normal times. We have a movement going on not only in the US but in the entire global environment. The forces that are at play or not the normal domestic questions. It is more fundamental then courts. The international Communist party is making it's move. That movement has set it sights on Capitalism and Democracy. Two under pinning of our Republic. The conservatives are at war with a group who loathes our election process, loathes our emigration process, loathes all the trappings of a free democratic republic. They have systematically changed what the young is taught about our freedoms, or twisted it to mean free speech is only speech they the left approve of. They have redefined the meanings of words. Today if you don't like Mexican food you are a racist.
But what they are destroying is the cohesion of our society. A major candidate for president can refer to a large portion or her opposition as "deplorable". And can openly lye about anyone who stands in your way. Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian Agent with out a shred of evidence. If we continue down this road it will end in civil war, or the destruction of the left.
Nice rug Frank......
Mc Connoll is a very dishonest man and I find it majorly difficult to listen to this man supporting Mc Connell. VOTE BLUE IN 2020. Stop the the distruction of this nation.
The tested switch dfly chop because hexagon excitingly prepare as a temporary window. noxious, deserted handball
One of Bork's problems was that he was so physically unattractive. No one talks about that, but it's true.
Unlike Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
@@epm5433 Ginsburg got more than 90 votes...
and what the hell kind of name is Bork
This guy was lying 🤥 about Obama for years. He is a trump apologists
An unspoken fact was that Hill was willing to exploit Thomas in order to further her career. Now she was doing the same thing.
You keep using that word "destroyed". I do not think it means what you think it means.
This guy reads the political landscape and the players like no other. I love the line if "you or I was the President the border problem would be solved in 10 minutes." All the basic problems could be solved because we (you and I ) have more civility than our elected officials. Frank is right, the members of congress act like spoiled 2 year olds.
As does the Senate
The boiling forecast speculatively delight because mustard emotionally accept apropos a snobbish impulse. honorable, accessible database
Sometimes one wonders if Frank Luntz is trying to convince the audience of his historical re-interpretations, or himself. A very amusing man to listen to.
George Soros
Supreme Court nominees Bork, Thomas, & Kavanaugh. What is the common factor among these 3 outrageous confirmation process? The answer: This happens to only to the Republican nominees to the Court.
I am sorry to say maybe Bork was brilliant but he wasn't "mentch" he wasn't so smart he was closed minded
31:01 Donald Trump tells a cruel joke, I don't care. Try to figure out if a sexual predator will sit on the Supreme Court, that's destruction of civil discourse. I think I see what Luntz is trying to say: Republican anger is noble and empowering; Democratic anger is childish and destructive.
I like this, except for his Republican bias. Political parties are evil. And, stupid. 90%+ of Washington politicians needs to be gone. They are not committed to working toward the best possible ethical decisions. Mitch is the ultimate example. All he's ever wanted was power for power's sake. (Not my opinion...I just spent time reading different, varied, sources about this. Could not find opposing views.)
Ok!! Let me get this straight ; so what Young Republicans between 17-21 do is "Rapping People Left & Right". Dude is bias as fuck , acn separate his views from his criticism : BIAS AS FUCK.
Getting rid of the politicians wouldn't solve the problem, but reshuffle deck chairs. You gotta burn down the establishment that controls them from the outside: think tanks, lobbying firms, etc.
@@RuneForumwalker How many times I've said that Titanic phrase when working in hopeless situations! So, I agree! My only hope is enough people will come to realize that what is really happening is totally corruption. Real change requires getting money out of politics as a start. Then term limits...
I'm unconvinced term limits do anything. Start by getting money out of politics and slowly give power back to the people at large over their own lives (democracy in the workplace, less unjust hiearchy). As you do this, you can start to shrink government as well like libertarians like as you wouldn't need it as a force against the powerful elites.
@@RuneForumwalker Yes, agreed. But, term limits limit power. Like McConnell power! Even if there needs to be time between terms. You know many politicians go to DC with little wealth and leave with mega wealth. Wealth=power, always!
The problem with this doc is it plays both siderism. The Federalist Society is a small organization in each law school representing 1-3% of students. But it represents a near 100% of Republican judges. Republicans only pick from the most conservative of lawyers. On the flip side Democrats pick center right corporate lawyers. The 10% of truly liberal lawyers are not even in consideration. Where is the ACLU lawyer, or the Green Peace lawyer or The SPLC lawyer up for judgeship? Democrats did not start this fight, they fought back when it became clear that the Republicans had abandoned the idea of picking moderate judges, and would only pick from this tiny 1% of lawyers who are in the Federalist Society. The Dems pick from the other 99%. Which of these two process is radical?
Second, this docs fails to mention that the Republicans have had a majority of Judges since Reagan. But where the bar was set for considering conservative justice kept changing. Sandra Day O'Connor was a very conservative judge by any historical standard. The fact that she became a swing vote does not change that. It just shows how right the court moved with Republicans only picking people who were in their society of radicals. After she retired, Kennedy was the swing vote. Kennedy is on the record saying he uses the Federalist Society to find his clerks. Kennedy is more conservative than O'Connor, but than is the swing vote.
This idea that Democrats changed the game is nonsense. Democrats reacted to Republicans changing of the game in a radical way.
Ronald Backer Ginsberg was an ACLU lawyer. I’m not even going to try to point out all your other misstatements. You are a pathetic braying, lying Demonrat. Center right people are fed up with your kind of outright deception.
Luntz is an idealog, not taking McConnell to task for his destruction of democracy by not letting Merrick Garland receive a hearing. Luntz lets Republicans off the hook for their divisive and heinous behavior.
Graham has greatly improved since McCain's been gone.
Is he gonna cry again?
Stfu that was an amazing interview. Sorry you can't get that passionate about anything and relate.
Boy, everything this guy says the Republican Congress have respect for The Constitution.
The country does not deserve something better. This is what the Dems have wrought, but it's a machine in pursuit of Total Dem Power (TDP).
Kavanaugh was embarrassing and I’m a republican. He ruined the temperament of the court forever.
GET2222 I am a democrat and I was embarrassed. The process ruined the temperament of the court forever. What the democrats did was underhanded and outright dirty smear. They had knowledge of Dr Ford way before they pulled the slime stunt. They should have brought it up before the nomination.
@@charlesbaldo Dr Ford was not believable.
Robert Pace of course not. If she was and they had real evidence Feinstein would have used it before the process started. They did it to embarrass him and hoped the shock value would make him step down.
@@charlesbaldo it's my understanding that Kennedy agreed to retire if Kavanaugh would be the nominated candidate by Trump. The dems were not going to allow any candidate nominated by Trump to succeed. Kavanaugh is a centrist jurist that was acceptable to Trump and who Kennedy wanted as his replacement.
Robert Pace Kavanaugh was a clerk for Kennedy. Supreme Court Justice do make political deals. I have heard RGB has tried to make deals with Trump. There have been some appeals court 2nd district that she oversees that have been pro Trump. I doubt Trump would do that. Nothing to gain. If he loses they get a pick if he deals and puts a liberal on the court he loses his election. It would be one thing that would shake the base free
Hey Frank, this hasn't aged well. Tell me again about Republicans and the Constitution and Evangelicals not supporting Trump because of judicial appointments.
I disagree with a lot of what he says. Democrats care very much about the Constitution. Trump is trying to change the words on the plaque..... in real time
13:10 I had to stop watching after this. I don't claim to know everything, but this statement about Republicans caring more that Democrat is a matter of opinion. Totally loses all creditability from that point on, and I was barely hanging by a thread.
You realize what he does for a living right? And you see the results from the election, right?
@@Mitch-zr4wb Yes but I still want to hear people's points of views until they're spatting off bullshit
IV Elmendorf
No, it's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of polling:
QUOTE (12:41)
And [Mitch McConnell's strategy] worked for him on Election Day, and it actually worked for the Republicans in the two years since then, because to my surprise-but polling bears it out-Republicans care more about the Supreme Court than Democrats do.
As much as Democrats don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they don’t, and they don’t like some of these laws or some of these rulings against unions or the workplace, Republicans care about the Constitution more than the Democrats do.
Republicans care about the courts more than the Democrats do.
END QUOTE
Hello RUclips. For me it is really strange and scary that the health of the planet - which includes things like drinking water and clean air- is minimized in all these discussions around polarization. People are terrified on the left by what appears to be the conservatives politicizing global health and longevity. Perhaps conservatives have the foresight to invest in the courts for political reasons but anyone in their “right” mind should be considering the future for this very specific reason as well. Even if you don’t “believe” in climate change it is hard to deny the health implications for all human beings when our air and water systems are being polluted by companies for profit. As many things in politics, even saying it that way is hard for me to run with as it is a massive simplification of what is happening to our hearts and our health as we take over all the natural spaces with our industry. I’d have a lot less anger toward Trump and the Republicans - and their constituents!- if they spoke about this issue reasonably. It is really hard not to condemn a group of people that appear so selfish this way. It is hard to know what to tell yourself. You begin to wonder if they’re mentally deranged or greedy or ignorant or? It isn’t for lack of proof on the effects of pollution. It is really hard to listen to anyone talk about what they care about when their party is gambling with the health and lives of everyone and everything alive. I wish that were an exaggeration. I heard an interview with one of the women who started the tea party movement - she is in favor or climate change advocacy and corporate reform. Amazing! I had so much hope! I was genuinely able to listen to her despite disagreeing with other issues. It feels natural to listen in earnest when someone is acknowledging the truth on something that was once a bipartisan issue. I think many liberals are deeply enraged because, on a biological level, they feel they are fighting for the life of the planet.
Ok, I agree. We do take care well of environment than we did, say, 50 years ago. But it's really interesting that liberals are outraged when it comes to felling trees but don't give a whit about butchering babies in the womb, in fact, they are hellbent on doing all they could to make abortion as easy and accessible as possible. And most liberals are very supportive of decriminalization of drugs - that could make mental illness more prevalent. Liberals also don't give a crap about divorce - which is one of the major reasons for criminal behavior of children. This is what is extremely confusing: liberals want to protect the environment in which we live but don't seem to care much about the people.
naveen82376 hey there, I think maybe I’d need you to expand on what you’re saying but of course this is a comment box. Best I can respond succinctly is to say that caring about the environment isn’t simply about tree hugging (by the way have you ever read the Hidden Life of Trees? Amazing book!) but caring about the health and lives of people in our country and around the globe. Poor communities are most affected by pollution. I live in the Bay Area. The poorest part of Oakland is West Oakland and it is consistently rated as having the highest rates of childhood illness and other quality of life issues for the residents because it is one of the most polluted urban areas in the country due to the port and trucking industry there. There are many non-profit groups trying to educate the local residents on how to advocate for themselves. And in my experience most these groups are run by liberal minded people. Regarding abortion I think partisan talking points have done a good job of creating a horrible situation in our ability to have conversations about the realities of people’s relationships to that issue. First, I have a close friend who is liberal, christian and anti-abortion. Second, liberals are not in favor of butchering babies. Women don’t want to butcher babies abortion is a very complex situation and actually Mayor Pete did a good job talking about it on Fox News - not that I’m a supporter of his. But he talked about it in a way that touched on some of the spin. The abortion stuff ties into the other things you say too- especially divorce. Historically the institution of marriage was often used in ways that promoted ownership and mistreatment of women. There is a very long road from then to now, and it has a lot of complexity to it. My best summary of those types of issues (in an extremely general way)is that conservatives tend toward preservation and liberals tend toward progress and innovation- looking at it that divorce is a progressive idea. It gave women a chance to free themselves from abusive situations, etc. I hope this is helpful. It sounds like these might be really key issues for you that trigger you and make you feel like “the other side” is horrible. I definitely have issues I hold nearest and dearest to my heart. It would do us all a lot of good to stop assuming what the other side thinks and ask more questions and help each other understand how we got here. Otherwise the future is a bit bleak. We can’t wipe each other out - there’s no game to win. I guess that’s why the planet’s health seems like it could’ve been a good meeting place, even if we disagreed on other things. Thanks for acknowledging what I said.
Ryan R have you considered what you’re trying to achieve in asking a question with that specific framing? Sounds to me like a put down in response to an attempt at honest self-expression. Not sure why you have a bone to pick here but seems probably not really with me as I’m not presenting any sort of challenge other than inviting people to be thoughtful.
Ryan R in other words please leave me alone unless you can be respectful.
It would be easy to overturn this conservative court by simply expanding the seats from 9 to 13 and the equivalent on the lower court once they're in power.
@archisaurus there is nothing in the constitution saying how many judges can be on any court.
@@msj9097 well I guess the conservatives can do likewise
But then the left would not survive the ensuing Civil War that it would start. Though killing Nazicrats would be fun.
Expanding the court is OK, but what really should be done is take power AWAY from large institutions and give it back to the people at large.