US Politics: He's Trump, he's Trump, he's Trump, he's in my head

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Well, I do think there's a decent chance at flipping the House in 2018; but it all depends on how things shake out over the next year plus. At the very least they should pick up a decent haul of seats though, making it even harder for Republicans to pass anything; its not going to be Freedom Caucus folks losing their seats.

I wish I had your optimism. I foresee a narrow Republican majority in the House (they'll probably lose 10-15 seats in 2018) and a bigger majority in the Senate (my best guess is 58 seats). 

[Week]

52 minutes ago, S John said:

One thing I noticed in the NAU clip was that it was like.. 20 students?  Yet this is exactly the kinda stuff gets picked up by the Breitbarts of the world and used to paint all college students, all young people, all colleges, all liberals as unreasonable, out of touch, snowflakes.  I think the push back we are seeing at some universities is due to the universities realizing that they are not actually going to have a mass revolt on their hands if they fail to meet increasingly ridiculous demands, that it is really only a small group of students that is driving the narrative, and that they've been letting them do that.  

 

Hugely significant. Where Northern Arizona University leads, the collegiate population follows.

/s (I had to look up wtf NAU was) - Agree with you S John.

[denstorebog]

In today's edition of "I Shit You Not", Twitter is suing Trump.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/327677-twitter-alleges-trump-administration-tried-to-unmask-critical-account

I really want this to get to the point where Twitter casually declares that they are no longer willing to provide their services to anyone affiliated with the administration. Anyone.

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I wish I had your optimism. I foresee a narrow Republican majority in the House (they'll probably lose 10-15 seats in 2018) and a bigger majority in the Senate (my best guess is 58 seats). 

Well, its still pretty far out, I'm not ready to predict anything (and considering how 2016 went, I suck at predicting). The special elections will be interesting, although even they won't necessarily tell us that much (Republicans won some specials before the 2006 wave, and Democrats won some before the 2010 wave).

Democrats very much have a path to retake the House, but it relies on white suburban voters being with disgusted with Trump and wanting a check on him.

Far as the Senate goes, in wave elections the same party usually wins pretty much all the close elections, so I could very much see the Democrats keeping pretty much all their seats (maybe losing two, like Missouri and Indiana) and that Nevada seat is very much a pick-up opportunity. Its not that unrealistic for Republicans to still only have a 52 or 53 seat margin in the Senate after 2018; although that is definitely near the top of the "best case scenarios" list. If things go poorly, Republicans will have the votes that the legislative filibuster won't matter.

[lokisnow]

Thought experiment, if Ginsberg had died in 2016 would republicans have acted any differently? no they would not have. 

If republicans had not nuked the filibuster today, and Ginsberg dies this year, would republicans have nuked the filibuster to fill her seat? Today they proved they would do so. 

The republicans were never going to be faithful bargainers, they were always going to act in their own best interest and to inflict maximal damage on democrats.

Ultimately, it is good to have the filibuster eradicated.

Now, since the passage of the civil rights act and voting rights act (which ended the new deal coalition and ushered in our current era) Republicans have held the presidency 8 of 13 terms and have appointed 14 of 18 supreme court justices.

Since Clarence Thomas will announce his retirement next week, Trump will easily seat another new judge in their forties before the fall term starts. expanding republicans margin to 15 of 19 supreme court justices.

In spite of only holding the presidency 61% of the time, republicans have appointed 77% of all supreme court justices of this present era (79% of SC justices once Thomas' replacement is confirmed). Republicans were willing to destroy a hundred years of precedent in order to steal one supreme court seat, democrats have an open path and very clear option for the future when they hold all three branches.

Expand the seats on the supreme court.

It's fairly ridiculous to have a court staffed at a level sufficient for a country two hundred years ago and with only ten million total population. Time to modernize. Especially given that Republicans will have a score of 79-21 (or more) and a path to parity is clearly needed. Since we cannot remove illegitimate justices like Gorsuch any more than we can remove illegitimate presidents like Trump, this is the only option.

[Altherion]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see why. McConnell showed through 2009-2013 and with Garland that there is no real political price to pay for simply refusing to have hearings. Gorsuch shows that there's no real value in compromise or even trying to.

What this points out is that the norms we have that aren't enforced by actual law or constitution are not particularly valuable in a partisan system. My suspicion is the legislative filibuster will be removed, and will likely be removed by Democrats.

There is no price to pay as long as you win. Had the Democrats won the Presidency and control of the Senate, McConnell would have looked pretty stupid after a more liberal justice than Garland went to the Supreme Court. The Republicans bet big on winning in November and their gamble paid off, but that doesn't mean that it is always the best strategy or that there is no value in compromise.

It would be nice if the legislative filibuster was removed, but it's hard to see it happening soon. The filibuster isn't a tool of the Democrats or the Republicans; it's a means of protection for the status quo. The Democrats actually had a golden chance to remove it in 2009, but they chose to hide behind it instead.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Since Clarence Thomas will announce his retirement next week, 

Eh?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

There is no price to pay as long as you win. Had the Democrats won the Presidency and control of the Senate, McConnell would have looked pretty stupid after a more liberal justice than Garland went to the Supreme Court. The Republicans bet big on winning in November and their gamble paid off, but that doesn't mean that it is always the best strategy or that there is no value in compromise.

What is the value in compromise?

McConnell would have looked entirely fine if a liberal justice got nominated, because as far as he was concerned Garland WAS that liberal nomination. And betting on both the POTUS flipping and the senate not isn't that big of a bet, honestly.

Again, McConnell showed that there is no value in giving the other side their justices. None whatsoever. Cruz and Paul and McCain said that they were going to keep the SCOTUS seat open for 4 more years if Clinton won, and campaigned on that, and won. 

What is the value in compromise?

Just now, Altherion said:

It would be nice if the legislative filibuster was removed, but it's hard to see it happening soon. The filibuster isn't a tool of the Democrats or the Republicans; it's a means of protection for the status quo. The Democrats actually had a golden chance to remove it in 2009, but they chose to hide behind it instead.

The reason it'll get removed, IMO, is that reconciliation shows how toothless it is, and once Republicans start passing giant sweeping things with it and ignoring the parliamentarian's view to do so Dems will simply not care about it. Dems are the party of actually wanting to provide entitlements, and the ACA has shown that even not perfect entitlements will get broad support once they've been around long enough. That should give enough ammo to say 'look, we've tried to compromise and give the other side anything but they won't budge, so we'll just go ahead and pass laws when we can'.

[lokisnow]

39 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's interesting how this has evolved. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now thought of as the arch-liberal of the court, but she was confirmed 96-3. Even when such near-unanimity didn't happen, a majority vote has been enough (Thomas only got 52 votes, Alito got 58). It might still be possible to get a justice confirmed without controlling the Senate as long as the balance of the court is not disturbed (i.e. exchange a liberal for a liberal or a conservative for a conservative).

I've mostly stopped following this thread because it moves too fast thus takes too much time, but the diminution of the filibuster is important. Of course, it's not as good as simply getting rid of it altogether would be, but the more holes in it, the better.

iirc Ginsberg was on a list that Hatch provided to president Clinton of justices the senate was willing to confirm.

Since this was the first democrat appointment to the SC in a quarter century, republicans made the sure the list was only of old people (ginsberg was about 60 I think).

Democrats had to kowtow to a republican minority and choose from only their preapproved list because of the filibuster. otherwise he probably would have appointed a younger woman in her late forties.

the fact that she was preapproved was the only reason a former ACLU attorney was approved 96-3

[lokisnow]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Eh?

Before the presidential election, Thomas publicly stated he wanted to retire and planned to if Trump won.

[lokisnow]

the big obstacle to everything for democrats is that the long term trend says that there will be ZERO states with both a republican and a democrat senator representing them. within ten years, 48 or more states should be represented by either two republican senators or by two democrat senators. and fewer than 8 states will EVER have a competitive senate election again. 

And quite simply there will probably be more states with two republican senators than there will be of states with two democrat senators.

The senate will stay close to evenly divided, with majorities rarely exceeding 54 senators. but that can be a big majority when so few seats are in doubt.

I know people chuckle when I bring this up. But please. Look at a map of the united states. Count the red states that are always red. You're going to hit 24 states without even feeling doubt about any of those outcomes. Those states are mostly two republican senators already. the ones that are currently outliers will inevitably all revert to that mean.

That's 48 locked, uncompetitive senate seats guaranteed to republicans. 

 

 

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Before the presidential election, Thomas publicly stated he wanted to retire and planned to if Trump won.

Even if he still means that (which I wouldn't be sure of), I can't imagine he'd resign before the end of the current term. Gorsch (and any hypothetical Thomas replacement) can't rule on any of the cases that already had oral arguments (which is pretty much all of them), so if Thomas resigned next week liberals would have a 4-3 majority for the rest of the term.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Before the presidential election, Thomas publicly stated he wanted to retire and planned to if Trump won.

Well yeah, he no longer has Scalia to crib from.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, lokisnow said:

the big obstacle to everything for democrats is that the long term trend says that there will be ZERO states with both a republican and a democrat senator representing them. within ten years, 48 or more states should be represented by either two republican senators or by two democrat senators. and fewer than 8 states will EVER have a competitive senate election again. 

And quite simply there will probably be more states with two republican senators than there will be of states with two democrat senators.

The senate will stay close to evenly divided, with majorities rarely exceeding 54 senators. but that can be a big majority when so few seats are in doubt.

 

 

Doesn't that rather suggest that we are due for a massive realignment?  That is, at some point the remaining parties, such as they are, fracture.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Before the presidential election, Thomas publicly stated he wanted to retire and planned to if Trump won.

Holy crap, I just had a horrifying thought. What if all the older conservative justices retire together? Republicans could pack the court with a bunch of 40 year olds and own it forever. And that doesn't even factor in if one of the older liberal justices retire or die. 

[lokisnow]

6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Doesn't that rather suggest that we are due for a massive realignment?  That is, at some point the remaining parties, such as they are, fracture.

why would they do that if increased partisanship makes the parties themselves stronger?

and per 538, senate republicans are currently--during the trump presidency--MORE unified than any senate majority has ever been.

The senate being MORE unified than ever means that there is no fracture.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Holy crap, I just had a horrifying thought. What if all the older conservative justices retire together? Republicans could pack the court with a bunch of 40 year olds and own it forever. And that doesn't even factor in if one of the older liberal justices retire or die. 

Doubtful. The one thing that unites pretty much every judge, at every level of the law, is that they have massive egos. And they almost never want to retire and lose the ego trip that is having control of a courtroom.

The Supreme Court is a little different; but they still almost all have huge egos.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, lokisnow said:

why would they do that if increased partisanship makes the parties themselves stronger?

Because the parties themselves each have fractures currently, and if for long enough what you have is highly competitive primaries between two interparty factions, what you eventually get is two different parties.

[lokisnow]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Even if he still means that (which I wouldn't be sure of), I can't imagine he'd resign before the end of the current term. Gorsch (and any hypothetical Thomas replacement) can't rule on any of the cases that already had oral arguments (which is pretty much all of them), so if Thomas resigned next week liberals would have a 4-3 majority for the rest of the term.

justices announce they will retire at the end of the term, I believe. I seem to remember Souter announced his retirement around now, and Obama nominated Sotomayor three or four weeks later, and about three-four months later she was confirmed in August.

[lokisnow]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Holy crap, I just had a horrifying thought. What if all the older conservative justices retire together? Republicans could pack the court with a bunch of 40 year olds and own it forever. And that doesn't even factor in if one of the older liberal justices retire or die. 

Well duh, Kennedy is a republican, was appointed by a republican and probably wants his replacement to be appointed by a republican.

If he retires after Thomas, that makes the SC appointment imbalance of our current political era 20-4