US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

[Kalbear]

I don't know what Biden gained either, and it has clearly backfired now. Not sure why you're bringing it up.

Firing up the base makes sense in September. In February though?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Political points with their base.

And you guys are pretending like they just made this shit up out of thin air.  the fact is, there IS precedent for this, as Biden so eloquently laid out in 1992. What did he gain by stating it publicly then?  They are framing the discussion.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating, it's laughable for either side of this to be trying to claim the high ground.

There's no precedent. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. As Kalbear posited it just looks petulant and childish to bother stating it. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part that this will result in any sort of real backlash, but I do think the potential for it is there.

[alguien]

22 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I find that line of thinking highly dubious.  

I think a lot of people are over estimating the extent to which your average voter actually cares about this.

Whether its true or not, that's what the current thinking is. 

I also like to think that the average Democratic voter might care a bit more about the Supreme Court than the average Trump supporter. If a flat-out pre-emptive refusal serves as a point to build unification between divisive factions in the Democrat primary, that alone makes it valuable. 

Granted, I'm not sure McConnell has much choice. As you say, he has as much obligation to play up for his base as do the Democrats. I just think the average Dem cares more about the issue. 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

There's no precedent. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

I don't think you understand what precedent means.

Either way, there's not much more to say about it.

Quote

As Kalbear posited it just looks petulant and childish to bother stating it.

That really depends on the lens you're looking through.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't think you understand what precedent means.

 Erm, yeah, I'm pretty sure I do. If you consider parroting some bullshit that didn't stick to the wall back in 1992 as precedent, then go ahead and claim it.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Erm, yeah, I'm pretty sure I do. If you consider parroting some bullshit that didn't stick to the wall back in 1992 as precedent, then go ahead and claim it.

 

 

I don't really know what else to tell you.

If you want to plug your ears and 'lalalalalalalalala' away the thurmond rule, and the specch by Biden, and the other incidences when this has been discussed publicly by various politicians, then that's your right.

A person can certainly argue that none of that stuff is binding, but simply waving it away as though it doesn't exist, or spinning it into oblivion?  

Pure partisan wankery.

This fight is about politics, pure and simple.  It has fuck all to do with duty, or the constitution, or any of the other overtly patronizing 'white hat/black hat' narratives it's being spun into.

There is no high ground here.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

 

I don't really know what else to tell you.

If you want to plug your ears and 'lalalalalalalalala' away the thurmond rule, and the specch by Biden, and the other incidences when this has been discussed publicly by various politicians, then that's your right.

A person can certainly argue that none of that stuff is binding, but simply waving it away as though it doesn't exist, or spinning it into oblivion?  

Pure partisan wankery.

This fight is about politics, pure and simple.  It has fuck all to do with duty, or the constitution, or any of the other overtly patronizing 'white hat/black hat' narratives it's being spun into.

There is no high ground here.

 

 

There's also no precedent. Lame duck presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices. There's your precedent.

[karaddin]

But ignoring any high ground, it seems like it would be more effective for every purpose to simply vote down the appointees as not being acceptable for any number of reasons, and if you are willing to do what they are currently doing then you could do that with simply "they aren't as conservative as scalia", than it is to do what they are currently doing.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like being able to point to a parade of appointees you can say "look at these evil liberals Obama has tried to appoint, you need to vote us in to get a real American on there" would fire up the base more than completely blocking the discussion and just looking like business as usual gridlocked Washington does.

I mean, I get blocking Obama from appointing anyone it's an important SCOTUS seat, I just don't get the tactics around what they are doing.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

But ignoring any high ground, it seems like it would be more effective for every purpose to simply vote down the appointees as not being acceptable for any number of reasons, and if you are willing to do what they are currently doing then you could do that with simply "they aren't as conservative as scalia", than it is to do what they are currently doing. 

I don't think it really matters that much, but it seems to me they are simply spoon feeding their base their position, just like the democrats are doing.  And it seems to be working pretty well for both of them, based on the discussions that I see happening.  

Quote

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like being able to point to a parade of appointees you can say "look at these evil liberals Obama has tried to appoint, you need to vote us in to get a real American on there" would fire up the base more than completely blocking the discussion and just looking like business as usual gridlocked Washington does.

Obama isn't running for anything.  So scoring points against him doesn't really do much for them come election time.

 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, karaddin said:

But ignoring any high ground, it seems like it would be more effective for every purpose to simply vote down the appointees as not being acceptable for any number of reasons, and if you are willing to do what they are currently doing then you could do that with simply "they aren't as conservative as scalia", than it is to do what they are currently doing.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like being able to point to a parade of appointees you can say "look at these evil liberals Obama has tried to appoint, you need to vote us in to get a real American on there" would fire up the base more than completely blocking the discussion and just looking like business as usual gridlocked Washington does.

I mean, I get blocking Obama from appointing anyone it's an important SCOTUS seat, I just don't get the tactics around what they are doing.

Absolutely. It seems to me the smarter play for the GOP would be to simply state that they will do everything in their power to block a liberal nominee and the voters should strongly consider whether or not they want a Democratic president to ultimately make that appointment.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't think it really matters that much, but it seems to me they are simply spoon feeding their base their position, just like the democrats are doing.  And it seems to be working pretty well for both of them, based on the discussions that I see happening.  

 Here's the thing though, I don't think the Democrats are spoon feeding their base when it comes to this issue. It's Obama's job to nominate a candidate to the SCOTUS when one dies or retires. It's not an opinion. It's not a stance. It's his fucking job.

 

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Here's the thing though, I don't think the Democrats are spoon feeding their base when it comes to this issue. It's Obama's job to nominate a candidate to the SCOTUS when one dies or retires. It's not an opinion. It's not a stance. It's his fucking job.

 

Ha. You just suggested that the democrats are not spoon feeding their base a particular message about this,  and then rolled directly into the message that the democrats are spoon feeding their base.

Now I feel like you're trolling me.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Ha. You just suggested that the democrats are not spoon feeding their base a particular message about this,  and then rolled directly into the message that the democrats are spoon feeding their base.

Now I feel like you're trolling me.

I'M BEING SPOON FED THE TRUTH! 

Reality is a fucking Talking Point. Seriously?

ETA/ It would be any president's job, Republican or Democrat. What Biden said back in 1992 was "spoon feeding the base." 

[Swordfish]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'M BEING SPOON FED THE TRUTH! 

Reality is a fucking Talking Point. Seriously?

 

Ha....  Have it your way.  

I have no dog in this fight either way.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Swordfish said:

I have no dog in this fight either way.

But I'm the troll. K.

[MerenthaClone]

31 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Absolutely. It seems to me the smarter play for the GOP would be to simply state that they will do everything in their power to block a liberal nominee and the voters should strongly consider whether or not they want a Democratic president to ultimately make that appointment.

Unless the entire concept is to avoid being primaried.  In most cases, the GOP seems more scared of primary challengers from the right than a Dem challenger in the general so being obviously and deliberately obstructionist is actually a point in their favor when it comes to keeping their job.

[Minsc]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

 

And you guys are pretending like they just made this shit up out of thin air.  the fact is, there IS precedent for this, as Biden so eloquently laid out in 1992.

 

Biden didn't say the same thing that Mitch and company are saying.  Instead, he was calling for Bush to be more moderate in his appointments with exactly saying "if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”  Meaning if HW Bush appoints a moderate more in line with Kennedy than an ideologue like Thomas that he wouldn't have a problem supporting said nominee.  In contrast, Mitch and company have flat out stated that they will refuse anyone with them not even the possibility of consideration.  Next, this situation in where Biden was speaking was at much later date in the election year than we currently are in and was in connection to situation of Justice resigning rather than dying.  Finally, Biden's comment was entirely hypothetical as there was no opening present in Supreme Court after his statement.  

[lokisnow]

If they're not even going to allow a cloture vote, much less a confirmation vote, what was the point of preserving the filibuster for SCOTUS?

[Swordfish]

22 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Biden didn't say the same thing that Mitch and company are saying.  Instead, he was calling for Bush to be more moderate in his appointments with exactly saying "if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”  Meaning if HW Bush appoints a moderate more in line with Kennedy than an ideologue like Thomas that he wouldn't have a problem supporting said nominee.  In contrast, Mitch and company have flat out stated that they will refuse anyone with them not even the possibility of consideration.  Next, this situation in where Biden was speaking was at much later date in the election year than we currently are in and was in connection to situation of Justice resigning rather than dying.  Finally, Biden's comment was entirely hypothetical as there was no opening present in Supreme Court after his statement.  

Keep carrying that water.  Right out of the mouths of the democrats PR machine......  Almost word for word.

[Minsc]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Keep carrying that water.  Right out of the mouths of the democrats PR machine......  Almost word for word.

Those are all facts do you deny them?  Simply, Biden's full comments have him expressing a willingness to consider some nominees while Mitch hasn't indicated any willingness.  Or you just carrying that water right of the mouths of the GOP PR machine?