U.S Politics; The Price of Steele

[Bonnot OG]

 

ICE needs to be abolished.

https://www.thenation.com/article/its-time-to-abolish-ice/

[Frog Eater]

https://www.westernjournal.com/trey-gowdy-become-supreme-court-justice-heres/

Its from January, but it could happen

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Dude, he LIKES Gorsuch he defended his voting with Trump by mentioning Gorsuch just last Saturday to David Axelrod.

You're missing the point Jace.

56 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Amy Klobucher being nominated nothing would of happen, and you will be saying how Merrick Garland should of been nominated. 

Noooooo. I was for Amy the moment Scalia died.

53 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

That's nice, but Trump nominate a woman?   Hahahahahaha!  nfw

Failblog!

[all swedes are racist]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're missing the point Jace.

i don’t think she is. lemme ask you this, instead of what does flake have to lose, what does someone like him have to gain? anyone trump nominates if goi g to be someone these ghouls would want on the s.c. for the next 20+ years 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Obama should of withdrawn Garland and nominated someone who would of given the base a reason to vote. 

The Democratic base doesn't vote to secure the SCOTUS. They are idiots like that.

The GOP controls the Court because they've always had their eye on the ball. Especially the right-wing base.

The left-wing base is just too goddamn dumb to get the picture and has never been motivated to control judicial appointments.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

He was just a tired old man. What a disappointment.

Yeah, if only Obama had just wished really hard he could have somehow .... done what exactly?

The problem is simple: nothing technically requires Congress to consider a SCOTUS nomination. McConnell decided to steal the seat and so simply played to the exact letter of the law and let the seat hang. And Obama has no recourse to that beyond public pressure, which McConnell is immune to because the public doesn't give a shit about process and his supporters will reward him for securing that SCOTUS seat more then Obama's supporters will punish him for it.

[LongRider]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Failblog!

Maybe so but your wishing for Klobucher to have been nominated is tilting at windmills.  McConnell was not going to let any nomination made by Obama pass, no matter who it was.  

I would also guess the days of having a woman nominated to the SC again are either over, or very far away. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Noooooo. I was for Amy the moment Scalia died.

Yeah, it was a power grab. What they was unseemly and they got away with it. Klobucher would suffer the same and be just as exciting for people looking for a real change of the SC as Garland was. Scalia death made the appointment one of ideological existentialism. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

12 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The Democratic base doesn't vote to secure the SCOTUS. They are idiots like that.

The GOP controls the Court because they've always had their eye on the ball. Especially the right-wing base.

The left-wing base is just too goddamn dumb to get the picture and has never been motivated to control judicial appointments.

The Democratic base did not get excited for Garland was a fairly moderate jurist. It was to be a consensus pick not to radically change the Court. It did not fire anyone up and moderates in the end did not care what protocols were violated and Garland never was given a hearing. Give the left someone to care about and they would. Not someone they need to convince themselves to accept.

[Shryke]

2 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The Democratic base did not get excited for Garland was a fairly moderate jurist. It was to be a consensus pick not to radically change the Court. It did not fire anyone up and moderates in the end did not care what protocols were violated and Garland never was given a hearing. Give the left someone to care about and they would. Not someone they need to convince themselves to accept.

The Democratic base doesn't get excited for SCOTUS picks period. They never have. That's the problem.

Pretending it's about Garland is bullshit.

[Shryke]

11 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Yeah, it was a power grab. What they was unseemly and they got away with it. Klobucher would suffer the same and be just as exciting for people looking for a real change of the SC as Garland was. Scalia death made the appointment one of ideological existentialism. 

Yup. The GOP say the writing on the wall. They were on the verge of losing control of the SCOTUS and realistically probably the lower courts too for a long time if not forever. So they played hardball and their voters kept their eye on the fucking ball and so they won. Better luck next generation left-wingers, maybe you'll learn by then.

[TheKitttenGuard]

47 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The Democratic base doesn't get excited for SCOTUS picks period. They never have. That's the problem.

Pretending it's about Garland is bullshit.

You get your base excited by nominating an individual who many think for advocate and fight for your views. You do not excite them by giving someone who is generally view as a moderate. 

No the Republican base were not motivated to get a moderate. They were motivated to get a hard Conservative. 

[Mudguard]

The 2016 election didn't turn on either sides desire or lack of desire to control the SCOTUS pick.  I doubt that the white, low education voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that gave Trump the win primarily voted for Trump because of the open SCOTUS pick.  Trump's message on the economy and immigration to that subset of the population was much more important.  

I doubt that control of the SCOTUS pick will ever be a primary factor in determining the winner of an election.  You're just not going to motivate large numbers of apathetic voters to get out and vote on something this abstract. 

Also, I don't think it mattered who Obama nominated.  I doubt that a bunch of Democratic voters stayed home because Obama nominated Garland over a more liberal candidate.  Clinton was not responsible for the nomination, and one line of thinking at the time was that Clinton would nominate a more liberal justice once she took office.  If you really wanted that to happen, you would have voted instead of staying at home.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, unpaid comintern said:

i don’t think she is. lemme ask you this, instead of what does flake have to lose, what does someone like him have to gain? anyone trump nominates if goi g to be someone these ghouls would want on the s.c. for the next 20+ years 

Not necessarily. But the point still stands, because of the narrow makeup of the Senate, just a few Republicans can block a pick they don't like.

2 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Yeah, it was a power grab. What they was unseemly and they got away with it. Klobucher would suffer the same and be just as exciting for people looking for a real change of the SC as Garland was. Scalia death made the appointment one of ideological existentialism. 

 

2 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Maybe so but your wishing for Klobucher to have been nominated is tilting at windmills.  McConnell was not going to let any nomination made by Obama pass, no matter who it was.  

Look I'm not saying Klobuchar would have absolutely gotten nominated, just that her selection would have added an interesting wrinkle that few if any other individuals could provide. She is good friends with a lot of Republican senators. It would have been harder to treat her the way they did Garland. Plus they'd have to consider that she's a rising member in the Democratic caucus and they're likely going to have to deal with her for many, many years to come.Do they really want to piss someone off to that extent who could one day be the majority leader? Maybe, but it's less likely than pretty much anyone else Obama could have nominated.  

Quote

I would also guess the days of having a woman nominated to the SC again are either over, or very far away. 

Funny enough, the sneaky smart play for Trump would be to nominate a young, ultra conservative, black woman. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

The 2016 election didn't turn on either sides desire or lack of desire to control the SCOTUS pick.  I doubt that the white, low education voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that gave Trump the win primarily voted for Trump because of the open SCOTUS pick.  Trump's message on the economy and immigration to that subset of the population was much more important.  

I doubt that control of the SCOTUS pick will ever be a primary factor in determining the winner of an election.  You're just not going to motivate large numbers of apathetic voters to get out and vote on something this abstract. 

Sorry, but you're dead wrong here. Millions of Trump voters have said they held their nose and stayed with him specifically because of the SCOTUS. And there are numerous examples of Trump flatly saying to conservatives that they have to rally behind him because of the SCOTUS nomination. "If you let Hillary win, she's going to pick a SCOTUS nominee who will take away your guns." "If you let Hillary win, she's going to pick a SCOTUS nominee who will continue to let babies get murdered." Lines like that were regularly used by Trump during the campaign. He was straight up blackmailing conservative voters who didn't like or really support him. 

Quote

Donald Trump said Thursday that Republicans wary of his campaign have little choice but to vote for him anyway.

 

"If you really like Donald Trump, that's great, but if you don't, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges," Trump said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

 

"Have no choice, sorry, sorry, sorry. You have no choice," Trump continued, calling the late Justice Antonin Scalia a "great guy" and acknowledging tied decisions at the Supreme Court after his death.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289716-trump-republicans-have-to-vote-for-me-because-of-supreme-court

Or if you want a deeper dive, here's a snippet from a much more in depth article:

Quote

Conservatives have prized the Supreme Court as much if not more than Congress and the presidency for decades. But the degree to which it is driving activists and party leaders this year is without precedent. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has kept the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat open for an astonishing eight months and counting just so that a Republican president—any Republican—might have the opportunity to fill it. And it’s not just Scalia. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 83), Anthony Kennedy (80), and Stephen Breyer (78) could all retire during the next president’s term.

Yet there are still broader reasons why an obsession with the Court is prompting Republicans like McConnell, Ryan, and Cruz to continue backing a candidate they plainly detest. (As a former golfing buddy of Trump’s, Boehner might actually like him personally, if not politically.) Boehner pointed to one explanation that has gotten only scant attention during this election: Congressional gridlock makes the Supreme Court more important, not less. “More and more issues, because they cant be dealt with legislatively, are going to be dealt with by the court system,” the former speaker explained. “So I believe that Donald Trump’s view of who these judges should be is much closer to where I am than the judges Hillary Clinton would appoint.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/why-the-supreme-court-matters-more-to-republicans-than-trump/504038/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

The Democratic base doesn't get excited for SCOTUS picks period. They never have. That's the problem.

I think there's a good chance this changes going forward, especially if the conservative justices start going after things like Roe v. Wade. 

[Frog Eater]

25 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

The 2016 election didn't turn on either sides desire or lack of desire to control the SCOTUS pick.  I doubt that the white, low education voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that gave Trump the win primarily voted for Trump because of the open SCOTUS pick.  Trump's message on the economy and immigration to that subset of the population was much more important.  

I doubt that control of the SCOTUS pick will ever be a primary factor in determining the winner of an election.  You're just not going to motivate large numbers of apathetic voters to get out and vote on something this abstract. 

Also, I don't think it mattered who Obama nominated.  I doubt that a bunch of Democratic voters stayed home because Obama nominated Garland over a more liberal candidate.  Clinton was not responsible for the nomination, and one line of thinking at the time was that Clinton would nominate a more liberal justice once she took office.  If you really wanted that to happen, you would have voted instead of staying at home.

I disagree. MOST Republicans went along with Trump because of the Supreme Court, and because of the Republican administration itself. Most dont like Trump personally, but a Republican in office nominating conservatives to the Supreme Court and reducing regulations is what they voted for. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

I disagree. MOST Republicans went along with Trump because of the Supreme Court, and because of the Republican administration itself. Most dont like Trump personally, but a Republican in office nominating conservatives to the Supreme Court and reducing regulations is what they voted for. 

Yup. We've had a few conservative posters in here straight up say that they didn't like Trump, but they got their SCOTUS pick, so it's all good and now they don't care if he gets impeached because Pence is there to make the next pick, if one is made available. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Aww, poor Donnie's parade isn't going to be as dope as Macron's:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/politics/pentagon-memo-trump-military-parade/index.html 

[Martell Spy]

So, it looks like Trump's new thing is to make scary/exciting announcements, then walk them back. It isn't quite clear if the NK meeting is happening or not though yet. Also, it appears Australia will soon be exempted from the tarrifs soon. Perhaps because, I don't know, starting trade wars with longtime allies is asinine?

Quote

 

Press Sec. Sanders on talks with North Korea: "The president will not have the meeting without seeing concrete steps and concrete actions take place by North Korea." http://abcn.ws/2Gaz6jH

Of course, that’s the old policy. Which means Trump shot off his mouth and got excited and then his advisers had to explain to him why he can’t do that. Or maybe they haven’t explained it to him and are backing out without his permission. Whatever the explanation, the major policy change Trump announced appears to be completely moot because he plays the president on television.

 

White House: Never Mind the North Korea Meeting, Trump Was Just Babbling

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/never-