Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Hey! Teachers! Leave Them Kids Alone

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

That makes the dynamic 50-49. And then there was one.  

As Fez said, Murkowski and Collins likely won’t vote for someone who is opposed to Roe v. Wade.

They already have several times before.  Why would this time be different? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

The American people would never stand for this. Most folks are moderates, and what you described is more than extremely fringe. 

It'll be through the news cycle within a month and then would be the status quo.  It was a fringe position to deny a SC seat to a sitting President, as it had never been done before.  Increasing the # on the bench has precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, now you're trying to talk yourself into Collins and Murkowski? The dumbos who were lied at to their faces on the tax bill then sat down like good girls and let the men govern? 

Listen, we were on the wrong side of history. Let it in, just let the despair thread its way through your chest for a while. Don't try to fight, that just leads to silly fantasies, just relax and let it in.

If you have to cry, nobody's watching. It's ok. I ain't gonna lie to you. It still hurts, when the hits come, but they just kind of slide off once you let it all go. You can even have a little bit of fun sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

But if the Republicans passed a law allowing them to seat additional Conservative Supreme Court Justices today, you would think it unfair. 

Note: there would be no law. There is no law stating how many SCOTUS there needs to be. 

And yes, of course it would be unfair, but things are already very, very unfair, and instead of waiting for the next unfair thing to happen it's best to one-up it. Of course the next POTUS could simply add even more to counterbalance things (assuming they have a majority in the senate), and it'll escalate, but even that's preferable to a generational conservative control of SCOTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

They already have several times before.  Why would this time be different? 

Different times, a different vote? IDK man, I’m just pointing out the few avenues available to block any awful pick.

 

I still wish that Rick Perry’s idea was actually implemented, though it would never get through the constitutional amendment process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Its completely different. The public outrage would be deafening if the Democrats tried to seat additional justices. Playing the game is different than changing the rules of the game. 

The rules of the game were that POTUS can nominate SCOTUS and the senate will hear their nomination. McConnell already changed the rules of the game twice now - once by refusing to even hear a nominee for almost a year, and again when he removed the filibuster for SCOTUS. 

46 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

If Kennedy wanted his seat filled by a liberal, he could have retired under Obama. Same for Ginsburg. 

 

So you support hereditary rule of SCOTUS justices then? Interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

What the senate did with Merrick Garland's appointment was extremely fringe and yet whatever outrage that existed was not enough to prevent Trump's election. 

More accurately, it was probably the single biggest issue for many voters - I know for a fact it was for evangelicals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

How do the Democrats pack the Courts?

You vote to add more Justices to the Supreme Court. The Consituation says nothing on how many Justices the Court is to have. 

I think it can be done by simple majority in the House and Senate. There are a whole sort of issues but it is within the power of Congress to determine the number of Justices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Different times, a different vote? IDK man, I’m just pointing out the few avenues available to block any awful pick.

 

I still wish that Rick Perry’s idea was actually implemented, though it would never get through the constitutional amendment process.

Collins and Murkowski both already voted to confirm an anti-choice justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

They already have several times before.  Why would this time be different? 

Exactly. They voted for Gorsuch who didn't, uh, exactly state a whole lot of certainty about being for it, other than it was established. And hey, look, he's already voted to reduce its effectiveness several times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

You vote to add more Justices to the Supreme Court. The Consituation says nothing on how many Justices the Court is to have. 

I think it can be done by simple majority in the House and Senate. There are a whole sort of issues but it is within the power of Congress to determine the number of Justices.

The senate only. The House is not actually part of this in any way. And now you simply need a simple majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Playing the game is different than changing the rules of the game. 

What are you on about mate?

1. McConnell pulled a new rule out of thin air and said there could be no vote on a replacement in an election year.

2. Then in a historic party-line vote, they changed the Senate rules and went "nuclear" to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees.

It's absolutely nonsensical to make the above statement given those two facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the wrong direction we're all going that's thrown me, it's the speed we're going.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hearing predictions that within 18 months at least 20 states will have an outright ban on abortion.

And that's just the beginning.

The US is going to look like Saudi Arabia for women in a few years, just without the burkas.

You guys are screwed for at least 30 years.

 

Btw, today when I was out driving there was a woman in a burka, full thing, dark purple robes, black face screen, black leather gloves, standing on the corner of a street. Now, I have seen several women in burkas before, but never like this woman. She looked like Death personified. Or someone out of the Game of Thrones, someone so medieval it seemed like a scene from a movie. The imagine she presented was strangely powerful and incredibly disturbing. I wish I could have taken a picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Jesus, now you're trying to talk yourself into Collins and Murkowski? The dumbos who were lied at to their faces on the tax bill then sat down like good girls and let the men govern? 

Listen, we were on the wrong side of history. Let it in, just let the despair thread its way through your chest for a while. Don't try to fight, that just leads to silly fantasies, just relax and let it in.

If you have to cry, nobody's watching. It's ok. I ain't gonna lie to you. It still hurts, when the hits come, but they just kind of slide off once you let it all go. You can even have a little bit of fun sometimes.

Mmn hmn... https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1012066407004168194

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Collins and Murkowski both already voted to confirm an anti-choice justice. 

Gorsuch’s appointment didn’t change the practical balance of the court. Replacing Kennedy with someone who is anti-choice would, hence maybe they vote differently. We’ll also get to see if Flake is a man of his word.

Look, I’m not delusional. I know it’s unlikely, but these are the best options you got, so flood the phone lines of these specific senators. There may be a few others worth looking at too.

 

Also, i.e. packing the courts, just no. It’s a terrible idea that will set an awful precedent, and for the love of god don’t let Trump get wind of the idea. I could easily see him changing the court’s make up to 15 and shoehorning in six more conservatives.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

You vote to add more Justices to the Supreme Court. The Consituation says nothing on how many Justices the Court is to have. 

I think it can be done by simple majority in the House and Senate. There are a whole sort of issues but it is within the power of Congress to determine the number of Justices.

Are the Democrats going to get both President, and Senate majority?  And, what's to stop the Republicans doing the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Jesus, you really are smoking crack.

Never touched the stuff, myself. I was never wealthy enough for a coke habit and heroin was a no-go. Opiods (pills, don't be trashy), man. That's the way to go. Just make everything nice and fluid, like you're under water. It's real quiet down there.

 

We all float down here in the sewers with trumpwise.

note, it has not been proven that trump is not a tentacley dungeon dimension creature from before da dawna time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Gorsuch’s appointment didn’t change the practical balance of the court. Replacing Kennedy with someone who is anti-choice would, hence maybe they vote differently. We’ll also get to see if Flake is a man of his word.

Look, I’m not delusional. I know it’s unlikely, but these are the best options you got, so flood the phone lines of these specific senators. There may be a few others worth looking at too.

 

Also, i.e. packing the courts, just no. It’s a terrible idea that will set an awful precedent, and for the love of god don’t let Trump get wind of the idea. I could easily see him changing the court’s make up to 15 and shoehorning in six more conservatives.   

The precedent is already set. The GOP stole a SCOTUS seat via conspiring with a hostile foreign government. They are using that court, literally as we speak, to destroy the Democratic party and to curtail rights and democracy within the US. Since the structure of the US Senate makes impeachment of a justice basically impossible and since Gorsuch will never voluntarily resign, packing the courts is the Democrat's only option for dealing with the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×