Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Next-ennials vs stamps

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, David Selig said:

^ So only women get to be nominated for the Supreme Court from now on?

Men had a 200 year head start on gender exclusivity, maybe at least a couple of generations worth in the other direction would balance some shit out.

Or, just nominate some guys who haven't tried to tape or harass anyone? As far as I know, Merrick Garland didn't have any such record, and I'm sure the Republicans would have told us if he had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, David Selig said:

^ So only women get to be nominated for the Supreme Court from now on?

Sure. Why not? We don't think anything of it being all men. Why not all women?

More importantly, the list of women that the GOP will nominate which has the credentials is pretty small. The list of women that dems would nominate is large. Republicans will block anyone no matter what. Might as well make sure that the person you're picking is good for your base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the repeat sexual-assaulter-in-chief thinks that if attacks are not reported immediately they must not be valid. 

Share this post


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

Sure. Why not? We don't think anything of it being all men. Why not all women?

More importantly, the list of women that the GOP will nominate which has the credentials is pretty small. The list of women that dems would nominate is large. Republicans will block anyone no matter what. Might as well make sure that the person you're picking is good for your base. 

And those candidates would likely be the most hostile towards women’s rights. The GOP loves anti-choice women because then they can claim that it’s not just old white men trying to strip women of their rights.

54 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Apparently the repeat sexual-assaulter-in-chief thinks that if attacks are not reported immediately they must not be valid. 

It’s amazing he’s been as restrained as he has, but you knew it couldn’t last forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Selig said:

^ So only women get to be nominated for the Supreme Court from now on?

I don't understand why this is an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to take a moment to ask the various people who think that playing hardball over Kavanaugh will backfire because the Republicans will do the same in return sometime in the future: Are you for real? What world are you living in? Because in the real world, Republicans refused to even consider the nominee of a twice elected Democratic President for a year, (a nominee they all said was an ideal compromise pick that nobody could vote against) then multiple Republican Senators, including prominent ones, began hinting that they would refuse to seat any nominee by the next President when they believed that President would be Clinton, even if that meant refusing to seat any SCOTUS justices for 8 more years on top of the 1 they had already stalled.

Quote

With just days until the election, some Senate Republicans are suggesting that when it comes to the Supreme Court, eight is enough. Eight justices, that is.

For the first time, some Senate Republicans are saying that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the GOP should prevent anyone she nominates from being confirmed to fill the current court vacancy, or any future vacancy.

...

Now some Republicans are suggesting the wait for Scalia's replacement could last much longer, perhaps an entire presidential term, or two. Three Republican senators have said directly that they would consider leaving Scalia's seat empty as long as Clinton is in office.

Sen. John Mc Cain was the first. Appearing on a conservative radio talk show, he said that if Clinton is elected, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee [that] she would put up." His press secretary quickly tried to backpedal, but Mc Cain himself has not.

Since then, Sens. Ted Cruz and Richard Burr have upped the ante, while other Republican senators have dodged and weaved on the question. The Senate's No. 2 Republican, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, said he didn't want to "speculate" on the question.

But Burr, in a tough re-election battle in North Carolina, said in a tape-recorded meeting with Republican volunteers last weekend, "If Hillary becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."

You say that Republicans would respond with spurious allegations as payback? In the real world, spurious Republican allegations about Democrats have been a way of life for more than 25 years. From Vince Foster to "I invented the internet" to birtherism to ACORN to Planned Parenthood tapes to Benghazi to Pizzagate to QAnon, that is the way of life for Republican activists. You think that's going to change? You think Republicans won't already employ every dirty trick in the book and some the book writers never imagined to maintain control over the courts?

All the Republican politicos care about is winning, getting their way, and reshaping America to their whim, damn everyone and everything in the way, whether we're talking about individuals, large segments of the population, democratic norms, the basic premises of our country and Constitution, etc. And they especially want the courts, because if they have a stranglehold there it won't matter if angry voters keep them out of power for 20 years, the courts can still find every BS reason and loophole to shut down the Democratic agenda until they can finally take power again and pick up right where they left off.

If you don't recognize these facts, you either are not paying attention, are in denial, or you aren't living in the real world. Kindly tell me where the portal is to the world you're living in, which wardrobe I have to climb into, because the real world really kinda sucks right now, and I’d like to join you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Selig said:

^ So only women get to be nominated for the Supreme Court from now on?

nothing so extreme, only the next 109 appointments to the supreme court should be women. After that we can go 50/50/x for gender appointments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I more or less assumed that after the Merrick Garland experience that the new norm is no President is allowed to make appointments to the SC unless his/her party also controls the Senate.  Which sucks, because it is way easier for the Republicans to get to 51 in the Senate than it is for Democrats.  But there's simply nothing but "precedent" to keep the Senate from just never bringing a nominee up, even if it means 4 or 7 years with a vacancy. 

What particularly sucks is that in all likelihood, the appellate courts and then all courts will soon follow suit.  Republicans hadn't quite stripped Obama of court appointment power altogether, they just mucked things up so that it took preposterously long and Obama left office with a ton of vacancies.  But there's every reason to assume that next time a Democrat is in the WH, Republicans will be even less beholden to precedent than they were for Obama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

It seems Whelan has deleted his libelous Zillow detective work, but I hope he gets sued into the ground by Garrett (who, funnily enough, had signed one of the letters of support for Kavanaugh that circulated around).

Josh Marshall at TPM makes a decent case that Kavanaugh and his team knew what Whelan was up to (excerpted because it's behind a paywall):

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/my-take-on-where-we-are-with-kavanaugh-5-a-very-bad-night-for-kavanaugh

 

It's also pure orange nazi decades' old playbook mode.  Deny deny deny deny, the say it was somebody else while smearing the victim with accusations of his own behavior. This also shows the whole rethug cohort and committee members knew about this event from those days of Georgetown Prep (how many others, perhaps, then, by how many other GP guys?)

However, as of today, Ford's classmates from then recall how abruptly she changed at the time Kavanaugh assaulted her, which again adds whole new layers of credibility to Kavanaugh having done what she says he did:

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/blasey-ford-disappeared-after-kavanaughs-alleged-assault.html

These accounts given to the Times support Ford’s own statements that she was “derailed” for years after the alleged assault. Her life following high school centered around her academic research, and later her family. Those who spoke to the Times about Ford in her adult life described her as “a friendly but kind of geeky scientist,” “very meticulous with data,” and “someone taken very seriously.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime the NY Times has hired Michelle Alexander as a columnist, which they should have done years ago.  Her debut column is up today,
 

Quote

 

"We Are Not the Resistance"
Donald Trump is the one who is pushing back against the new nation that’s struggling to be born.

The disorienting nature of Trump’s presidency has already managed to obscure what should be an obvious fact: Viewed from the broad sweep of history, Donald Trump is the resistance. We are not.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/sunday/resistance-kavanaugh-trump-protest.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Paladin of Ice,

You forgot a few key things, like this one time when they broke into the DNC headquarters just before an election, and this other time where it’s suspected that they asked a foreign adversarial  government to not release hostages just before an election for their gain. And then there was this one time where they sold weapons to that same regime so as to fund the overthrowing of a government they didn’t like, all of which was illegal.

If you think Republicans need motivation to act shady, you haven’t been paying attention…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I more or less assumed that after the Merrick Garland experience that the new norm is no President is allowed to make appointments to the SC unless his/her party also controls the Senate.  Which sucks, because it is way easier for the Republicans to get to 51 in the Senate than it is for Democrats.  But there's simply nothing but "precedent" to keep the Senate from just never bringing a nominee up, even if it means 4 or 7 years with a vacancy. 

What particularly sucks is that in all likelihood, the appellate courts and then all courts will soon follow suit.  Republicans hadn't quite stripped Obama of court appointment power altogether, they just mucked things up so that it took preposterously long and Obama left office with a ton of vacancies.  But there's every reason to assume that next time a Democrat is in the WH, Republicans will be even less beholden to precedent than they were for Obama. 

the worst thing is that backstabbers like Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy will help/insist republicans do it, because he fundamentally doesn't believe that democrats should appoint judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Selig said:

^ So only women get to be nominated for the Supreme Court from now on?

Women of color should be the only people nominated at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two new polls out from Texas - Vox Populi has them even, and PPP has Cruz up by 3. Nothing earth shattering in there, but it just reinforces the idea that this is a close 3-4 point race.

Edit: Isnt the first debate tonight? Not sure these things make a difference that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Two new polls out from Texas - Vox Populi has them even, and PPP has Cruz up by 3. Nothing earth shattering in there, but it just reinforces the idea that this is a close 3-4 point race.

Edit: Isnt the first debate tonight? Not sure these things make a difference that much.

It is tonight... at 6 on a Friday.  I can't speak for the rest of Texas but the last thing I want to do immediately after finishing my work week is rush home so that I can watch something that has Ted Cruz in it.  I'll catch the highlights on YouTube.    

I'm going to the bar.  :smoking: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, that story is a fake 'leak' from the whitehouse to prepare to fire Rosenstein. He already denied it, and anyway it was done before with Comey.

 

Basically more self serving lies as usual. Rosenstein is still getting fired though. I wonder what sort of evolved primordial ooze creature they'll find to fill the post prior to their false flag and 'state of emergency'. As i said repeatedly there is no way in hell these monsters aren't going to try for a soft coup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Serious Callers Only said:

Nah, that story is a fake 'leak' from the whitehouse to prepare to fire Rosenstein. He already denied it, and anyway it was done before with Comey.

 

Basically more self serving lies as usual. Rosenstein is still getting fired though.

It doesn’t matter if it is fake, it will be harped on by conservatives and Trump will bitch about it on twitter and Republican senators will say Trump can’t trust Rosenstein. It is part of the prelude to the firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Women of color should be the only people nominated at this point.

This is a very reasonable approach! I would only add that no person who attended undergrad as a legacy should be allowed on any federal court ever. 

Also, a fifty year ban on Harvard, Yale and Columbia law schools from the federal courts (judges and clerks) is a related and very pleasant thought.

Share this post


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

×