Jump to content

US Politics: Sing us a song, you're the Tariff man


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Fez said:

Or, and I find this least likely of all, Kavanaugh doesn't want to defund Planned Parenthood.

Well, Trump doesn't care about Planned Parenthood either way, except as something to rile up his base. Perhaps he'd prefer it sticks around as a bogeyman for the time being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do Republicans say half the shit they say, with a straight face.

I have no idea.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/10/18134674/kevin-mccarthy-house-trump-investigations

Quote

Soon-to-be House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) staked out a new position on congressional investigations in an interview with Fox News on Monday. Unlike his years leading the charge on Benghazi, McCarthy now thinks that Democrats should drop their subpoena power when it comes to President Donald Trump.

“It looks like what [Democrats will] focus on is just more investigations. I think American is too great of a nation to have such a small agenda,” McCarthy said. “I think there are other problems out there that we really should be focused upon. And my belief is, let’s see where we can work together — let’s move America forward.”

 

Quote

During a moment of accidental candor in 2015, McCarthy admitted during an interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show that House Republicans’ seemingly unending investigation of Clinton’s handling of the Benghazi attack was about hurting her poll numbers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed

Asking for citations is kinda stupid.  Fact is, stare decisis matters to justices..until it doesn't.  There's no way to know how that goes - particularly with Roe v. Wade in which it's conservative creed to disagree with that precedent.  Scot still likes to maintain judges aren't entirely political animals.  He's wrong, but that's where that's coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

Asking for citations is kinda stupid.  Fact is, stare decisis matters to justices..until it doesn't.  There's no way to know how that goes - particularly with Roe v. Wade in which it's conservative creed to disagree with that precedent.  Scot still likes to maintain judges aren't entirely political animals.  He's wrong, but that's where that's coming from.

If he has a public statement or something else indicating that it does in this case, cool beans. But he doesn't. He has wishful thinking and respect for scotuses which have earned none. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

If he has a public statement or something else indicating that it does in this case, cool beans. But he doesn't. He has wishful thinking and respect for scotuses which have earned none. 

Agreed.  But in terms of the case in question the votes are in such a way that would be hard to explain based on any principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Agreed.  But in terms of the case in question the votes are in such a way that would be hard to explain based on any principle.

And that's why I want a citation, because outside of that no definitive statement of why they did something should be made. Maybe they cared about stare decisis, maybe they cared about image, maybe they wanted to do something else. But saying this shows they care? Pfft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, felice said:

Well, Trump doesn't care about Planned Parenthood either way, except as something to rile up his base. Perhaps he'd prefer it sticks around as a bogeyman for the time being?

It's not just Trump. With a few exceptions such as Pence, most Republican elites don't give a s about abortion. And they would love to have it as an issue to win elections on a long time. It may cost them in elections if abortion were illegal next week in all states, or even in red states. Which is why abortion rights will likely be stripped incrementally. And I don't think this recent ruling changes that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to guess I’d say that most of the elderly candidates will be winnowed by the invisible primary, I don’t think warren will run and I’d be surprised if sanders does too. I think a ton of the establishment dems are already coalescing around Sherrod Brown and are trying to clear the field for him. I don’t think booker or Harris will be pushed out but I imagine one will Bomb in Iowa and drop out after New Hampshire (probably Harris). 

With the establishment already picking brown and trying to do a Clinton 2016 coronation for him, that means Harris and Biden and booker will all be starved of establishment resources that they probably expect to be shared with them.  Which sort of guarantees they have an under performance. I’d expect Biden to strike out, booker to have some of his billionaire buddies bankrolling him and Harris to have grassroots gender support, so the latter two probably will have stronger financial resources.

That of course opens the door for the insurgent non establishment candidate to vacuum up votes. If sanders runs he has some advantage here but also he is not the shiny novel part of this campaign narrative as there will be a lot drama to draw media interest away from him rather than media propping him up to try and stimulate drama. The other insurgent candidate is likely to be Beto o rourke and since he will be shiny and novel and making inspirational speeches he has a chance to control the narrative. 

That means it ultimately comes down to the same fight as 2016, but with Beto doing in the south what Obama did in the south. Regardless of who wins, it’s likely that your final 2020 ticket is either Brown/ Beto or Beto / Brown. Which is a shame because that means we are gifting a free senate seat to the republicans if we win the presidency (since Ohio voters are stupid and did not vote straight ticket in 2018.) 

although there is a decent chance that Beto plucks Harris or another female senator (Klobuchar?) to be his veep because of the Ohio senate issue if he wins the nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Um, who the eff is Sherrod Brown?"

That will be the response of most people.  He's currently 66, will be 68 by the time of primaries and election. Again, of a previous generation quite removed from the bulge of the population in the USA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

If there were any lingering doubt that Donald Trump’s latest plan to curb asylum is flatly unlawful, Judge Jay Bybee quashed it on Friday.

In a meticulous 65-page opinion, Bybee—a conservative George W. Bush appointee—explained that the president cannot rewrite a federal statute to deny asylum to immigrants who enter the country without authorization. His decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a twofold rebuke to Trump, halting the president’s legal assault on asylum-seekers and undermining his claim that any judge who blocked the order is a Democratic hack. The reality is that anyone who understands the English language should recognize that Trump’s new rule is illegal. Like so many of Trump’s attention-grabbing proposals, this doomed policy should never have been treated as legitimate in the first place.

 

A Conservative Judge Torched Donald Trump’s Latest Illegal Assault on Immigrants

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

A Conservative Judge Torched Donald Trump’s Latest Illegal Assault on Immigrants

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/bush-judge-rejects-trump-asylum-plan.html

Kalbear,

See, Conservative Judges all care nothing but their political point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

See, Conservative Judges all care nothing but their political point of view.

I didn't say that, but keep on fucking that chicken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm very familiar with Sherrod Brown.  I think he's great in the current post he's in.  I also think he'd make a horrible president, not least of which because he clearly doesn't wanna do it.

You don't count because this is your area of research and study.  Of course you would know.

I have heard of him because I follow far too closely for my own good politics both here and in other countries -- though that doesn't mean I actually know a whole lot, with a few exceptions.  (I'm a lot better with the past than the present -- but then, so are most political operatives.)

I guarantee you that even my midwestern relatives have never heard of the guy.  They have heard, vaguely, some of them, mmmm, a few of them? at least two of them, that I can vouch for, of Beto O'Rourke -- because he's from Texas and Texas matters because, well, Texas!  (In my family all the males believe deep inside he's a Texas cowboy, Texas Ranger, etc.  Nevermind that a few of them also believe they are 17th Century Pirates of the Caribbean ....)  This doesn't mean they like Beto O'Rourke.  But they don't like Ted Cruz either, because of that foreign Catholic name . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You never actually “say” it.

And I don't mean it, either. I don't think ALL justices are entirely committed to whatever partisan values exist. 

I do, however, think that as the conservatives have gone along, and have relied heavily on NGOs to vet their choices, the chances that THOSE justices are hacks increases significantly. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are all hacks in that vein, and are far more likely to act in that way. Roberts I'm not entirely sold on yet. 

So yes, I do not think that Kavanaugh - he of the person who publicly had an interview during his nomination process, he who told everyone that the claims against him were due to a Democratic grudge from the Clinton time, is now about Stare Decisis in his decision making. Kavanaugh, more than anyone on the court, is an entirely political animal, and if he is doing this it is for entirely political reasons. Hell, I'm willing to bet $20 that you can look back at his previous judicial history and find at least one case where he decided the other way regarding something like this case. 

Note also that I largely believe the same thing for most of the liberal justices. Only RBG would I say otherwise. The big difference is that the Democrats don't have a particularly good system to identify conservative justices and groom them and be able to say 'we want THESE PEOPLE' when nominating. Merrick Garland is a good example of this kind of thing, where Obama went after a reasonably moderate person with a great record. The Federalist Society doesn't exist for dems, and it dominates for Republicans - and thinking that somehow the Federalist society is nominating and directing specific conservatives while also thinking that they're otherwise good on things like Stare Decisis? It's naive wishful fairy thinking. 

The Republicans learned their lesson from Bork - and more importantly, from Souter. They nominate conservative justices with a reliable conservative voting record, a paper trail indicating it, and no major baggage, and they do so because it works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

How do Republicans say half the shit they say, with a straight face.

I have no idea.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/10/18134674/kevin-mccarthy-house-trump-investigations

 

 

Is he trying to use reverse psychology "Oh, no please don't go after Trump and end up doing exactly nothing useful for the next 2 years, and give use back the House in 2020." Or is he actually afraid going after Trump might turn up some serious shit, that will wind up sticking to a whole bunch of Republicans?

Of course there's no way he's actually genuine about wanting to work together to get things done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And I don't mean it, either. I don't think ALL justices are entirely committed to whatever partisan values exist. 

I do, however, think that as the conservatives have gone along, and have relied heavily on NGOs to vet their choices, the chances that THOSE justices are hacks increases significantly. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are all hacks in that vein, and are far more likely to act in that way. Roberts I'm not entirely sold on yet. 

So yes, I do not think that Kavanaugh - he of the person who publicly had an interview during his nomination process, he who told everyone that the claims against him were due to a Democratic grudge from the Clinton time, is now about Stare Decisis in his decision making. Kavanaugh, more than anyone on the court, is an entirely political animal, and if he is doing this it is for entirely political reasons. Hell, I'm willing to bet $20 that you can look back at his previous judicial history and find at least one case where he decided the other way regarding something like this case. 

Note also that I largely believe the same thing for most of the liberal justices. Only RBG would I say otherwise. The big difference is that the Democrats don't have a particularly good system to identify conservative justices and groom them and be able to say 'we want THESE PEOPLE' when nominating. Merrick Garland is a good example of this kind of thing, where Obama went after a reasonably moderate person with a great record. The Federalist Society doesn't exist for dems, and it dominates for Republicans - and thinking that somehow the Federalist society is nominating and directing specific conservatives while also thinking that they're otherwise good on things like Stare Decisis? It's naive wishful fairy thinking. 

The Republicans learned their lesson from Bork - and more importantly, from Souter. They nominate conservative justices with a reliable conservative voting record, a paper trail indicating it, and no major baggage, and they do so because it works. 

Don’t forget the judges the republicans groom are invited from undergrad days to fancy soirées and given access and privilege to both ensure they are addicted to the access and privileges and also to allow them to suss out who is committed to the cause and who is a suspected backstabbing Souter or Stevens.

oh no not another “conference” in Dana point or Hawaii! Oh no not another “hunting retreat” in Wyoming or Texas. Please don’t make us go on more of these all expenses paid events. Please don’t. It’s too much, I might even have a heart attack and die on my hooker like Scalia did at one of these elite retreats. 

After the betrayals of Stevens and Souter et al, republicans have approached grooming future judges like pedophiles groom victims. And they’re very very good at it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is he trying to use reverse psychology "Oh, no please don't go after Trump and end up doing exactly nothing useful for the next 2 years, and give use back the House in 2020." Or is he actually afraid going after Trump might turn up some serious shit, that will wind up sticking to a whole bunch of Republicans?

Of course there's no way he's actually genuine about wanting to work together to get things done.

Nothing so complex. It is working for McConnell, so he has correctly inferred taking the same stance and actions will work for him.

they are just lying. It is that simple. And they don’t care because they know voters don’t care. And if democrats expose their lies and agitate about it the only consequence is that it makes republicans even more likely and more enthusiastic to vote republican. 

But ultimately McConnell and McCarthy both know these are wonky process arguments and explaining a hypocrisies story about wonky details of governance is virtually impossible for the media to publish or air and even more impossible for the public to bother with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...