US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Maximize voting turnout.

I think having the justice in place by election day outweighs this consideration.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I said before, and I said again: this American non-sense of judges serving for life, even if they are 80, 90 years old, is an aberration that helps destroy democracy and increase partisanship. In any sane country, RBG would have retired years, if not decades ago, so would almost everyone else she served with, and you wouldn't have this "Republican judge-Democratic judge" bullshit, because SC judges retiring would just be a regular thing, not something that defines the course of the democratic process for generations and has to be carefully timed.

That said, this is possibly the worst possible scenario for Biden, because it will help energize the Republican base and united Republican politicians that don't really care if Trump lives or dies. 

Granted, if he wasn't too much of a coward- just like Obama was- the first thing he would do if he gets control of both Houses would be not only increase the number of judges, but also make sure something like this never happens again. But there's zero chance of anything like this happening.

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

I think having the justice in place by election day outweighs this consideration.

You can do both, and probably without much issue. They can confirm during lame duck if they are going to lose, and if they're going to win they can do it at their leisure. 

[Kalbear]

 

 

[Kalbear]

Also, another thing in the 'fuck' category. 

Roberts was probably going to be okay with 5-4 votes with him with the liberals some times. But...if they confirm someone now, and the election is fucked and the SCOTUS comes into play? He's not going against the conservative justices. He'll be doing 6-3 decisions all day long. As someone upthread said what, the median person would be Gorsuch? Good luck with that voting decision.

[Maithanet]

So, if we were making a list of Republicans who could possibly vote against this, it would be Romney, Murkowski, is that it?  Collins maybe wouldn't vote it pre-election, post election she might be pissed off enough at the Dems to do it. And we'd still need a fourth, and I don't even know who the hell it could be. 

Even grasping at straws I find no reason for hope.

[illrede]

4 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

You can do both, and probably without much issue. They can confirm during lame duck if they are going to lose, and if they're going to win they can do it at their leisure. 

Citing that stalling out the Garland nomination was an almost mad gamble on McConnell's part and putting Garland up as an near-compromise pick was a good idea, I suppose an option going forward for Democrats if they think your scenario likely is to find a judge they like that conservatives would really like on one or two issues. For that matter, an option going forward for Republicans could be that (RGB but pro-life, if such exists)- it's probably not worth it for the Republicans to abrogate the vetted list they have, though.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

So, if we were making a list of Republicans who could possibly vote against this, it would be Romney, Murkowski, is that it?  Collins maybe wouldn't vote it pre-election, post election she might be pissed off enough at the Dems to do it. And we'd still need a fourth, and I don't even know who the hell it could be. 

Even grasping at straws I find no reason for hope.

Probably the best bet there is look for tight senate races with incumbent Rs. Romney might be okay with it, honestly. Murkowski and Collins would depend heavily on whom, but if it's Barrett chances are good both would be onboard for a variety of reasons. 

McSally is probably going to be in favor and would want to maximize her Trumpiness.

Gardner might be trying for more middle of the road as a hail mary. But chances are good he's hosed and wouldn't want to hose his party.

Daines and Tillis? Doubtful.

Joni Ernst? Super Trumpy. 

No, I don't really see it. The one thing that all conservatives seem to be happy to agree on is the choice of justices that conservatives have made. The only reason Flake disagreed before was because of the process, but at the end of the day they just wanted enough cover.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, illrede said:

Citing that stalling out the Garland nomination was an almost mad gamble on McConnell's part and putting Garland up as an near-compromise pick was a good idea, I suppose an option going forward for Democrats if they think your scenario likely is to find a judge they like that conservatives would really like on one or two issues. For that matter, an option going forward for Republicans could be that (RGB but pro-life, if such exists)- it's probably not worth it for the Republicans to abrogate the vetted list they have, though.

Why would they bother compromising? There is literally no value in compromise any more. Justices are simply not going to be confirmed at all unless the senate and potus are aligned. And when they are, they'll be shot through like a cannon. 

[Jace, Extat]

One last failure to embellish this living hell. Well deserved, at least. Ours is a people not worthy of liberal ideals. Have fun out there.

[Kalbear]

So if you're interested in having vague hope, both Murkowski and Collins have said recently that they would not confirm until after inauguration. 

 

 

 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So, if we were making a list of Republicans who could possibly vote against this, it would be Romney, Murkowski, is that it?

Yep.

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

You can do both, and probably without much issue.

Of course you can do both, but if you wait til after the election that probably means he's gonna be in confirmation hearings facing questions on the cases Trump will bring up he's likely gonna rule on.  Hell, depending on how long they wait, the cases could already be in the lower courts.  That bolsters the argument for recusal.  They'll still do it anyway, sure, but seems to be creating an unneeded headache.  Then again this is Trump, so you're probably right.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Of course you can do both, but if you wait til after the election that probably means he's gonna be in confirmation hearings facing questions on the cases Trump will bring up he's likely gonna rule on.  Hell, depending on how long they wait, the cases could already be in the lower courts.  That bolsters the argument for recusal.  They'll still do it anyway, sure, but seems to be creating an unneeded headache.  Then again this is Trump, so you're probably right.

Kavanaugh has already set the precedent for recusing - or, well, NOT recusing. Counting on the norms and a slight bit of bad press and outrage and then on to the next weekly outrage to save the day doesn't seem particularly successful as a strategy. 

[DMC]

Just now, Kalibear said:

Counting on the norms and a slight bit of bad press and outrage and then on to the next weekly outrage to save the day doesn't seem particularly successful as a strategy. 

I'm not.  All I said was it's an unnecessary headache, and an unforced error.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

I'm not.  All I said was it's an unnecessary headache, and an unforced error.

I really wonder if any errors even matter any more. Trump's approval went up 3 points in the last 2 months despite things entirely sucking ass as far as I can tell across the board. I don't really understand what moves the needle one way or another in that 3% that seems to shift here and there, but ultimately what i do know is that errors and issues don't matter at all. As @TrackerNeil said last thread, the notion that our entire system approves or disapproves of what a person is doing by their party affiliation means Democracy is functionally dead, as there are no checks and  balances that matter at that point.

[Fragile Bird]

I don’t want to turn on the tv or listen to the radio, I heard the news while driving home and went straight to a liquor store. 
 

I guess I’ll watch reruns of something. I think I have 40 episodes of The Good Witch I really need to watch and delete.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

ultimately what i do know is that errors and issues don't matter at all.

Not really no, but I think we're just looking at it from opposite ends of the spectrum.  Why bother waiting?  Get it done so you can show off your winning.  It'd also dominate the news cycle for a week or two if they do an expedited process and that's very likely to be better than leaving the news cycle in Trump's hands.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

RGB just passed away. Fuck.

Of course she has. When it rains it pours. And in Trumpland it pours shit. So of course, this was bound to happen.

45 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Maximize voting turnout. There are a very large number of conservative voters who dont' like Trump but desperately want conservative justices on the court and love his picks. If you force them to vote for Trump to get that pick, they'll vote and turn out. 

I don't think this is necessarily true. I think the conservatives he has truely alienated (the educated suburbian voters) might very well arrive at the conclusion, that no court pick in the world is worth four more years of this utter madness.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Week said:

This is pretty bad form on a discussion message board. I didn't ask for a podcast recommendation -- you posted it without any context, one-line summary, or any analysis. Considering you were unwilling to do so and then posted thrice afterwards I then generally view that as intentionally disrespectful. I'd fucking prefer an ad hominem response. At least that would be entertaining. Suffice to say, I drove to the grocery store and listened to 40 minutes of podcasts that I know are quality and that I'll benefit from listening to.

You're sensitive, I guess. I've just exhausted how many times I can explain that the "purity" narrative is BS. I linked you to someone else.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You, like Jace said. I think you've talked so much shit here that you've forgotten a lot of it. I mean just the other day you said I have no empathy because I pointed out your strategy is misguided. How do you even make that jump?

And no I am not stopping valid criticism. I welcome it. Try doing the same.

I don't know what Jace said, I have it on ignore. But you're clearly conflating terms. Liberals are the problem. They aren't LEFT enough. They're Republicans of the Nixon era. Hell, he was more progressive than they are now. I'd say the problem is they too "liberal." 

And you do lack empathy for others by calling what they truly, truly require (in many cases to continue living) "something that won't happen." Based on no evidence. I welcome valid criticism, but any time I make a point, it's "purity tests!!!!" or I rooted for Clinton to fail. Both of which are demonstrably untrue. I think you've talked so much shit, you forget who said what and when. 

To recap: you said I'm rooting against democrats. I'm not. I'm registered to vote, I will vote, and I actively canvassed for Clinton. You've said that I am only interested in impossible propositions. And that's not true. I'm interested in propositions that actually do something for people. You've said I accused liberals of not being liberal enough. Again, I didn't. I think liberals are a real fucking problem, though, and if anything, I would love if they weren't "liberal enough." Neo-liberalism rules the day. So, while you can play Mr. Middle of the Road, Rational, or whatever, you appear to me as I apparently appear to you. But my "downfalls" are about trying to help people, yours are "maybe we'll help them. Someday? Lolz."