Jump to content

US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

Mr. President Trump is a great and strong man who has made America great. The American people gave him a mandate to keep the courts conservative, and he's fulfilled that promise more truthfully than Nobama and Kameleona Harris. 

No more two-faces in government. Sleepy Joe wants school shooting survivors to vote! Stop them from making America not great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Packing the SC is thinking too small. Threaten to pack every federal court with liberal justices who will destroy all their attempts at voter suppression. And thus destroy their last thread to power.

First the Dems need to win everything to do that, and second they should do all this regardless of what happens next.

To sum up, the Dems have no leverage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, somebody has made peace with their overlords.

I was already tempted to change the Thread title to: A country so Ruth-less, a place so hopeless.

But I think, I just leave it as a suggestion for the next thread starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

My worry is that this could alter the trajectory of the race, one which has been very favorable to Biden so far. Now, I don't think that will happen, but I was even more of an optimist before this occurred. This event definitely has me spooked.

I've felt like an elephant has been sitting on my chest since around 8pm last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

As a carrot of course. Trump is in tight races. If he wins the election, which by God he wants to win, his nomination sails through. If he loses the election, he’ll still try to ram through the nomination. If all of a sudden more senators grow a pair and refuse, he’s not to blame, and in any event he’s not president so once again, fuck you, it’s not my fault.

Why even release a list?  Everyone knows what's in there.  What's the carrot?  

I feel like of all the issues that could affect the election this isn't even in the top 10.  It doesn't require anyone to reconsider anything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

First the Dems need to win everything to do that, and second they should do all this regardless of what happens next.

To sum up, the Dems have no leverage. 

The map is looking worse and worse for a Republican majority in the Senate, and only Republican incumbents up for reelection will suffer. Hard to picture that threat not spooking them given that they're powerless to do it themselves unless they capture the house and hold the Senate and WH, an outcome that seems unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the threat works, you can't do what you threatened anyway. Well, you could, but the Dems probably wouldn't. And they should. Surely they know by now that Republicans have no sense of decency or fairplay anymore?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hard to picture that threat not spooking them given that they're powerless to do it themselves unless they capture the house and hold the Senate and WH, an outcome that seems unlikely.

Not sure why you're so hung up on the "threat."  That threat definitely is not gonna stop the GOP from filling the seat.  Obviously Ripp's right, the Dems have no leverage and the only way to acquire leverage is to win the presidency and the Senate.  If they do that, then they just do it.  Don't see why it matters whether they threaten to do it beforehand or not.

9 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Well, you could, but the Dems probably wouldn't.

Oh I don't know about that.  After this, if the Dems win unified government, I strongly suspect they will pack the SC.  I have no idea if they'll make major alterations to the circuit courts or not - that issue hasn't really been discussed publicly - but they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I think I'm somewhere in the middle between you and Fez.  The shift from Roberts to Gorsuch as the swing vote on any Trump challenges trying to bullshit his way to stay in office is very significant and worrisome, but I don't think it's a shift of 20 percent likelihood to 50 percent likelihood the court enables him to steal the election.  Instead of a 30 point bump I'd put it more at 15-20.

I just don't see Gorsuch as that kind of hack. I see him as a true believer textualist, who'd happily dismantle the entire administrative state. But I don't see him overturning states' authority to conduct their own elections. Now maybe that means he'd go along with a state scheme to overturn the will of the voters; but I just don't see any of that kind of thing really happening.

Also, if you want to get really Machiavellian, there's a chance that Gorsuch wants the power that comes from being the swing justice; and therefore would want to see Breyer get replaced by a Democrat (he's not getting to write any more landmark pro-Native rights opinions if the Court is 7-2 Republican in a couple years; it'll be hard enough finding a Republican to go along with him at 6-3). Since the odds of Breyer getting to January 2025 aren't the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh I don't know about that.  After this, if the Dems win unified government, I strongly suspect they will pack the SC.  I have no idea if they'll make major alterations to the circuit courts or not - that issue hasn't really been discussed publicly - but they should.

Sounds good.

But what I meant was, they wouldn't use it as leverage/ threat, then get their way, then do it anyway. I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

We all knew this was likely to happen, the fact that it happened 6 weeks before the election doesn't change that much I think.  Anyone who was voting on the court already had skin in the game.  

The court situation is entirely election dependant and this hasn't changed that.

I don't see it even making a difference in a Biden v Trump election case, even if Roberts flipped you'd have a 4-4 situation reaffirming a lower court ruling, sure there are scenarios where it could but this isn't the sky is falling moment everyone is making it out to be.  Pack the court, race to nuke the filibuster once you have united government, this was already the path forward.  

This is my view exactly; absolutely nothing has changed. Even if Ginsberg hadn't passed, she likely wouldn't have made it through another Trump term. The calculus hasn't changed and we still have to win. Now maybe some people will finally realize what's at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

I just don't see Gorsuch as that kind of hack.

I think he's significantly more likely to side with a bullshit Trump lawsuit than Roberts is, yes.  Guess just agree to disagree here, no way to know until it happens or even really provide evidence - other than ideologically Gorsuch's decisions are considerably more conservative than Roberts' in the aggregate.

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, if you want to get really Machiavellian, there's a chance that Gorsuch wants the power that comes from being the swing justice; and therefore would want to see Breyer get replaced by a Democrat (he's not getting to write any more landmark pro-Native rights opinions if the Court is 7-2 Republican in a couple years; it'll be hard enough finding a Republican to go along with him at 6-3). Since the odds of Breyer getting to January 2025 aren't the best. 

So in the first graph you're arguing he's not a hack and in the second you're arguing he wouldn't go along with Trump in the interest of maintaining his swing vote status - as opposed to upon Breyer's potential death banking a 7-2 majority?  Make up your mind!

7 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

But what I meant was, they wouldn't use it as leverage/ threat, then get their way, then do it anyway. I think.

Well, if "get their way" means getting the GOP to hold off on filling the seat, I guess I'm just not considering that as a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, 

If this weren't an election year (and if this wasn't going to alter the court's composition), I don't think Barrett could get confirmed. Last time around, there was a whole lot of talk about how many Republican senators were uncomfortable with her and how relieved they were that Kavannaugh was the pick instead. Meanwhile, Lagoa would get easily confirmed; her appeals court vote just last year was 80-15 (although the somewhat bipartisan sheen on her may be gone after her ruling allowing the Florida poll tax). Thul would be somewhere in between the two.

I suspect it'll either be Barrett, to rile up the evangelicals some more, or Lagoa, to try to win over more hispanic support in Florida.

 

Just now, DMC said:

So in the first graph you're arguing he's not a hack and in the second you're arguing he wouldn't go along with Trump in the interest of maintaining his swing vote status - as opposed to upon Breyer's potential death banking a 7-2 majority?  Make up your mind!

Well, there's a difference between being a hack to advance your own interests and being a hack to advance others. But I don't really believe he'd aim to maintain swing status like that, since in a 6-3 court he's not really the swing justice either. Not in the way that Kennedy was for years and Roberts has been for a little bit. There will be (rare) times that Roberts and Kavanaugh join the liberals without him (like that Planned Parenthood case), and times that he wants to join the liberals but can't find a second Republican to join him (like with Native rights). It's going to be a complex web of negotiations among the conservatives, since all of them (except Alito) have their own niche areas where they've sided with the liberals in 5-4 decisions in the past. Even Thomas did; rarely. And none of them will be able to, unless they figure out some sort of internal arrangement; or the court gets packed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitch McConnell is a black tongue lieing sack of shit who’s blatent hypocrisy and double dealing have damaged American political discourse.  He is an embarrassment to everyone who has any integrity and believes politics should be about something more than mere power.  He is among the most base and immoral human beings to ever set foot in the well of the United States Senate.  If you are not embarrassed by him and his power grab I worry for your own integrity:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

But I don't really believe he'd aim to maintain swing status like that, since in a 6-3 court he's not really the swing justice either. Not in the way that Kennedy was for years and Roberts has been for a little bit. There will be (rare) times that Roberts and Kavanaugh join the liberals without him (like that Planned Parenthood case), and times that he wants to join the liberals but can't find a second Republican to join him (like with Native rights). It's going to be a complex web of negotiations among the conservatives, since all of them (except Alito) have their own niche areas where they've sided with the liberals in 5-4 decisions in the past.

Totally agree with all this.

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

Meanwhile, Lagoa would get easily confirmed

Yeah Lagoa would be a hell of a lot better than the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mitch McConnell is a black tongue lieing sack of shit who’s blatent hypocrisy and double dealing have damaged American political discourse.  He is an embarrassment to everyone who has any integrity and believes politics should be about something more than mere power.  He is among the most base and immoral human beings to ever set foot in the well of the United States Senate.  If you are not embarrassed by him and his power grab I worry for your own integrity:

I would like to highlight this non-patriot for any observing entities. Frankly, Scot, I'm disappointed in you. Abandoning true Republican values in our hour of triumph to side with a lost cause? Tisk, tisk.

If trials are permitted I'll speak to your character and longstanding devotion to the party, but it would be unRepublican of me to omit this display of faithlessness from the public record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm putting a dime on Coney Barrett:

- She's female. Conservatives will love the symbolism of replacing a progressive female with a conservative one. Especially RBG.
- She's white. Unless the Republicans hope nominating Lagoa can somehow bring them minority votes, they'll go for the white woman.
- She's a self-proclaimed originalist - keyword for "arch-conservative."
- Her views on abortion are perfect for the Republican base:

Quote

Coney Barrett has criticized landmark decision Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States, as "creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand.” However, she has also said it is “very unlikely” the court would ever overturn the decision. “The controversy right now is about funding,” she stated in 2018. “It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”

They won't exactly end abortion, just make it affordable only for the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lollygag said:

You're (again) parroting some far right talking points here.

This argument is the exact same argument the way far right religious social conservatives use when the left tries to make them respect others' rights. Basically this is their whole you're-being-tyrannical-because-you're-limiting-my-right-to-be-tyrannical bullshit.

 

 

Who am I being tyrannical toward? I don't care if you are a liberal or a lefty or whatever. I do care when people try to police what I believe is the right thing to do politically. 

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...