Jump to content

US Politics - And Now it Begins


Lollygag

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

If it came up, say, in the first two years of the GOP president's term, yes.  But not in the situation of Garland.  In that, McConnell's rationale was the nomination was in itself illegitimate because "the voters should decide."  The Dems - especially the current Dems/Schumer - would have simply pointed to McConnell's precedent in such a situation.

Yes. Schumer would now.  I was trying to suggest how it would have played out if everything were reversed.  Republican President in the final nine months of his second term makes a nomination for a Supreme Court seat that comes open. The Senate is Democrat controlled.  They don't want a conservative Justice added to the court to pote tially mess with the balance.  I'm suggesting that even though they never intend to allow the pick through, that they'd still food procedure and then vote the nominee down because they had the votes to do so.  They wouldn't nakedly rip away the fabric of process by simply refusing to do the job properly. 

Something I never understood by McConnell's play. Republicans could have blocked the Garland nomination by doing it all correct, instead they went the evil villain route...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jaxom 1974 said:

Something I never understood by McConnell's play. Republicans could have blocked the Garland nomination by doing it all correct, instead they went the evil villain route...

Because Garland didn't have a whole lot of reason to be opposed. He was an entirely moderate position with absurd experience and was fairly old. Actually opposing him on real principles would have looked really bad.

But if you don't have any hearing at all, because of some bizarre reasoning? Oh, that's fine then. No one has to explain why they don't like Garland per se, just that they don't like ANY nomination. You don't get soundbites about how Ted Cruz hates Garland for....no reason at all, really. You just get, over and over, them being able to hold a bullshit position.

And it worked! Totally and utterly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess there can be no more argument that Trump was god's chosen president. Unless of course people who thought that are prepared to accept god is not omnipotent and his will can be undone. Which would then call into question why one would worship a deity who's will can be undone by a tabulating machine algorithm and a dead Venezuelan socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

So if  the situation was reversed - Bush gets to nominate RBG's seat in 2016 and in some bizarre world dems have control of the senate - Schumer would never have thought to just say 'nope, not gonna do it' like McConnell did. 

Sure.  My point in running down the history was the Dems have never not acted as ruthless as the GOP in response to the GOP acting ruthless.  It's still obviously the GOP that always starts breaking norms - that's why the Dems had to abolish the lower-court judicial filibuster in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Goddamn it, can I not snip a long post without, never mind, grrrrr.

Anyways, yes, “70% of Americans are for ‘Medicare for All’...” until you tell them that they will have higher taxes and will no longer have their health coverage.

Just goes in one ear and out the other and it's repeated again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I'm suggesting that even though they never intend to allow the pick through, that they'd still food procedure and then vote the nominee down because they had the votes to do so.  They wouldn't nakedly rip away the fabric of process by simply refusing to do the job properly. 

Yeah, totally agreed, see above.  McConnell did in the evil villain way because that's how he's most comfortable - in his evil shell lair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess there can be no more argument that Trump was god's chosen president. Unless of course people who thought that are prepared to accept god is not omnipotent and his will can be undone. Which would then call into question why one would worship a deity who's will can be undone by a tabulating machine algorithm and a dead Venezuelan socialist.

You really need to figure this out better. God doesn't lose. If Trump lost it was part of God's plan, and it was to

- show the world how much they needed Trump

- punish the unbelievers by unleashing the hell of a Biden POTUS

- make Trump even STRONGER later

- Trump was just the harbinger of an even better, Trumpier person

There are so many rationalizations on this. Heck, you can always go back to the old standby of 'works in mysterious ways'. But the notion that result will change beliefs? HAHAHHA no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

Because Garland didn't have a whole lot of reason to be opposed. He was an entirely moderate position with absurd experience and was fairly old. Actually opposing him on real principles would have looked really bad.

But if you don't have any hearing at all, because of some bizarre reasoning? Oh, that's fine then. No one has to explain why they don't like Garland per se, just that they don't like ANY nomination. You don't get soundbites about how Ted Cruz hates Garland for....no reason at all, really. You just get, over and over, them being able to hold a bullshit position.

And it worked! Totally and utterly. 

Hmmmm...true. Garland was the safe pick.  Picked to force McConnell's hand and his evil stare down made Democrats blink instead.  Gods McConnell is the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

You really need to figure this out better. God doesn't lose. If Trump lost it was part of God's plan, and it was to

- show the world how much they needed Trump

- punish the unbelievers by unleashing the hell of a Biden POTUS

- make Trump even STRONGER later

- Trump was just the harbinger of an even better, Trumpier person

There are so many rationalizations on this. Heck, you can always go back to the old standby of 'works in mysterious ways'. But the notion that result will change beliefs? HAHAHHA no

Joe Biden is the anti-Christ (yep, really out there) who will then usher in the apocalypse and the now they'll all be saved and the evil Dems will get what's coming to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

You really need to figure this out better. God doesn't lose. If Trump lost it was part of God's plan, and it was to

- show the world how much they needed Trump

- punish the unbelievers by unleashing the hell of a Biden POTUS

- make Trump even STRONGER later

- Trump was just the harbinger of an even better, Trumpier person

There are so many rationalizations on this. Heck, you can always go back to the old standby of 'works in mysterious ways'. But the notion that result will change beliefs? HAHAHHA no

I'm reminded of those religions that predicted the end of the world on a certain date and were wrong. All it takes is one post from Q or some facsimile that it was all part of Trump's secret plan to bring down the pedophiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I'm reminded of those religions that predicted the end of the world on a certain date and were wrong. All it takes is one post from Q or some facsimile that it was all part of Trump's secret plan to bring down the pedophiles.

Damn those Mayans for not leaving clearer instructions that when a calendar ends, you flip it over and start a new cycle! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Martell Spy said:

I'm reminded of those religions that predicted the end of the world on a certain date and were wrong. All it takes is one post from Q or some facsimile that it was all part of Trump's secret plan to bring down the pedophiles.

The Reasonabilists:

Quote

After the unfulfilled doomsday of "End of the World", Herb Scaifer discusses with Leslie his revised prediction for the apocalypse. After finding that the park is booked that day, he quickly revises his prediction to an available date.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Hmmmm...true. Garland was the safe pick.  Picked to force McConnell's hand and his evil stare down made Democrats blink instead.  Gods McConnell is the worst.

I don't know if Democrats "blinked" so much as Barack Obama declined to go nuclear and simply instruct Merrick Garland to take his seat on the Supreme Court without Senate approval. In doing so, Obama would be engaging in a giant constitutional struggle, with no guarantee of victory. I'm about 52% sure that's what he should have done, but I concede that's a big step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know if Democrats "blinked" so much as Barack Obama declined to go nuclear and simply instruct Merrick Garland to take his seat on the Supreme Court without Senate approval.

Obama would never give that instruction, Garland would never follow it, and the other 8 members would never allow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obama would never give that instruction, Garland would never follow it, and the other 8 members would never allow it.

Bizzaroland hypothetical. A president gives such an instruction, but not to just one justice, but enough to pack the court, they all follow it and are immediately sworn in, then immediately rule on some case that makes this okay, meaning the sitting eight justices can't stop them? 

Obviously this is not going to happen, one would like to think, but what if? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously this is not going to happen, one would like to think, but what if? 

Seems a pretty simple hypothetical.  If a president was able to get away with that, then we're in a full-fledged dictatorship.  I suspect the next thing he'd do was sign an EO changing the constitution to give him lifetime power and that "court" would rubber-stamp it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Seems a pretty simple hypothetical.  If a president was able to get away with that, then we're in a full-fledged dictatorship.  I suspect the next thing he'd do was sign an EO changing the constitution to give him lifetime power and that "court" would rubber-stamp it. 

Well it's nice to see you're just as cynical as I am. 

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...