US Politics: Biden vs. Ron DeCardassian in the Delta quadrant

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Majority Leader?

In 2018, when the article was published.

[Mindwalker]

YI just copied and pasted!

And somethig funny (for me at least): (spoiler alert: He's probably on the run, not missing)

John Pierce, a conservative lawyer who represents 17 Capitol insurrectionists, is missing and has left his clients without legal representation since Monday last week, according to federal prosecutors. 

Channing Phillips, the acting U.S. Attorney General for the District of Columbia, told the court in a case involving one of the 17 insurrectionists on Monday that his office hasn’t had contact with Pierce since August 23, and has heard “conflicting information” about Pierce’s whereabouts amid reports that the lawyer is currently hospitalized for COVID-19....

That conflicting information includes pushback from another one of Pierce’s associates who claimed last week that dehydration and exhaustion—not COVID-19—are to blame for Pierce’s strange absence. It’s worth noting that the Justice Department filing repeatedly takes issues with Marshall’s role in subbing in for Pierce while he remains missing in action since Marshall is an unlicensed attorney.

...

Pierce’s work regularly features a penchant for conspiracy theories and violent imagery, themes that have popped up in his current, albeit paused, defense of pro-Trump insurrectionists in the Capitol riot investigation. One example, according to the New York Times, includes Pierce baselessly claiming that “FBI operatives and intelligence personnel, working undercover, incited the [January 6] crowd to violence. And he has urged other defense lawyers to help him find proof.”

As questions surrounding Pierce’s whereabouts grow—ABC News reports that the phone lines at Pierce’s offices have been disconnected ...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/08/john-pierce-missing-lawyer/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/lawyer-for-more-than-a-dozen-jan-6-defendants-is-awol-may-have-covid-feds-say

 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Well, hell, I just read the Wikipedia entry on Tucker Carlson. Quite the read! His mom was a free spirit who walked out when the kids were little, and his dad married the heir to the Swanson frozen foods fortune, although at the time they had already sold out to Campbell’s. His dad had been the director of the Voice of America.

So wait...is Tucker Carlson the kid from Kramer vs. Kramer?  Boys really do need their mothers...

[DireWolfSpirit]

Oh it was mommy that abandoned Tucker.

And here all this time I had him pegged for a "daddy issues" type, like maybe he's the boy in this Western?

 

[Week]

So, I'm lead to believe this is RGB's fault, right?

@Varysblackfyre321

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 minutes ago, Week said:

 

So, I'm lead to believe this is RGB's fault, right?

@Varysblackfyre321

you should believe that this likely would not have happened if she stepped down.

she was intelligent enough to recognize the risks of her decisions. If Breyer follows in her footsteps he’d be acting similarly recklessly 

The republicans rightly suspected Ginsburg would die before democrats took back the senate.

They didn’t wait years on end for a chance they’d be wrong to act.

if RBG retired in 2013 America would be a safer place for so many people.

[Week]

Explain how RBG's retirement from a conservative majority SCOTUS would somehow flip the majority. There would be absolutely no change. This is a failure of the Democrats' inaction in reforming the court. I put that blame where it appropriately rests across the 250+ MCs and the Biden administration.

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Week said:

Explain how RBG's retirement from a conservative majority SCOTUS would somehow flip the majority.

I didn’t say it’d flip the conservative majority nor necessarily would it need to. With roberts still as the swing vote however there’d be a far greater chance to protect reproductive rights than there are now—there have been cases about abortion within recent years that have swung that went the right way because rberts went along with the four liberals.

Now it doesn’t matter much on how he votes because the other conservative justices will vote accordingly to their ideological bent.

 

But hey I guess democrats shouldn’t be hoping Breyer retires because whether he does or not the conservatives would still have a majority.

 

23 minutes ago, Week said:

There would be absolutely no change.

There would. Tell me why do you all these hear beat bills started sprouting up within the last couple of years when previously the Supreme Court was already tilted to conservatives?

Because republicans smelt blood in the water and rightly suspected before RBG could retire and be replaced by democrats she’d be dead.

23 minutes ago, Week said:

This is a failure of the Democrats' inaction in reforming the court.

And RBG to retire.

[Week]

Oh, so it's RBG's fault that Roberts is too craven to engage with any conservatives. Again, you're misplacing blame that belongs on the shoulders of Democrats writ large in order to blame RBG. There is no possible way for you to validate your assertion that her retirement would change anything at all - it's completely fabricated out of your imagination. On the other hand, legislation and court reform actually *would* have made a difference -- but no, let's plan one woman for this. Ok.

Eta, if there is one person to blame - it would be much more appropriate to blame Obama for not going to the mat for Garland (or preferably a better candidate, but alas). Still, this is a collective failure.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Eta, if there is one person to blame - it would be much more appropriate to blame Obama for not going to the mat for Garland (or preferably a better candidate, but alas). Still, this is a collective failure.

There really wasn't much he could do once McConnell made it clear no amount of shaming would make him change his stance. And yes, RGB should have retired earlier. It's playing the results, but that can't be denied. She was old and sick and had to be smart enough to realize that Republicans were literally waiting for her to die on the bench with the hopes it happened when they had the power to replace her. They basically danced on her grave before 24 hours had even passed. 

At this point it's pretty clear Republicans and Democrats are playing different games when it comes to the court, and per usual, the constant projecting from the right about liberal activist judges has enabled them to install a bunch of ideological politicians at every level of the judiciary. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Oh, so it's RBG's fault that Roberts is too craven to engage with any conservatives.

It makes any engagement on certain issues even more moot. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Week said:

Again, you're misplacing blame that belongs on the shoulders of Democrats writ large in order to blame RBG.

I’m acknowledging it’d been wise for her to retire when democrats could replace her. She didn’t and the results of her decision have been disastrous.

1 hour ago, Week said:

There is no possible way for you to validate your assertion that her retirement would change anything at all

It’s a reasonable guess that we wouldn’t be seeing a lot these anti-choice bills under a more evenly stacked Supreme Court.

You understand why it’d be practical for Breyer to retire within a year, but seem blind to why Ginsburg’s decision was not.

1 hour ago, Week said:

On the other hand, legislation and court reform actually *would* have made a difference -- but no, let's plan one woman for this. Ok.

Let’s not pretend her decision to stay on or Breyer’s does not have obvious risks.

Risks that could have been avoided.

1 hour ago, Week said:

Eta, if there is one person to blame - it would be much more appropriate to blame Obama for not going to the mat for Garland (or preferably a better candidate, but alas). Still, this is a collective failure.

McConnell is a lot of things but he’s not an idiot. He would not give liberals a majority especially when it looked like once Ruth passed he’d get a conservative super majority on the SC.

[Week]

Someone who is now dead should have made a different decision eight years ago because it might have changed a coward's mind. A-yup. Sorry, I don't have the galaxy brain to engage any further. 

We have a shit sandwich -- we were always going to have a shit sandwich -- now what are Democrats actually going to do about it? (that they could've done since February - but less blame goes here because reasons)

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Someone who is now dead should have made a different decision eight years ago because it might have changed a coward's mind.

No, she should have done it just to prevent the court from being stacked up more with another Scalia who’d make Robert’s critical swing vote for abort rights—not really matter anymore.

Obama tried to get her to step down during the midterms. She wasn’t an idiot. She knew or at least she have known the risks continuing on would entail.

But sure, don’t chastise Breyer for if he refuses to retire soon and dies when only republicans can replace him. 

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

/ignore

You beat that dead old horse until it's unrecognizable. What a useful, intelligent endeavor.

I'll continue to blame those who could make a difference NOW. Whose job it is to make a difference NOW.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I see that Survey USA and Trafalgar Group (the latter was the one that had Trump up in PA during the 2020 election and has a weird 'ask about your neighbor' methodology, IIRC) have new polls out of California with Keep +10/7 respectively). Survey USA is interesting because their last poll had Remove +9, so maybe people are finally starting to pay attention, or its just difficult to poll.

Should also note the enthusiasm gap still exists, so polls may be off by few points.

[DMC]

Both Ginsburg and Breyer - if he does not retire before the midterms - bear some responsibility for choosing not to retire.  Ginsburg was pointedly defiant towards calls for her to retire before the 2014 midterms, using the fact the GOP could still filibuster her replacement at that time as (partially) her excuse.  That's not very convincing reasoning considering the Dems could've just done what the GOP did once they put up Gorsuch.  As for Obama's responsibility, he did try to convince her to step down, or at least that's the rather obvious assumption for their White House meeting in 2013.

Ginsburg knew full well the risk she was taking by not retiring before the 2014 midterms - it was fairly obvious the Dems were gonna lose the chamber based on the seats up.  Just as Breyer does now - as he's admitted.  So, in that respect, yes, they deserve some of the blame for not ensuring they had the best possible successor when they had the chance.

That being said, the preposterous aspect of this is demanding individual Senators resign because they're too old and therefore they might die and they might be replaced by a Republican (which of course wouldn't matter anyway in anything but a 50-50 Senate).  Not only is it ludicrously stupid, but it's rather myopic to insist a Senator's only worth is voting to confirm judges.

In terms of court reforms being the answer, well, yes, they certainly are.  But the Democrats still don't have the votes for that and never have (at least in the Senate).  I'd take aim at the Senators that actually are virulently against that - as it'd be politically stupid for Biden to expend political capital on such a failing effort - but YMMV.

[IheartIheartTesla]

On a philosophical note, I dont like SC judges colluding with another (or even two) branch of government to ensure that a certain kind of judge is chosen as their successor. This is in fact the opposite of the principle that there needs to be some distance and independence between the various branches of government. Of course, this is an idealized way of how the nation should operate, but its just sad what we are contemplating.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Of course, this is an idealized way of how the nation should operate, but its just sad what we are contemplating.

Quite.  Since Clinton, all the judges that retired rather than died in office did so at a time when they had (at least) the president of the party they preferred to choose their successor.  Hell, Souter made it clear for years before he retired he was just waiting for a Democrat.  That is pretty much the norm among justices at this point.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 8/30/2021 at 8:31 AM, DMC said:

 

Yes, if the urge to resign was predicated on her cognition issues, that'd be one thing.  That, however, does not seem to the argument at all - but rather that she's 88 and therefore "very likely" to die.

I thought that was what this about. I know the Newsome angle of the whole thing came from a Salon article (I think) recently, but even they mentioned the cognition issues. I do kind of loathe that so many old people are still in congress, but that's a separate issue.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I thought that was what this about. I know the Newsome angle of the whole thing came from a Salon article (I think) recently, but even they mentioned the cognition issues. I do kind of loathe that so many old people are still in congress, but that's a separate issue.

Well, no, not in this thread at least.  Her age was emphasized as the argument that she could die soon, which seems to be the only operative concern here.  I don't think anyone's worried that her cognition issues would prevent her from casting a yea vote for a Biden-appointed Breyer replacement as long as she's still alive.