Maybe it has an effect, but if they do lose it then I'd say it's more like Donald Trump cost them the Senate.dimitrig said:sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Will pushing the nomination through cost them The Senate?
SCOTUS CONFIRMATION HEARING
28,373 Views |
372 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by bearister
OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Well, with Kavanaugh and Trump they can demonize the individual and stoke the faux fires of Twitter outrage but faced with a mild mannered Catholic woman Midwesterner in an election year ( Biden trails Trump among Catholics), they instead focus on arcane case studies.
Ironically, she could pose a greater threat to our democracy than Trump, but they won't say that because ( being lawyering sheep) they accept all the false narratives of the Supreme Court, checks and balances, advise and consent, independent judiciary, judicial restraint, etc.
What they should be saying is: " You are telling us you can read the mind of dead 18th century men and interpret the Constitution and rule in the 21st Century on that basis! Get the f$ck out of here with this bull****!"
dimitrig said:
Will pushing the nomination through cost them The Senate?
^ never-mind, syc got there first.
That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
"Yogi is right" - Oaktown Bear
Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymore.Garou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
I also marvel at how many of the lawyers here feel that the judicial branch should be so politically charged whether it be by the opposition (current happenings) or packing the court (suggested in the future). Thought they would collectively revere the profession's sanctity a bit more.
There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Yes, because McConnell engaged in unprecedented use of the filibuster to prevent Obama from filling ANY judicial seats. All legal, you say? Yes technically it was, just not something anyone had done before because doing that would have slowed all Senate business to a halt. No one wanted to go scorched-earth before that, but he did.OdontoBear66 said:Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Also perfectly legal? A potential new Democratic majority adding more seats to the bench or doing whatever must be done to pass their agenda. What goes around comes around indeed.
They had other things they could have done besides a filibuster. They're more interesting in a token resistance pretending that they they are upset to pander to people like you.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymore.Garou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
"Yogi is right" - Oaktown Bear
Never count on a lawyer to be interested in justiceOdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
I also marvel at how many of the lawyers here feel that the judicial branch should be so politically charged whether it be by the opposition (current happenings) or packing the court (suggested in the future). Thought they would collectively revere the profession's sanctity a bit more.
"Yogi is right" - Oaktown Bear
Would any of these things actually stop the confirmation? Please name them.Garou said:They had other things they could have done besides a filibuster. They're more interesting in a token resistance pretending that they they are upset to pander to people like you.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymore.Garou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849sycasey said:Would any of these things actually stop the confirmation? Please name them.Garou said:They had other things they could have done besides a filibuster. They're more interesting in a token resistance pretending that they they are upset to pander to people like you.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymore.Garou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
"Yogi is right" - Oaktown Bear
These are delay tactics, not tactics that can actually stop it. Republicans can still get around these by simple majority vote.Cool Ice said:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849sycasey said:Would any of these things actually stop the confirmation? Please name them.Garou said:They had other things they could have done besides a filibuster. They're more interesting in a token resistance pretending that they they are upset to pander to people like you.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymore.Garou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
I've seen this argument from conservative types like you before. Let me guess, you're actually trying to pretend here like McConnell's unprecedented judicial filibusters (what sycasey just said) never occurred, but once forced to acknowledge this, you're going to go back and say that this tit-for-tat all really started with what happened to Robert Bork's nomination in the 80's. Do I have that right?OdontoBear66 said:Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Republicans have taken the position that if you can't stop them from doing it, they can and will do it. They are engaging in asymmetric warfare against our country and exploiting everything they can.
I don't think the decay in comity is good for our country but what would be worse for our country is if we allow Republicans to continue to take advantage of our adherence to norms when they refuse to do so. Maybe there will be a detente in the future, but there isn't one now. If ACB is confirmed, I would have no problem with expanding the court in 2021 and adding four new seats with appropriate justices. Thank Mitch McConnell for destroying our judicial branch.
I don't think the decay in comity is good for our country but what would be worse for our country is if we allow Republicans to continue to take advantage of our adherence to norms when they refuse to do so. Maybe there will be a detente in the future, but there isn't one now. If ACB is confirmed, I would have no problem with expanding the court in 2021 and adding four new seats with appropriate justices. Thank Mitch McConnell for destroying our judicial branch.
No. I was not rightly or wrongly even arguing McConnell's usage of the filibuster for years, and even commented that I am sorry it was lifted. My point was the irony of Reid being he who lifted it and the turnip has turned. Again, not that I like it, but....JeffBear07 said:I've seen this argument from conservative types like you before. Let me guess, you're actually trying to pretend here like McConnell's unprecedented judicial filibusters (what sycasey just said) never occurred, but once forced to acknowledge this, you're going to go back and say that this tit-for-tat all really started with what happened to Robert Bork's nomination in the 80's. Do I have that right?OdontoBear66 said:Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
You guys are kinda funny. Legal scholars living on what the meaning of "is" is, but not reading simplistic stuff from a Subject A major at Cal.
smh said:dimitrig said:
Will pushing the nomination through cost them The Senate?naww, it's the top of the ticket drives Senate outcomes.
^ never-mind, syc got there first.
Obama won both his elections handily and yet lost Senate seats.
I see. So McConnell can break the system for judicial nominations, leading Reid to escalate tactics in order to restore some semblance of proper governmental function, and when McConnell predictably escalates further at first opportunity, the primary takeaway by conservatives is "haha IRONY"OdontoBear66 said:No. I was not rightly or wrongly even arguing McConnell's usage of the filibuster for years, and even commented that I am sorry it was lifted. My point was the irony of Reid being he who lifted it and the turnip has turned. Again, not that I like it, but....JeffBear07 said:I've seen this argument from conservative types like you before. Let me guess, you're actually trying to pretend here like McConnell's unprecedented judicial filibusters (what sycasey just said) never occurred, but once forced to acknowledge this, you're going to go back and say that this tit-for-tat all really started with what happened to Robert Bork's nomination in the 80's. Do I have that right?OdontoBear66 said:Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
You guys are kinda funny. Legal scholars living on what the meaning of "is" is, but not reading simplistic stuff from a Subject A major at Cal.
And yes, unlike many of your conservative brethren on this site, I actually do think you're too smart to have made such a simplistic "Subject A" statement without consciously realizing the underlying context. But anything to avoid copping to ultimately being in support of a nihilistic political party I guess.
Ultimately, removing the filibuster will redound to the benefit of the more liberal/progressive party in the long run. Republicans are getting short-term benefits right now, but true conservatives should have wanted to keep in place guardrails that protect the minority.
This tells you that McConnell is just about personal power, not conservative principles.
This tells you that McConnell is just about personal power, not conservative principles.
Please enlighten us on the other things. I will wait for your response.Garou said:They had other things they could have done besides a filibuster. They're more interesting in a token resistance pretending that they they are upset to pander to people like you.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymore.Garou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
Your argument would be more convincing if the Democrats were not generally in favor or open to eliminating filibuster altogether in the Senate.JeffBear07 said:I see. So McConnell can break the system for judicial nominations, leading Reid to escalate tactics in order to restore some semblance of proper governmental function, and when McConnell predictably escalates further at first opportunity, the primary takeaway by conservatives is "haha IRONY"OdontoBear66 said:No. I was not rightly or wrongly even arguing McConnell's usage of the filibuster for years, and even commented that I am sorry it was lifted. My point was the irony of Reid being he who lifted it and the turnip has turned. Again, not that I like it, but....JeffBear07 said:I've seen this argument from conservative types like you before. Let me guess, you're actually trying to pretend here like McConnell's unprecedented judicial filibusters (what sycasey just said) never occurred, but once forced to acknowledge this, you're going to go back and say that this tit-for-tat all really started with what happened to Robert Bork's nomination in the 80's. Do I have that right?OdontoBear66 said:Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
You guys are kinda funny. Legal scholars living on what the meaning of "is" is, but not reading simplistic stuff from a Subject A major at Cal.
And yes, unlike many of your conservative brethren on this site, I actually do think you're too smart to have made such a simplistic "Subject A" statement without consciously realizing the underlying context. But anything to avoid copping to ultimately being in support of a nihilistic political party I guess.
Whether it's electoral college, filibuster, blocking qualified judicial nominees, packing the courts, etc., politicians now are more interested in expediency and getting what they want when they want it as opposed to respecting the traditions, protecting the best interest of America for this generation and next, and respecting the safe guards that have protected the minority against the majority in our history.
And so us pretending that one party is worse than the other when it comes to cheap tricks or eliminating traditional protections is laughable. When it protects their interest, it's a sacred, time-honored tradition. If it gets in their way, then it's relic of a time past that is either racist or undemocratic.
None of this will change as long as politicians have to deal with primaries. The social media creates tribes, leading to only the extremes surviving primaries and culminating in no room for compromise between the parties or different bodies of the government.
Both parties are crap when it comes to these things. It's like blaming the media. The left is so horrified of the right saying the media is biased or apologist for the liberal politicians. But when liberal politicians like AOC or Pelosi get tough questions from even liberal media companies like CNN, what do they say? Fake news or journalists are apologist for the right.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/elizabeth-warren-against-the-filibuster
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/eliminate-senate-filibuster/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/31/senate-democrats-filibuster/
They are convinced now! Why should they have to legislate under tighter rules that the republicons. That so called law and order party that you belong to is corrupt as the day is long. Law and order is for the other guys!calbear93 said:Your argument would be more convincing if the Democrats were not generally in favor or open to eliminating filibuster altogether in the Senate.JeffBear07 said:I see. So McConnell can break the system for judicial nominations, leading Reid to escalate tactics in order to restore some semblance of proper governmental function, and when McConnell predictably escalates further at first opportunity, the primary takeaway by conservatives is "haha IRONY"OdontoBear66 said:No. I was not rightly or wrongly even arguing McConnell's usage of the filibuster for years, and even commented that I am sorry it was lifted. My point was the irony of Reid being he who lifted it and the turnip has turned. Again, not that I like it, but....JeffBear07 said:I've seen this argument from conservative types like you before. Let me guess, you're actually trying to pretend here like McConnell's unprecedented judicial filibusters (what sycasey just said) never occurred, but once forced to acknowledge this, you're going to go back and say that this tit-for-tat all really started with what happened to Robert Bork's nomination in the 80's. Do I have that right?OdontoBear66 said:Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
You guys are kinda funny. Legal scholars living on what the meaning of "is" is, but not reading simplistic stuff from a Subject A major at Cal.
And yes, unlike many of your conservative brethren on this site, I actually do think you're too smart to have made such a simplistic "Subject A" statement without consciously realizing the underlying context. But anything to avoid copping to ultimately being in support of a nihilistic political party I guess.
Whether it's electoral college, filibuster, blocking qualified judicial nominees, packing the courts, etc., politicians now are more interested in expediency and getting what they want when they want it as opposed to respecting the traditions, protecting the best interest of America for this generation and next, and respecting the safe guards that have protected the minority against the majority in our history.
And so us pretending that one party is worse than the other when it comes to cheap tricks or eliminating traditional protections is laughable. When it protects their interest, it's a sacred, time-honored tradition. If it gets in their way, then it's relic of a time past that is either racist or undemocratic.
None of this will change as long as politicians have to deal with primaries. The social media creates tribes, leading to only the extremes surviving primaries and culminating in no room for comprise between the parties or different bodies of the government.
Both parties are crap when it comes to these things. It's like blaming the media. The left is so horrified of the right saying the media is biased or apologist for the liberal politicians. But when liberal politicians like AOC or Pelosi get tough questions from even liberal media companies like CNN, what do they say? Fake news or journalists are apologist for the right.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/elizabeth-warren-against-the-filibuster
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/eliminate-senate-filibuster/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/31/senate-democrats-filibuster/
I think it is a foregone conclusion that left will sweep the WH and both chambers in Congress in 2020. If the left implements extreme measures, the public will revert back to giving the WH to the right in 2024 or the senate or the house in either 2022 or 2024. No way Republicans survive the Trump destruction in 2020. But, assuming history repeats itself, if the left goes too far or too quickly, they will lose in subsequent elections and the public will block the ruling party by giving at least one body to another party.dimitrig said:smh said:dimitrig said:
Will pushing the nomination through cost them The Senate?naww, it's the top of the ticket drives Senate outcomes.
^ never-mind, syc got there first.
Obama won both his elections handily and yet lost Senate seats.
The fight until then will be between the courts and Congress.
It's only about the pursuit of power same as the last three years. McConnell did it and didn't pay a price for it; the reasons being nobody cares about the inner workings of the US Senate and Supreme Court nominees do not electrify people to vote. ( In retrospect Obama nominating someone he thought would appeal to Mitch was laughingly dumb; if he wanted electoral payback he should have nominated a black woman.)
The Democrats have talked about increasing court size but that will wind up in front of the voters being a major tampering with a third branch. They won't do it. Biden is a traditionalist and McConnell is a good friend of his. Ginsburg's death wish will have to wait. Maybe Breyer retires or one of the Repubs croaks.
The Democrats have talked about increasing court size but that will wind up in front of the voters being a major tampering with a third branch. They won't do it. Biden is a traditionalist and McConnell is a good friend of his. Ginsburg's death wish will have to wait. Maybe Breyer retires or one of the Repubs croaks.
Three most undesirable humans on the planet.
1) Democrats on the Senate judiciary. committee.
2) Uncurable lepers
3) Curable lepers
1) Democrats on the Senate judiciary. committee.
2) Uncurable lepers
3) Curable lepers
+1 sycasey. But this moderate would like the filibuster back too.sycasey said:
Ultimately, removing the filibuster will redound to the benefit of the more liberal/progressive party in the long run. Republicans are getting short-term benefits right now, but true conservatives should have wanted to keep in place guardrails that protect the minority.
This tells you that McConnell is just about personal power, not conservative principles.
The Salem "witches" never had to endure what candidates appointed by Republican presidents now have to endure at these "hearings," The Demos started the personal assassination of candidates when they destroyed the terrifically qualified candidate, Robert Bork, in 1987. Instead of apologizing for this unprecedented assault on the character of a fine candidate, Demos have doubled down ever since: as a result, the Salem "witches" endured better treatment at the hands of their tormentors than republican-appointed candidates now have to endure.
a) isn't it true you are a catholic?
b) isn't it true you were part of a gang-rape club in high school?
c) isn't it true that you lead and pray at Christian-inspired meetings?
d) isn't it true that you vote Republican all the time?
e) isn't it true that you believe in traditional marriage?
f) Isn't it true that you think allowing boys to walk into the girls' bathroom is a bad idea?
g) isn't it true that you think the US Constitution is the best Constitution of all time?
h) Isn't it true that you believe Meritocracy is more desirable than Identity Politics?
i) Isn't it true that you think the Police are a good idea?
j) Isn't it true that you think 'packing the court" is a bad idea?
k) Isn't it true that you think Donald Trump is a better qualified president than Theta Thuneberg?
a) isn't it true you are a catholic?
b) isn't it true you were part of a gang-rape club in high school?
c) isn't it true that you lead and pray at Christian-inspired meetings?
d) isn't it true that you vote Republican all the time?
e) isn't it true that you believe in traditional marriage?
f) Isn't it true that you think allowing boys to walk into the girls' bathroom is a bad idea?
g) isn't it true that you think the US Constitution is the best Constitution of all time?
h) Isn't it true that you believe Meritocracy is more desirable than Identity Politics?
i) Isn't it true that you think the Police are a good idea?
j) Isn't it true that you think 'packing the court" is a bad idea?
k) Isn't it true that you think Donald Trump is a better qualified president than Theta Thuneberg?
Stupid people should stop making up stupid things.
For context, Jill was Cosmo's legal social media person after practicing law for zero years. She had the understanding of legal issues of a brick, and the legal mind to match said brick. One could say similar stuff re: social media twit head DJ.Garou said:I bet the people at Cosmo can spell Jimi Hendrix's last name without help though. Or know enough not to vote for Donald Trump for president.wifeisafurd said:Stop interjecting facts to disclaim idiot twitterhead commentary. I enjoy seeing what moronic things Jill and DJ say. Let's face it, Cosmo is the intellectual elite of law journals.bearister said:
She said the word was said after the termination decision was made and when the termination process was already underway. This is not an appellate court's job, but perhaps a better trial counsel could have tied use of that word to pre termination conduct and motives. I did not read the case. She said it involved the employee making a serious driving error. The employee using that word should have been summarily fired.
Bearister been practicing law since dirt became dirt.
What you're saying is not an entirely unfair analysis, but its flaw is in its reliance on the mutual acceptance of comity and good faith from both sides. I don't really want to get into a comprehensive discussion of tit for tat at this point unless that was your intent, but I struggle to see how you can argue that it wasn't very much the Republicans (at least with this current generation of congressmen) who first tossed aside any notions of good faith negotiation with Democrats while they were in the minority.calbear93 said:Your argument would be more convincing if the Democrats were not generally in favor or open to eliminating filibuster altogether in the Senate.JeffBear07 said:I see. So McConnell can break the system for judicial nominations, leading Reid to escalate tactics in order to restore some semblance of proper governmental function, and when McConnell predictably escalates further at first opportunity, the primary takeaway by conservatives is "haha IRONY"OdontoBear66 said:No. I was not rightly or wrongly even arguing McConnell's usage of the filibuster for years, and even commented that I am sorry it was lifted. My point was the irony of Reid being he who lifted it and the turnip has turned. Again, not that I like it, but....JeffBear07 said:I've seen this argument from conservative types like you before. Let me guess, you're actually trying to pretend here like McConnell's unprecedented judicial filibusters (what sycasey just said) never occurred, but once forced to acknowledge this, you're going to go back and say that this tit-for-tat all really started with what happened to Robert Bork's nomination in the 80's. Do I have that right?OdontoBear66 said:Reid opened the door in an hour of need. What goes around comes around.sycasey said:There is a long tit-for-tat escalation that got us to this point, but for SCOTUS nominees it is McConnell who removed the filibuster.OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
You guys are kinda funny. Legal scholars living on what the meaning of "is" is, but not reading simplistic stuff from a Subject A major at Cal.
And yes, unlike many of your conservative brethren on this site, I actually do think you're too smart to have made such a simplistic "Subject A" statement without consciously realizing the underlying context. But anything to avoid copping to ultimately being in support of a nihilistic political party I guess.
Whether it's electoral college, filibuster, blocking qualified judicial nominees, packing the courts, etc., politicians now are more interested in expediency and getting what they want when they want it as opposed to respecting the traditions, protecting the best interest of America for this generation and next, and respecting the safe guards that have protected the minority against the majority in our history.
And so us pretending that one party is worse than the other when it comes to cheap tricks or eliminating traditional protections is laughable. When it protects their interest, it's a sacred, time-honored tradition. If it gets in their way, then it's relic of a time past that is either racist or undemocratic.
None of this will change as long as politicians have to deal with primaries. The social media creates tribes, leading to only the extremes surviving primaries and culminating in no room for compromise between the parties or different bodies of the government.
Both parties are crap when it comes to these things. It's like blaming the media. The left is so horrified of the right saying the media is biased or apologist for the liberal politicians. But when liberal politicians like AOC or Pelosi get tough questions from even liberal media companies like CNN, what do they say? Fake news or journalists are apologist for the right.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/elizabeth-warren-against-the-filibuster
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/eliminate-senate-filibuster/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/31/senate-democrats-filibuster/
So no, I don't think it is laughable to suggest that one party is markedly worse "when it comes to cheap tricks or eliminating traditional protections." A cheap trick is blithely casting aside scores of qualified judicial nominees and a Supreme Court nominee without even bringing them up for a vote because you already don't "consent" to their perceived judicial philosophy. Eliminating traditional protections is getting rid of the filibuster for nominees to the highest court in the land who have the final say on numerous laws that directly impact people's lives and rights. As I expressed to OdontoBear66, what I do find a bit laughable is this notion that we can "both-sides" the two parties when it's clear that one side is proudly obstructionist to the intended good-faith function of government. Or I could just let Mitch McConnell tell you himself what he thinks of good-faith government function.
You're right that a huge problem with compromise nowadays is that way too many members of Congress nowadays fear a primary challenge from the more extreme end of their respective parties more than their actual hypothetical opponent in the general election. You know what the biggest driver of that is? Gerrymandered districts that stuff an overwhelming majority of voters of a particular political persuasion into one district through obscenely drawn district lines. Which party is by far the bigger offender in this practice? Republicans. What was the vote breakdown of the Rucho case at the Supreme Court last year that said politicians are free to gerrymander to their heart's content? 5-4. Who were the five who voted to approve gerrymandering as an acceptable political practice? Each of the five Republican-nominated justices. So tell me again which party has been more destructive to the current state of our politics?
You also bring up the media, which... honestly, I don't know how to really say this without it coming off condescending. The media issue is not a "both-sides" issue either. The right likes to blast the "mainstream media" for calling out conservative lies and Republican wrongdoing. Never does it seem to occur to the right that the "mainstream media" is basing their reporting on provable facts supported by evidence as it currently exists, only that it hurts their side so the media must be biased. The left blasts the media for its too-often attempts to "both-sides" every issue in a fruitless attempt to convince the right that the media indeed follows the facts as they bear out. Tell me, did you think it was proper for the oh-so-liberal New York Times to spend so much ink in 2016 on Hillary Clinton's emails while vaguely touching upon Donald Trump's calls for Russia to interfere in the election and any one of his foreign financial entanglements or obscene insults towards others?
You also cite to Nancy Pelosi, which I assume is a reference to her interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday. While I don't necessarily agree with the degree of aggressiveness she took, the substance of what she said was very arguably on point - that being that Blitzer didn't bother to ask the specifics were of what is in the Republicans' $1.8 trillion proposal that Pelosi objects to or why the Republicans have been sitting on her bill that has been passed since May. If you didn't know anything about any of the stimulus negotiations over the past few months and only saw that interview, you would be left thinking that Republicans are the only ones who have come up with a stimulus bill and that $1.8 trillion is an incredible number that all goes to unemployed people and shuttered businesses. That is exactly how the Republicans want to frame the issue, and somehow it is always the Democrats who are expected to capitulate and be the adults who accept whatever the other side wants for the good of the people. Or, maybe you want to explain why NBC News (yes, that NBC News that Donald Trump and much of the right continuously blast for supposedly being too liberal ) today decided to reward Trump for running from the second debate by giving him a full hour at the exact same time as an already-scheduled town hall with Biden on a competing network to freely solipsize about how everything he has touched in politics has been the greatest thing in the history of the world of forever and how Biden and Obama and Clinton are the worst thing in the history of the world of forever. It's that level of media fudgery that Democrats complain about, not accusations of "fake news" (though I'd legitimately like to know who exactly you're thinking of on the left who has decried the media as fake news).
She could have easily answered that herself, but didn't because she doesn't actually want to pass a bill until the Democrats get control of the Senate and the presidency.JeffBear07 said:
You also cite to Nancy Pelosi, which I assume is a reference to her interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday. While I don't necessarily agree with the degree of aggressiveness she took, the substance of what she said was very arguably on point - that being that Blitzer didn't bother to ask the specifics were of what is in the Republicans' $1.8 trillion proposal that Pelosi objects to or why the Republicans have been sitting on her bill that has been passed since May.
"Yogi is right" - Oaktown Bear
OdontoBear66 said:I believe you can thank Senate Majority leader Reid in 2013 for that one. Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. But sometimes what you spit out comes back to bite you in the b+tt.sycasey said:Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymoreGarou said:Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.sycasey said:That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.Cool Ice said:What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).sycasey said:There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.OdontoBear66 said:
Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.
I also marvel at how many of the lawyers here feel that the judicial branch should be so politically charged whether it be by the opposition (current happenings) or packing the court (suggested in the future). Thought they would collectively revere the profession's sanctity a bit more.
I don't think the judicial confirmation process should be so political. Unfortunately the rules that prevented that were unwritten. Whoever you want to blame for that, fine, but it doesn't exist anymore. It is clear that no one is going to hold back. So don't pretend. I liked college football with the bowls when the bowls tried to create the best matchups. Then the bowls started picking teams based on money. So eff that, I'm not going to pretend people are being honorable. If people aren't honorable, people need to behave in an equivalent manner. So screw it. If the Democrats can get the votes to add 100 justices, do it and let AOC hand pick every one just to really tick off Republicans. Give DC and Puerto Rico statehood. Convince California to split into northern and southern. The Democrats are in a situation where they need to win the Vote by 3-5 points to win the Presidency and the House. They have to win the Senate by 5-7 points. That isn't an accident. The Republicans got the drop on them. They systematically worked up from the local level and took every advantage to redistrict and pass voting laws that help them while Democrats did nothing but march around making their voices heard instead of working the political process.
This isn't Mr Smith Goes to Washington no matter how much we want it to be. Win this damn election and take every advantage you can. Gerrymander every district you can. Because what the Republicans taught us is voters do not punish you on procedural issues, certainly not enough to counter the gains you grab. Call Willie Brown if they have forgotten how it is done.
The Supreme Court being apolitical has always been a fantasy anyway. Read up in Dred Scott if you want to see how the Court is a paragon of apolitical virtue.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Democrats win all three and they do not exact brutal vengeance, I'm not a Democrat any more.
You don't beat Slytherins with Hufflepuffs.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Portal Edge Defender Deamontae Diggs
by Jim McGill
NFL Draft results and their relation to Collegiate success
by Bear Insider