Wow this thread has mushroomed to a new horizon. Left behind after the nimrod twitter commentaries by wanna bees who don't know anything about the law, we now have that critical legal discussion of the penumbras of SALT tax deductions. Justice Douglas no doubt would be thrilled.
When the Minority Leader is left complaining that "Justice Barrett" used a phrase a dictionary no longer uses, sexual preference, you have a lost cause (here is hint Chuck: when you now refer to her as Justice Barrett, people think you have thrown in the towel). (Second hint: the wording distinction is about more than the dictionary change). To make this even more absurd, "Justice Barrett" than apologized, leaving really nothing to talk about other than Senator Schumer is now calling her Justice Barrett.
What remains left is if President Biden doubles down on the SCOTUS race to the bottom and packs the court.
My own hope is if the Dems win the Senate, that they end the procedural filibuster on all matters (and if they don't, the GOP ends the procedural filibuster). In Democracy we reward the majority, and should not reward a tyranny of the minority.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
"pack the court???End the filibuster???Admit Wash DC and Puerto Rico to nationhood??Get rid of fossil fuels??Confiscate guns??end the electoral college??Make all taxpayers pay for abortion??Harass religious groups??Bring back the Iran deal??Defund the Police??Strip the military??Teach the 1619 project in all schools?????It's Civil War time, buddy...Over our dead bodies!!!!Don't think it can't happen again..And, we will win...Why???Easy--our side will be fighting for freedom---your side will be fighting for power...we will be more motivated. Motivation is everything..Gun sales are up 90%. "You want a piece of me"??.
"pack the court???End the filibuster???Admit Wash DC and Puerto Rico to nationhood??Get rid of fossil fuels??Confiscate guns??end the electoral college??Make all taxpayers pay for abortion??Harass religious groups??Bring back the Iran deal??Defund the Police??Strip the military??Teach the 1619 project in all schools?????It's Civil War time, buddy...Over our dead bodies!!!!Don't think it can't happen again..And, we will win...Why???Easy--our side will be fighting for freedom---your side will be fighting for power...we will be more motivated. Motivation is everything..Gun sales are up 90%. "You want a piece of me"??.
Do you actually think that Republicans are first-time gun owners? It has been my experience while standing in line to buy ammo or going to the range that people who never thought about owning a weapon are purchasing a firearm. You put that together with the number of weapons already out there and I wouldn't be so cavalier about the possibility of violence. Like the man said, "everybody has got a plan until they get hit in the face".
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
I'm very close with someone who went to Notre Dame for law school and even had Barrett as a professor there. Her recollection of Barrett was that of a supremely intelligent woman who is indeed a very friendly person. Independent of political and judicial proclivities, Barrett the person is very impressive.
Yet, after watching and reading about how the hearings have gone, both our impressions of Barrett's integrity have gone down. There is, of course, the simple matter of her accepting this nomination under the circumstances, though I'll concede how very difficult it would be for anyone to turn down a chance at reaching the pinnacle of the legal profession in this country. Then there are the complete weasel answers that she has given to straightforward questions of law and fact that can't be explained by anything other than her recognition that the president would not like the truthful answer. Can the President delay the election? Is it voter intimidation to station armed men outside polling stations? Is climate change a danger to life on this planet?
There are very easy statute- and fact-based answers to the above questions and yet Barrett couldn't bring herself to give the answers that she knows Trump would lose his mind over. And for what? Worst case, does she really think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage? We all know what a sham this whole nomination is given the circumstances and "precedent" set by Republicans, but perversely, because of the exceptionally narrow window of time that Republicans have to do this, there's hardly any time for Republicans to start the process all over again. In other words, does Barrett actually think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage if she responded to any of the above questions with what she must know are the actual factual answers? Those questions were such a golden opportunity for her to at least facially show that she's capable of acknowledging obvious fact and showing at least a modicum of independence from the Trump worldview but alas, she didn't even have the stones to do that. So even irrespective of her judicial views on abortion, gun rights, etc., she disqualified herself in my eyes and in the eyes of at least one of her former students.
"pack the court???End the filibuster???Admit Wash DC and Puerto Rico to nationhood??Get rid of fossil fuels??Confiscate guns??end the electoral college??Make all taxpayers pay for abortion??Harass religious groups??Bring back the Iran deal??Defund the Police??Strip the military??Teach the 1619 project in all schools?????It's Civil War time, buddy...Over our dead bodies!!!!Don't think it can't happen again..And, we will win...Why???Easy--our side will be fighting for freedom---your side will be fighting for power...we will be more motivated. Motivation is everything..Gun sales are up 90%. "You want a piece of me"??.
Well, look at you! Threatening violence if you don't get your way. How very 1860 of you.
We are not afraid of your threats. We've seen your empty threats of violence before. We will not be intimidated. All you are doing here is increasing the odds that some lunatic thinks it is acceptable to kill innocent people. That will be on your head.
This post is desperation. It is also calling for treason. That makes you a traitor to your country, not a patriot, Mr. Lee.
There is a path to setting policy in this country. It is called a democratic election. I suggest you focus on trying to win it rather than threatening people with violence if you don't.
Biden's government will bury helltopay1 in a potter's field along with the rest of the weekend paintball rabble. Based on my conversations with Vets, tRump has ticked off a lot of them. It would take one Tier 1 Operator per 1500 hundred militiamen (half of whom would shoot themselves, each other and blow themselves up making bombs). It would be over in 48 hours.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Biden's government will bury helltopay1 in a potter's field along with the rest of the weekend paintball rabble. Based on my conversations with Vets, tRump has ticked off a lot of them. It would take one Tier 1 Operator per 1500 hundred militiamen (half of whom would shoot themselves, each other and blow themselves up making bombs). It would be over in 48 hours.
Just give them unlimited access to hometown buffet and a soda fountain and let nature run its course. I have no doubt that white extremists will continue to be the largest terrorist threat we face in America but they are not a genuine threat to the republic, I mean except insofar as they are a part of the GOP machinery which is a legitimate threat.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant
Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.
Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.
If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.
I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.
In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.
This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.
edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.
Biden's government will bury helltopay1 in a potter's field along with the rest of the weekend paintball rabble. Based on my conversations with Vets, tRump has ticked off a lot of them. It would take one Tier 1 Operator per 1500 hundred militiamen (half of whom would shoot themselves, each other and blow themselves up making bombs). It would be over in 48 hours.
Nut cases like this seem to think that the military would side with domestic terrorists. There is zero chance of that happening. This is the same bullshyte that lead to Oklahoma City. If some militia actually succeeded in doing something they will be executed and they will not find comfort in the Republican Party because 1. providing support to them would end the party as a politically viable entity, and 2. Most importantly, while some may pander to the crazies to get their vote, at base they know that any such actions are horrifically wrong.
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
I'm very close with someone who went to Notre Dame for law school and even had Barrett as a professor there. Her recollection of Barrett was that of a supremely intelligent woman who is indeed a very friendly person. Independent of political and judicial proclivities, Barrett the person is very impressive.
Yet, after watching and reading about how the hearings have gone, both our impressions of Barrett's integrity have gone down. There is, of course, the simple matter of her accepting this nomination under the circumstances, though I'll concede how very difficult it would be for anyone to turn down a chance at reaching the pinnacle of the legal profession in this country. Then there are the complete weasel answers that she has given to straightforward questions of law and fact that can't be explained by anything other than her recognition that the president would not like the truthful answer. Can the President delay the election? Is it voter intimidation to station armed men outside polling stations? Is climate change a danger to life on this planet?
There are very easy statute- and fact-based answers to the above questions and yet Barrett couldn't bring herself to give the answers that she knows Trump would lose his mind over. And for what? Worst case, does she really think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage? We all know what a sham this whole nomination is given the circumstances and "precedent" set by Republicans, but perversely, because of the exceptionally narrow window of time that Republicans have to do this, there's hardly any time for Republicans to start the process all over again. In other words, does Barrett actually think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage if she responded to any of the above questions with what she must know are the actual factual answers? Those questions were such a golden opportunity for her to at least facially show that she's capable of acknowledging obvious fact and showing at least a modicum of independence from the Trump worldview but alas, she didn't even have the stones to do that. So even irrespective of her judicial views on abortion, gun rights, etc., she disqualified herself in my eyes and in the eyes of at least one of her former students.
She is only responding to legal items and basically pushing off everything else. And anything not very narrowly tailored to a prior case, she is doing the Ginsburg and saying she can't talk about issues she might rule on. You clearly have not followed every confirmation since Ginsburg. Have you though about becoming a social media legal reporter? You seem quite qualified after reading your comments.
It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this.
LOL at thinking Democrats act ethically in the game of politics
Both Republicans and Democrats have acted ethically and unethically in the game of politics. I mean that in the general definition of the word. They both behave unethically in the game of politics when compared to ethics in any other walk of life. However, there have always been unwritten ethics rules that both have followed, then stretched, then broken. Democrats are as guilty of that as Republicans.
However, in the last 10 years, the Republicans got the drop on Democrats by essentially coming to the conclusion that if they don't have to do it by law, they aren't doing it. I'M FINE WITH THAT. Hey, they got over. Now, the Democrats need to understand the game. There are no unwritten rules. You get power, you use it to stay in power. Period. Living with a filibuster rule that allows the other side to block everything is stupid when you know the other side can decide when they are in power to eliminate the filibuster rule. Eliminate it and move on. When you control things, control them. Don't set rules that hamper yourself. The other side will not return the favor.
I already said if they have forgotten how to do this they should call Willie Brown so I know they do it. The Democrats know how to play the game. It is time they play and play hard.
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
I'm very close with someone who went to Notre Dame for law school and even had Barrett as a professor there. Her recollection of Barrett was that of a supremely intelligent woman who is indeed a very friendly person. Independent of political and judicial proclivities, Barrett the person is very impressive.
Yet, after watching and reading about how the hearings have gone, both our impressions of Barrett's integrity have gone down. There is, of course, the simple matter of her accepting this nomination under the circumstances, though I'll concede how very difficult it would be for anyone to turn down a chance at reaching the pinnacle of the legal profession in this country. Then there are the complete weasel answers that she has given to straightforward questions of law and fact that can't be explained by anything other than her recognition that the president would not like the truthful answer. Can the President delay the election? Is it voter intimidation to station armed men outside polling stations? Is climate change a danger to life on this planet?
There are very easy statute- and fact-based answers to the above questions and yet Barrett couldn't bring herself to give the answers that she knows Trump would lose his mind over. And for what? Worst case, does she really think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage? We all know what a sham this whole nomination is given the circumstances and "precedent" set by Republicans, but perversely, because of the exceptionally narrow window of time that Republicans have to do this, there's hardly any time for Republicans to start the process all over again. In other words, does Barrett actually think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage if she responded to any of the above questions with what she must know are the actual factual answers? Those questions were such a golden opportunity for her to at least facially show that she's capable of acknowledging obvious fact and showing at least a modicum of independence from the Trump worldview but alas, she didn't even have the stones to do that. So even irrespective of her judicial views on abortion, gun rights, etc., she disqualified herself in my eyes and in the eyes of at least one of her former students.
She is only responding to legal items and basically pushing off everything else. And anything not very narrowly tailored to a prior case, she is doing the Ginsburg and saying she can't talk about issues she might rule on. You clearly have not followed every confirmation since Ginsburg. Have you though about becoming a social media legal reporter? You seem quite qualified after reading your comments.
Every nominee says this, and there is some basis for this. For instance, the court can't rule on law without a case in front of them so it follows that a nominee shouldn't opine without a specific case in front of them and they can't opine on a case they haven't heard, so the most they can do is opine on a specific past ruling. It is also pointless because if she came on and said she supports Roe v. Wade and then overturned it on her first day, there is nothing that can be done about that.
The hearings are pointless at this point. Not just this one. All of them. Literally the only point is to try and dig up some disqualifying thing from their past that might swing a couple votes on character or competence grounds.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant
Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.
Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.
If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.
I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.
In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.
This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.
edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.
As an initial comment about "you", I voted for Biden.
As for what the law is, in a Democracy, the majority gets its way. In the UK the majority party forms its government, and gets every non-private law it wants, This is one of the few countries with divided government, and moreover, then we add dumb self-defeating informal rules to require supermajorities, Want less gridlock, remove. these informal rules. I see no reason the Dems can't do whatever they want if they control the government. They may be accused of hypocrisy, but so what? They won the election. Elections have consequences. If they go too far, the voters can sweep they out of office.
Let me also suggest. following on one of Oakbrear's comments about the Cold War, if you have to go back to the 1800s you lost your argument.
With changing racial and age demographics, can someone please explain to me what the long game is for those that desire to impose the 1950's on America in perpetuity? Is it the old South African model where force and oppression is used by the minority to keep the majority in line?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
I'm very close with someone who went to Notre Dame for law school and even had Barrett as a professor there. Her recollection of Barrett was that of a supremely intelligent woman who is indeed a very friendly person. Independent of political and judicial proclivities, Barrett the person is very impressive.
Yet, after watching and reading about how the hearings have gone, both our impressions of Barrett's integrity have gone down. There is, of course, the simple matter of her accepting this nomination under the circumstances, though I'll concede how very difficult it would be for anyone to turn down a chance at reaching the pinnacle of the legal profession in this country. Then there are the complete weasel answers that she has given to straightforward questions of law and fact that can't be explained by anything other than her recognition that the president would not like the truthful answer. Can the President delay the election? Is it voter intimidation to station armed men outside polling stations? Is climate change a danger to life on this planet?
There are very easy statute- and fact-based answers to the above questions and yet Barrett couldn't bring herself to give the answers that she knows Trump would lose his mind over. And for what? Worst case, does she really think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage? We all know what a sham this whole nomination is given the circumstances and "precedent" set by Republicans, but perversely, because of the exceptionally narrow window of time that Republicans have to do this, there's hardly any time for Republicans to start the process all over again. In other words, does Barrett actually think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage if she responded to any of the above questions with what she must know are the actual factual answers? Those questions were such a golden opportunity for her to at least facially show that she's capable of acknowledging obvious fact and showing at least a modicum of independence from the Trump worldview but alas, she didn't even have the stones to do that. So even irrespective of her judicial views on abortion, gun rights, etc., she disqualified herself in my eyes and in the eyes of at least one of her former students.
She is only responding to legal items and basically pushing off everything else. And anything not very narrowly tailored to a prior case, she is doing the Ginsburg and saying she can't talk about issues she might rule on. You clearly have not followed every confirmation since Ginsburg. Have you though about becoming a social media legal reporter? You seem quite qualified after reading your comments.
Every nominee says this, and there is some basis for this. For instance, the court can't rule on law without a case in front of them so it follows that a nominee shouldn't opine without a specific case in front of them and they can't opine on a case they haven't heard, so the most they can do is opine on a specific past ruling. It is also pointless because if she came on and said she supports Roe v. Wade and then overturned it on her first day, there is nothing that can be done about that.
The hearings are pointless at this point. Not just this one. All of them. Literally the only point is to try and dig up some disqualifying thing from their past that might swing a couple votes on character or competence grounds.
Surely, you are not suggesting the only thing these hearings do is allow our Senators to grandstand?
But you are correct IMO. Absent an indiscretion, the hearings don't matter Tell that to the nimrods on Twitter, etc. I mean we just had some naive dude offended that the nominee wouldn't answer political questions against the guy that appointed her and contrary to the views of the majority of senators sitting on a committee that have to approve her nomination to the full Senate. You wonder if a Cal grad could be so stupid?
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant
Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.
Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.
If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.
I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.
In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.
This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.
edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.
As an initial comment about "you", I voted for Biden.
As for what the law is, in a Democracy, the majority gets its way. In the UK the majority party forms its government, and gets every non-private law it wants, This is one of the few countries with divided government, and moreover, then we add dumb self-defeating informal rules to require supermajorities, Want less gridlock, remove. these informal rules. I see no reason the Dems can't do whatever they want if they control the government. They may be accused of hypocrisy, but so what? They won the election. Elections have consequences. If they go too far, the voters can sweep they out of office.
Let me also suggest. following on one of Oakbrear's comments about the Cold War, if you have to go back to the 1800s you lost your argument.
My point about the 1800s is that the idea that politics in America was ever a noble profession vs. a blood sport is ridiculous. Somebody always takes advantage of the rules. It is how the game has always been played.
That is fundamentally different from spouting that everyone is a communist when that accusation hasn't had resonance for at least 30 years or relevance for 60 years.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant
Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.
Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.
If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.
I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.
In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.
This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.
edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.
I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
I'm very close with someone who went to Notre Dame for law school and even had Barrett as a professor there. Her recollection of Barrett was that of a supremely intelligent woman who is indeed a very friendly person. Independent of political and judicial proclivities, Barrett the person is very impressive.
Yet, after watching and reading about how the hearings have gone, both our impressions of Barrett's integrity have gone down. There is, of course, the simple matter of her accepting this nomination under the circumstances, though I'll concede how very difficult it would be for anyone to turn down a chance at reaching the pinnacle of the legal profession in this country. Then there are the complete weasel answers that she has given to straightforward questions of law and fact that can't be explained by anything other than her recognition that the president would not like the truthful answer. Can the President delay the election? Is it voter intimidation to station armed men outside polling stations? Is climate change a danger to life on this planet?
There are very easy statute- and fact-based answers to the above questions and yet Barrett couldn't bring herself to give the answers that she knows Trump would lose his mind over. And for what? Worst case, does she really think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage? We all know what a sham this whole nomination is given the circumstances and "precedent" set by Republicans, but perversely, because of the exceptionally narrow window of time that Republicans have to do this, there's hardly any time for Republicans to start the process all over again. In other words, does Barrett actually think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage if she responded to any of the above questions with what she must know are the actual factual answers? Those questions were such a golden opportunity for her to at least facially show that she's capable of acknowledging obvious fact and showing at least a modicum of independence from the Trump worldview but alas, she didn't even have the stones to do that. So even irrespective of her judicial views on abortion, gun rights, etc., she disqualified herself in my eyes and in the eyes of at least one of her former students.
She is only responding to legal items and basically pushing off everything else. And anything not very narrowly tailored to a prior case, she is doing the Ginsburg and saying she can't talk about issues she might rule on. You clearly have not followed every confirmation since Ginsburg. Have you though about becoming a social media legal reporter? You seem quite qualified after reading your comments.
Lol social media legal reporter? If you've really been reading my posts, have you not seen how intractably verbose I am? No way I would ever make it on Twitter if I had an account.
Regardless, I'll take that as a misguided compliment coming from someone who was vapid enough to have thought voting for Trump in 2016 would be anything but a disaster for America. I am very much aware that 1) Ginsburg said back in the early 90's that nominees should say little if anything about how they would vote on potentially active legal issues, and 2) virtually every nominee since then has indeed followed that course. Funny thing, just like Joe Biden never actually followed through on the so-called "Biden rule" for filling a Supreme Court seat in an election year, Ruth Bader Ginsburg never actually sidestepped questions on judicial philosophy full-sail during her own nomination process, so there you go providing additional empirical evidence that Republicans like you are naturally inclined to escalate matters based on whatever minute justification they can come up with.
Let me be clear, I have no problem with Barrett refusing to answer questions like how she would rule on an abortion case, or on the ACA, or any other issue of the day on which Democrats - validly or not - believe she would rule adversely to their interests. But are you really going to pretend that Barrett had interest only in answering legal items? You might want to look up Ted Cruz's closing line of questioning yesterday and see whether or not Barrett chose to answer those questions of immediate legal relevance. So with that said, in the context of my post to which you responded, what exactly do you object to or disagree with?
As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.
While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.
Reminds me of another lady who was grilled for hour after hour, but Republicans hated her.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant
Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.
Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.
If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.
I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.
In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.
This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.
edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.
I agree with this, but do you think nominating Biden was responding in kind twice as hard?
I don't think that Biden or the people that Biden resonates with are the type of people that will enact these proposals.
Biden will return this country to the way it was when Dubya was in office and Democrats rubber-stamped his stupid invasion of Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, at least he's not Trump, but he's not going to be the one to blow up traditions just to piss off the GOP.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant
Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.
Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.
If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.
I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.
In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.
This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.
edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.
I agree with this, but do you think nominating Biden was responding in kind twice as hard?
I don't think that Biden or the people that Biden resonates with are the type of people that will enact these proposals.
Biden will return this country to the way it was when Dubya was in office and Democrats rubber-stamped his stupid invasion of Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, at least he's not Trump, but he's not going to be the one to blow up traditions just to piss off the GOP.
Dem voters chose Biden because they wanted the best chance to beat Trump. Given where everything stands right now, it's hard to say they were wrong.
Wife - let's get real. In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.
Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.
My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).
The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.
I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.
Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant
Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.
Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.
If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.
I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.
In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.
This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.
edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.
I agree with this, but do you think nominating Biden was responding in kind twice as hard?
I don't think that Biden or the people that Biden resonates with are the type of people that will enact these proposals.
Biden will return this country to the way it was when Dubya was in office and Democrats rubber-stamped his stupid invasion of Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, at least he's not Trump, but he's not going to be the one to blow up traditions just to piss off the GOP.
I don't agree. Garland changed everything. You are confusing liberal policies with political tactics.
The War in Iraq was extremely popular when it was authorized. It was politically stupid to oppose it unless you were in a very liberal district.
DC Statehood is very popular. Puerto Rico statehood is much more popular than not. I expect at minimum the former gets passed and very likely the latter. As for the court, depends on how many seats the senate gets and who they are. That is the real reason Biden won't answer the question because there is no point saying you will do it if you don't have the votes. Manchin is not going to vote to expand the court.
I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.
I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.
Biden moves with the party. That's what a close read of his career will show. When the average Democratic voter wanted to be tougher on crime (yes, this was true at one time), he supported that. Now he supports police reform. He's a politician, not some kind of "moderate" ideologue with an unshifting philosophy.
If the average voter supports packing the court or adding states, then he will shift that way.
That is about the dumbest option I have ever heard and the most poorly thought out reasoning for it. It would essentially make the Bill of Rights meaningless. The court protects individual rights a lot more than this guy is implying. He also puts the blame on the court for upholding laws which makes no sense in context. For instance, he refers to Plessy vs. Ferguson. Yes, the court upheld segregation laws. IT DID NOT IMPOSE THEM. The court was not responsible for those laws. Removing the court's ability to have judicial review would not have changed anything because without the court those laws would have been passed without challenge. The court was the only hope in that case. It failed. it then overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.
And Marbury may have been a power grab, but our system makes no sense without judicial review.
If the court has no authority to provide judicial review, that is not just a federal issue. It is a state issue as well. It makes the Constitution nothing but an advisory document. So states could pass whatever the hell they want. They want to give cops the right to search without a warrant, fine. They want to arrest people for practicing a certain religion? Fine. They want to regulate speech based on content? Fine.
If the federal government wants to pass laws that nakedly stop their opponents from voting so that it stops any possibility of their party being voted out of office, fine. So, even if the voters WOULD punish them for doing so, they can't.
All of those protections go back to Marbury and the federal court's right to enforce the Constitution. The court would be removed entirely from our system of checks and balances.
That is about the dumbest option I have ever heard and the most poorly thought out reasoning for it. It would essentially make the Bill of Rights meaningless. The court protects individual rights a lot more than this guy is implying. He also puts the blame on the court for upholding laws which makes no sense in context. For instance, he refers to Plessy vs. Ferguson. Yes, the court upheld segregation laws. IT DID NOT IMPOSE THEM. The court was not responsible for those laws. Removing the court's ability to have judicial review would not have changed anything because without the court those laws would have been passed without challenge. The court was the only hope in that case. It failed. it then overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.
And Marbury may have been a power grab, but our system makes no sense without judicial review.
If the court has no authority to provide judicial review, that is not just a federal issue. It is a state issue as well. It makes the Constitution nothing but an advisory document. So states could pass whatever the hell they want. They want to give cops the right to search without a warrant, fine. They want to arrest people for practicing a certain religion? Fine. They want to regulate speech based on content? Fine.
If the federal government wants to pass laws that nakedly stop their opponents from voting so that it stops any possibility of their party being voted out of office, fine. So, even if the voters WOULD punish them for doing so, they can't.
All of those protections go back to Marbury and the federal court's right to enforce the Constitution. The court would be removed entirely from our system of checks and balances.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Bad idea.
That's what I thought as well. So a better solution to a stacked court is to strip the Court's power entirely? I'm not sure the author has really thought this through.
