EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6737
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On February 02 2017 07:48 LegalLord wrote: My real point is this: Yes, Republicans did a dirty thing for partisan reasons and it worked out in their favor. So now what do you want? A more qualified nominee? A more progressive one? To whine and pout and validate that the Republicans are bad? What is there to fight for in this case? You just make vague points about something completely unrelated to the topic that nobody else was discussing and then say there was no reason to discuss it in the first place? Very nice. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
The best part is they can do this with just a handful of Senators, none of whom have anything to lose from doing so, and those folks will just garner media attention to reinforce their standing with the base. The only scary thing is another "Elizabeth Warren endorsed Clinton? She's the devil" style attack from below on vulnerable members who do the smart thing. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is no apolitical court and no judicial philosophy without political consequences. the current situation is just a bit of a problem because resistance is unlikely to succeed | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t be bound by President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, hinting that she would consider a bolder choice if she takes office in January with the seat still unfilled. Clinton would "look broadly and widely for people who represent the diversity of our country" if she has the opportunity to make "any" Supreme Court nominations, she said in a radio interview that aired Thursday on the Tom Joyner Morning Show. The comments are Clinton’s most specific yet on how she would handle the 7-month-old vacancy. Her remarks offer hope to progressives who say the Supreme Court nomination should go to a younger, more liberal jurist and possibly to a racial minority or woman. Garland turns 64 in November, is white and is widely considered an ideological moderate. Source I suppose this was said with the intention of honoring the choice made by Obama rather than some partisan desire to have the nominee that would be best for policy? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
The best way to achieve that is not clear. and I may disagree with the tactics some dems chose to use in this case. but there is a great deal of merit to not letting people benefit from wrongful actions, while a far more extreme example, this does demonstrate an analogy: the slayer rules which prohibit a murderer from inheriting from those he murders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayer_rule | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21377 Posts
On February 02 2017 07:54 LegalLord wrote: Source I suppose this was said with the intention of honoring the choice made by Obama rather than some partisan desire to have the nominee that would be best for policy? A statement made 7 month and 2 days after Republicans politicized the issue by openly stating no one put forward by Obama would be accepted. A mere 1.5 hours after Scalia's death But sure, lets try and say the Democrats started it... | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 02 2017 07:54 LegalLord wrote: Source I suppose this was said with the intention of honoring the choice made by Obama rather than some partisan desire to have the nominee that would be best for policy? You seem to have omitted the part where she said she wouldn't withdraw Obama's nomination...part of what she's talking about is future nominations. Clinton said she wouldn’t ask Obama to withdraw Garland’s nomination after Election Day, leaving open the possibility he could be confirmed with her implicit blessing in a congressional lame-duck session. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
God forbid they actually grow a spine and manage to hold a filibuster. In which case Republicans would be betting Democrats never get a majority again. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 02 2017 07:55 zlefin wrote: I want them to be punished for their actions, and for them to not benefit from their actions. The best way to achieve that is not clear. and I may disagree with the tactics some dems chose to use in this case. but there is a great deal of merit to not letting people benefit from wrongful actions, while a far more extreme example, this does demonstrate an analogy: the slayer rules which prohibit a murderer from inheriting from those he murders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayer_rule A rule change to prevent this from reoccurring in the future would be reasonable, yes. Perhaps "the Senate must process and vote on a nomination made by the president within X days." Punishment, that simply won't happen. The Democrats won't have a chance for too long. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
On February 02 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote: Nothing Obama can do if the Republicans don't bring it up to a vote. He has 0 power over it and unlike the Republicans he won't bring the country to a burning halt when something doesn't go his way. The whole point of the process is that the president makes it a big deal and congress has to deal with it. It was in election season so what are you going to expect your opposition to do? just roll over and let people walk over you? no you make a semi legitimate point to advance your maneuvering and see if its a fight you can win. I don't think that obama ever made it a issue and could have fought over it and I asked if it was just me. Do you want to try again to respond to my post? As it is said conquest is the best revenge. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
But more to the point, I don't think that it matters if they try to obstruct Gorsuch anyway. Republicans have pretty much every incentive to use the nuclear option and kill the filibuster for supreme court nominations. They have a majority now, and are well-positioned to expand on that majority next year given all of the vulnerable incumbent democrats that will be up for election. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 02 2017 07:48 LegalLord wrote: My real point is this: Yes, Republicans did a dirty thing for partisan reasons and it worked out in their favor. So now what do you want? A more qualified nominee? A more progressive one? To whine and pout and validate that the Republicans are bad? What is there to fight for in this case? I imagine that the ideal result would be the Republicans having the foresight to realize that their abuse of the government system has revealed gaping holes that can, have, and will, lead the country to a standstill. What I expect to happen is responses such as yours, which is basically "neener neener now stop your whining", while ignoring the deeper implications of a 2-party democratic stranglehold that will only get work done when one party has complete control. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 02 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote: The problem with obstructing Gorsuch is that this is Trump's first pick at the beginning of his term following an election in which the nomination of a SC justice was clearly a campaign issue. The people have spoken. Obstructing someone like Gorsuch now would be pure political obstruction in a way that exceeds anything that the Republicans did during Obama's presidency. Democrats can do it if they want, but I suspect that it would end badly for them. But more to the point, I don't think that it matters if they try to obstruct Gorsuch anyway. Republicans have pretty much every incentive to use the nuclear option and kill the filibuster for supreme court nominations. They have a majority now, and are well-positioned to expand on that majority next year given all of the vulnerable incumbent democrats that will be up for election. your claim " Obstructing someone like Gorsuch now would be pure political obstruction in a way that exceeds anything that the Republicans did during Obama's presidency" is patently false, sinc ethe republicans first violated the constitutions and broke the relevant norms to do their action. it is absurd to claim that the equivalent action done against those who first broke the rule would be worse than the actoin that broke the rule in the first place, as you well know. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 02 2017 07:59 LegalLord wrote: A rule change to prevent this from reoccurring in the future would be reasonable, yes. Perhaps "the Senate must process and vote on a nomination made by the president within X days." Punishment, that simply won't happen. The Democrats won't have a chance for too long. you asked what I wanted, I said what I wanted. punishment delayed is still punishment. it's very sad that so many were willing to throw away constitutional norms and the ability of government to function, but that is where we are. and it's still the case that you were bringing up an irrelevant point about your case 2, when everyone in thread was on point 3. so please don't do that again. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
That's so clearly a pre-arranged question for Trumps narrative...propaganda at it's finest The other ones are equally narrative guiding. What a joke: + Show Spoiler + Basically every question is 'great and honorable mister Spicer thanks for even looking at me, now I know Trumps plans are great but can you please repeat how great they are' They'd probably love nothing more than to get rid of all real journalists and only do this for an hour in the future. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the hillary staff spends time discussing the merits of funding econometric studies with robert solow, trump probably doesn't even read emails. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 02 2017 08:26 oneofthem wrote: i do hope we get some email leaks from this trump régime one of these days. the hillary staff spends time discussing the merits of funding econometric studies with robert solow, trump probably doesn't even read emails. Gotta find some new Russians then. The old ones might be disinclined to hack-n-leak. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 02 2017 08:01 Sermokala wrote: The whole point of the process is that the president makes it a big deal and congress has to deal with it. It was in election season so what are you going to expect your opposition to do? just roll over and let people walk over you? no you make a semi legitimate point to advance your maneuvering and see if its a fight you can win. I don't think that obama ever made it a issue and could have fought over it and I asked if it was just me. Do you want to try again to respond to my post? As it is said conquest is the best revenge. He did make it an issue, and the Democrats did hammer the GOP over it. To a significant extent, it got drowned out by the noise of the campaign, but to say that the Democrats did not make it an issue is just not true. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 08:31 kwizach wrote: He did make it an issue, and the Democrats did hammer the GOP over it. To a significant extent, it got drowned out by the noise of the campaign, but to say that the Democrats did not make it an issue is just not true. You do have to remember this all happened at pretty much the height of the media's love affair with Trump and they were more than willing to just focus on the primary circus. | ||
| ||
