|
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. |
On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Show nested quote +Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: Show nested quote +In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety.
Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case.
Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context.
|
United States4748 Posts
On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context.
What I have actually done is add context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways.
|
On January 18 2018 08:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 00:59 IyMoon wrote:On January 18 2018 00:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So much for blaming Democrats.
Nah, this is still on the dems. How can you be expected to get your whole party to vote for something? Nah this is 100% on the dems /s I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults." Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The President of the United States called other nations across the world shitholes. And he called the people coming from those nations undesirable. The President of the United states does not get to do that and not face a ton of blow back. The folks who can’t grasp that don’t understand the office or politics in general. Saying it in-front of your political opposition is beyond stupid. Saying it in a room that assures it will be leaked is even dumber. Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:08 Simberto wrote:On January 18 2018 08:04 A3th3r wrote:I freely admit that Trump argues too much with other world leaders but his business acumen is really impressive. The man knows how to make money and get businesses to redevelop & grow & spend money here in the US. Now Apple is joining Toyota in adding another American factory. Jobs are the key factor that drive the US economy so this is what we need right now. http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-building-new-campus-hiring-20000-new-employees-2018-1 Yeah, being born rich and inheriting lots of money is really impressive. Not a lot of people manage to do that. And then managing to not lose that amount of money and make it grow at roughly the same rate as putting it into a fund is really amazing. And a lot of business people who have dealt with him are not impressed with this business skills. Like most of the banks in NYC, who black balled him.
Yes, it is pretty clear that the prez finds it humorous to say controversial things and see the chaos that it causes in the national media. That is aggravating because he represents our country to other nations to some degree. He is a symbol of the USA & therefore I hope that he can tone things down a bit in the upcoming months.
|
On January 18 2018 09:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context. What I have done is actually added context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways.
I see, and that was an interesting read, but I never mentioned precedent, only awfulness 
@mozuko:
It's not that he called them shithole countries, it's that he said he didn't want immigrants from those countries. He rather wanted more people from Norway or somewhere else nice and white. Now given that in terms of qualifications the same standards can easily be applied across the board, you can see Trump didn't exactly make that statement on the basis of qualifications. Not ones to do with career and education anyway...
If you can't see why that is racist...
|
House Republicans are short of the votes they need to avoid a government shutdown, but Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP leaders remain confident they will pass a stopgap funding measure when it comes to the floor on Thursday.
President Donald Trump is personally leaning on GOP lawmakers to fall into line, especially hard-line conservatives who are opposed to virtually anything Ryan and his leadership team propose.
Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats are upset about the House potentially jamming them with a last-minute bill that would do nothing more than avert the worst-case scenario. They're still smarting over Trump seemingly backing away last week from a bipartisan deal to protect 700,000 Dreamers from deportation.
Senate Democrats have refused to say whether they will block the funding measure, though Republicans believe Democrats won’t risk a shutdown with control of the chamber in play this fall.
With government funding set to run out in two days — and the two sides far apart on an immigration deal — Ryan and senior House Republicans are pushing legislation to keep the government funded until Feb. 16. In a bid to pick up votes from both parties, the measure would also fund a popular children’s health program for six more years and delay the implementation of several Obamacare taxes.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democrats have refused to back the plan. Since Republicans are in the majority, they should pass the short-term funding bill — the fourth since the fiscal year began on Oct. 1 — without their help, they say.
With Democrats on the sidelines, Republicans spent Wednesday leaning on every member for their vote.
“I think it passes. I don’t think it’s overwhelming, but I think it passes,” Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) said after GOP lawmakers met on Wednesday.
Inside the House Republican Conference, there are three main factions of potential “no votes”: defense hawks unhappy over the leadership’s failure to boost Pentagon funding; the Freedom Caucus, the group of conservative hard-liners; and members who are simply unsure what to do.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) — both key players on defense issues — will back the funding bill, according to Turner and a top House Republican.
"I'm voting for the CR in support of the speaker and his efforts to get a budget deal," Turner said.
Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), a defense hawk whose state stands to run out of funding for the children's health program this month, admitted Wednesday that he was “torn” over the bill.
“It’s a pretty tough vote for me, but it’s really a tough vote for all of us, because I think all of us care about defense and all of us care about” children's health, Byrne said, suggesting that he will ultimately back the proposal.
Knowing the vote is close, Ryan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other GOP leaders debated on Wednesday morning whether to add even more provisions to the package, such as funding for community health centers. In the end, they decided to move ahead with the package as is, said GOP sources.
But Freedom Caucus leaders say their group alone has enough disgruntled members to block the bill if Democrats remain opposed.
The group's chairman, Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), is working to elbow himself into the broader spending and immigration talks. Meadows said his main priority is to make sure Ryan has a plan to end the “stop-and-go” budgeting cycle.
Noting the Congress has already passed three continuing resolutions, or CRs, to keep the government running, he said, "So how is this CR going to produce a plan that’s different than the last three? Are we just going to hope that Feb. 16 is better than Jan. 19 just because it’s in a different month?"
Trump has been pressuring Meadows to vote for the funding bill, and GOP leaders hope it will eventually bring Freedom Caucus members around. The White House issued a formal statement in support of the CR package on Wednesday afternoon.
Restless conservatives have been asking Ryan and other senior Republicans for concessions to get them to "yes,” though it's unclear if they'll get them. Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) said he's holding out for assurances from GOP leaders that they'll put a conservative Dreamers bill authored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) on the floor. But GOP leaders have resisted, fearing a vote would upset bipartisan immigration talks to shield young immigrants from deportation.
Other Freedom Caucus members are pushing to attach a year-long appropriation for the Pentagon. GOP leaders, however, know that will fail in the Senate so aren't entertaining the idea.
“It’s crisis management at its worse,” Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) complained. “Nobody wants to shut down the government but if they load this up … they’re going to have a fight on this.”
House Democrats will refuse to bail out GOP leaders if they can’t put up the votes themselves.
“My sense is that everybody’s going to be unified on this. We’re not going to have many defections, if any,” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.). “We have no bargaining power if we don’t stay unified.”
When asked if Democrats would uniformly vote against the bill, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, “We’ll see what they’re going to do, but I think that’s probably the case.”
During a press conference on Wednesday, Ryan tried to blame Democrats for any problems passing the funding bill, despite the internal GOP schism.
“Real deadlines are occurring this Friday,” Ryan told reporters. “That is why it is unconscionable to me that they would block funding for our military or cut off funding for these states that really will lose their funding for [children's health] by playing these political games and tying them to unrelated issues.”
House Republicans had hoped to gain some Democratic votes by attaching policy sweeteners to the bill, including children's health funding and delay of the Obamacare taxes.
But members of the Congressional Black Caucus, whom Republicans had hoped to win over, say they’re still planning to oppose the proposal.
Many CBC members were livid after Trump called certain African nations “shithole countries” during a meeting with lawmakers at the White House last week. They say the episode strengthened their resolve to withhold votes until Republicans show progress on a bipartisan Dreamers deal.
Children's health funding "alone is probably not going to change much,” said CBC Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) after the group’s weekly meeting Wednesday. “Why would we want to send a message to 800,000 young people … that DACA is not important enough to demand action on it in exchange for our support?”
Pelosi implored Democrats to vote against the measure during a caucus meeting Wednesday morning.
“We can’t vote for what they’re putting forth. Not for what’s in it but [for] what’s not in it,” Pelosi told lawmakers, according to an aide in the room. “This is an important moment for our caucus, standing up for what we know is right … We will not give up our leverage, for our priorities and for our Dreamers.”
Senate Democrats have not taken a formal position on the spending package yet, waiting to see what happens in the House first.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) noted that a number of Democrats "have said they don’t like this deal … [and if we] kick the can down the road this time, we’ll be back where we started the next time. So there’s very, very strong support not to go along."
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said there was little enthusiasm for the GOP plan during a Democratic policy lunch on Wednesday. “A handful stood up and said, ‘We’re going to vote against the CR.’ Another one or two said not sure. No one stood up and said they had to vote for the CR."
Source
|
I don't have a lot of faith in Democrats not to cave and give them votes for some sort of token, but maybe?
|
Democrats are dug in from all reports. There are debates about the shit down and reps that are concerned about its impact on government workers. But that is to be expected IMO. But I doubt they will blink now, not after Trump blowing up the deal.
|
mozoku wrote:
Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
On January 18 2018 09:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 08:58 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 00:59 IyMoon wrote:Nah, this is still on the dems. How can you be expected to get your whole party to vote for something? Nah this is 100% on the dems /s I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults." Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks. Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist. Full stop, this is where we disagree. If we disagree on this, there's nothing more to say. We agree cussing isn't bad. We agree racism is bad. You don't classify this as racism. I do. I think that's really all there is to be said. By the way, remember that video you insisted wasn't racist, but also did not watch? Did you ever end up watching it?
On January 18 2018 09:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:07 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context. What I have done is actually added context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways. @mozuko: It's not that he called them shithole countries, it's that he said he didn't want immigrants from those countries. He rather wanted more people from Norway or somewhere else nice and white. Now given that in terms of qualifications the same standards can easily be applied across the board, you can see Trump didn't exactly make that statement on the basis of qualifications. Not ones to do with career and education anyway... If you can't see why that is racist...
This is, in a nutshell, the state of politics in our country. Everything is about race, and nothing that isn't race is worth talking about.
Even considerations of US diplomacy, the fate of DACA, and an impending government shutdown are insignificant when weighed against the prospect of exposing an arguably unintentionally racist statement made by POTUS in a non-public budget meeting.
This is where our actual disagreement lies.
|
Because the Fake News Awards Trump promised are hosted on the GOP website (a bit weird), and they weren't prepared for the deluge of clicks, you can look at them on an archive here in the meantime.
|
On January 18 2018 10:15 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +mozoku wrote:
Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:01 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:58 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 00:59 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
Nah, this is still on the dems. How can you be expected to get your whole party to vote for something? Nah this is 100% on the dems /s I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults." Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks. Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist. Full stop, this is where we disagree. If we disagree on this, there's nothing more to say. We agree cussing isn't bad. We agree racism is bad. You don't classify this as racism. I do. I think that's really all there is to be said. By the way, remember that video you insisted wasn't racist, but also did not watch? Did you ever end up watching it? Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 09:07 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context. What I have done is actually added context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways. @mozuko: It's not that he called them shithole countries, it's that he said he didn't want immigrants from those countries. He rather wanted more people from Norway or somewhere else nice and white. Now given that in terms of qualifications the same standards can easily be applied across the board, you can see Trump didn't exactly make that statement on the basis of qualifications. Not ones to do with career and education anyway... If you can't see why that is racist... This is, in a nutshell, the state of politics in our country. Everything is about race, and nothing that isn't race is worth talking about. Even considerations of US diplomacy, the fate of DACA, and an impending government shutdown are insignificant when weighed against the prospect of exposing an arguably unintentionally racist statement made by POTUS in a non-public budget meeting. This is where our actual disagreement lies.
Immigration policy has always been about race for all of US history. Every single law passed was about keeping specific races out.
|
On January 18 2018 10:15 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +mozoku wrote:
Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:01 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:58 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 00:59 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
Nah, this is still on the dems. How can you be expected to get your whole party to vote for something? Nah this is 100% on the dems /s I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults." Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks. Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist. Full stop, this is where we disagree. If we disagree on this, there's nothing more to say. We agree cussing isn't bad. We agree racism is bad. You don't classify this as racism. I do. I think that's really all there is to be said. By the way, remember that video you insisted wasn't racist, but also did not watch? Did you ever end up watching it? Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 09:07 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context. What I have done is actually added context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways. @mozuko: It's not that he called them shithole countries, it's that he said he didn't want immigrants from those countries. He rather wanted more people from Norway or somewhere else nice and white. Now given that in terms of qualifications the same standards can easily be applied across the board, you can see Trump didn't exactly make that statement on the basis of qualifications. Not ones to do with career and education anyway... If you can't see why that is racist... This is, in a nutshell, the state of politics in our country. Everything is about race, and nothing that isn't race is worth talking about. Even considerations of US diplomacy, the fate of DACA, and an impending government shutdown are insignificant when weighed against the prospect of exposing an arguably unintentionally racist statement made by POTUS in a non-public budget meeting. This is where our actual disagreement lies.
This is, in a nutshell, the state of politics in our country. Everything is about race, and nothing that isn't race is worth talking about.
Lol. Its not only the state of politics in the usa,It also seems to be the state of society/American culture. Just look at this thread and how often a race issue does pop up. Just the last few pages alone and I doubt any of the active posters here is even afro American though I could be wrong off course.
Going by this thread the biggest issues in America are race and trump being president.
Its not inequality,globalization,the changing geopolitical situation,immigration or even terrorism.
|
trump being president is a pretty serious problem; and the republicans and trump (and sometimes the democrats) kind of prevent the other issues from being properly addressed.
there's also a difference between what people talk about and what they agree matters. mostly the talk is a result of correcting people posting bs. so the topics are mostly the topics on which people post bs rather than the ones they don't.
topics that are important, but not contentious, receive little discussion.
|
|
|
On January 18 2018 10:15 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +mozoku wrote:
Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:01 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:58 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 00:59 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
Nah, this is still on the dems. How can you be expected to get your whole party to vote for something? Nah this is 100% on the dems /s I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults." Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks. Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist. Full stop, this is where we disagree. If we disagree on this, there's nothing more to say. We agree cussing isn't bad. We agree racism is bad. You don't classify this as racism. I do. I think that's really all there is to be said. By the way, remember that video you insisted wasn't racist, but also did not watch? Did you ever end up watching it? Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 09:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 09:07 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 08:13 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I'd bet the Court is going to undo what this ridiculous judge did by a comfortable margin. The Supreme Court still has some thoughtfulness and dignity that these headline chasing #resistance judges do not. Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context. What I have done is actually added context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways. @mozuko: It's not that he called them shithole countries, it's that he said he didn't want immigrants from those countries. He rather wanted more people from Norway or somewhere else nice and white. Now given that in terms of qualifications the same standards can easily be applied across the board, you can see Trump didn't exactly make that statement on the basis of qualifications. Not ones to do with career and education anyway... If you can't see why that is racist... This is, in a nutshell, the state of politics in our country. Everything is about race, and nothing that isn't race is worth talking about. Even considerations of US diplomacy, the fate of DACA, and an impending government shutdown are insignificant when weighed against the prospect of exposing an arguably unintentionally racist statement made by POTUS in a non-public budget meeting. This is where our actual disagreement lies.
Did you ever watch the video you insisted wasn't racist? It helps frame where exactly our disagreement lies if you watched that video and still maintain there is no racism
|
Literally all my ancestors who immigrated couldn’t read or write. This guy would be throwing rocks at my Irish great grandfather as he got off the boat, racist clown he is.
|
On January 18 2018 10:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 10:15 mozoku wrote:mozoku wrote:
Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
On January 18 2018 09:01 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:58 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this?
I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults."
Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks. Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist. Full stop, this is where we disagree. If we disagree on this, there's nothing more to say. We agree cussing isn't bad. We agree racism is bad. You don't classify this as racism. I do. I think that's really all there is to be said. By the way, remember that video you insisted wasn't racist, but also did not watch? Did you ever end up watching it? On January 18 2018 09:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 09:07 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context. What I have done is actually added context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways. @mozuko: It's not that he called them shithole countries, it's that he said he didn't want immigrants from those countries. He rather wanted more people from Norway or somewhere else nice and white. Now given that in terms of qualifications the same standards can easily be applied across the board, you can see Trump didn't exactly make that statement on the basis of qualifications. Not ones to do with career and education anyway... If you can't see why that is racist... This is, in a nutshell, the state of politics in our country. Everything is about race, and nothing that isn't race is worth talking about. Even considerations of US diplomacy, the fate of DACA, and an impending government shutdown are insignificant when weighed against the prospect of exposing an arguably unintentionally racist statement made by POTUS in a non-public budget meeting. This is where our actual disagreement lies. Immigration policy has always been about race for all of US history. Every single law passed was about keeping specific races out.
Okay, I'll draw the line here and help you guys out now.
For the purposes of my argument, I don't care if Trump was dropping n-bombs. I posit that no word Trump could possibly say would cause more human suffering than the end of DACA.
The relevant response was "the meeting wasn't private, lots of people were in there." My counter-response was that it was clear that the meeting was intended to be non-public as other people in the room were using rough language--which they do not do in public. Clearly, there was an expectation of privacy and Trump wasn't the only one to think so.
That Trump said something potentially racist, which is what every one of you focused on, is totally irrelevant to the line of argument in the second paragraph. If you feel Trump said something racist, the decision on whether to leak it to the public has to be weighed against its potential impact on DACA.
This wasn't a "I told my spouse leak." This is "I rushed to tell the NYT leak." The two likely motivations for doing so would be either ethical, in which the leaker is a rogue fanatical zealot of the anti-racism flavor that fits my previous post's description, or political, in which case the Democratic party can't avoid blame for the consequences of the shitstorm as they intentionally manufactured shitstorm in the first place.
Did Trump mess up? Yep. Did somebody on the Democrat's side turn a mountain into a molehill, and hurt far more people than Trump did? Yep.
Do I consider both of them morally at fault? Yep. I'm also comfortable saying that the latter culprit committed a much larger moral violation than the former one in this instance.
|
On January 18 2018 11:26 Plansix wrote:Literally all my ancestors who immigrated couldn’t read or write. This guy would be throwing rocks at my Irish great grandfather as he got off the boat, racist clown he is.
There is a measurable period in the 1900's where people got really angry about all the newspapers that switched over to English from Swedish or German. in Minnesota. Lots of people wrote in in swedish saying that it took away their constitutional rights beacuse they couldn't read or right in the new "anglo-imperial" preferred language. There was a significant amount of people who were illiterate and the government was force to react to this.
But they were white so they mattered I guess.
|
Well at least you found a way to feel superior to everyone involved and anyone who feels strongly about anything involved.
|
On January 18 2018 11:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 10:15 mozoku wrote:mozoku wrote:
Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist.
On January 18 2018 09:01 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:58 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:On January 18 2018 08:00 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 04:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 18 2018 03:06 mozoku wrote:On January 18 2018 02:08 Plansix wrote:On January 18 2018 01:59 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure how it makes more sense to blame a small faction of dissenting Republicans willing to shut down the government than the entire Democratic party. Is partisanship supposed to be a virtue now? What kind of mental gymnastics is this?
I blame all congressmen voting to shut down our government and hurt the country. Last time that was the GOP. This time it's both parties, but mostly Dems. Hence they get a larger share of the blame in my book. I'll grant you that I don't believe the GOP would be any better if the situations were reversed, but that still doesn't make this a good look for the self-proclaimed "party of adults."
Obviously this assumes the shutdown actually occurs, so I'll reserve judgment until that actually happens. The real person to blame is the President, who blindsided both parties by saying he would sign anything one day and then going on a racist rant when the deal was presented to him. The Democrats are being told by their voters not to give an inch after those comments and the Republicans are pushing for a harder line on immigration. He backed both sides into a corner where they cannot compromise by changing his mind. This is a case of Trump not understanding that politician’s word needs to be their bond. If they say they are going to do something, they need to do it. We joke about them being dishonest, but they can’t lie to each other. It doesn’t work with lawyers and it doesn’t work in politics. I would buy this if it wasn't Dems that leaked the upsetting comments in the first place. You don't get to blame "political pressure" when you intentionally manufactured that political pressure in the first place. In no functioning democracy should an (unpopular, no less) President's private language be affecting public policy. This was never a moral issue. I doubt there's a single Democrat alive that believes this incident is going to tone down Trump's rhetoric. If you can't stomach a racist's comments in a private conversation for the sake of not jeopardizing policy, you're not enough of an adult to be fit for office. The negative effects of that leak were blindingly obvious. I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. It's reminiscent of when sometimes the Chinese people get overeager in their anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment and the CCP tries to tamp it down for diplomatic reasons. When that happens, I blame the CCP for whipping up latent anti-X sentiment with their propaganda for decades for their own benefit ("the real enemy isn't us, it's those Japs!"), not the people themselves. The President's private language expressing his public policy opinion is certainly affecting public policy. By the way Republicans including Lindsey Graham confirmed publicly what was said and also, apparently, spread the word around immediately after the meeting. It was bound to come out when it's a meeting with Congressmen about very public legislation that's going forward. For you to brush it off as private language is part of a pattern of excusing Trump's conduct which far outweighs the reaction in significance. When did I excuse Trump of anything? Read again fella: I'm not absolving Trump of blame as there's no reason to use that language in professional environment, but the harm should be contained to the setting. It shouldn't be tangibly affecting the entire country. The difference between you and I appears to be that I believe that the impropriety isn't limited to the first actor in the chain. Yes, what Trump said is inappropriate. However, it serves nobody's interest for Democrats to go into necessary conniptions over his language. Literally nobody has benefited from this leak. Trump is like 73, gives no shits what anyone thinks, for elected in part because of these shenanigans, and will likely be out of office in 3 years. He's not going to change his schtick. I expect my lawmakers, if they want to be perceived as worthy of any respect, to have the prudence and self-restraint to both realize that far more people will be hurt as a result of the reaction to Trump's action than by Trump's action itself, and act accordingly. That this meeting "wasn't private" is a bunch of post-hoc nonsense that I'm pretty sure Plansix just made up because he heard there was over 10 people in the room. When you're speaking in a professional setting, the expectation is that not all of your words are intended for the public. Reports are that there was various other "rough talk" and "cussing" around the room, which is pretty inconsistent with the idea that everyone was policing their words for the occasion. F-bombs are not uncommon at either of the workplaces I've been in (a large and prominent tech company and a bank)--and not just from the plebs at all--so it hardly shocks me that people would use rough language during professional meetings in the slimepit that is Washington either. You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not about cussing, it is about the racial undertones of what he said. I am sure racism was handled very differently at your companies compared to cussing. People cuss at my job as well. Racism is strictly zero. The outrage is definitely, at least in part, about insensitive language being used to describe the circumstances of poor countries. The "racial undertones" amount to nothing more than the fact that most non-white countries are poor. Given that Trump was addressing an audience of Democratic senators in a negotiation context, it makes little sense for Trump to be resorting to stump speech racism. While the US left outrage is upset because they deem the statement racist, African countries themselves are more concerned with being labelled as shithole countries than Trump's so-called racism methinks. Regardless, whether it's racist or merely inappropriate has literally nothing to do with my argument so I don't see how I'm misunderstanding anything. In light of that, I'm really not that interested in yet another analysis of whether Statement X is actually racist. Full stop, this is where we disagree. If we disagree on this, there's nothing more to say. We agree cussing isn't bad. We agree racism is bad. You don't classify this as racism. I do. I think that's really all there is to be said. By the way, remember that video you insisted wasn't racist, but also did not watch? Did you ever end up watching it? On January 18 2018 09:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 09:07 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 09:05 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:54 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:51 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:42 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2018 08:20 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 18 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Please explain why the TRO that was allowed didn’t meet the minimum requirement of irreparable harm because the DACA recipients would be deported. It said clearly that the case should be heard on the merits before anyone is deported. Because there is nothing ridiculous about that order. Yeah, acting like this judge is some unqualified spotlight chasing celebrity pulling an obstruction out of thin air is not exactly a good representation of the situation on Introvert's part. There's a reason for that injunction, as you point out, a pretty damn good one. But the head of the executive branch did pardon Arpaio and the Attorney General has committed perjury so I guess we aren't living in the worlds of reason or law anymore. If memory serves this judge tried something similar with the travel ban [or maybe it was another DACA case] and got reversed. I have no issue saying that individual judges are ridiculous and neither are most posters in this thread who have done so at some point. If the Court reverses this I'm sure we'll hear about how awful they are, too. From the moment it had Gorsuch after the refusal to even recognize Obama's candidate, the supreme court became just awful enough to pull BS. That won't be a new revelation. And the judge's previous injunction being reversed, in this climate, really is not an indicator that there is any flaw with the judge or their action. America screwed up. It will be generations, if ever, before all of the damage that will be done by 2020 is fixed. Now as is good a time as any to re-up this, which goes into Supreme Court nominations in presidential election years in a good bit of detail. Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns.
Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election: And goes on from there. Edit: I'll just add the next few bits: In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it. By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Prior blatantly partisan obstruction of the process does not condone the latest case. Further, the Garland saga was just the second to final straw in an 8-year tale of obstruction and refusal to allow work with the executive or democrats as a whole. The particular incident can't be taken out of that context. What I have done is actually added context. But people were so set on calling this unprecedented and that is simply wrong, merits aside. And the judicial filibuster probably shouldn't have been a thing anyways. @mozuko: It's not that he called them shithole countries, it's that he said he didn't want immigrants from those countries. He rather wanted more people from Norway or somewhere else nice and white. Now given that in terms of qualifications the same standards can easily be applied across the board, you can see Trump didn't exactly make that statement on the basis of qualifications. Not ones to do with career and education anyway... If you can't see why that is racist... This is, in a nutshell, the state of politics in our country. Everything is about race, and nothing that isn't race is worth talking about. Even considerations of US diplomacy, the fate of DACA, and an impending government shutdown are insignificant when weighed against the prospect of exposing an arguably unintentionally racist statement made by POTUS in a non-public budget meeting. This is where our actual disagreement lies. Did you ever watch the video you insisted wasn't racist? It helps frame where exactly our disagreement lies if you watched that video and still maintain there is no racism
I did not, and I'd like to make a slight correction that all of my comments were about the quote in the Twitter post. I never made any statement about the content of the video, as I'd never watched it. I explicitly stated that in my follow-up post on the topic.
|
On January 18 2018 11:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 11:26 Plansix wrote:Literally all my ancestors who immigrated couldn’t read or write. This guy would be throwing rocks at my Irish great grandfather as he got off the boat, racist clown he is. There is a measurable period in the 1900's where people got really angry about all the newspapers that switched over to English from Swedish or German. in Minnesota. Lots of people wrote in in swedish saying that it took away their constitutional rights beacuse they couldn't read or right in the new "anglo-imperial" preferred language. There was a significant amount of people who were illiterate and the government was force to react to this. But they were white so they mattered I guess.
They had to really crack down once the Catholics started showing up. And the “Southern Europeans.” The era when Italians were not white. And the Irish where of “inferior stock.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
