|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 19 2020 08:05 WombaT wrote: Well here’s today’s not at all worrying or creepy thingIt’s not really a mentality I can understand whatsoever. History is history and is important to understand. Suppose people will lap this up because it’s owning the libs as per usual, sigh
The substance of anti-racism education and the 1619 Project basically compels this. I say this despite how the messaging is communicated in typically Trump ham-fisted attempts to understand what it is and why it's bad. A better president could communicate the flaws in the critical race theory movement within education, without conjuring up one-sided history lessons from the early 20th century. Any viewpoint adjacent to "history is history and is important" should condemn much of what Trump is, unhappily, the one to condemn.
Oh, and rest in peace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I can't say anything good about her job performance, but her friendship with Scalia and rising above political divisions is a good note in her favor.
|
The GOP ramming through a replacement would be a tactically good move, but strategically idiotic.
In the short run it'd guarantee them the seat, but in the long run it would have one of two outcomes. Court packing the next second there is a democratic trifecta (this can be done with a simple majority, as the only thing ever preventing it was the 60 vote filibuster which has already been revoked), or it will result in the SC losing all legitimacy.
The SC's entire power comes from being a trusted institution. People on both sides assume that they generally make rulings in good faith. The people currently on the court, aside from Kavanaugh, seem to understand this on varying levels (some very well, like Roberts, some only somewhat like Thomas). It's why their rulings are always so narrow, especially when it is a controversial ruling, and why they are small c conservative generally - they dislike making large changes. If the SC says something is unconstitutional, and the legislative and executive branches disagree - they can just ignore it (especially if it's overwhelmingly popular). They have no army or police force. It's happened in the past, albeit not for almost 200 years.
The "compromise" option that they may go with is a Gorsuch type - someone so ridiculously qualified that they deserve to be on the bench. However, I don't know how many of those are floating out there that will fit these criteria: will vote the way the GOP wants, qualified enough, and dumb enough to agree to something that WILL make them the most hated person after Trump in the country.
|
United States24773 Posts
On September 19 2020 09:17 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
If this is true, did she mean a new president who is not Trump, or until after the election/inauguration?
I mean, I think it's fair to interpret that as her replacement being selected next term, regardless of who is the president.
|
On September 19 2020 09:17 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
If this is true, did she mean a new president who is not Trump, or until after the election/inauguration?
Trump is going to piss on that before she is in the ground.
|
|
|
Possible that McConnell will lack the votes to confirm a replacement before the election. Not sure how many defections there would need to be, but it's not many.
|
|
|
On September 19 2020 09:19 Nevuk wrote:
The GOP ramming through a replacement would be a tactically good move, but strategically idiotic.
In the short run it'd guarantee them the seat, but in the long run it would have one of two outcomes. Court packing the next second there is a democratic trifecta (this can be done with a simple majority, as the only thing ever preventing it was the 60 vote filibuster which has already been revoked), or it will result in the SC losing all legitimacy.
The SC's entire power comes from being a trusted institution. People on both sides assume that they generally make rulings in good faith. The people currently on the court, aside from Kavanaugh, seem to understand this on varying levels (some very well, like Roberts, some only somewhat like Thomas). It's why their rulings are always so narrow, especially when it is a controversial ruling, and why they are small c conservative generally - they dislike making large changes. If the SC says something is unconstitutional, and the legislative and executive branches disagree - they can just ignore it (especially if it's overwhelmingly popular). They have no army or police force. It's happened in the past, albeit not for almost 200 years.
The "compromise" option that they may go with is a Gorsuch type - someone so ridiculously qualified that they deserve to be on the bench. However, I don't know how many of those are floating out there that will fit these criteria: will vote the way the GOP wants, qualified enough, and dumb enough to agree to something that WILL make them the most hated person after Trump in the country.
Biden in particular hasn't been keen on expanding the court for political purposes in the past though some other Democrats have been. If the GOP does ram through a replacement that could change things of course.
One also has to wonder if the threat of expanding the court might influence some GOP senators on the fringes. It's doubtful. The Republican Party has very much become the party that backs Trump no matter what he does.
On September 19 2020 09:27 JimmiC wrote:
Is it possible that if this goes horrible a blue tsunami happens that they are able to do away with lifetime appointments? Is there any mechanism for change on rules like that? What are the possibilities even if unlikely (and not as grotesque as Trumps suggestion of 2nd amendment folk shortening terms) that could be done to change things?
The Democrats could do their own court packing by expanding the Supreme Court to 13 or 15 members.
|
On September 19 2020 09:27 JimmiC wrote:
Is it possible that if this goes horrible a blue tsunami happens that they are able to do away with lifetime appointments? Is there any mechanism for change on rules like that? What are the possibilities even if unlikely (and not as grotesque as Trumps suggestion of 2nd amendment folk shortening terms) that could be done to change things?
No. That would require a constitutional amendment, which would require them to hold 2/3 of all state legislatures.
Court packing, on the other hand, can be done with a simple majority in house/senate and the presidency. They can literally expand the court to 15 lifetime justices, appoint 7 new ones, and make the current 8 justices effectively powerless (aside from Roberts, who would remain chief justice, iirc). The argument against this in the past has been "but then the other side does it when they come into power", but that's pretty clearly not true, as the times it was done in the past for this purpose didn't result in it (I think we started with 5? or maybe 7 justices, and FDR at one point threatened to pack it to 11 until the SC backed down).
This was the proposal of one of the second tier dem candidates to give Merrick Garland his seat, but it never gained much traction, especially since Gorsuch wasn't an unreasonable choice.
The "worst" strategic option is the one I foresee McConnell trying - don't move to replace unless Trump loses, and then, try to do it during lameduck period.
|
Northern Ireland26794 Posts
On September 19 2020 09:17 Danglars wrote:The substance of anti-racism education and the 1619 Project basically compels this. I say this despite how the messaging is communicated in typically Trump ham-fisted attempts to understand what it is and why it's bad. A better president could communicate the flaws in the critical race theory movement within education, without conjuring up one-sided history lessons from the early 20th century. Any viewpoint adjacent to "history is history and is important" should condemn much of what Trump is, unhappily, the one to condemn. Oh, and rest in peace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I can't say anything good about her job performance, but her friendship with Scalia and rising above political divisions is a good note in her favor.
"Our youth will be taught to love America with all of their heart and all of their souls,"
That doesn’t sound worrying to you at all? Swap that sentiment out with a Maduro or a Xi Jingping talking about their respective nations.
Doesn’t seem a hamfisted and inept attempt to want to curb the excesses of critical race theory and a desire for something more balanced, but an overtly expressed desire to do the exact opposite and teach children America is the best and has nothing in its history to be ashamed of.
Not just the US incidentally, the Brits want to redo their history curriculum in a similar fashion and just ignore colonialism, including Ireland by and large. Which is frankly disgusting to me, it’s creating a breeding ground for nothing but jingoism and idiocy.
I say this as a proud Brit within the shared community of NI, I’m culturally not Irish at all and I’m not ideologically in favour of us being subsumed into a United Ireland without some degree of protection for our cultural links and institutions.
Anyhow yeah, that was more to illustrate my background to make the point that I’m both currently a Brit, happy to be so but equally not just acceptant of but desiring a reckoning with Britain’s colonial past and genocides as part of our kid’s historical studies.
It’s how we learn and grow. Part of the problem with this jingoistic nonsense that people believe is they came to it from a position of never learning the bad things their nations did.
|
On September 19 2020 08:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 08:49 NewSunshine wrote:
After all the bullshit they gave Obama over a Supreme Court pick that was vaguely close to an election, you know they're gonna shove a new choice through behind closed doors and pretend they never said all of it. Get ready for the worst. Yeah, the Republican argument in 2016 was that because it was an election year, a vacant seat should not be filled until after the election. They now claim that their argument was that the vacancy should be left open because the Senate was held by a different party than the White House during an election year. But that was not their actual argument - it was only that it was an election year. There will be riots. Show nested quote +Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term, and the Senate has not confirmed a nominee to fill a vacancy arising in such circumstances for the better part of a century. So the American people have a particular opportunity now to make their voice heard in the selection of Scalia’s successor as they participate in the process to select their next president — as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice.
RIP to RBG.
Well, some of us were pointing out the historical precedent from the very beginning. That being said, what I expect is for Trump to nominate someone ("like Obama"!). The BIG if is if they hold hearings, since the process won't be over until AFTER election day. But maybe not, if McConnel thinks it's going to sink them he won't. If there are hearings, like I said, they won't be over before the election and either if Trump wins or loses they will probably confirm whoever it is.
If Democrats can't stop hearings then I don't think they can stop the confirmation. That being said, I don't expect precedent to rule here, the media machine is so strong I think the GOP will get overwhelmed if they try. They may leave it open. This is a dangerous bet for both sides, who's side gets more juice from either confirmation or sitting on it? We know that the SC is an issue Republicans care more about, but this time we are talking about RBG and not Scalia. Filling it could cause blowback... or it could discourage Democrats who are already lagging in enthusiasm? Does this cause the districts that flipped to vote Republican at the Senate level, as check on a Biden appointment?
There are many, many questions. Not sure where I am yet.
Edit: and btw the writers of this timeline really need to stop. This is too much.
And someone made a very good point. There are issues relating to this election that might end up before the Court. Might be seeing some 4-4 instead of 5-4 (in liberal favor). Interesting.
|
Well that didn't take long, Mitch McConnell will bring Trump's SC nominee to a vote
|
On September 19 2020 09:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 08:51 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2020 08:49 NewSunshine wrote:
After all the bullshit they gave Obama over a Supreme Court pick that was vaguely close to an election, you know they're gonna shove a new choice through behind closed doors and pretend they never said all of it. Get ready for the worst. Yeah, the Republican argument in 2016 was that because it was an election year, a vacant seat should not be filled until after the election. They now claim that their argument was that the vacancy should be left open because the Senate was held by a different party than the White House during an election year. But that was not their actual argument - it was only that it was an election year. There will be riots. https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/698666807167549440https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/698653325718257664https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/700706772110020608Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term, and the Senate has not confirmed a nominee to fill a vacancy arising in such circumstances for the better part of a century. So the American people have a particular opportunity now to make their voice heard in the selection of Scalia’s successor as they participate in the process to select their next president — as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice. RIP to RBG. Well, some of us were pointing out the historical precedent from the very beginning. That being said, what I expect is for Trump to nominate someone ("like Obama"!). The BIG if is if they hold hearings, since the process won't be over until AFTER election day. But maybe not, if McConnel thinks it's going to sink them he won't. If there are hearings, like I said, they won't be over before the election and either if Trump wins or loses they will probably confirm whoever it is. If Democrats can't stop hearings then I don't think they can stop the confirmation. That being said, I don't expect precedent to rule here, the media machine is so strong I think the GOP will get overwhelmed if they try. They may leave it open. This is a dangerous bet for both sides, who's side gets more juice from either confirmation or sitting on it? We know that the SC is an issue Republicans care more about, but this time we are talking about RBG and not Scalia. Filling it could cause blowback... or it could discourage Democrats who are already lagging in enthusiasm? Does this cause the districts that flipped to vote Republican at the Senate level, as check on a Biden appointment? There are many, many questions. Not sure where I am yet. Edit: and btw the writers of this timeline really need to stop. This is too much. And someone made a very good point. There are issues relating to this election that might end up before the Court. Might be seeing some 4-4 instead of 5-4 (in liberal favor). Interesting. Backlash isn't going to make Mitch back down from this. Losing the Senate is probably worth it to stack the Supreme Court.
|
Northern Ireland26794 Posts
We should probably be laying the groundwork now. Clearly the best strategy to pack the court is to have a bunch of committed communist sleepers who pretend to be conservatives until they get on to the court for life (or the inverse).
Imagine the fucking flex when you reveal you’re actually Green Horizons and not Joe American after you’re settled and there’s fuck all anyone can do to remove you
Outside of the probably tiresome to you folks world of my imagination, what’s the word on a potential nominee? Hearing that shortlists existed before this anyway but are any of the figures on those shortlists known?
When compared to well, the Trump window (tbh who is Overton anyway?) recent Republican nominees haven’t been all that egregiously terrible, to my tastes anyway.
|
On September 19 2020 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 09:42 Introvert wrote:On September 19 2020 08:51 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2020 08:49 NewSunshine wrote:
After all the bullshit they gave Obama over a Supreme Court pick that was vaguely close to an election, you know they're gonna shove a new choice through behind closed doors and pretend they never said all of it. Get ready for the worst. Yeah, the Republican argument in 2016 was that because it was an election year, a vacant seat should not be filled until after the election. They now claim that their argument was that the vacancy should be left open because the Senate was held by a different party than the White House during an election year. But that was not their actual argument - it was only that it was an election year. There will be riots. https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/698666807167549440https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/698653325718257664https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/700706772110020608Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term, and the Senate has not confirmed a nominee to fill a vacancy arising in such circumstances for the better part of a century. So the American people have a particular opportunity now to make their voice heard in the selection of Scalia’s successor as they participate in the process to select their next president — as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice. RIP to RBG. Well, some of us were pointing out the historical precedent from the very beginning. That being said, what I expect is for Trump to nominate someone ("like Obama"!). The BIG if is if they hold hearings, since the process won't be over until AFTER election day. But maybe not, if McConnel thinks it's going to sink them he won't. If there are hearings, like I said, they won't be over before the election and either if Trump wins or loses they will probably confirm whoever it is. If Democrats can't stop hearings then I don't think they can stop the confirmation. That being said, I don't expect precedent to rule here, the media machine is so strong I think the GOP will get overwhelmed if they try. They may leave it open. This is a dangerous bet for both sides, who's side gets more juice from either confirmation or sitting on it? We know that the SC is an issue Republicans care more about, but this time we are talking about RBG and not Scalia. Filling it could cause blowback... or it could discourage Democrats who are already lagging in enthusiasm? Does this cause the districts that flipped to vote Republican at the Senate level, as check on a Biden appointment? There are many, many questions. Not sure where I am yet. Edit: and btw the writers of this timeline really need to stop. This is too much. And someone made a very good point. There are issues relating to this election that might end up before the Court. Might be seeing some 4-4 instead of 5-4 (in liberal favor). Interesting. Backlash isn't going to make Mitch back down from this. Losing the Senate is probably worth it to stack the Supreme Court.
Yeah, knowing how this country votes the senate will flip back at least in the next 4-8 years anyway.
|
On September 19 2020 10:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 09:42 Introvert wrote:On September 19 2020 08:51 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2020 08:49 NewSunshine wrote:
After all the bullshit they gave Obama over a Supreme Court pick that was vaguely close to an election, you know they're gonna shove a new choice through behind closed doors and pretend they never said all of it. Get ready for the worst. Yeah, the Republican argument in 2016 was that because it was an election year, a vacant seat should not be filled until after the election. They now claim that their argument was that the vacancy should be left open because the Senate was held by a different party than the White House during an election year. But that was not their actual argument - it was only that it was an election year. There will be riots. https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/698666807167549440https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/698653325718257664https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/700706772110020608Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term, and the Senate has not confirmed a nominee to fill a vacancy arising in such circumstances for the better part of a century. So the American people have a particular opportunity now to make their voice heard in the selection of Scalia’s successor as they participate in the process to select their next president — as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice. RIP to RBG. Well, some of us were pointing out the historical precedent from the very beginning. That being said, what I expect is for Trump to nominate someone ("like Obama"!). The BIG if is if they hold hearings, since the process won't be over until AFTER election day. But maybe not, if McConnel thinks it's going to sink them he won't. If there are hearings, like I said, they won't be over before the election and either if Trump wins or loses they will probably confirm whoever it is. If Democrats can't stop hearings then I don't think they can stop the confirmation. That being said, I don't expect precedent to rule here, the media machine is so strong I think the GOP will get overwhelmed if they try. They may leave it open. This is a dangerous bet for both sides, who's side gets more juice from either confirmation or sitting on it? We know that the SC is an issue Republicans care more about, but this time we are talking about RBG and not Scalia. Filling it could cause blowback... or it could discourage Democrats who are already lagging in enthusiasm? Does this cause the districts that flipped to vote Republican at the Senate level, as check on a Biden appointment? There are many, many questions. Not sure where I am yet. Edit: and btw the writers of this timeline really need to stop. This is too much. And someone made a very good point. There are issues relating to this election that might end up before the Court. Might be seeing some 4-4 instead of 5-4 (in liberal favor). Interesting. Backlash isn't going to make Mitch back down from this. Losing the Senate is probably worth it to stack the Supreme Court.
The more I think about it the more I think McConnel and Trump have thought about this. Trump did release new list and everything last week. Maybe that was just standard campaigning. We'll see, as much as I despise McConnel he is the strategist people think Pelosi is. Coincidentally, they are both really hungry for power. This may doom people like Gardner but help others. Interesting.
|
|
|
For RGB it will be Amy Coney Barrett unless something goes wrong. That's why she wasn't picked for the last seat.
|
On September 19 2020 09:19 Nevuk wrote:
The GOP ramming through a replacement would be a tactically good move, but strategically idiotic.
In the short run it'd guarantee them the seat, but in the long run it would have one of two outcomes. Court packing the next second there is a democratic trifecta (this can be done with a simple majority, as the only thing ever preventing it was the 60 vote filibuster which has already been revoked), or it will result in the SC losing all legitimacy.
The SC's entire power comes from being a trusted institution. People on both sides assume that they generally make rulings in good faith. The people currently on the court, aside from Kavanaugh, seem to understand this on varying levels (some very well, like Roberts, some only somewhat like Thomas). It's why their rulings are always so narrow, especially when it is a controversial ruling, and why they are small c conservative generally - they dislike making large changes. If the SC says something is unconstitutional, and the legislative and executive branches disagree - they can just ignore it (especially if it's overwhelmingly popular). They have no army or police force. It's happened in the past, albeit not for almost 200 years.
The "compromise" option that they may go with is a Gorsuch type - someone so ridiculously qualified that they deserve to be on the bench. However, I don't know how many of those are floating out there that will fit these criteria: will vote the way the GOP wants, qualified enough, and dumb enough to agree to something that WILL make them the most hated person after Trump in the country.
I think court-packing is in the cards even if this one is delayed.
|
The left needs to read this and know what it says. It says "fundamentally, we are at war with the other party, and we will not sway from our fight".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
