EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2651
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On September 20 2020 15:23 Wegandi wrote: I'd be happy with ACB. She'd probably be the most pro-2A justice and her record on civil liberties isn't the worst. More originalists the merrier. (I'd also be happy with neutering the SCOTUS, but that's not going to happen) we absolutely need them to start taking 2A cases. Yeah I think it's silly to expect the judiciary to limit itself, but at least some more restraint would be appreciated. Not Roberts-like "come to a worse decision because it pleases no one" type restraint. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 20 2020 15:26 Kyadytim wrote: It's like a little hyperbole zips over your head. I see we're living in a post-fact world, eh? Be precise or don't jump in the mud. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 20 2020 15:37 Introvert wrote: we absolutely need them to start taking 2A cases. Yeah I think it's silly to expect the judiciary to limit itself, but at least some more restraint would be appreciated. Not Roberts-like "come to a worse decision because it pleases no one" type restraint. More positive movement in the 2A direction would be very nice, but there's nothing stopping Republican majorities (when they had it in all 3 branches) to repeal the '86, '68, and '34 gun control laws (if you thought Democrats gnashed teeth on the lukewarm GOP phonies in power on this issue get 100 Thomas Massies or Me and see what real gun reform looks like). Like I always say, ATF should be a convenience store not an alphabet soup agency. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 20 2020 14:14 Wegandi wrote: I had (wrongly I guess) assumed people would understand that Reid got rid of the filibuster because *gasp* it was being used, such that the Dem majority/President couldn't ram-rod everything it wanted through. You also must think I am stupid for you to utter that first paragraph. Let me enlighten you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama It is very easy to see how many more than 0 (your claim *see June 12th, 2012 timeline to said next year 2013) got confirmed. Why is it Democrats get simple facts so wrong all the time? Anyways, more to the point, that's the entire point of the power of the filibuster to have the minority position check the majority. Now that's gone by the doing of said Democrat party you guys are wailing about the majority doing what you did. Give me a break. You have zero sympathy and standing here. Take it like you dished it. Don't threaten bullshit. The main issue in 2012/2013 wasn't judicial appointments, it was executive appointments. There were 50+ appointments for the executive (and a few judges) that were all being blocked by the republican minority, and that had no precedent at that point. Gridlocking laws is one thing, completely blocking a whole administration for no reason is another. This matter was brought by the republicans, stop trying to say they were doing normal things at the time please... And then in 2015/16 when the reps got the majority in the Senate, they blocked all judicial appointments (100+), something which AGAIN had no precedent to that degree. The power grabs are being done by the republicans here. If you deny an administration its administration, that's not the job ! The Senate being nearly always less than 60/40, you would have ZERO functioning administration with the republicans tactic and something had to be done. The judicial appointments themselves were ALSO out of the ordinary for a split Senate historically speaking. Here is the record : ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/eh3LbPq.jpg) Reid's decision was in the face of full stonewalling by pissed off republicans. Again, there was lying to be done : Even while Democrats still controlled the Senate (2009-2015), Republicans filibustered many nominees, and Senator Chuck Grassley commented that more nominees could have been confirmed had Obama respected recess appointment precedent by not making recess appointments while the Senate was in session.[4] Although Obama never used a recess appointment to appoint a nominee to the federal bench, he had appointed some executive agency officials in January 2012. (yeah, pro-forma sessions... another recent thing) And again, don't even start talking about Obama abusing recess appointments, the point is moot. President Obama made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time positions. During his presidency, President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions and 44 to part-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 to full-time positions and 72 to part-time positions. For those who wonder why europeans care about american politics, it's because the USA, by its policies, is usually using its policies to bully the world. The most evident point are embargoes. If it embargoes a country, there are worldwide consequences since the US will forbid any company to do any kind of business with the US. Due to the US' position, this is huge. The environment, or treaties and alliances are other ones. I'm supposed to spend the rest of my life in NATO soon, but Trump specifically is shitting things up and blowing everything he can for my future. The Supreme Court itself has enormous ramifications, for example a decision on the legality of abortion would mean ZERO US aid for any NGO or organisation that provide abortion or even contraceptives to developing countries that need it to manage their population and the mass rapes from civil wars etc. I mean, you don't need the Supreme Court to do that, as Trump tried to do it, but it eventually is contested and goes there. There are all kind of ramifications across the world, this is why. It's also a kind of morbid curiosity to see a country with such non-functioning institutions in the last 4 years continuing to work (stonewalling everything isn't a form of government, it's just free-wheeling). The US is losing influence at a scary pace though, mostly due to republican influence since they are USA-centered, so we find it pretty rich to see the US complaining about China and others' global influence since it was so natural that THEY had the bully pullpit that they don't understand it's just fair competition (yes, the US also steals IP and bullies other competing companies into submission with the help of its government). | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote: The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. Why should I have any respect for you when you push this kind of ideology at this point? As much as I despise Danglars's political opinions, at least he demonstrates a baseline respect for the political system and what (he thinks) is good for its long-term legitimacy. Conservatives have already demonstrated repeatedly that they have far less integrity than the average liberal when it comes to anything ethical surrounding politics (see the fact that Democrats routinely hold their politicians to a higher standard when it comes to scandals and ethics). At this point, why shouldn't liberals just start exploiting the system to do everything that you hate? And when we do that, why should you be listened to when you start bitching about it, as you most assuredly will? Your attitude is a strain of political nihilism that can really only lead to violent conflict. It takes the worst of our political system and says "fuck it, just exploit it all" and openly supports it. It really just says a lot about you as a person. | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On September 20 2020 18:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: And this is why most conservatives don't deserve any respect. Y'all have already demonstrated repeatedly that you have far less integrity than the average liberal when it comes to anything ethical surrounding politics. At this point, why shouldn't liberals just start exploiting the system to do everything that you hate? And when we do that, why should you be listened to when you start bitching about it, as you most assuredly will? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Political_impact Can give thanks to citizens united too for much of republican success ever since. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
The Trump admin sold to Adelson the US ambassador's house in Jerusalem. https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/filiu/2020/09/20/trump-cede-a-son-principal-mecene-la-residence-des-etats-unis-en-israel/ (sorry, in French). Yes, it is not the embassy. But that's still where most of the receptions and informal discussions are held. In some cases the residence is provided by another state (for example the french ambassador house in the UAE), but held by a private individual ?? Really ? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26795 Posts
On September 20 2020 14:20 Wegandi wrote: I should add...look at the confirmation vote #'s for Obama's judges compared to Trumps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump Note: Compare how often 35-40 voted against confirmation by the GOP during Obama's tenure and by the Democrats during Trump's tenure. (I'll give you the answer, the Dems overwhelmingly vote to deny confirmation compared to the Republicans) Democrats are butt hurt crybabies. Always have been always will be. This assumes a relative equality in the quality of candidates. There is a story beyond the mere numbers in the development of filibuster usage. That it’s in play in such a fashion has a knock on effect on candidates you put forward for confirmation for example. It’s a good theoretical mechanism to prevent majoritarian overreach to an egregious extent, when it becomes routinely used to stonewall and block absolutely everything it’s rampantly abusable, and has been rampantly abused | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16121 Posts
Par for the course I guess. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 21 2020 00:16 Vindicare605 wrote: Every conservative I know is chomping at the bit to replace RBG. None of them give a single shit about the fact they are being massive hypocrites. Par for the course I guess. So long as democrats choose to not recognize the reality of this conflict, it is entirely the right idea for Republicans to basically take everything they can get. Ultimately, the left is spineless. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24773 Posts
On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote: Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote: Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. FYI appeals to tradition are not able to be made to show something is ethical. In order for something to be ethical, it must have other qualities. For more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition#:~:text=Appeal to tradition (also known,always done it this way." | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16121 Posts
On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote: Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” 2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” 2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.” 2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” 2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” 2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” 2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.” 2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” 2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.” 2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” March 2016, Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Yup. I'm sure ignorance is the reason I used the word hypocrite. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 21 2020 01:06 Vindicare605 wrote: 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” 2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” 2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.” 2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” 2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” 2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” 2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.” 2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” 2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.” 2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” March 2016, Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Yup. I'm sure ignorance is the reason I used the word hypocrite. Dunno what you're talking about, people literally going against things they said in this exact same situation isn't hypocrisy it's... uh... Oh wait, that's what hypocrisy actually is. For the whole 'why europeans care' thing, there's a lot of reasons. I'm British and we just left the EU. The US is basically our only avenue for getting something concrete out of this very stupid idea we went through with, so who's in charge and how they think about the world outside the US is kind of important. But for me personally a good reason why I post infrequently is I can see the writing on the wall and can see the US's power waning, so indeed the actual political shitshow in the US isn't as interesting. It's just a sad, depressing image of a once-great nation falling to pieces as internal tensions slowly and inexorably tear it apart at the social level. I'm paying more interest to China these days, as best I can, since it seems almost certain that they're going to lead the new global paradigm. I hope that doesn't happen of course, there's enormous question marks surrounding China in a position of that kind of influence, but it seems an inevitability to me now. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote: Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Please have a look at my previous post with the amount of nominees confirmed in the past split-party situations and look at how Obama was treated and say that again ? I'll help you, because looking 5 posts up seems to be kinda hard : On September 20 2020 18:39 Nouar wrote: | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote: Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 21 2020 02:17 Nouar wrote: Please have a look at my previous post with the amount of nominees confirmed in the past split-party situations and look at how Obama was treated and say that again ? I'll help you, because looking 5 posts up seems to be kinda hard : How many of those were confirmed by a split party situation in the election year of the opposite party’s president? I’m actually not going to help you with the answer, since posting the same chart twice means you should perform the exercise of looking it up. Post it a third time with a wittier condescending comment for all I care. | ||
| ||
