|
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 21 2020 07:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is just lazy and I would expect you to be more intelligent, Introvert. Criticisms of the Electoral College and the Senate are completely valid and worth discussing. The reason that Democrats have won in the past is because the demographics that support each party have realigned. Just because they've won it in the past doesn't mean that the system is a good one. It takes maybe a 10th grade level of analytical thinking to understand this.
*Criticisms when the Democrat party is out of power (need to clarify that little bit)
Of course we all ready know that the Democrats hate our republican form of Government. They believe it impairs their ability to rule in perpetuity. If only everything was a direct democracy we'd never lose - it's demographic certainty (their words, not mine). That's their criticism of the republican form of Government. They don't care about the folks living in Alaska, Idaho, Vermont, Hawaii, etc. Equal representation in the Senate? Pffft. California, New York, Texas, and Florida should rule the country. Democrats all ready hate fly-over country so why not fuck them over more? It's win-win.
I am fairly certain if Democrats ever got their way the US wouldn't last very long so your "victory" would in actuality be a "defeat". What's the point in ruling over a shattered country (Like say the USSR in 1991).
|
On September 21 2020 07:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 07:23 iamthedave wrote:On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Zxs0h4M.jpg) The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:
Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that
[quote]
Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language.
Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously.
You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus.
And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes. Don't the Republicans very regularly complain about voter fraud from the Democrats irrespective of whether they win or lose? Not sure if that counts as 'whining about the system' but it sure is whining. You think they wouldn't be banging on about that to this day if Trump had actually lost? if Trump lost? not at all, most people in the party thought he was a loser anyways. That might fit more into Russian interference type stuff than complaints about the system though, however I have my own concerns about vote by mail this time around. If it's razor close both sides are going to shout fraud this time. I pray it's not justified.
Your willful ignorance is astounding.
Republicans complain about (non-existent) voter fraud LOUDLY.
It is constant. Non-stop. They even made a bogus task force to investigate it (surprise, they found no evidence).
And you are simply wrong if you don't think that they are going to complain about it
|
On September 21 2020 07:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 07:23 iamthedave wrote:On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:24 Nouar wrote:
Fuck are you serious ? The discussion was about the history of the filibuster, and the nuclear option used by Harry Reid due to unprecedented obstruction by the republican minority (where I posted the table in response to Wegandi). Then it switched to overall split-party judicial appointments post with your flat assertion that
[quote]
Your post is about judicial nominees. The previous pages did NOT talk about the supreme court only, but overall. I'll assume you know how you to speak english and convey a message better than me in your native language.
Then you move the goalpost to election year only, THEN you both say that all along it was only about supreme court appointments. You should apply as senators, seriously.
You were not part of that discussion in the last 3/4 pages on that topic, suddenly intervene talking about "judicial nominees are refused by opposite party" and I should assume that you strayed enough from the conversation to only talk about supreme court in the last year ? Man I'm not Nostradamus.
And I still see no comment from either of you about all the grandstanding comments from republican senators between 2016-now. (Which was the other topic of discussion) To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English. On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did? Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true. But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes. Don't the Republicans very regularly complain about voter fraud from the Democrats irrespective of whether they win or lose? Not sure if that counts as 'whining about the system' but it sure is whining. You think they wouldn't be banging on about that to this day if Trump had actually lost? if Trump lost? not at all, most people in the party thought he was a loser anyways. That might fit more into Russian interference type stuff than complaints about the system though, however I have my own concerns about vote by mail this time around. If it's razor close both sides are going to shout fraud this time. I pray it's not justified.
Meanwhile the AG is preemptively raising hail mary against mail-in , asserting large-scale fraud with no proof, before anything happened and with no precedent, when his own government is hindering USPS and making sure in-place voting is hard to access in unfavorable areas. But only the democrats find excuses.
About respecting institutions and the law, didn't florida skew a constitutional amendment recently? You know, forbidding felons to vote while they haven't paid all their dues, while NOT making sure that said felons could even know that they had dues or answering them in a timely manner when they ask ? Is that not an unfair burden? But it helps politically, so to hell with what the people voted.
|
On September 21 2020 07:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 07:31 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 07:23 iamthedave wrote:On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English.
On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did?
Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true.
But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes. Don't the Republicans very regularly complain about voter fraud from the Democrats irrespective of whether they win or lose? Not sure if that counts as 'whining about the system' but it sure is whining. You think they wouldn't be banging on about that to this day if Trump had actually lost? if Trump lost? not at all, most people in the party thought he was a loser anyways. That might fit more into Russian interference type stuff than complaints about the system though, however I have my own concerns about vote by mail this time around. If it's razor close both sides are going to shout fraud this time. I pray it's not justified. Your willful ignorance is astounding. Republicans complain about non-existent voter fraud LOUDLY. It is constant. Non-stop. They even made a bogus task force to investigate it (surprise, they found no evidence). And you are simply wrong if you don't think that they are going to complain about it
oh I agree, and the margin of victory will be in inverse proportion to the amount of complaining.
I have moved an edit over here to the next page.
On September 21 2020 07:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is just lazy and I would expect you to be more intelligent, Introvert. Criticisms of the Electoral College and the Senate are completely valid and worth discussing. The reason that Democrats have won in the past is because the demographics that support each party have realigned. Just because they've won it in the past doesn't mean that the system is a good one. It takes maybe a 10th grade level of analytical thinking to understand this.
I agree that doesn't make it good but I also know that a constitutional amendment is impossible, and in the case of the Senate it may not even be changeable by amendment. I'm saying that these institutions are not favored towards one party or another as a matter of design. it's not Republicans trying to use a state compact to get around the electoral college, for instance. perhaps we differ in our interpretation, i.e. "whining" vs "discussing."
Honestly the history on the topic of SCOTUS is more clear, I don't really expect anyone to agree with me when it comes to these last few posts.
|
On September 21 2020 07:40 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 07:31 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 07:23 iamthedave wrote:On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English.
On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did?
Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true.
But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes. Don't the Republicans very regularly complain about voter fraud from the Democrats irrespective of whether they win or lose? Not sure if that counts as 'whining about the system' but it sure is whining. You think they wouldn't be banging on about that to this day if Trump had actually lost? if Trump lost? not at all, most people in the party thought he was a loser anyways. That might fit more into Russian interference type stuff than complaints about the system though, however I have my own concerns about vote by mail this time around. If it's razor close both sides are going to shout fraud this time. I pray it's not justified. Meanwhile the AG is preemptively raising hail mary against mail-in , asserting large-scale fraud with no proof, before anything happened and with no precedent, when his own government is hindering USPS and making sure in-place voting is hard to access in unfavorable areas. But only the democrats find excuses. About respecting institutions and the law, didn't florida skew a constitutional amendment recently? You know, forbidding felons to vote while they haven't paid all their dues, while NOT making sure that said felons could even know that they had dues or answering them in a timely manner when they ask ? Is that not an unfair burden? But it helps politically, so to hell with what the people voted.
As I've tried to make clear, I think
Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system.
Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the Russia narrative. Everyone whines when they lose, at least for a while. But the GOP doesn't seek work arounds to the Constitution.
|
United States24773 Posts
On September 21 2020 06:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote: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. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic. The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent. I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments. That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices. Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it. Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior? Thank you for your interest. I answered once and clarified again, and am rewarded with two more questions. Maybe give it a week and see if you are still comparably interested in the further follow-ups. I try to ration my time among users, so maybe I'll put one to you as more of an aside. Is the sentiment contained in this post still above your standards for engaging in debate? If we're going multiple questions for every one answered, I'd like to know if these have shifted for you over time. For contrast, see Simberto's "I am absolutely certain that both Danglars and Introvert couldn't care less about..." and Gahlo's "[Danglars] will either push the eject button out of a topic and vanish, or find some wild tangent to throw it on and people eat it up." Or maybe Gorsameth's head cannon that McConnell's hypothetical actions rate equal to (D) Reid's actual actions, so there's no point drawing a difference. I am more interested in discussing the topic right now rather than other conversations that are happening in this thread. I am purposefully keeping the position of parties separate from positions of posters, and focusing on the former. Keep in mind, despite you providing two responses, only the second one was really an attempt to actually answer my question.... the first one was more along the lines of some relevant thoughts.
The reason for two (related) additional questions is because the obvious follow-up question to the presented "argument" is, when was this argument first made. If you have insufficient time to answer my follow-up questions but will be willing to answer them later, I will wait. Asking me to wait and think about if I still want to know the answer to the questions has no purpose. I asked the questions, I still want to know the answer, and it's your choice whether to answer them or not. If you do not, I will try to find somebody else who should be expected to be able to speak intelligently as to what the position of the Republican Party is without having a strong bias against them.
|
On September 21 2020 07:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 07:31 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 07:23 iamthedave wrote:On September 21 2020 06:35 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 06:16 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:51 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:37 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 05:03 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 04:38 Nouar wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 Danglars wrote:
I want to call you principled, Nouar, since you're spending the time to post relevant information for anyone that thinks the precedent extends to all nominees (it doesn't). I think you can find and conclude that there's decades of precedent from BOTH PARTIES going back DECADES by finding out the last time the Senate confirmed a nomination chosen in an election year by the President of the opposite party. I await this revisement of "since 2016" in the interest of establishing a foundation we can both agree on, should you be interested in my opinions of all nominees or whatever. This should really be a nonpartisan agreement on historical precedent.
Trump has been accused of destroying norms and destroying Democracy itself, so it's helpful for me to know which people can honestly debate precedent and history without letting partisan anti-Trump sentiment cloud their analytical faculties. I went and found actual data, now it's your turn : can you show me ONE example throughout history of a supreme court vacancy having been nominated and filled while early voting had already begun ? In fact you don't have to, it was already posted, it never happened. The latest a vacancy has ever been filled was a full 5 months before the election. So I'll switch my question : what was the shortest time between a vacancy being declared and the confirmation of a SC judge, and what would be your reaction if the confirmation happens during a lame-duck session with the President having changed ? Is there a precedent for that, dear sir ? On September 21 2020 04:36 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
To be quite frank, the discussion since the news of RBG's death has been about the supreme court almost entirely. So perhaps yes, maybe you should assume we know English.
On hypocrisy, as I mentioned a post of a few hundred words the other day A) there's a lot of the Democrat side B) It is true that not every senator, every single time they were asked, made the caveat of "a presidential election year when the Senate and WH are controlled by opposite parties." But given your posts so far, would you have even noticed if they did?
Wegandi did mention how if the Democrats hadn't killed the judicial filibuster in 2013 they would be in a much stronger position now, which, regardless of why Democrats did it, is undeniably true.
But the background context for the "replacing RGB " discussion has been about the supreme court and honestly I feel silly for having to point that out. The whole filibuster and appointment history that lead to Reid removing the filibuster was definitely not about the supreme court. It would be out of place for senators to talk about senate and WH controlled by opposite party when they talked specifically about a republican president being in power, and that we should wait for the will of the people in an election year (it's pretty self-explanatory, that one, there are no caveats. Election year = wait the will of the people) About the filibuster, it may be true, but you are, as Wegandi was, conveniently forgetting that the removal of the filibuster was due to unprecedented filibustering by... whom ? Who abused the filibuster ? Who lied about "but he used recess appointments" to justify said *judicial* filibusters while Obama only used it a couple times for *executive* appointments, that were also being unprecedentedly (? is that correct?) blockaded ? Who ignored the blue slip more recently to appoint judges ? Remember the Tea Party ? The multiple government shutdowns these past administrations ? Both sides are pretty much shit in my view. But on this topic, there is a clear discrepancy in behaviour between both. This usually have to do with the democratic electorate tending to boot scummy behaviour much more easily than the republican one, who often celebrate it. edit so I'm clear : you don't see me complaining about Garland. You haven't seen me do so, except to point out some hypocrisy. I'm not actually contesting that it was scummy to refuse a hearing though it was (they could have kept up appearances, held hearings and just not vote for him). It's the game. What's unacceptable in my view is changing your rethoric at the last second not even 24h after her death, and trampling over all the grandstanding comments a couple dozens from your side used to justify their scummy behaviour of 2016. The argument that "the court can't be left at 8 for a presidential election" is also moot, it didn't bother them in 2016. There is NO precedent of a Supreme Court appointment this close to an presidential election, or even TWICE as close. Find me one, and I'll grant you the win. You appear to not be reading most of the posts in this thread and are now changing the criteria. Although I admit that "voting has already started!" has more salience than "it's close," at least superficially. Since you apparently missed it, I will, with apologies to the other posters in this thread who have seen the link already, send you here. and btw this is just another reason I oppose voting that starts this early. one month, three weeks TOPS. sixtyish days is insane. btw one reason either Lagoa or ACB may have a quick confirmation is because they were so recently vetted for their current posts. Most of the work has already been done. Thank you it's an informative read, yes I probably missed that post or at least the link itself (that's why I directly quote and post pictures instead of sending links, it's less complete but easier to digest when you don't have an hour to digest a page of answers, I'm rather short on time usually, less than optimal I know). What criteria am I changing btw ? I'll thus concede a loss as there are clear precedent of lame-duck nominations/confirmations as well as from presidents having lost the election, which I find gross but hey... who am I to judge (and several with a lot less than 45 days between opening and confirmation). I don't know the history of the importance of the SC across the ages so I won't comment on that, though there was no occurence since the 60's, well before my time. I am still undeterred on what I said : it's really rich from the republican senators to have said so many definite statements and promises about "next time if it's a republican president", or "let the people vote !! Same in 2020 if it happens, let the people decide after the vote !" and then suddenly completely reneging on their assertions, and this is mostly what I'm despising (from both sides when it happens). I am also not moving from my opinion that things really turned sour under the Tea Party and Obama. Before that, there were bipartisan concessions, then a fringe of republicans went ape-shit. The Republicans were unclear many times and people like Graham really did say no confirmation in a presidential election year no matter what. Of course the flip-side is Joe Biden saying in both the 90s and 2016 to fill any seats. But politically remember that both sides would absolutely fill in this scenario and the GOP has to at least try. With the possible exception of Susan Collins, any GOP senator running for re-election this year would lose in a landslide because their own base of voters would refuse to vote for them. They all know this, it's why Tillis, McSally, Loeffler, hav, and probably John James and Cory Gardner will, some way or another, allow the process to proceed and most likely even vote yes. This is probably the death of Gardner chances (just when the GOP was becoming slightly more optimistic), but they have no choice. Just the Democrat candidates must oppose it. Their voters won't allow anything else, previous statements be damned. edit: i said in my very first post on this topic that McConnell's original statement was wrong. And that he corrected it. Some of these politicians rushed out a response way too soon, and for that there may be a political price. That's up to voters. But there would absolutely be a price for almost any GOP senator who willingly constrains themselves on what is almost the only unifying issue to the whole party, and does so against precedent. This war for the Senate is exactly why I thought Trump, who holds no real love for any party, since he's an opportunist, could maybe gain to keep the seat open and try to force republicans to come en masse to reelect him and keep a senate majority. It looks like that was wrong as he promptly vowed to fill it asap. On September 21 2020 06:06 Introvert wrote:On September 21 2020 05:53 IgnE wrote:
Maybe it's time to just get the votes, win the legislative branch, and change the laws. This has a lot of truth to it. When Democrats lose it's the Russians, it's the electoral college, it's the Senate being "un-democratic." Nevermind that Democrats have won and controlled these institutions many times since their party's founding up until the 2010s. In some cases, like the electoral college, they believed (and still believe) it would bring them everlasting victory not even ten years ago. Meanwhile Republicans lose and try to come up with a way to win these institutions under the rules, not burn them down. They can be wrong (thinking they lost 2012 because they weren't squishy enough on immigration), but that's the way they think. This is a bit reducting. Are you arguing that Bush and Trump were NOT the electoral college, and that there was no Russian involvement in 2016 against all the bipartisan reports that came out ? No one argued about any of this when the popular vote was lost by a democrat, or talked about Russia or another country interfering in the previous ones, to my (limited) knowledge ? Does it not bother you one bit to have a president getting money from renting (sometimes) empty offices to foreign governments ? ( The Qatari office comes to mind. Empty since its construction in 2017, with more than a million in rent since, directly in Trump's pocket). Or all the other dealings with foreign powers in which he has personal financial interest ? These are just facts, not "when democrats lose, it's..." I've made my opinions known already on "collusion" and the like. I'm saying when Democrats lose they spend more time whining about the system then winning under it, and they only whine when they lose. I kid you not, in the 2000s through Obama's first term, Democrats thought the electoral college favored them. They used to be the party of more rural areas and the south. They have controlled the senate and house the vast majority of the time since FDR. Even since Reagan it's close. Contrast that with the GOP that doesn't and didn't call for the abolition of the Senate, for instance. Only one party, upon losing a single election, complains about the fundamental, small-r republican nature of our constitutional system. Even if you say it should be changed, the bar is far too high and such whining comes across as mere sour grapes. Don't the Republicans very regularly complain about voter fraud from the Democrats irrespective of whether they win or lose? Not sure if that counts as 'whining about the system' but it sure is whining. You think they wouldn't be banging on about that to this day if Trump had actually lost? if Trump lost? not at all, most people in the party thought he was a loser anyways. That might fit more into Russian interference type stuff than complaints about the system though, however I have my own concerns about vote by mail this time around. If it's razor close both sides are going to shout fraud this time. I pray it's not justified. Your willful ignorance is astounding. Republicans complain about (non-existent) voter fraud LOUDLY. It is constant. Non-stop. They even made a bogus task force to investigate it (surprise, they found no evidence). And you are simply wrong if you don't think that they are going to complain about it
It is true Republican whining about voter fraud is dumb, but voter fraud is not an inherent component of our form of Government so I don't see how that compares to complaining about the EC or each state having 2 Senators, or limits placed by the Constitution on Democrat ambitions, etc.
|
On September 21 2020 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:
In the grand scheme of karma in the universe, I'm tempted to think now that because of Dems smears on kavanaugh, it would be just if trump gets a 3rd SC pick.
His train wreck of a confirmation hearing being a lifetime ago by Trumpian standards doesn't make it any less of a train wreck. That still happened. Come on, man.
|
United States43989 Posts
On September 21 2020 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:
In the grand scheme of karma in the universe, I'm tempted to think now that because of Dems smears on kavanaugh, it would be just if trump gets a 3rd SC pick.
A woman came forwards and said “given that he is being considered for one of the highest offices in the country it’s important for me to share this information about his character” and suddenly the Dems are at fault? Maybe if Kavanaugh didn’t want that shit brought up he should have kept his hands to himself. Maybe if the Republicans didn’t want their nominee to be grilled on that stuff they should nominate someone who doesn’t do it.
|
|
|
On September 21 2020 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:
In the grand scheme of karma in the universe, I'm tempted to think now that because of Dems smears on kavanaugh, it would be just if trump gets a 3rd SC pick.
If you want to delve into karmic balancing that's a deep, deep well of unrighted wrongs on both sides. I mean, did the Republicans ever really get karmic comeuppance for embracing the birther conspiracy?
|
|
|
The Democratic Party Raises 70 Million Dollars in ONE Day
I really think the republicans are playing with fire with this nomination, the fact that they where soooooo against garland and are just now spiting on there own precedent is what is going to push the democrats to not roll over this time if they take power. Like others have pointed out dems have been to happy to just be the punching bag and take nothing back when it is there turn. Especially when it looks like the rebus are going to be completely shut out of power for at least 4 years.
Do republicans really want to push the democrats to act like them when they win back power. Thinking about it this might be a good thing, shows we where never going to go back to normal since it is clear to everyone that republicans where never going to play fair.
|
On September 21 2020 02:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
What's clear is that all those angry talks about liberals being the progressive ennemies and about refusing to chose between to evil and so on and so forth becomes a bit ironic, considering a grand total of zero progressive policies will pass in the next decades, whoever is in power, if the Supreme Court are a bunch of far right hacks with zero principles.
Only if Democrats are too cowardly to remedy it.
EDIT:I was no fan of RBG either fwiw. Especially after her stupid comments on Kaepernick's protesting.
|
On September 21 2020 09:19 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:
In the grand scheme of karma in the universe, I'm tempted to think now that because of Dems smears on kavanaugh, it would be just if trump gets a 3rd SC pick. If you want to delve into karmic balancing that's a deep, deep well of unrighted wrongs on both sides. I mean, did the Republicans ever really get karmic comeuppance for embracing the birther conspiracy?
Well, the collusion investigation might be seen as karmic comeuppance for birtherism. Especially when you view it in terms of "Obama vs Trump."
|
On September 21 2020 08:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:
In the grand scheme of karma in the universe, I'm tempted to think now that because of Dems smears on kavanaugh, it would be just if trump gets a 3rd SC pick. A woman came forwards and said “given that he is being considered for one of the highest offices in the country it’s important for me to share this information about his character” and suddenly the Dems are at fault? Maybe if Kavanaugh didn’t want that shit brought up he should have kept his hands to himself. Maybe if the Republicans didn’t want their nominee to be grilled on that stuff they should nominate someone who doesn’t do it.
This type of thing is hard cause we'll never know the truth but at this point I'm highly skeptical of Blasey Ford's story. And if she was put up to it/it was fake, that's a horrible injustice committed on Kavanaugh. Then of course there was the Avenatti involvement, which the media certainly spotlighted in their effort to smear Kavanaugh.
|
|
|
On September 21 2020 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 02:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
What's clear is that all those angry talks about liberals being the progressive ennemies and about refusing to chose between to evil and so on and so forth becomes a bit ironic, considering a grand total of zero progressive policies will pass in the next decades, whoever is in power, if the Supreme Court are a bunch of far right hacks with zero principles. Only if Democrats are too cowardly to remedy it. EDIT:I was no fan of RBG either fwiw. Especially after her stupid comments on Kaepernick's protesting.
And how does that happen, exactly?
|
On September 21 2020 14:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2020 02:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
What's clear is that all those angry talks about liberals being the progressive ennemies and about refusing to chose between to evil and so on and so forth becomes a bit ironic, considering a grand total of zero progressive policies will pass in the next decades, whoever is in power, if the Supreme Court are a bunch of far right hacks with zero principles. Only if Democrats are too cowardly to remedy it. EDIT:I was no fan of RBG either fwiw. Especially after her stupid comments on Kaepernick's protesting. And how does that happen, exactly?
Congress can pass legislation adding additional justices to the Supreme Court, theoretically we could see an expansion from 9 to, say, 13 seats, which would remedy the Republicans fuckery.
Obviously this could in turn be abused against the Democrats in the future, and I doubt they have the balls to do it anyways, especially with Joe “Nothing Will Fundamentally Change” Biden being President.
|
On September 21 2020 15:11 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 14:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 21 2020 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2020 02:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
What's clear is that all those angry talks about liberals being the progressive ennemies and about refusing to chose between to evil and so on and so forth becomes a bit ironic, considering a grand total of zero progressive policies will pass in the next decades, whoever is in power, if the Supreme Court are a bunch of far right hacks with zero principles. Only if Democrats are too cowardly to remedy it. EDIT:I was no fan of RBG either fwiw. Especially after her stupid comments on Kaepernick's protesting. And how does that happen, exactly? Congress can pass legislation adding additional justices to the Supreme Court, theoretically we could see an expansion from 9 to, say, 13 seats, which would remedy the Republicans fuckery. Obviously this could in turn be abused against the Democrats in the future, and I doubt they have the balls to do it anyways, especially with Joe “Nothing Will Fundamentally Change” Biden being President.
Can they do that with a simple majority? That seem like quite a substantial change. If any government can just add X seats and get their guys in the Court, what prevents every single administration from adding more justices and chose extremely partisan ones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
