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.
The potential to use this “unprecedented” event as a talking point to potentially win Congress and the presidency seems to be more important to Democrats than the policy consequences of the event itself.
If the Dems are using it as a talking point then they are doing the only thing they can do. There is no way for the Dems to stop the vote if the Republicans want to go ahead.
"We can't do anything about it" is one of the oldest tricks in the book to justify inaction on the part of an organization that never really cared despite notionally being very concerned about the issue. They certainly could have done more, but it really doesn't seem to be very high on their priority list.
please enlighten me. What more could they have done that would actually have done something?
With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
Anyone else really like the dems use of Obama?. Kept him out of the campaign trail tell the end and are using him as a very effective finisher. This should be the time when things are tightened the most but using the big guns and sending him to Florida to give Biden a boost there.
At this point if Democrats win big in november, they should just alter Article III and make the supreme court only rule over local divorce disputes in Washington or something. See if Kavenaugh is happy with his lifetime job.
Then make a new handpicked super supreme court who's first job is redistributing senate seats away from low pop red states. Fuck em right in the rulebook.
On October 25 2020 09:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: At this point if Democrats win big in november, they should just alter Article III and make the supreme court only rule over local divorce disputes in Washington or something. See if Kavenaugh is happy with his lifetime job.
Then make a new handpicked super supreme court who's first job is redistributing senate seats away from low pop red states. Fuck em right in the rulebook.
Even if dems can get 53 to 54 witch i think is the upper level of realistic this cycle i think there might be to many dems in red states that will waffle on a pack. Dems have like 7 to 9 pick up able seats in 2022 through so I think that is there best shot. Let a 6-3 court piss everyone off and try when it is much more certain then now.
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
If they'd made peace with the big lib Trump instead of going to war with him from Day 1 (been beholden to Hillary Clinton essentially), they could've had big Trumpian aid for working mothers, free childcare, infrastructure spending plan, and might've even kept taxes higher for the rich! The guy was a major Democratic donor and could've been schmoozed to the welfare state/big government side with very little effort.
Biden's commission to court pack is a dodge, but he only needs voters to not make the "destroying norms" a reason to stay home or vote against him. He hopes to skate, and polling shows he's skated on so many issues already. If he actually up and loses the election he's favored to win, people are going to look back at doddering about the street violence, calling press lids for the day in the final months of the campaign, and failing to stake out a moderate, solid position opposing his left wing. If he wins, even barely, nothing will happen because there's nothing to learn (and expect another Obama-style midterm defeat when the left gets too complacent)
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
It's one of those things where democratic leadership doesn't understand polls and republican leadership does.
The only feasible position you can take is currently hugely unpopular with the public and your base. GOP : Do it anyways and explain why in a way your base likes. Democrats : Be paralyzed out of fear and do nothing.
People can change their minds. This also happened on impeachment : it polled very poorly until democratic leadership came out in favor, then suddenly it was the same as any other partisan issue. At this point, not packing the courts would be a cowardly abdication of responsibility, frankly.
The biggest thing to point at, even before packing the courts, was how Feinstein led perhaps the most friendly questioning of a SC nominee ever by the opposing party at a moment when it makes no goddamn sense to do so. The problem is almost entirely on Feinstein's shoulders, too. She's the dem leadership in judiciary.
There are various tactics they could have used to delay, which they should have. Not even significant delays, but successfully pushing it back a couple extra days would have calmed the rage of their base.
(and expect another Obama-style midterm defeat when the left gets too complacent)
I don't think this will happen again. 2010 was a unique concurrence of events and I, for one, will not have forgotten Trump in a mere two years.
The potential to use this “unprecedented” event as a talking point to potentially win Congress and the presidency seems to be more important to Democrats than the policy consequences of the event itself.
If the Dems are using it as a talking point then they are doing the only thing they can do. There is no way for the Dems to stop the vote if the Republicans want to go ahead.
"We can't do anything about it" is one of the oldest tricks in the book to justify inaction on the part of an organization that never really cared despite notionally being very concerned about the issue. They certainly could have done more, but it really doesn't seem to be very high on their priority list.
please enlighten me. What more could they have done that would actually have done something?
Holding the threat of changing the court size is the obvious one. There were more options - such as the filibuster or tying up the nomination with questions of credibility - that they squandered on either a losing battle (Gorsuch) or insufficiently credible/meaningful allegations (Kavanaugh). If they had the filibuster right now, for example, that very well could have sunk the entire nomination.
Are such measures merely token efforts, that wouldn't actually work? Possibly. But what does it tell you about where their priorities lie if there's no interest in putting up even a token fight against the nomination?
The potential to use this “unprecedented” event as a talking point to potentially win Congress and the presidency seems to be more important to Democrats than the policy consequences of the event itself.
If the Dems are using it as a talking point then they are doing the only thing they can do. There is no way for the Dems to stop the vote if the Republicans want to go ahead.
"We can't do anything about it" is one of the oldest tricks in the book to justify inaction on the part of an organization that never really cared despite notionally being very concerned about the issue. They certainly could have done more, but it really doesn't seem to be very high on their priority list.
please enlighten me. What more could they have done that would actually have done something?
There was a memo that went around capital hill detailing some of the things they could do and chose not to.
Exercising Rights To Delay Senate Action Generally
Speaking at Length — In the absence of a unanimous consent agreement governing time to debate or cloture, a Senator who gets recognized to speak can speak at length.
Objecting to Routine Consent Agreements — Any Senator may object to routine unanimous consent agreements, such as those to adjourn, to recess, to approve the Journal, or to dispense with the Morning Hour. Forcing roll-call votes on routine motions to adjourn or recess would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time that it would take for Senators to come to vote.
New Legislative Day — If the Senate adjourns without a unanimous consent agreement providing for the handling of routine business at the beginning of a new legislative day, a new legislative day starts with the morning hour, a 2-hour period with a number of required procedures. As part of the morning hour, any Senator could make a non-debatable motion to proceed to an item on the Senate calendar.
Objecting to Lifting Quorum Calls — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent to lifting a quorum call, forcing a recorded vote that would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time it takes for Senators to come to vote.
Motions to Adjourn and Recess — Any Senator can move to adjourn, to adjourn to a day certain, or to take a recess. All of these motions take precedence over a motion to proceed to the consideration of a nomination. Senators could make a series of motions of this sort to force roll-call votes.
Layover Requirements — Senators can raise points of order if measures have not lain over sufficiently under Rule XIV or XVII.
Raising Points of Order — Any Senator who gets recognized by the Presiding Officer can raise a point of order making a procedural objection. Once the Presiding Officer rules, a Senator can appeal the ruling of the Chair, and Senators can demand a roll-call vote. One could imagine an extremely large number of procedural questions on which to vote.
Filing Cloture — If the Senate is not governed by a unanimous consent agreement or post cloture, a Senator who got recognized could move to proceed to a measure or series of measures and file cloture on the motion(s) to proceed. Two days later, the Senate would be required to vote on the cloture motion(s). The number of these motions is limited only by the number of items on the calendar.
Fast-Track Vehicles — Several fast-track statutes, including the Congressional Budget Act, the Congressional Review Act, the War Powers Act, and the Arms Export Control Act, give any Senator the right to move to proceed to a vehicle and force a roll-call vote and sometimes a period of debate. For example, any Senator could submit a concurrent resolution on the budget, and by precedent, if action has not yet been taken on a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, then the resolution would be immediately placed on the calendar. Once on the calendar, any Senator could move to proceed to the resolution, forcing a roll-call vote on the motion to proceed. Meanwhile, resolutions of disapproval under the CRA can be petitioned out of committee with 30 signatures after 20 calendar days. Such measures could be filed en masse now.
Utilizing Rule XIV — Any Senator can have any legislative measure placed on the calendar in two legislative days under Rule XIV. Leader Schumer could ask every Democratic Senator to introduce bills on their favorite subjects en masse and seek to put them on the calendar via rule XIV. Once they were on the calendar two legislative days later, if Schumer could get the floor, he could move to proceed to each in turn, file cloture, withdraw his motion to proceed, move to another, file cloture, withdraw his motion to proceed, and continue to repeat, stacking up an almost endless series of votes on motions to invoke cloture on motions to proceed to Democratic priorities, until the Majority Leader shut the Senate down.
To prevent this strategy, the Majority Leader would have to keep the Senate locked down post cloture at all times and prevent the Democratic Leader from getting recognition, or continue to recess the Senate to prevent there ever being another legislative day. If the Majority Leader did the latter, the Democratic leader could still file serial motions to proceed to bills already on the calendar, so long as he could gain recognition to make the motions. This strategy requires there being an opportunity for motions to be made.
House Measures Requiring Senate Action
Impeachment — If the House of Representatives exercised its impeachment power, then the rules of the Senate require the Senate to immediately address that matter.
Amendments Between Houses — If the House of Representatives passed amendments to Senate-passed bills now pending in the House and sent those over to the Senate, those messages between Houses would be privileged in the Senate. Thus, in the absence of cloture or a unanimous consent agreement governing the Senate floor, a Senator could ask that such a message be laid before the Senate and make motions in connection with the message that would require immediate roll-call votes or offer a motion to concur (or concur with an amendment) and file cloture, once again forcing a roll-call vote after two days.
Short-Term Funding — The House of Representatives could insist on very short-term funding measures until the Leadership of both Houses came to agreement on proceedings for the balance of the year. Short-term funding measures would then require more-frequent roll-call votes.
War Powers Resolutions — Generally, within a certain number of days, the Senate has to take up WPRs or any Senator can move to proceed.
There are likely additional measures available that, if passed by the House, would demand action in the Senate.
Exercising Rights in the Judiciary Committee
Time for Review and Hearing — The Judiciary Committee customarily takes time to review the record of Supreme Court nominees. Democrats should demand that the Committee take this time before a hearing commences.
Objecting to Committees Meeting — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent for committees to meet more than two hours after the Senate convenes on a day in which the Senate is in session.
Full Hearings — Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee could try to continue the proceedings of any hearing that the Chairman calls.
Hold Over Committee Action — Under Judiciary Committee rule I, paragraph 3, “At the request of any member . . . a . . . nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later.” A Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee should demand that the nomination be held over for the week.
Denying a Quorum — Republicans need to produce the presence of a quorum of Judiciary Committee Senators to report out the nomination. Democrats might choose not to help produce the necessary Senators.
It's not exhaustive but there is a LOT more they could have done to resist if they thought it was important to stop it.
Holding the threat of changing the court size is the obvious one.
Republican politicians knew it was empty from the jump because Democrats don't have (and wouldn't even with a big win this election) enough support among their own senators to do it.
Holding the threat of changing the court size is the obvious one.
Republican politicians knew it was empty from the jump because Democrats don't have (and wouldn't even with a big win this election) enough support among their own senators to do it.
Sounds like a group of staunch, principled defenders of important rulings such as Roe v Wade.
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
It's one of those things where democratic leadership doesn't understand polls and republican leadership does.
The only feasible position you can take is currently hugely unpopular with the public and your base. GOP : Do it anyways and explain why in a way your base likes. Democrats : Be paralyzed out of fear and do nothing.
People can change their minds. This also happened on impeachment : it polled very poorly until democratic leadership came out in favor, then suddenly it was the same as any other partisan issue. At this point, not packing the courts would be a cowardly abdication of responsibility, frankly.
The biggest thing to point at, even before packing the courts, was how Feinstein led perhaps the most friendly questioning of a SC nominee ever by the opposing party at a moment when it makes no goddamn sense to do so. The problem is almost entirely on Feinstein's shoulders, too. She's the dem leadership in judiciary.
There are various tactics they could have used to delay, which they should have. Not even significant delays, but successfully pushing it back a couple extra days would have calmed the rage of their base.
(and expect another Obama-style midterm defeat when the left gets too complacent)
I don't think this will happen again. 2010 was a unique concurrence of events and I, for one, will not have forgotten Trump in a mere two years.
Even taking your characterization as fact, packing the courts or impeaching are nuclear options are not things that can be solved merely by partisan polarization. Everyone knows that impeachment basically requires some form of bipartisanship to remove the president. Which is one reason what the Democrats did was so bad. Everyone knows the consequences of court packing, which is partially why one of the most dictatorial, corrupt, demagogic, and popular presidents (at least in modern American history) couldn't get it done.
No matter what you say you will not convince the enough of the public that court packing is a "turnabout is fair play" situation, and that's because it's not. If they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch they might have even taken the senate in 2018. That's where you should look. Never looking to the next battle but fighting the last one. Ironically Republicans do this on issues that are Democrat strengths.
There was a 0% chance the democrats took the senate in 2018 under any circumstances. They had to defend 18 seats and the GOP had to defend 6, iirc. It was one of the most lopsided senate classes ever. The democrats wound up being +7 in the popular vote nationwide and still lost a few seats due to their locations. It would have needed to be something like +10 or +12 to get the Senate.
I feel like I have to address this myth that a lot of the conservatives in this thread have said: that the actions the democrats took with Kavanaugh were super unpopular.
They weren't. At the end of the hearings, only 41% of people wanted Kavanaugh on the court. Most people wanted the hearings to occur and wanted a more thorough investigation, according to polls (a real one, not the sham one that they called on the FBI to do, where the FBI talked to 0 witnesses and claimed he was exonerated).
The democrats best performing times were during the hearings, and their worst were after them, after the focus had left Kavanaugh. It was one of the best periods of polling they had aside from the initial tax bill.
This is one of those echo chamber things : to anyone not a conservative, his behavior was disgusting. I'm not even talking about the alleged behavior that he denied. The things he admitted to and the way he acted in the hearing itself really turned off voters, especially female ones, with whom he was down something like 20-25 points at the end.
Ya you really have to be drinking the republican kool aid to not see Kavanaugh for the garbage human being he is. Not only for his past actions but the way he acted during his confirmation. Also an even worse judge, you know you are bad when you write an option for a minority ruling and get called out by your own chief justice of the same party.
On October 25 2020 12:30 Nevuk wrote: There was a 0% chance the democrats took the senate in 2018 under any circumstances. They had to defend 18 seats and the GOP had to defend 6, iirc. It was one of the most lopsided senate classes ever. The democrats wound up being +7 in the popular vote nationwide and still lost a few seats due to their locations. It would have needed to be something like +10 or +12 to get the Senate.
I feel like I have to address this myth that a lot of the conservatives in this thread have said: that the actions the democrats took with Kavanaugh were super unpopular.
They weren't. At the end of the hearings, only 41% of people wanted Kavanaugh on the court. Most people wanted the hearings to occur and wanted a more thorough investigation, according to polls (a real one, not the sham one that they called on the FBI to do, where the FBI talked to 0 witnesses and claimed he was exonerated).
The democrats best performing times were during the hearings, and their worst were after them, after the focus had left Kavanaugh. It was one of the best periods of polling they had aside from the initial tax bill.
This is one of those echo chamber things : to anyone not a conservative, his behavior was disgusting. I'm not even talking about the alleged behavior that he denied. The things he admitted to and the way he acted in the hearing itself really turned off voters, especially female ones, with whom he was down something like 20-25 points at the end.
Once the focus left Kavanaugh and went onto the ... guh, fucking caravan, that small gain in the polls vanished.
Even that 538 data ultimately looks quite underwhelming, with a solid divide along party lines and only a slight lean towards "Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed" among independents. And much of that gain was before the allegations came out.
More importantly, it was clearly ineffective. All other questions about Kavanaugh's qualifications for the position were quickly shelved in favor of going all-in on the sexual assault allegation. It's tenuous at best to go after something that happened decades ago (no legal teeth, facts get fuzzy, questions about how relevant it is), and although he certainly came out of the whole thing looking significantly worse for wear (and not like a good SCOTUS nominee) on the content of the hearings alone... there really wasn't enough meat there to cause even the "moderate" Republicans to break rank. He got confirmed, the polls went elsewhere, and it seems like that was the end of that.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true.
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote:
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
On October 25 2020 12:45 Shingi11 wrote: Ya you really have to be drinking the republican kool aid to not see Kavanaugh for the garbage human being he is. Not only for his past actions but the way he acted during his confirmation. Also an even worse judge, you know you are bad when you write an option for a minority ruling and get called out by your own chief justice of the same party.
I think the exact opposite in fact; you have to be swigging some fermented horse urine to see the Kavanaugh debacle as anything close to showing a "garbage human being," or in viewing his behavior as anything other than merited in the face of unprovable allegations from decades earlier from someone who couldn't even show acquaintance with the accused, or bring corroboration that didn't immediately plead no knowledge of the fact. I'll add a slight asterisk if you include Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Brett Kavanaugh, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy (...) are also garbage human beings, because that does show only a flippant desire to hate his neighbor, rather than a malicious desire against important targets.
In the now closed presidential debate thread, Kwark wrote: I think he’s just confused and doesn’t realize that most of what he said is contradictory, verifiably false, or meaningless. I did like the immediate endorsement of the electoral college after democracy though. He loves that we get to vote, but he also loves that the winner isn’t the guy who got more votes.
Verifiably false? Tony Bobulinsky, business partner of Hunter Biden, verified that the Hunter Biden / Joe Biden corruption allegations are true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xURq1DGwjc
If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would have no reason to campaign for votes outside of major cities. I think that would be fundamentally worse for the country. Also, states with smaller populations would lose a lot of electoral power.
What exactly about what I said is contradictory?
On October 25 2020 11:08 KwarK wrote:
On October 25 2020 09:43 Introvert wrote: With my normal skepticism about polls noted, Barrett's confirmation has generally polled favorably and packing the courts has generally polled very badly. I don't know if it's apathy, other election concerns, or if the Republican's argument of "this is the precedent, when one party controls both institutions they get to seat someone" that makes this so low key.
Or maybe the Democrats learned (hah!) from 2018 that if BS rape allegations and trickery doesn't work against upper-middle class white boy Kavanaugh that nothing is going to work on someone like ACB. Court packing is still a loser, which is why Biden still dodges.
Just imagine if they hadn't filibustered Gorsuch! Things might be very different now.
The Democrats didn’t come up with bs rape allegations against Kavanaugh. Someone from his past saw him being considered for a role in public trust and came forward to speak out about his character. The Democrats weren’t involved. The only reason it took on the appearance of a partisan issue is because Republicans didn’t bother reconsidering his nomination and going with someone else. In a rational world both parties would agree that they could find someone just as qualified without the baggage to be appointed instead. But when one side insisted on forcing him through then what should have been common sense becomes a political divide.
It’s the same as the Roy Moore situation. Rather than kicking the unsavory character out of the tent and replacing him they bring him in and then insist that any attacks on him are an attack on everyone in the tent. What confuses me is why anyone who isn’t a shitbag still wants to be in the tent.
Btw, if you're willing to believe Christine Blasey Ford despite 0 corroborative evidence - you can't discount the link I've provided without yourself being contradictory.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that Hunter Biden should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. I agree with that so I don’t know why you’re arguing it.
Is it really fair that someone can show up, claim that someone did something wrong 30 years ago, have 0 corroborating evidence, and therefore stop someone from becoming a supreme court justice? Like, is that actually a good precedent?
Anyone who's good at crying alligator tears could just cause nomination reversals.
I don't think Kavanaugh is an unsavory character - there's good reason that in the USA we have "Innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it’s not used in job interviews. Hunter Biden hasn’t been found guilty of corruption, is it really fair to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court? I would argue that yes, it is fair to deny him. But clearly you disagree.
After all, you’re the one who specifically equated the two individuals with accusations against them. You’re the one who argued that if Kavanaugh were to be denied a Supreme Court seat on the basis of accusations then the same accusations against Hunter Biden should be accepted. And you’re the one who subsequently pivoted to it being unfair to deny a Supreme Court seat without a legal conviction, which neither Kavanaugh nor the individual you’re equating him with have.
I don’t know why you’re trying so hard to argue that Hunter Biden should be on the Supreme Court. Better candidates can be found.
EPT
