|
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 October 04 2018 23:55 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report. Not exactly a surprise, and now Republicans can rely on an investigation having been done to look better on this than they deserve. There's still the clear perjury of course but at the end of the day Dems managed to fail the optics of the opposing party attempting to confirm a potentially rapist candidate superfast because they're afraid the next elections might mean they lose the ability to confirm whoever they want, which is quite an impressive thing to fail at. an investigation not showing what you want it to show isn’t bad optics? an investigation was absolutely necessary. people go into an investigation understanding that it may prove them right or wrong, and being ‘proven’ (for lack of a better word) wrong is a perfectly acceptable outcome. i would say it is not bad optics, but bad expectations. one does not go into an investigation expecting a guilty verdict.
They're the ones who asked for one week, now there's been a one week investigation and it didn't show anything one way or another, so the only difference is that now republicans have cover. It's pretty bad when it comes to facts, as there was ground to demand a thorough investigation, but it's inexcusable when it comes to optics and politics.
|
On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath.
I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country.
I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on.
|
Probably the best argument against Kavanaugh at this point is not the accusations but him essentially morphing into a member of the Republican political team during the hearing. Especially him saying "what goes around comes around." Its clearly a threat to act with personal animus while a judge. He could have acted defensively and passionately without becoming a political team member as he did.
|
On October 05 2018 00:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:55 brian wrote:On October 04 2018 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report. Not exactly a surprise, and now Republicans can rely on an investigation having been done to look better on this than they deserve. There's still the clear perjury of course but at the end of the day Dems managed to fail the optics of the opposing party attempting to confirm a potentially rapist candidate superfast because they're afraid the next elections might mean they lose the ability to confirm whoever they want, which is quite an impressive thing to fail at. an investigation not showing what you want it to show isn’t bad optics? an investigation was absolutely necessary. people go into an investigation understanding that it may prove them right or wrong, and being ‘proven’ (for lack of a better word) wrong is a perfectly acceptable outcome. i would say it is not bad optics, but bad expectations. one does not go into an investigation expecting a guilty verdict. They're the ones who asked for one week, now there's been a one week investigation and it didn't show anything one way or another, so the only difference is that now republicans have cover. It's pretty bad when it comes to facts, as there was ground to demand a thorough investigation, but it's inexcusable when it comes to optics and politics.
this only makes sense from a hyper partisan lense. they don’t have cover, they have a clearer picture of the truth. everyone should want this.
we could argue the investigation wasn’t done well enough, and that would be at the feet of the FBI and potentially any limitation imposed (i didn’t follow whether that actually materialized or not,) but that would be a separate discussion, no?
|
On October 05 2018 00:18 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:12 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:55 brian wrote:On October 04 2018 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report. Not exactly a surprise, and now Republicans can rely on an investigation having been done to look better on this than they deserve. There's still the clear perjury of course but at the end of the day Dems managed to fail the optics of the opposing party attempting to confirm a potentially rapist candidate superfast because they're afraid the next elections might mean they lose the ability to confirm whoever they want, which is quite an impressive thing to fail at. an investigation not showing what you want it to show isn’t bad optics? an investigation was absolutely necessary. people go into an investigation understanding that it may prove them right or wrong, and being ‘proven’ (for lack of a better word) wrong is a perfectly acceptable outcome. i would say it is not bad optics, but bad expectations. one does not go into an investigation expecting a guilty verdict. They're the ones who asked for one week, now there's been a one week investigation and it didn't show anything one way or another, so the only difference is that now republicans have cover. It's pretty bad when it comes to facts, as there was ground to demand a thorough investigation, but it's inexcusable when it comes to optics and politics. this only makes sense from a hyper partisan lense. they don’t have cover, they have a clearer picture of the truth. everyone should want this. we could argue the investigation wasn’t done well enough, and that would be at the feet of the FBI and potentially any limitation imposed (i didn’t follow whether that actually materialized or not,) but that would be a separate discussion, no?
How is the picture of the truth that you have now clearer than the one you had a week ago?
|
I actually see that as one of the silver linings of this debacle P6. The court has for some time been full of partisans who use every opportunity to advance their political agenda. The brazenness with which the Republicans are putting a political operative on the court will do a great deal to chip away at the illusion propagated by people like Roberts that the court is neutral. This, along with the actions of Trump and McConnel lately, are pulling back the curtain on the reality of federal appeals courts in general.
|
On October 05 2018 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:18 brian wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:55 brian wrote:On October 04 2018 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report. Not exactly a surprise, and now Republicans can rely on an investigation having been done to look better on this than they deserve. There's still the clear perjury of course but at the end of the day Dems managed to fail the optics of the opposing party attempting to confirm a potentially rapist candidate superfast because they're afraid the next elections might mean they lose the ability to confirm whoever they want, which is quite an impressive thing to fail at. an investigation not showing what you want it to show isn’t bad optics? an investigation was absolutely necessary. people go into an investigation understanding that it may prove them right or wrong, and being ‘proven’ (for lack of a better word) wrong is a perfectly acceptable outcome. i would say it is not bad optics, but bad expectations. one does not go into an investigation expecting a guilty verdict. They're the ones who asked for one week, now there's been a one week investigation and it didn't show anything one way or another, so the only difference is that now republicans have cover. It's pretty bad when it comes to facts, as there was ground to demand a thorough investigation, but it's inexcusable when it comes to optics and politics. this only makes sense from a hyper partisan lense. they don’t have cover, they have a clearer picture of the truth. everyone should want this. we could argue the investigation wasn’t done well enough, and that would be at the feet of the FBI and potentially any limitation imposed (i didn’t follow whether that actually materialized or not,) but that would be a separate discussion, no? How is the picture of the truth that you have now clearer than the one you had a week ago?
personally? obviously it is not. i don’t have access to the report. is your contention that the investigation was a sham?
if not, then those making the decision (the senate) are the ones with that clearer picture. my contention is the investigation not leading to a guilty verdict, while perhaps not what you wanted, is absolutely not bad optics; and the only way it could be is if you went into the investigation already fully expecting a guilty ‘verdict.’ and that is bad expectations, not optics.
|
On October 05 2018 00:21 On_Slaught wrote:
I actually see that as one of the silver linings of this debacle P6. The court has for some time been full of partisans who use every opportunity to advance their political agenda. The brazenness with which the Republicans are putting a political operative on the court will do a great deal to chip away at the illusion propagated by people like Roberts that the court is neutral. This, along with the actions of Trump and McConnel lately, are pulling back the curtain on the reality of federal appeals courts in general.
Exactly. Republicans have completely destroyed any sense of decency and integrity in the political process since early in Obama's tenure. They've lost all moral standing on political decency and have no justification to criticize Democrats when they start playing the game.
Democrats should obstruct all they want, try to impeach BK if they get Congress back, stack the courts, etc. Do whatever they need to do. Republicans opened the Pandora's box. Play the game hard and Republicans can suck it up when they start whining about "politicizing" crap from now on. Drive it to the point where R's regret the precedent they set and maybe they'll actually want to make rules to enforce some political decency when they start to get burned by their own actions.
When you act with such a shameless lack of integrity, you don't get to criticize the other side for it anymore.
|
On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on.
Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR (FDR basically threatened to expand the SCOTUS if they wouldn't say the New Deal was constitutional (when they clearly weren't going to)). They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power.
|
On October 05 2018 00:22 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 05 2018 00:18 brian wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:55 brian wrote:On October 04 2018 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On October 04 2018 23:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sounds like 10 people were contacted and 9 were interviewed (my under was off!). Just lol. WH already leaking to Fox that there is no smoking gun in the report. Not exactly a surprise, and now Republicans can rely on an investigation having been done to look better on this than they deserve. There's still the clear perjury of course but at the end of the day Dems managed to fail the optics of the opposing party attempting to confirm a potentially rapist candidate superfast because they're afraid the next elections might mean they lose the ability to confirm whoever they want, which is quite an impressive thing to fail at. an investigation not showing what you want it to show isn’t bad optics? an investigation was absolutely necessary. people go into an investigation understanding that it may prove them right or wrong, and being ‘proven’ (for lack of a better word) wrong is a perfectly acceptable outcome. i would say it is not bad optics, but bad expectations. one does not go into an investigation expecting a guilty verdict. They're the ones who asked for one week, now there's been a one week investigation and it didn't show anything one way or another, so the only difference is that now republicans have cover. It's pretty bad when it comes to facts, as there was ground to demand a thorough investigation, but it's inexcusable when it comes to optics and politics. this only makes sense from a hyper partisan lense. they don’t have cover, they have a clearer picture of the truth. everyone should want this. we could argue the investigation wasn’t done well enough, and that would be at the feet of the FBI and potentially any limitation imposed (i didn’t follow whether that actually materialized or not,) but that would be a separate discussion, no? How is the picture of the truth that you have now clearer than the one you had a week ago? personally? obviously it is not. i don’t have access to the report. is your contention that the investigation was a sham? if not, then those making the decision are the ones with that clearer picture.
My contention is that you should expect that such a limited investigation would lead to limited results (additional limitations imposed by the WH and Grassley notwithstanding). So, given that this is politics and there was no reason to demand such a limited investigation in the first place, what they did here is just give away leverage for no reason and with very little hope of a return on investment. Which is bad.
|
On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power.
Prior judges had at least some level of decency. Let's also remember that Republicans went nuclear to remove any required aspect of bipartisanship from the process so they could push Gorsuch through.
BK is a piece of shit partisan hack that deserves no respect. I hope he regularly gets ridiculed while on the bench.
Oh, and let's not forget that this is a load of crap. Conservatives had held control of the Supreme court for the last 50 years, and the only time that Democrats held a reliable majority was the years around FDR's tenure.
|
On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR (FDR basically threatened to expand the SCOTUS if they wouldn't say the New Deal was constitutional (when they clearly weren't going to)). They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power.
This incredibly ahistoric take undermines your otherwise valid criticism a la that courts have always been political bodies. Conservatives began giving effect to their judicial program back in the 70s with decisions like Edelman v. Jordan and Milliken v. Bradley.
|
On October 05 2018 00:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:21 On_Slaught wrote:
I actually see that as one of the silver linings of this debacle P6. The court has for some time been full of partisans who use every opportunity to advance their political agenda. The brazenness with which the Republicans are putting a political operative on the court will do a great deal to chip away at the illusion propagated by people like Roberts that the court is neutral. This, along with the actions of Trump and McConnel lately, are pulling back the curtain on the reality of federal appeals courts in general. Exactly. Republicans have completely destroyed any sense of decency and integrity in the political process since early in Obama's tenure. They've lost all moral standing on political decency and have no justification to criticize Democrats when they start playing the game. Democrats should obstruct all they want, try to impeach BK if they get Congress back, stack the courts, etc. Do whatever they need to do. Republicans opened the Pandora's box. Play the game hard and Republicans can suck it up when they start whining about "politicizing" crap from now on. When you act with such a shameless lack of integrity, you don't get to criticize the other side for it anymore.
This is another one if my silver linings (I was going to save them until he was confirmed but might as well start now).
This event, combined with the last 2 years of Trumps nominations, has for the first time in my adult life made the Democratic base aware of how important of an issue this is. If liberals really internalized how important this issue was back in 2016 then I dont think Trump sniffs the white house. This event makes it so every Democrats going forward will be able to beat the SCOTUS/courts drum and the base will have no choice but to listen.
Even better, this argument will only get stronger with age every time Gorsuch/Kavanaugh are the deciding votes on some big case.
For better or worse this may also lead to increasing the courts size
My initial view is that may be good if only to decrease the power of each individual justice. I haven't put much thought into it tho.
|
On October 05 2018 00:32 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:21 On_Slaught wrote:
I actually see that as one of the silver linings of this debacle P6. The court has for some time been full of partisans who use every opportunity to advance their political agenda. The brazenness with which the Republicans are putting a political operative on the court will do a great deal to chip away at the illusion propagated by people like Roberts that the court is neutral. This, along with the actions of Trump and McConnel lately, are pulling back the curtain on the reality of federal appeals courts in general. Exactly. Republicans have completely destroyed any sense of decency and integrity in the political process since early in Obama's tenure. They've lost all moral standing on political decency and have no justification to criticize Democrats when they start playing the game. Democrats should obstruct all they want, try to impeach BK if they get Congress back, stack the courts, etc. Do whatever they need to do. Republicans opened the Pandora's box. Play the game hard and Republicans can suck it up when they start whining about "politicizing" crap from now on. When you act with such a shameless lack of integrity, you don't get to criticize the other side for it anymore. This is another one if my silver linings (I was going to save them until he was confirmed but might as well start now). This event, combined with the last 2 years of Trumps nominations, has for the first time in my adult life made the Democratic base aware of how important of an issue this is. If liberals really internalized how important this issue was back in 2016 then I dont think Trump sniffs the white house. This event makes it so every Democrats going forward will be able to beat the SCOTUS/courts drum and the base will have no choice but to listen. Even better, this argument will only get stronger with age every time Gorsuch/Kavanaugh are the deciding votes on some big case. For better or worse this may also lead to increasing the courts size My initial view is that may be good if only to decrease the power of each individual justice. I haven't put much thought into it tho.
I really hope Dems throw shame completely out the window.
Make Republicans the enemy just like they did to Dems. Make the political process so shameful and overtly pathetic that the only option is for everyone to tuck their tails and reform the entire system. Republicans have proved that having no integrity pays off, so run with it and make conservatives suffer as much as possible.
|
On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power.
You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon.
And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals.
Edit: Also, FDR’s push to change the court was a response to an imperial court who tried to undermine efforts by the government(both congress and White House) to combat the blight of the Great Depression. The country was literally falling apart and rotting, while the Court ruled on if those efforts were allowed. This was after years of robber barons stacking the courts with pro-business, anti-labor judges. It didn’t succeed, but it scared the shit out of the court and reminded them they were not beyond the reach of congress.
|
On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:
There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings.
BTW the number of professors who signed that letter saying he is unfit is over 1,700 as of yesterday. I dont know the total number of law professors in the country, but that is a significant chunk.
They will be delivering the letter and signatures to the Senate today (and adding more as they come in).
|
On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals.
Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways).
Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have done, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones.
Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category.
|
This whole debate made me wonder why we don't have this problem with overly politicized courts in Germany. On the surface, we require 2/3 majority in both houses to confirm judges, so they have to be accepted by most parties, and not just pushed through by one. Then of course we don't have a two-party system, so they can go into more than two directions if they are political.
But that doesn't really explain it either. Up until Gorsuch, judges in the US required 60 votes. Yet this problem has been apparent earlier already, with the Garland sham during Obamas presidency. From what i can tell, it seems to be mostly that german parties choose not to politicize the courts in the same way the US parties do, to the point where they are more happy with no one being on the court than with someone who isn't completely on their side. So in Germany, parties accept middle-ground candidates, while in the US, they don't. This makes me a bit scared that the same shit that you are doing over there could happen here, too. Because i am quite happy with courts that are widely recognized as being impartial, so everyone can respect their decisions.
Because lets be honest, it doesn't matter how this turns out now. The whole process has discredited the US supreme court totally at this point. No matter if Kav gets confirmed or not, from now on on the courts will never be seen as an impartial arbitrator, but instead as basically a stick that one side of your politics can use to beat the other side with. Which might have been the goal from the start. As far as i can tell, US republicans were very unhappy with the role the supreme court has played for a long time. So turning the court in a partisan tool is totally fine for them, because it makes that court less important.
|
On October 05 2018 00:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:
There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. BTW the number of professors who signed that letter saying he is unfit is over 1,700 as of yesterday. I dont know the total number of law professors in the country, but that is a significant chunk. They will be delivering the letter and signatures to the Senate today (and adding more as they come in).
I work with a bunch of Republican attorneys who are still in shock that a federal judge said that to the Senate. Outside the partisan rancor, there is a very different discussion about what this means for the court and legal system to have someone like BK put onto the highest court. He has made it clear that who is bringing the case before the court will factor into his ruling in some way.
|
On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category.
"Markets and capitalism is cooperation"
I can't believe you say this with a straight face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
