|
Dick Lugar did 6 terms in the senate. But he voted to allow Obama's judicial picks to proceed, and got shredded for it in the primary, losing to Richard Mourdock (whose eventual comments about rape cost him the election to Joe Donnelly) "How do I avoid a primary" is the number one question for senators right now, and as the Lugar example shows just because they aren't at risk this election (with ballot access closing) that doesn't mean a thing - Lugar voted for Sotomayor 3 years before his primary and was still hammered for it. Of course the fun thin to imagine is that the Dems lose the general and retake the Senate. In which case, since the Senate is seated Jan 3rd and the President Jan 20th, they could in theory fill the spot before President Cruz appoints Roy Moore to the seat. I'd expect that if that's the case the Republicans will do something to preclude that though, just like how they are moving to prevent the Dems from being able to filibuster an ACA repeal, the budget, and a tax bill next session.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:I'm at a loss as to how you can tie replacing batteries to Thomas' silence. Surely, if Scalia were keeping him charged, he'd be more verbose?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
There's nothing stopping the GOP from just never confirming a Democratically nominated justice. Even if Hillary wins the election, they could just settle in for four years of 4-4 and try to wait out RBG. I mention this because it seems like in the recent past, every time you realize "There's nothing stopping the GOP from X," X is exactly what happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:There's nothing stopping the GOP from just never confirming a Democratically nominated justice. Even if Hillary wins the election, they could just settle in for four years of 4-4 and try to wait out RBG. I mean, nothing other than losing control of the Senate, which will happen if Hillary wins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Who cares if there's a precedent though? The process was plainly laid out by the founding fathers and Obama blew Romney up so it's not like the people aren't speaking here
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Nice little article about the economy of the 90s, and how the trade deficit, monetary policy, asset bubbles and full employment are all related. Given the economic situation we are in and some of the monetary policy proposals being put out (and trade deals) probably worth reading to get some understanding for what we face. If the existent system is going to keep trucking, it needs to achieve full employment - that will shift power back towards the workers somewhat, and wages and wealth accumulation among the workers will boost, and inequality can start to drop. But we've actively fought full employment since the 70s, and the present situation is the result. So now we are seeing a lot of unrest manifesting in different ways, but it ultimately comes down to the demand for a return for the security and voice that came from full employment. if people are interested I have more on this flagged that I could post, most of them are articles by Jeff Spross, Ryan Cooper, and a few others
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:I'm at a loss as to how you can tie replacing batteries to Thomas' silence. Surely, if Scalia were keeping him charged, he'd be more verbose? please come off it. I mean cultivating outrage is cool and all but you could at least find a good reason
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
There's a lot more to Thomas than his race, Geoff. For example, his bad reputation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Nice little article about the economy of the 90s, and how the trade deficit, monetary policy, asset bubbles and full employment are all related. Yes please. We should bring back the general economic thread. It's been years and years (I know be the change I want to see etc) and it was really handy even for my professional life when it existed. The economic crisis thread has been a good substitute this last month but I used to really dig the rss+ vibe that thread had
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
No, it is racist to pretend that Thomas was Scalia's monkey, Geoff is right. We could just as easily call Scalia Thomas's monkey. When we see a white guy and a black guy in general agreement, why must we say the black guy is the one following the white guy's lead? Let's all agree that Scalia was bad and Thomas is bad. There's no reason to make Thomas both bad and also somehow less capable intellectually than Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Edit: Whoops, double post. Hellblazer 187 concurs with the the post above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:We could just as easily call Scalia Thomas's monkey. Scalia is the one with the angry, wordy opinions. Thomas is the one who grunt concurrence. It's an incorrect characterization, but it's not simple racism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:There's a lot more to Thomas than his race, Geoff. For example, his bad reputation. He's no angel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:why must we say the black guy is the one following the white guy's lead? Especially given that Thomas is more extreme and out there than Scalia. At least Scalia believed in stare decisis and was not eager to overturn ancient hundred-year-old decisions. Thomas doesn't give a gently caress, if he believes that a prior decision was wrongly decided, regardless of how old it is or how much precedent was built on top of it, thats the end of the analysis for him. Thomas would have the court blow up enormous settled areas of the law and start over from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:No, it is racist to pretend that Thomas was Scalia's monkey, Geoff is right. We could just as easily call Scalia Thomas's monkey. When we see a white guy and a black guy in general agreement, why must we say the black guy is the one following the white guy's lead? It was a joke. The joke doesn't work if the puppet is the dead one. If Thomas had died instead, the joke could have been reversed. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
quote:Kentucky men would have to visit a doctor twice and have signed permission from their wives before obtaining a prescription for Viagra or other such drugs for erectile dysfunction, according to a bill filed by a state legislator Thursday. quote:Marzian said she also plans to file a bill requiring potential gun buyers to obtain counseling 24 hours in advance from victims of gun violence before the purchase.  http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/12/want-viagra-not-without-note-wife/80294772/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:It was a joke. The joke doesn't work if the puppet is the dead one. If Thomas had died instead, the joke could have been reversed. Calling it a joke is a cop out. The fact that someone would think that joke shows racist tendencies. It's a joke that's been going on for 20 years, and hasn't ever been reversed. If Thomas had died nobody would have made any such joke, and you know it. So no, that post didn't help at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Especially given that Thomas is more extreme and out there than Scalia. At least Scalia believed in stare decisis and was not eager to overturn ancient hundred-year-old decisions. Thomas doesn't give a gently caress, if he believes that a prior decision was wrongly decided, regardless of how old it is or how much precedent was built on top of it, thats the end of the analysis for him. Thomas would have the court blow up enormous settled areas of the law and start over from scratch. I actually agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Calling it a joke is a cop out. The fact that someone would think that joke shows racist tendencies. You don't have to have racist tendencies to think that's a joke. Just because Thomas is black doesn't make every insult about race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
The way the republicans are talking about Obama replacing Scalia is fuckin maddening. George Will was just on Fox News Sunday and said that if Harry Reid was still majority leader he would have "ignored Senate precedent" to remove the filibuster and allow Obama to "get away with" appointing a replacement, like he's perniciously sneaking some poo poo past them instead of, you know, executing his constitutional duties as president. It's obvious naked partisanship at its worst, and they can't even come up with a legitimate sounding reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do it. Rubio was on right before that and literally said "he can appoint someone if he wants to but the Senate isn't going to confirm it, period." No explanation required or offered. Can we goonrush these assholes' congressional e-mails or something? Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah all I see is you engaging in race baiting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Who cares if there's a precedent though? The process was plainly laid out by the founding fathers and Obama blew Romney up so it's not like the people aren't speaking here Frankly, I think it's best to just assume that the 'right' thing for the GOP to do is to block this nomination because it's in their best interest to do so. Their is no clause to stipulate when they need to fulfill their obligation and any talk of precedent is just bullshit equivocating over culture and norms which are always subject to change. Were the situation reversed I'd be screaming for the Dems to do the same. That said, it's up to the Democrats to use this issue to turn out the votes they need to topple the GOP senate majority and ensure Clinton/Sanders enter the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Boon posted:
Ah, so we just have to trust DWS to not screw this up then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Why isn't Howard Dean in charge of the DNC anymore? I seem to remember things going real well when he was running the show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Why isn't Howard Dean in charge of the DNC anymore? I seem to remember things going real well when he was running the show. When he was in charge, a ton of the Democrats in congress were barely less conservative than their Republican counterparts, which is why they'd been able to win. They were kinda OK for avoiding filibusters, but terribly unreliable for supporting progressive stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Ah, so we just have to trust DWS to not screw this up then. Prepare for Democrats to somehow lose Senate seats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Why isn't Howard Dean in charge of the DNC anymore? I seem to remember things going real well when he was running the show. Getting enough Democrats to run for and win seats everywhere required them to run people that weren't hewing close to the party platform at all (and in a sense happens every time a party as big-tent as the ones you get in a two-party system gets into a dominating position: the rifts within the party start becoming more latent)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Prepare for Democrats to somehow lose Senate seats. Anybody who has been a Democrat for more than a couple election cycles is prepared for it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
smg77 posted:Anybody who has been a Democrat for more than a couple election cycles is prepared for it. The loving worst political party in the history of the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:The loving worst political party in the history of the world. Most modern countries have been moving more towards conservatism the last 30-40 years. Even when liberals get elected as blowback it doesn't last that long or they don't control things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
It's time to break the liberal/conservative frame with some Bookchin Anarchism. We should be redrawing maps and rewriting the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I really can't believe that no one is going to challenge republicans on the notion that it's bad for a president to do things in an election year. It's not like this is December 2016, why is it just accepted as a given that it would be anything but normal for Obama to continue being president in the fourth year of his term?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:The loving worst political party in the history of the world. No, not really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I really can't believe that no one is going to challenge republicans on the notion that it's bad for a president to do things in an election year. It's not like this is December 2016, why is it just accepted as a given that it would be anything but normal for Obama to continue being president in the fourth year of his term? A whole bunch of people are going to challenge them, including a large number of sitting Senators, multiple Presidential candidates, and the President himself. Won't affect the Fox News narrative any, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Most modern countries have been moving more towards conservatism the last 30-40 years. Even when liberals get elected as blowback it doesn't last that long or they don't control things. Unfortunately liberalism requires people to actually think about things, while conservatism appeals to the simple-minded who like one-sentence answers to every problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Stop crying racism over an overblown interpretation of an idle internet comment. Enkmar posted:please come off it. I mean cultivating outrage is cool and all but you could at least find a good reason This is USPOL. On the rare occasions that it's not consumed by the eternal slapfight, this is the thread where we make fun of Republicans for referencing bullshit memes with racial background. The thread where we mock Republicans for repeating lies ad nauseum until they and their base truly believe that food stamps are going to pay for lobster dinner for the thug in the Cadillac. The thread where we scoff at the "Black On Black Violence"/"What about Chicago?" responses to police assassinations and Dylan Roof. I'd assumed that we did so because we recognize the inherent poison of those tactics-not that we recognized the inherent poison of Republicans utilizing those tactics. ohgodwhat posted:It was a joke. The joke doesn't work if the puppet is the dead one. If Thomas had died instead, the joke could have been reversed. Right? And why do Democrats get all in a tizzy about people making chimp jokes about Obama? Look at all of these political cartoons that showed Bush as a chimp. It's a doublestandard! Why choose Thomas? I mean, we've all heard of Scalito before, right? Seems like he'd be a much easier target for that joke. DACK FAYDEN posted:Can't replace the man's batteries in public! I didn't read any racism into what he said, but apparently my interpretation and yours are mutually exclusive? They're not mutually exclusive-I'm just well aware of the view on parts of the left that Thomas is Scalia's lackey (see: posts in both SCOTUSthread and Dead Pool), so I find that a far more plain meaning of the joke than whatever humor exists in the benign meaning of replacing batteries. Crowsbeak posted:Yeah all I see is you engaging in race baiting. You uncritically accepted a myth you've seen repeatedly about someone you dislike. It happens to all of us. The question is what you do afterwards. You can assess what led you to be incorrect, incorporating the new learning into your viewpoints and being on guard for similar situations in the future.... or you can tone police the person who corrected you. Either way is fine-but I'll be content continuing to correct the record and pointing out that a lie stripping agency from the black justice to double the influence of the white one should raise eyebrows. For actual content-who are the most awkward people that Obama could put up as a potential justice? Klobuchar and Warren have both been mentioned a few times and are from pretty safe seats... you'd think senators would be uncomfortable sitting on their nominations and then having to continue to work with them for the next couple decades. Hillary would be even less likely of course, but would the GOP agree to put her on the bench for a perceived advantage in November?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Interesting tidbit just came out, I guess they felt free to talk about it after Scalia's death. During the first vacancy earlier in Obama's term, one of Obama's legal advisors happened to be chatting with Scalia, when Scalia asked him to relay an unusual request back to Obama. He point-blank suggested that Obama nominate Kagan, because he knew Obama was never going to nominate someone "of his legal orient", so he at least wanted Obama to nominate "someone smart". Obama instead nominated Sotomayor, but then after a 2nd vacancy he nominated Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Remember that this is on top of that supposed 'anti-terror' division they have which is basically what they would deploy in the event of protests such as the Occupy movement or BLM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:For actual content-who are the most awkward people that Obama could put up as a potential justice? Klobuchar and Warren have both been mentioned a few times and are from pretty safe seats... you'd think senators would be uncomfortable sitting on their nominations and then having to continue to work with them for the next couple decades. Hillary would be even less likely of course, but would the GOP agree to put her on the bench for a perceived advantage in November? Well two of those people are pushing 70, so are bad choices for that reason alone. And the GOP would sooner put Satan himself on the court before they'd agree to Hillary Clinton. The most awkward for the Republicans will be lower court justices that they already confirmed with no complaint. So that's what Obama will probably do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Well two of those people are pushing 70, so are bad choices for that reason alone. And the GOP would sooner put Satan himself on the court before they'd agree to Hillary Clinton. I agree with this, with the caveat that it may be an older judge who would like the honor of a nomination, knowing he won't get there. A younger judge like Srinivasan would normally be a good candidate, except this time around he'd go through hell with no chance at a nomination, and when it came time for a real nomination, he wouldn't want to be tainted with a failed nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:55
|
|