|
euphronius posted:The decision is to hold hearings or not. Obama will nominate someone soon after the funeral imho. Yeah but it's already obvious that Republicans don't even want to hold hearings, let alone confirm a nomination. E: this conflict is symbolic of how the very purpose of government and governing has been perverted from performing your obligated duty and having to reach across the aisle to get important work done to obstruction and partisanship at all costs. Even with all the problems of pork barrel spending to cut legislative deals, now we can't even manage that that government has become so dysfunctional. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Feb 18, 2016 |
# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:39 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 12:17 |
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:What's great about Scalia dying is that the need to nominate a replacement Supreme Court justice is putting Republican obstructionism in such naked, plain view that even Truth Is In The Middle journalism can't disguise it and how only now it's dawning on a few Republicans that "hey wait a second, maybe our immediate reflex to block Obama on doing literally anything is kind of a bad look for us...". nobody is going to care about this who wasn't already going to vote against the republicans
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:45 |
|
Are Republicans pulling some bullshit where their won't be a recess until after the next election?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:51 |
|
GreenNight posted:Are Republicans pulling some bullshit where their won't be a recess until after the next election? Almost definitely.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:54 |
|
corn in the bible posted:nobody is going to care about this who wasn't already going to vote against the republicans Counterpoint: Any moderate who is considering voting for the GOP will be turned off by this.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:05 |
|
Pillow Hat posted:Counterpoint: Any moderate who is considering voting for the GOP will be turned off by this. moderates don't really exist
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:10 |
|
I kind of felt that the GOP was already doing it's hardest to alienate moderates with such candidates as Donald "Mexico will pay for this wall" Trump and Ted "I support constitutional amendments that would grant a fetus full personhood" Cruz. The harder the GOP pushes to the right, the more moderates they leave on the left side.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:11 |
|
corn in the bible posted:moderates don't really exist lol
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:31 |
|
corn in the bible posted:moderates don't really exist You know how no matter horrible or obvious a question is on a poll there is still a good 20% who don't know where they stand on the issue of fuckmurder? Those are your moderates. And when they do vote they always vote republican because hats the party with no ideological consistency at all.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:39 |
|
Should I die I would like warsz to replace me in my shitposts
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:46 |
|
Al! posted:You know how no matter horrible or obvious a question is on a poll there is still a good 20% who don't know where they stand on the issue of fuckmurder? Those are your moderates. And when they do vote they always vote republican because hats the party with no ideological consistency at all. Undecided Moderates are the dumbest motherfuckers in American politics and the amount of pandering they receive is comical
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:51 |
|
Al! posted:You know how no matter horrible or obvious a question is on a poll there is still a good 20% who don't know where they stand on the issue of fuckmurder? Those are your moderates. And when they do vote they always vote republican because hats the party with no ideological consistency at all. You're thinking of independents. I'm pretty sure people who self-describe as moderates lean Democratic these days.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:53 |
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Undecided Moderates are the dumbest motherfuckers in American politics and the amount of pandering they receive is comical Yeah, when you consider that presidential elections are often decided by like 100,000 of the stupidest people Ohio has to serve up, it's really a bit frightening.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:54 |
|
quote:WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is looking to nominate a Supreme Court candidate who has enjoyed past Republican support, Vice President Joe Biden said, offering some of the first indications of the president's criteria in replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/18/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-court-scalia-successor.html
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:56 |
|
I assume 'past Republican support' just means someone who was previously confirmed unanimously.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:59 |
|
evilweasel posted:You're thinking of independents. I'm pretty sure people who self-describe as moderates lean Democratic these days. This, don't discount the democratic voting population that is simply scared shitless of the republicans.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:05 |
|
In order to really hurt the republicans the nominee needs to be by all accounts a very uncontroversial and moderate choice, in which case the republicans might just go ahead and let them in. It's in the republicans interest right now to seem as obstructionist as possible, really.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:06 |
|
Slate Action posted:I assume 'past Republican support' just means someone who was previously confirmed unanimously. Yeah, nominating someone like Sri Srinivasan who was confirmed 97-0 in 2013 would really lay bare the Republican obstructionism because even the argument that Obama was appointing some ultra-liberal wacko who post-Tea Party Republicans could never support would fall flat. That being said, it might be a more tactical move to nominate someone liberal first, let the Senate wear out their "See, Obama is only going to nominate hippie communists" arguments, and then withdraw that person and nominate someone like Sri instead. But the more time you spend playing these games, the closer you get to November and the more likely it becomes that Republican "wait until January" arguments resonate with the electorate. If Obama is nominating someone in February, sure. But if that person gets stonewalled for months and he nominates someone new in July it could come off very different.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:07 |
|
Slate Action posted:I assume 'past Republican support' just means someone who was previously confirmed unanimously. It makes the most sense by far. Let them argue why they won't have hearings for someone they unanimously approved.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:08 |
|
evilweasel posted:You're thinking of independents. I'm pretty sure people who self-describe as moderates lean Democratic these days. This is a) me, and b) generally my experience anyways. I remember calling into swing states in 2012 when I worked for Obama For America. The few folks who didn't hang up in anger generally expressed that moderate sentiment. Lots of stupidity and anger too mind you. I always said I worked for the Romney PAC when people got outraged that they were being canvassed though so it all worked out.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:10 |
|
Part of me hopes this is what causes the final crack in the GOP to make it crumble. Get a handful of moderate Republicans who utterly loathe the Tea Party enough to not care about crazy assholes deciding to primary them and confirm a new justice, though you'd almost certainly need 60 due to filibusters from Cruz and others. If his pick ends up being Sri or one of the others confirmed in the last few years with unanimous support then the GOP is going to have to pray that the media covers for them well enough. MickeyFinn posted:This is an emerging problem in arbitration, so I can't imagine it being any different if a regular judge is involved. I'd be so happy if arbitration was ruled illegal. I'd be amazed if it wouldn't be upheld as legal by a majority of the SCOTUS, but it's a loving abomination that exists solely to ensure people can be denied their rights by a pro-corporate system. Undo the god awful class action lawsuit ruling as well and put some goddamn fear back in to corporations that screw around. euphronius posted:"Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.” The Dems winning this fight heavily depends upon keeping it in the media spotlight and not having a bunch of Truth Is In The Middle bullshit. The GOP should be hammered on this but I'm not holding my breath. The difference between Kennedy and this vacancy is minor at best the GOP should be bludgeoned with it.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:30 |
|
Arbitration shouldn't be illegal, but the court needs to stop banning states from declaring arbitration clauses in specific contracts unconcionable. It's fine if two sophisticated parties want to agree to arbitration: it's not fine if businesses try to force customers into arbitration.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:32 |
|
For some reason Predictit now thinks that Obama has a 60% chance of getting a nominee confirmed (but only 30% chance of his first nominee being confirmed)
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:33 |
|
evilweasel posted:For some reason Predictit now thinks that Obama has a 60% chance of getting a nominee confirmed (but only 30% chance of his first nominee being confirmed) I think they are betting that Obama will put forth an option, the Republicans will give reasons why that option is unacceptable, and then Obama will put forth a new option that addresses those concerns.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:39 |
|
Sandra Day O'Connor says the Republicans should get on with it and do their jobs. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/sandra-day-oconnor-obama-scalia-replacement/index.html Not that it matters since they've moved way beyond even moderate Reaganism these days, but at least prominent people are speaking out against their strategy.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:41 |
|
O'Connor applying pressure should help move the GOP to actually at least debate a nominee and go through the motions. What happens with 5th circuit cases in the meantime while they're waiting - are they split among the other justices, how does that work?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:44 |
|
Jarmak posted:This, don't discount the democratic voting population that is simply scared shitless of the republicans. Yo! That's me. Ted Cruz gives me Dead Zone vibes.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:44 |
evilweasel posted:Arbitration shouldn't be illegal, but the court needs to stop banning states from declaring arbitration clauses in specific contracts unconcionable. It's fine if two sophisticated parties want to agree to arbitration: it's not fine if businesses try to force customers into arbitration. Definitely. The Roberts court's expansion of the enforceability of arbitration clauses in form contracts has been a real detriment to keeping corporations accountable or honest. Especially when they now nearly universally include Class action waivers.
|
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:46 |
|
I thought this was a good read:Joseph Fishkin posted:Constitutional hardball in Justice Scalia’s country TL;DR We all know part of this SC poo poo is Scalia's fault, and we all know that if the roles were reversed, Democrats wouldn't seriously threaten to pull this poo poo.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:52 |
|
vyelkin posted:Sandra Day O'Connor says the Republicans should get on with it and do their jobs. She's still my #1 pick for Troll Obama to nominate. She's not 100% anti-abortion which is reason enough for the far right to hate her, but seeing the GOP justify stonewalling a former justice would be amazing because the how can you honestly claim she's unqualified without coming across as the most partisan shill imaginable. Plus it'd mean you're also saying Reagan was wrong to appoint her. It's a shame she retired (though with good reason) and if she was still on the bench I can only imagine how a lot of major decisions might've turned out. Hobby Lobby might have still been 5-4 in their favor but I'm not too sure on that. I could see her changing the outcome of the VRA being gutted though.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 18:32 |
|
I still think Ted Cruz would be a better troll nomination. I would love for Ted to filibuster his own nomination.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 18:36 |
|
Doctor Butts posted:I thought this was a good read: If the shoe was on the other foot Democrats would bite the bullet and remind the people that this is what happens when we allow a Republican president.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:31 |
|
What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:38 |
|
Pillow Hat posted:What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House? Michelle will either kill him or divorce him.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:40 |
|
Pillow Hat posted:What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House? Very low, unless there's a vacacy in like year one of the next presidency. He'll be 55 when he leaves office and you don't want to nominate someone much older than that since you want your nominee to last as long as possible. Plus he may not even be interested.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:43 |
|
I know, but you know how there are people who wake up every day and have to mentally come to terms that Obama is the president? Now it'll be that way until one of them dies.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:45 |
|
evilweasel posted:Plus he may not even be interested. I wondered about this. Edit: I mean I think he would find the work enjoyable, but I guess the question is if he wants to be that busy and under stress. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:45 |
|
Pillow Hat posted:I wondered about this. Like a previous poster suggested, Michelle would kill him.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:47 |
|
I would love to read his opinions, though. Especially since he wouldn't be under any pressure to be particularly diplomatic.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:48 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 12:17 |
|
Pillow Hat posted:What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House? As great of a troll as it would be to put Obama in one of the highest offices of power in government permanently, I wouldn't wish that on the poor guy, he deserves a much needed vacation from DC
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:49 |