|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is dumb enough to try. Everyone else he'd need in Congress knows better. The Republicans are already planning to stack the NC Supreme Court and are building their entire apparatus around voter suppression. They know the only way they continue to win is by continuing to abuse the system as much as they can justify, and they will. If Trump wants to stack the SC, I don't see Congress stopping him, honestly.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes because acting like sober technocrats telling hard truths and making tough decisions while Republicans took the easy way out of throwing out red meat and howling that Washington establishment insiders were selling us out to the Saudis has been such a winning strategy as shown by the Democratic landslide in November. If only Democrats had doubled down even harder. What makes you think Democratic votes in blue states hinge on sticking it to the Saudis in a worthless jingoistic gesture?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is dumb enough to try. Everyone else he'd need in Congress knows better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The Republicans are already planning to stack the NC Supreme Court and are building their entire apparatus around voter suppression. They know the only way they continue to win is by continuing to abuse the system as much as they can justify, and they will. A democrat is going to be governor in NC, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
They are holding a special session shortly there that is ostensibly about hurricane relief but basically everyone believes that they will use this as an opportunity to increase the number of people on the NC SC before McCheese leaves office. They've pulled bullshit like this before with a bait and switch that resulted in extreme abortion restrictions
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They are holding a special session shortly there that is ostensibly about hurricane relief but basically everyone believes that they will use this as an opportunity to increase the number of people on the NC SC before McCheese leaves office. It's almost bizarre how thoroughly the Republicans are rejecting democratic norms. Like we can't even blame NC court stacking on Trump. It feels more and more like a conscious and deliberate occupation by a "foreign" power, or at least a power foreign to the rest of America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
lol if anyone thinks anything whatsoever will hold congressional republicans back from steamrolling any and every tradition and custom to turbofuck democrats on everything. They can't retaliate if they are already going to 11 out of the gate. Confirm Garland in a 15 minute special, or not, but don't make the decision based on fears of a republican backlash, they're going to be 100% nasty regardless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:A democrat is going to be governor in NC, though. ...that is part of the point of bringing it up, yes. What exactly is the "though" supposed to mean here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:...that is part of the point of bringing it up, yes. What exactly is the "though" supposed to mean here? I didn't realize they were stacking the court before mcrory leaves office. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I didn't realize they were stacking the court before mcrory leaves office. My bad. What's stoping the Dems from stacking it back? The state legislature?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's almost bizarre how thoroughly the Republicans are rejecting democratic norms. Like we can't even blame NC court stacking on Trump. This is what gets really worrisome about the old "fall in love/fall in line" adage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:What's stoping the Dems from stacking it back? The state legislature? The idea is that they can quickly pass a bill during this session to add two new justices, have the outgoing governor sign that, and then quickly nominate and confirm two Republicans to the court to put that court back in GOP control
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:What's stoping the Dems from stacking it back? The state legislature? In this case, yes. But the Democrats would be too afraid to stack the court even if they were completely able to do so, so it's a moot point. (And the unwillingness to do the poo poo they need to do to fight back is exactly why the Republicans control the legislature by a lot even though the Dems got more votes in NC)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Unwillingness to be lovely costs dems a lot every year all over the country. But it's good to have principals!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is dumb enough to try. Everyone else he'd need in Congress knows better. You sure?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But it's good to have principals! You sure?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You sure? If yall are so sure go ahead and toxx for it. Trump wants to do things that feel good. Paul Ryan et al wants to do things that help his chosen causes. He does not want them to all get obliterated when the parties' positions are reversed. Unless the Dems try to do something exceptionally cute with Garland, there won't be any profit in stacking the court and ensuring that you'll get poo poo on just hard when the Dems win next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:42
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
There is a zero chance they do this. Democrats don't have any balls and they don't actually care about the causes they say they support. The Republicans have conviction, they'd murder a thousand babies and bathe in their blood if it lowered their tax rate by half a percent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
It's a catch-22 anyway. If Democrats wanted to help anyone and had the sack to stand up and do what's right for the country Trump wouldn't be president and Republicans wouldn't controll congress right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's a catch-22 anyway. If Democrats wanted to help anyone and had the sack to stand up and do what's right for the country Trump wouldn't be president and Republicans wouldn't controll congress right now. They need someone to fall in love with and to hell with a platform. One of the downsides of wanting/getting a highly charismatic figure at the head of the party is that it quickly becomes a game of resource allocation where the resource you're trying to use most efficiently is one person with an existing more-than-full-time job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Rabble posted:There is a zero chance they do this. Democrats don't have any balls and they don't actually care about the causes they say they support. The Republicans have conviction, they'd murder a thousand babies and bathe in their blood if it lowered their tax rate by half a percent. Greed isn't a conviction but boy yes do the Republican s have greed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Greed isn't a conviction but boy yes do the Republican s have greed. They have the courage of their lack of convictions. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Greed isn't a conviction but boy yes do the Republican s have greed. There are different types of greed, and for many Republicans I know the inherent value in the accumulation of wealth and evils of taxation, when applied to them personally, is most definitely a conviction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Latest rumor is that Cruz is the frontrunner for the seat, in exchange for freeing up his Senate seat for a "Trump loyalist." Since the Senate election is in two years, this is an idiotic deal, which means it's probably real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Latest rumor is that Cruz is the frontrunner for the seat, in exchange for freeing up his Senate seat for a "Trump loyalist." The thought of Ted Cruz sitting on the Supreme Court for the next forty years makes my skin crawl.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
lol as if Ted Cruz has a normal human lifespan
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Cruz would be pretty great as a Supreme Court justice, definitely a better spot for him than as a politician.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
SCOTUS will have a string of 8–1 decisions because Ted Cruz is just that loathsome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Didn't someone post an article about how Cruz single handedly ruined the DA's office that he was in charge of. By ruin, I mean, made completely partisan. Was that him?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
If Cruz gets the seat we might see RBG reveal that she's actually another lich as her immortal army rends asunder the floor of the chamber and flays Ted alive during his first session
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Latest rumor is that Cruz is the frontrunner for the seat, in exchange for freeing up his Senate seat for a "Trump loyalist." This rumor seems to come from GotNews.com, which is part right-wing attack dog and part troll edit: and run by the founder of WeSearchR, the site that lets people set bounties for dirt on liberals. The article itself spends more time begging for donations to fight the "lying mainstream media" than on its anonymous source. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/charles-chuck-johnson-gotnews-rolling-stone
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
On one hand, Senate Republicans hate Cruz and would never confirm him. On the other hand, confirming him would get him out of the Senate. It's a tossup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
The ultimate comedy scenario would be if the Senate appointed him, but took the opportunity to piss all over him. In retaliation, Justice Cruz strikes down every law they send his way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Pretty sure Trump can't stand Cruz though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Has there been any actual talk about who "Trump" is going to appoint? If its anything like his cabinet I expect our next Supreme Court Justice to be a huge proponent of the for-profit prison industry and corporate arbitration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Hillary
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Rabble posted:Has there been any actual talk about who "Trump" is going to appoint? If its anything like his cabinet I expect our next Supreme Court Justice to be a huge proponent of the for-profit prison industry and corporate arbitration. He's gonna appoint Tancredo, remember that guy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Rabble posted:Has there been any actual talk about who "Trump" is going to appoint? If its anything like his cabinet I expect our next Supreme Court Justice to be a huge proponent of the for-profit prison industry and corporate arbitration. He's floated his short list, here's some of the people on it: William Pryor, 11th Circuit - Called Roe v. Wade the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law" Diane Sykes, 7th Circuit - Voted with the challengers of the contraceptive mandate of the ACA Raymond Kethledge, 6th Circuit, former clerk for Anthony Kennedy - Wrote an opinion that government of cell-site data isn't a search under the 4th Amendment Joan Larsen, Michigan Supreme Court, former clerk for Antonin Scalia Steve Colloton, 8th Circuit, former clerk for William Rehnquist Neil Gorsuch, 10th Circuit Amul Thapar, Eastern District of Kentucky Sen. Mike Lee, never served as a judge Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court David Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court, clerked for Clarence Thomas Thomas Hardiman, 3rd Circuit - wrote a dissent in a decision that upheld a New Jersey law prohibiting handgun ownership without a permit Raymond Gruender, 8th Circuit - wrote that denial of contraceptive coverage is not sex discrimination Margaret Ryan, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Sen. Ted Cruz, clerked for William Rehnquist Of course, since whoever talks to Trump last wins, he's just as likely to appoint his sister or whoever as he is any of these people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Rabble posted:Has there been any actual talk about who "Trump" is going to appoint? If its anything like his cabinet I expect our next Supreme Court Justice to be a huge proponent of the for-profit prison industry and corporate arbitration. Not since October, so who knows what he's thinking now? But prior to the election, these were his lists of candidates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
I'm surprised that one Alabama judge who keeps getting kicked off the court for putting the Ten Commandments everywhere isn't on the list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 18:02
|
|