|
Javid posted:If we assume the filibuster has a 0% chance of success and a 100% chance it'll be removed once it's done, it's a one-shot publicity stunt and probably best used for the worst possible nomination. Replacing Scalia with Scalia 2.0 isn't that. In 2019 when RBG dies and Trump nominates Sarah Palin, that's the hill to die on. If all they get out of it is publicity (and it is), I say it’s better to let the GOP go nuclear early. Let the GOP own everything bad to come from Washington from now till the next election.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Grapplejack posted:If they do get Trump you're looking at President Pence in a scandal ridden office with a fractured party apparatus and zero faculty, since all of Trump's choices will loving leave as soon as he goes down (bar a few of the cabinet picks who won't leave). He will have no mandate. I'm curious who he would get stuck with as a VP. Probably one of the big Dems to counter his positions. How would a Democrat get confirmed by the Senate for VP? Pence would pick some squeaky clean type GOP governor or something. Given the odds Pence would lose the 2020 election , whomever he picked would likely be a frontrunner in 2024 for GOP Presidential nominee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Seems eminently reasonable to me. I'd rather Gorsuch than just about anyone else the Republicans could nominate. He's qualified, not a raving ideologue and that's about as good as we can get from the Republican Party. This is an argument in favor of filibustering Gorsuch though. Better to force McConnell to eliminate the filibuster now, when Democrats can more easily tie it to the Garland shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:This is an argument in favor of filibustering Gorsuch though. Better to force McConnell to eliminate the filibuster now, when Democrats can more easily tie it to the Garland shitshow. Nobody cares about the Garland shitshow. I'd be surprised if 5% of the US cared about Garland. Exit polling had so few dems caring about the scotus as it stood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Nobody cares about the Garland shitshow. I'd be surprised if 5% of the US cared about Garland. Exit polling had so few dems caring about the scotus as it stood. Exactly. Far more people will care about a liberal justice replacement than the trivia footnote who didn't replace Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Exactly. Far more people will care about a liberal justice replacement than the trivia footnote who didn't replace Scalia. Pure assertion, and entirely unsupported
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Pure assertion, and entirely unsupported Yes, we are on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:If they do get Trump you're looking at President Pence in a scandal ridden office with a fractured party apparatus and zero faculty, since all of Trump's choices will loving leave as soon as he goes down (bar a few of the cabinet picks who won't leave). He will have no mandate. I'm curious who he would get stuck with as a VP. Probably one of the big Dems to counter his positions. What is the procedure for selecting a new VP in this situation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the procedure for selecting a new VP in this situation? Nominated by the new president, goes through confirmation hearings like any other presidential appointment, needs to be approved by a Senate and House vote according to the 25th Amendment. Only time it happened was Gerald Ford picking Nelson Rockefeller in 1974. Before that VP vacancies just stayed vacant until the next election. e: sorry, it happened to Ford first after Agnew resigned, and then Rockefeller, but those are the only two vyelkin fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the procedure for selecting a new VP in this situation? President nominates, both houses confirm
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:lmao if you think Mike Pence is getting anything done in a world where Trump is successfully impeached. he'll be the lamest duck to ever duck So what? He'll still have House and Senate majorities, as well as the full authority of the executive. What, do you think the GOP Congress is going to start refusing to push Republican policy just because of a little thing like an impeachment? Number Ten Cocks posted:Exactly. Far more people will care about a liberal justice replacement than the trivia footnote who didn't replace Scalia. Why would people care more about replacing Ginsburg with a conservative than replacing Scalia with a liberal? No one actually cares about the "status quo" on the court when they're the ones in power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why would people care more about replacing Ginsburg with a conservative than replacing Scalia with a liberal? No one actually cares about the "status quo" on the court when they're the ones in power. You're not familiar with basic psychological biases and endowment effects? Most people fear losses more than they want equivalent gains. The vast majority of voters are going to get more upset at losing "our" seat and things getting worse than get excited about the possibility of taking "their" seat and making things better. See the disparate passion over the Scalia replacement. Number Ten Cocks fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Most people are never going to give a poo poo about specifics of the Supreme Court at any level more fine-tuned than "will he end abortion."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:You're not familiar with basic psychological biases and endowment effects? Most people fear losses more than they want equivalent gains. Oh, so by "people" you specifically meant "the Democratic base" only, rather than the Republican Senators who actually get to decide who gets to fill empty Supreme Court seats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:This is an argument in favor of filibustering Gorsuch though. Better to force McConnell to eliminate the filibuster now, when Democrats can more easily tie it to the Garland shitshow. The Dems should secretly leak a fake memo talking about plans post filibuster. Talk about how early projections show big wins for Dems in 2018 and 2020 and list a dream agenda that only requires 51 votes. Make them think this is a calculated Dem plan to force the Republicans to nuke the filibuster, and they absolutely won't do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Pure assertion, and entirely unsupported I need you to show me where exit polling disagrees
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
In what loving universe would a Republican controlled Congress get a supermajority to impeach Trump?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:23
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:In what loving universe would a Republican controlled Congress get a supermajority to impeach Trump? The universe where Trump got elected president in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Look at Claire McCaskill hanging Manchin and Heitkamp out to dry. I love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:In what loving universe would a Republican controlled Congress get a supermajority to impeach Trump? One where Trump gives them a decent enough excuse to do it. President Pence plus their handpicked VP would make a lot of R lives much easier than they are currently, and exactly zero dems are going to go on record as voting against impeaching Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Javid posted:One where Trump gives them a decent enough excuse to do it. President Pence plus their handpicked VP would make a lot of R lives much easier than they are currently, and exactly zero dems are going to go on record as voting against impeaching Trump. Their voters LOVE Trump and there is literally nothing he can do to lose that support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Their voters LOVE Trump and there is literally nothing he can do to lose that support. I disagree. Trump is fundamentally ineffectual and it's starting to show, plus his policies that he can effect are starting to directly harm people, one by one ("I never thought leopards would eat MY face!"). Those betrayals will add up and are why his polling is dipping below 40% already. I think he's going to hit low twenties before we're done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
I don't think it would ever happen but throwing Trump under the bus and blaming failures of Republicanism on "Trump the man" is good strategery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I need you to show me where exit polling disagrees Exit polls aren't scientific, this isn't the argument ender you think it is. Go Claire McCaskill (?)! I'll make like $50 on PredictIt if they go nuclear for Gorsuch, so that's what I I'm hoping for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I disagree. Trump is fundamentally ineffectual and it's starting to show, plus his policies that he can effect are starting to directly harm people, one by one ("I never thought leopards would eat MY face!"). Those betrayals will add up and are why his polling is dipping below 40% already. I think he's going to hit low twenties before we're done. I think 20s is possible but even then he'll still be 70+% among republicans. There will never be political room for the majority of the house GOP caucus to impeach him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think 20s is possible but even then he'll still be 70+% among republicans. There will never be political room for the majority of the house GOP caucus to impeach him. That should be something we can calculate actually . fake edit: from a quick google it's about 26% of the American population currently identifies as Republican. So yeah, 20% popularity generally would be about 70% of those who currently identify as Republican. That's not necessarily the same as Republican primary voters though. One big question: what percentage are Republican districts gerrymandered to? I suspect that with sub-30% popularity, even the deep red districts start to have to worry about the general election again. If there's a big scandal while he's under 30% I think impeachment or 25th Amendment start to look like a real possibility. Depends on how the cards fall though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Your districts of interest here are not the deep red districts (Gohmert's Texas 1st, Hunter's CA 50th), drawn for safety, but instead the ones that have been gerrymandered for a majority (Hurd's Texas 23rd, Issa's CA 49th). The only way you unseat someone like Gohmert (or Chaffetz) is by hoping a primary challenger takes their place. You're not flipping those D any more than you're flipping Ellison's district or Pelosi's district R. A demotivated base staying home in 2018 can make for big wins from a riled up opposition party, and a candidate who fails to thread the needle between their dispirited moderate constituency and their Trumpalo constituency can be at risk. 30% Registered R disapproval would likely do it, especially since current House leadership lacks Pelosi or Delay's understanding for who can be squeezed and who needs to be released. The bigger question on if the GOP has political room for impeachment is about the replacement. If they're confident that Pence will come out of any investigation smelling like roses-he's done a pretty good job of avoiding anything that would irritate anyone in his party. A coordinated push through RWM that Trump's victories are all Pence's puppeteering while his failures are his own senility/incompetence would make the switch more palatable to Trump's base. Planning to sink both of them and put in Ryan would see more GOP pushback in the House, but he's gently caress if I know why this is in SCOTUSthread though. For actual content, ducking Ducksworth and Masto is not a great look for someone that the GOP is trying to paint as an uncontroversial, apolitical pick. Smart messaging work in NV may be enough to squeeze Heller about killing the filibuster-and it only takes two defections to force Pence to be the deciding vote (worst case scenario for Pence, Trump, and McConnell). I, for one, would enjoy the Nuclear Option getting killed by a trip through Yucca.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
How fair is this article? http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/03/17/neil-gorsuchs-alarming-views-on-antitrust-and-monopoly/
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
I'm not a legal or medical expert but as a layman, I wouldn't expect a doctor to be able to demand being allowed to practice in a particular hospital. But I'm completely ignorant about how that whole system works. Also the background of that particular case doesn't seem at all favorable to the plaintiff. He was the only nephrologist in the area and had for years refused requests to perform outpatient services at their facility, instead making patients from the local Indian reservation drive up to 90 minutes to him. So when the hospital finally decides to recruit someone else then all of a sudden he decides he should be allowed to practice there. From my point of view, if anything the plaintiff was acting as the monopolist. That said I loving hate Gorsuch so I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I didn't read his opinion so maybe there could be a problem in the particular logic he used to get to the ruling? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
The Washington Post is maintaining a trustworthy whip list on the Democratic Gorsuch filibuster.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:I'm not a legal or medical expert but as a layman, I wouldn't expect a doctor to be able to demand being allowed to practice in a particular hospital.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
I'm getting a little tires of all the talk about defending the honor of Merrick Garland. If you don't want to vote for Gorsuch because he would make bad rulings you disagree with, that's fine! I would prefer that you vote against him for that reason instead of wrapping it up in BS process complaining.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I'm getting a little tires of all the talk about defending the honor of Merrick Garland. If you don't want to vote for Gorsuch because he would make bad rulings you disagree with, that's fine! I would prefer that you vote against him for that reason instead of wrapping it up in BS process complaining. It's more defending Obama than Garland. Also what McConnell did was not simply a "process argument" it was an unprecedented naked power grab that will harm the legitimacy of the court forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's more defending Obama than Garland. Also what McConnell did was not simply a "process argument" it was an unprecedented naked power grab that will harm the legitimacy of the court forever. Yeah but the thing is, if we were in year 8 of a Republican administration with a democratic senate, I would want the democrats to do the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Yeah but the thing is, if we were in year 8 of a Republican administration with a democratic senate, I would want the democrats to do the same thing. Democrats wouldn't have done this first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:53
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Yeah but the thing is, if we were in year 8 of a Republican administration with a democratic senate, I would want the democrats to do the same thing. You would want the democrats to refuse to even give a hearing to a reasonable, slightly conservative judge?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:You would want the democrats to refuse to even give a hearing to a reasonable, slightly conservative judge? I would expect them to do whatever to keep him from being confirmed. If the Republicans had given Garland a hearing and then voted him down, why is that any better?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:You would want the democrats to refuse to even give a hearing to a reasonable, slightly conservative judge? Going forward that is exactly what will be demanded of Democrats. (Not that we could even imagine a situation where a GOP president nominates someone as close to the center as Garland in the near future) mcmagic fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's more defending Obama than Garland. Also what McConnell did was not simply a "process argument" it was an unprecedented naked power grab that will harm the legitimacy of the court forever. Pretty much. If they didn't want Garland on the court, fine. Hold a vote and vote him down. Instead we got an insane argument that an elected president isn't allowed to fulfill his duties because he's
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's more defending Obama than Garland. Also what McConnell did was not simply a "process argument" it was an unprecedented naked power grab that will harm the legitimacy of the court forever. The Supreme Court is the highest authority on the legal system, and by reducing it to a partisan operation, you've partizanized -everything-. Not just abortion or voting rights, but like theft and murder
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:05
|
|