|
Kilroy posted:Hopefully we get state governments just openly declaring this or that Supreme Court decision is illegitimate and disregarding it. McConnell has destroyed the legitimacy of the courts, and I think as a people we're owed the breakdown of rule of law that ought to result from that. Um yeah I don't think you've thought this through. 
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Um yeah I don't think you've thought this through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Can't arrest me for murdering Republicans if murder ain't illegal anymore. Let's just say that if state governments start ignoring SCOTUS they aren't going to be ignoring the decisions you disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Can't arrest me for murdering Republicans if murder ain't illegal anymore. Truly, the Republicans have much to fear in the coming lawless hellscape where violence rules all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Truly, the Republicans have much to fear in the coming lawless hellscape where violence rules all. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
The new regime. Murder: allowed Guns: not allowed I'm sure it'll work out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:My hot take: We shouldn't let nine robed aristocrats decide which laws are valid and which laws aren't. We would be a racially segregated theocracy where only (wealthy) white men matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Democracy is an unqualified good, which is why I'm against the electoral college, senate, courts, and constitutional rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:21
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Evil Fluffy posted:We would be a racially segregated theocracy where only (wealthy) white men matter. Again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:It was an easy decision, they stood to lose nothing. Gorsuch was getting approved either way. This is quite simply incorrect. They lost the filibuster and for some reason people here simultaneously think that the filibuster is worthless and yet are really angry at the republicans for getting rid of it. These are schizophrenic viewpoints. The argument hinges on several points that are just not true. 1) That McConnell would nuke for anyone. There is no evidence to suggest this is the case and a lot of evidence to suggest he would, in general, be reluctant to do so for a weak controversial pick. Gorsuch was neither of these things. It was probably luck but Gorsuch was basically the perfect pick- there was essentially no public disapproval that dems could use and he was someone the republicans basically had to confirm. 2) That republicans couldn't be persuaded by public opinion. They already have! Many times! We have precedent in Harriet Miers, we have precedent from just a couple weeks ago. Trump may have bumped bannon because of people calling bannon president! Like holy poo poo this is an admin that's more sensitive to public opinion that any other. The problem was the dems just objectively did not have support to block Gorsuch. To say the filibuster is worthless is only correct in the sense that anything is worthless if you use it incorrectly. A million dollars is worthless if you light it on fire. The filibuster is worthless if you spend it and get literally nothing in return. I mean this is the main point. I have yet to see anyone actually say what exactly this got the democrats. gently caress it didn't score points for their base, only a handful of wonks even gave a poo poo about this whole thing. So what happens if Trump gets another pick? The democrats have nothing. Instead of being able to grandstand and scream about replacing, say, RBG, with a hardline crazy conservative they have absolutely nothing. Republicans could ram it through be the public even really knows what is going on. That's when a filibuster has value. When you already have the wind at your back and it gets you across the finish line. I have to wonder, do you people feel the same way about the legislative filibuster? Because there the argument gets even more stupid. There are lots of bills the republicans would like to pass that can't get through the filibuster but could get through a simple majority. And again, it's clear that they won't nuke it there for just any reason. So why people treat the judicial one so differently is beyond me. The parallels are very clear. And then there's the whole 'how dare the republicans play politics with the judicial branch' stuff. As others have already pointed out, that ship sailed long ago- nobody on the left was crying crocodile tears about FDR courtpacking. But besides that the argument is ridiculous and hypocritical because Garland was also an inherently political choice. Obama figured that he could use Garland to hammer the republicans over their obstructionism. Much like other attempts at this, Obama badly failed. In a way it's very funny because Garland failed for the exact reasons Obama hoped he would succeed-- he was so uncontroversial and middle of the road the activist base, beyond a handful of SA posters, barely gave a solitary poo poo. I'm fairly certain Obama realized his mistake pretty quickly, because he barely could give a poo poo himself. I mean what efforts were even made to push the issue? I remember nothing. It reminds me of early in west wing where they nominate the progressive hispanic judge. Bartlett: "This is going to be a very tough fight but we'll do everything we can. Obama: "this is goign to be a very tough fight, good loving luck sucker!!!!!" galenanorth posted:My prediction is that Republicans are going to start saying one day that the wider margins of confirmation for Republican nominees during Senate votes must mean that Republican nominees are objectively better. A while ago, I went to CNN's front page and Neil Gorsuch's name was on there, but I had to go to Wikipedia to find out whether he was confirmed. Syria is selling a lot better today, taking up nearly 100% of the page with Gorsuch being a footnote. Exactly!! They didn't even get two loving news cycles out of losing the filibuster. Literally loving nothing. I have no idea why people are cheering this on! This has been a complete and total disaster for the dems on every level from Garland to the end. It's the very definition of going on tilt: you get hosed and the anger from that completely blinds you to objective analysis of the situation. Anger about Trump and republicans is very good. But it's gotten to the point to where people are reaching completely illogical conclusions because they can't even fathom giving a single inch. Strategically losing some battles is the key to winning wars. You pick your fights. Democrats just did the equivalent of the general that lets their pride get their whole loving army killed. If they do it again for the legislative filibuster we are fuckin' doomed. E: Like I'm not even saying I think saving it would have worked in defeating a future hypothetical choice. But I have to imagine using it on almost anyone else would at least gotten some political points and have a non-zero chance of working. Using it now didn't change a single persons mind and it had utterly no chance of success. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:But what about
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
If Gorsuch was an eminently qualified and totally uncontroversial pick with nothing to be held up against him then why would a democrat filibuster be useful against literally anyone republicans put up who was not grossly unqualified in a man meet early understood by a partisan layperson? Gorsuch is an Originalist in the vein of Scalia with the advantage of being 49. Unlike Garland he is a controversial pick. If he is to strong a candidate to filibuster then your position seems to be the Democrats should save their filibuster for a candidate that admits to wanting to overturn roe v Wade and doesn't think religious protections should be extended towards Muslims because Islam is inherently political and because they're brown. Literally a candidate that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Democrats can still stop candidates by pressuring enough Republicans to vote against them to prevent confirmation, i.e. the same thing they would have to do to prevent a filibuster from being nuked anyway. The only difference is the sacredness of the filibuster or whatever but that is a norm that is only useful against Democrats because at least 50 Republicans are partisan hacks who don't care about norms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
So, Gorsuch gets sworn in Monday the 10th. At what point will he start hearing cases and writing opinions? He obviously wasn't present for any arguments held prior to now; he'll be on the court for the next arguments which will be held on the 17th, does he write on those?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:If Gorsuch was an eminently qualified and totally uncontroversial pick with nothing to be held up against him then why would a democrat filibuster be useful against literally anyone republicans put up who was not grossly unqualified in a man meet early understood by a partisan layperson? Gorsuch is an Originalist in the vein of Scalia with the advantage of being 49. Unlike Garland he is a controversial pick. I think the idea is to filibuster someone like Peter Thiel or Andrew Napolitano, because Trump is erratic enough to nominate someone like that. Though there's a good chance GOP Senators would vote against people like that anyway (they would certainly vote against Thiel).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Javid posted:So, Gorsuch gets sworn in Monday the 10th. At what point will he start hearing cases and writing opinions? He obviously wasn't present for any arguments held prior to now; he'll be on the court for the next arguments which will be held on the 17th, does he write on those? Normally a justice would recuse themselves for cases they weren't present for, but lol nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is quite simply incorrect.... This has been a complete and total disaster for the dems on every level from Garland to the end. It's the very definition of going on tilt: you get hosed and the anger from that completely blinds you to objective analysis of the situation. I completely agree with you, and I'm glad to see the opinion so clearly explicated. This was an astoundingly stupid move. The Democratic base is not going to give a poo poo about the Democratic "last stand" in two years. The don't care about Gorsuch or Garland. The choice was lose the filibuster in a moment when it was definitely useless vs. lose the filibuster at a future point in which it would probably but not at all definitely be useless. Simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Pros of getting rid of the filibuster: It's worthless to Democrats because Democrats hardly ever use it in the minority, and Republicans in the minority use it all the time. Democrats probably won't have to deal with another Merrick Garland scenario again. Cons: The minority has less and less of a voice. These two statements don't contradict. First of all, you're conflating whether we should be mad at Republicans for the outcome with whether or not we should be mad at them for their intentions, and second of all, as far as outcome goes, the outcome is more of a trade-off. Is the preservation of the filibuster a more favorable outcome than for Democrats to gain politically long-term by not having to deal with filibustering Republicans again? People have disagreed on that. If you're going to accuse people of being self-contradictory, it would be more helpful to quote specific people so we know you aren't just conflating the opinions of people who disagree whether the benefits outweigh the negatives. FDR's courtpacking scheme was 80 years ago, and to my understanding had link to the ramping up in political tensions between Bork and Garland. Bringing it up serves no purpose but to use dead people to paint people here with hypocrisy by association via political affiliation. As of late, what's actually been happening is that people have acted like Republicans with the nuclear option are like the woman before the court of the King of Solomon that wanted to split the baby in half. They get angry at the Democrats for doing anything less than playing the part of the woman that acceded to her child being taken away rather than let it die. On every issue at every time, we are expected to be "better than that". That's how they win. quote:Garland was also an inherently political choice. That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how a much more left-wing justice would have been less inherently political. It would have been less political if Obama had fought for it? I don't see how to untangle this. Legislators are fighting for Merrick Garland now and punting the issue down the field until the next vacancy is giving up. There's no guarantee people will be paying any more attention in the future than they are now. No one could have predicted the Syria debacle would be distracting from the use of the nuclear option. The same way, no one knows whether there will be some other distraction ready at the analogous moment during the next Supreme Court vacancy. galenanorth fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
duz posted:Again? Word you're looking for is "still"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Convergence posted:I completely agree with you, and I'm glad to see the opinion so clearly explicated. This was an astoundingly stupid move. The Democratic base is not going to give a poo poo about the Democratic "last stand" in two years. The don't care about Gorsuch or Garland. The choice was lose the filibuster in a moment when it was definitely useless vs. lose the filibuster at a future point in which it would probably but not at all definitely be useless. Simple as that. What happened with Obama's appointment does matter, and if the Democrats had rolled over and not done everything within their power to resist they would be tacitly admitting that maneuver was okay. The Republicans would not hesitate to remove the filibuster in the future, so its utility was already gone. I'm ecstatic to see Democrats have the courage of their convictions. galenanorth posted:They get angry at the Democrats for doing anything less than playing the part of the woman that ascended to her child being taken away rather than let it die. On every issue at every time, we are expected to be "better than that". That's how they win. A thousand times this. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:What happened with Obama's appointment does matter, and if the Democrats had rolled over and not done everything within their power to resist they would be tacitly admitting that maneuver was okay. Agreed. Republicans over the last several months have literally burst out laughing when presented with accusations of playing unfairly. Anyone who suggests the judicial filibuster had any use left is so incredibly ignorant I can't even grasp their opinion well enough to argue against it. You'd might as well try to tell me the sky is plaid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is quite simply incorrect. They lost the filibuster and for some reason people here simultaneously think that the filibuster is worthless and yet are really angry at the republicans for getting rid of it. These are schizophrenic viewpoints. The argument hinges on several points that are just not true. Like I agree with you about Garland - Obama should have picked a more leftist judge. But otherwise you give the GOP way too much credit: McConnell would have nuked for anyone, and the GOP doesn't give a gently caress about public opinion they give a gently caress about their base's opinion, and even then barely. AHCA failed because too many Republicans thought it didn't go far enough in leaving people to die. Whatever the Republican party was before Obama was elected President, it isn't that anymore. It's weird you're still catching up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Javid posted:So, Gorsuch gets sworn in Monday the 10th. At what point will he start hearing cases and writing opinions? He obviously wasn't present for any arguments held prior to now; he'll be on the court for the next arguments which will be held on the 17th, does he write on those?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
It seems any positives are predicated on the weird hope that a huge blue electoral tidal wave is going to hit in 2018 and then again in 2020, which is strange after all the grievances that got aired in 2016. If "prevent the theft of that seat" wasn't enough, then "prevent them from replacing RBG with Giga-Bork" sure as hell isn't going to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It seems any positives are predicated on the weird hope that a huge blue electoral tidal wave is going to hit in 2018 and then again in 2020, which is strange after all the grievances that got aired in 2016. If "prevent the theft of that seat" wasn't enough, then "prevent them from replacing RBG with Giga-Bork" sure as hell isn't going to do it. People are not optimistic about the ongoing quality of governance in Washington.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:People are not optimistic about the ongoing quality of governance in Washington. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, but you can't be a Supreme Court Justice if there isn't a Supreme Court anymore. Or maybe both of those things will come to an end at roughly the same time, who knows? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah it's more like "good on Dems for standing for a thing, for once, and also I'm sharpening this guillotine over here because I take the idea of the United States a lot less seriously than I used to". I'm just not seeing what the great catalyst is or was, though. A lot of this johnny-come-lately engagement really seems like Wile E. Coyote trying to run back onto the cliff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
The notion that the filibuster should have been avoided because republicans might have been less willing to nuke it in the future is ludicrous. Especially given that odds are that if there is another vacancy in the court, it will likely be because one of the progressive justices is dead. If you think McConnell would respect the filibuster when given the chance of replacing RBG or Breyer and cementing a conservative majority in the courts for the next 20 years, you seriously haven't been paying attention. And if he did preserve the filibuster when given the chance to replace RBG with a 45 year old Alito clone, you can bet that every single conservative organization would be gunning for him the next election.
joepinetree fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The notion that the filibuster should have been avoided because republicans might have been less willing to nuke it in the future is ludicrous. Especially given that odds are that if there is another vacancy in the court, it will likely be because one of the progressive justices is dead. If you think McConnell would respect the filibuster when given the chance of replacing RBG or Breyer and cementing a conservative majority in the courts for the next 20 years, you seriously haven't been paying attention. And if he did preserve the filibuster when given the chance to replace RBG with a 45 Alito clone, you can bet that every single conservative organization would be gunning for him the next election. Yeah, the whole prospect of conservatives gunning for anyone, GOP or not, is frightening when you're looking at how this incentivizes the spontaneous creation of vacancies on the court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'm just not seeing what the great catalyst is or was, though. A lot of this johnny-come-lately engagement really seems like Wile E. Coyote trying to run back onto the cliff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Before the election when we figured Hillary would be President and Democrats would probably take the Senate, I was one of the ones arguing that Obama should pull Garland in that case, nominate a super-leftist judge, and have the Senate push him or her through in mid-January (nuking the filibuster if necessary) to teach shithead Republicans a lesson. I also argued that Obama should rules-lawyer the gently caress out of the confirmation process, to the point of declaring a refusal to hold hearings as tacit consent and then Garland just shows up to work. But when it's clear none of that poo poo is going to happen because Democrats in Washington would rather just let Republicans get their way all the time than rock the boat, coming to this thread to take those positions and defend them seems like a waste of time. This is a short-term problem, or at least is doesn't have to be a long-term one if enough people don't want it to be, so I don't really feel like playing fantasy Washington politics when it's clear that no Democrat in Washington is interested in playing to win. But I am glad they filibustered, and I hope it's a sign of things to come for them. And I did want to come back here to to make the point that the SCOTUS is now illegitimate as a governing institution, and will remain so for as long as Gorsuch is on the court. Oh I agree with you on all that, it's just that a) the filibuster was a dead letter by election night and b) not everyone requires the laws they enforce to be legitimate. The damage in that sense is already baked in and was baked in when voters chose this outcome. Gorsuch will persist even if the house and senate change hands and field a supermajority, any decisions driven by him will be on the proverbial books as precedent, and no argument before the court is going to win on "but your seat was stolen, your honor."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
So, if SCOTUS' independence is no longer legitimate, why not just pack the court? Too accelerationist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:So, if SCOTUS' independence is no longer legitimate, why not just pack the court? Too accelerationist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
poo poo we aren't even to the point where we string up the gracchi and throw them in the river so we have a couple hundred years to go at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:poo poo we aren't even to the point where we string up the gracchi and throw them in the river so we have a couple hundred years to go at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg Nah if history is cyclical then we're about halfway between the Gracchi and Imperium.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The notion that the filibuster should have been avoided because republicans might have been less willing to nuke it in the future is ludicrous. That's not the argument. Instead it's that a bigger ideological replacement closer to an election would make better press and voter persuasion when you fought and lost the filibuster. You traded away a talking point for nothing. I'm not saying that talking point was critical, but it had more than the zero value you got for it with Gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:I'm not saying that talking point was critical, but it had more than the zero value you got for it with Gorsuch. The value is signaling that the bullshit that was pulled with Obama's nominee was not acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Also now it's gone and when a future Democratic president is putting someone in they can ignore the Republicans and don't have to take the heat for getting rid of the filibuster
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:That's not the argument. Instead it's that a bigger ideological replacement closer to an election would make better press and voter persuasion when you fought and lost the filibuster. You traded away a talking point for nothing. That is nonsense. First, you don't know when the next replacement will take place. Might not be anywhere near the election. Second, the supreme court is a bigger draw for conservatives than liberals. See 2016. In the scenario where a liberal justice or Kennedy is being replaced during Trump's first term, nothing would stop Republicans from using the nuclear option, and the number of people who would vote for an otherwise unpopular Republican candidate just for the sake of putting a conservative majority in place for the next generation is far greater than the number of liberals who would get out and vote specifically because of that. In the scenario where there are no replacements this term and a Democrat takes over in 2020, there was always a decent chance that democrats would not be able to use the nuclear option (Manchin et al being far from safe bets in terms of being willing to use it) and democrats would see yet another seat go unfilled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah it's more like "good on Dems for standing for a thing, for once, and also I'm sharpening this guillotine over here because I take the idea of the United States a lot less seriously than I used to". As soon as MSNBC and CNN sign the propaganda contracts officially It's wartime, you know! Jesus gently caress I know, personally, dozens of people who will lose their livelihood from the "kill half the government" Donald "The American dream is dead" Trump budget which has to pass now because DOOP DOOP IT'S A WAR GOTTA THROW MORE MONEY AT THE TANKY BOYS e: sorry thought I was in the trump thread for a second. Gorsuch bad Mister Olympus fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
