|
I don't see why democrats have an obligation to name a suitable alternative as a precondition to opposing this nominee. Just attack the nominee. Do it loudly, without hesitation or qualification. Whoever Trump nominates will be a retrograde toad who will threaten pretty much every value and policy priority democrats value. Just attack the nominee. Just wave coathangers around and say the civil rights era will be abolished. This will serve their primary goal, which is increasing enthusiasm and turnout for the midterms. It will also serve the secondary goal of actually defeating the nominee, because the only thing that will get Collins and/or Murkowski to flip is white hot, incessant pressure as in the ACA repeal attempt. Arguing from the minority is easier precisely because you do not have the obligation of actually governing. the democrats will never do any of this, they will curl up in the fetal position and murmur Merrick Garland to themselves over and over
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
"How should we react to Kennedy's retirement before Trump announces his nominee?" "How about waving the bloody shirt of the Garland nomination and demanding Trump nominate someone who supports Roe V. Wade?" "Feh, decorum"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:"How should we react to Kennedy's retirement before Trump announces his nominee?" No one gave a poo poo about Garland in 2016 and no one gives a poo poo now
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:... you think Schumer should ask Trump to nominate Ellison. Schumer could ask Trump to nominate Lenin's embalmed corpse and it'd be given the same consideration as Garland. Because until Democrats like Obama, the GOP knows what they're doing and that they can do whatever they want because even when Dems hold power they're chickenshit cowards. Obama should've held a presser and stated that if he didn't hear back from the Senate after X days/weeks then their silence will be taken as agreement with his pick and seat Garland on the SCOTUS. Then again, Obama should've actually made a good pick and stuck to it. Rather than pick Merrick loving Garland in some idiotic attempt to appeal to the GOP because all it did was show everyone how weak and pathetic he was. ilkhan posted:You realize the GOP says the exact same thing about your side, right? Stop defending literal Nazis. Those "proud deplorable" shirts exist because racist and xenophobic assholes feel more empowered now than they have in decades, and people like you help keep it that way. gently caress those racist assholes gently caress anyone who defends them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:You realize the GOP says the exact same thing about your side, right? You can just post the "THIS IS WHY AMERICA VOTED TRUMP" angry minion meme instead of typing all this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Schumer could ask Trump to nominate Lenin's embalmed corpse and it'd be given the same consideration as Garland. Because until Democrats like Obama, the GOP knows what they're doing and that they can do whatever they want because even when Dems hold power they're chickenshit cowards. Jesus christ, if "Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat" doesn't get people to the polls, Stephen Reinhardt's dazzling policy isn't going make them jump up and join the revolution. The "Dems are a waste" crowd are either intentionally dense or full of magical thinking that if we pray hard enough, the world will sometime bend to our will.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
The obsession with Garland is weird, because it’s something you do only because you know you won’t win. Because it’s not like the left has a strong desire for Justice Garland. It was more a barometer to make Republicans slightly cooperative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
The "seat was stolen" crowd think because the seat was rightfully Obama's to fill it therefore rightly belongs to his pick, no matter how mediocre. The end goal is not "pull the court left", it's "seat Garland". They're fixated on him as the rightful next Justice, period, because that is A Win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Javid posted:The "seat was stolen" crowd think because the seat was rightfully Obama's to fill it therefore rightly belongs to his pick, no matter how mediocre. The end goal is not "pull the court left", it's "seat Garland". They're fixated on him as the rightful next Justice, period, because that is A Win. Dems control Zero branches right now, saying any name that's not Garland is more pointless than usual SCOTUS masturbatory fantasies
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Stop defending literal Nazis. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jul 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
"Hey look concentration camps" has been working p loving well for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I'm not defending *literal* Nazis. But saying the entire party is composed of Nazis isn't going to change the mind of anyone on the fence. if anyone's on the fence at this point they're worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I'm not defending *literal* Nazis. But saying the entire party is composed of Nazis isn't going to change the mind of anyone on the fence. republicans are either nazis or people who do not believe reality, neither of which are worth considering
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
Javid posted:The "seat was stolen" crowd think because the seat was rightfully Obama's to fill it therefore rightly belongs to his pick, no matter how mediocre. The end goal is not "pull the court left", it's "seat Garland". They're fixated on him as the rightful next Justice, period, because that is A Win. Or, alternatively, the "seat was stolen" crowd are pissed off that the Turtle pulled off his con and want enough people to give a poo poo that we can pack the court without political blowback. And reminding people that the Republicans have used the political process to stack the court themselves is a step towards popular acceptance of that necessity. Telling Trump to nominate Garland in no way implies that anyone thinks a Democratic president should send Garland to a Democratic Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think anyone actually gives a poo poo about Garland himself, he just symbolizes the stolen seat. A different justice won't call attention to it as elegantly as Garland. On the other hand, the GOP stole the seat with no real repercussions so I'm not sure your average voter even cares that much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
instead of droning about merrick garland with his eyes half closed, maybe chuck schumer should consider beating mcconnell's rear end like rand paul
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Devor posted:Dems control Zero branches right now, saying any name that's not Garland is more pointless than usual SCOTUS masturbatory fantasies Saying Garland is equally pointless, because no matter who Dems push for, the GOP is going to completely and utterly ignore them. Here's the thing. If there was anything the Dems could do to stop Trump from nominating whoever he wants to an empty Supreme Court seat, they would have done it to block Gorsuch. No, McConnell will not have a guilt attack and hand the seat to Dems, no matter how much we yell about Garland - that's a downright dangerous level of delusional thought. And while it's theoretically possible to block an appointment by flipping Collins and Murkowski, they were both absolutely fine with the Gorsuch pick, so there's no reason to think that they'll drag things anywhere to the left of Scalia. Honestly, focusing on the "stolen seat" is besides the point. I don't care who deserves each individual seat - I care that there's now a solid conservative majority on the court that is likely to last a decade or more and is set to roll back at least half a century worth of progress. McConnell was willing to break norms in order to prevent his opponents from getting a Supreme Court majority. Now I want to see the Dems showing their willingness to break norms to take that Supreme Court majority back. Yes, I realize that the Dems don't have the votes to do anything at all regarding the Supreme Court right now. That's exactly why it's pointless to focus on the current seat and move on to something more ambitious. "This is what we'll do if we win a majority" is a pretty important part of campaigning, and the Dems have a serious problem ahead of them: even if they win both the Senate and the presidency in 2020, no conservative seats are likely to open up during that term. So by the time they're able to gain power again, the court will be controlled by a nakedly ideological conservative majority that the Dems will have no hope of eroding unless they're willing to break the norms and treat the Court as the partisan political institution it is. If 2016 is any indication, voters love that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I'm not defending *literal* Nazis. But saying the entire party is composed of Nazis isn't going to change the mind of anyone on the fence. The party supports concentration camps for brown people and demonizes Muslims and Hispanics the same way Nazis demonized Jews. Complete with policies intended to instill fear in those groups that live in the US while aggressively and openly pursuing white supremacist policies. Republicans don't get to say "sure I don't agree with my party but" as an excuse to keep voting for those assholes without being rightfully labeled as Nazis and Nazi sympathizers. If someone claims to be a Republican and pointing out the GOPs actions doesn't sway them then they were never on the fence. They were helping build it (to keep them dirty messicans out  ).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the "stolen seat" is just going to sound like sour grapes, Obama wasn't able to get to get the nominee because of obstruction...which is the goal of any embittered opposition party. Also, no one cares about Garland and if anything he is a bit of an embarrassment. Roe v Wade is a better bet but even then the US is pretty solidly divided on the issue so it isn't going to energize anyone than the base That said there are plenty of other issues to hit a nominee with including gay marriage, their attitude toward corporations and civil rights as a whole. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jul 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, the "stolen seat" is just going to sound like sour grapes, Obama wasn't able to get to get the nominee because of obstruction...which is the goal of any embittered opposition party. Also, no one cares about Garland and if anything he is a bit of an embarrassment. The US isn't actually divided on the issue, repealing roe v wade is opposed 2 to 1 Republicans are divided on the issue, since only 53% of them support its repeal
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:The US isn't actually divided on the issue, repealing roe v wade is opposed 2 to 1 I think the issue isn't really repealing roe v wade wholesale but continual judgments to undercut it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think the issue isn't really repealing roe v wade wholesale but continual judgments to undercut it. Pretty much already happened? States are only limited by their imagination in coming up with totally-not-bans-i-promise already
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:Pretty much already happened? States are only limited by their imagination in coming up with totally-not-bans-i-promise already Eh, there is still farther to go but still tiptoeing a repeal, the federal government could quite simply turn its back without actually repealing it (also it could simply became far more restrictive). Also, the GOP doesn't actually want Roe v Wade literally gone since it motivates evangelical voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Here's the thing. If there was anything the Dems could do to stop Trump from nominating whoever he wants to an empty Supreme Court seat, they would have done it to block Gorsuch. Gorsuch is qualified. Evil, but qualified. And it was filling Scalia’s seat, and a lot of regular people (e.g. people not here) think a SCOTUS with the thinnest of margins between ideologies “best represents America” because we are such a bitterly divided nation. The media narrative for Kennedy is that he’s the swing vote. He picked up that narrative after O’Connor left, previously he was one of the conservatives and she was the media’s designated swing vote. The end result is that to normal people who watch the MSM (can I use that term without being mocked or has the right destroyed it? I dunno.) this is a battle for the heart of the court, and not just a conservative replacing a conservative and helping the media maintain it’s partisan horse race story it loves to tell. If you consider that the average voter is comfortable with 5-4 decisions with the disappointed party shifting every so many years, this is considered a massive disruption of that status quo it Trump chooses a hard-liner. The true reality is that Kennedy was always a fairly conservative libertarian, and Roberts has sided with the left more than Kennedy in very recent history, but that doesn’t sell the 51% vs 49% sports team narrative loved by the media most people are informed by.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"Hey look concentration camps" has been working p loving well for me Why have you been trying to convince people that 1940's America and several EU countries today were/are run by "literal" Nazis? I mean, obviously putting foreigners in concentration camps until they can be sent home is much worse than putting your own citizens in concentration camps (whether or not you kill them), but the comparison still doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:Why have you been trying to convince people that 1940's America and several EU countries today were/are run by "literal" Nazis? I mean, obviously putting foreigners in concentration camps until they can be sent home is much worse than putting your own citizens in concentration camps (whether or not you kill them), but the comparison still doesn't help. Either that or he needs to look up literal in a dictionary. E: and read a history book about Nazi Germany. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"Hey look concentration camps" has been working p loving well for me this Groovelord Neato posted:if anyone's on the fence at this point they're worthless. this, too. There is some cataclysmic poo poo going on right now, and its hard to see because the things that get the most press traction (KIDS being SEPARATED from their FAMILIES!!!!) are not the actually damaging bits--institutional purges and further consolidation of dismal trends manifested over the last two generations don't make for gripping clickbait, and it can be tough to recognize if you've been inured by a decade of rhetoric saying "this tax credit given to insurance companies in order to turn the demand curve for their product into a straight line pointing up, infinitely, forever is LITERALLY STALINISM  " but the time for fence-sitting is over and if you're just realizing it now then welcome to like, two years ago.ilkhan posted:It helps him justify his hatred so he is able to sleep at night to equate wanting to send illegal immegrants back to their home country with wanting to conquer the world and purge all non Aryans. tax-paying undocumented labor underpins every single branch of the agricultural and service sectors, that they've had no rights to agitate for better conditions is a cudgel used against native-born workers in those sectors--myself among them, and that you don't know this insanely obvious and basic poo poo yet hold forth anyway about the underclass that feeds you is why you and your ilk are sad shells miming the gestures of a fundamental humanity you will likely never understand, choosing instead to blame a nonexistent hegemonic Left for failings which occur entirely between your ears. you're a confederate without the courage of any kind of conviction, and now you clap back with something delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh, there is still farther to go but still tiptoeing a repeal, the federal government could quite simply turn its back without actually repealing it (also it could simply became far more restrictive). Also, the GOP doesn't actually want Roe v Wade literally gone since it motivates evangelical voters. Every time I see a liberal say "well, the Republicans will never actually do what they promised because they need to dangle the possibility of those things in front of their voters", I feel like I understand everything about the Democrats' failures of the last decade, all at once. It's a downright impressive sum-up of how out-of-touch the liberal establishment is. Wxhode posted:Why have you been trying to convince people that 1940's America and several EU countries today were/are run by "literal" Nazis? I mean, obviously putting foreigners in concentration camps until they can be sent home is much worse than putting your own citizens in concentration camps (whether or not you kill them), but the comparison still doesn't help. You clearly don't know very much about 1930s America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, the GOP doesn't actually want Roe v Wade literally gone since it motivates evangelical voters. I don't understand why people always say this. They'll just switch to screaming that the Left wants to reinstate Roe v Wade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Surely the judicial philosophy that openly wants to destroy everything post-Lochner will be satiated with repealing a single case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I don't understand why people always say this. They'll just switch to screaming that the Left wants to reinstate Roe v Wade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:This is true, but I think “bad thing is actively happening now” is a greater motivator than “bad thing COULD happen”. "We have to strike down affirmative action, which is harming Asian and white students!" "We have to shut down these illegals' attempts to stay in our country by abusing our laws and welfare system!" "We have to protect our children from atheist public school indoctrination!" "We have to keep our economy on a solid footing by getting rid of those liberal fat cat labor unions!" "We have to protect the President from the Deep State's arm-twisting!" "We have to protect our law enforcement officers from inner-city thugs' smear campaigns!" There's always another case to pivot to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
The thing people always forget about Garland is that he wasn't a moderate. The guy was a mystery box. Maybe he's a liberal, maybe he's a moderate, maybe he's a conservative, who the hell knows because the guy never ruled on culture war issues. See Souter. The closest he got to that on the DC Appeals Court was the handgun ban, which he votes against hearing. Conservatives chose to interpret that as being because he hated gun rights, but it could also just be that the case was obviously going to the Supreme Court no matter what and Garland didn't want to waste time with it. With that in mind Garland was probably the best pick Obama could have made given the circumstances. A Republican-controlled Senate would only even consider confirming a mystery box with an election coming up in nine months and Scalia being the guy who was being replaced. McConnell insisted ahead of time they wouldn't confirm anyone for exactly this reason- a mystery box was too obviously a reasonable compromise. But Democrats still dropped the ball. It's just, that was Hilary's fault, not Obama's. While Trump was going out and rallying evangelicals to the cause by promising them a culture wars victory, Hilary refused to address the issue at all. What makes this especially frustrating is that the Republicans, like everyone else, was convinced Hilary was going to win. If Hilary had promised to nominate the gayest blackest communist she could find solely to punish Republicans over the Garland obstruction, they would have blinked. Better a mystery box than a definite humiliation. The best part is that Hilary never would have had to follow through on this. The left could have been turned out by Hilary's gay black communist promises and then when the Republicans caved, Hilary could have walked it back by saying that since the Republicans decided to behave honorably she would just nominate the same terrible centrists she wanted to nominate in the first place and never bring up the gayest blackest communist thing ever again. Instead? She acts like Garland being approved in the lame duck session (which would have been pointless since he can only rule on cases he heard from the beginning anyway) was an acceptable compromise. The entire affair is an abject lesson in how Hilary was absolutely terrible at politics and how long-term we're probably better off without her. Short-term's gonna suck though. Honestly I think the troll made a good point. Roberts, Gorsuch, and even Thomas have all joined with the liberals more this term than supposed "moderate" Anthony Kennedy. All Schumer can do is play obstructionist to motivate people to vote since abortion rights are now standing on the edge of a cliff. And of course he isn't even going to do that much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I don't understand why people always say this. They'll just switch to screaming that the Left wants to reinstate Roe v Wade. Considering that most of the country wants Roe V Wade nominally around, it would actually hurt them. (Also, the GOP traditionally prefers creeping reactionism that is offered a degree of protection by Democrats. Trump's immigrant camps are a continuation of Obama's policy.) Main Paineframe posted:Every time I see a liberal say "well, the Republicans will never actually do what they promised because they need to dangle the possibility of those things in front of their voters", I feel like I understand everything about the Democrats' failures of the last decade, all at once. It's a downright impressive sum-up of how out-of-touch the liberal establishment is. I am not a liberal. It isn't that the Republicans are to be trusted, but their methodology has always been about slow but certain ways of rolling back progress. It isn't a question of goals but how they are obtaining those goals. That said it is certain that the far-right is winning. Also Garland was a safe pick for a centrist, but he was always going to be a sacrificial nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Considering that most of the country wants Roe V Wade nominally around, it would actually hurt them. I'm also inclined to skepticism when it comes to the notion that Republicans are going to dismantle abortion rights as quickly and absolutely as possible. I have no romantic notions that they want to do the right thing and not be bullies. My thinking is, the last time the Supreme Court forced most of the country to legalize a wildly unpopular law (Dred Scott) we got a Civil War within a few years. Forcing every state to prosecute miscarriages just on the off-chance they were deliberately induced would not only destroy what little integrity the court has right now, it would virtually guarantee huge Democratic gains in the next election. Now, gradually making actually getting an abortion a giant pain-in-the-rear end, a process Anthony Kennedy gladly aided and abetted, that would be a different matter entirely. And a far more likely outcome of Trump's pick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Surely the judicial philosophy that openly wants to destroy everything post-Lochner will be satiated with repealing a single case. They can. Overturning Griswold v Connecticut overturns Roe, Lawrence, and Obgerfell to name a few.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
abortion was just cover for evangelicals' racism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Evangelicals used to be fine with abortion because the Catholic Church opposed it. Then it became a racism thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Forcing every state to prosecute miscarriages How will that happen? Conservatives just want to punish women for having sex. Are Democratic prosecutors going to lead the charge against miscarriers? I can imagine the odd paranoid boyfriend accusing his girlfriend and finding a sympathetic crazy backwoods prosecutor, but I don't see how it becomes widespread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Wxhode posted:Why have you been trying to convince people that 1940's America and several EU countries today were/are run by "literal" Nazis? I mean, obviously putting foreigners in concentration camps until they can be sent home is much worse than putting your own citizens in concentration camps (whether or not you kill them), but the comparison still doesn't help. Jews weren't German citizens, they were considered foreigners under the Nuremberg Laws. Like us, Germany was putting noncitizens in the camps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 16:22
|
|