|
Edit: Wrong thread, oops.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
You know what would have been fantastic? To not have blown the nuclear option for absolutely no reason whatsoever during Gorsuch just to please the noisy base and instead save it for a nomination which had more of an effect on the courts makeup and for a nominee who was on much more shaky grounds both with the senators and the general public. Which is exactly what I argued itt mar/april of 2017, and it was exactly 100% correct. How loving stupid it was for the dem leadership to throw themselves onto the sword back then, because that option was exactly the sort of arrow you would want in your quiver right loving now. Using it back then gave the republicans complete cover to blow it up because there was no real public opposition to Gorsuch and using it today quite possibly would be the cover Collins and co needed to scuttle Kav. Maybe it still would have failed but it's completely inarguable that there was a much greater chance for it to be able to stop Kav than Gorsuch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah, how could those Democrats not expect Republicans to nominate someone with a history of sexual assault and drinking problems, rather than Gorsuch round 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
they would've blown it up either way. they don't need "cover" for anything. there's no "cover" for holding a seat open for a year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
I'm sorry, are we pretending that Turtle wouldn't immediately have killed the fillibuster this time instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
All republicans would do is change the rules for this nomination and approve him anyways. Democratic senators have zero power to do anything right now. They had zero power to do anything with Garland or Gorsuch. There was nothing they could do at any point to change anything and there’s nothing they can do now. E:f;b.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
"Why couldn't the Democrats have lost the filibuster now instead of then?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
I bet out of all of this, Gorsuch feels pretty drat good. Same feeling Bush 43 must have felt the moment Trump took office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Off topic slightly, but I know everyone knows Ginsburg is old, but I was reading about Breyer and he too is 80 years old and literally looks like a skeleton. I sure hope they both make it 2.5 years
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Off topic slightly, but I know everyone knows Ginsburg is old, but I was reading about Breyer and he too is 80 years old and literally looks like a skeleton. I sure hope they both make it 2.5 years I'm surprised none of them have been suspiciously Russia-poisoned so far, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
I think, I have to think, that if a loony judge was murdered even the Republicans would nominate a Democrat to replace them and vice versa. I may be wrong, but I hope we never have to find out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
They nominated and continue to back a man who spent half a hearing screaming about Democrat conspiracies and blaming the Clintons for things not going his way, exactly how high do you have to be to think they wouldn't slam through the hardest right motherfucker they could find given the opportunity to shift the court that much further their way? I honestly want to know, for medical science, if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I think, I have to think, that if a loony judge was murdered even the Republicans would nominate a Democrat to replace them and vice versa. I may be wrong, but I hope we never have to find out. Mr. Sorkin! Mr. Sorkin, wake up! You were having a dream about the West Wing again
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I think, I have to think, that if a loony judge was murdered even the Republicans would nominate a Democrat to replace them and vice versa. I may be wrong, but I hope we never have to find out. They wouldn't. They would appoint another 50-year-old arch-conservative like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh and gloat about how they'll win every decision 6-3 for the next 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
tsa posted:You know what would have been fantastic? To not have blown the nuclear option for absolutely no reason whatsoever during Gorsuch just to please the noisy base and instead save it for a nomination which had more of an effect on the courts makeup and for a nominee who was on much more shaky grounds both with the senators and the general public. lol imagine being dumb enough to believe there is some slick procedural maneuver that would have changed any of this
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:lol imagine being dumb enough to believe there is some slick procedural maneuver that would have changed any of this The slick procedural move is called a pile driver and they should have used it on McConnell and then Grassley.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
The slick procedural move would be to not lose elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
therobit posted:The slick procedural move would be to not lose elections. Soooo, gerrymandering then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Republicans are going to so completely destroy the credibility and functioning of every single institution and form of power that the only option will be to do away with them. That could clear the road for something fresh and new, but in your military worshiping police state is probably just going to result in brutal military dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I think, I have to think, that if a loony judge was murdered even the Republicans would nominate a Democrat to replace them and vice versa. I may be wrong, but I hope we never have to find out. Hahaha Hahahahah HAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:Republicans are going to so completely destroy the credibility and functioning of every single institution and form of power that the only option will be to do away with them. That could clear the road for something fresh and new, but in your military worshiping police state is probably just going to result in brutal military dictatorship. I’m trying to imagine what the United States will look like with this trend and it’s probably a bizarre Authoritarian-Capitalist-Kleptocracy but some people get really fancy cars, houses and can even afford healthcare. Basically, Russia. On the flip side, I do not see Republicans maintaining power - the upcoming Demographic trend in 20-30 years just don’t lead to a Trump-like figure winning an election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I think, I have to think, that if a loony judge was murdered even the Republicans would nominate a Democrat to replace them and vice versa. I may be wrong, but I hope we never have to find out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WZLJpMOxS4
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:the upcoming Demographic trend in 20-30 years just don’t lead to a Trump-like figure winning an election. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Demographic destiny will not save you, relying on it is the same as kicking back and relying on hypothetical future tech to save you from climate change. At best it might reduce the explicit white nationalist component of the vicious kleptocracy. Every race is vulnerable to FYGM and just world fallacy though. You pretty much just had Kanye say the quiet part loud about black conservativism: that even slavery is cool so long as it isnt explicitly race based. Plus if you are relying on Hispanic population growth they might just be subsumed into whiteness, or even if they help solve racism it will be a trade off with women's and lgbt rights (Hispanics lean religious conservative compared to the majority). Other than that though you are already seeing minority rule getting more confident and brazen. In 20-30 years it might not matter how badly the numbers are against the government. I'm not sure it matters now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Yeah if you're convinced demographics will save you, merely look how long it took South African blacks to gain their rights. An entrenched minority in power can last for a loooong time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Yeah if you're convinced demographics will save you, merely look how long it took South African blacks to gain their rights. An entrenched minority in power can last for a loooong time. The Shia/Sunni disparity in pre-'03 Iraq was like this too. It boils down to enough people thinking there's a peaceful resolution that doesn't involve them risking their weed /car/job/twitter followers, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
See also, Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
So, I was looking at the number of Article III Judges Trump has appointed, and aside from wanting to retch at him having put 26 on the Federal Appellate Courts, which is close to half as many as Obama got in 8 years, I noticed that he's only managed to appoint 41 District court judges, compared to Obama's 268. Now if Trump were to have 8 years and keep a senate as friendly as this one, that's still on pace to outappoint Obama by the end, but it seems quite sluggish compared to the Appellate courts. Now, I'm well aware of the power and importance of appellate courts to overall jurisprudence, but it still struck me as odd that the District courts seem kind of neglected by comparison given the GOP's fervor to entrench their power in the court system. I wonder what gives?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 08:08
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:So, I was looking at the number of Article III Judges Trump has appointed, and aside from wanting to retch at him having put 26 on the Federal Appellate Courts, which is close to half as many as Obama got in 8 years, I noticed that he's only managed to appoint 41 District court judges, compared to Obama's 268. Now if Trump were to have 8 years and keep a senate as friendly as this one, that's still on pace to outappoint Obama by the end, but it seems quite sluggish compared to the Appellate courts. Isn't Schumer slow walking them sorta
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Isn't Schumer slow walking them sorta That’s part of it, but another part of it is that Trump is lazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
I look forward to Justice Zach Morris
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I think, I have to think, that if a loony judge was murdered even the Republicans would nominate a Democrat to replace them and vice versa. I may be wrong, but I hope we never have to find out. You need a brain scan. When Thurgood Marshall retired, Bush Senior nominated Clarence the non-talking Mule to fill his hahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
There is a difference between a retiring / natural causes judge and a murdered judge. The day a supreme court judge gets murdered and replaced by an opposite thinking judge our democracy *really* will be dead. And the gloves will be off, and the mob will rule. That will be a dark day. Is it possible? Absolutely. But I have to think we haven't sunk that low yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:There is a difference between a retiring / natural causes judge and a murdered judge. The day a supreme court judge gets murdered and replaced by an opposite thinking judge our democracy *really* will be dead. And the gloves will be off, and the mob will rule. Yes, but presumably there would be a downside as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
The gloves came off when they refused to consider Garland
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:There is a difference between a retiring / natural causes judge and a murdered judge. The day a supreme court judge gets murdered and replaced by an opposite thinking judge our democracy *really* will be dead. And the gloves will be off, and the mob will rule. That will be a dark day. Is it possible? Absolutely. But I have to think we haven't sunk that low yet. This is exactly what happened to Merrick Garland's nomination
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
All that effort and Soros money to make Scalia's death look natural, wasted 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
The question isn't whether the GOP replaces RBG/Breyer with a Heritage Foundation justice, it's whether the new "austere" desert concentration camp has started killing their charges by that time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:There is a difference between a retiring / natural causes judge and a murdered judge. The day a supreme court judge gets murdered and replaced by an opposite thinking judge our democracy *really* will be dead. And the gloves will be off, and the mob will rule. That will be a dark day. Is it possible? Absolutely. But I have to think we haven't sunk that low yet. Not to the Republicans. They literally poo poo on everything Marshall stood for with C.T., and they way they crammed that incompetent schmuck through became their gameplan of today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
ilkhan posted:There is a difference between a retiring / natural causes judge and a murdered judge. The day a supreme court judge gets murdered and replaced by an opposite thinking judge our democracy *really* will be dead. And the gloves will be off, and the mob will rule. That will be a dark day. Is it possible? Absolutely. But I have to think we haven't sunk that low yet. Who are you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 15:39
|
|