Father Wendigo posted:Good news, guys! Hillary has got this covered: I mean, she isn't wrong. Better to try something than just give up entirely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I mean, she isn't wrong. Better to try something than just give up entirely. Perhaps she could have tried to run a competent campaign
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Good news, guys! Hillary has got this covered: "God's foot crushes Trump and McConnell, like in Monty Python" would be a much more realistic first step. Edit: 'Focus on actually trying to win the presidency and senate' would be a useful first step towards something, but of course that was never something Clinton was very interested in. Random Asshole fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Sep 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 06:42
|
|
|
So what will be the reaction when we have a nomination before a burial?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
finger waggling, what else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
fosborb posted:So what will be the reaction when we have a nomination before a burial? Irrelevant. Anyone tuned into politics enough to care about Supreme Court seats, actually have policy preferences that override  .But to answer your question, right wing media turns out the vote for the last 10 republicans who haven't gone Trump yet, centrist media points out the hypocrisies without advocating any solutions other than "vote and wait 30 years", and the left media goes "really, I'm going to endorse Biden now, despite knowing that the seat will be filled before Thanksgiving?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
I looked for half an hour using the NYT article search and I could not find any quotation from him in an article dated 2016 where he says that the nomination should have been deferred specifically because the senate and presidency were different parties. Does anyone have an example of that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
Whether or not he said that is irrelevant. If he did say it, it just means he had foresight enough to craft a bullshit statement. If he didn't, it won't change a single person's mind, since anyone claiming that they're with him on the basis of that statement is lying, either outwardly or inwardly. Unless you can compel them to stick with their prior statements via force of law its all moot. (also, no i dont have an example of them saying that)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
McConnell very much implied that he was enforcing a rule of not having an appointment so close to an election. He made a big effort to paint it as enforcing existing senate traditions and explicitly tied it to Joe Biden's objection to holding appointment hearings close to an election (which was motivated by a concern that senators running for re-election wouldn't have enough time to do that and properly vet candidates). He also made comments that this was relevant because the midterms had returned a republican senate (because McConnell is smart enough to know that he might need a weasel in years to come). The former arguments were because he knew that baldly stating that a Republican senate would just refuse to seat a democratic nominee would be too obviously damaging to the legitimacy of the process and obstructing garland was a hail Mary play where everyone expected Clinton to be there next president. Baldly stating that the seat would remain vacant until either three next republican president or democrats winning back the senate would likely have been seen as too motivating to democrats and possibly provoked Obama to actually push something through. The latter argument was his hedge in case exactly what just happened, happened. He's got sound bites in the record justifying his two positions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 14:06
|
|
tigersklaw posted:Perhaps she could have tried to run a competent campaign Do you think she lost to Trump on purpose or something? I'm gonna assume that Hillary did want to win, and that she did attempt to run a competent campaign because she wanted to win. She failed but no one succeeds at everything they try and political campaigns are not easy. If you think you could have done much better I'd suggest looking into becoming a campaign manager, there are many potential leftist candidates who I'm sure could use a good campaign manager.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Do you think she lost to Trump on purpose or something? I'm gonna assume that Hillary did want to win, and that she did attempt to run a competent campaign because she wanted to win. She failed but no one succeeds at everything they try and political campaigns are not easy. If you think you could have done much better I'd suggest looking into becoming a campaign manager, there are many potential leftist candidates who I'm sure could use a good campaign manager. Ignoring the Midwest while trying to run up the score in California or places she was never going to win seemed foolish at the time, but what do I know, I’m not a campaign manager. Also, this isn’t the election thread, so I don’t mean to rehash old poo poo in here, I’m sorry
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
tigersklaw posted:Ignoring the Midwest while trying to run up the score in California or places she was never going to win seemed foolish at the time, but what do I know, I’m not a campaign manager. Also, this isn’t the election thread, so I don’t mean to rehash old poo poo in here, I’m sorry I'm fairly certain the primary reason for trips to California were fundraisers, the rallies being a secondary while we're here thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Do you think she lost to Trump on purpose or something? I'm gonna assume that Hillary did want to win, and that she did attempt to run a competent campaign because she wanted to win. She failed but no one succeeds at everything they try and political campaigns are not easy. If you think you could have done much better I'd suggest looking into becoming a campaign manager, there are many potential leftist candidates who I'm sure could use a good campaign manager. She did not try to court voters, she patronizingly and arrogantly expected them to just fall in line and losing was the cost of her pride.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 19:30
|
|
Flater posted:She did not try to court voters, she patronizingly and arrogantly expected them to just fall in line and losing was the cost of her pride. So you're saying she wanted to lose? I remember a lot of campaign ads and such from her while she was running, what were those for if not to try to convince people to vote for her? Her campaign spent a ton of money, where dd it go exactly if not to various efforts to get people to vote for her? I'm not saying that her ads and other efforts were effective, they clearly were not effective enough or we would not be having this conversation, but I don't think it can be disputed that she did attempt to win the election. Also every time I hear about how patronizing and arrogantly Hillary did everything I can't help but remember hearing those exact criticisms from the right wing continually directed at Hillary and basically every other woman from the democratic party for as long as women have been in politics. I guess their propaganda was really effective since it seems to be accepted fact across most of the political spectrum.  Anyway, that's the last I have to say about this, we really should not be having this discussion in the SCOTUS thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:So you're saying she wanted to lose? I remember a lot of campaign ads and such from her while she was running, what were those for if not to try to convince people to vote for her? Her campaign spent a ton of money, where dd it go exactly if not to various efforts to get people to vote for her? I'm not saying that her ads and other efforts were effective, they clearly were not effective enough or we would not be having this conversation, but I don't think it can be disputed that she did attempt to win the election. You do know that various people in the Democratic party get paid a cut of every ad buy they make right? That's the entire reason they love TV ads so much: it's how they personally enrich themselves. So yeah, the answer to that question is basically 'legal embezzlement.' That's what they were for, that's where the money went.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
People are very upset at Hillary and RBG for things that Mitch McConnell has done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:we really should not be having this discussion in the SCOTUS thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:People are very upset at Hillary and RBG for things that Mitch McConnell has done. Mitch is a piece of poo poo, but he could be replaced any time by the Senate Republicans. He's their lightning rod, untouchable in Kentucky, and they love him for it. It might serve us better to stop just hitting the lightning rod with our rage and maybe try to hit his enablers in the Senate. How? I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
Rolabi Wizenard posted:How? I have no idea. McConnell doesn't need to leave the Senate to lose power, if he becomes the minority leader through other republicans getting knocked out he loses most of his ability to obstruct
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
haveblue posted:McConnell doesn't need to leave the Senate to lose power, if he becomes the minority leader through other republicans getting knocked out he loses most of his ability to obstruct Not really even then. It depends on if the democrats allow him to have the power to obstruct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
haveblue posted:McConnell doesn't need to leave the Senate to lose power, if he becomes the minority leader through other republicans getting knocked out he loses most of his ability to obstruct 2022 flips again, he's right back on top, smirking his turtley smirk and pulling the lever that ends America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:2022 flips again, he's right back on top, smirking his turtley smirk and pulling the lever that ends America. Would be harder to gain that power back since the Millenials become the primary voting force, with at least 60% identifying as democrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:2022 flips again, he's right back on top, smirking his turtley smirk and pulling the lever that ends America. Well yeah, and he could win another election after a loss too. He won't go away permanently unless he dies or gets thrown in prison or something, but that's not quite what the question was. And yes, politics can change in the meantime to make it more difficult for him to mount his comeback or be effective if it succeeds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Is this mess the thing that will get Biden to agree legalizing weed is a good thing? He's gotta adopt some kind of exciting policy to drive voters to the polls... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
hello let's please move discussion that is not particularly about SCOTUS to places that are not the SCOTUS thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
I saw Pelosi mentioned that "all options were on the table, even impeachment" to block a potential nominee. How is that supposed to work, does an impeachment take priority over a potential nomination?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:I saw Pelosi mentioned that "all options were on the table, even impeachment" to block a potential nominee. How is that supposed to work, does an impeachment take priority over a potential nomination? Technically yes, practically no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
The Senate majority sets its own rules for business. If the existing ones say that an impeachment trial is higher priority than considering a court nomination, the House can submit articles of impeachment and the Senate either have to deal with those first, or hold a procedural vote to set new rules. I have no idea if there is a forced priority already or if it's at the discretion of the majority leader or vice president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
According to this page they only have until Oct 9 to confirm. What exactly what the steps to confirm a judge, how long each would take, and can they be done by the date the Senate goes to recess? If the House can send over articles of impeachment then why can't the House send over any other piece of paper that the Senate has to deal with first? Is there anything other than articles that the House can send over to delay the confirmation hearings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
McConnell has no shame, I don't think he'll care about random attempts to trip him up on procedural poo poo even if the senate didn't set its own rules of business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Don’t overthink this. There will be a vote either before the election or during the lame duck and Democrats can’t stop it. They can only pack in response in 2021.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Even if you do get anal about it all he has to say is 'okay it's the priority, now while we wait for witnesses and all to be heard let's have a vote'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Vino posted:According to this page they only have until Oct 9 to confirm. What exactly what the steps to confirm a judge, how long each would take, and can they be done by the date the Senate goes to recess? The Oct 9 recess date isn’t set in stone; if the Senate wants to stay in longer it can. There’s nothing the House can send over that the Senate can’t dispose of pro forma in 15 minutes (including impeachment) if they want to force through a nominee. And if there was, the Senate would just nuke the rule requiring them to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Would be harder to gain that power back since the Millenials become the primary voting force, with at least 60% identifying as democrats. The thing is, the courts haven't grown for decades despite the country's expansion and we need dozens if not hundreds of additional judges. So get a Dem Senate and Biden in the WH, and pass a bill that results in Biden adding a few hundred more judges to the court and not just the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS absolutely should be expanded to 13+ and if the Dems retake the Senate and WH perhaps they will finally be angry enough to drop the for a minute or two to fix the judiciary so that the Federalist Society's activists don't get to undo what progress has been made in the last century.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:People are very upset at Hillary and RBG for things that Mitch McConnell has done. This is pretty sexist tbh. Women can be selfish and short-sighted, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There’s nothing the House can send over that the Senate can’t dispose of pro forma in 15 minutes (including impeachment) if they want to force through a nominee. And if there was, the Senate would just nuke the rule requiring them to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Does it matter who is on the Senate rules committee here? No. None of the senate rules matter because republicans can change or suspend them with a majority vote. The senate could have an up and down vote on an appointment tomorrow if they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 08:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court themselves, and they would not be wrong. I think the most important thing to understand about interpretations of law is that there is no right or wrong. There's just what you can enforce. Nobody gives a poo poo about what the words on the actual document say, and everyone in 2020 should understand this by now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The thing is, the courts haven't grown for decades despite the country's expansion and we need dozens if not hundreds of additional judges. That seems like the best approach to me as well. As part of a wider judicial reform bill, it wouldn't look as bad to expand SCOTUS and it is much easier to justify. I hope that the House can take the lead on this and they seem to be warming up to the idea: quote:Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House judiciary committee, tweeted: “If McConnell and Senate Republicans were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session – before a new Senate and president can take office – then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the supreme court.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
If we're working under the premise that Dems have a spine (lol) and that Republicans can't be allowed any power (active or obstructionist) until they reform and actually want to govern (lol), would the following plan make sense if Dems can recapture the Senate and Presidency? 1. Pack the courts (suggestion from the prior post sounds good) 2. Nuke the legislative filibuster 3. Grant statehood to every option possible (DC/PR) to water down R-leaning support in senate (and the electoral college to a lesser extent) Once these are done, go on a "democracy protection" legislative spree - anti-suppression, anti-gerrymandering, anti-dark money, anti-PAC,media (especially social media) regulation, etc. Also, maybe pass some progressive stuff that might actually make people support dems (universal healthcare, UBI, other social services, etc). This is all a pipe dream since the Dems are decorum-obsessed and hate progressive policies too, but if you actually wanted progress would this be the best option currently available?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 13:56
|
|