|
Wasn't there some poll or study where conservative voters would support certain policies but would oppose them as soon as they found out that they're from liberals/Democrats?
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Mustang posted:Wasn't there some poll or study where conservative voters would support certain policies but would oppose them as soon as they found out that they're from liberals/Democrats? There were numerous polls about Obamacare which Republicans and some independence hated it. Than if you asked them about the policies under the Affordable Care Act, they thought they were great and think they should be passed. I can't find it but I swear there was a study that white people loved government benefits until they learned that a black person might get them in which case they will trash the whole program even if it hurts them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:There were numerous polls about Obamacare which Republicans and some independence hated it. Than if you asked them about the policies under the Affordable Care Act, they thought they were great and think they should be passed. There were also polls where they gave two groups a description of a proposed policy. The contents were identical, but the label of one was "universal healthcare" while the label on the other was "healthcare reform." The latter had broad support from a majority of everyone regardless of political affiliation. The former split on party affiliation lines. The wild part is that there were a substantial number of dems who opposed the "reform" but supported UHC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
They gunshy on what "reform" is supposed to mean. It's this chimera poo poo, conservatives run on "reforming" poo poo to death all the time. NCLB was "school reform" etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
I think that does actually make sense, if you come from the perspective that anything Party X does (in general or on a specific subject) is poisoned. If Republicans come to me saying they've got a great idea to protect gay marriage, I'm going to be very distrustful and looking for the catch, even if the 1-2 sentence summary sounds nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
That's pretty obvious though. Lots of things sounds good until you get into the actual details of who/what/when/why/*how*.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
The 'Clear' Skies Act and 'Healthy' Forests Initiative were 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Citizens United actually does what now
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:Citizens United actually does what now A Quicken in every pot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/clarence-thomas-received-a-super-bowl-ring-from-jerry-jones Add Jerry Jones to the list of Supreme Court benefactors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
He won't have a lot of those to hand out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court?CMP=share_btn_tw Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo quote:Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party. It's not as bad as the earlier stuff, but not good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
It's gonna be they all chipped in for a cake or dinner or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
They’re all former clerks, it’s 100% chipping in for the booze for the party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Why would you have to chip in? It’s not like they were drinking $1000 / bottle wines
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas does seem like exactly the type of rear end in a top hat who would make his employees pay for their own alcohol at his xmas party
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Clarence Thomas does seem like exactly the type of rear end in a top hat who would make his employees pay for their own alcohol at his xmas party in that case the pubes are free of charge
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
That guardian article is pretty weak sauce.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
Lol at people simply believing the Venmo payment notes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
Not anything especially new or dramatic, but the AP has a report on what the Supreme Court justices get up to with their lack of an ethics code. Activities that are prohibited for lesser judges, such as using their government staff to help feather their own nests or fundraising. As usual, the SC dodges all responsibility and offers tedious quibbling for why nothing they do is ethically dubious.Book Sales posted:The documents reveal how university visits are a convenient way for justices to sell their own books. That’s especially true in the case of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a prolific author who has kept the court’s most active travel schedule over the past decade, according to the records reviewed by the AP. Fundraising posted:Supreme Court justices insist that they cannot and do not participate in fundraising events. But the emails obtained by the AP show that the court’s definition of a fundraiser — an event that raises more than it costs or where guests are asked for contributions — excludes much of the work that typically goes into persuading a wealthy donor to cut a check. Political Events posted:Visits to universities are promoted as academic in nature, but they also have facilitated encounters between justices and elected officials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
Could the democrats have gotten Harriet Miers confirmed in 2005? It probably would have been a better outcome for them
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
The Harriet Myers saga was 100% an enormous own goal by Democrats, but only in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:Could the democrats have gotten Harriet Miers confirmed in 2005? It probably would have been a better outcome for them They couldn't even get her subpoenaed. Or is that the joke?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:They couldn't even get her subpoenaed. Or is that the joke? I’m not joking, I’m wondering if they could have joined forces with 10 or so republicans and gotten her confirmed and avoided Alito. Wait you’ve apparently only needed 50 votes to confirm a Supreme Court justice since forever, that’s all Clarence Thomas needed. I thought that was a new thing. Did I just get mandela effected? pencilhands fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’m not joking, I’m wondering if they could have joined forces with 10 or so republicans and gotten her confirmed and avoided Alito. Filibusters for SCOTUS nominees was still a thing back then and I'm not sure how or why anyone things Myers would've been an improvement over Alito, unless there's a belief that her incompetence could've resulted in her ruling in favor of the GOP less than Alito despite the fact she was a a GOP faithful through and through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’m not joking, I’m wondering if they could have joined forces with 10 or so republicans and gotten her confirmed and avoided Alito. I mean the senate was controlled by Democrats so they didn’t need to filibuster, they had full control over if it got to the floor, it just wasn’t a thing at the time to refuse to give a SCOTUS nominee a vote. And 11 Democrats voted for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Filibusters for SCOTUS nominees was still a thing back then and I'm not sure how or why anyone things Myers would've been an improvement over Alito, unless there's a belief that her incompetence could've resulted in her ruling in favor of the GOP less than Alito despite the fact she was a a GOP faithful through and through. According to Wikipedia she may have secretly been pro choice based on comments to Arlen Specter Also Alito is in league with Thomas in that they make even the other GOP scotus nominees look moderate. It seems plausible that just about anyone else would have been more liberal than Alito ended up being. pencilhands fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jul 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
Are SC nominees subject to the blue slip?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 23:14
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Are SC nominees subject to the blue slip? No. (Nor have they ever been. Blue slips are generally a DCT thing, and are sometimes applied at the circuit level.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:According to Wikipedia she may have secretly been pro choice based on comments to Arlen Specter While Harriet Miers' extremely thin record created quite a bit of doubt about her positions, there was no real reason for anyone to think that Bush's personal lawyer, good friend, and incompetent crony was going to be a liberal on the bench or prioritize the law over conservative doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
i'm sure she was pro-choice, for herself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’m not joking, I’m wondering if they could have joined forces with 10 or so republicans and gotten her confirmed and avoided Alito. Confirmation has always been simple majority (50+1) it's in the constitution. Cloture (the vote to have the confirmation vote) took 60 up until Republicans changed the senate rules in 2017 to confirm Trump's pick (Democrats had previously changed it for all judges except the supreme court during Obama's presidency in response to the GOP filibustering all of Obama's nominees.) Some Democrats tried to filibuster Alito's nomination too but a bunch of them crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP. Cloture got 75 votes. If you want to read more about it, there was something called the Gang of 14 which formed due to successful Democratic filibusters of some other judicial appointees and Republican threats to use the nuclear option. 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans struck a deal, the Democrats would vote with Republicans to break Democratic filibusters and in exchange the 7 Republicans agreed to vote against the nuclear option if Bush's pick was 'too extreme'. Alito, who wrote the opinion finally killing abortion rights, was apparently not too extreme because the gang of 14 unanimously voted for cloture. In the end all of Bush's appointees that Democrats had tried to filibuster were confirmed, except for three which had already withdrawn their own candidacies. While it may appear the Democrats were completely routed in this instance, they gained valuable political capital which will no doubt serve them well if an unexpected SCOTUS vacancy happens in Obama's second term. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jul 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 00:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Confirmation has always been simple majority (50+1) it's in the constitution. Ugh so democrats are poo poo again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:Ugh so democrats are poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:While Harriet Miers' extremely thin record created quite a bit of doubt about her positions, there was no real reason for anyone to think that Bush's personal lawyer, good friend, and incompetent crony was going to be a liberal on the bench or prioritize the law over conservative doctrine. It's still reasonable to believe the court would've been better off with Miers -> Roberts than with Roberts -> Alito. (Assuming that's what would've happened).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
It doesn't matter anyway, Miers didn't go to an Ivy League school and didn't have the proper resume, she was culturally unacceptable even if she is more liberal than Alito in her heart. Democrats on the judiciary committee were very offended that she, unlike smart class brain Barrett whom Feinstein praised for her preparedness and intelligence, didn't know the answers to the oral exam. Reid, who was a little more savvy than most senate Democrats, was the one who suggested her to Bush, and I'm inclined to think that was a smart play since just about anyone likely would have been better purely by accident than any judge from the Federalist society's underground cloning vats, but most other Democrats
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Armack posted:It's still reasonable to believe the court would've been better off with Miers -> Roberts than with Roberts -> Alito. (Assuming that's what would've happened). I can't see any reason to think she would have been less of an obedient conservative than Alito was. Alito was a well-known conservative, yeah. But Miers had donated to anti-abortion organizations, tried to get the ABA to rescind its statements in support of the legality of abortion, and during her brief political career she expressed support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. While she wasn't exactly well-known, the idea that she might have been an abortion rights defender if she'd gotten the seat instead of Alito is pure conjecture. In fact, I'd think she'd be even worse than Alito (if that's even possible) because she could barely even pretend to know or care about the law - she was pretty transparently a purely political agent who was getting the nom for her loyalty to the Bush family and the conservative movement in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 02:32
|
|
|
It (Reid suggesting Bush nominate Miers) was a smart play because it made Bush look like more of a good-old-boy idiot. Miers once said GW Bush was the smartest man she'd ever met. There is absolutely nothing impressive about Miers, even to people who pay attention to how impressive lawyers are. "Miers was good, actually" is the weirdest alt-history I've seen here. Democrats were not "offended" she didn't know "the answers to an oral exam", they thought she didn't know a thing about the law because she hasn't been involved with it in years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
It's not that Miers was "good" it's that it's not possible for her to have a worse SC judicial record than Alito has had
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Papercut posted:It's not that Miers was "good" it's that it's not possible for her to have a worse SC judicial record than Alito has had There is always more and it is always worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2023 02:41
|
|