|
Discendo Vox posted:They're saying both. The sudden short-notice confirmation decision was a strategic move by Trump's people with ties to Congressional Rs that has created a split in Dem messaging on the nomination decision. They don't have one shot to stop a Trump nominee, they have zero shots. Forcing the Republicans to kill the filibuster doesn't exactly qualify as an "obstacle", since they have the votes to do it and no one seriously expects them not to.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They aren't staffers or terrorists, they are some teen's fan fiction twitter role play thing. Thanks for forwarding some fanfiction you rightly dismissed as pointless. Is there a point at musing as to how big a deal it would be "in real life" or is this just a restatement that unverified sources should be regarded skeptically?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Chuu posted:Isn't this more of a reason the EO should be struck down than it shouldn't? As in, not only does the CBP not have the right detain people under the EO, the CBP doesn't have a constitutional basis to detain anyone under federal law, period? That's true, it would be a separate concurrence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:03
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They don't have one shot to stop a Trump nominee, they have zero shots. Forcing the Republicans to kill the filibuster doesn't exactly qualify as an "obstacle", since they have the votes to do it and no one seriously expects them not to. I know, I was talking about having a procedural ability to make some amount of noise and draw media attention. I'm more trying to correct the impression coming from some quarters that Dems who voted in favor of, e.g., the Matthis confirmation, are (actual quote) "quislings" for doing so. The political Left is performing the traditional political purity autocannibalism dance, primarily through ignorance of the procedures and maneuvering involved in actual politics. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They don't have one shot to stop a Trump nominee, they have zero shots. Forcing the Republicans to kill the filibuster doesn't exactly qualify as an "obstacle", since they have the votes to do it and no one seriously expects them not to. Basically the Democrats are at best Rorschach shouting DO IT right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Basically the Democrats are at best Rorschach shouting DO IT right now. In this instance, I'm Nite Owl II falling to the ground in despair in the movie adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
The Justice Dept is refusing to defend the order (Yates, the interim head, is from the Obama admin).
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Justice Dept is refusing to defend the order (Yates, the interim head, is from the Obama admin). Good on her. Not like she's got anything to lose, since I imagine her career will be largely the same as it would have been, once Sessions replaces her. But still it's nice to see someone use their position to speak truth while they can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:In this instance, I'm Nite Owl II falling to the ground in despair in the movie adaptation. I'm Nite Owl II from the comics who doesn't give a gently caress because I have a GF now
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Good on her. Not like she's got anything to lose, since I imagine her career will be largely the same as it would have been, once Sessions replaces her. But still it's nice to see someone use their position to speak truth while they can. If anything this sets her up nicely for a congressional run. Maybe not in Georgia though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They don't have one shot to stop a Trump nominee, they have zero shots. Forcing the Republicans to kill the filibuster doesn't exactly qualify as an "obstacle", since they have the votes to do it and no one seriously expects them not to. The GOP wants to kill it too, because once they just say "fine gently caress it, filibuster is dead" then they can drop any pretense of not holding single party rule over the entire country. and any bills they want passed will pass unless a couple Senators break ranks to reject it with a simple majority. The Democrats know that the filibuster is the only thing that gives them any relevance at all on matters where all GOP senators are in agreement on something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
I struggle to see the difference in Democrats not filibustering because their ability to do so might get taken away and the filibuster not existing at all. What's the point of having the filibuster if it can never be used? If those are the options I'd rather they go down fighting and we can drop the pretense that the Republicans aren't in absolute control right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If anything this sets her up nicely for a congressional run. Maybe not in Georgia though. Hell getting fired by Trump an hour after you made your move is probably going to be a big boon to your career... ... ...eventually. Hopefully. ... Oh god just fire the missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Holding off and doing it on a HUGE, attention-getting issue (rather than a random appointment) gives them more media and support for their one shot at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 03:47
|
|
Javid posted:Holding off and doing it on a HUGE, attention-getting issue (rather than a random appointment) gives them more media and support for their one shot at it. Yeah, this. Trump's people did all the relatively inoffensive people first intentionally. A filibuster/nuclear option on, say, Matthis, would just further erode Democratic support. People keep saying this is a war- it's not. It's a series of elections.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Summit posted:I struggle to see the difference in Democrats not filibustering because their ability to do so might get taken away and the filibuster not existing at all. What's the point of having the filibuster if it can never be used? If those are the options I'd rather they go down fighting and we can drop the pretense that the Republicans aren't in absolute control right now. i hope mcconnell kills it if for no other reason than it will already be dead if the democrats ever take the senate back, removing the opportunity for the republicans to brazenly use it and the dems to fold like a wet paper towel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Summit posted:I struggle to see the difference in Democrats not filibustering because their ability to do so might get taken away and the filibuster not existing at all. What's the point of having the filibuster if it can never be used? If those are the options I'd rather they go down fighting and we can drop the pretense that the Republicans aren't in absolute control right now. Optics, which is surprisingly important. Especially when it comes to mobilizing voters. Then again, it's not like we need their votes anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Director of ICE just fired- could someone give me an idea of the normal scope of executive firing power? How far down the chain before folks are protected from immediate dismissal?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
All appointed people serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Career people (who got regular hired) have various disciplinary procedures they have to go through to be fired and it's generally very tough to get rid of them. Attorney Generals are traditionally sacrosanct, even though they serve at the pleasure of the President because their independence ensures the President is on the level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:43
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:All appointed people serve at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed at any time. Career people (who got regular hired) have various disciplinary procedures they have to go through to be fired and it's generally very tough to get rid of them. That's what I thought- and I since realized ICE director is appointed. How precedented is it to dismiss and immediately replace acting, previous admin people like this?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
That all assumes the rule of law, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's what I thought- and I since realized ICE director is appointed. How precedented is it to dismiss and immediately replace acting, previous admin people like this? Un.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Optics, which is surprisingly important. Especially when it comes to mobilizing voters. Considering we're going to get some Jim Crow 2.0 poo poo on a federal level over the next couple years... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Considering we're going to get some Jim Crow 2.0 poo poo on a federal level over the next couple years... Don't worry. For every black vote we lose, we'll pick up two white suburban housewives! :I'mwithher:
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The GOP wants to kill it too, because once they just say "fine gently caress it, filibuster is dead" then they can drop any pretense of not holding single party rule over the entire country. and any bills they want passed will pass unless a couple Senators break ranks to reject it with a simple majority. They will kill the filibuster as it pertains to the SCOTUS, not for legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 05:38
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:They will kill the filibuster as it pertains to the SCOTUS, not for legislation. They'll kill both.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jessbravin/status/826286967918837762 Even I say waaaaaaah
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They'll kill both. Not likely. They don't have 50 votes to do that. And McConnell is strongly against it. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-house-filibuster-mcconnell-234192 To get a SCOTUS pick through he might though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
What happened to the good old days when there was a nominee who was such an obviously good choice that they got confirmed unanimously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
qkkl posted:What happened to the good old days when there was a nominee who was such an obviously good choice that they got confirmed unanimously. Watergate happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
qkkl posted:What happened to the good old days when there was a nominee who was such an obviously good choice that they got confirmed unanimously. Robert Bork. And Harriet Miers to a lesser extent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Why...would you even want that. There's plenty of other Republican judges who will suck corporate cock, roll back civil rights legislation, restrict the franchise, empower police to crack skulls or whatever your pet issues happen to be, but who aren't total whackjobs. Do we really need to be jailing people for licking a cock/pussy while having one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
That's the point VitalSigns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why...would you even want that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vae_victis
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/ Call your senator. Evil Fluffy posted:Robert Bork. Harriet Miers would've been fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/ From the article: "Preserving the filibuster now could give Democrats more leverage in the future, proponents of this strategy say. But it would enrage the Democratic base that wants a furious Democratic response to Trump's court pick." Utterly incorrect. Preserving the filibuster provides absolutely no future leverage. Presuming there will be any kind of bipartisanship ever is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/ Literally the second graf of what you posted:Democrats privately discussed their tactics during a closed-door retreat in West Virginia last week. Sometimes it can be helpful to read past the headlines. mcmagic posted:Harriet Miers would've been fine. Based on what reasoning, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
Based on the person who ended up in that seat. She couldn't have possibly been worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Based on the person who ended up in that seat. She couldn't have possibly been worse. The conversation was what happened to unanimous votes. Miers isn't the cause, but she never would have been unanimous because Republicans would have voted against her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The GOP wants to kill it too, because once they just say "fine gently caress it, filibuster is dead" then they can drop any pretense of not holding single party rule over the entire country. and any bills they want passed will pass unless a couple Senators break ranks to reject it with a simple majority. The GOP doesn't really want to kill it, for that exact reason - once they end the filibuster, their voters will expect them to hold uncontested single-party rule in the federal government. Both parties have things that their voters want passed but their legislators don't, and blaming the opposing party for blocking those things is the best excuse possible. It's especially important right now with Trump running the show; if Mitch kills the filibuster now he puts himself in the position of either passing anything Trump tells him to or having to say "No" to Trump. Javid posted:Holding off and doing it on a HUGE, attention-getting issue (rather than a random appointment) gives them more media and support for their one shot at it. Theres no "one shot". There's zero shots. No amount of "media and support" is going to somehow make it impossible for the Republicans to end the filibuster; in fact, I expect that coverage would only make the GOP more likely to pull the trigger. Besides, Trump is an expert at stealing headlines. He can take away the Dems media attention in an instant if he wants. Cabinet nominees are pretty drat huge, anyway, it's not like these are random nobody diplomats or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 16:31
|
|