The Swamp

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:44 am I love the idea that you can do something really shitty and aggressively partisan and then POOF it's now precedent! It's not at all shitty the next time!

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:51 am I wish they would at least use the argument that Trump isn't a lame duck, but Obama was. While that's not a great argument (especially when you consider how close we are to the election), at least it's not as corrosive as the argument that the acceptable behavior depends on the alignment of the political parties involved as if that's in any way supposed to be what the Constitution intended.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:55 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:51 am I wish they would at least use the argument that Trump isn't a lame duck, but Obama was. While that's not a great argument (especially when you consider how close we are to the election), at least it's not as corrosive as the argument that the acceptable behavior depends on the alignment of the political parties involved as if that's in any way supposed to be what the Constitution intended.

But they held up Garland for like 10 months. This is less than two. I think I read that there is precedent for not filling a seat so close to election day even with a reelection bid. I'll have to try to track that down.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:07 am Unfortunately for the Dems here, this isn’t a court proceeding, and precedent doesn’t matter much. This case and Garland’s are consistent in the only way that really matters: the GOP wants as many federal judges as possible, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:07 am Unfortunately for the Dems here, this isn’t a court proceeding, and precedent doesn’t matter much. This case and Garland’s are consistent in the only way that really matters: the GOP wants as many federal judges as possible, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:55 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:51 am I wish they would at least use the argument that Trump isn't a lame duck, but Obama was. While that's not a great argument (especially when you consider how close we are to the election), at least it's not as corrosive as the argument that the acceptable behavior depends on the alignment of the political parties involved as if that's in any way supposed to be what the Constitution intended.

But they held up Garland for like 10 months. This is less than two. I think I read that there is precedent for not filling a seat so close to election day even with a reelection bid. I'll have to try to track that down.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:17 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:07 am Unfortunately for the Dems here, this isn’t a court proceeding, and precedent doesn’t matter much. This case and Garland’s are consistent in the only way that really matters: the GOP wants as many federal judges as possible, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.

I made this argument earlier. The GOP have viewed the court as important for the last 40 years (since Roe v Wade) and they now put elephants on their side of the seesaw, with support from their unified base. The Dems can scream all they want and even expand the court to 11, but if they put moderates on the court, like Kagan, with those two extra seats, will it matter? For example, you put a democrat judge on there who's wishy-washy on Medicare For All, then what' the point? You need to move left and put bomb-throwers on the court to combat the elephants.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:05 am Nah. Not sure you make structural governing changes to achieve short term political goals. Actually I am sure. Destined to backfire.

I was watching the president of the United States suggest to a mostly maskless crowd that a Democratic congresswoman had married her brother when the news broke that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died. The shock of her death sledgehammered a country teetering on an ugly and desperate edge. It came in waves. It wasn’t merely the loss to the country, or the sadness that a champion of equal rights had died. Nor was it the fact that an increasingly corrupt Republican Party is very close to forcing through the judicial supermajority it needs in order to lock in minority rule and overturn American women’s right to reproductive choice. (You will no doubt hear often in the coming weeks that, of the five conservative Supreme Court justices, four were nominated by presidents who had lost the popular vote.) There was a flashback to the contempt and grief Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing aroused in so many appalled onlookers. And then there was the dread of realizing that a citizenry breaking—financially, politically, even cognitively—under five different kinds of instability was going to have to endure more. We have been in a bad way for a long time, but this is the hurricane on top of the wildfire that follows the earthquake.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:15 am I heard that there's a provision to split Texas (and other states) in three that could be used by the GOP if DC decides to give DC and PR statehood?

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:00 am Except we don't want more judges. We don't want PR and DC to be states. How about they compromise.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:18 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:15 am I heard that there's a provision to split Texas (and other states) in three that could be used by the GOP if DC decides to give DC and PR statehood?

I can’t see anything less popular for Texans than making the state smaller.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:46 am The only thing I can reason with here is, all things being equal, we'd have Garland instead of Gorsuch. That's really it. And he was a moderate, right?

Kennedy was always going to quit during a republican presidency and hand select his successor.

RBG "being put in bubble wrap" was a meme for a very long while and then she eventually passes.

The only way this shit wouldn't have happened is if a non-Hillary Democratic nominee was on the ticket in 2016 and won. But that is way oversimplified and very hindsight-y.

In the meantime Republicans played the game better and Democrats rolled over.

Regardless, FUCK OL' MITTENS. So brave of him to march after George Floyd's death and vote with Democrats on 1 of 2 Articles of Impeachment. But he's still a fucking Republican.

Reminder: it would've taken 4 Republicans with backbone at any point in the last 4 years to go independent and caucus with the Democrats to get rid of McConnell. They didn't do that because it's party over country.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:07 am

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:05 am Nah. Not sure you make structural governing changes to achieve short term political goals. Actually I am sure. Destined to backfire.

When this judge gets pushed through, packing the court wouldn't even help until people started dying.

And it makes no sense that DC doesn't have more representation.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:58 am Now do that argument with Puerto Rico.