Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Y'all Ready?Follow

#1 Sep 19 2020 at 5:40 AM Rating: Excellent
*
61 posts
...for the downward spiral?

We all knew it was only a matter of time. And, surprising absolutely nobody who has any sort of political consciousness whatsoever, Moscow Mitch has done a complete 180 on whether or not we should wait until after the election to shoehorn in a replacement Justice.

Meanwhile, I'm taking a break from Facebook after seeing a number of rabid, vocal "leftists" already decrying RBG's entire career and blaming her for what's to come because they disliked a few of the decisions that she made.




So how's everybody else's weekend going?
#2 Sep 19 2020 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eh, McConnell gonna McConnell. He's a purely political creature with no ethics beyond seizing and holding power. Anyone surprised or doubting that hasn't been paying any attention for the last umpteen years.

One of a few things is going to likely happen:
(1) Four GOP senators stop confirmation until 2021. Doubtful but "possible". Collins & Murkowski already said they wouldn't vote to confirm, maybe Romney would also do so but he also might feel like getting an anti-abortion justice on the bench is more important than trolling Trump. Hard to imagine a solid 4th but maybe one of the retiring senators would grow a spine. Again, doubtful.

(2) Trump wins in November. None of this matters because Ginsberg wouldn't have held on until 2024 anyway.

(3) Biden wins in November. If Democrats retake the Senate, they'll work to abolish the filibuster and pack the court with twelve or thirteen justices. If they don't retake the Senate, they probably will in 2022 when the map is very unfavorable to the Republicans. At which time they'll work to abolish the filibuster and pack the court. Likewise, if they narrowly win the Senate in 2020 but someone like Manchin refuses to play along. McConnell and Republicans will wail big crocodile tears while pretending that they'd respect the sacred and hallowed traditions of the Senate if the situation were reversed.

There's other technical possibilities but none are likely (Trump wins and Democrats win the Senate, Biden wins and somehow loses the House, etc).

Anyway, nothing much to be done about it right now. If you want to feel productive, donate to the DSCC or directly to one of the tight Senate races (N. Carolina, Iowa, Maine, Montana, maybe S. Carolina. Arizona and Colorado are probably already Democratic pick-ups)

Edited, Sep 19th 2020 8:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Sep 22 2020 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,779 posts
I feel like we've been spiraling downward for awhile now.

I'm looking forward to an 11+ judge SCOTUS.







Edited, Sep 22nd 2020 3:51pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Sep 22 2020 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Lindsey Graham has been the MVP so far.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Sep 22 2020 at 4:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
I think that the smart move is for Trump to nominate a replacement and the Senate to confirm that replacement, as quickly as possible. Leaving the seat open does the same thing it did in 2016: Makes it an issue in the election. Folks who might not be motivated too much by Biden or the Dems themselves may feel the need to go to the polls just to make sure the seat is filled by a liberal justice instead of one the GOP would pick. Fill the seat ahead of time, and it takes that aspect off the table.

As I said when this happened in 2016. There's no magical "rule" about whether to confirm or not in an election year. It's up to the Senate to make that decision. Obviously, if the president is of a different party they're going to be more likely to consider holding the confirmation until after the election, while if he's of the same party, they aren't. The Dems can cry about this, but that's one of the powers granted to the Senate.

I think that the current rhetoric coming from the Left is not helping the Dems right now. When you break it down, the message is essentially that if they can't succeed under the current rules, then they'll just change the rules. Um... Why not maybe realize that your political ideology isn't as popular today as it was say 40+ years ago, and change it? Instead, they have doubled and tripled down on identity politics and name calling on anyone who doesn't fall in line. As I've said many times, this approach is just driving people away from their party.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Sep 23 2020 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that the smart move


It's so cute that it "thinks" what it does is "think"

Edited, Sep 23rd 2020 5:02am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#7 Sep 23 2020 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
Also, it's sad that it thinks it knows anything that is a smart move. Never gonna compare to an organic, gbaji. Stop trying, and go fiddle with your electric sheep.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#8 Sep 23 2020 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,923 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that the smart move is for Trump to detonate 25 kilos of Comp B at the next full White House Staff meeting.
Oh, I agree.


Edited, Sep 24th 2020 6:15pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#9 Sep 24 2020 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
*
61 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that the smart move is for Trump to nominate a replacement and the Senate to confirm that replacement, as quickly as possible. Leaving the seat open does the same thing it did in 2016: Makes it an issue in the election. Folks who might not be motivated too much by Biden or the Dems themselves may feel the need to go to the polls just to make sure the seat is filled by a liberal justice instead of one the GOP would pick. Fill the seat ahead of time, and it takes that aspect off the table.

As I said when this happened in 2016. There's no magical "rule" about whether to confirm or not in an election year. It's up to the Senate to make that decision. Obviously, if the president is of a different party they're going to be more likely to consider holding the confirmation until after the election, while if he's of the same party, they aren't. The Dems can cry about this, but that's one of the powers granted to the Senate.

I think that the current rhetoric coming from the Left is not helping the Dems right now. When you break it down, the message is essentially that if they can't succeed under the current rules, then they'll just change the rules. Um... Why not maybe realize that your political ideology isn't as popular today as it was say 40+ years ago, and change it? Instead, they have doubled and tripled down on identity politics and name calling on anyone who doesn't fall in line. As I've said many times, this approach is just driving people away from their party.


I am legitimately curious, what do you make of the myriad Republican senators doing a complete 180 in regards to seating a new Justice during an election cycle? Yaknow, after they said Obama shouldn't do it, after they blocked Garland, and after they claimed that, if this happened with a Republican president, they would feel the same way?
#10 Sep 25 2020 at 3:33 AM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
Velicenda wrote:
I am legitimately curious, what do you make of the myriad Republican senators doing a complete 180 in regards to seating a new Justice during an election cycle? Yaknow, after they said Obama shouldn't do it, after they blocked Garland, and after they claimed that, if this happened with a Republican president, they would feel the same way?


Prepare to be underwhelmed
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#11 Sep 25 2020 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,779 posts
stupidmonkey wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
I am legitimately curious, what do you make of the myriad Republican senators doing a complete 180 in regards to seating a new Justice during an election cycle? Yaknow, after they said Obama shouldn't do it, after they blocked Garland, and after they claimed that, if this happened with a Republican president, they would feel the same way?


Prepare to be underwhelmed
Let me try..........
gbaji wrote:
It's different because then the Dems didn't control the senate so, it was a Dem administration and a Rep led senate. Now it's a Rep run admin and a Rep run Senate. So, obviously it's different and completely reasonable to push through trumps pick for judge.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Sep 25 2020 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,779 posts
stupidmonkey wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
I am legitimately curious, what do you make of the myriad Republican senators doing a complete 180 in regards to seating a new Justice during an election cycle? Yaknow, after they said Obama shouldn't do it, after they blocked Garland, and after they claimed that, if this happened with a Republican president, they would feel the same way?


Prepare to be underwhelmed
Let me try..........
gbaji wrote:
It's different because then the Dems didn't control the senate so, it was a Dem administration and a Rep led senate. Now it's a Rep run admin and a Rep run Senate. So, obviously it's different and completely reasonable to push through trumps pick for judge.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#13 Sep 26 2020 at 3:34 AM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
hax
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#14 Oct 02 2020 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,779 posts
I double posted and just caught it now. I need to work on my blame game, so who or what should I blame for this?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#15 Oct 12 2020 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Velicenda wrote:
I am legitimately curious, what do you make of the myriad Republican senators doing a complete 180 in regards to seating a new Justice during an election cycle? Yaknow, after they said Obama shouldn't do it, after they blocked Garland, and after they claimed that, if this happened with a Republican president, they would feel the same way?


Elinda's phrasing (and hacked double posting!) aside, she's not completely wrong. There is a difference when the president and the senate are of the same party versus when they are not. The question of delaying confirmation until after an election or going ahead before the election only even comes up when the president is of one party and the senate majority is of the other. There's no reason to even consider it when that's not the case because there's no gain to delaying. The senate majority is never going to get a better nominee if they delay, so they wont.

And yes, the same thing occurs if the shoe is on the other foot. If the Dems had controlled the senate in 2016, is there any doubt that they would have moved forward and confirmed Obama's pick? Of course not. And if the Dems controlled the senate right now, is there any doubt that they would delay the confirmation until after the election? Also, of course not.

At the risk of using a sport analogy, insisting that the same "rule" apply regardless of who is in control of the senate is like arguing that if a football team on offence at the end of the 2nd quarter chooses to use a time out to give them more time to score, then they should use their last time out when the other team has the ball at the end of the 2nd quarter in another game, cause "the rule" apparently is to always use time outs to allow for a last second score at the end of the half, right? Um... No. You do it if it benefits you, and you don't when it doesn't.

I do find it interesting that you speak of the Republicans making a 180 on this, while failing to mention that the Dems are doing the same thing. The same folks who argued passionately that a nominee should always be confirmed speedily, even in an election year, are now arguing the exact opposite now.

The only actual consistency here is that in both cases the Democrats are arguing that the GOP should take an action that hurts the GOP and helps the Dems. Which is kinda silly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Oct 12 2020 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the Dems had controlled the senate in 2016, is there any doubt that they would have moved forward and confirmed Obama's pick?


Fatal Flaw: Assume everyone is as devoid of a moral compass, and human character as I, personally am. /gbajivoice
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#17 Oct 12 2020 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If the Dems had controlled the senate in 2016, is there any doubt that they would have moved forward and confirmed Obama's pick?


Fatal Flaw: Assume everyone is as devoid of a moral compass, and human character as I, personally am. /gbajivoice


I'll note that you didn't actually deny that had the Dems been in the same position in 2016 that the GOP is in today, that they would have done the same thing that the GOP is doing.

Both "sides" would do the exact same thing as the other side if the situations were the same. There's no moral superiority condition here. The difference is that the Dems falsely claim that there is and that the GOP should act in a way that is not to the GOP's advantage, but to the Dems favor. What's silly to me is that every single person posting here knows this, but if they are liberal (which most of you are), you pretend that you don't, and that there is some moral "rule" to be followed, and that the Dems would follow that rule if situations were reversed. Let's cut the BS. You all know that the Dems would do the exact same thing given the same circumstances. it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Heck. They'd be idiots to do otherwise.

Why pretend? You're not lying to yourselves, and you're certainly not convincing me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Oct 12 2020 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
Fatal Flaw: Thinking I care what you think, because you never shut up about what you think.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#19 Oct 13 2020 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
On one hand, you could make a pretty good argument that "Well, the other guys would do it" is a lazy fallacy designed to just alleviate yourself of the burden of guilt. On the other hand, you could make a pretty good argument that McConnell's trampling of Senate norms and traditions is unprecedented in the modern era and will damage the chamber for at least a generation.

But, on the third hand, at least we know that if the Democrats engage in court packing or eliminating the filibuster or whatever, Gbaji won't complain and will simply agree that the Republicans would have done the same thing and there's zero moral high ground.

Edited, Oct 13th 2020 7:31am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Oct 16 2020 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:

Elinda's phrasing (and hacked double posting!) aside, she's not completely wrong. There is a difference when the president and the senate are of the same party versus when they are not. The question of delaying confirmation until after an election or going ahead before the election only even comes up when the president is of one party and the senate majority is of the other. There's no reason to even consider it when that's not the case because there's no gain to delaying. The senate majority is never going to get a better nominee if they delay, so they wont.

And yes, the same thing occurs if the shoe is on the other foot. If the Dems had controlled the senate in 2016, is there any doubt that they would have moved forward and confirmed Obama's pick? Of course not. And if the Dems controlled the senate right now, is there any doubt that they would delay the confirmation until after the election? Also, of course not.

At the risk of using a sport analogy, insisting that the same "rule" apply regardless of who is in control of the senate is like arguing that if a football team on offence at the end of the 2nd quarter chooses to use a time out to give them more time to score, then they should use their last time out when the other team has the ball at the end of the 2nd quarter in another game, cause "the rule" apparently is to always use time outs to allow for a last second score at the end of the half, right? Um... No. You do it if it benefits you, and you don't when it doesn't.

I do find it interesting that you speak of the Republicans making a 180 on this, while failing to mention that the Dems are doing the same thing. The same folks who argued passionately that a nominee should always be confirmed speedily, even in an election year, are now arguing the exact opposite now.

The only actual consistency here is that in both cases the Democrats are arguing that the GOP should take an action that hurts the GOP and helps the Dems. Which is kinda silly.
This. Every single bit of it.


I'm going to go puke now.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#21 Oct 16 2020 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
On one hand, you could make a pretty good argument that "Well, the other guys would do it" is a lazy fallacy designed to just alleviate yourself of the burden of guilt. On the other hand, you could make a pretty good argument that McConnell's trampling of Senate norms and traditions is unprecedented in the modern era and will damage the chamber for at least a generation.


The majority leader of the Senate choosing to delay something, whether an appointment, ratification, or legislation, in the hopes of conditions changing to allow for a better alternative is not in any way a "trampling of Senate norms and traditions", and is hardly "unprecedented". You're just pretending it is because you don't like the outcome.

Quote:
But, on the third hand, at least we know that if the Democrats engage in court packing or eliminating the filibuster or whatever, Gbaji won't complain and will simply agree that the Republicans would have done the same thing and there's zero moral high ground.


There is a vast difference between filling a vacancy and "packing the court". I do realize that the messaging memo from the left went out strong and loud, so that every freaking pundit and politician magically declared a definition change so as to make it seem like what they were thinking to do was no worse than what the GOP is currently doing, but that's just BS.

Filling vacancies when you can and with folks you want is normal. Happens all the time, especially when the president and the senate are of the same party. To pack the court (ie: increase the number of sets in SCOTUS by 4, and fill it with 4 liberal justices so that their 3-6 minority becomes a 7-6 majority) is a much more radical thing to do. Firstly, barring the incredibly unlikely event that they manage to get a super majority of the senate (and still assuming that they do win the white house *and* a majority in the senate), they would need to first remove the Senate rule for the filibuster for everything, not just appointments (which would have massive negative consequences in the future as well as actually dramatically changing the very nature of the senate forever). Then they'd have to legislatively change the number of seats on the SCOTUS bench, using that simple majority alone. Then, they'd fill the seats.

That's not remotely the same as simply filling an existing vacancy in the bench. The harm the Dems would do to our democracy in the pursuit of having a majority on the court so they can impose their ideology without needing the voters to agree would be incredibly bad. Like, destroying our nations checks and balances bad.

But hey! Equate away!

Edited, Oct 16th 2020 5:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Oct 16 2020 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I mean, sure. I will equate away. And I'll watch all the crocodile tears as the GOP insists that this is totally different and shattering all the norms and traditions and yadda yadda. Ya get what ya get.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Oct 19 2020 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,779 posts
gbMutton wrote:

Elinda's phrasing (and hacked double posting!) aside, she's not completely wrong.
Oh ******* Of course I'm not, cuz that particular day this is the message your shepherd was giving out.

Let me reiterate; You're very predictable.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 14 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (14)