Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It is purely a coincidence that these two particular Democratic Senators, after long hours of meticulously and honestly examining the merits, will vote to confirm Gorsuch.

McCaskill is also playing Hamlet.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Meh. Let it go.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

CNN reporting that Dems have the 41 votes to filibuster / force Repubs to go nuclear if they are so inclined.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

CNN reporting that Dems have the 41 votes to filibuster / force Repubs to go nuclear if they are so inclined.

There's no good answer. With Kennedy likely retiring this summer they're going to get two extreme Orcs on the Court to go with Thomas and Alito.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

There's no good answer. With Kennedy likely retiring this summer they're going to get two extreme Orcs on the Court to go with Thomas and Alito.

It doesn't matter. The GOP will ram through any nominee of theirs. It either happens with Gorsuch or the next goon. They no longer respect the office -- the ratf-cking they gave Garland proved that.

In the current GOP we are dealing with a terrorist organization. The best we can do is oppose them with what we have when we can, even if in the short term it is doomed. Snyder's first rule for resisting the fascist takeover: don't obey in advance.

Make the orcs fight for every inch of territory. Give them nothing. And when we are back in power, roll back all their filth immediately. We're in an existential fight now. This isn't left vs right, it's democracy vs authoritarianism. Don't be complicit even for a moment. That's how these guys amass power.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It is purely a coincidence that these two particular Democratic Senators, after long hours of meticulously and honestly examining the merits, will vote to confirm Gorsuch.

Just politics. Happens every single day, around the country. The Dems know he gets confirmed with a simple majority, so it won't matter if he gets 52 votes or 54. They also know it only takes 41 votes to force the nuclear option, not all 48 Democratic votes. Why sacrifice members of your caucus just to make the confirmation vote 52 to 48, or have 48 votes on cloture when only 41 are needed?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Just politics. Happens every single day, around the country. The Dems know he gets confirmed with a simple majority, so it won't matter if he gets 52 votes or 54. They also know it only takes 41 votes to force the nuclear option, not all 48 Democratic votes. Why sacrifice members of your caucus just to make the confirmation vote 52 to 48, or have 48 votes on cloture when only 41 are needed?

Well, yes, that's what I was saying -- just without the snark.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Well, yes, that's what I was saying -- just without the snark.

I've never been good at reading between the lines.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I've never been good at reading between the lines.

A blanket assumption that I'm being a d-ck is probably a fairly safe bet.

They don't make you POTY just cuz you're handsome...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

CNN reporting that Dems have the 41 votes to filibuster / force Repubs to go nuclear if they are so inclined.

So much for the old maxim, "choose your battles wisely." IMHO, a really basic process mistake for the Ds this round:
-- Gorsuch is widely praised to be "highly qualified" outside the hyperpartisan echo chamber
-- he is "replacing" Scalia so that the former status quo remains unchanged
-- Ds themselves introduced the "nuclear option" in the first place
-- Most importantly, had they acted with any amount of class and dignity this time, they'd have a much stronger message next time.
-- now, when "next time" comes up, they are just the little kid who cried wolf.

Why would they not make a short-term tactical concession here to shore up their resources for the one that will really count later?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

With Kennedy likely retiring this summer they're going to get two extreme Orcs on the Court to go with Thomas and Alito.

It seems a bit odd to me that you would put Gorsuch in the same category as those two. He seems to me more like the Elena Kagan of the right. Even though her opinions all slant left, they are well-reasoned and have a solid judicial basis. The differences between the quality of her thinking and Sotomayor's are profound. Every now and then, she surprises you, as when she voted in the 7-2 majority in the ruling against Medicad expansion in NFIB vs Sebelius. I see a similar parallel between Gorsuch and Alito. Just as Kagan approaches the law from the left, she still reasons within the law; so does Gorsuch. With Sotomayor, she starts with her answer and then works backward to figure out how to justify it; and Alito seems to do that as well.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It seems a bit odd to me that you would put Gorsuch in the same category as those two. He seems to me more like the Elena Kagan of the right. Even though her opinions all slant left, they are well-reasoned and have a solid judicial basis. The differences between the quality of her thinking and Sotomayor's are profound. Every now and then, she surprises you, as when she voted in the 7-2 majority in the ruling against Medicad expansion in NFIB vs Sebelius. I see a similar parallel between Gorsuch and Alito. Just as Kagan approaches the law from the left, she still reasons within the law; so does Gorsuch. With Sotomayor, she starts with her answer and then works backward to figure out how to justify it; and Alito seems to do that as well.

So, he's Scalia again? Well, fantastic. It's still a 5-4 majority that believes Corporations are people.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

So much for the old maxim, "choose your battles wisely." IMHO, a really basic process mistake for the Ds this round:
-- Gorsuch is widely praised to be "highly qualified" outside the hyperpartisan echo chamber
-- he is "replacing" Scalia so that the former status quo remains unchanged
-- Ds themselves introduced the "nuclear option" in the first place
-- Most importantly, had they acted with any amount of class and dignity this time, they'd have a much stronger message next time.
-- now, when "next time" comes up, they are just the little kid who cried wolf.

Why would they not make a short-term tactical concession here to shore up their resources for the one that will really count later?

Why should they care if he is "replacing Scalia". Scalia is not some sacred spot...just because they had a arch conservative in that seat before doesnt mean it needs to be one now. The Dems didnt like the make up previous to the troll dying why should they be happy with it now?

They obviously feel that what was good for the goose is good for the gander. The GOP held the seat hostage because they are a bunch of petulant little man-boys so the Dems are going to be as well.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It's still a 5-4 majority that believes Corporations are people.

that is not at all what the ruling actually said. "People have the right peacably to assemble....and petition the government for a redress of grievances."

People can organize into groups, and those groups can then use their First Amendment rights to influence political debate. Organized groups are not "people" and never have been described as such.


Are you really saying that groups of people that happen to have opinions you dislike should have those opinions suppressed merely because you don't like hearing them???

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Why should they care if he is "replacing Scalia". Scalia is not some sacred spot...just because they had a arch conservative in that seat before doesnt mean it needs to be one now. The Dems didnt like the make up previous to the troll dying why should they be happy with it now?

They obviously feel that what was good for the goose is good for the gander. The GOP held the seat hostage because they are a bunch of petulant little man-boys so the Dems are going to be as well.

I merely observe that people who are members of what is supposedly "the world's greatest deliberative body" are not acting as if they thought at all. They are letting their passions overwhelm their reason. No matter how upset and angry you are, you let Gorsuch pass this time, so that you have some credibility next time. Now, when next time comes, they are powerless, and they did nothing at all to stop Gorsuch either; in fact they threw away whatever leverage they might have had in an act of petulant pique. I expect that from teenagers, not from supposed adults.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

that is not at all what the ruling actually said. "People have the right peacably to assemble....and petition the government for a redress of grievances."

People can organize into groups, and those groups can then use their First Amendment rights to influence political debate. Organized groups are not "people" and never have been described as such.


Are you really saying that groups of people that happen to have opinions you dislike should have those opinions suppressed merely because you don't like hearing them???

There's a difference between a corporation and a non-profit political group. Or, at least there was, and now there's not.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Democrats changed the rules because Obama's nominations were filibustered more than all other presidents combined. On top of what was effectively the Garland filibuster.

Turtleman is threatening to change the rules after just one.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Democrats changed the rules because Obama's nominations were filibustered more than all other presidents combined. On top of what was effectively the Garland filibuster.

Turtleman is threatening to change the rules after just one.

Turtleman knows the average American can't make the distinction you have.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Then that's on democrats to better frame their arguments.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I merely observe that people who are members of what is supposedly "the world's greatest deliberative body" are not acting as if they thought at all. They are letting their passions overwhelm their reason. No matter how upset and angry you are, you let Gorsuch pass this time, so that you have some credibility next time. Now, when next time comes, they are powerless, and they did nothing at all to stop Gorsuch either; in fact they threw away whatever leverage they might have had in an act of petulant pique. I expect that from teenagers, not from supposed adults.

That is BS...what credibility? Letting Gorsuch through wont prevent what happens next. It isnt like Trump is going to nominate some liberal justice just because the Dems played nice.

And again why werent you here calling out the other side for literally doing the same thing in the run up to the election? Funny how that works bot-boy.