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

[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

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

Cant do that...might offend someone

 

[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

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

I'm pretty sure that's been tried. It can't be done.

 

[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

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

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

1. True.
2. That doesn't matter. There are no "liberal chairs" or "conservative chairs" on the Court.
3. This is true, however what the Rs did with Garland trumps everything the Ds did.
4. See 3. We have seen what happens when the Ds are the only party that acts with class and dignity. The electorate does not reward that.
5. Sadly that ship has sailed. Court votes will now be partisan. This is life with a terrorist organization in power on the right.
6. Because the R's have earned the reputation that you can't work with them. Restraint now is merely appeasement.

Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

 

[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 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.

I congratulate you on your emergence from your coma. You must have been in one since we didn't hear these words of wisdom during the GOP Babylonian Captivity of the government between 2010-2016.

Your concern trolling is appreciated, but we abstain from taking your advice. Courteously.

 

[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

I'm pretty sure that's been tried. It can't be done.

It really hasn't. The left in this country is, as Handy said, worried more about offending people and helping those who don't want it.

 

[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 really hasn't. The left in this country is, as Handy said, worried more about offending people and helping those who don't want it.

We were. I think 2016 was a rude but necessary awakening.

The left has been fighting with one hand tied behind our back since 1968. 2016 may be the year we freed both hands. The right had the same problem from 1929 to 1980, and look at what they accomplished once they could punch with both hands again.

I'm afraid our RWNJs have created a self-fulfilling prophesy. They whined and mewled about a "radical far left" for so long while the Clintons and Obamas meekly towed the line on a fundamentally conservative vision of the US, and the country gradually disintegrated into a neo-feudal gulag. There is a legitimate left out here. If you hated Rover, you're really not going to like us.

 

[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

1. True.
2. That doesn't matter. There are no "liberal chairs" or "conservative chairs" on the Court.
3. This is true, however what the Rs did with Garland trumps everything the Ds did.
4. See 3. We have seen what happens when the Ds are the only party that acts with class and dignity. The electorate does not reward that.
5. Sadly that ship has sailed. Court votes will now be partisan. This is life with a terrorist organization in power on the right.
6. Because the R's have earned the reputation that you can't work with them. Restraint now is merely appeasement.

Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

#2 has been a GOP war cry and is hogwash. The argument dies with those who have a half a brain when RBG dies and Terrance Doherty isn't nominated.

 

[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

#2 has been a GOP war cry and is hogwash.

It's just an argument of convenience. Fish has shown many times that he will use any tool to hand. I don't think he's even pretending to have integrity when he does it.

 

[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

It's just an argument of convenience. Fish has shown many times that he will use any tool to hand. I don't think he's even pretending to have integrity when he does it.

Conservatives haven't had integrity since December 19, 1998

 

[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

Conservatives haven't had integrity since December 19, 1998

I raise you January 4, 1995, but SSDD.

There's an entire generation of Americans who have never seen an American right that had the good of the nation as an aim, let alone the aim. I am old enough to have actually seen Republicans, in office, who governed for public service rather than class grift or ideological jihad. But anybody under about 40 has never been aware of a Republican party that wasn't a cross between an inept criminal gang and a lethal terrorist group.

As their ideal personification would say: "Sad."

 

[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

We were. I think 2016 was a rude but necessary awakening.

The left has been fighting with one hand tied behind our back since 1968. 2016 may be the year we freed both hands. The right had the same problem from 1929 to 1980, and look at what they accomplished once they could punch with both hands again.

I'm afraid our RWNJs have created a self-fulfilling prophesy. They whined and mewled about a "radical far left" for so long while the Clintons and Obamas meekly towed the line on a fundamentally conservative vision of the US, and the country gradually disintegrated into a neo-feudal gulag. There is a legitimate left out here. If you hated Rover, you're really not going to like us.

Sorry but that will never happen. The party will never be far left let alone radical. The money is in the middle and in the middle the Dems will stay. Not since LBJ have they had the balls to go against the paymasters and no one in leadership right now will do it either.

 

[BassAle]

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.

no matter what the Democrats do, the filibuster is dead.

Mitch indicated that they WILL go nuclear. If the Democrats agree not to filibuster to prevent the Rs from going nuclear, so they can save that option for next time, say if RBG's seat opens up, they have absolutely no assurance that the Rs just won't go nuclear and push through a conservative justice to replace RBG. It's already been made clear that the R's are willing to go nuclear to get their way when it comes to the supreme court. If the Ds can't use the filibuster without losing it, then its already gone.

The Democrats don't gain anything by saving the nuclear showdown for sometime down the road when they know their opponent is pledging to drop the bomb the very first chance they get.


the R's started this by blocking Merrick Garland

 

[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

no matter what the Democrats do, the filibuster is dead.

Mitch indicated that they WILL go nuclear. If the Democrats agree not to filibuster to prevent the Rs from going nuclear, so they can save that option for next time, say if RBG's seat opens up, they have absolutely no assurance that the Rs just won't go nuclear and push through a conservative justice to replace RBG. It's already been made clear that the R's are willing to go nuclear to get their way when it comes to the supreme court. If the Ds can't use the filibuster without losing it, then its already gone.

The Democrats don't gain anything by saving the nuclear showdown for sometime down the road when they know their opponent is pledging to drop the bomb the very first chance they get.


the R's started this by blocking Merrick Garland

No, it started with the election of Barack Obama. We never saw the opposing party refuse to work on anything the other side proposed before then. The rule change the Democrats put in was just to get run of the mill Judges into jobs that needed to be filled. Americans lives are affected greatly by a Judicial System that is halted do to lack of manpower. Yet, the Republicans didn't give a ****. And the voters didn't give a **** and voted for them anyway.

I honestly would like to know what people vote for because no one with a rational mind could be voting for a Republican. It's not possible. Yet, it happens every day. It's gotten to the point where I think tomorrow Democrats should give up the Abortion and Gun issues entirely and try to get elected that way. Maybe if those two issues are gone we can actually have some rational Governance again.

 

[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

No, it started with the election of Barack Obama. We never saw the opposing party refuse to work on anything the other side proposed before then. The rule change the Democrats put in was just to get run of the mill Judges into jobs that needed to be filled. Americans lives are affected greatly by a Judicial System that is halted do to lack of manpower. Yet, the Republicans didn't give a ****. And the voters didn't give a **** and voted for them anyway.

I honestly would like to know what people vote for because no one with a rational mind could be voting for a Republican. It's not possible. Yet, it happens every day. It's gotten to the point where I think tomorrow Democrats should give up the Abortion and Gun issues entirely and try to get elected that way. Maybe if those two issues are gone we can actually have some rational Governance again.

Does it really matter who "started it"? Supreme Court positions were intended as political appointees. If not, the Constitution would have been written in a different way.

The real question is whether approval of a Supreme Court nomination, or any other Senate vote for that matter, should require a super-majority of 60 votes to pass.

I would tend to say no, at least with respect to regular business of the Senate, of which judicial and cabinet appointments fall. If there should be super-majority votes in either body required for anything, it should be for the real biggies like declarations of war or ratification of treaties.

 

[BassAle]

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

No, it started with the election of Barack Obama.

what I mean is that there is more opposition to Gorsuch, enough to be at filibuster levels, because democrats view the seat as "stolen".

 

[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

Does it really matter who "started it"? Supreme Court positions were intended as political appointees. If not, the Constitution would have been written in a different way.

The real question is whether approval of a Supreme Court nomination, or any other Senate vote for that matter, should require a super-majority of 60 votes to pass.

I would tend to say no, at least with respect to regular business of the Senate, of which judicial and cabinet appointments fall. If there should be super-majority votes in either body required for anything, it should be for the real biggies like declarations of war or ratification of treaties.

Filibuster is a Senate tradition and not Constitutional for anything.

 

[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

Filibuster is a Senate tradition and not Constitutional for anything.

Of course.

What the Republicans propose to do is really just the next step in the elimination of the filibuster, a progression both sides have participated in dating back at least 100 years.

You used to just be able to defeat bills using the filibuster and there wasn't much the other side could do about it. Then the Senate changed the rules to permit cloture votes to end a filibuster.

Next the Senate modified the rules again to change how many votes are necessary to invoke cloture, thus making it easier to terminate filibusters on certain matters.

This is just the final step.

And my question was, is this really a bad thing? I don't think so.

 

[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

Of course.

What the Republicans propose to do is really just the next step in the elimination of the filibuster, a progression both sides have participated in dating back at least 100 years.

You used to just be able to defeat bills using the filibuster and there wasn't much the other side could do about it. Then the Senate changed the rules to permit cloture votes to end a filibuster.

Next the Senate modified the rules again to change how many votes are necessary to invoke cloture, thus making it easier to terminate filibusters on certain matters.

This is just the final step.

And my question was, is this really a bad thing? I don't think so.

Really?

So, 8 years of Barack Obama destroyed by the Filibuster and you want Trump to be able to govern without it?

Sure, throw it out.

 

[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

Really?

So, 8 years of Barack Obama destroyed by the Filibuster and you want Trump to be able to govern without it?

Sure, throw it out.

You think Obama will be the last Democrat to hold the office of President? If it's going to go, it has to go under some administration. Personally I don't care whether it stays or goes. The Senate can make their own rules. I just don't see it's absence as this historical crisis that others see.

 

[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

You think Obama will be the last Democrat to hold the office of President? If it's going to go, it has to go under some administration. Personally I don't care whether it stays or goes. The Senate can make their own rules. I just don't see it's absence as this historical crisis that others see.

I think Obama may be, yes. And after seeing what the new DNC chair did recently I don't think I'm far off thinking that way. Or Susan Rice for that matter.