SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Also I really don't see how red state senators are gonna lose solely because they voted no on this or Gina Haspel's confirmation etc. It seems like all too often they try to placate the other side and just wind up losing anyhow.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Also I really don't see how red state senators are gonna lose solely because they voted no on this or Gina Haspel's confirmation etc. It seems like all too often they try to placate the other side and just wind up losing anyhow.

That's the Democrats way. But as Joe said in the other thread, not placating to the Rural Voters is:

How to lose elections 101.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEWS: Kavanaugh bluntly said he wanted to overturn SCOTUS ruling upholding constitutionality of independent counsel. There’s difference bw independent counsel and special counsel (like Mueller) - but it’s bound to spark questions about how he views Mueller <a href="https://t.co/HWlcOiQVGP">https://t.co/HWlcOiQVGP</a></p>— Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1019585184616865793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEWS: Kavanaugh bluntly said he wanted to overturn SCOTUS ruling upholding constitutionality of independent counsel. There’s difference bw independent counsel and special counsel (like Mueller) - but it’s bound to spark questions about how he views Mueller <a href="https://t.co/HWlcOiQVGP">https://t.co/HWlcOiQVGP</a></p>— Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1019585184616865793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Meh, of all the problems we're going to have with this dude him voting against the pretty much defunct independent council isn't high up on my list. I do agree its worthwhile to tie him down on the special council but since that's through the Justice Dept and not an entity all on its own I'm not sure the legality is really in question.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Even Joe would've appreciated Sam Bee's well-balanced joke from Wednesday night's Full Frontal:

"Yep, Kennedy gave us the ol' 'Beltway Goodbye', where ya slip out during the party and take everyone's reproductive rights with you. Not to be confused with the 'Kennedy Goodbye', which is when you let a woman drown in a car..."

*audience gives an 'ohhhhhhhhhhhh!!!' response*

"...he did it, not me." <img src="https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/119/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png" height=15 width=15></img>

 

[joecct]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

As long as her mind is clear, fine with me.

@ElizLanders: Ginsberg (who is 85 years old now) said today that she hopes to serve until she is 90 http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/29/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-scalia-new-york/index.html

oops I posted a tweet. Sorry, unofan.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

You know, for as much as righties criticized Kagan's qualifications, they should be warming up to her a bit. She's been stealthily inching towards the center the past couple of years, including a recent legal catfight with Sotomayor, and I'd expect that to continue with the departure of Kennedy and the forthcoming rightward drift of the court. She and Breyer will be the center-left, with Sotomayor and Notorious RBG being the progressive left.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

You know, for as much as righties criticized Kagan's qualifications, they should be warming up to her a bit. She's been stealthily inching towards the center the past couple of years, including a recent legal catfight with Sotomayor, and I'd expect that to continue with the departure of Kennedy and the forthcoming rightward drift of the court. She and Breyer will be the center-left, with Sotomayor and Notorious RBG being the progressive left.

Oh goodie.

 

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

You know, for as much as righties criticized Kagan's qualifications, they should be warming up to her a bit. She's been stealthily inching towards the center the past couple of years, including a recent legal catfight with Sotomayor, and I'd expect that to continue with the departure of Kennedy and the forthcoming rightward drift of the court. She and Breyer will be the center-left, with Sotomayor and Notorious RBG being the progressive left.

? - I was unaware of Kagan screwing over the left with a ruling. Would be helpful if you can cite an example for us.

 

[unofan]

? - I was unaware of Kagan screwing over the left with a ruling. Would be helpful if you can cite an example for us.

She doesn't flip on any of the big cases. But she is definitely more moderate than Sotomeyer. I don't worry about it because Sotomeyer is as left as Scalia was right, and not every justice has to be out there on the wings.

 

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Big surprise here so called "undecided" Rand Paul decided to back Kavanaugh after all! I'm sure Susan Collins will use the same schtick as well and then announce the same decision.

So, to all Dems out there, read this carefully. Kavanaugh has the votes to be confirmed. Don't start bleating if Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp vote for him to take the issue off the table in their difficult re-election bids. Their votes aren't the ones putting him over the top.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/399496-rand-paul-announces-support-for-kavanaugh?userid=57999

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The dems need to be in lockstep on this issue and honestly confirming Brett ****ing Kavanaugh isn't what's going to put these guys over the top in their red states. They need to stop being wussbags and support their women constituents who want the right to choose as well as their blue collar workers that Heitkamp and Manchin pretend to represent. If they do confirm I hope all the DCCC money in the next primary goes to their opponent.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Big surprise here so called "undecided" Rand Paul decided to back Kavanaugh after all! I'm sure Susan Collins will use the same schtick as well and then announce the same decision.

So, to all Dems out there, read this carefully. Kavanaugh has the votes to be confirmed. Don't start bleating if Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp vote for him to take the issue off the table in their difficult re-election bids. Their votes aren't the ones putting him over the top.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/399496-rand-paul-announces-support-for-kavanaugh?userid=57999

They'll all vote him. It's over.

 

[Rover]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The dems need to be in lockstep on this issue and honestly confirming Brett ****ing Kavanaugh isn't what's going to put these guys over the top in their red states. They need to stop being wussbags and support their women constituents who want the right to choose as well as their blue collar workers that Heitkamp and Manchin pretend to represent. If they do confirm I hope all the DCCC money in the next primary goes to their opponent.

This statement is absurd. The guy is going to be confirmed regardless. Instead you'd rather fight a pointless battle who's outcome is pre-ordained just to make a point, and the consequence of that "point" is strengthening Mitch McConnell's hold on the Senate? Okaaaayyy then.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

It's not pointless, even if they have no chance of winning (they don't) you show your constituents that you're against Trump's supreme court nominee who is going to nothing but harm your constituents. There are plenty of reasons to argue the guy isn't qualified (he bought something like $200,000 worth of baseball tickets on loan/credit card debt right before Trump named him, clearly the sign of good judgement) and there's even the possibility that he'll enable Trump in this whole Russia investigation. There's literally no reason not to fight this and they're probably even more likely to lose their reelections if they vote to confirm this guy. Senators like Manchin and Heitkamp are the reason people think there's no real difference between republicans and democrats, they vote to appease their corporate overlords every chance they get, there's no distinction on abortion rights if you're voting to confirm this guy, and you clearly don't want to make it easier for your blue collar workers to unionize if you're voting to confirm him.

But sure, giving a F you to the women and blue collar workers of your state is a great idea and they're totally just gonna cruise through their reelection by confirming Brett Kavanaugh . It's just bad strategy and it shows that they're spineless. Do we not remember how the Republicans did everything in their power to stop Garland from becoming a nominee? Why shouldn't the dems at least try even if it's only symbolic? At the very least it puts the pressure on Murkowski/Collins in their reelection bids as they can no longer pretend to care about abortion rights and all the things I just mentioned after they vote to confirm and it can be used as ammo against them.

 

[unofan]

It's not pointless, even if they have no chance of winning (they don't) you show your constituents that you're against Trump's supreme court nominee who is going to nothing but harm your constituents. There are plenty of reasons to argue the guy isn't qualified (he bought something like $200,000 worth of baseball tickets on loan/credit card debt right before Trump named him, clearly the sign of good judgement) and there's even the possibility that he'll enable Trump in this whole Russia investigation. There's literally no reason not to fight this and they're probably even more likely to lose their reelections if they vote to confirm this guy. Senators like Manchin and Heitkamp are the reason people think there's no real difference between republicans and democrats, they vote to appease their corporate overlords every chance they get, there's no distinction on abortion rights if you're voting to confirm this guy, and you clearly don't want to make it easier for your blue collar workers to unionize if you're voting to confirm him.

But sure, giving a F you to the women and blue collar workers of your state is a great idea and they're totally just gonna cruise through their reelection by confirming Brett Kavanaugh .

Because I'm feeling ornery, this is where I point out they should've let Gorsuch through and saved the fight for this one. I get why they felt they couldn't let Gorsuch thru after McConnell and Grassley's asshattery with Garland, but some of those political bullets wasted on Gorsuch would be so much more valuable now. Make McConnell abolish the filibuster a month before an election on a nominee that's already underwater on his favorability ratings, for instance.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Because I'm feeling ornery, this is where I point out they should've let Gorsuch through and saved the fight for this one. I get why they felt they couldn't let Gorsuch thru after McConnell and Grassley's asshattery with Garland, but some of those political bullets wasted on Gorsuch would be so much more valuable now. Make McConnell abolish the filibuster a month before an election on a nominee that's already underwater on his favorability ratings, for instance.

Democrats never think that far ahead. Republicans have been playing the long game since 1980.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

It's not pointless, even if they have no chance of winning (they don't) you show your constituents that you're against Trump's supreme court nominee who is going to nothing but harm your constituents. There are plenty of reasons to argue the guy isn't qualified (he bought something like $200,000 worth of baseball tickets on loan/credit card debt right before Trump named him, clearly the sign of good judgement) and there's even the possibility that he'll enable Trump in this whole Russia investigation. There's literally no reason not to fight this and they're probably even more likely to lose their reelections if they vote to confirm this guy. Senators like Manchin and Heitkamp are the reason people think there's no real difference between republicans and democrats, they vote to appease their corporate overlords every chance they get, there's no distinction on abortion rights if you're voting to confirm this guy, and you clearly don't want to make it easier for your blue collar workers to unionize if you're voting to confirm him.

But sure, giving a F you to the women and blue collar workers of your state is a great idea and they're totally just gonna cruise through their reelection by confirming Brett Kavanaugh . It's just bad strategy and it shows that they're spineless. Do we not remember how the Republicans did everything in their power to stop Garland from becoming a nominee? Why shouldn't the dems at least try even if it's only symbolic? At the very least it puts the pressure on Murkowski/Collins in their reelection bids as they can no longer pretend to care about abortion rights and all the things I just mentioned after they vote to confirm and it can be used as ammo against them.

Democrats have way way way less power than the Republicans did when they blocked Gorsuch. Whoever runs the Senate has all the power. It's just a matter of how far you want to go. Mitch went so far when he was in the minority that Reid felt he had to lift the filibuster for Judges. Mitch said you'll pay for that, bided his time, and BAM and big **** YOU to Democrats.

And here we are.

Democrats have nothing right now.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

I guess I just don't see why you can't fight both. I guarantee the Republicans would even if they didn't have the votes and wouldn't be reaching across the aisle to try and appease Republicans for no reason.

Democrats have way way way less power than the Republicans did when they blocked Gorsuch. Whoever runs the Senate has all the power. It's just a matter of how far you want to go. Mitch went so far when he was in the minority that Reid felt he had to lift the filibuster for Judges. Mitch said you'll pay for that, bided his time, and BAM and big **** YOU to Democrats.

And here we are.

Democrats have nothing right now.

I know they have less power when they blocked Garland, that doesn't mean the Republicans wouldn't be in lock step on this issue if they were a minority in both houses.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

I guess I just don't see why you can't fight both. I guarantee the Republicans would even if they didn't have the votes and wouldn't be reaching across the aisle to try and appease Republicans for no reason.

The filibuster is gone. They have no power to fight anything.