What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kepler said:
??? Hillary was the moderate. What the Dems did was take a streaming crap on the liberals.

But 2016 did three things that will be good for liberals moving forward. First it ended the notion that the Clinton "third way" is an unstoppable juggernaut. Second, Bernie's run showed there is a strong thirst for genuinely liberal policy and not the watered-down corporatist crap the Donna Braziles of the world peddle. Third, Trump showed that the argument "but x can't win" is forever void. Trump won, therefore literally any person and many inanimate objects can win.

All three of those suppositions were weapons wielded by centrists and blue dogs to keep the left away from their goodies. All three are now exposed as poop. That doesn't guarantee a liberal nominee next time, but it means we'll be building a farm system and moving up the ranks. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party will make a comeback.
Click to expand...

The farm system is pretty lean (thanks DWS!). You're looking at 6 years assuming you can make inroads in the legislatures.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kep pretty much nailed it, but I'll echo his comments. The only people who don't think Hillary was a moderate candidate are those on the fringe of either side of the aisle.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

joecct said:
The farm system is pretty lean (thanks DWS!). You're looking at 6 years assuming you can make inroads in the legislatures.
Click to expand...

Luckily, politicians are sniveling careerist lemmings who will do anything to hold on to their jobs. Dem incumbents will steer further left at least in the near term.

Remember also that we now get to play the game the GOP did and be purists because we don't have the responsibility of governing. It's always more fun being the out party.
 
Kepler said:
??? Hillary was the moderate. What the Dems did was take a streaming crap on the liberals.

.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said "swing voters" instead of moderates. Hilary may have been a moderate on paper, but was not the candidate who would attract the independents.
 
Kepler said:
Luckily, politicians are sniveling careerist lemmings who will do anything to hold on to their jobs. Dem incumbents will steer further left at least in the near term.

Remember also that we now get to play the game the GOP did and be purists because we don't have the responsibility of governing. It's always more fun being the out party.
Click to expand...

You'll always have California! :)
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ericredaxe said:
Maybe I should have said "swing voters" instead of moderates. Hilary may have been a moderate on paper, but was not the candidate who would attract the independents.
Click to expand...

That's fair, since she wasn't the candidate who would attract anyone. :p
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

McConnell says the American people won't stand for the Democrats blocking Supreme Court nominations.

How the Fark he can say that with a straight face after what he pulled is beyond belief. The fact that he may be proven correct is infuriating.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

unofan said:
McConnell says the American people won't stand for the Democrats blocking Supreme Court nominations.

How the Fark he can say that with a straight face after what he pulled is beyond belief. The fact that he may be proven correct is infuriating.
Click to expand...

He's Mitch McConnell. It's what he does. Why anyone is surprised is what's surprising to me.
 
ericredaxe said:
Insisting that one of the worst candidates in history was the perfect person to run against Trump did not turn out as a good electoral strategy either now was it?

Democrats did this to themselves for sure.... By nominating one of the most unlikable candidates in history. They should have kept the independents and moderates in mind when making their selection in the primaries.
Click to expand...

None of this makes sense. Of the people who actually ran (Hillary, Sanders, O'Malley, Chaffee, and that other guy) she was by far the best chance to win. Furthermore, I'm not sure anybody else out there, including Warren, would have beaten him this go around because its tough to counter nonsense with reason if voters want to hear nonsense.

The problem with Dems isn't this nominee or that nominee, be it for President or down ballot. The problem is Dem voters are lazy. They were lazy in 2010, they were lazy in 2014 (lowest mid-term turnout since 1942 - the middle of a world war), and they were lazy in 2016. She was only on the ballot one of those years.

Dems/liberals/whatever are lazy voters. Not every candidate for every race is going to be JFK like inspirational. You still need to support those people if they're on the right side of the issues, even if they're a little dull (Gore for example). Don't do that and you hand over all levers of power to the Republicans. Which, in case you didn't notice, just happened. How is Clinton or Obama responsible for the 24 House seats that they won but are represented by Republican reps???
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

ScoobyDoo said:
He's Mitch McConnell. It's what he does. Why anyone is surprised is what's surprising to me.
Click to expand...

unofan said:
McConnell says the American people won't stand for the Democrats blocking Supreme Court nominations.

How the Fark he can say that with a straight face after what he pulled is beyond belief. The fact that he may be proven correct is infuriating.
Click to expand...
Let me ask a couple of questions kind of related to this subject.

First, as I understand what Reid and the Democrats did a couple of years ago regarding filibusters and cloture is that with respect to things like votes on cabinet appointments and federal judicial positions other than the Supreme Court, they changed the rules so that basically a majority vote can end a filibuster? I think I have that right. Basically I've seen it described as some sort of parliamentary slight of hand in which Reid asked the parliamentarian how many votes were needed to end a filibuster, the parliamentarian then said that 60 votes were needed, at which point Reid called for a vote as to whether the parliamentarian was right and the majority said he wasn't.

So my first question is this. Assuming that's what happened, can't the Republicans do the exact same thing with respect to Supreme Court justices? I've seen some people suggest the Republicans don't want to open up that can of worms since the day will come when they are no longer in the majority and may need to filibuster a nominee themselves. But if that's all it takes to change the rules, can't the Senate then just do something similar in order to restore the 60 vote requirement, and for that matter, can't the Democrats also just change the rules to whatever suits them when they regain the majority? There never used to be a cloture rule, and then it was a two thirds vote required, later changed to 60 votes, and ultimately changed by Reid to majority vote again, except for Supreme Court nominees. Isn't the whole filibuster thing, and cloture rules, just a fiction at this point?

Now my second question. To whose advantage is it to have a Supreme Court divided 4-4? Are the lower courts more likely to go in a conservative direction or liberal direction, or is it a mix (my hunch)? In other words, we really don't even have a Supreme Court any more and everything will just be decided at the federal appellate court level, or even state supreme court level? Do the Democrats gain an advantage in that scenario?
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
Let me ask a couple of questions kind of related to this subject.

First, as I understand what Reid and the Democrats did a couple of years ago regarding filibusters and cloture is that with respect to things like votes on cabinet appointments and federal judicial positions other than the Supreme Court, they changed the rules so that basically a majority vote can end a filibuster? I think I have that right. Basically I've seen it described as some sort of parliamentary slight of hand in which Reid asked the parliamentarian how many votes were needed to end a filibuster, the parliamentarian then said that 60 votes were needed, at which point Reid called for a vote as to whether the parliamentarian was right and the majority said he wasn't.

So my first question is this. Assuming that's what happened, can't the Republicans do the exact same thing with respect to Supreme Court justices? I've seen some people suggest the Republicans don't want to open up that can of worms since the day will come when they are no longer in the majority and may need to filibuster a nominee themselves. But if that's all it takes to change the rules, can't the Senate then just do something similar in order to restore the 60 vote requirement, and for that matter, can't the Democrats also just change the rules to whatever suits them when they regain the majority? There never used to be a cloture rule, and then it was a two thirds vote required, later changed to 60 votes, and ultimately changed by Reid to majority vote again, except for Supreme Court nominees. Isn't the whole filibuster thing, and cloture rules, just a fiction at this point?

Now my second question. To whose advantage is it to have a Supreme Court divided 4-4? Are the lower courts more likely to go in a conservative direction or liberal direction, or is it a mix (my hunch)? In other words, we really don't even have a Supreme Court any more and everything will just be decided at the federal appellate court level, or even state supreme court level? Do the Democrats gain an advantage in that scenario?
Click to expand...

To your first question, yes, the Republicans can change the rules. Feel free.
 
SJHovey said:
Let me ask a couple of questions kind of related to this subject.

First, as I understand what Reid and the Democrats did a couple of years ago regarding filibusters and cloture is that with respect to things like votes on cabinet appointments and federal judicial positions other than the Supreme Court, they changed the rules so that basically a majority vote can end a filibuster? I think I have that right. Basically I've seen it described as some sort of parliamentary slight of hand in which Reid asked the parliamentarian how many votes were needed to end a filibuster, the parliamentarian then said that 60 votes were needed, at which point Reid called for a vote as to whether the parliamentarian was right and the majority said he wasn't.

So my first question is this. Assuming that's what happened, can't the Republicans do the exact same thing with respect to Supreme Court justices? I've seen some people suggest the Republicans don't want to open up that can of worms since the day will come when they are no longer in the majority and may need to filibuster a nominee themselves. But if that's all it takes to change the rules, can't the Senate then just do something similar in order to restore the 60 vote requirement, and for that matter, can't the Democrats also just change the rules to whatever suits them when they regain the majority? There never used to be a cloture rule, and then it was a two thirds vote required, later changed to 60 votes, and ultimately changed by Reid to majority vote again, except for Supreme Court nominees. Isn't the whole filibuster thing, and cloture rules, just a fiction at this point?

Now my second question. To whose advantage is it to have a Supreme Court divided 4-4? Are the lower courts more likely to go in a conservative direction or liberal direction, or is it a mix (my hunch)? In other words, we really don't even have a Supreme Court any more and everything will just be decided at the federal appellate court level, or even state supreme court level? Do the Democrats gain an advantage in that scenario?
Click to expand...

To your first question, yes they can vote to change the threshold for filibusters. The problem IIRC is that they need almost everyone on board. Orrin Hatch for example is a hypocrite, but he has come out against changing that rule. With 52 seats, I think they can only lose 1 more as the VP might not be able to cast a deciding vote on a Senate rule.

To your 2nd questions, most appeals courts except for the one Texas is in and the Rust Belt one containing Wisconsin have a Dem appointed majority, so in the near term Dems have a vested interest in a 4-4 SCOTUS. Its the reverse of what Grassley tried to pull with the DC court a few years ago that partially caused Reid to take the action that they did.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
Let me ask a couple of questions kind of related to this subject.

First, as I understand what Reid and the Democrats did a couple of years ago regarding filibusters and cloture is that with respect to things like votes on cabinet appointments and federal judicial positions other than the Supreme Court, they changed the rules so that basically a majority vote can end a filibuster? I think I have that right. Basically I've seen it described as some sort of parliamentary slight of hand in which Reid asked the parliamentarian how many votes were needed to end a filibuster, the parliamentarian then said that 60 votes were needed, at which point Reid called for a vote as to whether the parliamentarian was right and the majority said he wasn't.

So my first question is this. Assuming that's what happened, can't the Republicans do the exact same thing with respect to Supreme Court justices? I've seen some people suggest the Republicans don't want to open up that can of worms since the day will come when they are no longer in the majority and may need to filibuster a nominee themselves. But if that's all it takes to change the rules, can't the Senate then just do something similar in order to restore the 60 vote requirement, and for that matter, can't the Democrats also just change the rules to whatever suits them when they regain the majority? There never used to be a cloture rule, and then it was a two thirds vote required, later changed to 60 votes, and ultimately changed by Reid to majority vote again, except for Supreme Court nominees. Isn't the whole filibuster thing, and cloture rules, just a fiction at this point?

Now my second question. To whose advantage is it to have a Supreme Court divided 4-4? Are the lower courts more likely to go in a conservative direction or liberal direction, or is it a mix (my hunch)? In other words, we really don't even have a Supreme Court any more and everything will just be decided at the federal appellate court level, or even state supreme court level? Do the Democrats gain an advantage in that scenario?
Click to expand...

I think you are basically right.

As to the latter, it's to the advantage of whoever dominates the federal bench. That's currently the Dems but with the GOP able to fill every seat except SCOTUS with a simple majority, and with the ton of vacancies left over from the GOP blocking Obama's nominees, it would likely be to the GOP's advantage in a fairly short amount of time.

You have to remember that the GOP has been playing dirty pool on lower court nominees for the entire time they had the majority under Obama. IINM they were worse than any prior Congress, and they were pretty open about it. Their definition of an "unacceptable" nominee was purely ideological: they Borked scores of nominees.

I agree the Dems are going to reap what they sowed on the nuclear option. That was the risk and no crying about it. But I don't see that they had much choice. As with most things, until the Dems can recapture Congress and the state legs, this is the Republicans' ballgame, now. They finally get their cake after 36 years of drooling. If you're > $250k in household income, you're OK. If you aren't, you. Are. F-cked.

Flag talks a lot about the fall of the Roman Republic. He's got something, though not the way he thinks. This is an overview of Roman social classes. It's interesting and instructive.

What we have in the US now is an Optimate party which represents solely the interests of the rich and a Universalist party which is theoretically ideologically committed to serving the whole country but which has been colonized by a Quisling class which allows the policies favoring the rich to stay in place, in no small measure because they themselves are rich. That situation has happened before in a lot of places, and the two most common results are (1) the Universalist party begins to move to the left and eventually captures the majority's mandate, or (2) the Universalist party continues to become just a shadow of the Optimate party until an actual revolt occurs: civil disorder.

As a rule, nobody should wish (2) on anybody, since it never works out to the benefit of the people who were screwed over in the first place and usually just makes everybody miserable or, you know, dead.

So the way forward is (1), and I think that's where we're going the next decade plus.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

SJHovey said:
Let me ask a couple of questions kind of related to this subject.

First, as I understand what Reid and the Democrats did a couple of years ago regarding filibusters and cloture is that with respect to things like votes on cabinet appointments and federal judicial positions other than the Supreme Court, they changed the rules so that basically a majority vote can end a filibuster? I think I have that right. Basically I've seen it described as some sort of parliamentary slight of hand in which Reid asked the parliamentarian how many votes were needed to end a filibuster, the parliamentarian then said that 60 votes were needed, at which point Reid called for a vote as to whether the parliamentarian was right and the majority said he wasn't.

So my first question is this. Assuming that's what happened, can't the Republicans do the exact same thing with respect to Supreme Court justices? I've seen some people suggest the Republicans don't want to open up that can of worms since the day will come when they are no longer in the majority and may need to filibuster a nominee themselves. But if that's all it takes to change the rules, can't the Senate then just do something similar in order to restore the 60 vote requirement, and for that matter, can't the Democrats also just change the rules to whatever suits them when they regain the majority? There never used to be a cloture rule, and then it was a two thirds vote required, later changed to 60 votes, and ultimately changed by Reid to majority vote again, except for Supreme Court nominees. Isn't the whole filibuster thing, and cloture rules, just a fiction at this point?

Now my second question. To whose advantage is it to have a Supreme Court divided 4-4? Are the lower courts more likely to go in a conservative direction or liberal direction, or is it a mix (my hunch)? In other words, we really don't even have a Supreme Court any more and everything will just be decided at the federal appellate court level, or even state supreme court level? Do the Democrats gain an advantage in that scenario?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Republicans could change the filibuster with regards to its SCOTUS Advice and Consent responsibilities. A mere simple majority is required for approval by the Constitution, and the filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed by the Senate itself, and the Democrats did with regards to all federal appellate and district court appointees.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Kepler said:
I think you are basically right.

As to the latter, it's to the advantage of whoever dominates the federal bench. That's currently the Dems but with the GOP able to fill every seat except SCOTUS with a simple majority, and with the ton of vacancies left over from the GOP blocking Obama's nominees, it would likely be to the GOP's advantage in a fairly short amount of time.

You have to remember that the GOP has been playing dirty pool on lower court nominees for the entire time they had the majority under Obama. IINM they were worse than any prior Congress, and they were pretty open about it. Their definition of an "unacceptable" nominee was purely ideological: they Borked scores of nominees.

I agree the Dems are going to reap what they sowed on the nuclear option. That was the risk and no crying about it. But I don't see that they had much choice. As with most things, until the Dems can recapture Congress and the state legs, this is the Republicans' ballgame, now. They finally get their cake after 36 years of drooling. If you're > $250k in household income, you're OK. If you aren't, you. Are. F-cked.
Click to expand...

It's also amazing to me how they got away with this Court thing. People voted for Trump though. They must want the Conservative Court they're going to get. Going to be entertaining to watch the crying that's going to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top