Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 American Political Scene

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tantalus,

    Can the dems just block it until the election?
    no, by themselves, they don't have the numbers to do so.

    and the GOP Senate will be in power until Jan 20, 2021.

    what COULD happen is the Dems managing to peel off enough GOP Senators -- at a guess, Murkowski, maybe Romney, maybe Grassley. Graham has said in the past that he would oppose something like this, but Graham is a certified Trump Boy now, so all bets are off.

    plus, the possibility that Kelly (D) beats McSally (R) in AZ -- he'd be seated by November 30, so possibly before it got to a vote in the full Senate, and then the GOP advantage would be down to 52-48.

    all in all: if Mitch McConnell wants to, and he really really wants to, he'll likely be able to get another Trump nominee onto the court.

    which is precisely why the Dems should lay down the marker now. if he does this, then upon winning the Presidency and the Senate, Dems will blow up the legislative filibuster and pack the court.

    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post

      which is precisely why the Dems should lay down the marker now. if he does this, then upon winning the Presidency and the Senate, Dems will blow up the legislative filibuster and pack the court.
      Should they? It seems to me this is an opportunity for the Dems to energize the liberal base and cement their chances to defeat Trump and take back control of the Senate. Threatening radical steps might simply energize the Republican base in turn.

      The Dems would have a great opportunity to pass some of their agenda with unified control of the Government; a conservative majority on the Supreme court doesn't necessarily prevent that. Several conservative judges especially John Roberts are concerned with upholding the legitimacy of the court and might be wary of revisiting divisive issues like Roe vs Wade. And if they do, that might be a better time to threaten to pack the court rather than right before an election.
      Last edited by InExile; 19 Sep 20,, 19:31.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
        tantalus,



        no, by themselves, they don't have the numbers to do so.

        and the GOP Senate will be in power until Jan 20, 2021.

        what COULD happen is the Dems managing to peel off enough GOP Senators -- at a guess, Murkowski, maybe Romney, maybe Grassley. Graham has said in the past that he would oppose something like this, but Graham is a certified Trump Boy now, so all bets are off.

        plus, the possibility that Kelly (D) beats McSally (R) in AZ -- he'd be seated by November 30, so possibly before it got to a vote in the full Senate, and then the GOP advantage would be down to 52-48.

        all in all: if Mitch McConnell wants to, and he really really wants to, he'll likely be able to get another Trump nominee onto the court.

        which is precisely why the Dems should lay down the marker now. if he does this, then upon winning the Presidency and the Senate, Dems will blow up the legislative filibuster and pack the court.
        What do you mean by pack the court?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
          As then and now the American People want a Republican Senate to rule in the matters of the Senate. Sorry, if that may leave a bad taste in your mouth?
          Interesting that you can take McConnell's words one way with the nomination of Merrick Garland and another entirely with the nomination of a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

          Well, not interesting at all, merely in keeping with your hypocritical worldview.

          Allow me to quote a few Republican Senators:

          Four Republicans senators who have said they will oppose a vote on a new Supreme Court justice just before the election:

          Sen. Susan Collins to the New York Times: “I think that’s too close, I really do.”

          Sen. Lisa Murkowski in September: ““When Republicans held off Merrick Garland it was because nine months prior to the election was too close, we needed to let people decide. And I agreed to do that. If we now say that months prior to the election is OK when nine months was not, that is a double standard and I don’t believe we should do it." ”Fair is fair.”

          Sen. Lindsey Graham in October 2018: “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election. And I’ve got a pretty good chance of being the Judiciary Chairman. Hold the tape.”

          Sen. Chuck Grassley said in July he would follow the Biden rule: “I’m just following what was established by the Biden Rule in 1986 and then emphasized by him in 1992… They set the pattern. I didn’t set the pattern. But it was very legitimate that you can’t have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents.”


          What voters say on picking the next judge

          In Times/Siena polls of Maine, North Carolina and Arizona released Friday, voters preferred Mr. Biden to select the next Supreme Court justice by 12 percentage points, 53 percent to 41 percent. In each of the three states, Mr. Biden led by just a slightly wider margin on choosing the next justice than he did over all.

          Similarly, a Fox News poll last week found that voters nationwide trusted Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump — by seven points — to nominate the next Supreme Court justice. Here again, Mr. Biden led by a slightly wider margin on this issue than he led Mr. Trump.

          Originally posted by surfgun View Post
          I thought you have stated previously, that you were a Republican, but just didn’t like Trump?
          You thought wrong. I have always stated that I was and am a center-right libertarian (small L, because of my distaste and distrust of political parties). For the record, I am registered independent.

          "Proud Boys - Stand back and stand by" ~ President Donald J Trump 30 September 2020

          "Standing down and standing by sir"~ Proud Boys 30 September 2020

          “Trump basically said to go fuck them up...This makes me so happy.” Joe Biggs, a leader of the Proud Boys 30 September 2020

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tantalus View Post

            What do you mean by pack the court?
            A Democrat-controlled Senate could vote to enlarge the Supreme Court beyond the current 9 justices and then fill those extra numbers with liberal justices, and the GOP would be unable to do anything about it....until they control the Senate. This of course would vastly dilute the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.

            See, the Republicans ramrodding a new justice into the Supreme Court mere weeks before the election, despite blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland months before an election, would be more than merely their usual hypocrisy. Because what people like surfgun can't seem to comprehend is anything that the GOP does while it controls the presidency and Senate, is merely setting a precedent for the Democrats to do when the shoe is on the other foot.

            Which is odd, given surfgun's love of precedents.
            "Proud Boys - Stand back and stand by" ~ President Donald J Trump 30 September 2020

            "Standing down and standing by sir"~ Proud Boys 30 September 2020

            “Trump basically said to go fuck them up...This makes me so happy.” Joe Biggs, a leader of the Proud Boys 30 September 2020

            Comment


            • Trump calls on Senate Republicans to act 'without delay' on SCOTUS pick

              President Donald Trump on Saturday morning, just hours after the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tweeted Senate Republicans have an "obligation, without delay" to act on his nominee to the Supreme Court, presumably before November's presidential election.

              “We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices,” Trump tweeted. "We have this obligation, without delay!"

              Trump has yet to indicate whom he might pick and when, and despite his call for Senate Republicans to act "without delay," just how quickly the process will move on the Capital Hill is still very much an open question with the election just over six weeks away.

              Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose legacy is tied to the vast number of judicial nominees he's gotten through the Senate, has vowed that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will get a vote, but he did not say when that vote would be held.

              “Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary,” McConnell said in a statement Friday night.

              “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said, without mentioning specific timing.

              Some Republicans seem to be answering Trump's call. Sen. Thom Tillis, a longtime Trump ally who currently is in a tough reelection slog against Democrat Cal Cunningham, made it clear he’ll support a Trump nominee.

              "There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support, and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support, who will legislate radical, left wing policies from the bench," Tillis said in a statement.

              Multiple sources familiar with the President Trump’s thinking and that of his advisers see a short list of potential nominees.

              The sources describe that list, as of now, including federal appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett, Barbara Lagoa, Allison Jones Rushing and Amul Thapar, with the sources all describing Coney Barrett as the leading contender at this point.

              The sources caution the process is still in its early stages and the president is expected to speak to those on the short list before making any announcement in the coming days.

              Ginsburg's death certainly sets the stage for a titanic political showdown that complicates an already bitter presidential election. Not even 24 hours after news broke of Ginsburg's death, the White House and Trump campaign leaned into the new political reality by urging former Vice President Joe Biden to release his list of possible Supreme Court picks as Trump did last week.

              "He needs to tell voters where he stands," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told Fox News Saturday morning.

              "We don't know whose on his Supreme Court list. We don't know what kind of justices he would nominate. We know very squarely this president has been very transparent putting forward two lists as to exactly not just what his justices would look like but what their names be. This is paramount importance to the American voters," she said.

              Trump appeared to be caught off guard Friday evening when a reporter asked him about Ginsburg's death and said that he was "saddened" to hear the news.

              “She just died? Wow, I didn't know that — I just, uh, you’re telling me now for the first time,” Trump said. "“She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agreed or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I'm, actually saddened to hear. I am saddened to hear that.”

              The sense of urgency Trump tweeted Saturday morning is in sharp contrast to how he reacted after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia four years ago while President Barack Obama was in his last year in office.

              "I think that the next president should make the pick," Trump said on CNN at the time. "We don't have a very long distance to wait. Certainly, they could wait it out very easily. But I think the next president should make the pick. I would be not in favor of going forward."


              Trump, who brings up conservative control of the Supreme Court as a key election issue at almost all his campaign rallies, is likely to say more about the court at a campaign event Saturday evening in North Carolina.

              NPR reported that just days before her death, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
              _________

              Trump, true to his sociopathic core, didn't even wait until she was in the ground to hypocritically demand a Senate vote. Apparently this is different from when Scalia passed away.
              "Proud Boys - Stand back and stand by" ~ President Donald J Trump 30 September 2020

              "Standing down and standing by sir"~ Proud Boys 30 September 2020

              “Trump basically said to go fuck them up...This makes me so happy.” Joe Biggs, a leader of the Proud Boys 30 September 2020

              Comment


              • If the Dems threaten the packing of the court to previously mentioned figure by them (of 15), what would prevent the Republicans from pre packing it with an expanded number of justices before the Dems would even have the opportunity?
                Threats can lead to unintended consequences.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                  If the Dems threaten the packing of the court to previously mentioned figure by them (of 15), what would prevent the Republicans from pre packing it with an expanded number of justices before the Dems would even have the opportunity?
                  Threats can lead to unintended consequences.
                  Covered that already:

                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  A Democrat-controlled Senate could vote to enlarge the Supreme Court beyond the current 9 justices and then fill those extra numbers with liberal justices, and the GOP would be unable to do anything about it....until they control the Senate. This of course would vastly dilute the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.
                  "Proud Boys - Stand back and stand by" ~ President Donald J Trump 30 September 2020

                  "Standing down and standing by sir"~ Proud Boys 30 September 2020

                  “Trump basically said to go fuck them up...This makes me so happy.” Joe Biggs, a leader of the Proud Boys 30 September 2020

                  Comment


                  • surfgun,

                    If the Dems threaten the packing of the court to previously mentioned figure by them (of 15), what would prevent the Republicans from pre packing it with an expanded number of justices before the Dems would even have the opportunity?
                    Threats can lead to unintended consequences.
                    then Mitch McConnell would need to blow up the legislative filibuster a few months before a set of elections where Democrats are favored to take the Presidency and the Senate.

                    and if that comes to pass, then the GOP packed court would not have the chance to do anything before the Democrats pack it even more.

                    so, not a credible threat.



                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • Inexile,

                      The Dems would have a great opportunity to pass some of their agenda with unified control of the Government; a conservative majority on the Supreme court doesn't necessarily prevent that. Several conservative judges especially John Roberts are concerned with upholding the legitimacy of the court and might be wary of revisiting divisive issues like Roe vs Wade. And if they do, that might be a better time to threaten to pack the court rather than right before an election
                      maybe, we'll see how well Trump manages to use this to get his base going.

                      I would probably agree with you outright if the Court were currently evenly divided, and the GOP had picked someone like John Roberts as a RBG replacement.

                      but, the Court is no longer evenly divided and the frontrunner that people are discussing-- Amy Barrett-- is essentially a Scalia conservative (she was his clerk). in this scenario, Roberts is no longer going to be the tie-breaker and the median.

                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                        A Democrat-controlled Senate could vote to enlarge the Supreme Court beyond the current 9 justices and then fill those extra numbers with liberal justices, and the GOP would be unable to do anything about it....until they control the Senate. This of course would vastly dilute the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.

                        See, the Republicans ramrodding a new justice into the Supreme Court mere weeks before the election, despite blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland months before an election, would be more than merely their usual hypocrisy. Because what people like surfgun can't seem to comprehend is anything that the GOP does while it controls the presidency and Senate, is merely setting a precedent for the Democrats to do when the shoe is on the other foot.

                        Which is odd, given surfgun's love of precedents.
                        Ok thanks.

                        Iam curious. Lets imagine they ram through a nominee. Do you think there is any chance the dems would do that? It seems that would be the equivalent of setting a bomb off. Also it doesn't seem like biden's style.

                        It sounds like a threat everyone realises is an unloaded gun and if the election comes and goes with democratic domination secured they will get on with running the country and let this slide away in the rear view memory. If the repulbicans don't push ahead, iam struggling to see how that will be the reason that compelled them...?

                        That said, it sounds like there will be enough republicans of integrity to sink this and as they already have a majority they can afford to lose this one.

                        Comment


                        • That said, it sounds like there will be enough republicans of integrity to sink this and as they already have a majority they can afford to lose this one.
                          that's actually fairly low probability.

                          if Mitch McConnell didn't press the advantage, the GOP base would explode in rage at the prospect of "giving" a Supreme Court seat to Biden.

                          even the scenario I outlined -- where Democrats try to deter McConnell by letting him know what exactly will happen if he does this -- the deterrence is fairly weak, because it would require McConnell to 1.) believe that Democrats will actually take those steps post-election, and 2.) care about what happens in the long-term.

                          which he doesn't. for either.

                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • So far it looks like Collins and Murkowski are both "No" votes, unless they can be strong-armed by McConnell into changing their minds.

                            Graham of course has once again twisted his whole body straight up Trump's ass and pulled a 180, insisting that circumstances are different.

                            That leaves Grassley and perhaps Romney.

                            And of course Kelly, assuming he wins and is seated prior to a Senate vote.
                            "Proud Boys - Stand back and stand by" ~ President Donald J Trump 30 September 2020

                            "Standing down and standing by sir"~ Proud Boys 30 September 2020

                            “Trump basically said to go fuck them up...This makes me so happy.” Joe Biggs, a leader of the Proud Boys 30 September 2020

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post

                              that's actually fairly low probability.

                              if Mitch McConnell didn't press the advantage, the GOP base would explode in rage at the prospect of "giving" a Supreme Court seat to Biden.

                              ok noted
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post


                              even the scenario I outlined -- where Democrats try to deter McConnell by letting him know what exactly will happen if he does this -- the deterrence is fairly weak, because it would require McConnell to 1.) believe that Democrats will actually take those steps post-election, and 2.) care about what happens in the long-term.

                              which he doesn't. for either.
                              this makes sense

                              Comment


                              • Democrats have to win the Senate too which is far more unlikely than winning the White House. 538 has them as slight favorites to take the Senate, but I don't see them winning it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X