GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.
I have a feeling that Romney will no longer be popular on the left and in the media.So much for Mitt being one of the last few republicans with a spine
Eh, yeah probably... but I still give him credit for being the only Republican honorable and brave (imo, of course) enough to vote to remove Trump from officeI have a feeling that Romney will no longer be popular on the left and in the media.
As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.
As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.
I’m not gonna go so far as to blame only the document, it’s more than that, but the document looms as large or larger than anything, because it has caused the path dependency that has narrowed and handicapped the range of motion we have to fix it. But other forces are certainly in play and you could write entire thesis on them.I don't see how the Constitution will be this country's undoing. The Constitution allows for amendment and adjustment - and if the Constitution is ill-equipped for the current political climate, how can we possibly create an alternative? That sounds even worse, there's no way the United States could go through a reconstruction of its government, we would splinter into different nations or into full-scale civil war. So how is that the Constitution's problem and not more accurately an American people problem?
And speaking of reconstruction, it was crazy. I think our living memory is short and we had been a relatively civil period - but the reality is that the United States has been through highly contentious, destructive power-politics before. I really don't see how the features of the Constitution are the problem, it's how we are (currently) using those features. This Supreme Court issue is a perfect example: if you look at every Supreme Court vacancy during an election year since 1900 (there were eight of them), the president made a nomination and the Senate went through the process. Six of the eight were confirmed, including one by a Senate in opposition, one was a recess appointment so it technically doesn't count until the proper appointment was made the following year, and one was Abe Fortas who was just really problematic . . . but even his nomination was taken up by the Senate and then filibustered (because of the nominee, not party politics).
Is it the Constitution's fault that McConnell decided to short-circuit the advice and consent process? As far as I can tell, that had never been done.
He affirmed and reaffirmed his stance AFTER Kavanaugh was confirmed.There is no way that mattered to Lindsey Graham. He would have done the same thing if the Democrats threw flowers on the floor as Kavanaugh walked in to his confirmation hearing. This is all about power. The Republicans have the power, and they don't care if using it is hypocritical.
Then the Democrats will try and stack the court, which I hate. That is the problem when you abuse the power just because you can. You open yourself up to abuse from the other side.
My approach is always, if the other side were to pull this move, would I be ticked. If the answer to that is "yes," then I oppose it even if it gets the result I want. However, you have to be honest with yourself in this approach. Too many people justify their position when they know damn well that if the other side was doing it they would be raising hell--like Graham is doing now. We need more statepersons and less politicians.
I generally agree with your post, but I wasn't talking about Graham for the on the fence Republicans. This has been going on for a while starting with the smearing of Bork and Thomas, the Democrats blocking Bush's judges, the Republicans blocking Obama’s judges, and Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option.There is no way that mattered to Lindsey Graham. He would have done the same thing if the Democrats threw flowers on the floor as Kavanaugh walked in to his confirmation hearing. This is all about power. The Republicans have the power, and they don't care if using it is hypocritical.
Then the Democrats will try and stack the court, which I hate. That is the problem when you abuse the power just because you can. You open yourself up to abuse from the other side.
My approach is always, if the other side were to pull this move, would I be ticked. If the answer to that is "yes," then I oppose it even if it gets the result I want. However, you have to be honest with yourself in this approach. Too many people justify their position when they know damn well that if the other side was doing it they would be raising hell--like Graham is doing now. We need more statepersons and less politicians.
I don't see how the Constitution will be this country's undoing. The Constitution allows for amendment and adjustment - and if the Constitution is ill-equipped for the current political climate, how can we possibly create an alternative? That sounds even worse, there's no way the United States could go through a reconstruction of its government, we would splinter into different nations or into full-scale civil war. So how is that the Constitution's problem and not more accurately an American people problem?
And speaking of reconstruction, it was crazy. I think our living memory is short and we had been a relatively civil period - but the reality is that the United States has been through highly contentious, destructive power-politics before. I really don't see how the features of the Constitution are the problem, it's how we are (currently) using those features. This Supreme Court issue is a perfect example: if you look at every Supreme Court vacancy during an election year since 1900 (there were eight of them), the president made a nomination and the Senate went through the process. Six of the eight were confirmed, including one by a Senate in opposition, one was a recess appointment so it technically doesn't count until the proper appointment was made the following year, and one was Abe Fortas who was just really problematic . . . but even his nomination was taken up by the Senate and then filibustered (because of the nominee, not party politics).
Is it the Constitution's fault that McConnell decided to short-circuit the advice and consent process? As far as I can tell, that had never been done.
He affirmed and reaffirmed his stance AFTER Kavanaugh was confirmed.
Graham is moving the goal posts...
I fundamentally disagree the constitution was written with the intent to regress liberal principles and ideals. And I think you would have a hard time proving that.There isn't any 'short-circuiting' of the advice and consent process. The clause itself does not spell out any formal requirements nor is there any jurisprudence interpreting such to my knowledge. The political question doctrine applies so that the Senate itself determines the necessary procedure. With the removals of the filibusters for judicial nominees it now only requires a majority vote (after proceeding through the Judiciary Committee). The Democrats would be doing the same thing. There's nothing illegitimate about it. The word 'illiberal' has been used but the design of the Constitution itself is illiberal. It bends over backwards to protect smaller states.
People, of course, are also part of the problem. It's not an either-or proposition. Society and political morals have degraded in the last thirty or so years. The advent of talk radio and the internet (particularly these horrendous YouTube personalities) has bred a society of tribalist voters and those voters are going to install tribalist politicians. If this seems bleak that's because it is -- there is no going back. You are not going to get everyone to start being civil again. Especially when this type of behavior reaps results.
I have stopped assuming that because the sun rose yesterday on the American Empire it will rise again tomorrow. The damage Trump has done to the foundations of democracy cannot be understated. Anything could happen on November 3, including the birth of a dictatorship. All of it aided by an archaic form of government. And imagine, only a little more than half of eligible voters can actually be bothered to vote.
I wouldn't expect any meaningful rationalizations from Graham or Romney or any of the GOP Senators aside from: "we have the votes, so we will confirm." And that's all there is to it. And if the Democrats manage to get back into power that will be the rationalization for their policies, too.
Except by his own premise that is not where we are set as a society. His argument is in justification for taking acts the other side has yet to commit, or as punishment for things not directly related to the act being taken.My impression is that SFL is not necessarily saying that such actions are 'proper' or the idealized form of government; merely that is where we are at as a society. Could be wrong, though! Anyway, that's my position. I very much hope Trump loses, and loses convincingly, and the Democrats take power. At this point, it's a necessary counter-measure and at the very least it buys this country a little more time.
I know some of y'all felt different when I said it a couple days ago, but I just don't think this is going to be anything but bad for Republicans chances at maintaining the presidency and Senate. The hypocrisy is blatant enough that I think on its own it will do some damage.. and I also think that wielding this sort of power is likely to receive push back as ultimately when one side appears to possess too much power generally there is pushback via the elections.From the Wall Street Journal
===============================
The fight over replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has added fuel to a raging political fire. President Trump evidently believes that swiftly announcing his choice and pushing for a vote will improve his re-election prospects; the opening is deflecting public attention from the Covid-19 pandemic. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who regards a transformed federal judiciary as his principal legacy, is equally committed to replacing Justice Ginsburg.
At this moment of intense partisan polarization, arguments on the merits have little impact. For the actors in this drama, political calculation will guide behavior. The question is whether long-term self-interest will have any impact on short-term decisions.
For Mr. Trump, the answer is clearly no. Barring a contested election result, his political fate will be determined in six weeks. Before Ginsburg’s death, public opinion had stabilized against him, and he wasn’t likely to win playing the hand he held. Why not try to shuffle the deck and get a new deal?
The available evidence casts doubt on this strategy. Yes, the base of the Republican Party cares passionately about the judiciary. But these voters are highly mobilized. Before Ginsburg’s death, swing state voters reported more confidence in Joe Biden than in Mr. Trump to select the next justice..................
MSN
www.msn.com