BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
Other than the hypocrisy and that trump is a bad president (pretty good reasons), what is the case for waiting?
RBG leaves the stage.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
I'm two minds about all of this.
Yes on a practical level it was so boneheaded of the Democrats to not see this coming. But as I said the Democrats always govern as if they are planning to be in power forever.
But if I'm completely honest I just bristle at throwing appointments on the fire with voting and legislation and... well hell everything else at this point, as yet another thing that we have to "strategically." I pine for the days when people in power, even the people I disagree with, can just do what they think is best for the country and not factor in some Moneyball political calculations into it.
I spend most of my time in political discourse annoyed that Democrats act too good to be playing politics whenever they are losing at it, but if everything's a power play then sooner or later power becomes the only thing anyone is actually arguing for.
I hate the fact that the system exists and I hate the fact that the Democrats both pretend it doesn't exist and play it so badly.
Yes on a practical level it was so boneheaded of the Democrats to not see this coming. But as I said the Democrats always govern as if they are planning to be in power forever.
But if I'm completely honest I just bristle at throwing appointments on the fire with voting and legislation and... well hell everything else at this point, as yet another thing that we have to "strategically." I pine for the days when people in power, even the people I disagree with, can just do what they think is best for the country and not factor in some Moneyball political calculations into it.
I spend most of my time in political discourse annoyed that Democrats act too good to be playing politics whenever they are losing at it, but if everything's a power play then sooner or later power becomes the only thing anyone is actually arguing for.
I hate the fact that the system exists and I hate the fact that the Democrats both pretend it doesn't exist and play it so badly.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
I'm not clear on what a better Democrat strategy would be. Republicans control the senate and can scuttle a nomination they don't want and speed up ones they do.
There can be a ton of talk about delay vs no vote vs hypocrisy...but it just is party in control enacts their preferences. What they say about their reasons is moot.
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,772
Trump on fox
"I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff & Schumer & Pelosi? I would be more inclined for the second" -- Trump claims Schiff, Schumer, & Pelosi actually wrote RBG's dying statement, & suggests she'd actually be fine w/him nominating her replacement
"I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff & Schumer & Pelosi? I would be more inclined for the second" -- Trump claims Schiff, Schumer, & Pelosi actually wrote RBG's dying statement, & suggests she'd actually be fine w/him nominating her replacement
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
I can visualize a scenario where Biden wins by a comfortable margin, the Democrats win the Senate and hold the House. Then spend the next four years governing sanely and getting lots of things done.
In that case, while the Democrats will not be in power forever, the Republican Party as it exists today may never take the reins of power again - the level of disgust over Trump and his sycophants among a majority of the population, including former Republicans like myself, just runs too deep. It will have to reinvent itself as a “New Republican Party”, or maybe the true conservatives will simply flee the party and start a new one.
As to packing the court, if Trump rams through a new Justice and goes on to lose the election, the Democrats would be more than justified in raising the number of justices to 11, to compensate for the two “stolen” seats and to bring the court back to some semblance of balance.
Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Last edited:
Insert the Ser Selmy "But those are the King's words!" scene here...
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
According to McConnell in 2016, Obama had no right to expect a SC nominee of his choosing to pass because he was a lame-duck President, and the next President, chosen by the people's voice, should have that expectation; in that way, the people would have a voice in the SC makeup- that's at least an arguably valid position (if a little extra-Constitutional).
Further (and necessary) refining of McConnell's "principle" has been that the midterms of 2014, which gave the GOP a Senate majority, was the voice of the people telling McConnell that he could block Obama's nominees, presumably for the whole two years remaining of his term (that didn't come to a test, so it's hypothetical, but seems at least implied by the argument); and McConnell has said that the further "extension" (I think that was his term) of the GOP senate majority in the 2018 midterm was also an extension of the earlier endorsement by "the people's voice" to pretty much give Trump whatever he wanted.
So, my question is this- suppose (unlikely but possible) Trump wins re-election but the GOP lose their Senate majority? Does that mean that McConnell will concede that the people have decided, by their voice in his (refined) "principle," that now the Dems have the right, for at least the next two years, to block any Trump appointees to the SC? After all, despite Trump's "jokes" to the contrary, he will be as much a lame duck from the first day of his second term as Obama was the last two years of his.
Does McConnell not understand the implications of what he's arguing now for the sake of political expediency? It’s not just that any future president who is ever faced with a Senate majority of the opposing party can’t expect the ability to get a nominee passed, he won’t realistically have the right to even name one. And the one branch of government that absolutely does need to be independent of politics becomes subsumed in it. In the real world, the SC has always been politicized to a degree, but the design was at least to keep it separate. If McConnell's way is followed, the price is to now expressly make the Court political.
Further (and necessary) refining of McConnell's "principle" has been that the midterms of 2014, which gave the GOP a Senate majority, was the voice of the people telling McConnell that he could block Obama's nominees, presumably for the whole two years remaining of his term (that didn't come to a test, so it's hypothetical, but seems at least implied by the argument); and McConnell has said that the further "extension" (I think that was his term) of the GOP senate majority in the 2018 midterm was also an extension of the earlier endorsement by "the people's voice" to pretty much give Trump whatever he wanted.
So, my question is this- suppose (unlikely but possible) Trump wins re-election but the GOP lose their Senate majority? Does that mean that McConnell will concede that the people have decided, by their voice in his (refined) "principle," that now the Dems have the right, for at least the next two years, to block any Trump appointees to the SC? After all, despite Trump's "jokes" to the contrary, he will be as much a lame duck from the first day of his second term as Obama was the last two years of his.
Does McConnell not understand the implications of what he's arguing now for the sake of political expediency? It’s not just that any future president who is ever faced with a Senate majority of the opposing party can’t expect the ability to get a nominee passed, he won’t realistically have the right to even name one. And the one branch of government that absolutely does need to be independent of politics becomes subsumed in it. In the real world, the SC has always been politicized to a degree, but the design was at least to keep it separate. If McConnell's way is followed, the price is to now expressly make the Court political.
He understands exactly what he's doing.
Yet again the Republicans aren't blindly blundering into hypocrisy by accident. The fact that he's a hypocrite hasn't slipped McConnell's mind.
McConnell knows he's a hypocrite better than you or I do. Because to people like McConnell "hypocrites" are winners, people who can do something but their enemy's can't simply because they say-so.
Yeah McConnell's a hypocrite. And that means he's gonna get his Supreme Court nomination and we didn't. That's a win for him.
Last edited:
Suddenly
No Punting
Basically the US constitution is a terrible system and the perception of a independent judiciary was the duck tape holding the whole thing together. A ton of power ended up in their hands, almost all of which was the result of the amendment process being way too restrictive.
People more and more began to understand this and conservative interests finally made taking over the courts a goal and were not at all sly about it.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I'm not disagreeing with you on the whole. However:
It's like asking an atheist why they hate God. Atheists don't care about any gods enough to love or hate them. It's just a thing other people believe is real, not worth an emotional designation.
In order to know he's a hypocrite, he would have to care enough about hypocrisy to take the trouble to evaluate himself in those terms. I doubt that he does.
It's like asking an atheist why they hate God. Atheists don't care about any gods enough to love or hate them. It's just a thing other people believe is real, not worth an emotional designation.
If the Amendment Process was easier it is a metaphysical certainty the same Conservative Right that has packed the courses would have enshrined all their preferred Dogma into the Constitution.
Four times in the last decade they've tried to put "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman because of the baby Jeesuz" in the Constitution.
The "Human Life Amendment" that would have killed Roe Vs Wade only lost by 18 votes.
Flag Burning Amendments, School Prayer Amendments, all proposed by the Right. Maybe don't make it easier for them to complete them.
Four times in the last decade they've tried to put "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman because of the baby Jeesuz" in the Constitution.
The "Human Life Amendment" that would have killed Roe Vs Wade only lost by 18 votes.
Flag Burning Amendments, School Prayer Amendments, all proposed by the Right. Maybe don't make it easier for them to complete them.
Last edited:
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
He sees no reason to consider making it political by putting it on his side for a long time to come as a negative.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I mentioned this dying statement earlier:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13229157#post13229157
But I'd only seen it on Twitter, second- or third-hand, with no actual cite or reference. Does anyone know the origin of this claim about her dying statement?
Is the statement worth considering in the context of filling the vacancy? Does that consideration change if it turns out she didn't say it?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
The statement was dictated to a family member in the short time before her death.
Basically stubby Mcbonespurs is accusing the Ginsburg family of lying.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/1003...nsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87
Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
Suddenly
No Punting
This assumes that a lot of the present political landscape would be remotely similar given this system. A constitution that can be amended with less than what amounts to a total consensus changes things a ton. Most of the reason for the conservatives dedicating themselves to taking over the courts is that a lot of progressive goals were accomplished by court decision at a time when those goals weren't all that popular.
It has been a historical anomaly that for a few decades we had a court that promoted progressive goals rather than be a reactionary doorstop thwarting same.
Suddenly
No Punting
It already is. Understanding that this is a fact of life would be a great help to Democrats facing decades of a hostile federal court system.
We got here by the GOP selectively ignoring or destroying historical norms that defined the way the government worked.
Democrats, if they get the chance, have to do likewise else they will not be able to reshape the government. A big part of that is accepting that the courts have become political and end the norm that the Court is given what amounts to total deference.
"If we had changed the Amendment process 50, 100, 150, 200 years ago" and "If we change the amendment process now" are completely different questions.
In our current political landscape if you give "The government" as a generic entity more power or make its processes easier, the Right will take advantage of that more than the Left. The Right isn't held back by scruples or moral consistency or that pesky "base humanity" or "Facts exist" nonsense.
In our current political landscape if you give "The government" as a generic entity more power or make its processes easier, the Right will take advantage of that more than the Left. The Right isn't held back by scruples or moral consistency or that pesky "base humanity" or "Facts exist" nonsense.
Suddenly
No Punting
Not really. The former illustrates why change would be a good idea. Giving this power to the Courts has historically caused untold damage to this country and we are about to see again why progressives should be leery of giving courts too much power.
They also have less support. All of their power comes from the non-democratic elements of our society. What can be changed more easily can also be changed back easily. Good luck working within present norms the next 40 years with a durable extreme right wing Supreme Court majority plus a federal court system packed with federalist society operatives.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
From NPR:
"Just days before her death, as her strength waned, 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."
Presumably Clara Spera is on record somewhere, making the claim herself in her own words. I think we can agree that we don't need to accuse anyone of lying, to say the statement should be verified before taking it seriously.
Assuming the statement needs to be taken seriously at all. I'm more interested in that than in the question of whether she actually said it. If the statement doesn't matter in terms of filling the vacancy, then the question of whether it's real is entirely moot.
On the other hand, if the statement does need to be taken seriously, then obviously we can't just take Spera's word for it. We'd want to verify it in some way. At that point, "how dare you accuse her of lying!" is just an obfuscatory woo tactic.
Leaving aside the accusations of dishonesty for a moment: Do you think she actually made that statement? Do you think that statement should be a consideration in filling the vacancy on the bench?