RBG leaves the stage.

Lindsey Graham tweeted

@LindseyGrahamSC
US Senate candidate, SC
I stand by what I said in Jan. 2019: Harry Reid & Chuck Schumer changed Senate rules to try and stack the courts for Obama. Now it's coming back to haunt them as I predicted. I'm dead set on confirming @realDonaldTrump’s nominee. If you stand with me: https://teamgraham.us/hc5lqgws
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lindsey Graham tweeted

@LindseyGrahamSC
US Senate candidate, SC
I stand by what I said in Jan. 2019: Harry Reid & Chuck Schumer changed Senate rules to try and stack the courts for Obama. Now it's coming back to haunt them as I predicted. I'm dead set on confirming @realDonaldTrump’s nominee. If you stand with me: https://teamgraham.us/hc5lqgws
Click to expand...

Language of the abuser. "Look at what you made me do."

I'm glad they have decided to confirm without knowing who it is. Gives away the game a bit too much.
 
Segnosaur said:
Personally, I don't know.

The argument might be "If the democrats do it, then the republicans will be free to do it in the future". The problem with that argument is that there is no guarantee that, if the Democrats hold back, that the republicans still won't still do it in the future.

Republicans have broken all sorts of norms... they impeached Clinton after an investigation that was... rather dubious. They invoked the nuclear option on supreme court justices, something Obama and the democrats did not do. The democrats could decide to 'play nice', leave the supreme court with 9 judges (and a republican majority), and STILL have the republicans decide to expand and pack the court the next time they control the white house and senate.
Click to expand...

Been saying the first part ever since people whined "But if Obama does it, what's to stop President Palin from doing it!?", and for the exact same reason.

The norm is now that the ruling power can go to whatever lengths they wish to take control of the judiciary branch. Don't like it? Complain to the GOP, as "win at all costs" is the rule they have imposed - mostly because they prefer this to actually appealing to the majority of voters. That's what happens when you're the party of racism and plutocracy.

Also, frankly, most of the federal courts should have been expanded due to sheer population growth and case load long ago. So - two birds, one stone.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
In some sense, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been a disappointment to Trump's hardcore base: they let actual law get in the way of ideology.
This puts a lot of pressure on Trump to nominate someone much more radical, much less experienced to finally push the Court to over turn Roe and the ACA.
Click to expand...

They have spots where they disagree. Roberts too.

The base is too stupid to understand the methodical nature of what the Roberts court is doing. Even in the cases that fail to destroy progressive interests, there is a lot of groundwork being laid for future cases that will go differently.

Any time one of these justices stray a bit, and all but Alito appear to have some individual ideas that could stray from conservative orthodoxy, people overreact as if some rare moment of individualism says more than the vast majority of the time where they are falling in line.
 
Mumbles said:
Been saying the first part ever since people whined "But if Obama does it, what's to stop President Palin from doing it!?", and for the exact same reason.

The norm is now that the ruling power can go to whatever lengths they wish to take control of the judiciary branch. Don't like it? Complain to the GOP, as "win at all costs" is the rule they have imposed - mostly because they prefer this to actually appealing to the majority of voters. That's what happens when you're the party of racism and plutocracy.

Also, frankly, most of the federal courts should have been expanded due to sheer population growth and case load long ago. So - two birds, one stone.
Click to expand...

Evidence for that-

The GOP in 2016- "We can afford to wait eight months to fill a SC seat, because then we will have heard the voice of the people possibly giving us the right to name Scalia's successor- that would be the right thing to do."

GOP in 2020- "We can not afford to wait eight weeks to fill a SC seat, because then we will have heard the voice of the people possibly denying us the right to name RBG's successor- that would be the wrong thing to do."

If the GOP really cared about what the majority of voters had to say, they'd wait to hear it. The idea that the Republicans are rushing this process out of any "principle" other than "win at all costs" is just laughable. And I include Collins in that, in spite of her statement that she favors waiting. I would bet that she had meetings with McConnell and others and told them "if I go along with you, I will lose my Senate seat in November"; and McConnell told her, "well, we can afford to lose a couple of votes, so go ahead and say what you need to in order to get re-elected." Her "principled" stand is as much a political calculation as McConnell's.
 
Good tweet by Nate silver

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1308443446730985477

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Republicans are trying to bait Democrats into a fight over Barrett/Lagoa's personal qualities, because a fight over Roe and the ACA being repealed likely ends badly for them.
Click to expand...

I see this a lot about in conservative posts about her haitian children...they think democrats went with personal complaints against kavanaugh and thomas because they must have had impeccable legal records other than actually be reprehensible.
 
Nova Land said:
That might not be as easy as people think. First the Republicans need to get the nominee approved by the senate judiciary committee. In order to do that, the committee needs to meet and vote to approve the nominee, which calls for a quorum.

But a quorum for the judiciary committee is different from a quorum for the senate itself. Only 7 members of the committee need to be present for the committee to meet -- but 9 members, including at least 2 members of the minority party, need to be present in order for the committee to conduct any business. And approving a nomination is pretty definitely in the conducting business category. So Democrats simply need to make sure that only 1 Democratic member comes to the committee meeting, in order to point out that there is not a quorum and therefore no business can be conducted.
Click to expand...

Can this be confirmed? I read this a day or two ago, but wonder how easy it is for the Senate to change their own rules. Someone said they can't change their own rules mid-session.. My question: what stops them? We've already seen the Rebubs will do anything to 'win'.
 
bignickel said:
Can this be confirmed? I read this a day or two ago, but wonder how easy it is for the Senate to change their own rules. Someone said they can't change their own rules mid-session.. My question: what stops them? We've already seen the Rebubs will do anything to 'win'.
Click to expand...

Yes, those quorum rules exist. No, they won't matter. Senator Graham has previously shown that the can and will ignore them or skirt around them.
 
Since the Republicans insist on cheating, the Democrats should simply change the game. If they win the senate in November they should eliminate the judicial filibuster, expand the Court, impose term-limits on Supreme Court justices and expand the Senate to make it more representative of the American people. Also, grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Since the Republicans insist on cheating, the Democrats should simply change the game. Eliminate the judicial filibuster, expand the Court, impose term-limits on Supreme Court justices and expand the Senate to make it more representative of the American people. Also, grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...

They are playing hardball but certainly not cheating.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are playing hardball but certainly not cheating.
Click to expand...

I don't care for the "cheating" formulation either. Democrats have been obsessed with these unwritten rules and agreements even though the GOP has spent much of the last 20 years clearly communicating that they have no intention of following those rules if it suits them.

...and they are likely to continue to handcuff themselves in this manner. Which is so frustrating to watch.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Romney looks to be onboard with confirming a new Justice prior to the election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...g-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee-419898
Click to expand...

Not my best work, but just sent to Mitt Romney*:

Senator Romney,

You can’t know how disappointed I am in your decision to push for a selection of a Supreme Court justice prior to the 2020 presidential election - an election in which ballots are already being cast. You were fine denying President Obama his choice almost a year out, but now, hypocritically, forget the principles put forth for by you and your colleagues in 2016. I voted for you in 2012, partly because I assumed you were a man of principles. I guess I was wrong.

I no longer count myself as a Republican, since it has become the party of Trump and abandoned all its principles in that pursuit. Sad.



*For all the good it will do.
 
uke2se said:
Since the Republicans insist on cheating, the Democrats should simply change the game. If they win the senate in November they should eliminate the judicial filibuster, expand the Court, impose term-limits on Supreme Court justices and expand the Senate to make it more representative of the American people. Also, grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...

DC statehood would be challenged in the courts, and the newly configured SC will probably rule it unconstitutional. The majority opinion might even unironically term the move a "power grab."
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not my best work, but just sent to Mitt Romney*:

Senator Romney,

You can’t know how disappointed I am in your decision to push for a selection of a Supreme Court justice prior to the 2020 presidential election - an election in which ballots are already being cast. You were fine denying President Obama his choice almost a year out, but now, hypocritically, forget the principles put forth for by you and your colleagues in 2016. I voted for you in 2012, partly because I assumed you were a man of principles. I guess I was wrong.

I no longer count myself as a Republican, since it has become the party of Trump and abandoned all its principles in that pursuit. Sad.



*For all the good it will do.
Click to expand...

Did you make your location Georgia, or Provo Utah?
 
At this point we just have to accept that when a Republican is presented with proof that they are a hypocrite, some sort of powerful reality warping natural force just prevents the information from being processed by their brain.

Romney is probably going to read your later and send you one back that reads "Thank you for complimenting my haircut!"
 
Is it still hypocrisy if the explanation is post hoc? Clearly they did it in 2016 because they didn't want a liberal justice and they could. They then came up with a reason. Is violating that hypocrisy? Clearly the moral standard was less a claim and more a fig leaf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom