Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 321: RIP RBG; OMG FML

(+) Yeah! (+)

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And why should Rock be held to a higher standard than literal United States Senators?

If they are going to twist themselves into knots to justify the supreme court nomination after "setting the precedent" in 2016, I fail to see Rock wanting PR and DC statehood as being a terrible thing. Especially since there are very compelling non-political reasons for them to warrant statehood as well.

I love when it is framed as a political gain and also when Lord within a few posts of it can't figure out a practical reason against their statehood. Lol.

That said, CNN is reporting the GOP has enough votes likely to pass the nominee already. Which, I find kind of disgusting that they do already without even knowing who it is or having their hearing first, but then again... The Democrats are all against the person pretty much already without knowing who it is also. So they are both messed up. Get rid of the two party system.


---

Corrik7 posted...

I love when it is framed as a political gain and also when Lord within a few posts of it can't figure out a practical reason against their statehood. Lol.

That said, CNN is reporting the GOP has enough votes likely to pass the nominee already. Which, I find kind of disgusting that they do already without even knowing who it is or having their hearing first, but then again... The Democrats are all against the person pretty much already without knowing who it is also. So they are both messed up. Get rid of the two party system.

The Dems are against the nominee because the GOP is not playing by their own rules they set for Garland, which doesn't have anything to do with who the nominee is!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The Dems are against the nominee because the GOP is not playing by their own rules they set for Garland, which doesn't have anything to do with who the nominee is!

The Dems didn't agree with the rules in 2016. Why do they all the sudden now? Don't justify it. It's stupid either side has made a decision about the nominee before knowing who it is.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The Dems didn't agree with the rules in 2016. Why do they all the sudden now? Don't justify it. It's stupid either side has made a decision about the nominee before knowing who it is.

Agreed
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Bloomberg is paying off FL fines/court fees:

https://twitter.com/philiprucker/status/1308369679266787334?s=21

Credit where it's due, this is a genuinely good thing for him to do.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Credit where it's due, this is a genuinely good thing for him to do.

I know a lot of people stopped donating to that because they realized it might not be a net gain in voters like they assumed initially. Which is kind of ironic that they were only donating because they felt they would get more voters. That's dangerously close to "buying votes".

---

Corrik7 posted...

The Dems didn't agree with the rules in 2016. Why do they all the sudden now? Don't justify it. It's stupid either side has made a decision about the nominee before knowing who it is.

The point is that the rules have to be consistent. Mitch invented this "rule" in 2016 when it would help the GOP, and is now abandoning it (or retroactively claiming it was something else) now that it would hurt the GOP. In doing this, they've stolen a seat.

Jakyl25 posted...

Agreed

Very surprised to see you say this!

---

Corrik7 posted...

The Dems didn't agree with the rules in 2016. Why do they all the sudden now?

Allow me to explain in the simplest way possible:

Two kids are playing tag. Let's name them Danny and Richie. Danny is it.

Danny tags with Richie with his right hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your left hand."
"What? That rule makes no sense."
"It's my house so these are my rules."

4 minutes later, Danny tags Richie again, this time with his left hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your right hand."
"You said it only counts when I tag you with my left hand!"
"I don't get why you're mad. You were okay with tagging with the right hand earlier."
"You're just making up rules!"
"Nuh-uh! I'm just going by what you wanted before!"

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The point is that the rules have to be consistent. Mitch invented this "rule" in 2016 when it would help the GOP, and is now abandoning it (or retroactively claiming it was something else) now that it would hurt the GOP. In doing this, they've stolen a seat.

The point is that the rules have NEVER been consistent between the parties. Both parties pick and choose the rules they want when it is convenient for them. The only thing consistent is exactly that, that both parties will pick and choose what is advantageous to themselves.

There is no scenario where the Democrats said... BY GEE GOLLY, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PICK THIS NOMINEE BUT IN THE GOOD GRACES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WE SHALL FORFEIT THAT RIGHT.

And vice versa.

The only thing consistent is that either party is out for their team and will do what they can for their team. It's why we need a third party. We need a single party not able to hold a majority to do this back and forth.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Allow me to explain in the simplest way possible:

Two kids are playing tag. Let's name them Danny and Richie. Danny is it.

Danny tags with Richie with his right hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your left hand."
"What? That rule makes no sense."
"It's my house so these are my rules."

4 minutes later, Danny tags Richie again, this time with his left hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your right hand."
"You said it only counts when I tag you with my left hand!"
"I don't get why you're mad. You were okay with tagging with the right hand earlier."
"You're just making up rules!"
"Nuh-uh! I'm just going by what you wanted before!"

Just stop with stupid analogies.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Allow me to explain in the simplest way possible:

Two kids are playing tag. Let's name them Danny and Richie. Danny is it.

Danny tags with Richie with his right hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your left hand."
"What? That rule makes no sense."
"It's my house so these are my rules."

4 minutes later, Danny tags Richie again, this time with his left hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your right hand."
"You said it only counts when I tag you with my left hand!"
"I don't get why you're mad. You were okay with tagging with the right hand earlier."
"You're just making up rules!"
"Nuh-uh! I'm just going by what you wanted before!"

i was trying to think of a very simple analogy to explain this to corrik but this is better than anything i could have thought of.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The point is that the rules have NEVER been consistent between the parties. Both parties pick and choose the rules they want when it is convenient for them. The only thing consistent is exactly that, that both parties will pick and choose what is advantageous to themselves.

There is no scenario where the Democrats said... BY GEE GOLLY, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PICK THIS NOMINEE BUT IN THE GOOD GRACES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WE SHALL FORFEIT THAT RIGHT.

And vice versa.

The only thing consistent is that either party is out for their team and will do what they can for their team. It's why we need a third party. We need a single party not able to hold a majority to do this back and forth.

When did the Democrats ever hold a seat Supreme Court seat open for almost a year?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Just stop with stupid analogies

You're right, Danny should just take a sledgehammer to Richie's house and leave.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

When did the Democrats ever hold a seat Supreme Court seat open for almost a year?

Also realize the fact that they literally left the Supreme Court from the time of Scalia's death (February 2016) to Gorsuch's appointment (April 2017) without a ninth justice for 14 months, causing the SC to rule on several issues at a 4-4 tie.

They literally sabotaged an entire branch of the government over a year.

But not, Democrats = Republicans here. That's a perfectly logical stance.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I have no counterpoint.

No. No you do not.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

When did the Democrats ever hold a seat Supreme Court seat open for almost a year?

You are implying that they wouldn't.

"Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 183536 and 198788.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.

During the 1844 election, for example, there were two open seats on the Court. John Tyler made nine separate nominations of five different candidates, in one case sending up the same nominee three times. He sent up a pair of nominees in December, after the election. When those failed, he sent up another pair in February (presidential terms then ended in March). He had that power. Presidents have made Supreme Court nominations as late as literally the last day of their term. In Tylers case, the Whig-controlled Senate had, and used, its power to block multiple nominations by a man they had previously expelled from their party.

At the same time, in terms of raw power, a majority of senators has the power to seat any nominee they want, and block any nominee they want. Historically, that power of the majority was limited by the filibuster, but a majority can change that rule, and has. Norms long limited the filibusters use in judicial nominations in the first place, and violation of those norms led to its abolition. No Supreme Court nominee was filibustered by a minority of Senators until 1968. Senate Democrats attempted filibusters of William Rehnquist twice, and launched the first formal filibuster of a new appointment to the Court on partisan lines against Samuel Alito in 2005. Joe Biden participated prominently in the Rehnquist and Alito filibusters. Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and joined by Biden, were the first to filibuster federal appellate nominees in 2003. After Republicans adopted the same tactic years later, Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for appellate nominees in 2013. Republicans extended that elimination to Supreme Court nominees in 2017."

It's like you think your party is full of god's angels and aren't politicians. They both pick and choose when to do shit that benefits their teams. All the time.

---

I understand that there's been a back and forth of escalation on the courts for a while between the parties.

None of those other things you listed resulted in stolen seats. What McConnell did with Garland was a huge escalation, and I don't agree that it's at all clear that the Dems would have done the same.

Hell, several Republicans were openly saying in 2016 that they'd hold the seat open for Clinton's entire term if she won!

---

Never in US history has there been a nomination and/or confirmation this close to an election.

---

And Romney is a yes :\

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1308403549651562499

---

Democrats are not brazen enough to do anything about this, much less holding a seat for almost a year lmao.


---

TheRock1525 posted...

Allow me to explain in the simplest way possible:

Two kids are playing tag. Let's name them Danny and Richie. Danny is it.

Danny tags with Richie with his right hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your left hand."
"What? That rule makes no sense."
"It's my house so these are my rules."

4 minutes later, Danny tags Richie again, this time with his left hand.

"You're it!"
"Actually, I've decided that it only counts if you tag me with your right hand."
"You said it only counts when I tag you with my left hand!"
"I don't get why you're mad. You were okay with tagging with the right hand earlier."
"You're just making up rules!"
"Nuh-uh! I'm just going by what you wanted before!"

This is perfect

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I understand that there's been a back and forth of escalation on the courts for a while between the parties.

None of those other things you listed resulted in stolen seats. What McConnell did with Garland was a huge escalation, and I don't agree that it's at all clear that the Dems would have done the same.

Hell, several Republicans were openly saying in 2016 that they'd hold the seat open for Clinton's entire term if she won!

Do you agree it is all clear that Dems wouldn't have done the same in the same situation? They gave Bush enough problems with just regular appointments. You think they wouldn't have in the final year with the opportunity to turn the Supreme court to 6-3? Especially with Bush unable to run again and a Democrat being a shoo-in for the next presidency due to backlash on the Iraqi War? I mean... come on...

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

And Romney is a yes :\

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1308403549651562499

mitt romney: "yeah we should remove him from office but hey let him get a new supreme court justice first"

(not the statement, just the fact that, y'know, he voted to remove)

---

can we all take a moment to appreciate the fact that sephyg is still purg'd? his flooding of this topic (and the next one) with smiley-filled posts would have been absolutely insufferable.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

And Romney is a yes :\

Did you really expect anything else? Republicans are terrible people. They will do anything for power. Maybe one day Democrats will realize that Republicans will justify anything they do, and criticize anything Democrats do. Barack Obama could've literally cured cancer, and they would've shamed him for putting doctors out of work. These people are absolutely shameless. The only reason Susan Collins and Murkowski even said they'd stand by principle is because their seat is in jeopardy, and they know they don't need their votes.

When Democrats gain back power, they should do everything they can to end the Republican party. They won't, because they still are under this delusion that Republicans are worth working with. They aren't. They're not even worth talking to. I really hope Democrats decide to stop being useless. I really hope they just force their agenda, and not even TRY to get a single Republican on board. Tell them all to shove it. No more 'bipartisan' buillshit. It's past time to stop caring about bipartisanship. They've shown that. Stealing a SCOTUS Seat should mean war between the two parties. ANd all this hand wringing about "Oh, the democrats would've done it first!" ignores the fucking point that Democrats didn't do it first, and Republicans refused to allow Merrick Garland a hearing for FOURTEEN FUCKING MONTHS. All in a power grab. And then decided to change the fucking rules again for their own benefit. I say fuck republicans. Shove your agenda down their throats, and let them beg for scraps. Let's not forget that they can have a hearing on a SCOTUS justice this fast, but we STILL don't have a second fucking stimulus because all they give TWO SHITS about is their corporate donors.

ANd people can spare me the whole "Oh, we don't know who it is yet!"

#1. Trump isn't choosing anyone good. He's already said he wants to end Roe V. Wade. That much is clear.

#2. It doesn't fucking matter who it is because McConnell stole a fucking seat.

Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republicans can go fuck themselves. As soon as we take back the Presidency and the Senate, its time to stop playing nice with Republicans and just do whatever the hell we want.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Do you agree it is all clear that Dems wouldn't have done the same in the same situation? They gave Bush enough problems with just regular appointments. You think they wouldn't have in the final year with the opportunity to turn the Supreme court to 6-3? Especially with Bush unable to run again and a Democrat being a shoo-in for the next presidency due to backlash on the Iraqi War? I mean... come on...

The Dems would taken up the nominee and likely voted him or her down since George W. Bush did stupid shit like nominate Harriet Miers.

If Republicans brought Garland to a vote and simply voted him down, I'd be annoyed but at least they gave him a hearing.

---

Ashethan posted...

Did you really expect anything else? Republicans are terrible people. They will do anything for power. Maybe one day Democrats will realize that Republicans will justify anything they do, and criticize anything Democrats do. Barack Obama could've literally cured cancer, and they would've shamed him for putting doctors out of work. These people are absolutely shameless. The only reason Susan Collins and Murkowski even said they'd stand by principle is because their seat is in jeopardy, and they know they don't need their votes.

When Democrats gain back power, they should do everything they can to end the Republican party. They won't, because they still are under this delusion that Republicans are worth working with. They aren't. They're not even worth talking to. I really hope Democrats decide to stop being useless. I really hope they just force their agenda, and not even TRY to get a single Republican on board. Tell them all to shove it. No more 'bipartisan' buillshit. It's past time to stop caring about bipartisanship. They've shown that. Stealing a SCOTUS Seat should mean war between the two parties. ANd all this hand wringing about "Oh, the democrats would've done it first!" ignores the fucking point that Democrats didn't do it first, and Republicans refused to allow Merrick Garland a hearing for FOURTEEN FUCKING MONTHS. All in a power grab. And then decided to change the fucking rules again for their own benefit. I say fuck republicans. Shove your agenda down their throats, and let them beg for scraps. Let's not forget that they can have a hearing on a SCOTUS justice this fast, but we STILL don't have a second fucking stimulus because all they give TWO SHITS about is their corporate donors.

ANd people can spare me the whole "Oh, we don't know who it is yet!"

#1. Trump isn't choosing anyone good. He's already said he wants to end Roe V. Wade. That much is clear.

#2. It doesn't fucking matter who it is because McConnell stole a fucking seat.

Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republicans can go fuck themselves. As soon as we take back the Presidency and the Senate, its time to stop playing nice with Republicans and just do whatever the hell we want.

Which for the democratic establishment is mostly hand wringing and nothing too good.

They aren't even taking the measures they could enforce to stop this.

I hate to tell everyone but the democratic establishment just enjoys losing.

---

Ashethan posted...

ANd people can spare me the whole "Oh, we don't know who it is yet!"

Amy Coney Barrett was Trump's second choice to Kavanaugh.
Trump literally told her "I'm saving you for Ginsburg."
It's gonna be Amy Coney Barrett, one of the most openly hostile judges towards Roe v. Wade.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Do you agree it is all clear that Dems wouldn't have done the same in the same situation? They gave Bush enough problems with just regular appointments. You think they wouldn't have in the final year with the opportunity to turn the Supreme court to 6-3? Especially with Bush unable to run again and a Democrat being a shoo-in for the next presidency due to backlash on the Iraqi War? I mean... come on...

I wouldn't be surprised if some Dems pushed to do that, but I would be very surprised if they got 50 on board.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hate to tell everyone but the democratic establishment just enjoys losing.

It's not that they enjoy losing, it's that they get punished for the same dogmatic approaches that the GOP thrive on. They can't run on fearmongering and an us vs. them mentality the same way Republicans can. So they're naturally handicapped.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Do you agree it is all clear that Dems wouldn't have done the same in the same situation?

we don't know so what's the point in talking about it?

this is always the problem with you. you're not even basing your accusations of hypocrisy on shit that actually happened. you just go "well, i'm sure that if the tables were turned, you would do the same thing (even though i'm pulling this accusation out of my ass)! HYPOCRITE!" this makes it even more fucking stupid. you really need to stop this obsession with calling out hypocrisy.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

It's not that they enjoy losing, it's that they get punished for the same dogmatic approaches that the GOP thrive on. They can't run on fearmongering and an us vs. them mentality the same way Republicans can. So they're naturally handicapped.

It isn't about messaging (I agree they shouldn't run on these things) but when they won't do things like follow through packing the court, or shut down the government over something so important as this... it's just about losing.

All the democrats are doing is saying "the republicans shouldn't be doing this" while they go "lol we don't give a fuck."

This is why they win, because they actually want to.

---

Some polling this morning:

https://twitter.com/NilesGApol/status/1308351628165230598?

Basically, I gotta believe that North Carolina, Colorado, and Arizona are all solid blue flips. Alabama is gone. Please stop wasting money in Kentucky. Georgia and South Carolina are doable. And there are a shit-ton of undecided in Texas.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I wouldn't be surprised if some Dems pushed to do that, but I would be very surprised if they got 50 on board.

They didn't need 50 on board. They needed their Senate majority leader to say he wasn't bringing it up for a vote. Presumably McConnell did that because his seat is never gonna not be safe and to protect his team red from having to vote it down.

---

Also this is crazy:

https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1308409116499603458

Here's to hoping that the GOP gets Souter'ed on all of their nominees from here on out!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hate to tell everyone but the democratic establishment just enjoys losing.

They don't enjoy losing. They just have this STUPID idea that things should be bipartisan, when the opposing party are all goblins who's only desire is to kick them. "Let's compromise with the Goblins kicking us! Maybe they'll stop kicking. We shouldn't kick them back. It's against the rules. Because the Goblins clearly care about the rules."

They don't pull the same stupid shit as McConnell, because most of their voters don't like this sort of shit, and will just outright refuse to vote. We won't blindly get behind the party. Hell, look at how we rejected Hillary Clinton when our OTHER CHOICE was Donald Fucking Trump. The most corrupt motherfucker in history.

---

I have some bad news, they aren't stupid.


---

Ashethan posted...

They don't pull the same stupid shit as McConnell,

We just showed you they did.

---

Corrik7 posted...

We just showed you they did.

No, because none of the stuff you listed was remotely the same. As I said before, the Republicans never had a seat stolen from them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

We just showed you they did.

Stop gaslighting.

---

I mean... tbh this is perfect for democrats in the establishment. They get to cry about how unfair it is while still sucking billionaire cock and doing nothing to actually help people.

This is a big win for pelosi and schumer

(if you can't tell I am very much done with a lot of people right now)

---

Also Susan Collins will get her precious no vote to try and save her ass in Maine.

---

You guys really thought Mitts hatred of Trump was bigger than his hatred of women lmao

---

By the way, fuck Roe v Wade. It is an outdated and not at all required ruling if we brought our health care system into the 21st century and just had morning after pills readily available.

I could not care less about Roe v Wade when it is like not even top 5 of the most tragic things going on in this country right now.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

By the way, fuck Roe v Wade. It is an outdated and not at all required ruling if we brought our health care system into the 21st century and just had morning after pills readily available.

This is completely wrong

---

I don't give a fuck what you think, LotM. Your vision of the party is an utter fucking failure.

---

Well at least I'm not pretending that everyone who needs an abortion would be able to perfectly predict that they're going to need a morning-after pill before they would have gotten pregnant!

---

It doesn't matter, because your chosen leaders are such fucking useless failures that it doesn't matter. They could start murdering jewish people and they'd get away with it because democrats are so useless. Welcome to Nazi America.

---