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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/holmescnn/status/1307151496476266497?s=21

Thread full of GOP Senators who explicitly said no confirmation in an election year

Hold them accountable!

lmao if you think this is actually going to make a difference

the GOP and their voters have proven over and over again they don't care about things like "principles" or "hypocrisy". all that matters is winning and triggering the libs

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

...another thing I remembered: SCOTUS (at the Trump admin's request) punted hearing the (very meritless) ACA challenge to just past the election. I was quite confident that Roberts would not kill Obamacare, but now even if the vacancy has not yet been filled, that would potentially still leave the ruling at 4-4... leaving the lower court's ruling (against the ACA) intact

so.... fuck

I was under the impression that a 4-4 ruling is not binding on the nation outside of the circuit the case came from. So the ACA would be unconstitutional in the 5th Circuit or wherever the case came from, but other circuits could still reach different decisions.

If Ruth Baders Ginsburg is replaced by Donald Trump in the time between now and the election (or if they shove through a nominee during the lame duck period should he lose the election), then our country will never heal the divide we have right now. I'm sure the Republicans are fine with that, as long as they can control the Supreme Court. But they never get to bring up dividing the country ever again. They will have created a split that is irreparable.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

lmao if you think this is actually going to make a difference

the GOP and their voters have proven over and over again they don't care about things like "principles" or "hypocrisy". all that matters is winning and triggering the libs

Here's a thought: what if...Democrats outvote them?

---

Ashethan posted...

Oh, we understand. And we get why you'll justify it at any costs. Fucking fascist ghouls who will stop at nothing to seize as much power as they can.

You would be calling for Democrats to do the same if the roles were reversed.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Even supposing this was his actual reasoning at the time (youve already posted the link that shows it wasnt), your paraphrasing is still not accurate. He said it has been since the 1880s

Yeah, I can see why people see it as hypocritical based on his 2016 comments if he amended them in 2018.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You would be calling for Democrats to do the same if the roles were reversed.

I will now. I've given up on Republicans. Democrats should do everything in their power to make sure as many Republicans as possible lose office. Gerrymander the hell out of everything. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Cause guess what? In 2016, I called for them to give Merrick Garland a hearing. Not confirming him. A fucking hearing. And they couldn't even do that. So fuck Republicans. I'm 100% done with them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You would be calling for Democrats to do the same if the roles were reversed.

I feel like Mitch would have a lot more ground to stand on if they just went through with the process in 2016 and just rejected Garland, as is their right.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I feel like Mitch would have a lot more ground to stand on if they just went through with the process in 2016 and just rejected Garland, as is their right.

I thought Trump should have nominated Garland to heal the rift.

---

Ashethan posted...

I will now. I've given up on Republicans. Democrats should do everything in their power to make sure as many Republicans as possible lose office. Gerrymander the hell out of everything. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Cause guess what? In 2016, I called for them to give Merrick Garland a hearing. Not confirming him. A fucking hearing. And they couldn't even do that. So fuck Republicans. I'm 100% done with them.

Are you denying you wouldn't have anyways? If you were a shoo-in to lose the presidency and likely a shoo-in to lose the Congress, would you be like well we should let the Republicans pick the supreme court Justice? Roe V Wade, LGBT protections the sky is falling stuff all depends on the court!

Democrats are going to pack the court when Biden takes office. And not a single one of you will deride the injustice done. It's both ways.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Are you denying you wouldn't have anyways? If you were a shoo-in to lose the presidency and likely a shoo-in to lose the Congress, would you be like well we should let the Republicans pick the supreme court Justice? Roe V Wade, LGBT protections the sky is falling stuff all depends on the court!

Democrats are going to pack the court when Biden takes office. And not a single one of you will deride the injustice done. It's both ways.

If Merrick Garland were on the Supreme Court, I'd be saying that yes, as much as it sucks, Trump gets to make his pick. But then again, I never said like John McCain and so many others that if Hillary were elected that her justices wouldn't even get a hearing.

Biden isn't going to pack the Supreme Court. But if he did, I'd say it's fine now because you guys set the fucking standard. You pushed it. You'd only have yourselves to blame. Republicans set that standard. Don't blame us. Blame yourself, or Mitch.

---

Ashethan posted...

If Merrick Garland were on the Supreme Court, I'd be saying that yes, as much as it sucks, Trump gets to make his pick. But then again, I never said like John McCain and so many others that if Hillary were elected that her justices wouldn't even get a hearing.

Biden isn't going to pack the Supreme Court. But if he did, I'd say it's fine now because you guys set the fucking standard. You pushed it. You only have yourselves to blame.

Of course he is going to pack the court. It's literally the rallying call for the surge in donations. Take the Senate so Biden can pack the court. And, I mean, as a Republican I would have to be pretty damn dumb to expect otherwise. Just like I would have to be pretty damn goofy to expect Republicans to not push a nominee through right now.

This is from 2019. Over a year ago.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/democrats-supreme-court-packing-politics/index.html


---

We need a strong constitutional amendment to fix the number of justices to prevent packing of the Supreme Court.

Corrik7 posted...

Democrats are going to pack the court when Biden takes office. And not a single one of you will deride the injustice done. It's both ways.

Thats the thing though, none of this is injustice. Its just hypocrisy.

The GOP absolutely has the right to rush a nominee through even in the lame duck months.
---

HeroicCrono posted...

We need a strong constitutional amendment to fix the number of justices to prevent packing of the Supreme Court.

Agreed. Once Biden raises the number to 13, they should pass an amendment to make sure no more can be added.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Of course he is going to pack the court. It's literally the rallying call for the surge in donations. Take the Senate so Biden can pack the court. And, I mean, as a Republican I would have to be pretty damn dumb to expect otherwise. Just like I would have to be pretty damn goofy to expect Republicans to not push a nominee through right now.

Biden was a big "no" on packing the supreme court. Harris was open to it, but Biden was not. If we wanted to pack the Supreme Court we would've voted Warren, or Klobuchar or Steyer.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Of course he is going to pack the court. It's literally the rallying call for the surge in donations. Take the Senate so Biden can pack the court. And, I mean, as a Republican I would have to be pretty damn dumb to expect otherwise. Just like I would have to be pretty damn goofy to expect Republicans to not push a nominee through right now.

This is from 2019. Over a year ago.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/democrats-supreme-court-packing-politics/index.html

Ive consistently said that packing the court is a bad idea

It wouldnt really be *hypocritical* if it was in response to the GOP stealing seats, though

---

Guys, I'm starting to think the way our government is set up isn't as perfect as we thought it was.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Here's a thought: what if...Democrats outvote them?

Interesting concept, but here's a counteroffer: What if the way the Senate and Electoral College are structured mean that Republicans can take and retain power without needing to win a majority of the votes?

---

I wonder if Pelosi would be willing to float shutting down the government until after the election if they try to push through the nominee. I wonder if that would even be possible. Then the damage to America would echo through eternities lol.

---

I mean, expanding the courts is a matter of legislation. I don't know if the barrier is so much Biden but getting all the Dem Senators onboard. Unless it's an absolute landslide and the Dems end up with like 53 seats you're going need Manchin, Sinema, etc. all on this.

If the GOP holds to what they did in 2016 and leaves the vacancy for the winner of the election to fill I don't believe at all the will is there even in a Dem Senate to expand SCOTUS and the GOP can settle for still having stolen Garland's seat. If they really fucking go for this though... I'm still not entirely sure you can get them all on this but the will will certainly be there both from within and without the Senate.

---

What's more important? The Senate or the Justice?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Here's a thought: what if...Democrats outvote them?

I mean, they have in 6 of the last 7 national elections. Including the last 3 straight. (and routinely do on state levels as well but gerrymandering makes it so they still are in sometimes staggeringly disgusting minorities in government)

---

Corrik7 posted...

I wonder if Pelosi would be willing to float shutting down the government until after the election if they try to push through the nominee. I wonder if that would even be possible. Then the damage to America would echo through eternities lol.

Something tells me that shutting down the government during a pandemic (especially when your opponents dont care about the effect on actual people) would not be the most brilliant strategy

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Something tells me that shutting down the government during a pandemic (especially when your opponents dont care about the effect on actual people) would not be the most brilliant strategy

Obviously not but now they are fighting over the details of it. I wonder if shutting down the government shuts down the census and the polls also.

---

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/house-democrats-to-unveil-bill-to-prevent-government-shutdown-no-coronavirus-relief-aid-included/

"Aides following the talks closely said Pelosi initially denied an administration request to add routine flexibility to rules governing Trumps farm bailout efforts, which would freeze his ability to dole out subsidy payments until after the election. Trump is using the funding, over which he has much control, to try to shore up his support in farm country, which has been hit hard by low commodity prices and higher tariffs he himself imposed.

The battle prompted Trump on Friday to blast his nemesis on Twitter: Pelosi wants to take 30 Billion Dollars away from our great Farmers. Cant let that happen!

Pelosi then reversed course Friday afternoon to briefly approve the Trump-sought change only to again change her mind, Democratic and GOP aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity to publicly characterize behind-the-scenes dealings. Pelosi was also seeking a higher food benefit for families whose children are unable to receive free or reduced lunches because schools are closed over the coronavirus.

Its unclear what happens next, but Pelosi retains the option to try to jam the measure through without the farm provision and try to cast blame on Republicans or Trump if it runs aground in the Senate."

This was supposed to be an agreed upon funding bill lol.


---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Interesting concept, but here's a counteroffer: What if the way the Senate and Electoral College are structured mean that Republicans can take and retain power without needing to win a majority of the votes?

xp1337 posted...

I mean, they have in 6 of the last 7 national elections. Including the last 3 straight. (and routinely do on state levels as well but gerrymandering makes it so they still are in sometimes staggeringly disgusting minorities in government)

Jakyl's "hold them accountable" was in reference to individual Senators who actually can be voted out of office. Yes, there are still obstacles to democracy at the statewide level and the Senate does just inherently suck ass but thats not as relevant here because the entire conceit is getting rid of the shitty minority rule.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ive consistently said that packing the court is a bad idea

It wouldnt really be *hypocritical* if it was in response to the GOP stealing seats, though

Broke: if Republicans are cheating it's okay for Democrats to cheat, too

Woke: our political system, including the Supreme Court, is inherently unjust so court-packing is morally neutral

---

Corrik7 posted...

I literally am at a loss that liberals don't understand what McConnell did before vs now and why it isn't the same lol.

Multiple Republican senators including Lindsey Graham in the above clip explicitly said it is the same. That it should apply here

---

Meanwhile on Earth 2, Mitch McConnell has repeatedly stated that if Hillary wins re-election, he still won't allow Scalia or Ginsburg's seats to be filled leaving a 7 man supreme court.

---

https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1307318498205425665

fuck this fascist pig calling it a beautiful thing when journalists get shot at by police

---

What do you think got him harder, the fact that he was a journalist or that he was a brown immigrant?

---

If anyone wants to know Lindsey Graham's "reasoning" for hypocrisy will be

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1307343545116905475

"The rules have changed"

---

I mean ramming through a Supreme Court justice will forever change how I view the American political system and will radicalize at least me personally forever.

I thought Buttigieg was insane for suggesting reforming the Supreme Court just like half a year ago. Now nothing is off the table and I simply do not care anymore.

---

Welcome to the party we have cake

---

Ooh I didnt know there would be cake

---

Of course, it is my son's birthday tomorrow it is Chicago cubs themed

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I thought Buttigieg was insane for suggesting reforming the Supreme Court just like half a year ago.

In fairness, Buttigieg was right about needing to fix the Supreme Court but his reform plan was a terrible idea in just about every way.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I mean ramming through a Supreme Court justice will forever change how I view the American political system and will radicalize at least me personally forever.

I echo this sentiment. Republicans lost what little good will they had with me. They threw principles out the window, I see no reason we shouldn't follow suit.

---

I literally can't believe you guys would ever think that wouldn't happen. Crying about it isn't gonna change what was obviously going to happen. I mean, I get it sucks because your political ideology will be down another seat on the supreme court, but it is what it is.

---

Amy Coney Barrett is emerging as the front-runner (supposedly even as far back as 2019, Trump has been saying he's saving her for Ginsburg). She's literally on the record as saying judges shouldn't respect precedent and that Roe v. Wade isn't even a precedent case that should never be overturned.

So yeah, adding her to the bench gives you 3 people who will for sure overturn Roe v Wade no questions asked.

---

We can let Amy Coney Barrett speak for herself on the issue of precedent, as she published an article on it:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/293/

---

Another activist judge. Republicans love them when they're supporting the things they support (namely stripping women of their rights)

---

Like for all of Susan Collins "deeply concerned"ness, she had an easy out with Kavanaugh basically saying he would "respect precedent" when it came to Roe v. Wade. It's abject political suicide to vote for Barrett, and considering the race is a toss-up right now, she's basically picking between confirming a SC judge and her senate seat.

I mean, Collins literally won her seat last time with 68% of the vote and now she's a slight underdog to Sara Gideon, and Trump is massively unpopular in Maine. The fact that the GOP can afford their defections means more than likely they will get a Murkowski and Collins no vote.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Of course, it is my son's birthday tomorrow it is Chicago cubs themed

go cubs go

does he have a favorite player?

---

nothin' stopping pubs from holding the nom for the election

and then nominating their replacement in the lame duck anyways even if they lose

---

Grimlyn posted...

nothin' stopping pubs from holding the nom for the election

and then nominating their replacement in the lame duck anyways even if they lose

This is absolutely 100% what I expect, because there's so many procedural hurdles that can be put down that pushing through a nomination in such short order is gonna be very, very difficult.

The nomination process will begin before the election but will conclude after the election regardless of results. Vulnerable GOP senators want to stay off the record until after the results, but then will absolutely go with the party once they know their political futures.

Cory Gardner is an example of someone I think will want to vote after the election in a desperate attempt to keep his seat since he's a heavy underdog right now. Same with Martha McSally.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Same with Martha McSally.

She already released a statement last night saying the Senate should vote on Trump's nominee!

Her situation is particularly complex because Arizona special election law means that if (when) Kelly wins he could be seated at the end of November rather than in early January with the normal class of 2020 elected Senators. I don't think 52-48 v 53-47 actually changes the math on the Republican side; they'll find the votes to ram it through either way but =/

---

Martha McSally is such a hilariously bad politician.

She somehow has worse odds of retaining her seat than Doug fucking Jones.

---

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1307412600397987842

Sue Collins is officially against a vote, which was really her only play if she hopes to save her seat.

---