A place where escape goats go to play
https://www.notplanetrugby.com/
can he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 am Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.
McConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.stemoc wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:09 amcan he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 am Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.
it was only where the President and Senate majority are from different parties.Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:12 amMcConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.stemoc wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:09 amcan he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 am Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.
Yeah it was another example of GOP obstructionism. Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place because he was considered a moderate who would be palatable to the Republicans.Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:12 amMcConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.stemoc wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:09 amcan he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 am Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.
Yep, that YouTube clip I posted earlier is Mitch saying that very thing in 2016.Hugo wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:38 amYeah it was another example of GOP obstructionism. Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place because he was considered a moderate who would be palatable to the Republicans.Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:12 amMcConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.
I think the GOP cited a precedent that had been established when Biden had advocated that nominations should not be confirmed in election years. I'm sure it wasn't said in good faith but I recall that being McConnell's position.
Oops, my mistake, didn't see that.Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:51 amYep, that YouTube clip I posted earlier is Mitch saying that very thing in 2016.Hugo wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:38 amYeah it was another example of GOP obstructionism. Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place because he was considered a moderate who would be palatable to the Republicans.Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:12 amMcConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.
I think the GOP cited a precedent that had been established when Biden had advocated that nominations should not be confirmed in election years. I'm sure it wasn't said in good faith but I recall that being McConnell's position.
And that perfectly illustrates why the US labours under a readily corruptible system.Carter's Choice wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:07 am If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.
Same way the deficit only matters when a democratic president is in power.Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:12 amMcConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.stemoc wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:09 amcan he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..Gumboot wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 am Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.
With the amount of gerrymandering and voter suppression in play, I'm not sure that's true.Carter's Choice wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:07 am If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.
That could all switch after this election. And, of course, the Democrats would do exactly the same. And I would expect them to.Carter's Choice wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:07 am If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.
Yep. I’ve heard that as well. FDR tried to do that when he was president to get a majority who would vote his way, but was blocked. I think that it would be difficult.Hugo wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 pm I'm reading that if the Republicans rush this through a potential democrat strategy is to expand the court in the event they win the Presidency & have control of Congress.
The SC had fewer than 9 justices at its inception and has been expanded before.
It's actually a very difficult decision under the surface for the GOP.Fangle wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:23 pmYep. I’ve heard that as well. FDR tried to do that when he was president to get a majority who would vote his way, but was blocked. I think that it would be difficult.Hugo wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 pm I'm reading that if the Republicans rush this through a potential democrat strategy is to expand the court in the event they win the Presidency & have control of Congress.
The SC had fewer than 9 justices at its inception and has been expanded before.
All polls say that Trump is way behind anyway.Random1 wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:52 pm I reckon they’ll push it through.
Be damned the house - getting a judge to tip the balance buys a decade or more of cultural influence.
There is no bigger picture than shaping culture.
The only thing I can see stopping it is if a poll comes out that makes trump think it’ll lose him the election.
Never. No reason to
Kavanaugh absolutely does and will continue to vote the way the president expects him to.Fangle wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:37 pmThat could all switch after this election. And, of course, the Democrats would do exactly the same. And I would expect them to.Carter's Choice wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:07 am If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.
As Mr Mike, who seems to know a lot more than most of us days, once appointed the justices don’t behave the way the president expects them to. John Roberts sometimes votes against the more conservative justices even though he was appointed by a Republican president.
Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer termJM2K6 wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:14 pmKavanaugh absolutely does and will continue to vote the way the president expects him to.Fangle wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:37 pmThat could all switch after this election. And, of course, the Democrats would do exactly the same. And I would expect them to.Carter's Choice wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:07 am If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.
As Mr Mike, who seems to know a lot more than most of us days, once appointed the justices don’t behave the way the president expects them to. John Roberts sometimes votes against the more conservative justices even though he was appointed by a Republican president.
Yep. I wonder why he would when all that will happen is that the nominee(s) and the selection process will, once again, become a political football. I thought Biden was specifically trying to avoid that sort of carry one and the other tactics to manipulate the SC. As an aside, some Dems seems to be hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot with the various suggestions to circumvent the process or balance of the SP.
Matter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.Saint wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:32 pm
Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term
These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance
Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.
For public perception. I agree that SCOTUS is materially important in a lot of areas, but the only areas that the general politic cares about is those two, very specific, areas. Ultimately, in todays massively polarised environment, that translates to the Senate. Hirsute and Kavenaugh can go and do whatever they want outside ifvtgese areas, provided they ignore the second half if the 2nd amendment and vote against Roe, or if they're clever, vote with Roe but write their own opinions providing an increasingly narrow base for the existing staus quo.Fonz wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:06 pmMatter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.Saint wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:32 pm
Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term
These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance
Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.
Something like whether deference is given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an unclear statute might be deemed Insufficiently Sexy by the media and the algorithms they use to determine what we are supposed to care about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter massively to the party insiders that decide these things.
So just completely ignore the ACA decision in the New Year then ?Fonz wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:06 pmMatter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.Saint wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:32 pm
Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term
These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance
Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.
Something like whether deference is given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an unclear statute might be deemed Insufficiently Sexy by the media and the algorithms they use to determine what we are supposed to care about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter massively to the party insiders that decide these things.
Who is hairy?Saint wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:36 pm Hirsute and Kavenaugh can go and do whatever they want outside ifvtgese areas, provided they ignore the second half if the 2nd amendment and vote against Roe,
My phone's version of autocorrect. God knows how it got from Gorsuch to Hirsute, but it made the jump nonetheless
That's fair enough, really. I'd argue there's cases here and there that grab the public's attention out of nowhere, Citizen's United for instance. I think civil rights and criminal justice will get a little more airtime, immigration as well, and to the extent the justices don't play their positions on those issues, there could possibly be political and electoral ramifications as well. But re: public perception, yeah you're mostly correct.Saint wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:36 pmFor public perception. I agree that SCOTUS is materially important in a lot of areas, but the only areas that the general politic cares about is those two, very specific, areas. Ultimately, in todays massively polarised environment, that translates to the Senate. Hirsute and Kavenaugh can go and do whatever they want outside ifvtgese areas, provided they ignore the second half if the 2nd amendment and vote against Roe, or if they're clever, vote with Roe but write their own opinions providing an increasingly narrow base for the existing staus quo.Fonz wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:06 pmMatter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.Saint wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:32 pm
Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term
These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance
Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.
Something like whether deference is given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an unclear statute might be deemed Insufficiently Sexy by the media and the algorithms they use to determine what we are supposed to care about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter massively to the party insiders that decide these things.
No more needs to be said.Hong Kong wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:22 am Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?
There's zero doubt in my mind that it would be the same if the shoe was on the other foot. And to be fair, as the dear departed RBG said in 2016 when the Senate failed to vote on Garland, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.Hong Kong wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:22 am Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?
The shoe was on the other foot and McConnell blocked it, the reason given was that the incoming administration should make the nomination.Fonz wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:07 amThere's zero doubt in my mind that it would be the same if the shoe was on the other foot. And to be fair, as the dear departed RBG said in 2016 when the Senate failed to vote on Garland, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.Hong Kong wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:22 am Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?
Little as I like it, I agree. The Democrats would have done exactly the same if they could. This is politics.Fonz wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:07 amThere's zero doubt in my mind that it would be the same if the shoe was on the other foot. And to be fair, as the dear departed RBG said in 2016 when the Senate failed to vote on Garland, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.Hong Kong wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:22 am Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?