RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Why did she not step down under Obama when Obama was president? Then Obama could have appointed who he wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did she not step down under Obama when Obama was president? Then Obama could have appointed who he wanted to.

If Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election, the Scalia seat might not have been filled yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did she not step down under Obama when Obama was president? Then Obama could have appointed who he wanted to.

Um, Obama was not always able to appoint who he wanted to. There’s kind of a giant national conversation about this if you pay more attention.

[Anonymous]

sounds sort of familiar, eh?

I guess the American public is the pu##y here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for Biden to release his list.

If he can remember where he put it. Along with the car keys

Yo-Semite. Thighland. Nars.

Herd mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she not step down under Obama when Obama was president? Then Obama could have appointed who he wanted to.

Um, Obama was not always able to appoint who he wanted to. There’s kind of a giant national conversation about this if you pay more attention.

+1000

This is why Mitch McConnell is considered evil. He threw procédure under the bus to put in a Supreme Court that he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

There needs to be 4. With only 3 Pence would break a tie. I wouldn't hold my breath.

What’s wrong with everyone doing their job and replacing the deceased SCOTUS justice? That’s their job.
Chips of death fall where they fall.

So put Merrick Garland on the court as he should be.

Exactly. If they wanted a truce, that's what they would do. The fact that js not even a consideration is the problem.

Isn’t Metrick a woman? We need a woman or PoC.

Like I said, if they wanted a truce, they know what to do.

Lol. A truce? Politics is war by other means. McConnell isn't dumb enough to believe there's ever going to be any sort of truce.

You know exactly what I mean, so don't pretend you don't and that McConnell isn't making deliberate choices knowing what the consequences of each path are.

Sorry, I really don't. "I'm telling you [opposing political side], if you exercise the political power you currently hold in a legal manner to advance the agenda of your side, just wait until we have and exercise political power!"

I'm pretty sure McConnell knows that if and when Dems get political power necessary to push their agenda, they'll marshall that power to the maximum they are able (except as they are unable to cobble together internal coalitions or fear blowback from moderate voters) and any promises of "restraint" now are illusory and should be ignored. I'm pretty sure if Dems take the Senate they will give less than two shots about how the republican minority feels about their actions.

No, that's not how it works. These are choices they are making. These deals used to be made all the time. Now they choose not to. You don't have to make a deal for something in the future. You can exchange current values. Trump and McConnell don't make those deals either. Their choice. He is deciding where his interests lie. They don't lie with making deals, so he makes none. He will keep doing that for as long as it is in his interest to do so.

Given the last four years, I don't see how either side could trust the other with a deal at the present moment.

Well, probably, but trust isn't the issue. McConnell wants to swing the court to the far right, and now is his chance. If he does it, it will delegitimize the court and Democrats will try to swing it back. This is bad for the country. So his choice is to swing right and hope Trump wins so he can make stick. Or he can choose a moderate who would bring stability but he loses his agenda. Obama chose a moderate, McConnell rejected that. He can make a different choice this time but he won't. He'd rather win right now. Even if Trump loses, he can try to block whatever Biden will do.

Why would swinging the court to the right delegitimize it? Was the court h as during the Warren erasimilarly delegitimized when it was further left than popular opinion such as during the Warren era? If so, should stare decisis really apply to those delegitimized Warren era decisions?

Because, currently we’re under a tyranny of the minority system under the electoral college whereby less populated states wield outsize influence on policy decisions. These lucky voters get to vote in their choice of politicians who are increasingly disconnected with mainstream American values. These politicians get to come to Washington and elect judges, who themselves are not in the mainstream and whose decisions don’t reflect mainstream American values. The court is becoming delegitimized, when its conservative judges write conservative leaning opinions, which are not apolitical (it never is with either a liberal or conservative judge). These opinions do real damage to protected classes who have had to fight for their rights. They also do real damage to the environment. Basically, the country is moving forward, and I know you don’t want to hear this, but it’s moving in a more egalitarian, and yes, liberal, direction, but judges like Alito keep pushing the country backwards.

The Senate was set up purposefully to provide the exact sort of brakes you don't like.

A liberal president and house, moderate senate, and judges committed to make sure the left doesn't "progress" beyond long-established constitutional safeguards like freedom of speech and freedom of religion and equal protection for all under the law? Sounds fine to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

There needs to be 4. With only 3 Pence would break a tie. I wouldn't hold my breath.

What’s wrong with everyone doing their job and replacing the deceased SCOTUS justice? That’s their job.
Chips of death fall where they fall.

So put Merrick Garland on the court as he should be.

Exactly. If they wanted a truce, that's what they would do. The fact that js not even a consideration is the problem.

Isn’t Metrick a woman? We need a woman or PoC.

Like I said, if they wanted a truce, they know what to do.

Lol. A truce? Politics is war by other means. McConnell isn't dumb enough to believe there's ever going to be any sort of truce.

You know exactly what I mean, so don't pretend you don't and that McConnell isn't making deliberate choices knowing what the consequences of each path are.

Sorry, I really don't. "I'm telling you [opposing political side], if you exercise the political power you currently hold in a legal manner to advance the agenda of your side, just wait until we have and exercise political power!"

I'm pretty sure McConnell knows that if and when Dems get political power necessary to push their agenda, they'll marshall that power to the maximum they are able (except as they are unable to cobble together internal coalitions or fear blowback from moderate voters) and any promises of "restraint" now are illusory and should be ignored. I'm pretty sure if Dems take the Senate they will give less than two shots about how the republican minority feels about their actions.

No, that's not how it works. These are choices they are making. These deals used to be made all the time. Now they choose not to. You don't have to make a deal for something in the future. You can exchange current values. Trump and McConnell don't make those deals either. Their choice. He is deciding where his interests lie. They don't lie with making deals, so he makes none. He will keep doing that for as long as it is in his interest to do so.

Given the last four years, I don't see how either side could trust the other with a deal at the present moment.

Well, probably, but trust isn't the issue. McConnell wants to swing the court to the far right, and now is his chance. If he does it, it will delegitimize the court and Democrats will try to swing it back. This is bad for the country. So his choice is to swing right and hope Trump wins so he can make stick. Or he can choose a moderate who would bring stability but he loses his agenda. Obama chose a moderate, McConnell rejected that. He can make a different choice this time but he won't. He'd rather win right now. Even if Trump loses, he can try to block whatever Biden will do.

Why would swinging the court to the right delegitimize it? Was the court h as during the Warren erasimilarly delegitimized when it was further left than popular opinion such as during the Warren era? If so, should stare decisis really apply to those delegitimized Warren era decisions?

Because, currently we’re under a tyranny of the minority system under the electoral college whereby less populated states wield outsize influence on policy decisions. These lucky voters get to vote in their choice of politicians who are increasingly disconnected with mainstream American values. These politicians get to come to Washington and elect judges, who themselves are not in the mainstream and whose decisions don’t reflect mainstream American values. The court is becoming delegitimized, when its conservative judges write conservative leaning opinions, which are not apolitical (it never is with either a liberal or conservative judge). These opinions do real damage to protected classes who have had to fight for their rights. They also do real damage to the environment. Basically, the country is moving forward, and I know you don’t want to hear this, but it’s moving in a more egalitarian, and yes, liberal, direction, but judges like Alito keep pushing the country backwards.

The Senate was set up purposefully to provide the exact sort of brakes you don't like.

A liberal president and house, moderate senate, and judges committed to make sure the left doesn't "progress" beyond long-established constitutional safeguards like freedom of speech and freedom of religion and equal protection for all under the law? Sounds fine to me.

You're still pissed about ending segregation, aren't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

There needs to be 4. With only 3 Pence would break a tie. I wouldn't hold my breath.

What’s wrong with everyone doing their job and replacing the deceased SCOTUS justice? That’s their job.
Chips of death fall where they fall.

So put Merrick Garland on the court as he should be.

Exactly. If they wanted a truce, that's what they would do. The fact that js not even a consideration is the problem.

Isn’t Metrick a woman? We need a woman or PoC.

Like I said, if they wanted a truce, they know what to do.

Lol. A truce? Politics is war by other means. McConnell isn't dumb enough to believe there's ever going to be any sort of truce.

You know exactly what I mean, so don't pretend you don't and that McConnell isn't making deliberate choices knowing what the consequences of each path are.

Sorry, I really don't. "I'm telling you [opposing political side], if you exercise the political power you currently hold in a legal manner to advance the agenda of your side, just wait until we have and exercise political power!"

I'm pretty sure McConnell knows that if and when Dems get political power necessary to push their agenda, they'll marshall that power to the maximum they are able (except as they are unable to cobble together internal coalitions or fear blowback from moderate voters) and any promises of "restraint" now are illusory and should be ignored. I'm pretty sure if Dems take the Senate they will give less than two shots about how the republican minority feels about their actions.

No, that's not how it works. These are choices they are making. These deals used to be made all the time. Now they choose not to. You don't have to make a deal for something in the future. You can exchange current values. Trump and McConnell don't make those deals either. Their choice. He is deciding where his interests lie. They don't lie with making deals, so he makes none. He will keep doing that for as long as it is in his interest to do so.

Given the last four years, I don't see how either side could trust the other with a deal at the present moment.

Well, probably, but trust isn't the issue. McConnell wants to swing the court to the far right, and now is his chance. If he does it, it will delegitimize the court and Democrats will try to swing it back. This is bad for the country. So his choice is to swing right and hope Trump wins so he can make stick. Or he can choose a moderate who would bring stability but he loses his agenda. Obama chose a moderate, McConnell rejected that. He can make a different choice this time but he won't. He'd rather win right now. Even if Trump loses, he can try to block whatever Biden will do.

Why would swinging the court to the right delegitimize it? Was the court h as during the Warren erasimilarly delegitimized when it was further left than popular opinion such as during the Warren era? If so, should stare decisis really apply to those delegitimized Warren era decisions?

Because, currently we’re under a tyranny of the minority system under the electoral college whereby less populated states wield outsize influence on policy decisions. These lucky voters get to vote in their choice of politicians who are increasingly disconnected with mainstream American values. These politicians get to come to Washington and elect judges, who themselves are not in the mainstream and whose decisions don’t reflect mainstream American values. The court is becoming delegitimized, when its conservative judges write conservative leaning opinions, which are not apolitical (it never is with either a liberal or conservative judge). These opinions do real damage to protected classes who have had to fight for their rights. They also do real damage to the environment. Basically, the country is moving forward, and I know you don’t want to hear this, but it’s moving in a more egalitarian, and yes, liberal, direction, but judges like Alito keep pushing the country backwards.

The Senate was set up purposefully to provide the exact sort of brakes you don't like.

A liberal president and house, moderate senate, and judges committed to make sure the left doesn't "progress" beyond long-established constitutional safeguards like freedom of speech and freedom of religion and equal protection for all under the law? Sounds fine to me.

Yeah, yeah. But you're ok with the Senate GOP not performing its duty to hold a hearing on the President's appointee to find out what his positions were. Spare me with the "long-established constitutional safeguard, hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

There needs to be 4. With only 3 Pence would break a tie. I wouldn't hold my breath.

What’s wrong with everyone doing their job and replacing the deceased SCOTUS justice? That’s their job.
Chips of death fall where they fall.

So put Merrick Garland on the court as he should be.

Exactly. If they wanted a truce, that's what they would do. The fact that js not even a consideration is the problem.

Isn’t Metrick a woman? We need a woman or PoC.

Like I said, if they wanted a truce, they know what to do.

Lol. A truce? Politics is war by other means. McConnell isn't dumb enough to believe there's ever going to be any sort of truce.

You know exactly what I mean, so don't pretend you don't and that McConnell isn't making deliberate choices knowing what the consequences of each path are.

Sorry, I really don't. "I'm telling you [opposing political side], if you exercise the political power you currently hold in a legal manner to advance the agenda of your side, just wait until we have and exercise political power!"

I'm pretty sure McConnell knows that if and when Dems get political power necessary to push their agenda, they'll marshall that power to the maximum they are able (except as they are unable to cobble together internal coalitions or fear blowback from moderate voters) and any promises of "restraint" now are illusory and should be ignored. I'm pretty sure if Dems take the Senate they will give less than two shots about how the republican minority feels about their actions.

No, that's not how it works. These are choices they are making. These deals used to be made all the time. Now they choose not to. You don't have to make a deal for something in the future. You can exchange current values. Trump and McConnell don't make those deals either. Their choice. He is deciding where his interests lie. They don't lie with making deals, so he makes none. He will keep doing that for as long as it is in his interest to do so.

Given the last four years, I don't see how either side could trust the other with a deal at the present moment.

Well, probably, but trust isn't the issue. McConnell wants to swing the court to the far right, and now is his chance. If he does it, it will delegitimize the court and Democrats will try to swing it back. This is bad for the country. So his choice is to swing right and hope Trump wins so he can make stick. Or he can choose a moderate who would bring stability but he loses his agenda. Obama chose a moderate, McConnell rejected that. He can make a different choice this time but he won't. He'd rather win right now. Even if Trump loses, he can try to block whatever Biden will do.

Why would swinging the court to the right delegitimize it? Was the court h as during the Warren erasimilarly delegitimized when it was further left than popular opinion such as during the Warren era? If so, should stare decisis really apply to those delegitimized Warren era decisions?

Because, currently we’re under a tyranny of the minority system under the electoral college whereby less populated states wield outsize influence on policy decisions. These lucky voters get to vote in their choice of politicians who are increasingly disconnected with mainstream American values. These politicians get to come to Washington and elect judges, who themselves are not in the mainstream and whose decisions don’t reflect mainstream American values. The court is becoming delegitimized, when its conservative judges write conservative leaning opinions, which are not apolitical (it never is with either a liberal or conservative judge). These opinions do real damage to protected classes who have had to fight for their rights. They also do real damage to the environment. Basically, the country is moving forward, and I know you don’t want to hear this, but it’s moving in a more egalitarian, and yes, liberal, direction, but judges like Alito keep pushing the country backwards.

The Senate was set up purposefully to provide the exact sort of brakes you don't like.

A liberal president and house, moderate senate, and judges committed to make sure the left doesn't "progress" beyond long-established constitutional safeguards like freedom of speech and freedom of religion and equal protection for all under the law? Sounds fine to me.

Actually, the Senate was there to prevent a Tyranny of the Majority, not to promote the Tyranny of the Minority. There is a difference, and it is pretty huge, and also pretty sad that you don't see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

There needs to be 4. With only 3 Pence would break a tie. I wouldn't hold my breath.

What’s wrong with everyone doing their job and replacing the deceased SCOTUS justice? That’s their job.
Chips of death fall where they fall.

So put Merrick Garland on the court as he should be.

Exactly. If they wanted a truce, that's what they would do. The fact that js not even a consideration is the problem.

Isn’t Metrick a woman? We need a woman or PoC.

Like I said, if they wanted a truce, they know what to do.

Lol. A truce? Politics is war by other means. McConnell isn't dumb enough to believe there's ever going to be any sort of truce.

You know exactly what I mean, so don't pretend you don't and that McConnell isn't making deliberate choices knowing what the consequences of each path are.

Sorry, I really don't. "I'm telling you [opposing political side], if you exercise the political power you currently hold in a legal manner to advance the agenda of your side, just wait until we have and exercise political power!"

I'm pretty sure McConnell knows that if and when Dems get political power necessary to push their agenda, they'll marshall that power to the maximum they are able (except as they are unable to cobble together internal coalitions or fear blowback from moderate voters) and any promises of "restraint" now are illusory and should be ignored. I'm pretty sure if Dems take the Senate they will give less than two shots about how the republican minority feels about their actions.

No, that's not how it works. These are choices they are making. These deals used to be made all the time. Now they choose not to. You don't have to make a deal for something in the future. You can exchange current values. Trump and McConnell don't make those deals either. Their choice. He is deciding where his interests lie. They don't lie with making deals, so he makes none. He will keep doing that for as long as it is in his interest to do so.

Given the last four years, I don't see how either side could trust the other with a deal at the present moment.

Well, probably, but trust isn't the issue. McConnell wants to swing the court to the far right, and now is his chance. If he does it, it will delegitimize the court and Democrats will try to swing it back. This is bad for the country. So his choice is to swing right and hope Trump wins so he can make stick. Or he can choose a moderate who would bring stability but he loses his agenda. Obama chose a moderate, McConnell rejected that. He can make a different choice this time but he won't. He'd rather win right now. Even if Trump loses, he can try to block whatever Biden will do.

Why would swinging the court to the right delegitimize it? Was the court h as during the Warren erasimilarly delegitimized when it was further left than popular opinion such as during the Warren era? If so, should stare decisis really apply to those delegitimized Warren era decisions?

Because, currently we’re under a tyranny of the minority system under the electoral college whereby less populated states wield outsize influence on policy decisions. These lucky voters get to vote in their choice of politicians who are increasingly disconnected with mainstream American values. These politicians get to come to Washington and elect judges, who themselves are not in the mainstream and whose decisions don’t reflect mainstream American values. The court is becoming delegitimized, when its conservative judges write conservative leaning opinions, which are not apolitical (it never is with either a liberal or conservative judge). These opinions do real damage to protected classes who have had to fight for their rights. They also do real damage to the environment. Basically, the country is moving forward, and I know you don’t want to hear this, but it’s moving in a more egalitarian, and yes, liberal, direction, but judges like Alito keep pushing the country backwards.

The Senate was set up purposefully to provide the exact sort of brakes you don't like.

A liberal president and house, moderate senate, and judges committed to make sure the left doesn't "progress" beyond long-established constitutional safeguards like freedom of speech and freedom of religion and equal protection for all under the law? Sounds fine to me.

Nobody wants to get rid of those things. We just disagree on what they mean. Which is what we've always done. Judges "committed" to anythong is exactly what we don't want

[Anonymous]

Lagoa seems a little less scary than Barrett?

[Anonymous]

Impeach 45

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoever has the senate makes the rules. The voters that give the senate majority want justices they agree with. That’s the rule and it’s not inconsistent

The red wave in 2018 expanded the gop lead in the senate. Since the media refused to report the consequences of the GOP picking up senators the left is now blindsided by reality of what really happened in 2018.

Trump will be easily re-elected and the Supreme Court will nix voting fraud.

There was no red wave in 2018. Republicans only picked up a net of two seats.

Relatively speaking, that was a wave.

It was fewer seats than the GOP was expected to pick up. It was anything but a wave.

A wave is what Democrats did in the House, picking up a net of 40 seats. It was nearly a 10% swing in the House, compared to the GOP’s 2% change in the Senate.

The only red wave is the 200,000 people whose blood is on Trump's hands.

Republicans, as PP said, picked up fewer seats than they ought to have in a normal election year. Dems picked up more. We will see if that holds in 2020; I sure as fck hope so.

Trump may be reelected = gd forbid - but he's definitely not going to be "easily" reelected.

Look if I were Moscow Mitch and I thought I had the votes, of course I'd push through this insane anti-choice justice. You have the power now, you may as well use it - especially if you think you're going to be in the minority coming soon. But I think there will be consequences to Republicans for doing this, and I don't think they are going to like the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Whether it was her final statement or not, so what. She did great service to the country and it’s time to replace her. It’s not her seat to decide what to do with it. By the way, the country, with brief exceptions, was always fiercely divided along partisan lines - there’s nothing new to this time. George Washington even lamented this as half the new country turned on him during his second term. For better or worse it’s how it is so to both sides, keep up the great American tradition!