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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOP senators represent a minority of the US population. Trump was elected with a minority of voters. Yep, that's how the Constitution works, but it's not sustainable, not with an extreme right president and an extreme right judiciary. If the SC decides the election as happened in 2000, there will be as lot of civil unrest. You're concerned about the looting and riots and killings now? Get ready for more.

Trump is a moderate. The conservatives and liberals hate him. He is an extreme moderate that pushes through what most of the country wants

1)America First
2) trade deals that are fair
3) no abortion as birth control
4) powerful military
5) no wars for other countries
6) first class veteran care
7) tax cuts
8) deficit spending
9) controlled borders
10) gay marriage is fine
11) love of the Jewish people and Israel
12) pro “Merry Christmas”
11) anti politics in sports
12) pro American flag
13) pro American historical hero’s
14) pro second amendment
15) pro American manufacturing and jobs
16) anti Christian bigotry
17) anti rioting and chaos
18) anti illegal voting

He’s been a Democrat and republican

This is hilarious. Rhetoric and tweets are not policy.

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.

GOP senators represent a minority of the US population. Trump was elected with a minority of voters. Yep, that's how the Constitution works, but it's not sustainable, not with an extreme right president and an extreme right judiciary. If the SC decides the election as happened in 2000, there will be as lot of civil unrest. You're concerned about the looting and riots and killings now? Get ready for more.

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.

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.

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.

Because Mitch changed the rules in 2016. Now he is changing it back. That is the problem. Republicans constantly change the rules to suit their own agenda. They don’t even have to try being sly about it. Their voters couldn’t care less if they lie and cheat. As long as they get their way.

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.

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?

The process is delegitimized. Judge used to be picked on competence. Now they are picked on ideology, and furthermore, McConnell has manipulated the process to advantage his own ideology. The left will not have faith in this court, and will want to take it back, but the right won't trust that court either.. If you don't trust your judges, your country is finished.

Stupid iphone. Nevermind.

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?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RGBs legacy now includes “how about term limits people” ?

Kennedy was there longer and Thomas has been also.

The whole judge appointment fiasco is a joke. If judges were term limited to 18 years, each president would have the opportunity to appoint 2 judges. We could get rid of all these stupid fights. However both party would lose the red meat to feed their base. This is what happens when we are living in a duopoly instead of true democracy.