|
Post by robeiae on Apr 7, 2017 10:52:44 GMT -5
What, pray tell, is the solution, then? What should Trump have done? Re-nominate Garland? I'd have been fine with that, personally, but it would have been politically stupid. He had nothing to do with the Garland nomination. He wasn't an elected official. McConnell's reprehensible behavior is on McConnell, not Trump.
Again, Trump is President. There is an open seat on the Supreme Court. His duty is to nominate someone to fill that seat. He gets to pick because he's in charge. There's really no argument to be had, here. O'Neill can't "shred" mine because she doesn't even have one of her own. You don't have one either, apart from a case of the foot-stomping whines.
And I'm not indignant at all. Why should I be? I can just laugh at O'Neill's lame characterization because it's inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 7, 2017 10:56:19 GMT -5
Aaaaaaand...it's done:
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Apr 7, 2017 12:41:32 GMT -5
Excellent.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 7, 2017 14:30:56 GMT -5
What, pray tell, is the solution, then? What should Trump have done? Re-nominate Garland? I'd have been fine with that, personally, but it would have been politically stupid. He had nothing to do with the Garland nomination. He wasn't an elected official. McConnell's reprehensible behavior is on McConnell, not Trump. Again, Trump is President. There is an open seat on the Supreme Court. His duty is to nominate someone to fill that seat. He gets to pick because he's in charge. There's really no argument to be had, here. I call bullshit. The Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat and they handed it to Trump and Gorsuch. They are as complicit in the crime as McConnell since they benefited from it. Your argument is might makes right and it really doesn't. Wave away McConnell's thuggish behavior all you want. Gorsuch is a tainted nominee and will go down in history as the Roger Maris* of the Supreme Court. That's rich coming from a guy who regularly opens threads annoyed by something someone wrote, said or did so he can stomp his foot and whine. Terry O'Neill made a cogent and coherent point in her essay over why Gorsuch* has been forever tainted by the shameful method he was elevated to the highest court in the land. Your retort to this can be summed up as, "Yeah, it's really awful how the Republicans did that and shame on them, but Trump is the prez now, so whattya gonna do?"Feign blase indifference all you like, robeiae, but you've expended far more energy "laughing" at O'Neill than you have attempting to deconstruct the errors in her reasoning. The crime of Grand Theft Judiciary isn't inconsequential. It's a wretched way to make an end run around the Constitutional obligations of a legally elected president. The Republicans warned Harry Reid when he went nuclear to get through their blockade of Obama's nominees there would be consequences down the road. Neil Gorsuch* is that consequence because the political winds were in the favor of the Republicans. Who can say when they shift again and its the Democrats who pull this sort of dirty trick how much foot-stomping whining you'll be doing then?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 7, 2017 14:51:45 GMT -5
What reasoning?
Again, what O'Neill wrote:
There's no reasoning there, just a statement that is utter nonsense. Again, Trump had every right to fill the seat because he's President. Who else is going to fill it? Who has this mystical "right" to fill it right now.
I think Garland should be on the Court. I think he was a great nomination by Obama and what McConnell and other Repubs did to him was wrong. You think the same thing, right? We agree on that. Trump should have never gotten the opportunity to nominate someone. Can you follow this, or should I go slower?
But he did get the opportunity, didn't he? What is there to do about that? Tell me, I'm all ears.
And sure, the Repubs may come to regret their actions here. It will serve them right if the same thing happens to them.
Though I will say that I think politically, this was a stupid move by the Repubs. They should have drawn out the filibuster for an extended time and put more pressure on Dems in competitive races.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 8, 2017 10:37:43 GMT -5
Yeah, the GOP shouldn't have blocked Garland, but they did. I really have no problem believing that if the situation were reversed, the Democrats would have done the same thing. Chuck Schumer had issues with lame duck appointees by Trump. hotair.com/archives/2016/02/15/video-schumer-insists-that-lame-duck-president-should-not-get-supreme-court-pick/The GOP were (And are) idiots. They announced they wouldn't support any nominee no matter what. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama selected Garland because the GOP would look like extremists blocking him. I also have no doubt that they would have "Seen the light" and approved him in record time had HRC won. He was more centrist than she would have given, and they wouldn't have had the lame duck excuse. I'm not happy with how this went down, but the fact is the democrats were playing the same game as the gop, and the gop won. There was nothing wrong with Garland. There's nothing wrong with Gorsuch.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 8, 2017 18:14:04 GMT -5
What, pray tell, is the solution, then? What should Trump have done? Re-nominate Garland? I'd have been fine with that, personally, but it would have been politically stupid. Okay, I give up. Why? Because honestly, ever since I read this, I've been picturing how such a scenario would've played out. The best part is when Trump says to GOP Congress, "Look, you ignorant turds, he's a great candidate. You were assholes to not confirm him, or at least have a hearing. Now you will. I'm not Obama and I'm not Clinton, and I'm going to serve you some crow to help with your attitudes, and to give the other party something they fucking deserved anyway, and then we're all actually going to work TOGETHER to...." ...make America great again, or something. I haven't figured out a proper ending.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 8, 2017 18:25:56 GMT -5
What, pray tell, is the solution, then? What should Trump have done? Re-nominate Garland? I'd have been fine with that, personally, but it would have been politically stupid. Okay, I give up. Why? Because honestly, ever since I read this, I've been picturing how such a scenario would've played out. The best part is when Trump says to GOP Congress, "Look, you ignorant turds, he's a great candidate. You were assholes to not confirm him, or at least have a hearing. Now you will. I'm not Obama and I'm not Clinton, and I'm going to serve you some crow to help with your attitudes, and to give the other party something they fucking deserved anyway, and then we're all actually going to work TOGETHER to...." ...make America great again, or something. I haven't figured out a proper ending. And people say libertarians are the ones who live in a fantasy world.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 8, 2017 18:59:33 GMT -5
What, pray tell, is the solution, then? What should Trump have done? Re-nominate Garland? I'd have been fine with that, personally, but it would have been politically stupid. Okay, I give up. Why? Because honestly, ever since I read this, I've been picturing how such a scenario would've played out. The best part is when Trump says to GOP Congress, "Look, you ignorant turds, he's a great candidate. You were assholes to not confirm him, or at least have a hearing. Now you will. I'm not Obama and I'm not Clinton, and I'm going to serve you some crow to help with your attitudes, and to give the other party something they fucking deserved anyway, and then we're all actually going to work TOGETHER to...." ...make America great again, or something. I haven't figured out a proper ending. Half the country--and all of the Dems--already despise Trump. No matter what he does, they're going to criticize him imo, even if it's what they think he should have done. So if he re-nominated the candidate the Repubs blocked, the other half of the country--and the rest of the Repubs would have turned on him, as well. To do this would have been beyond stupid, really. If he did it, there would have been no guarantee of Garland even getting confirmed. Trump would have royally screwed himself over. And sure, for those of us happy to see Trump mess up, that might have been a good result. But from the standpoint of Trump and his admin, not so much. So there's really no reason to do it. The smart play was to make his own nomination, make it a good one, and let Congress catch the majority of the heat from whatever direction. That's pretty obvious, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 8, 2017 20:24:17 GMT -5
And people say libertarians are the ones who live in a fantasy world. All snark and no substance. Typical libertarian. Half the country--and all of the Dems--already despise Trump. No matter what he does, they're going to criticize him imo, even if it's what they think he should have done. So if he re-nominated the candidate the Repubs blocked, the other half of the country--and the rest of the Repubs would have turned on him, as well. To do this would have been beyond stupid, really. If he did it, there would have been no guarantee of Garland even getting confirmed. Trump would have royally screwed himself over. I'm not following your math, for starters. Half the country doesn't give a shit. As to the other half, I find it hard to believe that every single Repub would have rejected a Garland nomination. A whole helleva lot of them "believe" in Trump. If he says it, they'll buy it. As to "all the Dems," well, I'm a Dem, and if he did this, he'd be my hero, at least for a day or so. For once, he'd be using that obtusely bullheaded fuck-the-establishment attitude to actually do something to UNITE the country. Or a token gesture, at the very least. Just as an aside, I am not "happy" to see Trump mess up. I expect it, but it doesn't make me happy. For all of his talk during the election, Trump is increasingly becoming a pawn of the GOP. It's a shame he can't figure out where he misplaced his balls. Other than his golf balls, which are all accounted for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 21:45:47 GMT -5
I'm fucking disgusted at what happened to Garland. I think he would have been an awesome, neutral, moderate justice, and I think it's a tragedy he's not on the court. I could fucking spit at McConnell and the other Republicans who pulled that fucking ridiculous shit of not giving him a hearing, and I sincerely hope they all get a well-earned comeuppance.
That said, Trump had a right to nominate Gorsuch. As I've said already, I also think the scare stuff on Gorsuch has been much overblown, and for what it's worth, many liberal legal experts agree with me. In any case, he's on the court now; time will tell.
It would have been lovely, from my standpoint, if Trump had made a bipartisan gesture of nominating Garland. (And hey, maybe Garland will get his chance in four years. I'd love to see it.) But Trump had no obligation to do so, and frankly, it would have done him much more harm with his supporters than it would have done him good with progressives.
I am not in the least upset with Senate Democrats on this one. If the Republicans hadn't been such unbelievable assholes with regard to Garland, I would have felt otherwise -- Gorsuch is amply qualified, and in other circumstances, I'd see no legitimate reason to block him. But after Garland... yeah, I back what they did 100%. I don't think they could have done otherwise.
And my guess is, Republicans are going to eventually deeply regret that they went nuclear. I don't mean that they'll regret Gorsuch -- I mean they'll regret changing the rules to shove him in. And you know what? I fervently hope they do regret it.*
*That said of course, that's my emotional reaction. The fact is, we could all regret it, and deeply. There's a reason to encourage bipartisan support on really important issues, assuming Congress is functioning as it should.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 9, 2017 8:12:13 GMT -5
I'm not following your math, for starters. Half the country doesn't give a shit. As to the other half, I find it hard to believe that every single Repub would have rejected a Garland nomination. A whole helleva lot of them "believe" in Trump. If he says it, they'll buy it. As to "all the Dems," well, I'm a Dem, and if he did this, he'd be my hero, at least for a day or so. For once, he'd be using that obtusely bullheaded fuck-the-establishment attitude to actually do something to UNITE the country. Or a token gesture, at the very least. Well obviously--I thought--I was over generalizing. And frankly, I don't believe you when you say he'd "be your hero." It's not that I think you aren't being honest, it's that I think you're kidding yourself. But let's allow that you're not. Great. Good for you. But you must realize you'd be the exception, right? If he had done this--re-nominated Garland--his approval numbers would have tanked. People who had supported him would have been pissed. People who had never supported him WOULD NOT have changed their tune, even for a day. They'd have said "Well, that was the right thing to do, but Trump only did it to get some good PR/to take attention away from Russia/etc." Don't believe me? See "Syria."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 9, 2017 8:16:10 GMT -5
And my guess is, Republicans are going to eventually deeply regret that they went nuclear. I don't mean that they'll regret Gorsuch -- I mean they'll regret changing the rules to shove him in. And you know what? I fervently hope they do regret it.* I hope you're right. But then again, Harry Reid deserves a lot of blame/credit for this happening. I sincerely hope he's regretting his past decisions on all of this, but I kinda doubt. I'm sure he's telling himself that what he did was justified, that it's only other side who is partisan...
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 9, 2017 9:40:35 GMT -5
I'm not following your math, for starters. Half the country doesn't give a shit. As to the other half, I find it hard to believe that every single Repub would have rejected a Garland nomination. A whole helleva lot of them "believe" in Trump. If he says it, they'll buy it. As to "all the Dems," well, I'm a Dem, and if he did this, he'd be my hero, at least for a day or so. For once, he'd be using that obtusely bullheaded fuck-the-establishment attitude to actually do something to UNITE the country. Or a token gesture, at the very least. Well obviously--I thought--I was over generalizing. And frankly, I don't believe you when you say he'd "be your hero." It's not that I think you aren't being honest, it's that I think you're kidding yourself. But let's allow that you're not. Great. Good for you. But you must realize you'd be the exception, right? If he had done this--re-nominated Garland--his approval numbers would have tanked. People who had supported him would have been pissed. People who had never supported him WOULD NOT have changed their tune, even for a day. They'd have said "Well, that was the right thing to do, but Trump only did it to get some good PR/to take attention away from Russia/etc." Don't believe me? See "Syria." I think you spend too much time on political forums. Like Cass, I think it would have been a great gesture. If Trump does something I approve of, I am not going to assign him a sinister ulterior motive. In fact, I hate when people do that, and it just makes them look like partisan idiots. I have no earthly idea how anyone could object to a Garland nomination and be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 9, 2017 10:16:46 GMT -5
Well obviously--I thought--I was over generalizing. And frankly, I don't believe you when you say he'd "be your hero." It's not that I think you aren't being honest, it's that I think you're kidding yourself. But let's allow that you're not. Great. Good for you. But you must realize you'd be the exception, right? If he had done this--re-nominated Garland--his approval numbers would have tanked. People who had supported him would have been pissed. People who had never supported him WOULD NOT have changed their tune, even for a day. They'd have said "Well, that was the right thing to do, but Trump only did it to get some good PR/to take attention away from Russia/etc." Don't believe me? See "Syria." I think you spend too much time on political forums. Like Cass, I think it would have been a great gesture. If Trump does something I approve of, I am not going to assign him a sinister ulterior motive. In fact, I hate when people do that, and it just makes them look like partisan idiots. I have no earthly idea how anyone could object to a Garland nomination and be taken seriously. Like Cass? I'm the one who offered up the idea of renominating Garland and said that I would--personally--be fine with that. Again, good for you if you freely approve of actions pols like Trump take without assuming ulterior motives, of one sort or another. But this isn't about you. It's about the general public's perception of Trump, both those who love him and those who hate him. The ones who don't care? They don't vote, by and large. You disagreed with the idea that renominating Garland would have cost Trump, politically. Flesh it out, apart from how you feel personally. Do you really think such a move would have not damaged his relationship with Repubs in the house? Do you really think Dems like Pelosi would have said "huh, maybe he's not so bad" because of that one move? Do you really think they wouldn't have assigned a sinister motive to such a move? Again, Syria. Whether it was a smart move or a bad move is almost inconsequential for the people who don't like Trump. What they are most sure of is that Trump did it to deflect attention from other stuff, or that he did it just because he wanted to launch some missiles. There are even those who imagine that Trump launched the attack in collusion with the Russians as a way of hiding his collusion with the Russians. Think I'm joking? Look: www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/08/dem_rep_lieu_possible_that_trump_ordered_strike_on_syria_to_distract_from_collusion_with_putin.htmlSo on what basis do you assume this--renominating Garland--would have been received any differently?
|
|