Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 12:18:57 GMT -5
Like Cass? I'm the one who offered up the idea of renominating Garland and said that I would--personally--be fine with that. Robo, no one reads your posts. © Since 2012, the catchphrase that keeps on giving.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 9, 2017 15:48:11 GMT -5
Like Cass? I'm the one who offered up the idea of renominating Garland and said that I would--personally--be fine with that. I know you would be fine with it personally. You didn't say it would be a lovely bipartisan gesture. Thanks. But what I really wanted was a cookie. Right. And the ones who love him? You think they'd stop if he nominated Garland? No more so than those who hate him would suddenly start loving him. Which, I never claimed would happen. The ones who don't care about anything, yeah. But the ones who wouldn't care if Garland was nominated? Come on. How many people who voted for Trump hated the idea of someone like Garland on the Supreme Court? How many of them even know who the fuck Garland is? Well, I don't know. What do you think the House Repubs would do? Throw a hissy fit? Complain that Trump should've respected their previous hissy fit? Make fools of themselves trying to discredit Garland? Start conniving to have Trump impeached? Shut down Congress? Every single thing (I can think of) besides accepting it would make them look worse. No, not because of that one move. Again, I never claimed anyone would suddenly think he is a great leader/president/etc. Stop exaggerating, please. *shrug* Some would. Some people always do. Overall though, I think it could be a net positive. A bipartisan gesture. A step in the right direction. But no, secretly, it would make just make me happy. That's really why I'm here: to talk about what everyone should do to make me happy. SMDH.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 9, 2017 17:14:48 GMT -5
Right. And the ones who love him? You think they'd stop if he nominated Garland? No more so than those who hate him would suddenly start loving him. Which, I never claimed would happen. For a good chunk of the far right, the Supreme Court is the most important thing around (and for a chunk of the far left), imo. So yes, if Trump nominated Garland, they'd lose it; their support for Trump would fall off of a cliff, figuratively speaking. They wouldn't switch to supporting Dems, they'd simply support those pols on the far right who were critical of Trump. Lol, make them look worse to you. Yes, if Trump had renominated Garland, Repubs in the Congress--most of them--would have pretty much lost it, imo. I don't see how you can't see this. McConnell's efforts to block Garland were applauded by the same people who voted Trump into office. Likely, the House would have either refused to hold hearings on Garland or--if McConnell had the votes--simply voted him down and forced Trump to try again. But if they couldn't do that, if an OBAMA NOMINEE made it through a Republican-controlled Senate with a Republican President, all of the Repubs responsible would have stiff primary challengers in their next election, no mater how long they had been in office. And many would have lost. And at the end of the day, no sitting Senator is going to willingly put himself or herself in such a position. They're certainly not going to look favorably at a President who put them--and the Party--in such a position. It's just ridiculous to suppose renominating Garland was a doable proposition, from a political perspective. There's really no upside. You said he'd be your hero for the day and opined that this would be a step towards uniting the country. I don't think I'm exaggerating at all. Or are you saying that Trump might follow this one move with a series of other moves where he shits on Repubs to pacify Dems? Seriously, your entire point of view is built around a ridiculous premise: that Trump not only would want to unite both "sides," but that he actually could.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 18:01:57 GMT -5
Rob is of course a rapscallion and a cad, but I agree with him here. Re-nominating Garland would have done Trump less good with the left than it would have done him damage on the right. It would not have bridged the divide between the two. And I say this as someone who would have liked to see it happen.
And it really is silly to claim Trump had no right to fill the seat. He did. That's the way it works.
None of this takes away, at all, from the fact that Senate Republicans were utter assholes about Garland, and I hold them in complete contempt for it. Frankly, that's a constitutional hole I'd like to see fixed. I think if the President nominates someone, the Senate should have to give a hearing within a certain space of time. They don't have to approve, they certainly don't have to confirm the person, they have every right to question up and down and backward (indeed they should) -- but they shouldn't be able to refuse to even give a hearing for a goddamn year.
If it's a new rule, now, that Presidents don't get to fill Supreme Court seats for the last quarter of their term, let's enshrine it so Trump can't do it either. Will our Republican friends agree? I really fucking doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 9, 2017 18:21:12 GMT -5
For a good chunk of the far right, the Supreme Court is the most important thing around (and for a chunk of the far left), imo. So yes, if Trump nominated Garland, they'd lose it; their support for Trump would fall off of a cliff, figuratively speaking. They wouldn't switch to supporting Dems, they'd simply support those pols on the far right who were critical of Trump. Oh, the far right. Or, a good chunk of it anyway. Great, how many people is that? Okay but fine. Why didn't the far right stop supporting him when he said abortion was a settled issue, when he said he did believe Obama was U.S. citizen, when he held up the rainbow flag, etc.? I didn't say they wouldn't be pissed. Not much worse than being reminded what douchebags they were, I imagine. So you are saying that if Garland had been nominated and confirmed, eighteen months later, challengers would beat incumbents simply because the incumbents had let that "Obama nominee" become a SCJ? If that's true, we really are doomed. Also, politics is bullshit and we are wasting our time even thinking about it all. Okie dokie. Again with putting words in my mouth. Where did I say he'd want to? Also again with the exaggeration. Saying it would be a good step, saying it would at least be a token gesture, noting that it is something that could somewhat right a grievous wrong by the Repubs during the Obama administration, is not saying Trump could unite the country if he just shits on Repubs and pacifies Dems until Nancy Pelosi approves. To use your own condescending line: Read what I wrote, again.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 10, 2017 7:28:33 GMT -5
Yeah, it's pretty sad that all of Robo's comments are just that. Political.
Yet they're spot on.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 10, 2017 7:56:45 GMT -5
*shrug*
You're being obstinate and not really offering up any sort of narrative on how Trump renominating Garland wouldn't have blown up in his face, apart from this:
If I'm overstating the consequences, you're understating them, and almost ridiculously so.
As I said, flesh it out. Trump re-nominates Garland, what happens next? "Well, I don't know" isn't really good enough if you're going to insist that such a move wouldn't cost Trump politically. You can't see how this could impact Trump's agenda? You think McConnell would just eat shit and happily push through Trump's agenda for the next 3+ years? You think there wouldn't be consequences for pols in red States, where opposing Obama was a huge part of their platforms?
And nominating a SC justice is not the same thing as a comment at all. It's not even the same thing as signing a piece of legislation. You do realize this, right? "Vote Clinton because otherwise TRUMP will be making Supreme Court picks" was a pretty common sentiment. So was "Vote Trump because otherwise CLINOTN will be making Supreme Court picks." Seriously, I had a friend spend an hour trying to convince me to vote for Trump--even though he and I both considered Trump a jackwagon--simply because of the above.
And really, the above--from both sides--was predicated on the recognition the whomever won would make at least one pick for the Court, because Scalia's seat was open.
If Trump had renominated Garland, calling it "politically foolish" would be an undersell.
As I said, I'd be fine with it, because I think Garland would be great and I think he (and Obama) got a raw deal, here. And if Trump had done it, I would have loved to see McConnell et al eat shit for what they did to Garland. Just desserts, after all. But that's just dreaming. Pretending this is a realistic scenario, that it was even a possibility requires one to believe Trump is the world heavyweight champion of complete and utter fools. Because regardless of the downside, there's just no upside to such a move. You want to imagine that it's a step towards uniting the country? You're kidding yourself. If Trump had renominated Garland, he would have still bombed Syria, no? He'd still be taking bids to build the wall, no? He'd still be pushing his immigration ban EO, no? Whatever inkling of good will he garnered by such a move would be gone in the wink of an eye.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 10, 2017 15:22:27 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. It's the right of the President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and there's nothing "mystical" about it. The problem here and now is Trump's "right to fill the seat because he's President" is only because Mitch McConnell denied Obama his right to fill the seat because he was the President." I'm not forgiving or forgetting how Gorsuch* got his seat. The Republican Senate stole a Supreme Court and vowed to wait for a Republican president before they would allow it to be filled and if you don't believe me, believe them.The reasoning is there. You just don't see it. It's not the same thing. You may be all ears, but that doesn't mean you're listening. You are still presenting this as a fait accompli. Merrick Garland got fucked out of a seat on the Supreme Court and so sad too bad, but Neil Gorsuch* is in there for the next 30 or so years, so what? Suck it up, snowflakes. What is there to do about that? Scorch the fucking earth the Republicans walk on Burn the Senate down around Mitch McConnell's ugly face. Shut it down until nothing gets out the Senate. Not so much as whiff of fresh air. This is politics and the Republicans play hard and rough and in this case, not even remotely fair. Okay. If that's the way the game is played, two can play that game. When the political Wheel of Fortune comes around and McConnell and the Republicans are back in the minority, the Democrats should treat them with the same degree of contempt and disrespect as they have been treated. Payback's a nasty bitch with a long, ugly and unforgiving memory and when the Democratic Senatorial Committee calls me for a donation, I will say, "Sure thing. But I'm not giving a goddamn dime to Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin. They can all go down in flames." Petty? Spiteful? Vindictive? I prefer Principled and like I said, do unto others as they have done unto you. Just don't give them a chance to do it again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 16:10:49 GMT -5
The real pity of it is that if ever there was a candidate who should have sailed through unanimously, it was Garland. Brilliant, extraordinarily qualified, fair and about as moderate as we're ever going to see in this increasingly partisan world. I think he would have gone down as one of the great justices.
If he'd been less terrific, or some controversial partisan type, I wouldn't hold quite the grudge I do. But as it stands, just no excuse for not giving him a hearing. No excuse at all.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 11, 2017 11:26:44 GMT -5
It's the right of the President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and there's nothing "mystical" about it. The problem here and now is Trump's "right to fill the seat because he's President" is only because Mitch McConnell denied Obama his right to fill the seat because he was the President." I'm not forgiving or forgetting how Gorsuch* got his seat. Right. Trump is President now, he has the "right." So how is O'Neill's statement not utter nonsense? Lol. It's not there. You just explained succinctly why O'Neill's claim is nonsense, but how you nonetheless won't forgive or forget how it went down. Which is your prerogative, of course. But it isn't a defense of O'Neill's statement--that Trump has no right to fill the seat--in the least.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 11, 2017 13:42:37 GMT -5
It's the right of the President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and there's nothing "mystical" about it. The problem here and now is Trump's "right to fill the seat because he's President" is only because Mitch McConnell denied Obama his right to fill the seat because he was the President." I'm not forgiving or forgetting how Gorsuch* got his seat. Right. Trump is President now, he has the "right." So how is O'Neill's statement not utter nonsense? Lol. It's not there. You just explained succinctly why O'Neill's claim is nonsense, but how you nonetheless won't forgive or forget how it went down. Which is your prerogative, of course. But it isn't a defense of O'Neill's statement--that Trump has no right to fill the seat--in the least. You didn't quote it, but what I said previously still applies currently: You may be all ears, but that doesn't mean you're listening. I've explained how O'Neill's statement isn't "nonsense" over under sideways up and down and I'm done trying to explain it anymore when you're calling Christine "obstinate" and all the while plumbing new depths in being mulish and intractable. Neil Gorsuch* was elevated to the Supreme Court through an act of treachery, duplicity and unscrupulous scheming and both he and all those involved in this contemptible plot to usurp President Obama's right to fill the Scalia vacancy will be exposed by historians as the thuggish mob they truly are. You can sneer at O'Neill all you like, robeiae, but being complicit in an act of thievery ain't a good look for anybody and if mainstream Republicans like c.e. lawson aren't going to hold their party accountable for their shady double-dealing, it's up to non-Republicans to impose some harsh consequences upon them at the ballot box.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 11, 2017 14:38:28 GMT -5
I've explained how O'Neill's statement isn't "nonsense" over under sideways up and down and I'm done trying to explain it anymore... Disagree. I don't think you've explained or tried to explain anything in this regard. O'Neill's statement again: You just specifically allowed that he does in fact have that right: So your explanation apparently is: yes, Trump has the right to fill it because he's President, but O'Neill's statement is still correct because McConnell sucks (more or less). Rock-solid...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 12, 2017 12:10:27 GMT -5
I've explained how O'Neill's statement isn't "nonsense" over under sideways up and down and I'm done trying to explain it anymore... Disagree. I don't think you've explained or tried to explain anything in this regard. O'Neill's statement again: You just specifically allowed that he does in fact have that right: So your explanation apparently is: yes, Trump has the right to fill it because he's President, but O'Neill's statement is still correct because McConnell sucks (more or less). Rock-solid... Still not listening... As to be expected you only paid attention to half of that graph and as to be expected the wrong half. Here's the meat on the bone: ...Trump's "right to fill the seat because he's President" is only because Mitch McConnell denied Obama his right to fill the seat because he was the President."
You got it now or am I typing too fast? Please catch up if you can't keep up.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 12, 2017 17:51:16 GMT -5
I'm following. If Obama didn't have "the right" according to Congress during his term, and if Hillary Clinton were she elected not have "the right" according to those FUCKING DOUCHEBAGS I CAN'T EVEN, then Trump must not have "the right" either. It's apparently now a gift bestowed by Congress, the fucks.
Congress changed the rules by denying Obama the right to a hearing for his candidate, so no, Trump doesn't have a right, either. He just got to because, Congress. And most everyone just carries on, no biggie. Fuck that. It will always be Gorsuch*.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 12, 2017 19:14:59 GMT -5
Disagree. I don't think you've explained or tried to explain anything in this regard. O'Neill's statement again: You just specifically allowed that he does in fact have that right: So your explanation apparently is: yes, Trump has the right to fill it because he's President, but O'Neill's statement is still correct because McConnell sucks (more or less). Rock-solid... Still not listening... As to be expected you only paid attention to half of that graph and as to be expected the wrong half. Here's the meat on the bone: ...Trump's "right to fill the seat because he's President" is only because Mitch McConnell denied Obama his right to fill the seat because he was the President."
You got it now or am I typing too fast? Please catch up if you can't keep up. I am listening. You're repeating what I'm saying your saying, but in a slightly different way. I agree with what you said, more or less. I mean Trump gets to fill any empty seat on the Court right now because he's President. He gets to exercise that power (or right) for this specific seat only because of McConnell's bullshit. But he still has the right to do it. You don't like it. I get it. But there's nothing to be done for it. Indeed, it's a done deal. Because he had the right to nominate someone. If Hillary Clinton had won, she'd have had the same right. Maybe she would have merely re-nominated Garland. Maybe not. But she would have the authority, the right to make that decision. The problem, I think, is that you--like many others, to be sure--see this only through the lens of political parties. But when it comes to the powers of the executive versus the powers of the legislature, party labels don't matter. The fact that Trump ran as a Republican doesn't mean that his authority as President is impacted in any way by what McConnell did. Again, it's all on McConnell and other Senate Repubs. Trump had no hand in that and it in no way limits him now.
|
|