|
Post by prozyan on Sept 19, 2020 0:47:04 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I don't think Democrats can stop it since Reid and McConnell eliminated filibuster and went to simple majority for confirmation. Yeah, that's what I thought, too. They can certainly argue hypocrisy given McConnell's position on Merrick Garland, but that's obviously not the same as preventing a vote. ETA: I suppose there's a possibility, though, of some Repubs joining w/ the Dems on this. Maybe Collins and Murkowski? Or Romney? Yeah, they can lose 3 votes and still force it through, as Pence would be the tie-breaker. More than 3 have previously stated they wouldn't want to vote to confirm in an election year, but who knows how it is going to go when faced with the reality.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 19, 2020 10:09:27 GMT -5
www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-says-senate-should-wait-replace-ginsburg-trump-lowers-flags-n1240512Shocking. I think some of the Repubs in the Senate will stick to their guns on this and not vote to confirm anyone. I hope they will, at any rate. Don't get me wrong, I like some of the names on Trump's list. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer them to anyone Biden might nominate (though I'd be cool with Garland). But I think what the McConnell and company did to Garland was reprehensible and I really want to see them eat a shit sandwich on this. That said...Trump had nothing to do with what McConnell did. And Trump has no reason to not do his constitutional duty and make an appointment to the Court right now. I expect he will and people who criticize him for doing so don't impress me at all.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 19, 2020 10:14:04 GMT -5
*shakes head, leaves room*
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 19, 2020 19:24:40 GMT -5
I'm not any sort of expert on judges. I've followed some stuff on Twitter, including KC Johnson who reports on all of the Title IX stuff, as well as other things. He mentioned that 2 of these names authored 2 very important Title IX decisions.
What that means over all, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 19, 2020 20:01:17 GMT -5
Here's my take on the whole thing. Every republican that wants Trump to nominate someone now and push it through, if they were there for Garland and they were fine with blocking Garland, then their hypocrites. However, aren't the D's who kept saying Obama should be able to nominate who also being hypocrites? If you feel what the GOP did with Garland was unprincipled, shouldn't you follow the principles you espouse even if the other side doesn't. Sure, McConnell does deserve to eat a shit sandwich. And IIRC, when Scalia died on the night of a GOP debate, Trump right away said they should obstruct, obstruct obstruct. I get the politics, but Jesus, aren't you supposed to pretend that it's not obstruction? And for that matter, I remember thinking that I'd like to hear who Obama nominated first. Same here.
Also, if I recall my history, it used to be that as long as the nomination was decent, they were approved. The Dem's Borked that up and it's been downhill. When do we stop fucking with everything?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 20, 2020 9:00:43 GMT -5
This is fucking ignorant, stupid, needlessly divisive, and reckless:
He's throwing down the gauntlet at a guy (Trump) who will not only push forward out of spite alone, but would willingly pack the court, himself, if he were to win the next election...again, out of spite alone.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 20, 2020 9:09:17 GMT -5
On the nomination:
Given that I'm unlikely to get my way and the Repubs will manage to force a vote, I think I'd take Barrett over the others (and that seems to be how things are shaking out), though I'm kinda unhappy with her Catholicism, truth be told.
But I don't Lagoa much at all (I believe I knew her, back in the day).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 20, 2020 9:49:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2020 11:35:21 GMT -5
Well, that's what happened with Garland. They created a new rule. At some point, someone really needs to endorse following the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2020 20:37:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 20, 2020 23:10:45 GMT -5
If you feel what the GOP did with Garland was unprincipled, shouldn't you follow the principles you espouse even if the other side doesn't. If you threaten to stab me, and I say, "But stabbing people is wrong," and you go ahead and do it anyway, and I respond by twisting the knife out of your hands and stabbing you, can you say "Ah, you hypocrite, you just said stabbing people is wrong"? I guess you could, and in a strict sense, the statement "you just said stabbing people is wrong" would be accurate, but it also seems like a bunch of bullshit casuistry, given the full context.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 21, 2020 2:26:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 21, 2020 6:52:17 GMT -5
If you feel what the GOP did with Garland was unprincipled, shouldn't you follow the principles you espouse even if the other side doesn't. If you threaten to stab me, and I say, "But stabbing people is wrong," and you go ahead and do it anyway, and I respond by twisting the knife out of your hands and stabbing you, can you say "Ah, you hypocrite, you just said stabbing people is wrong"? I guess you could, and in a strict sense, the statement "you just said stabbing people is wrong" would be accurate, but it also seems like a bunch of bullshit casuistry, given the full context. Ooooo...philosophizing! I think there's a wide gulf between stabbing someone--an illegal and violent act--and not allowing a timely up or down vote for a nominee. And to be fair, the Senate--under the control of both sides--blocks various nominees for various offices all the time. The Garland case was treated as a Big Deal because it's SCOTUS, which I guess makes it a big deal, but doesn't make it a unique deal. And as many on the Right are quick to point out, blocking Garland was based on the Biden Rule (which really was just an argument offered by Biden, not an actual rule; but Biden did make the argument, and one can fairly say that he shouldn't have made it if he really didn't believe it). But I digress. The point is, there's no real personal cost or physical risk to Senators who act ethically here (assuming that acting ethically means sticking with the standards one has argued are the correct ones in this kind of situation). There is a "high road" available for all of the Senators. For the Dems, that road would entail not trying to block or delay a vote on Trump's pick (and again, Senators block and delay all the damn time), while for the Repubs it would entail not going forward with a vote on Trump's pick. But when has a majority of the Senate ever opted for the high road?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 21, 2020 6:53:23 GMT -5
Okay, how is that piece a year old?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 21, 2020 7:20:06 GMT -5
I think there's a wide gulf between stabbing someone--an illegal and violent act--and not allowing a timely up or down vote for a nominee. Nope, they are literally the same thing. (I'm joking of course.) Obviously it's an imperfect analogy, but there is of course a similar principle of reciprocity in politics. Think of trade policies, for a non-violent example. Sure. But the Dems can't really take the high road without the Repubs not taking the high road. And once the Repubs have veered off the road, I don't think one can really expect the Dems not to follow suit.
|
|