posted by iclfan2Link?
"[Lincoln] was getting beaten a lot by Robert E Lee. They want to rip down his statue all over the place ... he would have won except for Gettysburg ... these were incredible things" -- Trump praises the top general who fought on behalf on slavery pic.twitter.com/7dnzZ9nQJV
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 19, 2020
posted by like_thatThanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform. It had to be done.
— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) November 21, 2013
Even if talking specifically about the filibuster for judges, Reid did that in part because Repubs were blocking & delaying all of Obama's nominees. Historically, the parties just accepted that appointing judges was exclusively the privilege of the POTUS.
Anyway, I think it's a given that after Repubs replace RBG with a conservative judge the Democrats are going to pack the SCOTUS. Mayor Pete's idea was actually pretty good, but I wouldn't expect the short-sighted Dems to do anything remotely fair or equal.
I actually think Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are proving to be excellent picks, ruling based on the Constitution instead of politics. Which is what everyone should want, except for those who view the Constitution as a roadblock to a partisan agenda (which is what it is and should be).
I wonder if it's even hitting people yet that with the SCOTUS likely to weigh-in on the 2020 election, one of the most important votes in the country just flipped to Trump.
Haven't researched it, but saw where extended deadlines to count mail-in votes (even if postmarked before the deadline) may not be Constitutional. And there's bound to be battles about people in some states getting mail-in ballots late (Dems have already been setting that challenge up for months).
Although I would guess Roberts would vote with the 3 liberal justices. I think Alito is a reliable vote for Trump, along with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (though I wouldn't bet on those two, but would they really vote against the guy who appointed them?). Would Thomas go against Trump? I have no idea.
If the new justice isn't confirmed in time, it would give the SCOTUS an interesting out to deadlock 4-4.
Something else to watch out for if mail-in voting is a disaster - faithless electors ignoring an official count for what they deem was the "true" result.
I think a SCOTUS deadlock would cause more lefty violence.
Trump gets another SCOTUS and doesnt get reelected......I would take that
This whole shit show does not surprise me one bit. As soon as I saw the news, I knew Mitch would push for a vote and the Ds would use the 2016 example as a reason to not vote. In the end, it is about power, and the Rs cannot pass up the chance to add a third Justice to the court in a four year period. This is a conservatives dream, so of course they are going to put forward a name and press for a vote.
Now, this may shock some on here, but I actually agree the Senate should go through the process of naming a replacement. The President's term does end on 1/20/21 and he has the right to name a replacement. The Senate should do their due process to vet that person and start the process. If it bleeds into past election day, then so be it.
It gets dicey after that, as in a lame duck, some Senators may be voted out of office and states like GA and AZ may seat some of their Senators during that period. That may lead to the Senate either delaying or voting down the nominee until there is a new Congress in early Jan.
I do expect the Senate would rush through a nominee though, probably during the lame duck. People will be very upset, but it is what it is in today's political world.
I also think this may rally the Ds to radially change the Senate if they take the Senate, which they are slightly favored to do right now. If that happens, goodbye filibuster, hello maybe an expanded court, and statehood for DC and PR.
On a final note, if the court does go 6-3, it may force Congress to grow a pair and actually start to take back power it has conceded to the other branches. I'm not sure that is a bad thing in the long run. As a conservative court and an activists Congress that reasserts power may be a sense of balance.
posted by CenterBHSFanI think a SCOTUS deadlock would cause more lefty violence.
Maybe, maybe not.
I wouldn't rule out Trump supporters causing violence.
I mean this is just once example of the supporters blocking early voting yesterday in VA. Lucky, no violence, but it could have escalated.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/trump-supporters-protest-outside-fairfax-early-voting-site
posted by ptown_trojans_1I also think this may rally the Ds to radially change the Senate if they take the Senate, which they are slightly favored to do right now. If that happens, goodbye filibuster, hello maybe an expanded court, and statehood for DC and PR.
I read a good article that walked me back off that ledge. There are more than a few Democrats that really don't want to kill the filibuster. So it's unlikely they have the votes to do what you're talking about, at least not until 2022.
I'm also wondering if some of these changes could pass judicial scrutiny with a 5/6-3/4 court.
posted by gutI read a good article that walked me back off that ledge. There are more than a few Democrats that really don't want to kill the filibuster. So it's unlikely they have the votes to do what you're talking about, at least not until 2022.
I'm also wondering if some of these changes could pass judicial scrutiny with a 5/6-3/4 court.
For now. I think this could change that calculus on the filibuster. This decision to go forward with a vote could change the political calculations of the Senate for years to come and could change the minds of those on the fence like say Manchin.
I'm not sure the court has much say on the inner workings of Congress. That is one branch telling another what to do, especially if it is an issue not directly in the text of the Constitution like the filibuster.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yea because Trump voters have been so violent recentlyMaybe, maybe not.
I wouldn't rule out Trump supporters causing violence.
I mean this is just once example of the supporters blocking early voting yesterday in VA. Lucky, no violence, but it could have escalated.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/trump-supporters-protest-outside-fairfax-early-voting-site
posted by ptown_trojans_1This whole shit show does not surprise me one bit. As soon as I saw the news, I knew Mitch would push for a vote and the Ds would use the 2016 example as a reason to not vote. In the end, it is about power, and the Rs cannot pass up the chance to add a third Justice to the court in a four year period. This is a conservatives dream, so of course they are going to put forward a name and press for a vote.
Now, this may shock some on here, but I actually agree the Senate should go through the process of naming a replacement. The President's term does end on 1/20/21 and he has the right to name a replacement. The Senate should do their due process to vet that person and start the process. If it bleeds into past election day, then so be it.
It gets dicey after that, as in a lame duck, some Senators may be voted out of office and states like GA and AZ may seat some of their Senators during that period. That may lead to the Senate either delaying or voting down the nominee until there is a new Congress in early Jan.
I do expect the Senate would rush through a nominee though, probably during the lame duck. People will be very upset, but it is what it is in today's political world.
I also think this may rally the Ds to radially change the Senate if they take the Senate, which they are slightly favored to do right now. If that happens, goodbye filibuster, hello maybe an expanded court, and statehood for DC and PR.
On a final note, if the court does go 6-3, it may force Congress to grow a pair and actually start to take back power it has conceded to the other branches. I'm not sure that is a bad thing in the long run. As a conservative court and an activists Congress that reasserts power may be a sense of balance.
You forgot to mention that if the shoe was on the other foot and the Dems had contol.....they would do the same thing
posted by Spock
Yea because Trump voters have been so violent recently
This is 2020, I wouldn't rule anything out.
Plus, Trump supporters have been violent over the last 4 years..come on remember Charlottesville?
posted by SpockYou forgot to mention that if the shoe was on the other foot and the Dems had contol.....they would do the same thing
Uhh yeah..they tried in 2016...and failed.
But yeah they would try the same and my argument would still stand.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I'm not sure the court has much say on the inner workings of Congress.
On the filibuster, probably not. But there are always legal arguments to be made, especially wrt stacking the court, in which case they might have a say.
The entire argument is essentially liberals want a progressive court to legislate from the bench. Forget about a check on the balance of power - what they really want is an end-around a gridlocked Congress.
I keep hearing how Trump is allegedly destroying democracy, but everything notable I see is the Democrats shitting on the Constitution.
posted by ptown_trojans_1This is 2020, I wouldn't rule anything out.
Plus, Trump supporters have been violent over the last 4 years..come on remember Charlottesville?
Lol
posted by ptown_trojans_1This is 2020, I wouldn't rule anything out.
Plus, Trump supporters have been violent over the last 4 years..come on remember Charlottesville?
Oh I forgot one person drove a car into a crowd......one person.
posted by gutOn the filibuster, probably not. But there are always legal arguments to be made, especially wrt stacking the court, in which case they might have a say.
The entire argument is essentially liberals want a progressive court to legislate from the bench. Forget about a check on the balance of power - what they really want is an end-around a gridlocked Congress.
I keep hearing how Trump is allegedly destroying democracy, but everything notable I see is the Democrats shitting on the Constitution.
I was more thinking if the court of more conservative and the filibuster is eliminated, the Ds may not need to stack the court of they have both chambers and the Presidency (assuming they take the Senate and Biden wins). If that happens, then any action the court takes, they can pass laws to fix any of the rulings. That negates legislating from the bench as they will be actually legislating.
For example, if the court strikes down the ACA, the Ds can just pass another version with less road blocks. It does force the Ds to actually work through and pass laws.
posted by SpockOh I forgot one person drove a car into a crowd......one person.
I guess you just forgot about the whole thing then huh?
Either way, both the crazy left and the right have been guilty of violent acts. To dismiss that is to ignore the reality of these times.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I guess you just forgot about the whole thing then huh?
Either way, both the crazy left and the right have been guilty of violent acts. To dismiss that is to ignore the reality of these times.
The deaths caused aren’t even comparable. You aren’t even pretending to be logical.
posted by iclfan2The deaths caused aren’t even comparable. You aren’t even pretending to be logical.
I was speaking about the violence, not just the death. The rise of right wing violence is a growing threat according to the FBI and DHS.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I was speaking about the violence, not just the death. The rise of right wing violence is a growing threat according to the FBI and DHS.
It’s literally on video, and it’s overwhelmingly one sided, but ok.
Ptown using the Alinsky approach of trying to attach the worst part of one group into the other to make all things even.
The left is 100X more violent and unlawful then the right
posted by SpockPtown using the Alinsky approach of trying to attach the worst part of one group into the other to make all things even.
The left is 100X more violent and unlawful then the right
Link?
posted by SpockPtown using the Alinsky approach of trying to attach the worst part of one group into the other to make all things even.
The left is 100X more violent and unlawful then the right
Aren’t most domestic terrorists from the right .. aka Timothy mcveigh ect..Dylan roof..
posted by geeblockAren’t most domestic terrorists from the right .. aka Timothy mcveigh ect..Dylan roof..
I think a more accurate description of Timothy McVeigh is not right-wing but Antifa (before it was cool).
And there have been a fair number of domestic terrorists that were self-radicalized jihadists, but most of that seems to get dismissed as workplace violence.