posted by CenterBHSFanBoogie go email Liz Warrens office about it. Then AOC and Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc
You know, the people with the actual power to contest an election? Those same people who have been rumbling and mumbling and insinuating for months?
The actual candidates in the presidential election - that’s who I’m referring to. We’ve had on here multiple assurances from the Trump side that they’d both react poorly if they lost. That hasn’t been the case.
posted by jmogHe brought it up as a joke, and I replied as a joke. Hope that helps…
Considering how you’ve beaten that dead horse for months - and in no way intending it as a joke - no it doesn’t.
posted by jmogIf it was even remotely close you don’t think the Dems would have fought it?
They absolutely would have. They had hundreds of lawyers geared up to "fight Trump's legal challenges". Yeah, because he was so successful in that in 2020 because the Dems were unprepared. And this was after many states upgraded their safeguards and processes.
It's also kind of disingenuous after the Dems spent a good part of the last 4 years trying to prevent Trump from running and throw him in jail. And it ignores the whole Russia collusion hoax. Heck, some even floated appeals to "faithless electors" in 2016 to ignore their state result and cast the electoral votes for Hillary. I think Jamie Raskin has already announced the "resistance" movement is again underway. So, yeah, the Dems really lose gracefully.
More than debatable that the Dems are a bigger threat to democracy than Trump. The lawfare really backfired on them.
posted by jmogIf it was even remotely close you don’t think the Dems would have fought it?
Even back in 2000 they did with Gore. Both sides fight it when it’s close.
This wasn’t close.
If that makes you feel better, sure.
posted by BR1986FBIf this has been previously mentioned, my apologies, but it's possible that Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayer could retired before her next term due to failing health. There are rumblings, and it sounds like support for, Biden, while in his last lame duck months, appointing Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court if Sotomayer retires before his term ends, just to fuck with the Republicans. This is probably a stretch to happen as, I believe, all SC justices have previously been judges and Harris hasn't.
O% chance. I saw the same liberal wet dream online.
There is not enough time to do all of that, plus I'm pretty sure Republicans would find some way to block it.
There is also a good procedural question. As the Senate is 50/50, could she cast the deciding vote for herself? I don't know and I am not sure we even want to test that.
Now, if it was a Republican Senate with McConnell, with a conservative justice, I would give it a slight chance, but even then, I doubt it. The calendar is just unworkable.
posted by BR1986FBThis is probably a stretch to happen as, I believe, all SC justices have previously been judges and Harris hasn't.
You definitely don't have to be a judge, and I think there have been a few non-lawyers appointed over its history.
There's likely not enough time to complete a confirmation process. But there are a couple of very recent example of being confirmed ~3 weeks after submission. I guess they could put up Kamala and push through a confirmation in a month. So they only have about 6 weeks to figure that out, under the most ideal circumstances.
I wonder if Biden will step down or Kamala envoke the 25th so she can claim to be the first woman POTUS, even if only for a month or two:)
posted by gutYou definitely don't have to be a judge, and I think there have been a few non-lawyers appointed over its history.
There's likely not enough time to complete a confirmation process. But there are a couple of very recent example of being confirmed ~3 weeks after submission. I guess they could put up Kamala and push through a confirmation in a month. So they only have about 6 weeks to figure that out, under the most ideal circumstances.
I wonder if Biden will step down or Kamala envoke the 25th so she can claim to be the first woman POTUS, even if only for a month or two:)
Oh your last point I didn't think of. Would technically be right and be interesting...but I think she will be needed in the Senate
posted by ptown_trojans_1O% chance. I saw the same liberal wet dream online.
There is not enough time to do all of that, plus I'm pretty sure Republicans would find some way to block it.
There is also a good procedural question. As the Senate is 50/50, could she cast the deciding vote for herself? I don't know and I am not sure we even want to test that.
Now, if it was a Republican Senate with McConnell, with a conservative justice, I would give it a slight chance, but even then, I doubt it. The calendar is just unworkable.
I’ve only seen liberal wackos say Kamala. But if the timeline works she should retire and they should try to pass a liberal judge. He’d never suggest Kamala though, he hates her.
Trump may have 2 opportunities to name justices, replacing conservative ones anyway though. But would they need to retire soon into his term in case Dems win back Senate in ‘26?
I don’t think Kagan was ever a judge.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieThe actual candidates in the presidential election - that’s who I’m referring to. We’ve had on here multiple assurances from the Trump side that they’d both react poorly if they lost. That hasn’t been the case.
I think if the election were closer it would have happened. Kamala's campaign would have manufactured consent with the help of those I mentioned and all other DC Dems, with the exception of maybe Manchin .
And as much as I hate it, maybe it's better to have very close elections scrutinized a little bit. With all the doubts cast by both sides, the people should not be left wondering. Whether it's Kamala or Trump or whoever else in the future.
But Trump has laid one hell of a blue print on how a candidate can be so awfully mistreated and vilified and still win.
If the Dems are acute enough, if they self-examine enough, they will understand on an instinctual level that they should never ever, ever, repeat their tactics again. It's bad enough that they have already set precedent and there is no erasing that. But if they truly want to do right for this country and the people who inhabit it, they will never again press political persecutions upon their opponents.
We shall see.
As far as SCOTUS, if moves are made, I can easily see Clarence Thomas retiring as soon as Trump is sworn in and a conservative replacing him. And even if Kamala or somebody else replaced Sotomayor, it wouldn't help.
This all just reminds me of people bitching about RNG staying in too long. Sometimes staying in the ring too long hurts everybody in the long term.
The current SCOTUS make-up is pretty good with 3 liberals, 2 conservatives and 4 centrists.
Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists. But I'm not sure such a person exists.
The only real reason this is even an issue is because Dems have insisted on litigating rather than legislating to advance their agenda. The rail about Trump, yet cry about SCOTUS rulings that correctly limit the executive branch. But all of that is really just gaslighting to set the stage to stack the courts. Fortunately, that won't be happening any time soon.
posted by gutThe current SCOTUS make-up is pretty good with 3 liberals, 2 conservatives and 4 centrists.
Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists. But I'm not sure such a person exists.
The only real reason this is even an issue is because Dems have insisted on litigating rather than legislating to advance their agenda. The rail about Trump, yet cry about SCOTUS rulings that correctly limit the executive branch. But all of that is really just gaslighting to set the stage to stack the courts. Fortunately, that won't be happening any time soon.
Agree. It be interesting to see how the federal agencies and Congress implement the Chevron overturn, which limited what federal agencies can do.
posted by gut
Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists. But I'm not sure such a person exists.
I'm not any sort of supreme court justice expert, let me just say that up front. But I think that, 20 years ago - Gorsuch would be classified as a centrist. I only say that because from the little I know of him nothing stands out to me as being of hardcore Republican/conservative.
Am I wrong about that?
Edit to add: Justice Thomas, comparatively, is hardcore Republican/conservative.
posted by gutThe current SCOTUS make-up is pretty good with 3 liberals, 2 conservatives and 4 centrists.
Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists. But I'm not sure such a person exists.
The only real reason this is even an issue is because Dems have insisted on litigating rather than legislating to advance their agenda. The rail about Trump, yet cry about SCOTUS rulings that correctly limit the executive branch. But all of that is really just gaslighting to set the stage to stack the courts. Fortunately, that won't be happening any time soon.
Disagree. That’s how you end up getting a liberal court by giving in on “middle of the road” justices. The left only puts on extremely liberal justices, who almost always only vote together. This is why the right loses all the time. The one thing I admire about the left is them not giving a fuck and doing whatever they think will further their progressive outlook.
posted by gutI wonder if Biden will step down or Kamala envoke the 25th so she can claim to be the first woman POTUS, even if only for a month or two:)
This would be an insult to women. I know the dems want to put that notch in their belt to further their identity politics but they will not go there. Plus the 25th on a lame duck raises too many questions why not before? Besides they are busy working on the new narrative.
posted by majorspark
This would be an insult to women. I know the dems want to put that notch in their belt to further their identity politics but they will not go there. Plus the 25th on a lame duck raises too many questions why not before? Besides they are busy working on the new narrative.
The Dems don't have a new narrative. They are already enacting full-on Trump Resistance!
They don't have any economic policy, or Kamala would have won. Kamala's best policy was to lure people, who couldn't yet afford to buy a house, into buying a house with "up to 25%" tax break incentive. And what would have happened to those people the first time they got their property taxes assessed? They would have been fucked.
This election also showed that abortion like many suggested can be divorced from federal politics and should be a state issue. Initiatives favorable to abortion passed or were heavily favored in several states that went easily to Trump.
posted by CenterBHSFanThe Dems don't have a new narrative. They are already enacting full-on Trump Resistance!
They don't have any economic policy, or Kamala would have won. Kamala's best policy was to lure people, who couldn't yet afford to buy a house, into buying a house with "up to 25%" tax break incentive. And what would have happened to those people the first time they got their property taxes assessed? They would have been fucked.
This policy only applied to people who parents didn’t own a house eother
posted by CenterBHSFanAnother question I have is this. I keep seeing all these reports of reliably blue counties in blue states that had moved to the right in this election. They are still blue, but much less so. Is this a one off thing due to the circumstances of this election or is there a chance that it's going to be a trend?
As much as I'd hope it's a trend, I think this election was a backlash of sorts. NY was closer to red than Texas was to blue. I wouldn't expect that going forward.
This site should be renamed Polymath Chatter.
https://x.com/alexandruc4/status/1855334711410966575?s=46&t=C2WPcF6lbnPsYusDnwucFQ
Here comes the violence even though they are gracious conceders
So I'm watching Pod Save America for the first time, filmed the day after the election.
I'm going to be very sexist with this.
But grown ass men shouldn't be so sick cow sad over a fuckin election. Leave that shit on The View!
posted by Ironman92https://x.com/alexandruc4/status/1855334711410966575?s=46&t=C2WPcF6lbnPsYusDnwucFQ
Here comes the violence even though they are gracious conceders
I was talking about the presidential candidates - for the third time.
As for this March, will it be proceeding down to Washington where the marchers will smash their way into the Capitol?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieConsidering how you’ve beaten that dead horse for months - and in no way intending it as a joke - no it doesn’t.
Yes, because reading minds through a forum is your super power.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieIf that makes you feel better, sure.
Sorry actual election history is not on your side here.
Gore, Hillary, etc all fought and even invented collusion hoaxes.