posted by Trimmer36Closing in on 200,000 deaths in 6 months, is not what I call "winning." The only ones winning are the funeral directors.
Many rational people would contend that a 99.96% survival rate after 8 months of enduring a deadly pandemic is quite a success story.
posted by QuakerOatsLooking forward to yet another stellar pick for Supreme Court by Trump.
130 days couldn’t solve a second relief package for workers but definitely have time to get a nominee done in 40 days
I think you failed on the quote feature ...the second paragraph above is not mine; I assume yours.
How can there be a relief package when the House is proposing over $3 trillion and at least half of it is not needed? As for getting another supreme court justice, we don't need the House, so it will be easy to accomplish. And it does not have to be in 40 days.
I am impressed by Trump's and the Republicans just blatantly admitting their decisions now are based on their power and control of the Senate and Presidency. The statements by Senators, especially Lindsay Graham who has done a complete 180, over the last few days to just say oh yeah we are going to vote through whoever Trump nominates is a nice way to admit it does not matter who he puts up there, we just want a conservative voice on the court.
They are very old school Machiavelli. Being nice and norms does not matter as it is all about power and controlling all three branches. I gotta tip my cap to that. Yes, the Congress and President are in office until January 21, but to just go out and say we are going to make this happen, other issued be damned, is impressive.
It is likely to work, but may also blow up in their face if the Ds grow balls also decide to play the game if they take the Senate and Presidency next year too.
posted by geeblock
Please do even the tiniest bit of research.
posted by iclfan2Please do even the tiniest bit of research.
This is the problem. Both Ds and Rs have their own version of a bill to help people, but cannot meet in the middle as as a result, we all suffer. The fact that neither side is willing to even meet on a compromise bill is pretty messed up right now.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I am impressed by Trump's and the Republicans just blatantly admitting their decisions now are based on their power and control of the Senate and Presidency. The statements by Senators, especially Lindsay Graham who has done a complete 180, over the last few days to just say oh yeah we are going to vote through whoever Trump nominates is a nice way to admit it does not matter who he puts up there, we just want a conservative voice on the court.
They are very old school Machiavelli. Being nice and norms does not matter as it is all about power and controlling all three branches. I gotta tip my cap to that. Yes, the Congress and President are in office until January 21, but to just go out and say we are going to make this happen, other issued be damned, is impressive.
It is likely to work, but may also blow up in their face if the Ds grow balls also decide to play the game if they take the Senate and Presidency next year too.
Norms? Like threatening impeachment just to stop it, packing the courts, ending the filibuster, and even trying to add states?
posted by iclfan2Norms? Like threatening impeachment just to stop it, packing the courts, ending the filibuster, and even trying to add states?
Well, they did impeach the President, not just threatened. But, packing the courts, ending the filibuster, and adding states could be the D response to adding this court seat. It would be equally a crass and power move, just like we are seeing now.
I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just saying the use of political power is now out in the open where before it was in the background behind the vanity of norms and rules.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Well, they did impeach the President, not just threatened. But, packing the courts, ending the filibuster, and adding states could be the D response to adding this court seat. It would be equally a crass and power move, just like we are seeing now.
I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just saying the use of political power is now out in the open where before it was in the background behind the vanity of norms and rules.
They are “threatening” to impeach again. And isn’t it the norm to name someone to the Supreme Court during an election year? The Dems literally all defended it when they did it in 2016, they’re just mad the Senate stopped it.
posted by iclfan2They are “threatening” to impeach again. And isn’t it the norm to name someone to the Supreme Court during an election year? The Dems literally all defended it when they did it in 2016, they’re just mad the Senate stopped it.
Ah, yeah, well, I doubt it is a real threat as there is not enough time to do that, formally before the election and it is dumb as the voters are going to have a say on Trump.
Yes, the norm is to try and seat a Justice. However, the statements by the Republicans Senators is all about no matter what we will vote and seat whoever Trump names. The merits of the Justice almost do not matter, it is all about getting their person on the bench at all costs. Trump could name you or me, and it would get confirmation.
In the old days, it would more well, we will try and start the process and have to judge the nominee on the merits of the qualifications and it would occur before or after the election, but the Senators would state politics do not play into any selection.
I think Romney's statement is an example of the old line of thinking...stating yes the President has the ability to name a justice and I will vote on them based on their qualifications. He kinda leaves it open, but we all know he will vote for the Justice.
McConnell initial statement and Lindsay Graham's statements and 180 are more the power play that no matter what, they will be seated.
Again, I give credit to the Republicans for finally just stating it when it has been in the background for so many years.
In ptown’s world the GOP doing what the constitution tells them to do is equally as crazy as the Dems threatening (well before RBG died) to add justices to the SCOTUS lmao. Dems are doing the thing again where they think they will have power for a lifetime. Only siths deal in absolutes.
If you want to argue they are hypocrites, sure go for it. Both parties are hypocrites. Either party in this position would do it. If you think otherwise, you’re only kidding yourself. As a former public servant once said, elections have consequences.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Well, they did impeach the President, not just threatened. But, packing the courts, ending the filibuster, and adding states could be the D response to adding this court seat. It would be equally a crass and power move, just like we are seeing now.
I think it's inevitable. That's the path we've been on for about 20 years. Hard to say which party started it, but every time someone abuses the rules or bends precedent, the other party pays it back 10X when they get back in control.
The net effect of all this is ceding more and more power to the Executive branch. But that's just fine for most in Congress who are only concerned with re-election - blame the other party for obstruction and defer all the tough decision to the POTUS.
Mayor Pete has the most palatable idea, IMO. Let each party pick 5 justices, and then those 10 pick 5 more (LOL, which will work swimmingly until a 3rd party establishes itself). The problem with a 5-4 or even 6-3 ideologically packed court is you have 1 or 2 swing votes deciding most issues because the others are ruling mostly from a political perspective.
posted by like_thatAs a former public servant once said, elections have consequences.
You just know Mitch is creaming himself waiting to use that line.
Someone is going to ask "doesn't what you said in 2016 make you a hypocrite?" and Mitch will say "no, elections have consequences".
posted by like_thatIn ptown’s world the GOP doing what the constitution tells them to do is equally as crazy as the Dems threatening (well before RBG died) to add justices to the SCOTUS lmao. Dems are doing the thing again where they think they will have power for a lifetime. Only siths deal in absolutes.
If you want to argue they are hypocrites, sure go for it. Both parties are hypocrites. Either party in this position would do it. If you think otherwise, you’re only kidding yourself. As a former public servant once said, elections have consequences.
Not disagreeing with as I think your last point is spot on. But, the veneer that the appointment is all about the merits of the Judge and their record is gone. It is all about getting their Justice on the court, no matter what. That fact was in the background the last 20 years and is now out in the open. It is like ok finally we can talk about how political the court is without dancing around the BS of the judge's record. I mean Lagoa is a favorite not for her record, but because she is Cuban heritage from FL that could help Trump.
I would also add the Constitution is silent on the number of justices in the Court. So, it is not outside the Ds playbook to add more. It is just a norm...that may go out the window.
posted by gutI think it's inevitable. That's the path we've been on for about 20 years. Hard to say which party started it, but every time someone abuses the rules or bends precedent, the other party pays it back 10X when they get back in control.
The net effect of all this is ceding more and more power to the Executive branch. But that's just fine for most in Congress who are only concerned with re-election - blame the other party for obstruction and defer all the tough decision to the POTUS.
Mayor Pete has the most palatable idea, IMO. Let each party pick 5 justices, and then those 10 pick 5 more (LOL, which will work swimmingly until a 3rd party establishes itself). The problem with a 5-4 or even 6-3 ideologically packed court is you have 1 or 2 swing votes deciding most issues because the others are ruling mostly from a political perspective.
I agree with that and Mayor Pete's idea isn't a bad one. More out of the box ideas are probably needed as it does seem like the current process of selecting judges is just pure politics now.
posted by iclfan2Please do even the tiniest bit of research.
Because they wanted money to go to actual people and not more money to corporations? They didn’t feel this bill was appropriate. Either way that’s no excuse for the problem not to be solved. Even if both sides are to blame. No one has time to pick a judge when people are hurting was my point I don’t care who u blame
https://www.foxnews.com/us/justice-department-darknet-opioids-takedown
Between this and the recent major crackdowns and arrests of human traffickers -- kudos to the admin.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Not disagreeing with as I think your last point is spot on. But, the veneer that the appointment is all about the merits of the Judge and their record is gone. It is all about getting their Justice on the court, no matter what. That fact was in the background the last 20 years and is now out in the open. It is like ok finally we can talk about how political the court is without dancing around the BS of the judge's record. I mean Lagoa is a favorite not for her record, but because she is Cuban heritage from FL that could help Trump.
I would also add the Constitution is silent on the number of justices in the Court. So, it is not outside the Ds playbook to add more. It is just a norm...that may go out the window.
It's not just a norm, it's the law. The Judiciary Act 1869 fixed the number at 9
posted by ptown_trojans_1Not disagreeing with as I think your last point is spot on. But, the veneer that the appointment is all about the merits of the Judge and their record is gone. It is all about getting their Justice on the court, no matter what. That fact was in the background the last 20 years and is now out in the open. It is like ok finally we can talk about how political the court is without dancing around the BS of the judge's record. I mean Lagoa is a favorite not for her record, but because she is Cuban heritage from FL that could help Trump.
I would also add the Constitution is silent on the number of justices in the Court. So, it is not outside the Ds playbook to add more. It is just a norm...that may go out the window.
It's also not outside the Rs from doing the same thing when they gain back control. Like I said, the Dems need to quit making this mistake that they think they will always be in power.
posted by like_thatIt's also not outside the Rs from doing the same thing when they gain back control. Like I said, the Dems need to quit making this mistake that they think they will always be in power.
I think some Dems learned that lesson in 2010. But in 20 years most of them will be gone and it will be a new generation of airheads running the party.
posted by gutDid enough of them learn if they win everything back this election? I have my doubts.I think some Dems learned that lesson in 2010. But in 20 years most of them will be gone and it will be a new generation of airheads running the party.
posted by like_that
Did enough of them learn if they win everything back this election? I have my doubts.
Already 2-3 by my count, including Feinstein....I think they'd need a really strong election result to get 50 votes to do it.
I believe I heard a quote from L. Graham that after what the Dems did you Kavenaugh that he basically didnt GAF about optics. Its full speed ahead to Fuckdemville.
posted by gutI think it's inevitable. That's the path we've been on for about 20 years. Hard to say which party started it, but every time someone abuses the rules or bends precedent, the other party pays it back 10X when they get back in control.
I think it was the republicans who started it when they impeached Clinton. Bill Clinton, the sax playing president who was on MTV. He was the party's golden child. And then along came Monica Lewinsky and it all went downhill from there. Republicans impeached him.
So that's where the vengeance started. Clinton got impeached and the democrats were vengeful. And we all know how it has been since.
posted by SpockI believe I heard a quote from L. Graham that after what the Dems did you Kavenaugh that he basically didnt GAF about optics. Its full speed ahead to Fuckdemville.
We're talking the dude who went from basically calling Trump an unqualified menace in 2016 to being his biggest asskisser when he got elected. We're not exactly talking about a guy with principles or standards -- just someone who will do what he has to do to maintain the support of people above him and then try to rationalize it in a way to make it sound like something other than asskissing played a role in his actions.