Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:32 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,513

Forget Trump: Impeach Mitch McConnell


Mitch McConnell Says He’d Go After Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020: ‘We’d Fill It’

Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday he would work to fill any Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, an election year, despite his efforts to scuttle Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the bench for that very reason in 2016.
If you don't think this is exactly the abuse of partisan party politics that they founders wanted to stamp out, your reading in history is inadequate.

This is the smoking gun that the case against Trump lacks. The entire public can get this, in simple terms, black and white.

Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Unloads On ‘Flagrant Dickhead’ Mitch McConnell.

"Flagrant dickhead" is a term of art, BTW. It was approved as an impeachable offense 19-6 in the Constitutional Convention.
  #2  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:51 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Mitch McConnell Says He’d Go After Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020: ‘We’d Fill It’
. . . The entire public can get this, in simple terms, black and white. . . .
Unfortunately, you give 40+ percent of the US public far too much credit. In fact, Tribe's ad hominem will probably be the only thing that penetrates their consciousness and, as such, will simply serve to solidify their Eid auf den Führer.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 05-31-2019 at 10:51 AM.
  #3  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:54 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,749
You can't impeach a Senator. You can't recall a Senator. You can vote him out of office (if you live in KY) or he could be expelled by his fellow Senators, but given that he's the elected Republican leader it's kind of hard to see how that happens.

But, if nothing else, this illustrates how whatever high-sounding pronouncements might issue forth from Republican mouths, they're all merely rationalizations to cover their true motivations. Remember that and don't respond to the rationalizations, only the motivations. Don't be the stupid bull that wears itself out on the cape and doesn't see the sword coming.
  #4  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:01 AM
shunpiker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Central North Carolina
Posts: 1,567
"Flagrant Dickhead"? IMO, the professor's being awfully polite.

Last edited by shunpiker; 05-31-2019 at 11:02 AM. Reason: clarity?
  #5  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:03 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,374
I'd be all for impeaching Mitch if it were a thing that could be done. Unlike Trump, he's both evil and exceedingly competent at what he does. He's the true soulless face of the Republican Party.
  #6  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Senator McConnell is the Republican reaction to Harry Reid. You're reaping what you sowed.
  #7  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:23 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
You can't impeach a Senator.
You should have told the founders that.

In fact, the very first impeachment trial was of a Senator, William Blout of Tennessee, in 1797.

Last edited by Exapno Mapcase; 05-31-2019 at 01:23 PM.
  #8  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:30 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Senator McConnell is the Republican reaction to Harry Reid. You're reaping what you sowed.
McConnell was the leader of the Senate GOP before Reid was the leader of the Senate Dems. Guess you guys mastered time travel and haven't shared it with the rest of us.

McConnell filibustered practically all the legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled House in 2007-2008 for no purpose other than to save Dubya the hassle of having to veto it. Tell me how that was a reaction to Harry Reid.
  #9  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:38 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Senator McConnell is the Republican reaction to Harry Reid. You're reaping what you sowed.
What's wrong with Harry Reid?
  #10  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
McConnell was the leader of the Senate GOP before Reid was the leader of the Senate Dems. ...
I don't think that's true.
  #11  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:43 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
What's wrong with Harry Reid?
What, you want McConnell to be responsible for his own actions? (Or in the case of Garland, inaction.) There has to be a Democrat responsible for the Republican, see?
  #12  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:44 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
What's wrong with Harry Reid?
Aside from his lying, are you familiar with the "nuclear option"?
  #13  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
What, you want McConnell to be responsible for his own actions? (Or in the case of Garland, inaction.) There has to be a Democrat responsible for the Republican, see?
It's a ridiculous argument. Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees because the Republicans were using Senate rules to prevent even the consideration of nominees, preventing the Senate from actually fulfilling their constitutional duties. So Reid acted in response to McConnell's actions.
  #14  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:49 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Aside from his lying, are you familiar with the "nuclear option"?
Yeah, but he's also a straight shooter:
Quote:
This is hardly the first time Reid has criticized Trump. He has called him a “spoiled brat,” “con artist,” and “human leech.” In 2016, he said Trump’s campaign was “kind of fat, ugly, and dirty.” In the recent Times profile, Reid declared that Trump is the “worst president” the US has ever had. “He’ll lie. He’ll cheat. You can’t reason with him,” he said.
  #15  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:50 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,845
Republicans are never responsible for their own actions. They were always forced to do it by the evil Democrats.

Same logic abusive spouses use. I didn't want to, but you made me do it.

The party of personal responsibility my ass.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #16  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:52 PM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
If treating judicial nominations based on partisanship was enough to get you kicked out of the Senate, they wouldn't have a quorum. On either side of the aisle.

Regards,
Shodan
  #17  
Old 05-31-2019, 02:02 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ah, you're right. Wikipedia's summary of Reid's time as minority leader listed his stints in that role in reverse chron order, so I missed his first go-around.

Still, my other point stands. Mitch was an obstructionist not only from the get-go, but for no purpose other than to save Dubya the hassle of vetoing legislation. What did Harry Reid do to bring that on?
  #18  
Old 05-31-2019, 02:47 PM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
You should have told the founders that.

In fact, the very first impeachment trial was of a Senator, William Blout of Tennessee, in 1797.
The impeachment of Blount was brought by the House on the same day Blount was expelled from the Senate (under Art. 1, Section 5). The Senate, after debating the matter for four days, concluded that members of Congress are not "civil officers of the United States" and are therefore not subject to impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. The impeachment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no Congressperson has been impeached since.

It would be interesting perhaps to see if that Senate interpretation would stand up to Judicial review, but IANAL and have no idea if or how such a review could be accomplished. (If the HoR attempted such an impeachment, it would be dismissed immediately by the Senate, and there's no clear --to me-- path of appeal.)

Last edited by xenophon41; 05-31-2019 at 02:50 PM.
  #19  
Old 05-31-2019, 03:43 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,716
Functionally, how is expulsion by the Senate any different from impeachment? The only difference I can see is that expulsion by the Senate is easier, because it doesn't require involvement by the House.
  #20  
Old 05-31-2019, 03:44 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophon41 View Post
The impeachment of Blount was brought by the House on the same day Blount was expelled from the Senate (under Art. 1, Section 5). The Senate, after debating the matter for four days, concluded that members of Congress are not "civil officers of the United States" and are therefore not subject to impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. The impeachment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no Congressperson has been impeached since.
It's nowhere as straightforward as you make it out to be. Here's what the official Senate history page has to say:
Quote:

Statement of the Case

On July 3, 1797, President Adams sent the incriminating letter to both the Senate and House, accompanied by a special message charging that Blount had sought the aid of a United States government interpreter to seize Spanish Florida and Louisiana with British and Indian help. Adams acted on an opinion from the attorney general that the letter was evidence of a crime and that Blount, a senator, was liable to impeachment under the Constitution. For the first time in the Senate's then brief history, its powers to expel and to convict in an impeachment case were to be tested.

Response of the Senate

The House and Senate promptly appointed special committees to review the matter. On July 7, the House concluded, after spirited debate, that a senator was an impeachable official and ordered the chairman of its committee to inform the Senate that the House planned to present articles of impeachment. The House also demanded that the Senate suspend Blount from his seat and guarantee his appearance to answer the charges. ...

On July 8, after hearing two of Blount's colleagues testify that the letter was in his handwriting and listening to a response by defense counsel, the Senate took up its committee's report. The committee had cited Blount's conduct as “entirely inconsistent with his public trust" and recommended that he be expelled from the Senate. By a vote of 25 to 1, the members upheld the report in the first expulsion of a United States senator. Further, the Senate ordered Blount to appear on July 10 to answer the representatives' articles of impeachment. Although Blount gave assurances that he would appear on that date, he instead spurred his horse home to Tennessee.

Conclusion

The Senate's actions on July 8 were actually contradictory: while attempting to ensure that Blount would be present at his impeachment trial, it simultaneously declared him already guilty when it voted to expel him. In the succeeding months, the Senate unsuccessfully sought to take custody of Blount and return him to the capital. Although Blount graciously received the acting Senate sergeant at arms at his home, the unrepentant Tennessean's supporters and state authorities warned the official to make no attempt to remove their friend.

Despite Blount's absence, his impeachment trial began in the Senate on December 17, 1798, and quickly focused on the Senate's right to try an expelled senator. In a narrow vote, the Senate defeated a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer. In this vote, the Senate failed to make clear whether its decision stemmed from a belief that no senator could be impeached or from the belief that someone who ceased to hold a "civil office" also ceased to be impeachable.
  #21  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'd be all for impeaching Mitch if it were a thing that could be done. Unlike Trump, he's both evil and exceedingly competent at what he does. He's the true soulless face of the Republican Party.
Yeah, Mitch is evil, and competent. And needs to be gotten rid of.



Will no one rid us of this turbulent Senate Majority Leader?
  #22  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:25 PM
DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,128
There are endless Mitch McConnells ready to step in if you get rid of this one.
  #23  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:29 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If treating judicial nominations based on partisanship was enough to get you kicked out of the Senate, they wouldn't have a quorum. On either side of the aisle.
Yeah, yeah, "both sides do it." Or at least it's nice to pretend they do, because then one doesn't actually have to address the misdeeds of their side. Can we please give this false equivalency narrative a rest?
  #24  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:34 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,143
They'll just go to their fall-back stance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Today's US Conservative
It's okay as long as you get away with it.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 05-31-2019 at 05:34 PM.
  #25  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:54 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,368
I was just thinking today that Mitch needed a thread all his own.

When we discuss in other threads how the Pubbies won't stand up to thump because they're afraid of him, or afraid of losing the support of their constituents, I think that's only partly true. I don't think it's Donnie, it's McConnell who has them by the balls.

My question is HOW does he control them-- what practical rewards and punishments does he have at his disposal to make sure no one in the Senate steps one millimeter away from the party line?
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #26  
Old 05-31-2019, 06:54 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,913
McConnell has done more than anyone in this era, and perhaps ever, to destroy consensus politics. Nowhere is this better illustrated than when he said one of his proudest moments is blocking the nomination of Garland. One of his proudest moments: Not working to forge an agreement on a contentious issue, or even overcoming a personal challenge. But basically one of his proudest moments is saying f-u to a good fraction of the nation, millions of people.

You can invoke Harry Reid and say tit for tat. Fair enough. But I wonder if Reid would ever say that his nuclear option was one of his proudest moments, or just something he felt he had to do to keep the wheels turning.
  #27  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:29 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
McConnell has done more than anyone in this era, and perhaps ever, to destroy consensus politics.
"If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell" - Christopher Browning in a remarkable piece.
  #28  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:22 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,675
I think history will look on Mitch as being the biggest enabler of Russian interference in order to gain a party edge. He totally blocked Obama from raising Russian Interference in the 2018 elections.
  #29  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:49 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Senator McConnell is the Republican reaction to Harry Reid. You're reaping what you sowed.
Well, this may be a first. HD admits that McConnell is bad, albeit via the usual,"Oh, yeah? Well, you guys started it!" red herring.
  #30  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
... My question is HOW does he control them-- what practical rewards and punishments does he have at his disposal to make sure no one in the Senate steps one millimeter away from the party line?
First of all, it's obvious that "no one in the Senate steps one millimeter away from the party line" is silly hyperbole. For just one example, the late Senator McCain killed the ObamaCare skinny repeal when he broke with the party line and voted with the Democrats.

But secondly, and in answer to your question, against, it's obvious: Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh (and all the other judges that the Senate has been able to confirm, thanks almost entirely to the caucus' unity).
  #31  
Old 06-01-2019, 12:02 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Well, this may be a first. HD admits that McConnell is bad, albeit via the usual,"Oh, yeah? Well, you guys started it!" red herring.
I've said I see him in a similar light to Harry Reid. If you're saying you think Harry Reid was "bad" then I suppose I can see how you think I'm saying that McConnell is "bad".

I believe both men have advanced their partisan interests at the expense of Senate norms and its traditional comity. I suppose that's "bad" in the sense that I think the government would have been better off if none of it had happened, but I also think it would be extremely foolish for Republicans to try to adhere to old traditions when guys like Harry Reid come in and shit all over them.

Basically, if the Dems want to have a no-rules street brawl - and their history shows that they do - then I'm glad we've got a brawler like Senator McConnell on our side too.
  #32  
Old 06-01-2019, 12:10 AM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 61,503
I must be getting tired. I read the title as Forrest Trump.
  #33  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:50 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
There are endless Mitch McConnells ready to step in if you get rid of this one.
I don't know about that. I despise the motherfucker with all my heart, but he's very very good at what he does - that's what's made him such a problem.

One part of what's made it work for him so well is a total lack of interest in grandstanding - and let's face it, it's a rare Senator who doesn't feel like his/her face deserves to be on the TV all the time. If he were a publicity hound, he'd have been a lightning rod a decade ago, and it would have made him way less effective. So right there you narrow it way down.

He's also dramatically changed the role of the Senate during his time as Majority Leader in particular, although this really started during his time in the minority; being in the majority just allowed him to perfect it. As far as he's concerned, the Senate doesn't have to do anything. And unless there's something in it for his true constituency (the American overclass), it won't, while he's in charge. Which is why confirming extremely conservative Federal judges is practically all the Senate is doing these days.

And he can confirm them much faster, having reduced the time of debate down from 30 hours to a mere 2 hours. For a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Which is one hell of a thing, when you think about it, yet the Dems either didn't try to make a big ruckus over it, or didn't succeed. Either way, another of Mitch's gifts is a sense of what he can get away with.

Etcetera.

No, there isn't an abundance of Mitch McConnells waiting to step in, should he have a heart attack or something. (He's 77 so he won't be there forever, thank God, but I wouldn't count on him choosing to step down anytime soon.)
  #34  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:53 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've said I see him in a similar light to Harry Reid. If you're saying you think Harry Reid was "bad" then I suppose I can see how you think I'm saying that McConnell is "bad".

I believe both men have advanced their partisan interests at the expense of Senate norms and its traditional comity.
You can believe in unicorns, AFAIAC. Doesn't mean they exist.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 06-01-2019 at 05:54 AM.
  #35  
Old 06-01-2019, 07:00 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,227
I actually looked for a quote the other day I recalled hearing from McConnell but couldn't find it via Google. Does anyone remember him saying something along the lines of "We're gonna bring back gridlock in a big way?"

I'll join the chorus and say he is the most loathsome man in politics, and if we're rating politicians by loathsomeness*competency, then there is no close second to him.
  #36  
Old 06-01-2019, 08:16 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...
One part of what's made it work for him so well is a total lack of interest in grandstanding - and let's face it, it's a rare Senator who doesn't feel like his/her face deserves to be on the TV all the time. If he were a publicity hound, he'd have been a lightning rod a decade ago, and it would have made him way less effective. So right there you narrow it way down.
....
He's like Moriarty, sitting in the middle of his spider web. When he twitches, the Pubbies grab their balls protectively and jump, crying out, "How high, Mitch?"
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #37  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:41 AM
Tierce is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
McConnell has done more than anyone in this era, and perhaps ever, to destroy consensus politics. Nowhere is this better illustrated than when he said one of his proudest moments is blocking the nomination of Garland. One of his proudest moments: Not working to forge an agreement on a contentious issue, or even overcoming a personal challenge. But basically one of his proudest moments is saying f-u to a good fraction of the nation, millions of people.
I can't remember the circumstances, but didn't he once filibuster one of his own pieces of legislation when it looked like there would be too much bipartisan support for it?
  #38  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:48 AM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
It's nowhere as straightforward as you make it out to be. Here's what the official Senate history page has to say:
Well, I should've done as you did instead of relying on summaries. Thanks for pulling the official history out of your overcoat; I see it's much more of an open question than I had thought. I still think the weight of intervening history probably pushes the 'accepted' understanding of who can be impeached into the realm of established precedent, but who knows?
__________________
If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.
~Abraham Lincoln
  #39  
Old 06-01-2019, 01:11 PM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
Yeah, yeah, "both sides do it." Or at least it's nice to pretend they do, because then one doesn't actually have to address the misdeeds of their side. Can we please give this false equivalency narrative a rest?
We can give it a rest as soon as it isn't false. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 06-01-2019, 04:54 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'd be all for impeaching Mitch if it were a thing that could be done. Unlike Trump, he's both evil and exceedingly competent at what he does. He's the true soulless face of the Republican Party.
OmG - I couldn't agree with this more than I do. "The Turtle" has been my least-favorite person in D.C. for a LOOOOOOONG time (and is currently at #2 on my list only because of the influence the "person" in the W.H. has).
  #41  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:01 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
What, you want McConnell to be responsible for his own actions? (Or in the case of Garland, inaction.) There has to be a Democrat responsible for the Republican, see?
The Turtle is still butt-hurt (a term that I actually cannot stand, but in reference to evil scumbags like Mitch McConnell, I'll use it) over Robert Bork not being confirmed for the S.C. back in the late '80s. Kinda like how evil Dick Cheney never got over how Republicans were "treated" back during Watergate. Funny how Republicans like to use ridiculous terms like "snowflake" when referring to Democrats (and other people) who simply didn't want an ignorant, stupid, narcissistic a-hole with "daddy issues" in the W.H. but THEY'RE the ones who never seem to be able let anything go when they think they've been "wronged." Interesting, that.

Last edited by racepug; 06-01-2019 at 05:03 PM.
  #42  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
The Turtle is still butt-hurt (a term that I actually cannot stand, but in reference to evil scumbags like Mitch McConnell, I'll use it) over Robert Bork not being confirmed for the S.C. back in the late '80s. Kinda like how evil Dick Cheney never got over how Republicans were "treated" back during Watergate. Funny how Republicans like to use ridiculous terms like "snowflake" when referring to Democrats (and other people) who simply didn't want an ignorant, stupid, narcissistic a-hole with "daddy issues" in the W.H. but THEY'RE the ones who never seem to be able let anything go when they think they've been "wronged." Interesting, that.
And Bork was actually considered -- hearings and a vote. Voting down a nominee isn't remotely comparable to not even holding hearings.
  #43  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:16 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
It's nowhere as straightforward as you make it out to be. Here's what the official Senate history page has to say:
It's really interesting that in 1797 and 1798 -- only a decade after the document was written -- there was obvious uncertainty as to the meaning of something as basic as the impeachment process. Both the House and the Senate had to debate whether a Senator could be impeached, and they wound up in effect disagreeing on the matter, while apparently not coming to a clear conclusion in the Senate.

Constitutional originalism in the 21st century? Even while most of the signers were still alive, people weren't clear on what it meant!
  #44  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:18 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And Bork was actually considered -- hearings and a vote. Voting down a nominee isn't remotely comparable to not even holding hearings.
Couldn't agree more. I have absolutely NOTHING positive to say about "The Turtle" from Kentucky.
  #45  
Old 06-01-2019, 08:40 PM
Skypist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
First of all, it's obvious that "no one in the Senate steps one millimeter away from the party line" is silly hyperbole. For just one example, the late Senator McCain killed the ObamaCare skinny repeal when he broke with the party line and voted with the Democrats.
He was dying at that point and knew it so there was really nothing that the Turtle could do to him and he wouldn't be facing any more elections.

FiveThirtyEight says McCain voted for tRump positions 83% of the time.
  #46  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
... but THEY'RE the ones who never seem to be able let anything go when they think they've been "wronged." Interesting, that.
You chose to post this in a thread whining about how Senator McConnell has wronged Dems? Interesting, that.
  #47  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:16 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,716
Yes, HurricaneDitka, there's such a thing as objective reality, and it's possible for one party to agree with it, and the other to disagree with it.
  #48  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:16 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Yes, HurricaneDitka, there's such a thing as objective reality, and it's possible for one party to agree with it, and the other to disagree with it.
You think the Dems have a a lock on objective reality? LOL!

  #49  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:57 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think the Dems have a a lock on objective reality? LOL!
I'm sure you can point at many of the regular and most recognized liberals or dems in the dope as falling for that uh?

Incidentally, Snopes has been accused many times of being a leftist rag because it debunks many right wing conspiracies but it is not usually called the other way around when it does shot down liberal conspiracies. On the contrary, guys like me are glad that those conspiracies are being shot down regardless if they are in favor of the left. More recent research that I saw (noted in previous SDMB discussions) the researches noted that yes, people on the right and the left can fall for conspiracies; but as a fake news maker from 2016 reported, it was harder to make conspiracies stick on the left for the simple reason that more people from the left make an effort to debunk them.

BTW that bit of news you linked to came from early in the Trump presidency, I have to say that many old conspiracies are still being marinated in the right wing bowl. As in, it is very hard to debunk old tripe when the leaders of the right are the ones remaking them constantly or continuing to distribute them far and wide.

https://www.salon.com/2018/11/27/sci...limate-report/
Quote:
Unfortunately, the "both sides" strategy that cable news networks employ meant that this climate-change denialists — who still control the majority of Republican messaging on this issue — got plenty of airtime. Most of them, seeking to explain how the entirety of the scientific establishment might somehow know less about this issue than conservative pundits who couldn't pass an eighth-grade math quiz, resorted to a conspiracy theory.

Here's how this one "works": The entire worldwide establishment, these pundits argue, is involved in a massive conspiracy, funded by shadowy but apparently infinitely wealthy figures, to perpetuate the climate hoax on the world, for unclear reasons.

"We have created a climate-change industrial complex in this country, with billions and billions and billions of dollars at stake," right-wing pundit Stephen Moore claimed on CNN. "A lot of people are getting really, really, really rich off the climate-change issue."

"The report is nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming," former congressman and convicted criminal Tom DeLay claimed during another CNN segment, insinuating but not quite articulating exactly how scientists benefit from perpetuating this supposed hoax.

“The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive," Rick Santorum argued on another segment.

It's irresponsible of CNN to invite these climate change denialists on to spread conspiracy theories, but that error is compounded by the failure of supposed journalists to follow up on these preposterous claims. Right-wingers are not asked why not a single person has blown the whistle on this conspiracy that, at this point, would require the cooperation of hundreds of thousands of people. Nor are they asked about the alleged motivations of these supposed funders, or who they are. Such follow-up questions might help show viewers that it's preposterous to believe that such a conspiracy is possible, much less to believe it's actually happening.

There is, in fact, an actual climate-change hoax conspiracy. But it's not being run by the left. It's being run by the right, which has a well-orchestrated and very well-funded widespread conspiracy to lie to the public, minimizing the reality of climate change and defaming the scientists who research it. These pundits are, in almost comically straightforward fashion, simply accusing the left of doing what they're doing, which is taking rich people's money to lie to the public.
https://www.businessinsider.com/dona...heories-2016-5
Quote:
19 outlandish conspiracy theories Donald Trump has floated on the campaign trail and in the White House

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-01-2019 at 10:58 PM.
  #50  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
... More recent research that I saw (noted in previous SDMB discussions) the researches noted that yes, people on the right and the left can fall for conspiracies; ...
It sounds like you agree with me and disagree with Chronos. Am I understanding your position correctly?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017