I think that’;s wrong. Under what rationale do the democrats get to pick both scalia and rbgs replacements?
which side has all the guns?
guns may or may not be effective against a tank brigade but it’s a lot more effective than avocado toast pumpkim lattes.
Under the rationale presented by the GOP in 2016. Assuming the Dems win the White House.
The Dems can win by disrupting the GOP insulin supply lines. Their feet will be rotting off in a month.
Lol. Back when they actually taught history and had some standards in school we learned the Southern Democrats, sorry no ic, were the ones who pushed for secession and a Republican president by the name of Lincoln had to sort them out.
In case you weren’t aware, the Democrats used to be the racist party. This started to change in the mid 20th, when the Democratic party decided to try and appeal to black voters (and do the right thing) by supporting civil rights. Republicans started out mixed, but shifted towards the Southern Strategy, trying to appeal to the white racists that the Democrats lost. This was very successful through the present – not only did they gain voters, but also many Southern former Democratic officials, like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
And now Republicans are leading the defense of honoring the racist movement that resulted in the assassination of Lincoln.
And I know this, as I know all things. I find it preferable to describe the desired destination and work backward from there, rather than look at all the obstacles and conclude it’s too hard to even consider.
The compass heading needs to be full redress for Republican manipulation of norms to steal the seats that should have gone to the last President and the next President, and the seat that Trump rammed through an alcoholic rapist with $200K in mysterious “credit card debt” that was “forgiven.”
We shouldn’t yield up our compass heading just because the navigation temporary is challenging or unclear.
Let’s not concede defeat before it actually arrives.
Oh, man. Octopus, are you seriously just now learning about the Southern Strategy and the resultant party shift? This explains so much about your politics.
Yes and no. I think Democrats should use leverage but judiciously. I think that adding more justices should be an option but it shouldn’t be an automatic option. I worry that continued escalation would only make republicans more determined to undermine democratic mechanisms. There has to be an off ramp somewhere.
It is legit embarrassing that you think this is relevant.
I’m just curious if you recognize that your statement above about stealing 2 nominations doesn’t make sense. The republicans said heads I win tails you lose. It ame up heads once and it came up tails once. The republicans win at least one of those times if you apply consistent rules.
The survivors still have a lot more guns than you.
It’s too hard to even consider.
The defeat occurred in 2016 and then again when we were not able to retake the senate in 2018. The appointment of supreme court justices is laid out in the constitution, your preferences and traditions only last as long as both parties agree. You can take whatever political retribution you want but impeachment is out of the realm of reality.
People have this notion that you should reach for the stars and maybe catch the moon but in politics, you frequently burn all your political capital reaching for the stars and get nothing when the moon was a feasible destination.
The notion that kavanaugh was not legitimately installed is pretty counterfactual. Sure they exercised the nuclear option there is no constitutional requirement for a 60 vote majority.
The notion that Merrick Garland had a constitutional right to an up or down vote during Obama’s term is not constitutionally supported.
The notion that they have to wait until the next president to appoint RBGs successor is just wishful thinking.
If you wanted these things, elections needed to be won. Not popular votes, elections. If you wanted these things you have to appeal to a majority of states, not the wokest constituencies of california and oregon. This is my biggest problem with the far left, it costs us actual power in the name of ideological purity.
It takes two to take that offramp and if there are no political consequences for bad behavior, what makes you think the bad behavior would stop.
If the other team’s pitcher starts beaning your best hitters instead of intentionally walking them, then you must retaliate or it’s just open season on your hitters.
The leverage should be “if the GOP confirms Ginsberg’s replacement before the election or during the lame duck, the Democrats will expand the court if they win the Senate and WH”.
expand or pack?
They aren’t applying consistent rules. I’ll try to make it plain, since you’re having trouble understanding what I’m saying.
The GOP stole Obama’s placement by creating out of whole cloth a new rule that means Obama couldn’t place a member of the court with only nine months before an election.
The GOP then changed the rule again, since according to their whole cloth made-up rule, Trump shouldn’t get to place an appointment with only 6 weeks remaining.
This means they are stealing another SCOTUS appointment from the next president.
They stole two. You’re ignoring that the created a new rule. You’re assuming that creating a new rule, and then shifting back to the old rule when the new rule would be inconvenient isn’t stealing. It is.
Yes, and the many of the remaining are stupid cowards, and will do exactly nothing because the fear that drives them to hoards guns makes them useless in real world combat.
I believe those are both covered by
Which, I’m sure you will forget all about the instant a Democrat President does something you don’t like.
There is no new rule,. the constitution is reasonably clear on how supreme court justices are nominated and confirmed. Everything else is just politics AFAICT.
But based on the notion of fair play, they either stole the first one and are entitled to the second one or they stole the second one and were entitled to the first one. Hypocrisy does not convert this into two cases of theft.
Frankly, they didn’t steal either supreme court seat. They exercised their constitutionally granted powers and then tried to rationalize their partisan actions and make them more politically palatable but they followed the constitutional requirements in both cases. I think those are the facts, the rest is just politics.
That’s not true. Many of them are veterans. Some are combat veterans. A few are psychopaths.
I was asking a legitimate question. I proposed a method of expanding the court. Some proposed just adding a bunch of democratic appointees.
Why do you think that? Is everyone that doesn’t agree with you 100% diametrically opposed to you? Because that makes your tent very small indeed, you should really stop trying to push people to the other side of the fence because of small differences in ideology (or perhaps they aren’t small). The last time I voted for a republican president was in the 1990s.
Same thing.
Because
This is the statement of someone who cares nothing about consistency in dealing. The republicans created a rule because it benefited them, and threw it away the moment it benefited them. Your response, your plan, is to carefully ensure that the new expanded court doesn’t step on Republican toes. We wouldn’t want them to feel cheated, yes?