“What goes around comes around”
Brett Kavanaugh 2018.
There is a problem when rw politicians are looking to internet denizens as models on how to behave in the public sphere. You’re not going to get a lincoln out of that to say the least. Look around at the world lately?
But even worse is when scotus justices do that.
And then worse than that is the denial and gaslighting of the whole country over it.
And then even worse than that is the projection onto the “other” of all your shit. “It was THEM!”
I find it amusing (in a dark fashion) how the righties, even the more reasonable ones ISTM, when hearing about “2nd Amendment solutions” to Obama and other left-wingers in government, they would shrug and say, “Hey, it’s a little extreme, but people get angry and frustrated, it’s understandable, y’know?”
Now that They Have The Papacy and Plan To Enjoy It, they are shocked – SHOCKED I tell you! – that those people whom they have vilified, mocked and disenfranchised might be getting a little trigger-itchy. Fancy that. :rolleyes:
Since the only attempt at partisan assassination was carried out by a leftie, maybe they should.
I don’t know who you are referring to but I’ll assume that it’s no one on this board. That being said, I suggest you dial it back.
[/moderating]
So … non-violent protest? Tell me more.
I mean, in the civil rights era blacks were able to boycott racist public transit systems into integrating, and lunch counter sit-ins drew mainstream attention to gross inequities.
If we want to effectively protest the fact that a minority of the population is denying the majority the leaders it wants*, what can we do? I don’t mean marches and protests; they barely move the needle. I mean civil disobedience that hurts everyone and shakes society into acknowledging and fixing the problems.
What can we do?
*Not looking to derail the thread by debating this point. Others have made it pretty well.
Wow. You found one guy who totally makes it “both sides”. Congrats!
Well, it makes it one side at least.
Like the Freedom Riders. It’s a great way to protest, but the protest only remains non-violent until the rednecks show up.
Well, it’s entirely plausible that, despite the fact that I’ve never seen denunciation from HurricaneDitka in anywhere near as stringent terms for any number of the far more gruesome and disgusting things said by right-wingers over the past few years, he just means me, specifically. And yeah, that’s probably a new “low” for me, if we’re judging “low” by “pertains to the norms of discussion”. An earnest look at what happens when a vast portion of the populace are shut out of lawmaking: people start taking the law into their own hands. Still nowhere near as bad as countless other statements made in any number of the Kavanaugh threads recently, let alone from republican politicians and pundits (this particularly noxious turdjust popped up on my facebook feed - please note that this person holds elected office), but not my finest moment. I did, in fact, neglect non-violent mass protest. Definitely an option. Probably a decent one, if you could actually get people on board with it.
I may have gotten some terms backwards (it was late) but the point stands. If Biden sides with Durbin (whether parliamentary correct or not), the majority can sustain the decision of the chair.
Yes, my post #73 was referring to you specifically, and even then just the subset of your posts on these boards that I’m familiar with and can recall. I had previously thought of you as one of the more level-headed left-leaning Dopers. Less so now. It was disappointing to see you go over to the asahi-style sky-is-falling-and-violence-might-be-necessary camp. Note: I’m under no particular illusion that what disappoints me matters to you.
Good idea. In addition, what might also help a great deal (not that it would necessarily result in a confirmation), is that a president in the minority party could just ask the opposing party to give him one and only one candidate that they will vote for if nominated, and then agree to nominate. That might work also.
The Senate decides the Senate rules. But is this a matter of Senate rules? You could just as well say that it’s the Executive nominating the justice, and so the Executive gets to decide what “advise and consent” means. Or that it’s a proceeding to determine a Judicial position, and that the Judiciary thus gets to decide what it means. The selection of a new justice is a matter which intersects with all three branches of government, and is not the exclusive purview of any one of them.
I feel the need to point out that nothing necessarily Needs To Be Done about this. It seems like we’re now in a place where no SCOTUS Justice can ever be confirmed again unless the same party controls both the Presidency and the Senate, which is kinda stupid, but it doesn’t actually cripple our ability to function as a democracy. So Court seats will sometimes sit vacant for a few years. We can deal.
I think that what McConnell did was probably within the letter of the Constitution. But it wasn’t within its spirit – and it’s not the letter of the Constitution that maintains our government’s legitimacy among the public, it’s the spirit; and a government widely seen as illegitimate will not survive long. McConnell did harm to the country by violating the spirit of the Constitution, and increasing the number of people who are likely to see institutions of the government as illegitimate. IMO, of course.
What I think, in retrospect, that Obama should have done was to nominate a far-left candidate first, let the Republican Senate make it known they wouldn’t confirm the candidate because of who the candidate was, and then withdraw and nominate Garland as a second choice, framing him as a compromise nominee. If they were willing to hold debate on the first candidate, it would become a lot more difficult for McConnell to suddenly invent a “no nominations in an election year” rule – but he would, at least, be able to sell defeating the first candidate and confirming Garland as a sort-of win for the Republicans.
No idea whether this sort of thing could ever work in the future, or whether we’re too far gone down the rabbit-hole at this point.
But what are those people who see the institutions of government as illegitimate actually going to do about it? There’s not going to be some kind of insurrection or coup from the left. The only people who talk about that shit are right-wing extremists and they already have the government they want. So these people who view the government as illegitimate because of what McConnell did - and I agree it’s bullshit and he’s a vile individual - are they going to collectively leave the country? If anything, they’re going to be more vehement about voting against the Republicans, so I’m not sure it’s “hurting the country” in the way you describe.
I’m just tired. Tired of seeing the bad guys win. Mitch McConnell will probably go down in history as one of the most successful politicians ever, primarily because he was able and willing to break democratic norms like the warrantee was about to expire. I just really want to see him fucking suffer for what he’s done. Except I won’t. I know I won’t. He’s a rich, old white guy - even if everything goes to shit, he’s financially secure enough to flee the country, and he’s gonna be fuckin’ dead before the worst of his actions come around.
Like I said: just tired.
Maybe save your denouncements for the people who fucking deserve it. Y’know, like the people whose every fuckin’ post in the Kavanaugh thread was more disgusting than what you called me out for. There’s at least three of 'em still hanging around. Or, y’know, the people who support this godawful administration - their votes are a hell of a lot worse than what I just posted.
Oh wait, you’re one of them. You voted for Trump, you support the Trump administration. And you have the unmitigated fucking gall to call my shit out as “bad”? Glass houses, man. You have no moral gravitas here.
Hey here’s a suggestion. If every member of a minority party with at least 40 members in the senate agrees, it shall be legal for them to apply one good, hard kick to the nuts of the senate majority leader. This vote may take place once per substantial party line vote. Funny, cathartic, and a good way of ensuring that you don’t want to force a SCOTUS nominee through over the head of the opposing party. 
(Except you know that McConnell will fuck it up by wearing a reinforced codpiece, and then lying about it. Shame.)