Is this the beginnin of one-party rule in the US?

[Shodan]

@E-DUB

Objectively Garland was hardly a leftist.

I doubt that it’s possible to determine who is a leftist and who isn’t.

That having been said, I don’t want centrists either, even by the liberal definition of centrist. I want conservatives, because conservatives are objectively better.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lemur866]

@Shodan

Liberals are going to say that any conservative nominee is objectively terrible. It didn’t piss “people” in general off - it pissed Democrats off, because they missed a chance to swing the Court to the left. And now that chance is (hopefully) gone.

Except this is bullshit. Garland wasn’t a leftist. He was a perfectly centrist judge, named exactly by Orrin Hatch as the kind of person Hatch would accept, if only socialist Obama would nominate such a person. He was precisely the sort of “not terrible” candidate that we’re talking about. It wasn’t like Obama nominated Gloria Allred.

He’s only a chance to swing the court to the left in that he wasn’t a Scalia clone. But who is? The other attempts to get a Scalia clone on the court haven’t worked out so well, have they? Roberts, Alito, Thomas. It’s one thing to get a reliable conservative vote like Thomas. It’s another to get someone with the influence of Scalia.

If you want me to believe that “people” were pissed off, then name a Republican Senator who lost his seat because the GOP refused to hold hearings on Garland.
This is the usual “he hit me back first”. But you’re right - Democrats make that complaint a lot.

By “people” I meant Democrats. You know, reasonable people. Obviously unreasonable people like Republicans weren’t pissed.

But your point is instructive. Name the Republican who lost his seat because of his intransigent opposition. And that list consists of precisely no one. So you are right. The Republican voters who elect Republican Senators approved of the way this was handled. Nobody lost their seat over it.

So do you honestly think when Democratic Senators do the same thing, they’re going to lose the support of Democratic voters? Enough to swing the election to a Republican challenger?

Again, I’m not advocating total obstruction. But objectively terrible nominations? Agreed that in normal times, the President is due normal deference in choosing his Cabinet and naming judges. You might have noticed that we just elected Donald Fucking Trump, who is practically guaranteed to nominate objectively horrible people. Along with, I presume, a few regular people. No sense in filibustering the normal, wrong but wrong within normal parameters people. Because there’s going to be a target rich environment. The only question is if any Republican Senators will dare to vote against a Trump nominee.

And the thing is, they’d be idiots to rubber stamp Trump’s slate. Because if they do, that’s going to be their role for the next 4 years. Rubber stamp everything, and any one defector gets crushed, as per Trump’s MO. But if they’re all defecting all the time that’s a different story. Trump can’t put the entire Republican Senate on the enemies list.

[Shodan]

@Lemur866

He’s only a chance to swing the court to the left in that he wasn’t a Scalia clone.

Exactly so. By your definition, he is a centrist, not a conservative, and therefore would swing the Court to the left. Which is what I don’t want.

The other attempts to get a Scalia clone on the court haven’t worked out so well, have they? Roberts, Alito, Thomas. It’s one thing to get a reliable conservative vote like Thomas. It’s another to get someone with the influence of Scalia.

Fortunately, we now have another shot at it.

By “people” I meant Democrats. You know, reasonable people. Obviously unreasonable people like Republicans weren’t pissed.

I decline to accept your suggestion that only Democrats are reasonable. Which makes the rest of your point more or less meaningless. Democrats were enraged by it, but nobody else cared. So, apparently, it wasn’t so outrageous as you seem to assume.

So do you honestly think when Democratic Senators do the same thing, they’re going to lose the support of Democratic voters? Enough to swing the election to a Republican challenger?

Why would I think that? Republicans like myself will point out the hypocrisy, and vote Republican anyway, Democrats will repeat the mantra of IOKIADDI, and nobody else will care.

Again, I’m not advocating total obstruction. But **objectively **terrible nominations?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Regards,
Shodan

[E-DUB]

To a true Constitutionalist, conservative judicial activists should be as bad as liberal judicial activists.

To someone who values objectivity in the media, bias in one direction should be as bad as bias in the other.

Funny how that doesn’t seem to happen.

[adaher]

@E-DUB

Objectively Garland was hardly a leftist. He was the sort of appointment that might have been made by Bush 1.

Well yeah, by mistake maybe, like David Souter. Remember that when Bush was actually paying attention he nominated Clarence Thomas. Garland is less liberal than Obama’s other two appointments but firmly in the liberal camp except for maybe on law enforcement issues.

That’s why if Trump REALLY wants to be a statesman, Merrick Garland should be Attorney General.

[Bridget_Burke]

Harris County (Houston), that is:

The country’s most populous swing county turned a shade bluer Tuesday, when Hillary Clinton trounced Donald Trump in Harris County despite trailing nationally.

Clinton’s commanding victory here is a watershed moment for local Democrats who have struggled mightily to translate recent demographic shifts into gains at the ballot box.

It also is seen, by some, as a harbinger of potential political change across Texas…

“The question is whether or not these results were driven by disaffected conservative Republican voters that for this cycle voted Democrat, or is it something structural?” Texas Southern University political scientist Jay Aiyer said. “Are we seeing the beginning of that demographic shift that’s been written about for a very long time as an inevitability?”

(Slight correction: Last I heard, Clinton’s lead was increasing nationally. That doesn’t apply to the Electoral College but ought to shut up Republicans talking about a “mandate.” But it won’t–just as it didn’t when Bush Jr assumed power.)

[E-DUB]

Yeah, they’re still talking about the “silent majority”, when it’s clear that there’s more of us than there is of them. They are not the majority and, for that matter, they’re about as silent as a drunk uncle at a wedding reception.

[Mr_Quatro]

@control-z

Well let’s see we’ve had in my lifetime:

1 term Carter (D)
2 terms Reagan (R)
1 term Bush (R)
2 terms Clinton (D)
2 terms Bush (R)
2 terms Obama (D)

Seems very balanced to me for the last 40 years.

Which makes me think anyone that asks if the USA is headed for one party rule is under (40).

When Romney lost last time way back in 2012 they were asking the same thing is this the end of the Republican party and of course the answer was November 8th 2016, but with so many party members bailing out before the election it makes one wonder.

Is this the end of party rule period? I see a day that the independent person (male of female) has the same chance that Donald Trump had in upsetting the media and the polls and the know it all’s.

If Donald Trump can do it … so can an independent.

What if Bernie had of said FU to the democratic party and ran as an independent?
Now we may never know … Hillary out spent Trump five to one so don’t think a younger Bernie couldn’t turn on a whole younger generation to win as an indepenent.