It’d have to be pretty extreme to eclipse the First Amendment and its subsequent interpretations.
You laugh first, then you say “hmmm…food for thought.” That’s good comedy…political comedy, anyway.
Whether or not it’s extreme has nothing to do with it. In fact, the more extreme the statement, the less likely it is actionable. Whether it would be generally understood to be satirical or not is the most important question, followed by who the target of the statement was.
If I had to get bunched up panties over the satirists and comedians like Colbert et al, and deny it’s funny and make socio-economic excuses for it, just so I could be supporting some “opposing” team; in other words to give up on what’s funny in life so I could push for some point of view; I would rather be dead.
I really pity anyone who is in that position, but they are bringing it on themselves. The advent of Trump is telling them in no uncertain terms that they are pulling the walls in on themselves.
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. I didn’t say comedians aren’t funny. Some are, some aren’t. You can get you panties in a bunch over any subject you wish. Just because comedians are writing comedy routines for a living, that doesn’t make them political experts. Especially when those comedy routines are heavily edited for time, cherry-picked for content, and written to appease a specific audience.
There are other sources, more reliable sources, for political news.
*You must choose. But choose wisely, for as the true Grail will bring you life, a false one will take it from you.
- Grail Knight (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)*
But, for years now, such outlets as The Daily Show and the Colbert Report (RIP) and The Nightly Show somehow have been better, more reliable political news sources than Fox or CNN. How did that happen?!
According to whom?
Intelligent people.
Take the discussion of political comedy shows to a new thread, (in a different forum).
[ /Moderating ]
“The Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee simply by saying nothing and doing nothing.” Robert Byrd, 2005.
Approvingly cited by Joe Biden on the floor of the senate. Page S4365
New poll on the Garland nomination: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html
Update: in a Politico article, R Senator Grassley of the Judiciary Cmte indicates that the Democrats can force a vote by calling for a Motion to Discharge the nomination in an Executive Session. If the Republicans vote to block that, they are in effect voting on the nomination - or can be portrayed as such. If the Motion to Discharge carries, then there would be an actual vote on the nomination:
Almost as if he’s begging the Dems to bail him out, isn’t it?
I would be highly skeptical of invitations to throw the Republicans into the briar patch. I suspect there is a procedural angle they aren’t revealing that would backfire on Democrats if they take this bait.
Agreed. There’s definitely something behind Grassley’s suggestion. Though I think it’s more likely that he’s just trying to placate his constituents to raise his chances in the upcoming election. “See? I think we should vote on Garland! Really! It’s not my fault! Don’t punish me for McConnell’s sins! Here, I’ll even give Democrats a way to force the issue!”
I can’t tell whether these Republicans are signs of “cracks in the wall” of opposition, or whether they’re just trying to cover their asses. They know that McConnell is the one who sets the schedule, so they can try to sound like the reasonable ones without actually having to do anything.
Interestingly the talking point tact is shifting to “hearings, we don’t need no stinkin hearings.”
Again, ideal from my POV. Obama has done his job. He offered up a reasonable consensus candidate. Too reasonable to my POV but necessarily so.
Defending their inaction will hurt the GOP in the Fall.
Going into November elections Obama should announce that unless the nomination is given an up down vote before the election he will withdraw it. The prospect for the GOP then is to accept this reasonable consensus candidate then, or (my preference) deal with the highly likely prospect of dealing with a more appropriately slightly left of center candidate nominated by Clinton dealing with a Senate under Democratic control.
Let them enjoy their briar patch.
I have a hard time seeing Obama doing that. He’d be basically saying, “Yeah, I said Merrick Garland was the best person for the job, but now that we can get an ultra-liberal, never mind.” (And I say that as someone who’d love to get someone more liberal.)
On the other hand, if the Republicans who swore up and down that it was all about letting the people decide with an election then go back on that and confirm before Clinton can take office, they’ll look like massive hypocrites.
He would be acting reasonably if he withdrew the name if they attempted to sneak in hearings after the election. It’s not a statement of his to make, it’s just what the senate chose.
It would be a betrayal of progressives who voted for him if he didn’t.
It would be stated before the election was held, albeit with some confidence over the result.
It see him saying “I put forth an excellent candidate for the job, a judge who has had the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle. I have asked for an up or down vote and have been very patient waiting for one. I have persistently lobbied for one. If after half a year of these efforts the Senate persistently refuses to do their job I must respect their wish to let the next president decide. If by one week from today no action is taken I will, with great regret, withdraw the nomination and leave the selection of a new Supreme Court Justice nominee to whoever the next President may be, as the GOP Senate leadership and rank and file desires.”
Yes the Senate wins … a quite Pyrrhic victory.