Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation

[Bricker]

@Saint_Cad

They cannot walk out unless excused by the presiding officer. If they do, they can be arrested upon a Call of the House.

As long as 51 are present, let the rest walk out. That’s fine.

[Saint_Cad]

@Bricker

As long as 51 are present, let the rest walk out. That’s fine.

Are you kidding? Passing up the opportunity to drag the Dems into the chambers in handcuffs* to see Gorsuch confirmed?

*Not an exaggeration.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Right. They are less biased, but I don’t agree the difference is significant.

In this judgement, I include blatant examples like the editorial positions taken about the filibuster over the years (“Now is the perfect moment for them to unite with like-minded Democrats to get rid of an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose,” when Clinton was President and Republicans were the minority Senate party; “The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out,” when Bush was President and the Democrats were the minority Senate party; and then right back to “From now on, if any senator tries to filibuster a presidential nominee, that filibuster can be stopped with a simple majority, not the 60-vote requirement of the past. That means a return to the democratic process of giving nominees an up-or-down vote, allowing them to be either confirmed or rejected by a simple majority. . . . This vote was long overdue,” when Obama was President and the GOP once again in the minority.)

Eloquent defenses of each position, tailored to fit the needs of the Democrats. Yes, they are less biased than Fox, but not significantly so.

So the fact that Fox News regularly distorts facts in a way that New York Times does much more rarely is insignificant to you?

Okay.

[madsircool]

@VinylTurnip

If Socratism fails…

Scrotumism will work.

[TonySinclair]

@Bricker

Point being that you have simply declared that the sources you like are to be the authorities and the contrary sources are to be be dismissed as propaganda.

If that were an acceptable technique in debate, it would give you an easy win. But it’s not; I decline to agree that Fox News strays significantly farther from facts than the New York Times does. The Times chooses headlines deceptively and you’re willing to ignore from it behavior that would draw howls of indignation if it came from Fox.

What a crock of false-equivalence bullshit. Far from howls of indignation, there would be stunned disbelief if Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly (the sources you appear to be defending) showed half the journalistic integrity of the NYT. Those three don’t just selectively report; they outright lie. Constantly.

And the right laps it up. Here’s an empirical result for you: Brian Williams lost his anchor position at NBC, and is now banished to late-night MSNBC, for exaggerating the danger he was in during a helicopter ride. Shortly thereafter, it was proved that Bill O’Reilly made many more numerous and egregious exaggerations over his career. In the case of the Kennedy assassination-related suicide, they even had him on tape, proving he was nowhere near where it happened, but he kept lying about it anyway. His ratings went up, and he probably got a raise.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@madsircool

Scrotumism will work.

If you’re especially bold, you can use scrotumistic irony.
Also knows as balls of steel.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@TonySinclair

Here’s an empirical result for you: Brian Williams lost his anchor position at NBC, and is now banished to late-night MSNBC, for exaggerating the danger he was in during a helicopter ride. Shortly thereafter, it was proved that Bill O’Reilly made many more numerous and egregious exaggerations over his career. In the case of the Kennedy assassination-related suicide, they even had him on tape, proving he was nowhere near where it happened, but he kept lying about it anyway. His ratings went up, and he probably got a raise.

That’s not a right/left thing. It’s the nature of their respective jobs.

Williams is a reporter. O’Reilly is a bloviator. The former position is much more dependent on personal credibility than the latter.

If Rachel Maddow would be caught in O’Reilly-type “exaggerations” (quotes because they included - IIRC - at least one outright fabrication) I think the impact on her career would be similar to the impact on O’Reilly’s, because she has that same type of position.

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

That’s not a right/left thing. It’s the nature of their respective jobs.

Williams is a reporter. O’Reilly is a bloviator. The former position is much more dependent on personal credibility than the latter.

And that would be fine if O’Reilly was on a comedy news show. The daily show makes stuff up all the time, the late show makes stuff up all the time, and no one cares, because no one actually thinks of them as journalists.

Many of Fox News viewers do think of fox as being in the same journalistic caliber as NBC (including trump), and take the things that are said on their programs as if they were true. They don’t know or care that Brian Williams got fired and shunned from NBC for a pretty insignificant error on his part, they just know that he got fired for lying, and since O’Reilly hasn’t been fired from his news network, then he couldn’t be lying.

If Fox officially changes its name to Faux, and its tagline to “unfairly unbalanced”, then you have a point that the people at fox news do not need to be held to any sort of ethical or journalistic standard.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.

1. Focusing on news vs. comedy is a false dichotomy, as it ignores opinion/talk, which is where O’Reilly et al are.

2. It’s not a Network A vs Network B issue. It’s the nature of the position. There are people who occupy various positions at each network.

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.

1. Focusing on news vs. comedy is a false dichotomy, as it ignores opinion/talk, which is where O’Reilly et al are.

2. It’s not a Network A vs Network B issue. It’s the nature of the position. There are people who occupy various positions at each network.

You most certainly misunderstood what I wrote.

You are correct in that it isn’t comedy, in that it’s not really very funny, but my point was that it is not news, and yet, many of it’s viewers, including Trump, think that it is. Regardless of their opinion on a political matter, they base their conclusions on fact that are demonstrably false. Facts that they got from Fox News. Facts that they thought were true, because they got them from a “News” channel. And these are the same people who say they can’t trust “lamestream” media sources like NBC because Brian Williams got fired for lying, or Dan Rather got fired for publicizing some documents that turned out to be fake. The fact that O’reilly hasn’t been fired, and these other journalists have, bolsters o’reilly and Fox’s credibility in their minds, even though, if you look at the actual facts of the matter, it should be exactly the other way around.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

This does not relate to the point I was making or the one I was commenting on. I don’t intend to continue discussing this with you, unless someone else is confused about it as well.

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

This does not relate to the point I was making or the one I was commenting on. I don’t intend to continue discussing this with you, unless someone else is confused about it as well.

'k

[Bricker]

@TonySinclair

What a crock of false-equivalence bullshit. Far from howls of indignation, there would be stunned disbelief if Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly (the sources you appear to be defending) showed half the journalistic integrity of the NYT. Those three don’t just selectively report; they outright lie. Constantly.

You will search in vain for my posts defending Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly.

I am defending – to a minor degree – the news reporting on Fox News, not the commentary provided by Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly.

And the right laps it up. Here’s an empirical result for you: Brian Williams lost his anchor position at NBC, and is now banished to late-night MSNBC, for exaggerating the danger he was in during a helicopter ride. Shortly thereafter, it was proved that Bill O’Reilly made many more numerous and egregious exaggerations over his career. In the case of the Kennedy assassination-related suicide, they even had him on tape, proving he was nowhere near where it happened, but he kept lying about it anyway. His ratings went up, and he probably got a raise.

Apples and kumquats. Williams is a reporter, who job is to deliver factual statements about things that happened. O’Reilly is a commentator, whose job is to deliver his opinion about what inferences can or should be drawn from the events of the world.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Falchion

Leave aside that Hobby Lobby is a RFRA case, not a first amendment case, that’s an interesting way of looking at it: the right to freely exercise religion gives “extra” rights to people who have religious beliefs to exercise.

@Bricker

As noted above, that’s the result of the RFRA. The First Amendment compels a different result, sadly, per Employment Divison v. Smith.

Since the RFRA’s text indicates that it is intended to modify the standard of review that applies to First Amendment claims, Hobby Lobby is a First Amendment case. The RFRA by itself does not grant or deny any right.

And it’s not that the right to free exercise gives extra rights. It’s that according to Alito, only a closely held corporation can have religious beliefs.

[DrDeth]

@Bricker

If Pat Roberts were “the base” then this would be true. I don’t think anyone disputes that some GOP senators found him acceptable.

Goalpost moving.

Look, I just provided evidence that the few GOP senators who were asked about him had no issues with Garland as a jurist, they only objected to the timing, etc. So find me as many and more GOP Senators who objected to Garland as a jurist. Otherwise, we have proved our side.

[DrDeth]

@D_Anconia

Only once an actual cite is provided. A link to another person saying they agree with you is not a cite. She’s a pundit, not some sort of authority. And the pundit provided no actual evidence to support the claim that the poster made.

It is when you ask for a cite when the only possible answers are opinions- thus *you asked for opinions. *

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Apples and kumquats. Williams is a reporter, who job is to deliver factual statements about things that happened. O’Reilly is a commentator, whose job is to deliver his opinion about what inferences can or should be drawn from the events of the world.

The lines aren’t nearly so clear. O’Reilly isn’t being dinged for misrepresenting a statistic or two in his opinion pieces. He’s being misrepresented for lying about events on the ground, or even about the country he was in when events occurred, and telling viewers about his opinions that were predicated on these egregious lies.

Williams offered FACTS (leading to opinions). O’Reilly offers OPINIONS (based on facts). In both cases, the folks deliberately lied about the facts. Both should have been fired for their lies.

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The lines aren’t nearly so clear. O’Reilly isn’t being dinged for misrepresenting a statistic or two in his opinion pieces. He’s being misrepresented for lying about events on the ground, or even about the country he was in when events occurred, and telling viewers about his opinions that were predicated on these egregious lies.

Yes. O’Reilly is the Mayor of Lyingtown, no debate there from me.

Williams offered FACTS (leading to opinions). O’Reilly offers OPINIONS (based on facts). In both cases, the folks deliberately lied about the facts. Both should have been fired for their lies.

But Williams’ job began and ended with the facts; O’Reilly’s job begins and ends with his opinions. If anyone believes that O’Reilly is a trustworthy source of facts, they’re hottibly mistaken.

But NBC wanted Williams to be believed to be a trustworthy source of facts. Fox does care if O’Reilly is seen as a trustworthy source of facts; they hire him for his opinions.

[Bricker]

@DrDeth

Goalpost moving.

Look, I just provided evidence that the few GOP senators who were asked about him had no issues with Garland as a jurist, they only objected to the timing, etc. So find me as many and more GOP Senators who objected to Garland as a jurist. Otherwise, we have proved our side.

Why is it goalpost moving? Was the original comment about “the base?” Are senators “the base?”

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Since the RFRA’s text indicates that it is intended to modify the standard of review that applies to First Amendment claims, Hobby Lobby is a First Amendment case. The RFRA by itself does not grant or deny any right.

And it’s not that the right to free exercise gives extra rights. It’s that according to Alito, only a closely held corporation can have religious beliefs.

Um…

Huh?

No.

The RFRA’s text, 42 USC § 2000bb–4, indicates in pertinent part:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the “Establishment Clause”).