Republicans don’t need to be nice to Democrats. They need to be ruthless. I fully expect them to obstruct the Democrats in any way possible to protect this country from liberal idiocy.
Don’t like it? Tough. Go win some elections.
Yeah, 'cept you guys have been behind every escalation. The republicans escalate, the democrats follow along. You can say we “started it with Bork”, but finding a link between “We don’t like this one nominee (who turned out to be a fucking lunatic, by the way)” and “We don’t think you should be able to pass any policy with your majority in both houses and the presidency” takes a leap of logic I don’t think I’m willing to take.
We did. I think you mean “Go win some elections to a degree where neither the filibuster nor gerrymandering nor challenging electoral results on spurious grounds for a goddamn year, thus preventing a 60-vote majority in congress in the intervening time and opening the door for the most extreme filibustering of all time will influence the results in any meaningful way”. Sadly, the American populace has a short memory and really isn’t that smart.
“Being nice to Democrats” apparently is your euphemism for “following the rules of governance”.
I agree that significant numbers of Republicans seem to have decided that the rules don’t apply to them.
[QUOTE=Pearl Clutching Provocateur]
I fully expect them to obstruct the Democrats in any way possible to protect this country from liberal idiocy.
[/quote]
“My side is justified in engaging in any type of unethical and illegal behavior in order to prevent the other side from doing anything I disagree with” is usually identified in historical hindsight as the attitude that enabled the crooks and/or fascists to take over.
But at least it’s good to see clearly who’s supporting the crooks and/or fascists in their efforts at throwing out the rules to facilitate their takeover attempt.
You said Republicans were behind “every” escalation, so, in your eyes, what was the “escalation” by Republicans that preceded Bork’s “borking”?
The New Republic ? Even when I was a kid back in the Eisenhower Administration everybody knew that rag was a front for Pravda. Link to an American news source like Fox News or it didn’t happen.
I suppose actual qualifications are now largely irrelevant but, since you’re our legal expert and SDMB is an important journal of record, perhaps you’d indulge us and spend a paragraph comparing the suitabilities of Messrs. Bork and Garland for such high office.
Nominating a radical, sexist, racist supreme court nominee? I hold that there was nothing wrong with rejecting Bork. There was nothing wrong with voting him down and demanding that the president nominate a different person. Many of the same congresspeople who voted against Bork voted for Thomas a few years later.
And by the way, you brought up the “gang of 14” so I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that the Democrats could have easily refused to play ball and forced the republicans to nuke the filibuster. It would have made things a hell of a lot better in 2009, I’ll tell you that much. Maybe we’d even have a better health care reform. But given the chance, they didn’t take it. They opted instead for good governance via compromise and consent - you know, they acted like adults. Similarly, they could have “borked” Clarence Thomas - they certainly had the votes to reject him, and he was both relatively inexperienced and mired in sexual assault allegations. But they didn’t take that opportunity. They could (and probably should) have nuked the filibuster back in 2009 when it became clear that the republicans were going to take that one vote margin they gained by contesting Al Franken’s election on bullshit claims of voter fraud and use it to make pushing any form of legislature virtually impossible. That probably wasn’t good governance - responding to bad faith with good faith - but they did it anyways, in an attempt to take the high road.
And it hasn’t worked out so well. Obviously.
I can’t speak for him, but I suspect their stances on abortion are all that really matter.
I suspect the party that nominated them is all that matters.
I’m just absolutely amazed that someone found to have illegally fired a special prosecutor was even nominated for the Supreme Court in a blatant quid pro quo, and astounded that the way his nomination was denied is considered a black mark against Democrats.
Any Cabinet posts still available? Amabassadorships? Supreme Court maybe?
If we don’t like, can we return her?
Well, now we know that according to the soon to be top law enforcement officer in the country, Attorney General Jeff Sessions on grabbing a woman by the pussy:
Would that be admissible in court or useful in some way to somebody accused of sexual assault? I guess maybe I could start a new thread in “General Questions” but I’m sure one of the lawyers here can tell me.
Got a nickel says that if Trump grabbed Sen. Sessions daughter by the pussy, he’d bust him one right in the chops.
Congress approved Mattis waiver: Congress approves waiver to let Mattis run Pentagon | Fox News
No. Sessions was probably saying Trump’s admission implied he had consent (“They let you do anything”) , so it wasn’t sexual assault. The AG’s views on what is or isn’t sexual assault wouldn’t be admissible in a criminal trial regardless. The jury has to decide based on the facts and the jury instructions, not some comment by some guy, even if he’s the Attorney General. I don’t think a defendant could say, “I thought it was okay because the Attorney General of the United States says grabbing a woman by the pussy isn’t sexual assault.” Well, maybe they could say it, but it isn’t going to help.
Finally, most sexual assault prosecutions are state court cases, and they really wouldn’t care what the AG says.
I think a swift kick in the balls should be construed as self-defense, especially if delivered with a skillfully applied high heel shoe.
Mattis is cruising to confirmation. Senate Armed Services Committee voted 26-1 to recommend him (the only ‘no’ was Gillibrand). Short of him shooting someone on 5th Avenue, I don’t see any way he doesn’t get confirmed.
Fortunately, he doesn’t fantasize about randomly killing bystanders.