Well, Trump is not very good at cutting a deal. There’s no way to enforce it.
“Hey stranger, I’ll give you some money with the expectation that you will go to the store and buy me some beers. But if you just pocket the money, or donate it to AA, I can’t do anything about it.” wink wink nudge nudge
~Max
You said Republican senators would have to think twice. Why? Can’t they just say, yeah, she wants to overturn Griswold but that just means the laws you passed are constitutional?
~Max
Generally this is not how COI works. Even if someone who does a favor for you can never exert future influence directly, it has an effect of generating bias. Now of course it’s possible for someone to take the favor and stick to their intention to never honor the perceived arrangement, but no one is immune from having some influence exerted over them.
In the interest of hopefully moving past this, I’ll say this:
At some point this argument doesn’t exactly matter. Whatever ethical problems exist with ACB taking this nomination and possibly concealing her recusal plans so that it doesn’t get pulled, she has crossed the Rubicon and it’s not really up to her any more. This is about GOP Senators and voters at this point. It’s pretty clear that the Senators either want her to take a role in the upcoming election if a court case does arise, or are OK with her doing so. The next question is will GOP voters take this seriously. Will they see that allowing their senators to attempt to undermine democracy will eventually lead to their own votes becoming irrelevant?
You truly misrepresent the concerns.
Every one of those steps is another step in the wrong direction, a direction that ends with the destruction of ACA and Roe v Wade and even Griswold.
That we are not at the end of the path, does not mean that this is a “fine” path to be following.
Your concern is noted. It is also dismissed, as your concern is entirely misplaced. Whether that is because you ignorantly misunderstand, or if it because you willfully misunderstand, I will try not to judge.
Because their constituents, who live in states where these laws are more likely to be passed, don’t want to have their own birth control outlawed.
As a GOP voter, her nomination and confirmation has absolutely no bearing on my vote in this election. Neither of my senators are on the ballot.
Not the answer you’re looking for, but it’s the truth.
~Max
If the constituents don’t want birth control outlawed, I would not expect the state to outlaw birth control…
If the constituents do want birth control outlawed, I would expect the state to outlaw birth control…
It seems like a win-win for Republicans.
~Max
Are your senators never up for reelection, or are they just counting on GOP voters having extremely short attention spans?
The trouble comes when 51% of the voters want to take birth control from the 49% who want and need it.
That’s why courts over the last 50+ years have said the government has no legitimate role in such matters, even if the majority supports it.
I feel like I will have much bigger concerns come 2022. But yeah, GOP voters probably have very short attention spans.
~Max
And I’ve been hearing that since Sandra O’Connor was appointed.
Nothing more than the boy who cried wolf. Every damn time a conservative justice is nominated, the boy starts crying wolf again.
Ah, the typical conservative answer of trusting the government to do what is in their best interests and desires.
“Give the government more power over my life!”, the conservatives always cry out in their rallies.
That is trouble, but not for the senators who only need 51% of the vote to get re-elected.
~Max
Good point. They do tend to be easily misled by propaganda and scaremongering.
The local and state governments, yeah. I mean, we’re straying afield here, but in local politics I see them calling for straight up witch hunts. Moral policing. Come national politics, unless it furthers shared interests, no thanks, small government please.
~Max
So obviously that applies to voters who have a meaningful decision - which not everyone gets every 2 years.
I am curious about how you would respond to your senators in future elections (assuming your current senators are Republicans who vote to confirm ACB):
Let’s say ACB gets confirmed, an apparent Biden win ends up in a court battle. Let’s just say the case was that Florida voted for Biden, but after the vote the legislature voted to pledge all of its electors to Trump, and Biden sues to block that legislation. The way the math works out, whoever wins Florida gets the presidency. The lower courts all rule for Biden, but the case ends up in the Supreme Court. ACB doesn’t recuse and the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump 5-4.
Now in 2022 or 2024 your senator(s) who voted to confirm ACB are on the ballot. Do you think that all of this happening is a factor? Would it sway you in the direction of voting against them in either the primary or the general?
Sure thing, sure thing.
It’s not that we went off and defeated the wolves, drove them away, it’s just that there is no such thing as wolves.
So sleep well, little conservatives, because your big brother will always be watching over you. To protect you and keep you from harm. To prevent you from doing anything that might not be approved of by your neighbors.
I live in Florida. Such a hypothetical would be a huge factor, probably for the rest of my life. The 2000 election still lingers in water-cooler talk.
~Max
Ah, so you do want your government to invade your privacy and your bedroom. To tell you what you can and cannot do.
So fucked up, actually. They can tell you what you can do with your gun, but not with your rifle.
Whatever…
