• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Here's an idea that might work regarding the SCOTUS selection

Democrats have at best around ~40% of taking the Senate. It's an uphill battle that likely won't be won. The Democrats will have egg on their face if they agree that there's such thing as a "McConnell Rule" and then lose over it. That's why I hated how the Democrat leadership says we should wait until the election is over because this rule is somehow legitimate. The better framing is that a president shouldn't be able to pick a SC justice while under investigation. I've seen Cory Booker suggest this, which is good. If the Republicans win over this, the Democrats should absolutely escalate this to force reform by bringing in more SC justices. There is no magic number 9 in the Constitution.
 
If we're talking about doing the right thing here, Trump should let Obama pick the next justice. The republicans really did screw him out of that nomination. It's almost certain that I would be unhappy with whoever he chose, but it would be the honest and proper thing to do. I can always live with doing the right thing.

Edit: Yes, I know it's a stupid pipe dream, but hope springs eternal and all of that.
 
senseamp said:
We all know that it's not going to be this easy and won't be decided by the courts.
Click to expand...

If it's a matter of law then it could go to court. In the meantime the Dems could seek an injunction. Easy? If anyone thinks anything in DC is easy they need to get out of office and keep bees.
 
It's a completely pointless endeavor. We're just... screwed.

Just remember it's all crooked Hillary's fault.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
If it's a matter of law then it could go to court. In the meantime the Dems could seek an injunction. Easy? If anyone thinks anything in DC is easy they need to get out of office and keep bees.
Click to expand...
Senate rules are not laws. Which is a good thing. It means that Dems can gut the filibuster and put as many seats as they see fit onto any court the see fit with 50 votes in the Senate, provided they also hold the House and the presidency. Pretending that courts are not already rigged by Republicans and wasting time with lawsuits is just giving them legitimacy they don't deserve.
 
senseamp said:
Senate rules are not laws. Which is a good thing. It means that Dems can gut the filibuster and put as many seats as they see fit onto any court the see fit with 50 votes in the Senate, provided they also hold the House and the presidency. Pretending that courts are not already rigged by Republicans and wasting time with lawsuits is just giving them legitimacy they don't deserve.
Click to expand...

The law professor has a different take on it than you.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Sounds reasonable, just let me know how this "Law" was passed, and who signed it into law.
Click to expand...

Since reading is hard, I'll help you out a bit.

From the article:
As every lawyer knows, not all laws are statutes. Many laws come in different forms: court decisions, agency rules, general principles, customary practices, and sometimes even widely accepted opinions by legal experts. Like these non-statutory propositions, parliamentary rules announced by Senate majority leaders constitute laws as well. As a result, they are binding on future legislators unless and until they are explicitly overturned.
Click to expand...
 
This is pretty far-fetched, yet I would say it's infinitely more likely than Schumer convincing Trump that Merrick Garland should be the nominee. Trump's an idiot, but Schumer's an even bigger idiot for thinking that Trump might side with Obama on anything. What could Schumer possibly offer in return...a block on impeachment in the Senate?
 
Jhhnn said:
It's a completely pointless endeavor. We're just... screwed.

Just remember it's all crooked Hillary's fault.
Click to expand...
No, its a combination of Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

McConnell, for breaking the decorum of the Senate.

Reid, for losing the long game by eliminating the procedural protections for the minority party.

Schumer, for wasting ammunition on Gorsuch’s nomination. Swapping Scalia for Gorsuch did not change the balance of SCOTUS. With Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer all possibly in play, Schumer played his cards poorly.

Complain all you want about House gerrymandering, but you have a real problem when vulnerable Democrat Senators in red states are being asked to hold what is now a very thin and weak line.
 
Last edited:
Starbuck1975 said:
No, its a combination of Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

McConnell, for breaking the decorum of the Senate.

Reid, for losing the long game by eliminating the procedural protections for the minority party.

Schumer, for wasting ammunition on Gorsuch’s nomination. Swapping Scalia for Gorsuch did not change the balance of SCOTUS. With Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer all possibly in play, Schumer played his cards poorly.

Complain all you want about House gerrymandering, but you have a real problem when vulnerable Democrat Senators in red states are being asked to hold what is now a very thin and weak line.
Click to expand...

The argument that McConnell wouldn't have gutted the filibuster on judicial appointments seems remarkably naive in light of how he has wielded the R majority and set the rules of the Senate. The entire reason he obstructed appointments in the first place was to hold more slots open in case an R got elected president. The only reason he won't do it on regular legislation is because there is basically no upside since his own caucus can't agree on (almost literally) anything that gets to 51 votes.
 
Jhhnn said:
It's a completely pointless endeavor. We're just... screwed.

Just remember it's all crooked Hillary's fault.
Click to expand...

Concern trolling noted. Just say it's all over and discourage voters to come out. Let the GOP win, we're screwed, is it? Republican supporter are you?

Yeah I've heard the like before.

Time to use every legal trick in the book and get out or some sneaky Democratic Socialist might be the next enemy to have to be put down by "not the GOP"
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Concern trolling noted. Just say it's all over and discourage voters to come out. Let the GOP win, we're screwed, is it? Republican supporter are you?

Yeah I've heard the like before.

Time to use every legal trick in the book and get out or some sneaky Democratic Socialist might be the next enemy to have to be put down by "not the GOP"
Click to expand...
I like the term "democratic socialist". It almost sounds like a good thing but then when one realizes "democratic" is simply tacked on to distinguish socialists from Marxists, it loses its panache.

So here we are adding a word with 4 syllables when all we need do is simply say socialists.
 
You would just motivate the right wingers to vote in greater numbers. Dems dont vote. As dumb as the gop is the dems have a stupid base as well.
 
JSt0rm said:
You would just motivate the right wingers to vote in greater numbers. Dems dont vote. As dumb as the gop is the dems have a stupid base as well.
Click to expand...

They're all going to get out and vote for Hit Trump anyway. Might as well shake the tree because if you are right then trying it couldn't hurt. The Dems have lost already you say.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
No, its a combination of Mitch O’Connell, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

O’Connell, for breaking the decorum of the Senate.

Reid, for losing the long game by eliminating the procedural protections for the minority party.

Schumer, for wasting ammunition on Gorsuch’s nomination. Swapping Scalia for Gorsuch did not change the balance of SCOTUS. With Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer all possibly in play, Schumer played his cards poorly.

Complain all you want about House gerrymandering, but you have a real problem when vulnerable Democrat Senators in red states are being asked to hold what is now a very thin and weak line.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS is all on McConnell. The way he treated Merrick Garland was shameful followed up by the double down cornholio with Gorsuch. It's just the truth.
 
i think the dems are more motivated now. If you put the supreme court in play you motivate the gop more. Moderate fiscal conservative republicans dont like trump. They voted just for this moment.
 
K1052 said:
The argument that McConnell wouldn't have gutted the filibuster on judicial appointments seems remarkably naive in light of how he has wielded the R majority and set the rules of the Senate. The entire reason he obstructed appointments in the first place was to hold more slots open in case an R got elected president. The only reason he won't do it on regular legislation is because there is basically no upside since his own caucus can't agree on (almost literally) anything that gets to 51 votes.
Click to expand...

McConnell doesn't want to remove the legislative filibuster because it helps the Democrats. It's a gigantic hurdle for anything progressive to get by, while his caucus can still count on reconciliation. He's counting on the establishment Democrats to wring their hands and tell their base that nothing can be done about it.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Schumer, for wasting ammunition on Gorsuch’s nomination. Swapping Scalia for Gorsuch did not change the balance of SCOTUS. With Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer all possibly in play, Schumer played his cards poorly.
Click to expand...

If Murkowski and Collins vote for whoever it is, it wouldn't have mattered. They would have gotten rid of the filibuster. Even then, they could still argue it as a reason for not going along. Heck, the court really doesn't change that much to be honest. Kennedy was NOT a moderate and showed what a scumbag he always was.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Concern trolling noted. Just say it's all over and discourage voters to come out. Let the GOP win, we're screwed, is it? Republican supporter are you?

Yeah I've heard the like before.

Time to use every legal trick in the book and get out or some sneaky Democratic Socialist might be the next enemy to have to be put down by "not the GOP"
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but the subject is the SCOTUS, not the election. In that, it's obvious what all the Hillary hate got us, isn't it? That's right- now we're screwed wrt the SCOTUS. Bent right over the log.

The only way to thwart the GOP agenda is at the ballot box & I'm all for that.

But you go ahead- keep tearing down the Democrats every chance you get, as if that will help accomplish it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top