Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Any legislation is unpassable in the Senate because Mitch in in charge.

By unreasonable do you mean voting rights legislation to fix Republicans gutting the 65 Act with the Shelby case?

God forbid minorities have equal access to the polls.
No it's not, he's passed legislation, it just isn't the legislation the far left and extremists want. Nope, but have fun tossing those strawmen out there.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,007
136
Well OK, we're all saying that, but what the Democrats said uncountable times in 2016 is exactly what Senate Majority Leader McConnell is doing now. Filling an open seat. What you are angry about is he didn't do it when you wanted him to do it and now he's doing it when you don't want him to do it.

Elections have consequences.

What? So you ignore the changes that were made in 2016? Glad this all fits nicely in your alternate reality.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,007
136
I send soccer bails sailing over the crossbar every weekend and lament every time that no one awards me 3 points. Both parties know how the gane works. The Democrats solidified their coalitions in population centers, the GOP played the whole field. Those coalitions are shifting once again.

Except you ignore the gerrymandering that has taken place since 2010. People do not elect politicians, politicians have picked there voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,007
136
They did within the parameters of how our system of government works

The Senate is a 6 year term. At any given time, only one third of the country decides. This is voting by the people. Yes people vote, but the assumption is that everyone voted, which is misleading at best. If you truly want to know what “the people” wanted, see the a House and the popular vote. The election was decided by 77,000 out of 130,000,000. Less than 50% of the “people” actually voted. Let me know what you decide to use facts and not hide behind troll bait.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,007
136

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
They did within the parameters of how our system of government works
The states picked the republican senate and president. Any attempt to claim the people did is dishonest. Not that this will stop you, Republicans love to claim they have a mandate from the people whole receiving a minority of the votes.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,007
136
Gosh i'm sorry Starbuck, you don't seem to understand that Republicans are always evil and wicked and Democrats are always pure and sweet and perfect. That even though Ted Kennedy /Joe Biden and other Democrats went far beyond the established norms to attack nominee Judge Bork that somehow and someway it's the Republicans fault for it. And when Reid exercised the nuke option for judicial nominees it was also the evil and wicked Republicans fault because Democrats are always honest and truthful and only want what's good for everyone and as "we" all know the Republicans are nasty and evil.

The same for the "high-tech lynching" of Judge Thomas by the Democrats and the smears and lies about Judge Kavanaugh by the Democrats. The Democrats have been swimming in the judicial cesspool of their own making for decades, but they want to blame it on Republicans.

It is undeniable that the numbers are against the Republicons. Because of that, they use tactics that secure power. When you have 6 of the last seven elections for President where the Democratic nominee won the popular vote, that is scary to Republicons. Fortunately, one was won by 600 votes in Florida, as well as a nice Supreme Court ruling and one by 77,000 votes. Not the mandate you claim nor does it allow for the constant partisan line, “Elections have consequences.” Really, thanks Mr Obvious. I know, “WINNING!” It is interesting to how you use info and sources that are selective. Please post a Wikipedia link that shows how the sniveling, crying Kavanaugh was actually a show of strength. “I want my seat and you cannot take it from me!”
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,868
136
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.
Great, then I don’t want to hear any complaints from you if the Democrats expand the court or add states. Both of those things are every bit as much by the rules as what Republicans are doing now.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,868
136
So you think Bork was a good nominee then? That explains a lot about you.
Also, Bork’s nomination failed because he was unable to get 51 votes, not because of any procedural nonsense. He was a bad nominee and he lost, in no small part because he attempted to enable Nixon’s corruption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,004
2,025
136
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.

You're 100% right despite what people think about protocol. Folks can whine about it being unfair all they want, but it's legal and going to happen ASAP under the current regime. Until the Democrats start rolling up their sleeves and hitting back the GOP will continue to own them like this. How many times you sit there and get punched in the face without hitting back because you think that's being the better person still gets you your ass kicked and the other guys fist will never get tired of it, sorry, they'll keep finding people that like punching.

All of the hand wringing is wasted energy. While the Democrats sit around worrying about image, DJT and the GOP could give a shit they just continue to do what they want. The Democratic party needs to be doing every thing they possibly can to try and flip the Senate and take control of the government.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,868
136
The argument is that it was totally different because Republicans held the Senate in 2016 and Democrats do not in 2020. It’s obviously not a good faith argument, but it just boils down to “We did it because we could, and you can’t, so you won’t.”

So, I don’t want to hear one damn argument that Democrats shouldn’t rebalance the courts. They can do it if they can. That’s the precedent now.

As Lindsay Graham made painfully clear, the precedent that they were pretending to be following said nothing about who controlled the senate and everything about an election year.

Now, we all knew this was not a good faith argument, and the fact that they immediately reneged on this bad faith precedent confirms those suspicions.

At least Trump didn’t pretend that this is more than it is. He said they are doing it because they can. That’s the most honest thing he’s ever said.

And, if that’s the precedent, I don’t want to hear any complaints when Democrats rebalance the court next year if they can. Because "they can"

Say your playing monopoly with your “friend” at his house, and after landing on go he reaches to collect $400. When you complain he says “Its a house rule. If you land on go you collect $400 instead of $200. My house my rules”.

You Grumble but the game goes on. A few turns later you land on go, and when you try to collect he says “No that rule only applies to me, not to you. Besides, I thought you didn’t like that rule.”

Is there any point in continuing the game?
This, exactly. Democracies are fundamentally built on mutual cooperation even within a system of competition for votes. There are lots of things leaders CAN do that they choose not to because of the effects on that system.

Republicans have decided that these norms no longer matter. They gerrymander legislatures. Then, when a democrat wins the governorship (which you can’t gerrymander), the gerrymandered legislature tries to take their powers away. They violate the very rules they demanded about judicial appointments and then when it comes to the Supreme Court blatantly go back on their own word within a single presidential term.

If they want to play that way that’s within their rights but I don’t want to hear any crying when Democrats return the favor. The first 7-6 SCOTUS decision will be music to my ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,297
136
It appears that right wing media is trying to position Dem opposition to Barrett as anti-catholic.

The same party that nominated lifelong catholic Joe Biden for the presidency.

Alright.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
Yep ... Nutty as a fruitcake. She is a member of a cult within the Catholic Church called The People of Praise. Margaret Atwood said she based The Hadmaid’s Tale on this cult. Every person in the cult is assigned a head, if they’re male, or a handmaid, if they’re female. They control whom the members marry, and how they raise their children. They also believe that men have total control over their wives.


grenade boy thinks that's normal religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
The first case was underhanded bullshit. The senate should have simply voted against Obamas appointment rather than play foolish games. Regardless, it was legal. This time there isn't anything the least bit shady going on. A justice passed away, Trump gets to appoint a new one, the senate votes yes or no. End of story. Pretending that there is something nefarious going on is absurd. Pretending that RBG has some right to determine who or when her replacement is seated is even more absurd.

I don't understand--change the rules once, bad. change them again...not bad?

how do you figure? The Senate has always acted this way in sort of an honorable "let's adjust and move on" manner. When that is lost, as inarguably has happened under the entirety of Mitch McConnell's...leadership, then why is it suddenly OK?

You hated changing the rules the first time (lol-I absolutely doubt that you did and I'm sure you have posts to prove it)...and now when they are changed again, explicitly to advantage the very same rule-changers, as they only ever have done over the last couple of years, you now declare it normal.

So, what you are explicitly saying, is that changing it from the status quo the first time = underhanded...but doing it again, now good and normal? Remember, the status quo when it comes to Senate rules is what it is at the time. That's just how it has always worked. Whether or not you understand that is irrelevant, because it is simply true. It seems that your threshold for accepting underhanded tactics is only after the first salvo. It now becomes: "see, changing the rules at a whim, to advantage one ideology and only that one ideology over other(s), is actually the new rule."

That's what you are arguing, whether or not you understand it. It just is.

Republicans have decided that US democracy is Calvin Ball.
...and there's no better metaphor....especially for a population of deplorables that have long appropriated and misused that icon of rational, progressive critique of contemporary culture as a symbol of despotic hate, ignorance, and oppression by littering their garish pick-up trucks with the image of Calvin "pissing on whatever I hate!"
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
There is really no escaping the analysis that the Republicans are doing whatever benefits them the most and are not at all concerned with the ethics of it. This is because they are fairly confident that the Democrats are ethical enough not to respond the same way. If Republicans felt that Democrats would match their level of unethical behavior then they would not break the norms in this way, because they would understand that it would endlessly escalate until violence broke out. The end result of this, they believe, is that they get a decided advantage in politics and suffer only setbacks, if any at all.

There is only two real solutions:

Either the Democrats hold on to their ethics, and make progress only when it becomes so untenable for it not to happen that even Republican's can no longer hold it off. Which is what they have been doing since the 1980's. But it seems that Republicans are now working on removing the ability of the people to demand change at all.

Or the Democrats make an agreement that this is war and that the ethics must be put aside until a balance can once again be achieved, with the full understanding that it might not be, and escalate until the Republicans either agree to a truce and demonstrate they will hold to it, one party loses so much support that it can no longer get into office in significant enough numbers to be able to effect change, or it ends in violence.

I would normally be for the first option, but Trump seems to make that impossible. He is not just breaking the norms, he is doing away with them altogether and breaking the institutes that we have build to balance them. If allowed to continue there will be no democracy to save. To kill the cancer we might have to risk poisoning the host.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaaQ and nOOky
Nov 29, 2006
15,695
4,204
136
Also, Bork’s nomination failed because he was unable to get 51 votes, not because of any procedural nonsense. He was a bad nominee and he lost, in no small part because he attempted to enable Nixon’s corruption.

Ahh that's why they like him and Trump. I really think were just up against a new republican party and voters that dont care about laws or rules anymore, in the slightest. Hence me coining the party 'Cant beat em, Cheat em'