• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

And we have a new Supreme Court justice

 
 
 
What else could we expect after all of the Democrat obstructionism over the past 30 years in Congress. The Republicans just had to act.
 
Well, on the bright side, I'm not in your country, so his rulings won't impact me.
 
On the plus side, the ideological makeup of the court hasn't changed. Much.

The downside is that with Mitch nuking the filibuster, if one of the liberal justices retires or dies in the next couple of years there will be nothing to stop a real right winger getting appointed to the bench...or worse. Trump could nominate one of the Celebrity Apprentice contestants and the GOP Senators would vote to confirm.
 
Ford said:
On the plus side, the ideological makeup of the court hasn't changed. Much.

The downside is that with Mitch nuking the filibuster, if one of the liberal justices retires or dies in the next couple of years there will be nothing to stop a real right winger getting appointed to the bench...or worse. Trump could nominate one of the Celebrity Apprentice contestants and the GOP Senators would vote to confirm.
Click to expand...
There would be nothing to stop that from happening anyway, because if the nuclear option demonstrated anything it is that it was easy and has no political repercussions whatsoever. If 51 GOP senators can be persuaded to vote for a candidate, they can be persuaded to change the senate rules.

Good riddance to the antiquated filibuster rule. If you want to have 60 vote threshold to appoint judges, it makes no sense to tie that to a rule that can be trivially ignored by 51 senators.
 
The Democrats had been reluctant to weaken or abolish the filibuster, and I'm guessing that they expected the Republicans to let them filibuster. But the Republicans decided not to, and abolished it for Supreme Court justices. I would not be surprised if the Republicans eventually complete the job and end the filibuster for legislation also.

But if the Democrats become a majority in the Senate again, I suspect that the Republicans will go into a rage about how the Democrats are trampling over them or something like that.
 
Harry_Bosch said:
Yep, votes or lack of voting has consequences.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you don't like Gorsuch, did you vote for HRC? If not, blame yourself. If you don't like right wing SCOTUS decisions, you might get to replace him in 30 years or so.
 
Terrell said:
Harry_Bosch said:
Yep, votes or lack of voting has consequences.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you don't like Gorsuch, did you vote for HRC? If not, blame yourself. If you don't like right wing SCOTUS decisions, you might get to replace him in 30 years or so.
Click to expand...

Yep. If a person didn't vote, wrote in a candidate, or voted third party, then this is on them every bit as much as it is those who voted for the orange ape. If a person actually cared about advancing the causes of sensible gun control, healthcare, money in politics, college tuition, etc. then they wouldn't have voted for anyone but Hillary.

"But she was..." "But she wasn't..." Whatever. Tell it to those who voted for Nader in 2000. They'll deny they're culpability for their poorly thought out choice until the day they die too.
 
Opoponax said:
Terrell said:
Exactly. If you don't like Gorsuch, did you vote for HRC? If not, blame yourself. If you don't like right wing SCOTUS decisions, you might get to replace him in 30 years or so.
Click to expand...

Yep. If a person didn't vote, wrote in a candidate, or voted third party, then this is on them every bit as much as it is those who voted for the orange ape. If a person actually cared about advancing the causes of sensible gun control, healthcare, money in politics, college tuition, etc. then they wouldn't have voted for anyone but Hillary.

"But she was..." "But she wasn't..." Whatever. Tell it to those who voted for Nader in 2000. They'll deny they're culpability for their poorly thought out choice until the day they die too.
Click to expand...

Yep. I just hope that people in the middle and on the left wake up, put aside hurt, and start making their votes count. Republicans are a minority party but they have near total power due to the fact that their side comes to together and compromises and picks the best person to win. Our side will settle for meaningless moral victories. Their side wants to win.
 
Jayjay said:
There would be nothing to stop that from happening anyway, because if the nuclear option demonstrated anything it is that it was easy and has no political repercussions whatsoever.
Click to expand...
There is no political repercussions because Dems stupidly decided to filibuster a qualified and within-mainstream candidate. Dems should have waited to filibuster somebody for whom they had real reason to filibuster, not just partisanship and butthurt over the elections.
 
Derec said:
Jayjay said:
There would be nothing to stop that from happening anyway, because if the nuclear option demonstrated anything it is that it was easy and has no political repercussions whatsoever.
Click to expand...
There is no political repercussions because Dems stupidly decided to filibuster a qualified and within-mainstream candidate. Dems should have waited to filibuster somebody for whom they had real reason to filibuster, not just partisanship and butthurt over the elections.
Click to expand...

That was payback for your side not even bothering to consider a vote on Merrik Garland. Wait until the dems take a majority in the senate!
 
Harry_Bosch said:
That was payback for your side not even bothering to consider a vote on Merrik Garland. Wait until the dems take a majority in the senate!
Click to expand...

Republicans are not "my side". And I think they should have voted on Garland.

But it's not "payback" when it fails so spectacularly.
 
Harry_Bosch said:
Opoponax said:
Yep. If a person didn't vote, wrote in a candidate, or voted third party, then this is on them every bit as much as it is those who voted for the orange ape. If a person actually cared about advancing the causes of sensible gun control, healthcare, money in politics, college tuition, etc. then they wouldn't have voted for anyone but Hillary.

"But she was..." "But she wasn't..." Whatever. Tell it to those who voted for Nader in 2000. They'll deny they're culpability for their poorly thought out choice until the day they die too.
Click to expand...

Yep. I just hope that people in the middle and on the left wake up, put aside hurt, and start making their votes count. Republicans are a minority party but they have near total power due to the fact that their side comes to together and compromises and picks the best person to win. Our side will settle for meaningless moral victories. Their side wants to win.
Click to expand...

So true. The GOP could put up a box of Raisin Bran for POTUS and nearly every single conservative would vote for the box. They march in tight lockstep. Look at McCain this week: "[Anyone who votes for the nuclear option] is a stupid idiot." McCain then votes for the nuclear option.

Trump should be to conservative Christian voters what daylight is to vampires. But instead, God is working through Trump. That type of comprehensive mental vacancy cannot be fought with anything except the same unbending, totally faithful dedication to the Democratic candidate by Democrats.

If a person wants to vote third party, then fine. But do it at the local level and only when that candidate has a hope in hell of winning. And if the Green Party wants to be more than an obstruction in the gastrointestinal track of American politics, then it needs to build itself from the bottom up rather than causing a massive ass hemorrhage in the form of Trump.
 
Derec said:
Harry_Bosch said:
That was payback for your side not even bothering to consider a vote on Merrik Garland. Wait until the dems take a majority in the senate!
Click to expand...

Republicans are not "my side". And I think they should have voted on Garland.

But it's not "payback" when it fails so spectacularly.
Click to expand...

It's no failure. The dems wanted the republicans to initiate the nuclear option. This allows them to control the nomination process when the dems take over in two years with just a majority in the senate. Everyone knew that Trumps choice will be nominated, the republicans just have too much power right now. But that will change in the future....
 
Harry_Bosch said:
It's no failure. The dems wanted the republicans to initiate the nuclear option. This allows them to control the nomination process when the dems take over in two years with just a majority in the senate. Everyone knew that Trumps choice will be nominated, the republicans just have too much power right now. But that will change in the future....
Click to expand...

^^^ That
 
For those who want more progressive candidates, run for your state legislature or Congress. Find a district where you have a realistic chance of winning a Democratic primary, and a general election. If not that, then find a candidate to your liking and help him in whatever way you can; even if it's only a $5 donation. This is a game of 4 yard gains, sustained over time.

We don't have a proportional election system, work within the major party closest to your beliefs, be willing to compromise, and remember it takes time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom