Should Scalia's seat be vacated?

[Elixir]

Bombs away then. Payback is truly a bitch.

As I said, that's the gambit best kept for another time. Gorsuch nomination is not it. Since he is well-qualified there is no reason to filibuster him and GOP would gain by Dems doing it anyway.
Trigger the possibility of the nuclear option if and when there is a nominee that actually deserves the filibuster.

Buzzkill. I just want to Mitch to do something that will come back to bite him HARD.

if Trump wanted to do something unifying and be a decent person (lol), he should re-nominate Garland. If anybody but Garland gets confirmed, that seat will have the taint of illegitimacy.

^^ THAT.
But Cheato doesn't care about uniting anyone beyond the 38% who support him domestically plus this buddies in the Kremlin. That's all he (thinks he) needs to perpetuate his reign of terror.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bombs away then. Payback is truly a bitch.

As I said, that's the gambit best kept for another time. Gorsuch nomination is not it. Since he is well-qualified there is no reason to filibuster him and GOP would gain by Dems doing it anyway.
Trigger the possibility of the nuclear option if and when there is a nominee that actually deserves the filibuster.

Why should the dems do any favors for the republicans? You think that if they fall on the sword, that the public will remember and reward their altruism with future victories? Blah.

The republicans have a near monopoly of power in the government today despite receiving a minority of the votes. Dems must toughen up and play by the same rules of the republicans.

 

[Elixir]

As I said, that's the gambit best kept for another time. Gorsuch nomination is not it. Since he is well-qualified there is no reason to filibuster him and GOP would gain by Dems doing it anyway.
Trigger the possibility of the nuclear option if and when there is a nominee that actually deserves the filibuster.

Why should the dems do any favors for the republicans? You think that if they fall on the sword, that the public will remember and reward their altruism with future victories? Blah.

The republicans have a near monopoly of power in the government today despite receiving a minority of the votes. Dems must toughen up and play by the same rules of the republicans.

Agreed. If the pugs want to rig the system so that whoever is in control is in TOTAL control, I say have at it. The pendulum has already begun swinging back, and it's going to hit them like a ton of bricks if they stay on their current (lack of) course.

 

[untermensche]

Because the constitution also outlines what constitutes treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Says nothing about not bringing SCOTUS nominees to vote.

It is putting petty party interests over the needs of the nation.

Not treason either. See above.

How is willfully disrupting the functioning of the Court not levying war?

It is attacking the very structure of government.

Treason.

Thank you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How is willfully disrupting the functioning of the Court not levying war?

By not meeting the definition of 'levy war' no matter how much it disappoints you.

It is attacking the very structure of government.

There are many forms of attack that do not equal 'levy war.' Stretching the definition because you don't like it really seems more like something Derec would do.

Treason.

Nope.

Thank you.

You're wrong.

 

[untermensche]

By not meeting the definition of 'levy war' no matter how much it disappoints you.

Disrupting the function of a nations government is a form of warfare against that nation.

No matter how little you can think outside your box.

Treasonous scum.

Worthy of the rope.

Once again, thanks.

 

[repoman]

Day of the Rope?

High Five, untermensche!

 

[braces_for_impact]

I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. However, this is a stolen seat, and I see nothing stopping the right from attempting this every chance they get. Let me be clear. If Democrats had done this I would not support it. We cannot have rule of law when one side doesn't follow those rules. So, I see no reason to let them have this seat if anything can be done about it. If the action is rewarded, it will be done again. Soon, the Democrats will be pulling it. I'm not fond of slippery slope arguments, but I don't see a way around this one. Garland or nothing as far as I 'm concerned, and I'm not a big fan of Garland. Also, if the Democrats let them get away with this, they'll look incredibly impotent.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. However, this is a stolen seat, and I see nothing stopping the right from attempting this every chance they get. Let me be clear. If Democrats had done this I would not support it. We cannot have rule of law when one side doesn't follow those rules. So, I see no reason to let them have this seat if anything can be done about it. If the action is rewarded, it will be done again. Soon, the Democrats will be pulling it. I'm not fond of slippery slope arguments, but I don't see a way around this one. Garland or nothing as far as I 'm concerned, and I'm not a big fan of Garland. Also, if the Democrats let them get away with this, they'll look incredibly impotent.

Say what you want to about republicans, but they are winners. They can win with fewer votes. They don't need to follow the law. They don't need to follow precedent. They know how to maximize their power into winning.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. However, this is a stolen seat, and I see nothing stopping the right from attempting this every chance they get. Let me be clear. If Democrats had done this I would not support it. We cannot have rule of law when one side doesn't follow those rules. So, I see no reason to let them have this seat if anything can be done about it. If the action is rewarded, it will be done again. Soon, the Democrats will be pulling it. I'm not fond of slippery slope arguments, but I don't see a way around this one. Garland or nothing as far as I 'm concerned, and I'm not a big fan of Garland. Also, if the Democrats let them get away with this, they'll look incredibly impotent.

Say what you want to about republicans, but they are winners. They can win with fewer votes. They don't need to follow the law. They don't need to follow precedent. They know how to maximize their power into winning.

Actually, I think they have the easier job in getting elected. God is on their side, money is on their side, patriotism, protectionism, and populism is all on their side in abundance compared to democrats. The GOP appeals to very natural, strong yet pliable human instincts. It's a shorter view, a simpler view. Less nuanced. Immediate gratification is theirs. They also have a wealth of gerrymandered districts to draw from. It's much easier to appeal to your constituents if you're a Republican.

 

[Keith&Co.]

By not meeting the definition of 'levy war' no matter how much it disappoints you.

Disrupting the function of a nations government is a form of warfare against that nation.

Unless it's a form of terrorism.
Or a form of protest.
Or merely a function of greed, stupidity, intolerance, or any number of other things.

No matter how little you can think outside your box.

I just don't think you can simultaneously whinge about unconstitutional behavior while ignoring the constitution, that's all.
Probably something to do with my taking an oath to uphold the silly thing.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Say what you want to about republicans, but they are winners. They can win with fewer votes. They don't need to follow the law. They don't need to follow precedent. They know how to maximize their power into winning.

Actually, I think they have the easier job in getting elected. God is on their side, money is on their side, patriotism, protectionism, and populism is all on their side in abundance compared to democrats. The GOP appeals to very natural, strong yet pliable human instincts. It's a shorter view, a simpler view. Less nuanced. Immediate gratification is theirs. They also have a wealth of gerrymandered districts to draw from. It's much easier to appeal to your constituents if you're a Republican.

I don't disagree. I think that conservatives want it more. I've never heard a conservative claim that there is no difference between a democrat and a republican. Have you? And yet we see it all the time in liberals. We liberals want a candidate that will blow our socks off. Make us feel good. Conservatives will settle. It's always conservatives that focus on long term goals (supreme court, abortion elimination, estate tax repeal, end unions, and etc.) while liberals focus on short term. I will also readily admit that I'm whinning........

 

[untermensche]

Disrupting the function of a nations government is a form of warfare against that nation.

Unless it's a form of terrorism.
Or a form of protest.
Or merely a function of greed, stupidity, intolerance, or any number of other things.

Somebody can deliberately weaken the Supreme Court, like maybe blow up the building, or prevent a full Court by excluding a Justice, and claim it is merely protest?

Since when?

You are grasping at straws.

Clear attack of the government. Clear act of war. Clear treason.

The only problem is too many mindless idiots support this kind of treason.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Unless it's a form of terrorism.
Or a form of protest.
Or merely a function of greed, stupidity, intolerance, or any number of other things.

Somebody can deliberately weaken the Supreme Court, like maybe blow up the building, or prevent a full Court by excluding a Justice, and claim it is merely protest?

Since when?

Wow. That's reaching.
How would blowing up the building weaken the Supreme Court? They'd just meet somewhere else.
And excluding a justice has not, yet, weakened the court. They still hand down decisions. No one's claimed that an 8-member court's decisions have less weight as far as precedence or constitutional interpretation goes, have they?
And i guess i need to specify, i was saying that 'disrupting the function' of the government could be a protest, not an act of war. Say if people crowd into a government building to block people going about their business. It'd be a bad precedent to start saying any disruption is levying war.

You're confusing two different things on my list as equal, for no rational reason.

You are grasping at straws.

You're making shit up.

Clear attack of the government. Clear act of war. Clear treason.

Not true in any way.

The only problem is too many mindless idiots support this kind of treason.

I just don't think that the term 'treason' can reasonably be applied.
Which is not to say that i support it.
But, hey, i guess everyone who's not completely with you must be completely against you, huh?
That simplifies things.

 

[Derec]

Why should the dems do any favors for the republicans?

They shouldn't, of course.
But Neil Gorsuch is an eminently qualified nominee, and while staunchly conservative, is not outside the judicial mainstream.
Trying to filibuster him would certainly play well with the base, but not the wider electorate. And thus they would be doing favors for the Republicans by engaging in this course of action.
Note also that his nomination does not alter the status quo ante, as he is certainly not more conservative that Scalia.

Better to keep the power dry for when a nominee might be somebody really outside the judicial mainstream or not well qualified. Somebody for whom it might be worth to engage in a showdown and call McConnell on the nuclear option bluff. Somebody whom electorate would appreciate Dems fighting against.

Also, the next vacancy will most likely be either a liberal (Ginsburg is 84 and Breyer is 78 1/2) or moderate (Kennedy is 80 1/2), rather than a conservative, who are all in their 60s. Thus a fight would also play better in regard to court balance as well.

You think that if they fall on the sword, that the public will remember and reward their altruism with future victories? Blah.

I think they will remember if they engage in filibustering a nominee like Gorsuch.
Also, I think they will reward Dems being able to fight against a nominee worth fighting against.

Dems must toughen up and play by the same rules of the republicans.

Indeed. Which involves strategy. Know when to hold them, know when to fold them.

 

[Harry Bosch]

They shouldn't, of course.
But Neil Gorsuch is an eminently qualified nominee, and while staunchly conservative, is not outside the judicial mainstream.
Trying to filibuster him would certainly play well with the base, but not the wider electorate. And thus they would be doing favors for the Republicans by engaging in this course of action.
Note also that his nomination does not alter the status quo ante, as he is certainly not more conservative that Scalia.

Better to keep the power dry for when a nominee might be somebody really outside the judicial mainstream or not well qualified. Somebody for whom it might be worth to engage in a showdown and call McConnell on the nuclear option bluff. Somebody whom electorate would appreciate Dems fighting against.

Also, the next vacancy will most likely be either a liberal (Ginsburg is 84 and Breyer is 78 1/2) or moderate (Kennedy is 80 1/2), rather than a conservative, who are all in their 60s. Thus a fight would also play better in regard to court balance as well.

You think that if they fall on the sword, that the public will remember and reward their altruism with future victories? Blah.

I think they will remember if they engage in filibustering a nominee like Gorsuch.
Also, I think they will reward Dems being able to fight against a nominee worth fighting against.

Dems must toughen up and play by the same rules of the republicans.

Indeed. Which involves strategy. Know when to hold them, know when to fold them.

Buddy: lets get real. As soon as the dems attempt to filibuster, Mcdonnel will use the nuclear option. Doesn't matter if it is for Gorsuch or the next conservative judge. Again, I see no reason why the dems should make it easy on the republicans. They wouldn't do the same for us.

 

[untermensche]

Somebody can deliberately weaken the Supreme Court, like maybe blow up the building, or prevent a full Court by excluding a Justice, and claim it is merely protest?

Since when?

Wow. That's reaching.
How would blowing up the building weaken the Supreme Court?

First of all that is miles beside the point. The point is not how badly the Court would be disrupted, but what the act would be called.

And excluding a justice has not, yet, weakened the court.

It has distorted the Court. Skewed it.

That is a disruption in the business of the nation.

You have no leg to stand on.

Terrorism and Treason.

That is what these Republican thugs are doing.

That it is accepted only shows how much the US system and people have been corrupted.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wow. That's reaching.
How would blowing up the building weaken the Supreme Court?

First of all that is miles beside the point. The point is not how badly the Court would be disrupted, but what the act would be called.

It's exactly the point. You're claiming that it would 'weaken the government' which makes it an act of war. But your example does bupkes to weaken the government.

And excluding a justice has not, yet, weakened the court.

It has distorted the Court. Skewed it.

You don't like how they vote. I don't either. But putting anyone with an opinion in the chair skews the court. But it does not weaken the government or the court. So it's not war.

That is a disruption in the business of the nation.

But not a war against the nation

You have no leg to stand on.

just, you know, words and their meanings, legal precedent, you shifting your goalposts time and again...

Terrorism and Treason.

Powerfully emotional words. Not supported, but certainly powerful. Yep.

That it is accepted only shows how much the US system and people have been corrupted.

Well, i don't accept it. But my protest against it would, i hope, be centered in words that are actually accurate, not hate-mongering or irrational.

 

[J842P]

*delete*

 

[untermensche]

First of all that is miles beside the point.

The point is not how badly the Court would be disrupted, but what the act would be called.

To disrupt and frighten with a huge act of violence, even if it's only the entire US Supreme Court being blown up, is to weaken.

If such a thing happened the Court could be disrupted significantly, but the amount of disruption is not important, despite your wishful thinking it is. What is important is what this kind of disruption would be labeled, since that is at the core of my argument.

I can understand why you want to totally ignore the core features of my argument. Since you are defending treason.

It has distorted the Court. Skewed it.

You don't like how they vote. I don't either. But putting anyone with an opinion in the chair skews the court. But it does not weaken the government or the court. So it's not war.

There is no limit to how badly you can miss points, is there?

There is a real difference between decisions handed down by eight people as opposed to nine. This has nothing to do with my liking or not liking decisions. If I have to explain then I am really wasting my time.

That real difference is a real skewing of the Court.

If it is done deliberately then it is an act of war against the US government.

Treason!!!

Hang the bastards!