Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.

[Houseman]

Hoping for an overturn of Roe v. Wade, or equal marriage? ACA?

I wonder if any of this is actually going to happen or if this is just fear-mongering by her opponents.

 

[Revnak]

Allow me to rephrase the question: How, praytell, is it the Democrats fault that the Republican party used their majority to overrule and ignore their objections, end the debate, force the vote, and then push her through, all along party lines?

Well, fill the docket with impeachments, call for mass protests, call for a general strike, y’know, fucking anything.

 

[Trunkage]

Yes, currently being pro-slavery is bad. But I don't know how things are going to shake out in the next 1000+ years or what historians of the future will think.

Because the world might go pro-Slavery again. ThereFore this era will be seen as evil?

or because we are currently doing something that will be seen as evil in the future?

 

[CM156]

Because the world might go pro-Slavery again. ThereFore this era will be seen as evil?

or because we are currently doing something that will be seen as evil in the future?

I'm saying that the future is too unpredictable to say with any degree of certainty that any position on an issue is the "right side of history."

Well, fill the docket with impeachments

That would be on the House. And the Senate could defer any action on trying those impeachments until after ACB was confirmed. It's not like the House can tell the Senate that it has to drop everything and hear these cases.

call for mass protests

There were protests, but I guess not enough. I don't think that Democrats telling people to take to the streets would have done enough.

call for a general strike

When was the last time a general strike in the USA was able to accomplish something as lofty as blocking as SCOTUS confirmation? Especially during a pandemic where a large chunk of people have lost their jobs.

y’know, fucking anything.

Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.

 

[Revnak]

That would be on the House. And the Senate could defer any action on trying those impeachments until after ACB was confirmed. It's not like the House can tell the Senate that it has to drop everything and hear these cases.

And yet they didn’t even try after repeatedly bringing it up as an option.

There were protests, but I guess not enough. I don't think that Democrats telling people to take to the streets would have done enough.

In other countries politicians leading or joining protests tends to make them more effective.

When was the last time a general strike in the USA was able to accomplish something as lofty as blocking as SCOTUS confirmation? Especially during a pandemic where a large chunk of people have lost their jobs.

Never. They’ve also never tried.

Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.

I’m not saying it has to be one of those things. I’m just saying that they could’ve tried something that hasn’t clearly failed before.

 

[Worgen]

And yet they didn’t even try after repeatedly bringing it up as an option.

In other countries politicians leading or joining protests tends to make them more effective.

Never. They’ve also never tried.

I’m not saying it has to be one of those things. I’m just saying that they could’ve tried something that hasn’t clearly failed before.

What they really should have done was go back in time and get more people in the right places to vote for Hillary. That would have 100% stopped this, but no, they didn't even try to go back in time. BOTH SIDES ARE TH SAMEIOHJGODASIJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CM156]

And yet they didn’t even try after repeatedly bringing it up as an option.

Because it wouldn't have worked. You might as well have asked all those witches to put hexes on the Senate like they did to Trump.

In other countries politicians leading or joining protests tends to make them more effective.

This one is the only one I think could have worked. But I also think there's a certain protest fatigue with the general public.

Never. They’ve also never tried.

I've seen people try to organize general strikes. I have yet to see it be successful (at least in the United States). You want to get enough people to walk out of their job during a pandemic (a job they could very well lose) in order to protest an almost sure vote? Knock yourself out. RBG died barely more than a month ago. Getting together enough people to strike would almost certainly take longer than the time we've had. I'm not shocked democrats didn't go for that option.

I’m not saying it has to be one of those things. I’m just saying that they could’ve tried something that hasn’t clearly failed before.

You don't always need to have tried something to know that it won't work and why it won't work.

What they really should have done was go back in time and get more people in the right places to vote for Hillary.

They should have gone back in time and remind her to campaign in Wisconsin.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm saying that the future is too unpredictable to say with any degree of certainty that any position on an issue is the "right side of history.".

What I can say for certainty is that people in the future will call some of our actions the wrong side of history

 

[CM156]

What I can say for certainty is that people in the future will call some of our actions the wrong side of history

That may very well be the case. Or maybe the people of the future will stop seeing things in those terms.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They should have gone back in time and remind her to campaign in Wisconsin.

Hey now, don't be ridiculous. Why would she need to campaign there. Why did she need to campaign anywhere? It was Her Turn.

 

[Trunkage]

That may very well be the case. Or maybe the people of the future will stop seeing things in those terms.

I don’t know. Seeing slavery as wrong is fine with me

You do propose an interesting future. Murder is not seen as right or wrong. Therefore, you never would need to be punished for it

 

[CM156]

You do propose an interesting future.

I'm not proposing any future. In fact, I'm doing the opposite of that: we don't know what the societies of the future will believe and value, or how they will look at our history. Therefore, it's impossible to say that a particular opinion is the "right side" or "wrong side" of history.

That's the extent of what I'm saying.

 

[Revnak]

What they really should have done was go back in time and get more people in the right places to vote for Hillary. That would have 100% stopped this, but no, they didn't even try to go back in time. BOTH SIDES ARE TH SAMEIOHJGODASIJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well they could’ve campaigned in swing states or actually run a not garbage candidate they knew half the country hated and half the country didn’t much care for, RBG could’ve retired after her first cancer scare, etc, but I don’t see the point in going over that right now.

Because it wouldn't have worked. You might as well have asked all those witches to put hexes on the Senate like they did to Trump.

Well why didn’t they try anything else in the quiver full of arrows they apparently had?

This one is the only one I think could have worked. But I also think there's a certain protest fatigue with the general public.

No.

I've seen people try to organize general strikes. I have yet to see it be successful (at least in the United States). You want to get enough people to walk out of their job during a pandemic (a job they could very well lose) in order to protest an almost sure vote? Knock yourself out. RBG died barely more than a month ago. Getting together enough people to strike would almost certainly take longer than the time we've had. I'm not shocked democrats didn't go for that option.

Multiple other countries have pulled it off during this pandemic, countries with far more precarious economies.

You don't always need to have tried something to know that it won't work and why it won't work.

Sure, but I’d like it if they tried something that hadn’t just failed two years ago with Kavanaugh.

 

[CM156]

Well why didn’t they try anything else in the quiver full of arrows they apparently had?

Because they didn't have any options that had a realistic chance of success so they didn't burn political capital on a plan that wasn't going to work.

Multiple other countries have pulled it off during this pandemic, countries with far more precarious economies.

And those countries have historically had much stronger labor movements. And still do.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Because they didn't have any options that had a realistic chance of success so they didn't burn political capital on a plan that wasn't going to work.

Not bothering to try also burns political capital.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not bothering to try also burns political capital.

 

[Iron]

Seems a fairly disgusting comment on what is a clearly partisan nomination to the highest judicial position in the US.

You're dealing with a woman who has demonstrated a clear agenda in har ruling, and if the first thing that springs to mind is that someone will be mad about it, and that such anger is a thing to joke about or mock, you might well find yourself not just on the wrong side of history, but on the wrong side of right and wrong.

You obviously don't know me or where I'm from ! I think I'm getting tired of winning, mista Trump.

 

[Silvanus]

More concerned with gun rights as an issue.

I'll never understand this as a Brit, but ok.

And the other stuff-- access to abortion, equal marriage-- are worth risking/ sacrificing for that?

Not bothering to try also burns political capital.

They did organise that 30-hour "digital filibuster" in concert with non-profit/ pressure groups. At the present time, that's about the most extensive "call to protest" that could've reasonably been done.

The other two mooted options here-- filling the docket and a general strike-- are both complete non-starters for reasons that should be kind of obvious.

 

[Agema]

I concur, there really isn't a "right" or "wrong" side of history. People invoke that trope when they want to guilt someone.

If we view it in very a narrow, literal sense, yes, there is no right and wrong in history.

However this is to overlook that it works in a more figurative sense. It's an accusation that someone is futilely trying to hold back irrevocable change, like Canute trying to hold back the tide. The change will come, and those people will be generally be looked on as backward or immoral.

 

[Iron]

If we view it in very a narrow, literal sense, yes, there is no right and wrong in history.

However this is to overlook that it works in a more figurative sense. It's an accusation that someone is futilely trying to hold back irrevocable change, like Canute trying to hold back the tide. The change will come, and those people will be generally be looked on as backward or immoral.

I dunno man, Aurelian single-handedly saved Rome and made it waddle on for another 200 years. Even one man can turn the tide - like Napoleon. You can't ever see this in action, only in hindsight.