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

[SilentPony]

Im reminded of a Keith Olberman rant I listened to not too long ago, about the Daily Mail and Giuliani trying to blackmail Jeff Bezos with stolen dick pics into turning the Washington Post into a pro-Trump outlet. And Jeff, being the richest man ever, said no. and the follow up question was what are the odds the first person blackmailed into supporting Trump said no? What are the odds Trump or his cronies don't have photos of Lindsey Graham with the pool boy, or Mitch McConnell with his secretary?
And so i started thinking about these supreme court picks. They're not smart people, they're not learned legal scholars, fuck me I've been involved in more cases in my entire life that Barrett has been. But they're all clearly deeply disturbed people, one of them might be a rapists. So I'll ask Keith's question "What are the odds the first person blackmailed into supporting Trump said no?" I'm thinking Trump is picking justices he has dirt on to blackmail them into either siding with him during a case, or siding with him to letting him cancel the election.
and now he has dirt on a full 3rd of the court.

 

[Silvanus]

Based on one's beliefs, one could make the argument that, if you're pro-abortion, then you are guilty of the exact same thing. You would support being able to deny an unborn person their right to life, based on nothing under their control whatsoever.

The pro-choice argument rests on the belief that a foetus is not conscious or self-aware, and by extension that another's right supersedes it. Even someone who's pro-life must recognise that the entity under consideration-- whether we call it a person yet or not-- does not have the same level of consciousness.

On the other hand, those against same-sex rights recognise that gay people have just as much consciousness, awareness, sense of self, personhood etc. And yet regardless, believe they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights. Apples and oranges.

I understand where you’re coming from, or at least I think I do. However, I don’t find the fear mongering around the notion that the Supreme Court is somehow going to reverse LGBT protections to be particularly credible. Especially considering that just a few months ago they ruled the title VII applies to both gay and transgender employees, and that decision was 6 to 3.

More relevantly, in 2015, 4 Justices voted against equal marriage (all Republican), and 5 voted for (4 Democrat, 1 Republican). 3 of those "against" voters are still present, 2 of whom have spoken harshly against the ruling only this year. So we're supposed to trust in the now heavily-Republican SCOTUS to return the same ruling if prompted? If the same party voting lines came up now, it would be overturned.

You quoted me but tagged someone else, btw

Right you are, I'll edit.

Never did that. Just didn't give such bills undeserved credit.

Nonsense. You were implying that they only put bills through the House in the knowledge they wouldn't get signed. It was a clear criticism.

Fill the docket with impeachments. Those cannot simply be ignored. Do all of these things that they thought about doing prior:

Memo on Supreme Court Delay Tactics Circulates Among Senate Democrats

A new memo spells out the myriad options available to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to delay confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice.

theintercept.com

The big problem here is that actions don't match rhetoric.

OK, so they could repeatedly vote to impeach, over and over, preventing any work getting done. I suppose that's practically feasible. It would destroy the Democratic campaign for November, of course, meaning the SCOTUS could just be packed by Trump after November 3rd.

If it's really an illegitimate process, on the table is physically disrupting any process that proceeds from that illegitimacy. Yell, scream, block the doors into the chamber, anything.

So, for this to work, they'd have had to be doing this since announcement (else the Republicans could just have altered the timetable). I'm sure several straight weeks of that on tape would have played really well with people.

I thought we were against them tanking the election? Had they done any of this, the view of the party would plummet through the floor, and this forum would be ablaze about how the Dems don't even want to win, they're sabotaging themselves with these gestural antics, etc.

I never thought this Democratic Party would call for a general strike in the first place, so much of this is immaterial. However, if they wanted to do such a thing, they could easily broaden the list of demands beyond just the Supreme Court. There is plenty for labor to be agitated about right now. The thing is, the Democratic Party doesn't actually want a militant labor movement. They'd rather lose than have a militant labor movement behind them.

So, manipulate the workers into acting as leverage in a party political dispute.

All that they did was the epitome of gesture politics.

The thing is, this conversation would have gone much the same way regardless of what they did.

 

[Iron]

Im reminded of a Keith Olberman rant I listened to not too long ago, about the Daily Mail and Giuliani trying to blackmail Jeff Bezos with stolen dick pics into turning the Washington Post into a pro-Trump outlet. And Jeff, being the richest man ever, said no. and the follow up question was what are the odds the first person blackmailed into supporting Trump said no? What are the odds Trump or his cronies don't have photos of Lindsey Graham with the pool boy, or Mitch McConnell with his secretary?
And so i started thinking about these supreme court picks. They're not smart people, they're not learned legal scholars, fuck me I've been involved in more cases in my entire life that Barrett has been. But they're all clearly deeply disturbed people, one of them might be a rapists. So I'll ask Keith's question "What are the odds the first person blackmailed into supporting Trump said no?" I'm thinking Trump is picking justices he has dirt on to blackmail them into either siding with him during a case, or siding with him to letting him cancel the election.
and now he has dirt on a full 3rd of the court.

That's a clever take on this. imo entirely possible, although I'd assume that the "dirt" isn't entirely in the hands of Trump but the GOP in general.

 

[Buyetyen]

What are the odds Trump or his cronies don't have photos of Lindsey Graham with the pool boy, or Mitch McConnell with his secretary?
And so i started thinking about these supreme court picks. They're not smart people, they're not learned legal scholars, fuck me I've been involved in more cases in my entire life that Barrett has been. But they're all clearly deeply disturbed people, one of them might be a rapists. So I'll ask Keith's question "What are the odds the first person blackmailed into supporting Trump said no?" I'm thinking Trump is picking justices he has dirt on to blackmail them into either siding with him during a case, or siding with him to letting him cancel the election.
and now he has dirt on a full 3rd of the court.

I think whatever dirt he has on them is more likely of the shady financial variety. Someone mysteriously paid off Kavanaugh's debts and we still don't know who. McConnell is definitely in the pocket of the Russian mob, for example. Most "moral" scandals Republicans can weather just by saying, "Jesus," enough times. But financial crimes leave paper trails.

 

[SilentPony]

I think whatever dirt he has on them is more likely of the shady financial variety. Someone mysteriously paid off Kavanaugh's debts and we still don't know who. McConnell is definitely in the pocket of the Russian mob, for example. Most "moral" scandals Republicans can weather just by saying, "Jesus," enough times. But financial crimes leave paper trails.

Jeez is that Kavanaugh thing true? How have I not heard about it before?

 

[Buyetyen]

Jeez is that Kavanaugh thing true? How have I not heard about it before?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/

To answer your second question, it might have gotten lost in the shuffle over the fact that he's a raping boozehound.

 

[Agema]

Someone mysteriously paid off Kavanaugh's debts and we still don't know who.

LOL! Fuck's sake - charity for the rich.

Basically, ~$200k debt (non-mortgage) might look odd and embarrassing for someone of his station. High probability it was cleared by some right-wing or special interest individual/group in order to ease his passage to SCOTUS. Other possibilities, his law firm, family or friend, for a similar reason. One way or another, whoever did it is something I'd sure as hell want to know for someone appointed to the highest office in the land.

 

[SilentPony]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/

To answer your second question, it might have gotten lost in the shuffle over the fact that he's a raping boozehound.

So that's how they're picking these justices. Those with huge debt, paying off the debt, and now they owe the president and the GOP a favor. Like ruling that yeah, faithless electors are totally fine and Trump is president.
I wonder if that's part of why they rushed the Barrett nomination, so no one finds the paper trail until its already too late.

 

[Buyetyen]

So that's how they're picking these justices. Those with huge debt, paying off the debt, and now they owe the president and the GOP a favor. Like ruling that yeah, faithless electors are totally fine and Trump is president.
I wonder if that's part of why they rushed the Barrett nomination, so no one finds the paper trail until its already too late.

That and the fact they're looking at losing the Senate. McConnell's long-term plan all along was to stick the judiciary into a perfect storm of crony capitalists. This is their last big chance before the election to fuck things up for a generation.

 

[SilentPony]

That and the fact they're looking at losing the Senate. McConnell's long-term plan all along was to stick the judiciary into a perfect storm of crony capitalists. This is their last big chance before the election to fuck things up for a generation.

Here's hoping the democrats grow some balls and start impeaching the justices.

 

[Buyetyen]

Here's hoping the democrats grow some balls and start impeaching the justices.

I wish. More likely they'll just expand the court if Biden wins. The progressive caucus is already making noise to that effect. Still, no reason they couldn't expand the court and impeach the illegitimate justices at the same time.

 

[SilentPony]

I wish. More likely they'll just expand the court if Biden wins. The progressive caucus is already making noise to that effect. Still, no reason they couldn't expand the court and impeach the illegitimate justices at the same time.

I saw AOC is talking about this. How does expanding the court works? Like I understand the principle, there's only 9 because some decided 9 was the number. And Democrats could expand it to 12 and have a 6-6 tie, or to 20 and have a 14-6 liberal court. Sure. but what's the stop Republicans next time they're in power expanding it to 100 and having a 14-86 conservative court? And then democrats go to 1000 for a 914-86 liberal court, and on and on.
It becomes a game of political brinksmanship that has no end.

 

[Buyetyen]

I saw AOC is talking about this. How does expanding the court works? Like I understand the principle, there's only 9 because some decided 9 was the number. And Democrats could expand it to 12 and have a 6-6 tie, or to 20 and have a 14-6 liberal court. Sure. but what's the stop Republicans next time they're in power expanding it to 100 and having a 14-86 conservative court? And then democrats go to 1000 for a 914-86 liberal court, and on and on.
It becomes a game of political brinksmanship that has no end.

Unfortunately, this also describes 90% of party politics in the US. Until we can break the 2-party oligopoly this is unfortunately part of the territory.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

 

[Agema]

I saw AOC is talking about this. How does expanding the court works? Like I understand the principle, there's only 9 because some decided 9 was the number. And Democrats could expand it to 12 and have a 6-6 tie, or to 20 and have a 14-6 liberal court. Sure. but what's the stop Republicans next time they're in power expanding it to 100 and having a 14-86 conservative court? And then democrats go to 1000 for a 914-86 liberal court, and on and on.
It becomes a game of political brinksmanship that has no end.

As a side point, that's not really what brinkmanship is.

However, you're right that nothing stops the Republicans then expanding/stacking it again. But would they?

The Republicans have overtly stacked the court on the assumption it's 9-strong and they'll control it for decades. If the Democrats increase its size and fill it with liberals, it signals to the Republicans that they will not be allowed to get away with stacking the court. So would the Republicans try again? I suspect they would not.

 

[SilentPony]

As a side point, that's not really what brinkmanship is.

However, you're right that nothing stops the Republicans then expanding/stacking it again. But would they?

The Republicans have overtly stacked the court on the assumption it's 9-strong and they'll control it for decades. If the Democrats increase its size and fill it with liberals, it signals to the Republicans that they will not be allowed to get away with stacking the court. So would the Republicans try again? I suspect they would not.

Oh I think they absolutely would. Expand it to get a conservative majority again, then pass a law fixing the number of judges, and then pass a new law mandating new justices must be conservatize. and if democrats ever get control again, the now conservative majority court will just strike down any democratic laws attempting to stop them.
That's the problem I have with the whole supreme court, and the checks/balance system of government. There is no check or balance on the supreme court. They can basically strike down any law they want, whenever they want. In theory they could strike down a president by declaring their swearing in ceremony unconstitutional. There's nothing stopping the current 6-3 court from declaring even if Joe Biden wins, no law ever passed by a democratic congress or signed by a democratic president will ever stand. They can just shut down the government whenever they want, and any attempt to impeach them they can just declare the impeachment trial unconstitutional.

 

[Tireseas]

I saw AOC is talking about this. How does expanding the court works? Like I understand the principle, there's only 9 because some decided 9 was the number. And Democrats could expand it to 12 and have a 6-6 tie, or to 20 and have a 14-6 liberal court. Sure. but what's the stop Republicans next time they're in power expanding it to 100 and having a 14-86 conservative court? And then democrats go to 1000 for a 914-86 liberal court, and on and on.
It becomes a game of political brinksmanship that has no end.

The idea is that at a certain point, the stakes get lower and lower for every appointment. If the president has to appoint a new justice or two every year, each individual justice becomes less important, though the tipping point will remain there by the nature of the judiciary. If the Dems have the senate (and eliminate the filibuster), house and presidency, then all they would need to do is pass and sign a bill expanding the Supreme Court's membership as that's set by statute. That makes it sound more simple than actually doing it, but the point is comparative.

Impeachment, on the other hand, is monumentally difficult due to the minimum constitutional procedures (notably the 2/3rd requirement for removal) and takes up much more time and a lot of political capital that most voters aren't keen on being spent in what is fundamentally a inter-party fight.

As a side point, that's not really what brinkmanship is.

However, you're right that nothing stops the Republicans then expanding/stacking it again. But would they?

The Republicans have overtly stacked the court on the assumption it's 9-strong and they'll control it for decades. If the Democrats increase its size and fill it with liberals, it signals to the Republicans that they will not be allowed to get away with stacking the court. So would the Republicans try again? I suspect they would not.

It's a calculation of how the party does. If the GOP has an extended period in the wilderness as they did in the mid-20th century (which is a possibility if the demographic shifts calcify as Democrats had hoped following 2012), then they may not be in the position to do so. Given how the current GOP has built itself around conservative media, there's three main possibilities:

1) That the GOP, dominated by self-described conservatives of widely variable ideological priorities, stew in their media bubble, effectively in a form of arrested development.

2) That the GOP moderates in an attempt to win back political power.

3) That the GOP coalition shatters and one faction dominates the remainder of the party while the others either withdraw from politics (as many religious conservatives did prior to the rise of the religious right) or attempt to create splinter parties similar to the DSA on the left.

I suspect a combination of 2 and 3 to be more likely than 1, largely because the 2012 GOP autopsy would remain a valid path forward and that would necessitate at least verbally expelling the alt-right populists from the party. This, of course, presumes a consistent loss across the Federal elections and several traditionally moderate-conservative districts staying in Democratic hands for a extended period in 2020 and beyond, as well as a necessary level of political engagement from both progressives and moderates in every election. Electoral reforms could further the GOPs time in the wilderness depending on what the reforms look like. A serious loss in 2020 could propel more moderate members into the leadership of the party, but if conservative media isn't willing to go along with it, then there's a real risk that the GOP will remain too fragmented to reassemble itself.

The biggest issue remains that McConnell is the defacto political leader of the GOP, which means there's no real path forward until either he steps down or is removed from leadership as his extremely nihilistic approach to leadership whereby there is no norm he's willing to break to maintain power is likely to poison any attempt to reform the party at a federal level to the point that Democrats (presumably in the majority) would be willing to relax back into a negotiated back and forth on most legislation.

Still, I'm also of the opinion that the GOP has forfeit the right to holding power at any level of government with their constant attempts to meddle and disenfranchise voters as well as their willingness to entertain baseless claims that at times outright fly in the face of reality.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Nonsense. You were implying that they only put bills through the House in the knowledge they wouldn't get signed. It was a clear criticism.

That's far from a condemnation of them passing bills.

OK, so they could repeatedly vote to impeach, over and over, preventing any work getting done. I suppose that's practically feasible. It would destroy the Democratic campaign for November, of course, meaning the SCOTUS could just be packed by Trump after November 3rd.

I thought we were against them tanking the election? Had they done any of this, the view of the party would plummet through the floor, and this forum would be ablaze about how the Dems don't even want to win, they're sabotaging themselves with these gestural antics, etc.

You think the public would react this way because..?

So, manipulate the workers into acting as leverage in a party political dispute.

Barrett is anti-worker. But since Democrats don't really care about that, hardly anyone noticed. AFSCME did, though.

The thing is, this conversation would have gone much the same way regardless of what they did.

Not if they succeeded or acted consistently with their rhetoric.

 

[Gordon_4]

LOL! Fuck's sake - charity for the rich.

Basically, ~$200k debt (non-mortgage) might look odd and embarrassing for someone of his station. High probability it was cleared by some right-wing or special interest individual/group in order to ease his passage to SCOTUS. Other possibilities, his law firm, family or friend, for a similar reason. One way or another, whoever did it is something I'd sure as hell want to know for someone appointed to the highest office in the land.

Do they not security clear these chucklefucks? Like even to the most basic and cursory level?

 

[dreng3]

Do they not security clear these chucklefucks? Like even to the most basic and cursory level?

If you you fall within a specific range of the political spectrum this administration has proven quite willing to disregard inconvenient things like security clearances.
Hell, the president himself is a liability, his son in law lied during the process of being cleared, was denied clearance, but is still given access to information that requires clearance.