Jump to content
halfmanhalfbronco

The Amygeddon!

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yes, we know that democrats will respond to historical norms with huge tantrums and threats to destroy all norms.

No argument here, that, too, is precedent.  

The norm of 2/3’s to elect a Supreme Court nominee and bi-partisan consent was broken by the Republicans.  As was the extreme use of the filibuster.   Both sides are a fault but keep blaming the other team I’m sure it will be successful.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NVGiant said:

That is indeed the way the game is played. I’m just not so naive to think only one party is playing it. You think they’d kill the filibuster for Tim Scott’s bill?

Or maybe the real heroes are the Dems for not abusing the filibuster and using it half as much as the GOP did during Obama’s years. Amirite?!

Share power. :rotflmfao:

Naive or biased.  It’s in moments like these that @thelawlorfaithful ‘s extreme partisanship gets exposed.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Umm, you realize they already killed the filibuster for most of the things you would try to filibuster, so comparing the time periods as if they’re remotely the same is laughable. All the nominations and appointments where they could have used it they had to sit there impotent cuz thanks Harry, lulz. That chart is like wondering why the use of quaaludes declines. Because they stopped making them.

Right the killed it because the Republicans were blue slipping and holding up every nomination.  There is a reason Trump has made more appeals court nominations in 4 years than Obama made in 8.   

Do you bloviate so extensively to amuse yourself or do you really think the rest of us are that stupid?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Well, it’s not the POSP that is talking about killing the filibuster, again, and using it to pack the Supreme Court, again, to add a bunch of senators so they never have to live...checks notes...with a President exercising their constitutional powers, whom they are threatening to impeach, again, for doing just that.

We agree that the dems are going to act like dumbasses, but that’s happening a lot sooner than an election they tell themselves is in the bag. The country didn’t give the Presidency back to the Democrats after Carter until the Cold War was over. I’d wager it won’t give the Senate back to them until they knock this dumb shit off

Nah. Don’t hide behind constitutional powers to justify the hypocrisy of one side then say it’s nothing but a tantrum if the Dems use their powers to kill something that isn’t even in the constitution. Look, threats of packing courts are stupid. Killing the filibuster is dumb. Not holding hearings of a SCOTUS nominee for one stated reason in one year, then doing a complete 180 four years later is hypocritical. Even if all of those things are possible under the Constitution, none are great looks.

But we have posters talking about how lame-duck appointments are the norm because Adams used one to get John Marshall on the court. Well, if we’re doing that, then it should also be noted that Marshall joined a 6-person court and the filibuster wasn’t really a big thing until the 1850s.


I’m fine with anybody shitting on Democrats. It’s deserved. But they aren’t operating in a vacuum, and to pretend the POSP has any interest in sharing power, just because they have the upper hand right now, is ludicrous.

And if the Dems aren’t going to win the Senate, it’s not because of some high-minded notion. For +++++s sake, Trump is president. High-mindedness need not apply in America right now. They’ll lose because Dems are an urban party, and the Constitution favors small states.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Danimaji said:

Impeachment wasn't a good idea before and it isn't a good idea now. Impeachment won't stop anything and it will be seen as a circus. Why take such a risky move so close to the election? The Democrats are favored to win the presidency and retain control of the House. The Senate is in play. An unnecessary risk jeopardizes that all.

Agree 100% Take the loss here, because you’re going to lose anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Right the killed it because the Republicans were blue slipping and holding up every nomination.  There is a reason Trump has made more appeals court nominations in 4 years than Obama made in 8.   

Do you bloviate so extensively to amuse yourself or do you really think the rest of us are that stupid?  

Oh I bloviate because it amuses me, to be sure. I make no claim to think of the rest of anyone as that stupid, recognizing my own propensity for it and seeing it in others.

You're right, there is a reason Trump confirmed more court nominations than his predecessor. You’re missing that point though (it wasn’t blue slips).

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Nah. Don’t hide behind constitutional powers to justify the hypocrisy of one side then say it’s nothing but a tantrum if the Dems use their powers to kill something that isn’t even in the constitution.

There’s no hiding. I actually believe in it.

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Look, threats of packing courts are stupid. Killing the filibuster is dumb.

Agreed.

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Not holding hearings of a SCOTUS nominee for one stated reason in one year,

100% with you for years.

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

then doing a complete 180 four years later is hypocritical. Even if all of those things are possible under the Constitution, none are great looks.

I’m well aware. That’s why I didn’t do it. I do believe in it.

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

But we have posters talking about how lame-duck appointments are the norm because Adams used one to get John Marshall on the court. Well, if we’re doing that, then it should also be noted that Marshall joined a 6-person court and the filibuster wasn’t really a big thing until the 1850s.

History is awesome. More people should read it so that they don’t think OMG BLOW UP EVERYTHING!!!

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:


I’m fine with anybody shitting on Democrats. It’s deserved.

Yep!

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

But they aren’t operating in a vacuum, and to pretend the POSP has any interest in sharing power, just because they have the upper hand right now, is ludicrous.

The POSP has certainly not covered itself in glory.

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

And if the Dems aren’t going to win the Senate, it’s not because of some high-minded notion. For +++++s sake, Trump is president. High-mindedness need not apply in America right now. They’ll lose because Dems are an urban party, and the Constitution favors small states.

But if they don’t win the Senate, it won’t have a damn thing to do because Trump is President. It’ll be because the Dems treat someone who is entirely unlike Trump as if they were Trump, because it doesn’t matter to them. Not even Trump matters, just getting whatever they want. And they’re already well on their way to showing all of that.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

But if they don’t win the Senate, it won’t have a damn thing to do because Trump is President. It’ll be because the Dems treat someone who is entirely unlike Trump as if they were Trump, because it doesn’t matter to them. Not even Trump matters, just getting whatever they want. And they’re already well on their way to showing all of that.

you’re talking about Kavanaugh, which is a another issue than the POSP’s willingness to share power or even Dems threats about the filibuster. Nobody here is defending their behavior in that. If they do it again. they will lose. But the threats about the filibuster or packing courts won’t hurt them as much as it perhaps should. Because the POSP has proven that they will wield power with zero concern for anything but unapologetically wielding power, and most voters are under no illusions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I was almost certain he’d shank Trump. Chalk this one up as win @sactowndog. You were right.

Not sure why anyone thought it would go any other way.  There is a difference between petty politics and having an impact on the judicial branch for the next 30 years.  The Republicans are going to seat a new justice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

Not sure why anyone thought it would go any other way.  There is a difference between petty politics and having an impact on the judicial branch for the next 30 years.  The Republicans are going to seat a new justice.

Because judicial nominees is usually where our politics are at their pettiest? :shrug: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

Not sure why anyone thought it would go any other way.  There is a difference between petty politics and having an impact on the judicial branch for the next 30 years.  The Republicans are going to seat a new justice.

It's honestly what I was expecting from Romney after the news came out that the initial reports on his stance were incorrect. Collins is only going against it (as of now) in an attempt to save her seat. Gardner knows that he's losing, and Tillis is trying to embrace undecided center-right voters here in NC, so that's why he's for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Why didn't the Republicans just say that with Garland instead of "the people must decide”?

I wonder sometimes if these guys are just full of shit.

uh, because these guys are full of shit! Do I win a prize?! 

Kidding aside, I think they worried in 2016 that it might cost them votes if they admitted to what everybody already knew. That they were going to do anything the law allowed to prevent Obama from seating another pick. It didn't cost them votes, so now they can be more honest about it. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...