You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:bigbri wrote:Then you must be thrilled to hear of Kennedy's retirement.
I mean, I can admit it when it's clear as day. The GOP has won. The end game is always the Supreme Court. Laws can always be overturned. It is in the GOP's hands for the next few decades.
I am. I liked Kennedy, great jurist. But I’ll openly admit I want a Scalia 3.0. Sotomayor is far too radical and needs to be balanced. You’re right. SCOTUS is the end game, and this keeps the court from going far to the left for at least another decade. Ginsburg is next and I hope Trump gets to replace her too.
But you don't mind it going far to the right, apparently?
That’s how you know he’s a conservative....he’s always worried about things going too far left even when everything is controlled by conservatives right now.
The court leans right already
Re: US Politics Thread
I mean, I was serious. The high court is supposed to in theory be non-political in its assessment of laws and constitutionality. If you want a far right or far left court, you don't believe in that. Merrick Garland was actually a very conservative pick. He probably would have annoyed those on the far left for decades. But we get Gorsuch, who is right of center, and now we're going to get someone pretty far right, I assume.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I mean, I was serious. The high court is supposed to in theory be non-political in its assessment of laws and constitutionality. If you want a far right or far left court, you don't believe in that. Merrick Garland was actually a very conservative pick. He probably would have annoyed those on the far left for decades. But we get Gorsuch, who is right of center, and now we're going to get someone pretty far right, I assume.
He didn’t agree with Heller. I want justices that are from the framer’s intent school. Yes, that’s often labeled “conservative” but Gorsuch ruled against Trump.
I don’t want people who look at the 14th amendment and see that the authors totally meant it to apply to the children of illegal immigrants. I don’t want justices who think “hate speech” is real and not protected by the 1st amendment. I want justices interested in upholding the intent of the constitution and individual liberty, not ones interested in social policy.
Re: US Politics Thread
I mean, I was serious. The high court is supposed to in theory be non-political in its assessment of laws and constitutionality. If you want a far right or far left court, you don't believe in that. Merrick Garland was actually a very conservative pick. He probably would have annoyed those on the far left for decades. But we get Gorsuch, who is right of center, and now we're going to get someone pretty far right, I assume.
Merrick didn’t get a vote because Obama picked him. He coulda picked Scalia and they wouldn’t have voted on him.
A big part of what’s going on now is the ruthless political tactics those now in power once engaged in.
Interpretation of law will always be a subjective practice.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
bigbri wrote:I mean, I was serious. The high court is supposed to in theory be non-political in its assessment of laws and constitutionality. If you want a far right or far left court, you don't believe in that. Merrick Garland was actually a very conservative pick. He probably would have annoyed those on the far left for decades. But we get Gorsuch, who is right of center, and now we're going to get someone pretty far right, I assume.
Merrick didn’t get a vote because Obama picked him. He coulda picked Scalia and they wouldn’t have voted on him.
A big part of what’s going on now is the ruthless political tactics those now in power once engaged in.
Interpretation of law will always be a subjective practice.
And if you recall, I and many others opposed McConnel not holding a vote. The senate was under no obligation to confirm Obama’s (or any President’s) pick, but I believe it was wrong not to hold a vote.
I’m already seeing the left advocate the next Democrat increase the court number and stack it with progressives like FDR tried to do when SCOTUS had issues with the new deal. Political gamesmanship isn’t new. I’m old enough to remember how things were handled and the accusations against Roberts and Alito. And we all know what Biden said about HW Bush and Thomas.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
The Dems have no power here. They are fucked. That said Merrick Garland seemed like a good dude and he got fucked. But McConnel enforced the Biden rule anway. So since Trump is pres and the majority of the senate is Republican the Dems have no case.
Re: US Politics Thread
The Dems have no power here. They are fucked. That said Merrick Garland seemed like a good dude and he got fucked. But McConnel enforced the Biden rule anway. So since Trump is pres and the majority of the senate is Republican the Dems have no case.
That’s the problem...we don’t have a say in anything but trump still blames us for everything.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:The Dems have no power here. They are fucked. That said Merrick Garland seemed like a good dude and he got fucked. But McConnel enforced the Biden rule anway. So since Trump is pres and the majority of the senate is Republican the Dems have no case.
That’s the problem...we don’t have a say in anything but trump still blames us for everything.
That's a fair point to an extent. Certainly with his claims Democrats forced his hand to separate children from their parents when caught illegally in the US. But Democrats (like Republicans were under Obama) are united in opposition. We know there are nut job republicans who are extreme just as we know there are/were nutjob democrats when they had the majority and voted against the ACA because it wasn't liberal enough. For the millionth time, consistency. If you were ok with calling Republicans obstructionist in 2010, you have to call Democrats that now. If you were opposed to Republicans being united in opposition under Obama, you should be opposed to Democrats now.
GOP moderates can't find common ground with Dem moderates. I know you're okay with this, you've made that clear repeatedly. But some of us want a legislature that is able to find compromise and only resorts to filibustering in incredibly rare circumstances. Hyper-partisanship is bad, regardless of who is in charge.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:The Dems have no power here. They are fucked. That said Merrick Garland seemed like a good dude and he got fucked. But McConnel enforced the Biden rule anway. So since Trump is pres and the majority of the senate is Republican the Dems have no case.
That’s the problem...we don’t have a say in anything but trump still blames us for everything.
That's a fair point to an extent. Certainly with his claims Democrats forced his hand to separate children from their parents when caught illegally in the US. But Democrats (like Republicans were under Obama) are united in opposition. We know there are nut job republicans who are extreme just as we know there are/were nutjob democrats when they had the majority and voted against the ACA because it wasn't liberal enough. For the millionth time, consistency. If you were ok with calling Republicans obstructionist in 2010, you have to call Democrats that now. If you were opposed to Republicans being united in opposition under Obama, you should be opposed to Democrats now.
GOP moderates can't find common ground with Dem moderates. I know you're okay with this, you've made that clear repeatedly. But some of us want a legislature that is able to find compromise and only resorts to filibustering in incredibly rare circumstances. Hyper-partisanship is bad, regardless of who is in charge.
What about reap what you sow?
You damn well that as many as 3 justices could be replaced in the next 3 years. Will you still be harping about the court being too left leaning? The only left leaning judge left will be sotomeyer.
You want consistentency? Then why were you alright with you obstructing in 2010 but not now?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:mitchejw wrote:That’s the problem...we don’t have a say in anything but trump still blames us for everything.
That's a fair point to an extent. Certainly with his claims Democrats forced his hand to separate children from their parents when caught illegally in the US. But Democrats (like Republicans were under Obama) are united in opposition. We know there are nut job republicans who are extreme just as we know there are/were nutjob democrats when they had the majority and voted against the ACA because it wasn't liberal enough. For the millionth time, consistency. If you were ok with calling Republicans obstructionist in 2010, you have to call Democrats that now. If you were opposed to Republicans being united in opposition under Obama, you should be opposed to Democrats now.
GOP moderates can't find common ground with Dem moderates. I know you're okay with this, you've made that clear repeatedly. But some of us want a legislature that is able to find compromise and only resorts to filibustering in incredibly rare circumstances. Hyper-partisanship is bad, regardless of who is in charge.
What about reap what you sow?
You damn well that as many as 3 justices could be replaced in the next 3 years. Will you still be harping about the court being too left leaning? The only left leaning judge left will be sotomeyer.
You want consistentency? Then why were you alright with you obstructing in 2010 but not now?
I wasn't ok with it. Did I support voting against the ACA, yes because I knew it was a bad bill, as we all do now. I also didn't like the government forcing private citizens to purchase a private product under penalty of law. Did I support the GOP shutting down the government 3 or 4 times? Nope. That's the key difference. You love to howl about how Republicans fucked Obama over, but openly celebrate any perception of Democrats doing that to Trump.
You act like a jaded lover. But worse, you advocate the behavior of a jaded lover. I don't.
