Guys stop being dramatic. All that’s needed is a few more moderates to really get this thing fixed. Capitulating to the right has worked well so far I don’t see why they would stop now.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
I find it strange that Hutchison made sure to say "something to the affect of" before quoting only some of the people in her testimony (Meadows and Trumps specifically), while not doing so when discussing the quotes from the Secret Service agents and herself. It seemed intentionally from a legal perspective. Is it just so they can't say "well I didn't say EXACTLY that"? Because she seemed to seemed to say "then he said something to the affect of..." and then give very specific quotes, not paraphrases.
I hope whatever the agents say in dispute doesn't tank her whole testimony. Seems like the committee should have interviewed them before letting Hutchison testify to it. Unless they weren't cooperating and this is how to get them out in public. Which, if her account is mostly accurate, could be good I suppose. But if she exaggerated what happened at all, it kind of taints everything else, no?
I find it strange that Hutchison made sure to say "something to the affect of" before quoting only some of the people in her testimony (Meadows and Trumps specifically), while not doing so when discussing the quotes from the Secret Service agents and herself. It seemed intentionally from a legal perspective. Is it just so they can't say "well I didn't say EXACTLY that"? Because she seemed to seemed to say "then he said something to the affect of..." and then give very specific quotes, not paraphrases.
I hope whatever the agents say in dispute doesn't tank her whole testimony. Seems like the committee should have interviewed them before letting Hutchison testify to it. Unless they weren't cooperating and this is how to get them out in public. Which, if her account is mostly accurate, could be good I suppose. But if she exaggerated what happened at all, it kind of taints everything else, no?
Thought I read somewhere that the committee did interview the agents and then decided not to bring them in to testify.
It’s not blind. It’s the opposite of blind. It’s evaluating their full resume and not just taking their most recent action and blindly ignoring their track record like you’re doing.
This isn’t cynicism. It’s reality. These people have a lot of red in their ledger. This is not redemption. It’s the bare minimum to save them from being pure scum. Not they’re just mostly scum.
just to be clear, I'm not putting those people on a pedestal and I'm not calling them heroes. Certainly not. But there has do be a middle ground between calling them heroes and calling them scum where we can recognize a.) that they still were a part of the problem, but b.) at least made a positive contribution. And I take every Trumpist/Republican who chooses to do so over those cowards who choose to take the fifth or say nothing altogether.
Going after the senate to go after the SCOTUS was really the winning play in that two party system.
The thing I will remind people, is it was only a little more than a decade ago that dems not only had a majority in the senate, but even the 60 votes to get past the filibuster.
The single greatest turning point was electing a black man president and the subsequent mobilization of the racist underbelly of rural conservative America.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
How can the US fix the politics in the Supreme Court problem? Let's say by some miracle, Democrats get a true majority and actually decide this issue needs to be fixed; Can they push through changes to the court nomination/selection process to make it truly partisan, or is the process protected by the Constitution? Genuinely curious.
They had the super majority for like 72 days or something.
But they did have it and they had it because they had seats in states that they now won't come close in because they weren't viewed as left wing and were willing to run more Joe Manchin like candidates.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
How can the US fix the politics in the Supreme Court problem? Let's say by some miracle, Democrats get a true majority and actually decide this issue needs to be fixed; Can they push through changes to the court nomination/selection process to make it truly partisan, or is the process protected by the Constitution? Genuinely curious.
Either a supermajority to increase the size of the court in the Senate (60+) or do away with the filibuster.
As for changing the process itself - depends on what you mean by truly partisan. There have been some suggestions of trying to create term limits and a one-president/one-nomination (or two) with 18 year terms, but it would be messy and would take a long time to implement.
The process is mostly not-protected by the Constitution, which just says: "hold their offices during good behavior", which is what gives them their lifetime appointments.
How can the US fix the politics in the Supreme Court problem? Let's say by some miracle, Democrats get a true majority and actually decide this issue needs to be fixed; Can they push through changes to the court nomination/selection process to make it truly partisan, or is the process protected by the Constitution? Genuinely curious.
There are two easy fixes to a lot of the problems in the U.S.
#1 - SCOTUS is always kept at 50% Republican and 50% Democrat. They are appointed by the caucus of each party. I don't see what the point is of making the judicial system a political body. That needs to end.
#2 - term limits for every level of government. Every level at 8 years. If you want to be a career politician. You have 8 years at President, 8 years at Governor, 8 years at Senate, 8 years at Congress... 8 years at State Senate, 8 years as a city Councillor, 8 years at Mayor... and so forth. NO CAMPING! Eliminate the consolidation of power. If a person runs out of time and position at the federal level, they have to take their expertise and go and make their home state or city a better place.
There are a lot of things that can be done to make the U.S. better, but these two things are within the power of the President to mandate. Honestly, the second one Canada should have as well. It's the bureaucracy that keeps the world spinning anyway, not the politicians.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The single greatest turning point was electing a black man president and the subsequent mobilization of the racist underbelly of rural conservative America.
Yep, it was definitely that and not the decline of the material well-being of the working class due to things such as bailing out Wall Street while letting millions of average Americans eat #### in 2008, 40+ years of neoliberal fiscal policy leading to extreme wealth inequality, complete dismantling of social safety nets, and almost total regulatory capture by corporations.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
The States should reverse Corporate Personhood that they achieved under the 14th amendment. Either that, or if they commit a crime they should be tried, and have to be 'imprisoned' (not function) for a set amount of time. After Disney is shut down for killing a dude (or something), the rest will beg to no longer have the rights of a person. That should start breaking down the stranglehold that they have on American lives.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The thing I will remind people, is it was only a little more than a decade ago that dems not only had a majority in the senate, but even the 60 votes to get past the filibuster.
The single greatest turning point was electing a black man president and the subsequent mobilization of the racist underbelly of rural conservative America.
The Democrats could have 70 votes and I'm not sure they'd get much done.
But yeah, vote harder!
And I think you're selling the Republicans short if you think this was simply because the Democrats elected a black man. This has been in the works 50 years.
I feel like rolling back the "Radical Liberal" Courts of the 60s - 70s has been such a prolonged long game, that those caught up in it are blindly driven to "win" and overturn all of the laws and precedence without any thought of consequences or anything else other than "winning." I doubt many people know the full extent of this movement, but entire universities were created to drive this movement, Liberty University being the most successful, and the Federalist Society among many other groups. They planned on training college and law school students to create an army of lawyers and politicians who could change the system from within.
During W. Bush's second term, as the DOJ began a policy of only hiring attorneys who fit the strict religious/ideological beliefs, mainly Dominion Christians who want to enforce Jesus-Sharia Law and work to create the "End of Days" to bring back Jesus. The DOJ traditionally hires almost exclusively from top tier law schools, or occasionally government attorneys who prove their mettle on the job in "lesser" Agencies and earn a job in DOJ. Suddenly, they were hiring from Liberty University Law School and non-accredited RW Christian schools. It was insane.
There were also a lot of members of Congress brought up in this system, Michelle Bachmann was a standout. The Reagan administration was loaded with these people at every level. Antonin Scalia was one of the first students of this movement to achieve prominence. Now, all 6 Conservative Justices are Federalist Society members.
Republicans think about this constantly, Democrats don't. Too scared, ooooh we can't be toooooo progressive.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
There are two easy fixes to a lot of the problems in the U.S.
#1 - SCOTUS is always kept at 50% Republican and 50% Democrat. They are appointed by the caucus of each party. I don't see what the point is of making the judicial system a political body. That needs to end.
#2 - term limits for every level of government. Every level at 8 years. If you want to be a career politician. You have 8 years at President, 8 years at Governor, 8 years at Senate, 8 years at Congress... 8 years at State Senate, 8 years as a city Councillor, 8 years at Mayor... and so forth. NO CAMPING! Eliminate the consolidation of power. If a person runs out of time and position at the federal level, they have to take their expertise and go and make their home state or city a better place.
There are a lot of things that can be done to make the U.S. better, but these two things are within the power of the President to mandate. Honestly, the second one Canada should have as well. It's the bureaucracy that keeps the world spinning anyway, not the politicians.
Two 5 year terms by the President, two 4 year terms by the House & Senate.
POTUS can barely do anything without having to deal with midterms, which generally result in campaign style politics just to try and get another 2 years of House or Senate control.
But the lifer issue, not sure how you deal with that since everyone thinks their side is the best side.
I find it strange that Hutchison made sure to say "something to the affect of" before quoting only some of the people in her testimony (Meadows and Trumps specifically), while not doing so when discussing the quotes from the Secret Service agents and herself. It seemed intentionally from a legal perspective. Is it just so they can't say "well I didn't say EXACTLY that"? Because she seemed to seemed to say "then he said something to the affect of..." and then give very specific quotes, not paraphrases.
I hope whatever the agents say in dispute doesn't tank her whole testimony. Seems like the committee should have interviewed them before letting Hutchison testify to it. Unless they weren't cooperating and this is how to get them out in public. Which, if her account is mostly accurate, could be good I suppose. But if she exaggerated what happened at all, it kind of taints everything else, no?
Laura Ingraham said exactly this yesterday (03:58 mark of below video).
They had the super majority for like 72 days or something.
But they did have it and they had it because they had seats in states that they now won't come close in because they weren't viewed as left wing and were willing to run more Joe Manchin like candidates.
Only took republicans 35 days to nominate and confirm a Justice for a lifetime appointment. 72 days? Why that’s basically forever
