Romney agrees to hold vote on Trump's SC nominee. This essentially guarantees that Moscow Mitch will now have enough votes to move forward.
Romney could always pull a McCain and just votes no right in front of McTurtle's face, but Romney isn't half the man that McCain was and this is 2020 so I'm not going get my hopes up
It’s done and dusted. They’re going to install their “Kingdom of God” judge to her lifetime appointment. As it has always been winning the presidency and senate, killing the filibuster, and packing the court is the only solution. That is assuming a peaceful transition of power happens should Trump be allowed to lose by the newly minted Court that is beholden to the great leader.
Man I feel bad for the good people in that country with even half a brain or ability to possess somewhat of a rational thought. The GOP has turned full super villain. Scary road that country is heading down right now.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
Win back the White House and Senate, and decades of Dirty Work can be undone in one year.
I'm not so sure about that. Again, back to my seesaw. The GOP have viewed the court as important for the last 40 years (since Roe v Wade) and they now put elephants on their side of the seesaw, with support from their unified base. The Dems can scream all they want and even expand the court to 11, but if they put moderates on the court, like Kagan, with those two extra seats, will it matter? For example, you put a democrat judge on there who's wishy-washy on Medicare For All, then what's the point? You need to move left and put bomb-throwers on the court to combat the elephants. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Win back the White House and Senate, and decades of Dirty Work can be undone in one year.
Careful what you wish for. The Democrats eliminating the filibuster for lower court appointments has led to Trump stacking the lower courts. Much better to fix the structural problems of life time terms allowing retirements to be political then to keep expanding the court each time a party holds the Senate and the presidency.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
This is a power grab to insure that the Republicans will win another term for Trump, and every election going forward, regardless of vote. So long as they can mount a legal challenge, and not even a good legal challenge, they will now know that the Supreme Court is in their back pockets.
Surely there still has to be some legal basis to decide an election in the courts. It can’t just be we pick our guy with no justification. I would hope the court has some shred of integrity.
Having said that, I’m not familiar with the Bush v Gore decision, what the rationale was and whether it held any water.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Careful what you wish for. The Democrats eliminating the filibuster for lower court appointments has led to Trump stacking the lower courts. Much better to fix the structural problems of life time terms allowing retirements to be political then to keep expanding the court each time a party holds the Senate and the presidency.
What was the alternative? The GOP-controlled senate made it clear they would abuse the filibuster and block every Obama judicial nominee. So the Democrats could either remove the filibuster and get Obama's judges approved or keep it, get none of his nominees on the bench, and then a future Republican president gets to fill all those vacancies. It's revisionist history to blame this on the Democrats when it's one party and one party only, the Republicans, who have shown time and again that they have no interest in consistent rules and historical norms if they're an impediment to the consolidation of the GOP's power.
What was the alternative? The GOP-controlled senate made it clear they would abuse the filibuster and block every Obama judicial nominee. So the Democrats could either remove the filibuster and get Obama's judges approved or keep it, get none of his nominees on the bench, and then a future Republican president gets to fill all those vacancies. It's revisionist history to blame this on the Democrats when it's one party and one party only, the Republicans, who have shown time and again that they have no interest in consistent rules and historical norms if they're an impediment to the consolidation of the GOP's power.
I like how this debate is once again...GOP has no ethics and Democrats are pursuing good and noble goals....
Until you take the time to understand why 50% of the country voted the other way...what their concerns are...and why despite this "power hungry organization's" anti America agenda...they still had half the country vote for them in 2018 thereby leaving the power structure to what it is now allowing for this...you are just as closed minded as those you are currently ignoring by attributing all this as the corruption of the leadership.
Here is the reality...Half the country is happy with the moves the Republicans are making right now. These people have real issues that are not addressed by Democrats. They aren't all just victims that dont understand what they are voting for. If this significant portion of the country didnt exist...the Senate would be Democrat controlled (at least since 2018).
By jumping on the "everything Republicans do is evil and everything Democrats do is good" bandwagon, you are part of the problem...driving the conversation toward polarized opposites as opposed to fixing real issues.
For the record...I dont have a horse in the game, but if I did I would probably vote Democrat.
I like how this debate is once again...GOP has no ethics and Democrats are pursuing good and noble goals....
Until you take the time to understand why 50% of the country voted the other way...what their concerns are...and why despite this "power hungry organization's" anti America agenda...they still had half the country vote for them in 2018 thereby leaving the power structure to what it is now allowing for this...you are just as closed minded as those you are currently ignoring by attributing all this as the corruption of the leadership.
Here is the reality...Half the country is happy with the moves the Republicans are making right now. These people have real issues that are not addressed by Democrats. They aren't all just victims that dont understand what they are voting for. If this significant portion of the country didnt exist...the Senate would be Democrat controlled (at least since 2018).
By jumping on the "everything Republicans do is evil and everything Democrats do is good" bandwagon, you are part of the problem...driving the conversation toward polarized opposites as opposed to fixing real issues.
For the record...I dont have a horse in the game, but if I did I would probably vote Democrat.
This is bull####. The Republicans have won 1 popular vote for president in the last 28 years and yet are about appoint yet another Justice to the SC.
The Democrats represent far more people in the Senate than Republicans, but because of states like Montana and Wyoming and other tiny sparsely populated red states they continue to have a majority voice.
The Republicans have been playing dirty and rigging the rules of the game and the idiot Democrats keep trying to play nice and be deal makers. It's time to end the charade and be as unscrupulous for power as the Republicans because otherwise the country will be a right wing hellscape dominated by #### kicking yokels in Montana and Wyoming.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
I like how this debate is once again...GOP has no ethics and Democrats are pursuing good and noble goals....
Until you take the time to understand why 50% of the country voted the other way...what their concerns are...and why despite this "power hungry organization's" anti America agenda...they still had half the country vote for them in 2018 thereby leaving the power structure to what it is now allowing for this...you are just as closed minded as those you are currently ignoring by attributing all this as the corruption of the leadership.
Here is the reality...Half the country is happy with the moves the Republicans are making right now. These people have real issues that are not addressed by Democrats. They aren't all just victims that dont understand what they are voting for. If this significant portion of the country didnt exist...the Senate would be Democrat controlled (at least since 2018).
By jumping on the "everything Republicans do is evil and everything Democrats do is good" bandwagon, you are part of the problem...driving the conversation toward polarized opposites as opposed to fixing real issues.
For the record...I dont have a horse in the game, but if I did I would probably vote Democrat.
To be fair, we're on a Canadian forum filled with mostly Canadians, and Canada's "center" is further left than America's. The Federal Conservatives in Canada are more similar to the moderate Democrats and Republicans in the US than they are to the Republicans as a whole, so I don't really think any "Canadian" is part of the problem so much as Canadians inherently do not understand the further-right politics of the Republican party. Even Bernie Sanders or AOC, who some Americans label as crazy socialists, would probably find better homes in the Liberal party in Canada than the NDP.
Many of the things Americans fight against are things Canadians have happily embraced for many many years and would find it crazy to give up. Of course, there are fringe right-wing elements in Canada as well, but none with the power of voice that they have in the US.
Surely there still has to be some legal basis to decide an election in the courts. It can’t just be we pick our guy with no justification. I would hope the court has some shred of integrity.
Having said that, I’m not familiar with the Bush v Gore decision, what the rationale was and whether it held any water.
The Florida Supreme Court halted the recount. In their decision, they said that there were no alternative vote counting procedures that would have allowed the recount to occur in the time frame necessary. The vote was 5-4 in favour of stopping the recount. An unofficial recount that was not legally binding was completed anyway, and it showed that Gore would have won.
It was a weak decision in my opinion, to not allow the recount. If you can't do it in a timely manner, what is the point of having recounts? Surely there would be a way to extend the time frame needed rather than just saying, no, can't do it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Surely there still has to be some legal basis to decide an election in the courts. It can’t just be we pick our guy with no justification. I would hope the court has some shred of integrity.
Having said that, I’m not familiar with the Bush v Gore decision, what the rationale was and whether it held any water.
Here's a good summary of what happened and how it could be just part of the Republican playbook going forward.
"The Bush v. Gore debacle tore apart the country in 2000, a considerably less polarized time. On election night, Florida’s 25 electoral votes were up for grabs, and the race was determined too tight to call that night. For the next five weeks, the country was seized in a war of ballots, election laws and the courts. The final decision by the Supreme Court determined that the recounts must stop, as the process for assessing the contested ballots varied too much from county to county. This disastrous decision was seen as deeply partisan.
If this new legal approach succeeds, not only would it legitimize Trump’s unfounded attacks on vote-by-mail, but it would also inevitably catalyze more Bush v. Gore-inspired litigation. Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst, wrote “As Trump continues to challenge mail-in voting, it is not difficult to imagine more Bush v. Gore-inspired litigation and even a possible replay of the milestone case in the guise of Trump v. Biden.” The Trump campaign is claiming that New Jersey and Nevada have made unconstitutional decisions to increase voter turnout in their states. Like in Bush v. Gore, if Trump’s legal argument wins over the courts, hundreds of thousands of votes could be discarded this November."
So, the Republicans stacking of the courts all over the country is another hedge to maintain their power. And what constitutes an argument is up to that court. Obviously there has to be some legal grounds, but the Republicans have been sowing those grounds for sometime so they can make those exact cases.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
To be fair, we're on a Canadian forum filled with mostly Canadians, and Canada's "center" is further left than America's. The Federal Conservatives in Canada are more similar to the moderate Democrats and Republicans in the US than they are to the Republicans as a whole, so I don't really think any "Canadian" is part of the problem so much as Canadians inherently do not understand the further-right politics of the Republican party. Even Bernie Sanders or AOC, who some Americans label as crazy socialists, would probably find better homes in the Liberal party in Canada than the NDP.
Many of the things Americans fight against are things Canadians have happily embraced for many many years and would find it crazy to give up. Of course, there are fringe right-wing elements in Canada as well, but none with the power of voice that they have in the US.
Yeah, Canadians really don't understand how screwed up politics is down here. They view it through their lens and think the spectrum they view in Canada is the same as the one in the United States. It is not. When I first moved to the US and was dating my now wife she asked me on our second date whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. I said I would probably say a Republican as I had been a Conservative voter in Canada. She quickly corrected me on the values I espoused and who I would likely support. Boy, was she right. The introduction of religion and money in politics down here makes it an entirely different game. It is actually still quite shocking even after being down here for over a couple decades. You can't believe the crazy until you are in the middle of it.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
This is bull####. The Republicans have won 1 popular vote for president in the last 28 years and yet are about appoint yet another Justice to the SC.
The Democrats represent far more people in the Senate than Republicans, but because of states like Montana and Wyoming and other tiny sparsely populated red states they continue to have a majority voice.
The Republicans have been playing dirty and rigging the rules of the game and the idiot Democrats keep trying to play nice and be deal makers. It's time to end the charade and be as unscrupulous for power as the Republicans because otherwise the country will be a right wing hellscape dominated by #### kicking yokels in Montana and Wyoming.
I don't know if you can always use the popular vote as the argument because campaigns are run based on the current rules. You can't say the Blue Jays should be winning because they have more base hits, because if base hits was the measurement, teams would load up on singles hitters.
Take the State of California. California actually has the most number of Republicans by number, something like 25% (10 million). Most don't bother to vote because there's no point currently. But if the winner was determined by popular vote, the GOP would pump a ton of money in California to get as much of that 10 million as they could. And maybe the Democrats would have to as well, but it would be a totally different campaign.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Yeah, Canadians really don't understand how screwed up politics is down here. They view it through their lens and think the spectrum they view in Canada is the same as the one in the United States. It is not. When I first moved to the US and was dating my now wife she asked me on our second date whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. I said I would probably say a Republican as I had been a Conservative voter in Canada. She quickly corrected me on the values I espoused and who I would likely support. Boy, was she right. The introduction of religion and money in politics down here makes it an entirely different game. It is actually still quite shocking even after being down here for over a couple decades. You can't believe the crazy until you are in the middle of it.
Not to mention how politicians in the U.S. are like pop stars with their celebrity and personality cults. The fanfare and pageantry of U.S. elections is really weird to me. Every election seems like a spectacle.
In most democracies, the majority of people tolerate their politicians, but we don't put them on a pedestal. There are some exceptions, such as the Jack Layton and Trudeau (but that died pretty quickly), but they stand out because they are exceptions. In the U.S., it is normal.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
