The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[dislaxxic]

Judge Kavanaugh’s record in national-security cases

..

[Bandito]

It is very exciting to be a conservative in this country. Trump may end up appointing 3 SCOTUS judges by the time he leaves office in 2024! MAGA

[holmes435]

It is very exciting to be a conservative in this country. Trump may end up appointing 3 SCOTUS judges by the time he leaves office in 2024! MAGA

I wish some of you "conservatives" would actually enact some conservative policies. A lot of us on here who rail against Trump are further to the right than him and most of his supporters on a few items of importance.

[Bandito]

It is very exciting to be a conservative in this country. Trump may end up appointing 3 SCOTUS judges by the time he leaves office in 2024! MAGA

I wish some of you "conservatives" would actually enact some conservative policies. A lot of us on here who rail against Trump are further to the right than him and most of his supporters on a few items of importance.

Do you not understand why everyone voted for Trump? It wasn't because we thought he would be a "strict conservative"

did you vote to Gary Johnson? LOL

[holmes435]

It is very exciting to be a conservative in this country. Trump may end up appointing 3 SCOTUS judges by the time he leaves office in 2024! MAGA

I wish some of you "conservatives" would actually enact some conservative policies. A lot of us on here who rail against Trump are further to the right than him and most of his supporters on a few items of importance.

Do you not understand why everyone voted for Trump? It wasn't because we thought he would be a "strict conservative"

did you vote to Gary Johnson? LOL

LOL, so why did you say it's an exciting time to be a conservative if Trump isn't going to be conservative? He's not even a "loose conservative".

[Bandito]

I wish some of you "conservatives" would actually enact some conservative policies. A lot of us on here who rail against Trump are further to the right than him and most of his supporters on a few items of importance.[/quote]

Do you not understand why everyone voted for Trump? It wasn't because we thought he would be a "strict conservative"

did you vote to Gary Johnson? LOL[/quote]

LOL, so why did you say it's an exciting time to be a conservative if Trump isn't going to be conservative? He's not even a "loose conservative".[/quote]

Trump stands for:

Tax cuts- which I support and enjoy
Ending Illegal Immigration and building a wall-which I support
Draining the Washington political swamp- which I support
Isn't a career politician/criminal like Hillary- which I support
Represents the common man in how he stands up for what he believes in -Which I support
Believes in American Exceptionalism- Which I support
Isn't afraid to stand up to the corrupt and fake news media- Which I support
Is pro military-Which I support
When he goes abroad he doesn't do an "apology tour" like your Messiah did from 08-16- Which I support
He supports the police force-back the blue- which I support


These among many other reasons are why people are leaving the Dem Party. #WalkAway. He is putting America first and living up to his campaign promises. Landslide electoral victory in 2020 again

[holmes435]

Trump stands for:

Tax cuts- which I support and enjoy

Congrats. How are we gonna pay for them? When are the spending cuts coming? Does the deficit matter to you?

Ending Illegal Immigration and building a wall-which I support

Border wall will be ineffective and a waste of money. Everyone is for ending illegal immigration. How do you feel about legal immigration?

Draining the Washington political swamp- which I support

He hasn't drained anything, in fact he's filled it up more with lobbyists and people finding any way to make money off the .gov

Isn't a career politician/criminal like Hillary- which I support

What crimes has Hillary been convicted of? You do know how many issues with the law Trump has been involved with, right? He's much more of a career criminal by your definition.

Represents the common man in how he stands up for what he believes in -Which I support

A man born into a rich family in New York and tries to make money selling luxury items represents the common man? You've been sold down the river son.

Isn't afraid to stand up to the corrupt and fake news media- Which I support

Then why isn't he also standing up to Fox and right wing news media? They are just as bad as any other major news media org. The media needs some changes, but it's nowhere near as corrupt or fake as you may be led to believe.

Is pro military-Which I support

You know he's a draft dodger, right?

When he goes abroad he doesn't do an "apology tour" like your Messiah did from 08-16- Which I support

What apology tour did Obama go on? He's not my Messiah by the way, you're projecting. Did you not see Trump's equivalent apology tour to the Saudis where he bowed to the Saudi king after he mocked Obama for doing it? How about his saluting NK military?

These among many other reasons are why people are leaving the Dem Party. #WalkAway. He is putting America first and living up to his campaign promises. Landslide electoral victory in 2020 again

How many people have left the Democrat party? You do know that #WalkAway is fake, right?

[Trinity]

We wish Helsinki was only an Apology Tour,

[Typical Lax Dad]

We wish Helsinki was only an Apology Tour,

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/01/politics ... index.html

[Trinity]

Bush Admin releases Kavanaugh docs and Trump claims privilege for them. I hope Dems go to court. What are they hiding now? It should not be a rush job for a lifetime appt. We waited 11 months without hearings with Merrick Garland so we know that isn’t the issue.

[laxman3221]

"Elections matter. Deal with it." Obama

And the Ds don't have the votes to stop his appointment thanks to a retired senator from Nevada.

[CU77]

Nonsense. It was the Republicans who removed the fillibuster for SCOTUS nominees (on April 17, 2017) so that they could confirm Gorsuch for the seat they stole from Garland:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/ ... ion-236937

If you believe they wouldn't have done this without Reid having done it first for lower-court judges (after the Rs blocked essentially every Obama appointment no matter how centrist), then Trump has a Mexican condo to sell you.

[laxman3221]

Yeah, thanks to Harry's lead.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is predicting a Democratic-majority Senate next year could break out the "nuclear option" to change the rules on Supreme Court nominations.
The outgoing Democratic leader told Talking Points Memo that he's paved the way for what would be a historic change of the Senate's rules, allowing Supreme Court nominees to bypass a 60-vote procedural requirement and be approved by a simple majority.

"I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority," he said. "It’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told 'em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again."
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... t-nominees

In 2013, Reid asked if he was worried GOP could change filibuster on SCOTUS. His response: "Let 'em do it"
McConnell in 2013: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,”


Senator Harry Reid
✔
@SenatorReid

Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform. It had to be done.

[CU77]

So your claim is that the Republicans would have been just too clueless to do this on their own, if Reid hadn't shown them the way?

OK, sure.

You really should have bought one of those Mexican condos Trump was peddling. Great investment.

[laxman3221]

So your claim is that the Republicans would have been just too clueless to do this on their own, if Reid hadn't shown them the way?

OK, sure.

You really should have bought one of those Mexican condos Trump was peddling. Great investment.

No, they wouldn't have. Harry paved the way and made it easy to do. Harry had been good for the recent rate of appointed judges too. Thanks, Harry.

[MDlaxfan76]

So your claim is that the Republicans would have been just too clueless to do this on their own, if Reid hadn't shown them the way?

OK, sure.

You really should have bought one of those Mexican condos Trump was peddling. Great investment.

No, they wouldn't have. Harry paved the way and made it easy to do. Harry had been good for the recent rate of appointed judges too. Thanks, Harry.

Reid was wrong to do it. McConnell was wrong to do the Garland delay and then the SCOTUS no filibuster. It really doesn't matter who 'went first', they're both wrong to have done so.

Going back is going to be difficult, but in the long run will be important.

Bandito's list is, unfortunately, a joke, just the tripe the Trumpist's are telling each other.

The notion that such a list is what passes for conservatism is more troubling to me.

[CU77]

You may think Reid was wrong, but he was provoked by a totally unprecedented blockade of Obama's nominees by Republicans:

By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... have-been/

That is, more than half of all nominees ever blocked by the minority party, in the 230+ year history of the United States, came during Obama's first term.

That is the context in which Reid acted, and knowing it is essential to a fair reading of the history.

[MDlaxfan76]

You may think Reid was wrong, but he was provoked by a totally unprecedented blockade of Obama's nominees by Republicans:

By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... have-been/

That is, more than half of all nominees ever blocked by the minority party, in the 230+ year history of the United States, came during Obama's first term.

That is the context in which Reid acted, and knowing it is essential to a fair reading of the history.

You are quite correct, IMO, about a 'fair read of history' and I take no issue with you pointing it out.

No argument that Reid was 'provoked' by an unprecedented amount of slowing or blocking of judicial nominees by the Republicans, but it's not as if nominees didn't get through prior to Reid changing the rule in 2013.

But my point wasn't that anyone was justified or not in their counter response, simply that the removal of the 60 vote rule dramatically increased the politicization of the appointment process and, thus, was a 'mistake'.

We can go back through history (and did so a bit on LP) and see how this trend developed, whether looking at the Bush v Gore decision or the Bork nomination and to look way back to Roosevelt's attempt to pack the court.

But the 60 vote necessity encouraged more middle of the road appointments and resulted more often than not in full Senate approval when that was the case. And it eliminated those nominees who really didn't belong on the court.

Both parties are complicit in the breast for tat and it's resulted in where we are now.

[dislaxxic]

I think its a bit of a false equivalency to say that all the dirty tricks have been about even on both sides. Not giving the Dems a pass on any of their bad behavior, but really...how do you read this sentence, assuming it is true, and conclude that "they both do it the same"...

"That is, more than half of all nominees ever blocked by the minority party, in the 230+ year history of the United States, came during Obama's first term."

You left out a few more examples as well MD76...and the bad behavior of the right over the past 30 years has been animated largely by purely partisan efforts at remaining in power. Its something the Dems do as well, but they're not NEARLY as good at, or as BRAZEN in their actions, than the string of leaders from Lee Atwater thru Newt Gingrinch thru Karl Rove thru Dick Cheney thru Mitch McConnell and Steve Bannon. That lineage right there has NO consistent comparison on the left...and i'm sure i've left out a few...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

I think its a bit of a false equivalency to say that all the dirty tricks have been about even on both sides. Not giving the Dems a pass on any of their bad behavior, but really...how do you read this sentence, assuming it is true, and conclude that "they both do it the same"...

"That is, more than half of all nominees ever blocked by the minority party, in the 230+ year history of the United States, came during Obama's first term."

You left out a few more examples as well MD76...and the bad behavior of the right over the past 30 years has been animated largely by purely partisan efforts at remaining in power. Its something the Dems do as well, but they're not NEARLY as good at, or as BRAZEN in their actions, than the string of leaders from Lee Atwater thru Newt Gingrinch thru Karl Rove thru Dick Cheney thru Mitch McConnell and Steve Bannon. That lineage right there has NO consistent comparison on the left...and i'm sure i've left out a few...

..

I just don't think there's any good to be had by blaming one side for playing hardball when both sides are complicit and both are therefore in the wrong. It's not about excusing R's because Dems have shown willingness to play hardball as well... it's that all of it is wrong. That was really McCain's point.

But I agree that in the last 30 years, the 'hardball' has been played more "brazenly" by the R's than the D's. On the other hand, I recall the many decades in which the R's did not control either House or Senate, a perpetual minority status in the national legislature. The chip on the shoulder mentality persisted from that era, though obviously that perpetual minority status passed long ago.

I think we're going to see a pendulum swing over these next couple of decades.