LaxPower Back-Up Stick

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:37 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:17 am I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

Easy case closed, in 2016? That's just a moronic position. Just like Turkey Waddle and Huckleberry have taken.

..

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:37 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:17 am I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

I believe there's a 'dying wish' clause for liberal justices that is part of the Constitution; only libs can replace libs if the deceased judge tells a 'non-partisan' ( ) PBS 'journalist' ( ) the 'day of her death' ( ) that she insists on an Antifa-sympathetic judge to replace her. Sorry, 6; the rules are the rules.

I realize this is tough medicine, but as we were all taught, if we don't have Roe v Wade, the country will fall apart.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:53 am Easy case closed, in 2016? That's just a moronic position. Just like Turkey Waddle and Huckleberry have taken.

..

Awesome, then we agree, Trump follows in suit as BHO, case closed.

You conveniently forget how Turkey Waddle blew that whole process to smithereens...forever polluting the process as we have known it. It's totlly dishonest and unethical in the extreme to ignore what he did.

..

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:49 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:37 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:17 am I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Mitt is on board, assuming the candidate is qualified (which both Barrett and Lago are, eminently).

How will the Lincoln/Bulwark lunatics spin Mitt now...is he a bad man again, after being their hero?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:33 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:21 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:36 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:57 pm

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:35 amSo sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

Nothing cute about sanctioning the death of that many fetuses.

Right. Nothing cute either about Republicans watching silently as the expanding Trump-fueled pandemic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of American deaths. The “Pro Life Party” my arse...

..

Whattaboutism much?

Stay on topic. We were talking about Notorious here, Dis.

Besides. 200K deaths is chump change.

There were 623,000 abortions LAST YEAR ALONE. Peep the stats my yellow friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

Did you really mean that 200k deaths is "chump change"???

Even if we were to accept that abortions = "deaths", surely 200K deaths headed to 300k, worst death rate and worst economic impact in developed world, ain't "chump change", right?

Or are you so 'all in' with the Trump CULT that you actually think it's "virtually nobody"???

The point that was made is that a large portion of the GOP has claimed that it is the "Pro Life" party yet there are those in the Trump GOP who think older people or those who have underlying conditions or just unlucky people are worthless and not to be considered "life" worth caring for.

And now we have Der Leader talking about DNA...and people cheer...

Even when he knows he's posting factually incorrect information, MD continues to use a false quote. Trump's use of "virtually nobody" refers to those under the age of 18. I realize this won't stop you and other TDS-addled from the spiels you post daily, but I thought for others they might prefer honesty, I'm here to help.

Sorry, Petey, wrong again.
I provided the COMPLETE quote, including the phrases you edited out.

You, by contrast, had initially put in quotes what you would have preferred him to have said, yet those were not his words. False quote.

And when challenged, you then provided an incomplete quote, selectively edited, and then added your own interpretive clauses as to what you wish he meant and could have said if so.

But let's be clear, even if he had been talking solely about those under 18 (instead of the discussion about elderly with "other conditions", it would be factually incorrect, as there's 500k known positive cases among the under 18 group.

And that's despite the shutdowns of schools in the spring and the summer break. Young people do get it and spread it. Fact. And Trump knows this.

Yet lies to "downplay" it. "Virtually nobody"...

As we go past 200k, headed to 300k, worst in the developed world both in death rates and economic impact.

Getting tired of all this winning?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:47 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:33 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:21 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:36 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:57 pm

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:35 amSo sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

Nothing cute about sanctioning the death of that many fetuses.

Right. Nothing cute either about Republicans watching silently as the expanding Trump-fueled pandemic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of American deaths. The “Pro Life Party” my arse...

..

Whattaboutism much?

Stay on topic. We were talking about Notorious here, Dis.

Besides. 200K deaths is chump change.

There were 623,000 abortions LAST YEAR ALONE. Peep the stats my yellow friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

Did you really mean that 200k deaths is "chump change"???

Even if we were to accept that abortions = "deaths", surely 200K deaths headed to 300k, worst death rate and worst economic impact in developed world, ain't "chump change", right?

Or are you so 'all in' with the Trump CULT that you actually think it's "virtually nobody"???

The point that was made is that a large portion of the GOP has claimed that it is the "Pro Life" party yet there are those in the Trump GOP who think older people or those who have underlying conditions or just unlucky people are worthless and not to be considered "life" worth caring for.

And now we have Der Leader talking about DNA...and people cheer...

Even when he knows he's posting factually incorrect information, MD continues to use a false quote. Trump's use of "virtually nobody" refers to those under the age of 18. I realize this won't stop you and other TDS-addled from the spiels you post daily, but I thought for others they might prefer honesty, I'm here to help.

Sorry, Petey, wrong again.
I provided the COMPLETE quote, including the phrases you edited out.

You, by contrast, had initially put in quotes what you would have preferred him to have said, yet those were not his words. False quote.

And when challenged, you then provided an incomplete quote, selectively edited, and then added your own interpretive clauses as to what you wish he meant and could have said if so.

But let's be clear, even if he had been talking solely about those under 18 (instead of the discussion about elderly with "other conditions", it would be factually incorrect, as there's 500k known positive cases among the under 18 group.

And that's despite the shutdowns of schools in the spring and the summer break. Young people do get it and spread it. Fact. And Trump knows this.

Yet lies to "downplay" it. "Virtually nobody"...

As we go past 200k, headed to 300k, worst in the developed world both in death rates and economic impact.

Getting tired of all this winning?

So, 500,000 u-18 get Covid but rarely die, if ever.

5-20% of Americans get the flu every year as well, and most don't die there either.

Do you rant about the flu, too?

Sure, Trump downplays Covid...of course he does, he's showman and bluffs almost every second. Tell us something we don't know!

You're just so desperate to pin the guy that you make up stuff which he doesn't say nor imply and somehow think this is the big one. He frustrates guys like you which is understandable, but you could at least play it straight.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:21 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:36 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:57 pm

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:35 amSo sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

Nothing cute about sanctioning the death of that many fetuses.

Right. Nothing cute either about Republicans watching silently as the expanding Trump-fueled pandemic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of American deaths. The “Pro Life Party” my arse...

..

Whattaboutism much?

Stay on topic. We were talking about Notorious here, Dis.

Besides. 200K deaths is chump change.

There were 623,000 abortions LAST YEAR ALONE. Peep the stats my yellow friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

Did you really mean that 200k deaths is "chump change"???

Even if we were to accept that abortions = "deaths", surely 200K deaths headed to 300k, worst death rate and worst economic impact in developed world, ain't "chump change", right?

Or are you so 'all in' with the Trump CULT that you actually think it's "virtually nobody"???

The point that was made is that a large portion of the GOP has claimed that it is the "Pro Life" party yet there are those in the Trump GOP who think older people or those who have underlying conditions or just unlucky people are worthless and not to be considered "life" worth caring for.

And now we have Der Leader talking about DNA...and people cheer...

There are also lots of us on the right side who desperately care about those older people and people with underlying conditions. It's why so many of us are ticked off by "just a few thousand" elderly people sentenced to death in assisted living homes by Cuomo. Your made-up boogeyman of the cold-hearted republican doesnt work here.

There would be 30 million+ (18+) adults in the US without the abortions that happened from 1970 - 2002. Millions and millions of more children that were aborted from 2003-now.

Imagine the positive nationwide impact of 30M+ more poeple- workers, consumers, brains, entrepreneurs. That's a lot of tax dollars and innovation thrown away by the .gov by legalizing abortions. At the very least, imagine if you had 40% of those 30M aborted adults still around and voting. The Dems might have won PA, MI, WI or FL and not have gotten Trump to begin with.

Unintended consequences of abortion.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:56 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:21 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:36 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:57 pm

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:35 amSo sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

Nothing cute about sanctioning the death of that many fetuses.

Right. Nothing cute either about Republicans watching silently as the expanding Trump-fueled pandemic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of American deaths. The “Pro Life Party” my arse...

..

Whattaboutism much?

Stay on topic. We were talking about Notorious here, Dis.

Besides. 200K deaths is chump change.

There were 623,000 abortions LAST YEAR ALONE. Peep the stats my yellow friend:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ted_States

Did you really mean that 200k deaths is "chump change"???

Even if we were to accept that abortions = "deaths", surely 200K deaths headed to 300k, worst death rate and worst economic impact in developed world, ain't "chump change", right?

Or are you so 'all in' with the Trump CULT that you actually think it's "virtually nobody"???

The point that was made is that a large portion of the GOP has claimed that it is the "Pro Life" party yet there are those in the Trump GOP who think older people or those who have underlying conditions or just unlucky people are worthless and not to be considered "life" worth caring for.

And now we have Der Leader talking about DNA...and people cheer...

There are also lots of us on the right side who desperately care about those older people and people with underlying conditions. It's why so many of us are ticked off by "just a few thousand" elderly people sentenced to death in assisted living homes by Cuomo. Your made-up boogeyman of the cold-hearted republican doesnt work here.

There would be 30 million+ (18+) adults in the US without the abortions that happened from 1970 - 2002. Millions and millions of more children that were aborted from 2003-now.

Imagine the positive nationwide impact of 30M+ more poeple- workers, consumers, brains, entrepreneurs. That's a lot of tax dollars and innovation thrown away by the .gov by legalizing abortions. At the very least, imagine if you had 40% of those 30M aborted adults still around and voting. The Dems might have won PA, MI, WI or FL and not have gotten Trump to begin with.

Unintended consequences of abortion.

Will MD now rail against Mitt Romney now that Mitt says he will vote for the nominee?

8

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:47 amAs we go past 200k, headed to 300k, worst in the developed world both in death rates and economic impact.

Getting tired of all this winning?

just to interject so we're on course and with respect to factual correctness, we are not worst in the developed world for economic impact. far from it. unless you're talking about gross? as we're easily the largest economy, that would be a given in any event.

by death rates, i'll assume you mean in the last week.

it's 2020, so i wouldn't want to see falsehoods propogated.

hopefully, we don't make it to 300k.

carry on.

Petey, it's not really a surprise that Mitt came down where he did.

Here's the bottom line, raw power rules.

Promises, norms and precedents don't actually matter unless the voters say so.

It's ugly and definitely contrary to the intent of the Founders, but unless the voters decide otherwise, the system is going to be far more nakedly about the raw exercise of power going forward.

so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.

There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.
Again, unless the voters decide otherwise.

Some can be done simply with majority votes, some may require Constitutional Amendments. But most can be done legislatively, with various rules that enfranchise American citizens who do not currently have representative and electoral college rights, eg Puerto Rico, DC, etc, or have proportionately less than their populations, actions which make voting nationwide far easier to do (VRA), ETC. Choice will be legislated nationally, health care nationally.

That's what Republicans have long stewed about, that the SCOTUS has 'legislated' instead of Congress...they're going to get what they asked for.

So, do understand that the Trumpist GOP have understood this going in. They knew the tide was going against them on all sorts of issues given where younger people are and the changing demography of America, and they're desperate to hold onto whatever power they can...there's truly nothing off the table.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:08 am Petey, it's not really a surprise that Mitt came down where he did.

Here's the bottom line, raw power rules.

Promises, norms and precedents don't actually matter unless the voters say so.

It's ugly and definitely contrary to the intent of the Founders, but unless the voters decide otherwise, the system is going to be far more nakedly about the raw exercise of power going forward.

so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.

There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.
Again, unless the voters decide otherwise.

Some can be done simply with majority votes, some may require Constitutional Amendments. But most can be done legislatively, with various rules that enfranchise American citizens who do not currently have representative and electoral college rights, eg Puerto Rico, DC, etc, or have proportionately less than their populations, actions which make voting nationwide far easier to do (VRA), ETC. Choice will be legislated nationally, health care nationally.

That's what Republicans have long stewed about, that the SCOTUS has 'legislated' instead of Congress...they're going to get what they asked for.

So, do understand that the Trumpist GOP have understood this going in. They knew the tide was going against them on all sorts of issues given where younger people are and the changing demography of America, and they're desperate to hold onto whatever power they can...there's truly nothing off the table.

Can't you at least say Mitt is an honorable guy and you have no doubt he is doing an honorable thing? Is he now part of the fetid underworld of raw political power? Just yesterday he was 'noble'.

Here's my call on Mitt. He's a good guy. Full stop. One of the rarer ones. I've changed my opinion on the guy a few times. But I think he shows he's a good to great family man which always tells me a ton about any person.

I think Trump's character irritates him to no end, but he was game to go work for the guy, so perhaps Mitt does have the touch of ego to him that we don't often see.

Mitt ultimately is a patriot and a conservative, and SCOTUS is the bulwark between America staying great versus America going down a sewer pipe (which liberal justices would no doubt enable). The guy made the right call.

I'm totally fine with Mitt -- who I voted for in 2012.

Unlike most of his GOP colleagues, he is honest. If you have the votes, then go ahead and vote. Totally fine. He also wasn't a Senator in 2016, so he didn't pontificate (i.e. lie) about what he was doing at that time.

What isn't cool is complete sleazy liars with situational ethics. Exhibit A being Lindsey Graham. He didn't have to say this in 2018 after BK was confirmed. But he did:

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election. And I've got a pretty good chance of being the Judiciary [Chairman]. Hold the tape."

Graham didn't have to say this in 2016 after stonewalling Garland. But he did:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. We're setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year – at least of a lame duck eight-year term, I would say it's gonna be a four-year term – that you're not gonna fill a vacant seat of the Supreme Court based on what we're doing here today. That's gonna be the new rule."

Collins and Murkowski stated their position in 2016 and are sticking to it. The others -- Graham, Mitch, Grassley, Barasso, etc. -- are pee-ing on my leg and telling me it is raining. Completely indefensible. Completely different than Romney. My check to Graham's opponent is in the mail.

As I said before, I'm happy to trade a SCOTUS seat for Lindsey being sent into the banishment he has so completely earned.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:08 am so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.

There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.

This is the most unfortunate consequence of Trump's presidency and the GOP's unflinching support thereof: it's given Democrats a playbook for how to act when they're in full control.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:03 am 8

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:47 amAs we go past 200k, headed to 300k, worst in the developed world both in death rates and economic impact.

Getting tired of all this winning?

just to interject so we're on course and with respect to factual correctness, we are not worst in the developed world for economic impact. far from it. unless you're talking about gross? as we're easily the largest economy, that would be a given in any event.

by death rates, i'll assume you mean in the last week.

it's 2020, so i wouldn't want to see falsehoods propogated.

hopefully, we don't make it to 300k.

carry on.

Feel free to clarify where we stand today relative to the rest of the developed world on either of these dimensions. Yes, the larger countries, with well developed, wealthy economies and health systems. And yes, I'm including our current trajectory in that assessment, not just the past.

I do agree with you that we can find a couple of smaller examples in which we can say their metric remains somewhat worse than ours, but not their trajectory.

At a minimum, we're in the "worst cohort" of all such countries.

But I take your point.

The rule is that if you have the votes, then you can use those votes. That was the rule back in 2016 too -- the GOP just lied about it at that time.

So if the WH and the Senate flip, there should be no problem with whatever the Dems want to use those votes for. You reap what you sow.

Dems would have gotten elected to obtain those votes. So long as not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, how they use those votes is no problem. The GOP will get another chance down the road when they get the votes back.

Longer term, SCOTUS just desperately needs to be reformed. SCOTUS really needs an injection of country over party. The pure power politics really isn't doing anyone any good.

Thoughtful article on how The Great Liberal Reckoning Has Begun

The end of the liberal love of the courts will not, of course, be the end of liberals’ fight over them. Liberals will continue to work to get their judges on the Supreme Court and the lower courts. They will champion court decisions that go their way and will explore limiting the judiciary’s powers when it rules against them. Liberals will, in short, act more like conservatives, whose disillusionment with the mid-century Court freed them to view the judicial branch as an instrument of political power and to be unembarrassed by an explicit effort to staff it with the ideologically reliable, just as political parties choose their candidates. This realpolitik approach to judicial nominations is the reason for the Republican Party’s stunning success in reshaping the federal bench, and it is one that liberals will have no choice but to adopt themselves if they want to fight back.

In time, liberals may yet win the battle over the federal courts, but any victory will be bittersweet, because in their hearts they will know that the lofty dream is dead. Law is no savior from politics; it is only a temporary reprieve from the struggle between powers over power. Battle is coming. The question is: Do liberals still remember how to fight? Because conservatives certainly do.

..