Previous  1 ... 164  165  166  167  168  169  170  Next

President Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court!!! This nomination should be a breeze because we all know from the last nomination that every woman is to be believed!!! Right? So why even bother asking her any questions? If I was Mitch McConnell, I would call for a straight up vote Monday. If every Democrat wants to abstain from the vote, fine. Lets get it over already. Congress has some REAL work to do in the second stimulus package. Quit wasting time on sideshows already. Amy Coney Barrett IS going to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court. Lets cut through all the circus drama and get it done already. Monday sounds good.

   

Enjoy your theocracy. Also I love that NOW you're calling for stimulus. When the senate could have voted on it for the last 6 months. And I'm not sure how a supreme court justice is a "side show" when there could be fundamental changes to rights currently afford Americans.

But sure, lets not question someone's allegiance that has dedicated their life to a thinly veiled cult.

   

Her record will speak for itself - another "constitutional originalist" who thinks that the limits on freedom & liberty were established in the 1770's an 80's, and that any expansion since then "isn't what the Founders intended" & is therefore illegal. So goodbye to any right to choose & use birth control, goodbye to more voting rights, and hello to even more diminishing in individual rights & more massive expansion of corporate rights to the point where the mega-businesses can arbitrarily wipe out any individual worker or employee who stands up to them.

Yup, definitely sounds like someone the right-wing will celebrate as she gives them even more judicial entrenchment on their endless feudal-era crusade to destroy all rights & protection for anyone who isn't one of them. Too bad she was clearly Trump's second choice because Roland Freisler is sadly no longer available.

   

What a mess.

   

Huh, looks like users can't delete their own posts anymore?

Yep.



While I recognize this definitely wasn't the thrust of your comment, Rick, and this is a bit of a long response to this section, I felt the need to respond to it. I do worry about comments which could in effect marginalize a very real problem and felt a need just to respond and distinguish between the two here.

"Believe all women" was a semantic shift of "believe women." A summary:

But the concept has been controversial almost from the beginning. Critics have charged that the phrase “believe women” is simplistic and implies that women are somehow biologically incapable of lying. But many advocates say that the call to believe women doesn’t mean we shouldn’t investigate allegations. Instead, they say, it’s simply an appeal for people to take such allegations seriously — something American society historically has not done.

The message of “believe survivors” is that when people come forward to report sexual assault and seek support, “Their stories are listened to and are taken into account and are not immediately discredited,” Sage Carson, manager of Know Your IX, a project combating sexual violence at schools and on college campuses, told Vox.

I recognize this might not be your preferred choice of source, but there were a few options out there that discuss the same topic and I felt this suggestion was sufficiently focused on the item on hand to remain relevant.

Much like "Black Lives Matter," where the point being made is that people don't believe so, the same thing was being said here; women deserve not to be outright ignored, as has historically been a problem. I certainly believe we should believe victims when they say they have experienced rape and try and provide them the right supports, and investigate where possible rather than broadly dismissing it out of hand. Thankfully, as time progresses and millennials rise into prominence, America seems to be doing a better job in trying to slow this trend, but the unfortunate statistics remain.

"Believe all women" in contrast came largely out of the punditry. Much like "all lives matter." I think we can both agree not a lot of good comes out of pundits these days and the recent focus on semantics and playing with slogans has not exactly been for the best.



I'd certainly accelerate the process if I was Mitch. We are well passed the point of any existing gentlemen's agreements or precedent, and the remainder of the precedent surrounding the process would likely energize opposition. Few Republican voters or Republican leaning voters seem overly concerned so there's not a need to really work to rationalize this either; in fact, they are largely supportive. That said, if I were a Democrat, I'd respond in kind.

In short, Republicans stack, Democrats should pack (increase the number of justices to fully offset the Conservative advantage).

I would also do the same if I were Democrats; playing by norms has not worked for them, and much like the Republicans, they can easily set new precedent themselves and rationalize it fairly easily to themselves and to (a sufficiently large proportion of) voters. "The last three justices were put into place by a President without majority support of the populace; by a senate representing 15 million fewer voters than the opposition. Americans deserve justices that reflect the will of the majority of voters who have been losing faith in their institutions."

Those that disagree are unlikely to vote for them anyway, no more than those who disagree with what Republicans are currently doing would vote for them. The polarized environment empowers them to do what has destroyed presidents in the past.

Further, there are answers to the Senate being held by a party with minority votes; get DC and Puerto Rico in there to offset the bias of existing small states, to better reflect democratic wills and give a voice to Americans who can die for their country but not vote for their president or have a voice in Congress. Democrats can argue that they have a legitimately moral reason to do this because, well, they do. The fact that it would also likely return some balance to the Senate is a handy side benefit for Democrats.

In short, if the rule is "he who has the majority wins as long as it's allowed by the Constitution," the Democrats should absolutely play by the same rules, if only so Americans are fully clear what they are voting for moving forward.

I've argued that American Congress should do away with the veneer of "minority voice" and move to a majoritarian view in the past on CKA, so this remains fairly consistent for me on both ends of the equation. That all said, I'd still hold a public review as is done now to retain accountability.



Unfortunately, the defining element and aim of Mitch has always been to get justices on courts; the Senate has spent precious little time passing laws or confronting major issues facing the nation, because there is a recognition that stacking courts is more important in retaining power, especially when an electorate is potentially going to vote you out. The ultimate result; things like the stimulus are kicked down the road and what we see as a "side show" is the main event.

This is no surprise though. Republicans have increasingly depended on a friendly Supreme Court to maintain a lot of their priorities. Trump's legislative successes have been limited, but his success in cementing a Republican/Conservative presence in the courts has been very successful. Republican voters are also highly motivated by the Supreme Court, as seen by Trump's past focus on them in response to voter sentiment; it's not a surprise that this "side show" will be front and center until the election, because it has been for five years now.

As an aside, as a member of a group who might be negatively impact by a new Supreme Court justice, I admit to being okay with this not really being a side show, even not considering the significant consequences and ramifications that come out of many Supreme Court cases.

   

And a congress that fails to challenge status quo.

   

It was a good response but far more than the original comment deserved, given that the intent of the original was just another "ha-ha, we win, you lose!" sneer of the sort that Trump fans engage in whenever they're confronted with any dissent from those who oppose what Dear Leader is doing to America.

   

The Rock could run and win.

   

   

a POST 2020 Trump era. Seems like a dream.

   

   

Wapo, blind to the reasons why Trump ascended and their hand in it.

   

   

   

Opening line - "Good evening, America, I'm Joe Biden and I'm running for president. And, unlike Donald Trump but just like all of you, I've always paid my fair share of taxes". Hit the evil one constantly with relentless quips like that and the SOB will be knocked back on his bone-spur plagued heels so badly he'll never get up again.

   

Previous  1 ... 164  165  166  167  168  169  170  Next