Dbqgolfer Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, knapplc said: And Merrick Garland? My first instinct is to answer "Joe Biden Rule".....but actually as much as I would have hated it, I think the Garland nomination probably should have moved forward. Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said: My first instinct is to answer "Joe Biden Rule".....but actually as much as I would have hated it, I think the Garland nomination probably should have moved forward. Yeah. Nice. The Joe Biden Rule Explained Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 17 minutes ago, knapplc said: Yeah. Nice. The Joe Biden Rule Explained Yep, and if I had to guess, in 2020 the Democrats will use the "McConnell Rule" if a vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up; and who could blame them? Link to comment
Moiraine Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said: Yep, and if I had to guess, in 2020 the Democrats will use the "McConnell Rule" if a vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up; and who could blame them? They can't use it if they don't win the Senate. And if they do win the Senate, they'll do it as early as 2019. Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 19 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said: Yep, and if I had to guess, in 2020 the Democrats will use the "McConnell Rule" if a vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up; and who could blame them? Easy. Me. I'm an American Independent, not beholden to one of these asinine parties. Screw these people and their biased ways. 2 1 Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 51 minutes ago, Moiraine said: They can't use it if they don't win the Senate. And if they do win the Senate, they'll do it as early as 2019. You are probably correct. Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 41 minutes ago, knapplc said: Easy. Me. I'm an American Independent, not beholden to one of these asinine parties. Screw these people and their biased ways. Yep. Good on you. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Dbqgolfer said: Yep. Good on you. We are actually the largest political group. You should try it. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said: I disagree. The hope here for Democrats is that if they can sink this nomination, there will not be enough time to confirm a different nominee before the midterms, and if they can win the Senate (Not probable, but certainly possible) they will have the votes to reject any nominee Trump nominates. And they'd be wrong. You're underestimating Senate Republicans. Mitch McConnell is one of the most effective yet despicable political operators of his era. I almost never think he's pulling strings for the right goals, but he certainly knows how to pull them. They've got, what, a month and a half left? It would take them at most two weeks to get somebody confirmed. I could see them breaking precedent to do it in a week if they needed to - confirmation hearings on Monday and a vote by the time the week is out. They'll do whatever it takes to get it done. I've picked up a lot of McConnell from those who report on Washington for a living - this Supreme Court seat is THE endgame for him. He values it above everything except keeping Republicans in Congress. If Kavanaugh eventually falls, they'll just move on to another name on their list. In fact, McConnell didn't want Kavanaugh because he knew he was a lifelong partisan with a very thick paper trail that could come back to bite him. They knew all of this was a possibility with him. The ones who really wanted Kavanaugh were the retiring Kennedy (part of the deal to broker his retirement was him having a hand in choosing his successor - he pushed for both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both of whom had previously clerked for him) and the WH legal counsel, Don McGahn. TL;DR: If he goes down, they'll pick another conservative from their list. They'll rush them in under the clock if they have to. Absolutely no way they leave the seat open. Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said: And they'd be wrong. You're underestimating Senate Republicans. Mitch McConnell is one of the most effective yet despicable political operators of his era. I almost never think he's pulling strings for the right goals, but he certainly knows how to pull them. They've got, what, a month and a half left? It would take them at most two weeks to get somebody confirmed. I could see them breaking precedent to do it in a week if they needed to - confirmation hearings on Monday and a vote by the time the week is out. They'll do whatever it takes to get it done. I've picked up a lot of McConnell from those who report on Washington for a living - this Supreme Court seat is THE endgame for him. He values it above everything except keeping Republicans in Congress. If Kavanaugh eventually falls, they'll just move on to another name on their list. In fact, McConnell didn't want Kavanaugh because he knew he was a lifelong partisan with a very thick paper trail that could come back to bite him. They knew all of this was a possibility with him. The ones who really wanted Kavanaugh were the retiring Kennedy (part of the deal to broker his retirement was him having a hand in choosing his successor - he pushed for both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both of whom had previously clerked for him) and the WH legal counsel, Don McGahn. TL;DR: If he goes down, they'll pick another conservative from their list. They'll rush them in under the clock if they have to. Absolutely no way they leave the seat open. They (Democrats) may be wrong; but I'm pretty sure it's their motivation Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Dbqgolfer said: They (Democrats) may be wrong; but I'm pretty sure it's their motivation In a utilitarian sense, I support their fight, as I would any effort to keep this man off the Court. He's more than proven to me he doesn't belong there. As for the politics of it... I'm frustrated and upset about this whole process because I don't want a conservative Supreme Court for the next couple decades. But it is what it is and I've resigned myself to it. Elections do have consequences and conservatives cared more about the Court than liberals did. They cared about it enough to make a Faustian bargain with a clown like Trump to claim it. Link to comment
Landlord Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said: I'm sure that's true, but there's a big difference between telling/bragging to people you're sleeping with a teacher and running around telling people you assaulted someone. Unless you don't, as most people who commit sexual assault are prone to, understand it to be or believe it is assault. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 I thought this aligned with my thoughts on this subject quite well. 2 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 ...not exactly the endorsement he would have been looking for Link to comment
Recommended Posts