Dems Rebuild

[TGHusker]

11 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Bork and Garland are not equal opposites. 

 

The Senate voted on Bork and rejected him. 

 

The Senate refused to even hold a vote on Garland. 

True on both points, however, the point that I was trying to make was that the opposition party has more stridently tried to oppose the President's nomination of balance changing nominees in a more obvious way since that time  - perhaps before that time also but these are the ones that really stand out to me - Bork, Thomas, Garland. 

[Fru]

Just now, TGHusker said:

True on both points, however, the point that I was trying to make was that the opposition party has more stridently tried to oppose the President's nomination of balance changing nominees in a more obvious way since that time  - perhaps before that time also but these are the ones that really stand out to me - Bork, Thomas, Garland. 

 

Bork seems to be the "go to" for lots of folks but it's not even close to being the same situation.

 

He may have been opposed but they still voted on him. Voting on his confirmation was the Senate fulfilling its' duty.

 

Refusing to even hold a vote on Garland is an abdication of the responsibility of the Senate. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[TGHusker]

24 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Bork seems to be the "go to" for lots of folks but it's not even close to being the same situation.

 

He may have been opposed but they still voted on him. Voting on his confirmation was the Senate fulfilling its' duty.

 

Refusing to even hold a vote on Garland is an abdication of the responsibility of the Senate. 

Yes, but the phrase 'Bork' came from the way the Dems handled the nomination - using every accusation and trick in the book to defeat Bork.  

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-senate-rejects-robert-bork-for-the-supreme-court/

Quote

In addition to his legal legacy, Bork also has a word named for him in the Oxford English Dictionary. The verb “bork” is used as slang, to "defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."

 

 

A bit of an overstatement by Teddy Kennedy at the time.

 

 

Quote

 

Five years later, President Reagan nominated Bork for the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987, to replace a retiring Lewis Powell. Senator Ted Kennedy reacted with a public statement that quickly drew political battle lines over Bork’s nomination.

“Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy,” he said. (Bork later stated he felt ever word in the statement was false.)

 

Quote

 

After the Judiciary Committee declined to recommend Bork in a full Senate vote, the nominee voiced his frustrations of what he though was a nomination process that had turned into a political litmus test for the Supreme Court.

“Federal judges are not appointed to decide cases according to the latest opinion polls,” he said, adding that if judicial candidates “are treated as political candidates the effect will be to erode public confidence and endanger the independence of the judiciary.”

When the full Senate debated Bork’s nomination, 54 Senators in the Democrat-controlled chamber had already said they would not approve Bork. The final vote on October 23 of 58-42 against Bork confirmed that outcome.

 

 

[Fru]

So "Bork" means you get vilified but voted on. The system functioned within its' design. 

 

And "Garland" means you aren't even given a chance. The system was obstructed and prevented from functioning at all. 

[Danny Bateman]

3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

True on both points, however, the point that I was trying to make was that the opposition party has more stridently tried to oppose the President's nomination of balance changing nominees in a more obvious way since that time  - perhaps before that time also but these are the ones that really stand out to me - Bork, Thomas, Garland. 

 

I feel like McConnell set a new precedent with Garland/Gorsuch in a couple different ways.

 

Mostly, though, it was all about power. Appearances be damned, traditions and norms be damned, functional government be damned. They made up some flimflam excuse about "lame duck president, let the next one decide, yada yada." Everyone knows he simply wasn't going to let Obama fill another Supreme Court seat with even a moderate like Garland. Remember, Garland was a reasonable compromise candidate; as so often happened to Obama, trying to compromise with the snakes leading the GOP was fruitless. 

We also only need 51 votes to confirm a new justice instead of 60 now.

 

Not saying it wasn't a cunning political move; the inability to feel shame can actually be very politically advantageous. But it was also brinksmanship to the hilt that inexorably altered the way we nominate justices. The pendulum will swing back & bite the Turtle's party eventually; the question is how many justices Trump will seat in that time.

 

 

[Moiraine]

29 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I feel like McConnell set a new precedent with Garland/Gorsuch in a couple different ways.

 

Mostly, though, it was all about power. Appearances be damned, traditions and norms be damned, functional government be damned. They made up some flimflam excuse about "lame duck president, let the next one decide, yada yada." Everyone knows he simply wasn't going to let Obama fill another Supreme Court seat with even a moderate like Garland. Remember, Garland was a reasonable compromise candidate; as so often happened to Obama, trying to compromise with the snakes leading the GOP was fruitless. 

We also only need 51 votes to confirm a new justice instead of 60 now.

 

Not saying it wasn't a cunning political move; the inability to feel shame can actually be very politically advantageous. But it was also brinksmanship to the hilt that inexorably altered the way we nominate justices. The pendulum will swing back & bite the Turtle's party eventually; the question is how many justices Trump will seat in that time.

 

 

If the Democrats win the Senate in 2018 (unlikely, imo) they have every reason to not let Trump place another justice, including the fact that the GOP got ugly first. Although, I do have a little fear that it'll give more excuse for a coup.

 

Then, if the Democrats happen to win everything in 2020, I think they should write a lot making it impossible for this to happen again.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

If the Democrats win the Senate in 2018 (unlikely, imo) they have every reason to not let Trump place another justice, including the fact that the GOP got ugly first. Although, I do have a little fear that it'll give more excuse for a coup.

 

Then, if the Democrats happen to win everything in 2020, I think they should write a lot making it impossible for this to happen again.

 

Well said. 

 

That's kind of what I'm in favor of, too. An eye for an eye, once... I'm tired of Dems being told to suck it up & be the more responsible party because the other option is led by grievously irresponsible bad faith operators like the Turtle. In the off chance they do win back the Senate, absolutely wait & try to confirm whomever they want in 2020 to replace Kennedy or whomever else decides to retire.

 

After that, pass a law requiring 60 votes. Otherwise we wind up with a Court more ideological extreme than it already is.

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Well said. 

 

That's kind of what I'm in favor of, too. An eye for an eye, once... I'm tired of Dems being told to suck it up & be the more responsible party because the other option is led by grievously irresponsible bad faith operators like the Turtle. In the off chance they do win back the Senate, absolutely wait & try to confirm whomever they want in 2020 to replace Kennedy or whomever else decides to retire.

 

After that, pass a law requiring 60 votes. Otherwise we wind up with a Court more ideological extreme than it already is.

 

 

Not just the 60 votes. They need to do something to force the Senate to at the very least hold a vote on the nominee

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Not just the 60 votes. They need to do something to force the Senate to at the very least hold a vote on the nominee

 

Well, yeah, that too. Presumably a bill expelling Mitch McConnell from Congress.

[TGHusker]

13 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I feel like McConnell set a new precedent with Garland/Gorsuch in a couple different ways.

 

Mostly, though, it was all about power. Appearances be damned, traditions and norms be damned, functional government be damned. They made up some flimflam excuse about "lame duck president, let the next one decide, yada yada." Everyone knows he simply wasn't going to let Obama fill another Supreme Court seat with even a moderate like Garland. Remember, Garland was a reasonable compromise candidate; as so often happened to Obama, trying to compromise with the snakes leading the GOP was fruitless. 

We also only need 51 votes to confirm a new justice instead of 60 now.

 

Not saying it wasn't a cunning political move; the inability to feel shame can actually be very politically advantageous. But it was also brinksmanship to the hilt that inexorably altered the way we nominate justices. The pendulum will swing back & bite the Turtle's party eventually; the question is how many justices Trump will seat in that time.

 

 

I agree with you. Garland was actually a moderate choice in comparison to Obama's previous nominees.  It set the wrong precedent for the Turtle to obstruct the nomination that early.  Good political move, but it sets a bad 'policy' when the tables are turned. 

[knapplc]

 

(this tweet is in reference to Crowley getting defeated by a political naif last night)

 

 

 

 

I think I see part of the problem. 

[Moiraine]

I don't know how sensible abolishing ICE would actually be.

What I do know is that it's probably a good headline for the Republicans because it doesn't sound good. They were already saying the Democrats want free and open borders. And it's probably not a good way to win the House.

[knapplc]

16 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I don't know how sensible abolishing ICE would actually be.

What I do know is that it's probably a good headline for the Republicans because it doesn't sound good. They were already saying the Democrats want free and open borders. And it's probably not a good way to win the House.

 

 

Do you think?  This is the party that didn't bat an eyelash when Trump floated out that he wants to abolish the EPA and Dept. of Education.

[commando]

seems legit