In 1988, the Democrat controlled Senate confirmed the appointment of Anthony Kennedy 97-0 during the last year of Reagan’s presidency.
McConnell is who threw it all out the window by refusing to do the same for Garland in 2016.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
McConnell is who threw it all out the window by refusing to do the same for Garland in 2016.
i`m reading a New York Times column about Garland, you seem to have lost one hell of a SCOTUS there (when I say "you" i mean "the USA")
Trump's agenda is what ever he thinks plays well with his base, and Roe V Wade is something his evangelical cult would like to see overturned.
Biden expressed an opinion which in 2016 Moscow Mitch turned into the "Biden Rule". Now earlier in 2020 he suddenly no longer viewed it as rule - instead his actions were justified because the president and the senate majority belonged to different parties. So he got in his excuse for the current situation early.
well, that`s politics. How long can it take to reach the Supreme Court a case to overrule "roe vs wade"? I´m asking because here in argentina, a case like that, from the start to reach a SC sentence will go for a decade
yes, i read that he expressed it to George Bush senior but no SCOTUS died that year. Talk about opening an umbrella before it starts raining
If it is a case involving two states, it can be brought directly to the SCOTUS, assuming 4 justices grant it writ of certiorari. That can happen within a year.
If the case doesn’t fall under original jurisdiction, then appellate jurisdiction means it would first have to go through a lower court and then get appealed up to SCOTUS for the same writs of cert. That can happen within 1-2 years.
For example: Roe v. Wade’s entire legal history was decided between 1970-1973. That includes lower court cases, SCOTUS arguments, and the final decision.
I believe mitch and the republicans are spinning it as the biden rule... and that it only applies when the Senate is a different party to the president
The logic (or fabricated pretence depending on your point of view) being that if the senate has been elected to oppose and moderate the presidents policy they shouldn't appoint whilst if they have been voted in to support the presidents agenda then they should rush the appointment through asap
That’s a bad omen.
So there are arguments to support both stances
I'd say so. There are no actual rules, just traditions, and even those aren't clear in this instance. To quote myself from the Ginsburg thread:
Thats quite clarifying. Thanks.
that said, no matter what happens i hope roe vs wade isn’t overturned. Here in Argentina we still dont have an abortion law so if something that huge happens in USA will definitely impact badly in our country
Yes... though the optics probably look a bit worse for the republicans but suspect it will just become another partisan issue
Though he was nominated in 1987 thus giving the republicans cover
Ah the both-sides argument.
There are not two sides here. Before McConnell did what he does - use the game available to him to advance minority rule - the Senate would be expected to fill the seat a year out before an election. It has happened before. McConnell is the one that changed the game.
And now he's changing it again, despite at the time numerous GOP senators all confirming that these were the new norms, and if the situation were reversed, they'd act the same.
Mitch McConnell is only able to do what he does because of people like you (I know you don't vote in the US). But people with the mentality - fostered by Newt - that the way to ensure a shrinking minority is able to govern a diversifying country is to be nihilistic, and convince enough of the electorate that nothing matters and both sides are terrible.
And so many fall for it.
I disagree. McConnel and Trump can do what they do because the US constitution and/or laws are lacking in or misgiven on details, and because there is a hyperpartisan climate that makes politicians make the most of that. All of that has been created by politicians. The average voter (which I'm not either, obviously) can't do anything about that except voting against the Republicans, or even against both parties. But the former option will be dismissed as partisan as well, and the second option only has an effect if enough people do it go get noticed. The US has really dug itself into an ugly hole IMO.
Edit: I do think the Republicans are generally to blame for exploiting the loopholes in the system, especially in the past few years; although the Dems have done it on occasion as well. But the underlying problem remains the system, not whoever uses it most unscrupulously.
Last edited:
I read that Biden did it first in 1992 when he told Bush senior that the Senate would not vote for a SCOTUS during election year. He set that rule.
And to be fair, in 2016 even if the Dems had tried to name a SCOTUS, they didnt have the votes. So it wasnt that important what the rule was.
And as you know I'm not an american, i don't live there, but i have followed with one eye the different elections since the early 80's
I would have voted for Ronald Reagan both times, didnt like Carter
Then Dukakis
Then Clinton
Then Gore (i despised George Bush the Stupid Junior, that election was stoled by the SC when they ruled to stop counting votes in Florida)
Then Kerry
Then Obama both times
Then Hilary -but not my cup of tea-
But now the democrats have gone too far left and i really don't like leftist policies
When you look back through history and watch how liberals/liberalism just crumble in the wake of authoritarianism and fascism, its pretty wild to watch it with your own two eyes.
Whilst authoritarians grab control of every branch of government, the liberals take to twitter with hashtags to feel good about themselves.
Whilst authoritarians grab control of every branch of government, the liberals take to twitter with hashtags to feel good about themselves.
Last edited:
Which Dem policies, as advanced by Biden/Harris, are too far to the left?
There's little to no ideological difference between Kerry, Obama, Clinton, and Biden.
The Democratic Party is literally a center-right party.
cnut.
Edit: i`m not going to enter a debate about all those topics because it will be too long and useless
Last edited:
But trust me/us: the Democrats are really NOT a leftist party by any definition. There are people that are leftist in there (like AOC and Sanders), but they have little influence. Biden's platform is as centrist as they come, and leaning centre-right if anything. (By international standards.)
I don't know what news you watch/read, but if they're painting the Dems as leftist, you might want to consider looking for new sources.
But trust me/us: the Democrats are really NOT a leftist party by any definition. There are people that are leftist in there (like AOC and Sanders), but they have little influence. Biden's platform is as centrist as they come, and leaning centre-right if anything. (By international standards.)
I don't know what news you watch/read, but if they're painting the Dems as leftist, you might want to consider looking for new sources.
well considering even "leftists" in the USA now say using taxation to provide essential services = socialism. I'm fully ready to condemn the entire education foundation the country is based on.
anyway, no worries, even lefties are better than TrumpBut trust me/us: the Democrats are really NOT a leftist party by any definition. There are people that are leftist in there (like AOC and Sanders), but they have little influence. Biden's platform is as centrist as they come, and leaning centre-right if anything. (By international standards.)
I don't know what news you watch/read, but if they're painting the Dems as leftist, you might want to consider looking for new sources.
i`m far from white supremacists, gun freaks, religious freaks and leaned to poverty aids, pro abortion, pro gun control
so i`m more on your side than the other side
and you named AOC and Sanders, i really dislike those two
Exactly. The only thing different is that Trump calls them 'radical', when they are nothing like. In any other country, the Democrats would be a centre-right party.
Just move on from marcosdeto tbh.
ok, but i think is stupid to do something like that just because you don`t agree
i bet we agree in 90 percent of things
cheers
Last edited:
AOC and Sanders are the 'radical left' that the right is shouting about. If they would be setting the Democratic political platform, I'd get your sentiment. (Even if, in reality, these two represent rather the 'normal' left: in, say, Scandinavia, their policies would just be centre-left.) But they have little to no influence. Biden has been paying some lip-service to them, because he needs their supporters to vote for him; but the Democratic Party really isn't actually leaning in their direction. If you like centrist/centre-right policies, then Biden and his version of the Democratic Party would be an extremely safe bet for you.
Maybe it's the tone of your posts but you came into this thread with a ridiculously low bar to judge Trumps presidency (Something like not nuking North Korea) and took offence to his treatment of his supposed wins and achievements. By your own admission you didn't care/didn't learn much about what Trump did and now admit that you hate AOC and Sanders because they are left wing and you thought this place has gone to the dogs based on some or all of the above. People are nice to you because you are a returning poster who hasn't posted here for a long time.
I don't think we'll agree on 90% of things on policy if you "hate" Sanders or AOC. I honestly don't think you'll convert to leftist and as such, trying to engage you in an enlightened online debate is pointless. But by all means, have some fun in the forum.
I see, so you can't stand the idea that someone may not agree with you, and you only talk with people that think like you, which is, of course, your prerogative.
I'll have fun in the forum, thank you.
WGH
First of many investigations. Why he'll do anything to keep in power.
The state of the GOP.
- Status