The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who are 'the public'?

Dems want their elected officials to stand firm. GOP want to get their man in. Ending the filibuster suits both sides.

Next will go the legislative filibuster, and the GOP will rue this day when they lose Congress.

SCOTUS can always be fixed. If FDR had his way it'd have been more than 9 now. What Dems need to do is keep the base on side, even fruitless fight such as this one isn't counterproductive in the long term.

It's just bizarre to bang the drum about 'public sentiment' when the GOP has been destroying norms for the last 3 decades and got away scott free.
 
Ubik said:
Supreme court picks get the righty base out far better than the lefty base (example, November 2016). The Dems in retrospect should've nuked it for Garland. but thought Clinton would win so stalled to use it for the next one.
Click to expand...

They couldn't. GOP had an even bigger majority last year.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Who are 'the public'?

Dems want their elected officials to stand firm. GOP want to get their man in. Ending the filibuster suits both sides.

Next will go the legislative filibuster, and the GOP will rue this day when they lose Congress.

SCOTUS can always be fixed. If FDR had his way it'd have been more than 9 now. What Dems need to do is keep the base on side, even fruitless fight such as this one isn't counterproductive in the long term.

It's just bizarre to bang the drum about 'public sentiment' when the GOP has been destroying norms for the last 3 decades and got away scott free.
Click to expand...

Public sentiment, as in the polls, pressure at town halls, and media scrutiny. As I recall, you argued that this would be a good thing. Congrats, on blowing up the filibuster and getting Gorsuch on the court. A well executed strategy for someone with no skin in the game.
 
Raoul said:
Public sentiment, as in the polls, pressure at town halls, and media scrutiny. As I recall, you argued that this would be a good thing. Congrats, on blowing up the filibuster and getting Gorsuch on the court. A well executed strategy for someone with no skin in the game.
Click to expand...

60-70% of 'the public' wanted Garland to have a hearing, the political backlash to that is sitting in the WH tweeting right now.

Very strange of you to be in 'told-you-so' mode when everyone knew what they'd do. Whether this turns out to be a good or bad thing in the long term remains to be seen.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
They couldn't. GOP had an even bigger majority last year.
Click to expand...

Apparently there was some technicality loophole thing they could've used in January just before Obama left office, but it'd have been very controversial and quite undemocratic. Still...
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
60-70% of 'the public' wanted Garland to have a hearing, the political backlash to that is sitting in the WH tweeting right now.

Very strange of you to be in 'told-you-so' mode when everyone knew what they'd do. Whether this turns out to be a good or bad thing in the long term remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Garland is irrelevant now. Nobody cares. But Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court and the Dems have no more ammo to deal with future nominees. A spectacular failure of strategy.
 
Raoul said:
Garland is irrelevant now. Nobody cares. But Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court and the Dems have no more ammo to deal with future nominees. A spectacular failure of strategy.
Click to expand...

No one cares about Garland, but @InfiniteBoredom made the fair point that the percentage of public support for him meant feck all, and likely will in the future if Trump goes against popular opinion and nominates a hard-right candidate.
 
The Republicans shut down the government and got rewarded at the ballot box, they blocked the barest of gun control measures after children were massacred and got rewarded at the ballot box, they blocked a Supreme court appointment for 15 months and were again rewarded at the ballot box, they nominated a corrupt demagogic sex-pest as their nominee and got fecking rewarded at the ballot box. Skeptical they'd be worried about arcane procedural rules trashing their reputation with the public at this point.
 
Ubik said:
The Republicans shut down the government and got rewarded at the ballot box, they blocked the barest of gun control measures after children were massacred and got rewarded at the ballot box, they blocked a Supreme court appointment for 15 months and were again rewarded at the ballot box, they nominated a corrupt demagogic sex-pest as their nominee and got fecking rewarded at the ballot box. Skeptical they'd be worried about arcane procedural rules trashing their reputation with the public at this point.
Click to expand...

They will be very worried of Trump is failing at his policies, healthcare is in flux, there are increasing Russia investigations, and the economy is beginning to go south. That's what they will be dealing with by the time the mid terms are front and center next year and he would have a much more difficult time with any SCOTUS pick that attempts to replace a left leaning judge.
 
Raoul said:
They will be very worried of Trump is failing at his policies, healthcare is in flux, there are increasing Russia investigations, and the economy is beginning to go south. That's what they will be dealing with by the time the mid terms are front and center next year and he would have a much more difficult time with any SCOTUS pick that attempts to replace a left leaning judge.
Click to expand...
In that case they'd be getting boned anyway, stopping the filibuster isn't going to bother people in comparison. Only politics bellends like us care.
 
Raoul said:
Garland is irrelevant now. Nobody cares. But Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court and the Dems have no more ammo to deal with future nominees. A spectacular failure of strategy.
Click to expand...

Let me make this perfectly clear:

1) Dems have absolutely no way to prevent Gorsuch confirmation, given their current position.

2) They then have 2 choices, whether to fold like a sack of potatoes and lose the base, still hurt and angry from Nov, and a big portion intensely distrustful of the party's establishment wing, given what transpired during the primary; or, stand firm as a matter of principle, gain credit with the base and accept that they'll just have to deal with what comes after the GOP bust the filibuster and look to 2018.

3) The outcomes remain to be seen. It could be that President Trump eventually prove a roaring success after all and all is lost as you predict, or a roused Democratic base incensed at the stolen seat and Drumpf give Dems back Congress and the Presidency in 2020. And, if they then wish, they can redress balance of SCOTUS by court packing if necessary.

Electoral prospect is the priority. It isn't rocket science. That McCaskill and Tester, two supremely vulnerable red state Dems with re-election in 2018 came out in favour of filibustering Gorsuch means their numbers told them something.
 
Ubik said:
In that case they'd be getting boned anyway, stopping the filibuster isn't going to bother people in comparison. Only politics bellends like us care.
Click to expand...

Yup. Half of them probably don't even know what it is, or what it does.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Let me make this perfectly clear:

1) Dems have absolutely no way to prevent Gorsuch confirmation, given their current position.

2) They then have 2 choices, whether to fold like a sack of potatoes and lose the base, still hurt and angry from Nov, and a big portion intensely distrustful of the party's establishment wing, given what transpired during the primary; or, stand firm as a matter of principle, gain credit with the base and accept that they'll just have to deal with what comes after the GOP bust the filibuster and look to 2018.

3) The outcomes remain to be seen. It could be that President Trump eventually prove a roaring success after all and all is lost as you predict, or a roused Democratic base incensed at the stolen seat and Drumpf give Dems back Congress and the Presidency in 2020. And, if they then wish, they can redress balance of SCOTUS by court packing if necessary.

Electoral prospect is the priority. It isn't rocket science. That McCaskill and Tester, two supremely vulnerable red state Dems with re-election in 2018 came out in favour of filibustering Gorsuch means their numbers told them something.
Click to expand...

This is just babble. The bottom line is Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court and the filibuster is gone. The Dems made a bet that they would gain something out of playing politics and lost bigly.
 
Ubik said:
In that case they'd be getting boned anyway, stopping the filibuster isn't going to bother people in comparison. Only politics bellends like us care.
Click to expand...

The Dems should've done the right thing and voted on Gorsuch based on his qualifications. Take the politics out of it and restore a degree of dignity and civility to the process. That won't change what happened with Garland, but it will change the climate within the Congress so they can do business on a variety of other issues that are before them.
 
Raoul said:
They will be very worried of Trump is failing at his policies, healthcare is in flux, there are increasing Russia investigations, and the economy is beginning to go south. That's what they will be dealing with by the time the mid terms are front and center next year and he would have a much more difficult time with any SCOTUS pick that attempts to replace a left leaning judge.
Click to expand...
One reason this is even a popular issue is that the 'nuclear option' tag sounds so interesting. It's an old procedural doctrine the voting base probably doesn't understand that the GOP wouldn't bat an eyelash at using the next time around.

Holding that card in the Blue pocket grants them nothing.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
One reason this is even a popular issue is that the 'nuclear option' tag sounds so interesting. It's an old procedural doctrine the voting base probably doesn't understand that the GOP wouldn't bat an eyelash at using the next time around.

Holding that card in the Blue pocket grants them nothing.
Click to expand...

Correct me if im wrong, but hasn't the nuclear option been used now for the first time and the rules changed forever?

Parties will now only need a simple majority for a supreme court pick. Nuclear option cant be used the next time or ever again on this.
 
Raoul said:
The Dems should've done the right thing and voted on Gorsuch based on his qualifications. Take the politics out of it and restore a degree of dignity and civility to the process. That won't change what happened with Garland, but it will change the climate within the Congress so they can do business on a variety of other issues that are before them.
Click to expand...
Dems... doing the right thing for 10 years
GOP... screwing over the dems for 10 years
Doing the same thing over and over is insanity. Its time to play the GOP at their own game.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Correct if im wrong, but hasn't the nuclear option has been used and the rules changed forever? Parties will now only need a simple majority for a supreme court pick.
Click to expand...

There are still the legislative filibuster . Reid nuked the filibuster for judicial appointments except SCOTUS because the GOP wouldn't accept any of them. McConnell finished the job now.

It's just a pretty dumb procedural move in all honesty, especially in a legislative body like the Senate where CA and WY have the same representation.
 
Raoul said:
The Dems should've done the right thing and voted on Gorsuch based on his qualifications. Take the politics out of it and restore a degree of dignity and civility to the process. That won't change what happened with Garland, but it will change the climate within the Congress so they can do business on a variety of other issues that are before them.
Click to expand...

This comes across as unbelievably naive given how Republicans have behaved in recent years.
 
senorgregster said:
Dems... doing the right thing for 10 years
GOP... screwing over the dems for 10 years
Doing the same thing over and over is insanity. Its time to play the GOP at their own game.
Click to expand...

And in the process completely destroy any glimmer of bipartisan governance, and ensure continued, indefinite gridlock. That's no way to run a country.
 
Borden said:
This comes across as unbelievably naive given how Republicans have behaved in recent years.
Click to expand...

They have nothing to lose by being professional and dignified in their approach. On the other hand, the atmosphere in Congress has everything to gain if they took that approach.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Correct me if im wrong, but hasn't the nuclear option been used now for the first time and the rules changed forever?

Parties will now only need a simple majority for a supreme court pick.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant that option if withheld would just be used the next time around to the same effect.

Not using that stalemate decider now would just allow the GoP to use it for the next SCOTUS without much debate, in contrast to Raoul's opinion that it might be useful if the GoP is on thin ice by then as though it might make a difference-which I don't buy as being highly feasible.
 
senorgregster said:
The dems folding changes nothing in that regard. Gridlock and chaos exist due to one party.
Click to expand...

No, it exists because of both parties. The Garland and Gorsuch debacles offer proof of this. The more you attempt to blame one side the further you dig yourself into a ditch of ineffectiveness and gridlock. Ultimately good governance is always about compromise and someone has to be the grown up in the room here.
 
Raoul said:
No, it exists because of both parties. The Garland and Gorsuch debacles offer proof of this. The more you attempt to blame one side the further you dig yourself into a ditch of ineffectiveness and gridlock. Ultimately good governance is always about compromise and someone has to be the grown up in the room here.
Click to expand...

It's not the Democrats who brought the country to gridlock, and it's not them who denied a SC candidate a hearing. They were well within their rights to reject Gorsuch on the basis he was picked by a President who's under investigation due to his connections with a confrontational foreign power.
 
Cheesy said:
It's not the Democrats who brought the country to gridlock, and it's not them who denied a SC candidate a hearing. They were well within their rights to reject Gorsuch on the basis he was picked by a President who's under investigation due to his connections with a confrontational foreign power.
Click to expand...

Ehh ? No they weren't. They are just playing politics just like the GOP did last year. The bit about Trump being under investigation is yet another political ploy. It has zero legal or procedural credibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.