Alternatively, win the Senate, House and White House back and then increase the size of the court (only a simple majority in Congress required for that vs the impeachment super-majority) to redress the conservative-liberal balance. Undoubtedly there would be howls out of outrage from Republicans but given the way they've manipulated the process to get their way in recent years is it really beyond the pale?
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Simple majority in the house --> 2/3 in the Senate
I would agree with that. It does happen in every country where males can use their power over those that are weaker than them. The thing is that in the western world most people with this amount of power is held by a few advantaged white males.
Just saw that Flake elevator video. What a fecking cowardly piece of shit he is.
This would be an interesting thread in its own right.
I do not recall the events but I was a blackout drunk.
They can die early from complications due to alcoholism, too.
congrats to all the rubes who fawned over jeff flake because he said trump was uncouth. i hope its now clear what we are up against and that there can be no compromise with republicans.
I said yesterday that all the boys that she mentioned were at that house.
Yeah, I think thats whats going to happen too.
He's a republican he wants a justice that will do their bidding. The way he voted in the tax vote showed that he would vote that way even if he didn't like Trump.
Whitehouse is bossing it.
i know. and all republican politicians are evil. their policies are evil. they support things that make life worse for so many of their fellow citizens. jeff flake is evil.
Grassley and Whitehouse still squabbling about who was at the party 37 years ago.
Can Grassley stop eating ffs. He's snacking like he's watching a movie.
I very much doubt Collins and Murkowski will both rebel, since they both know that they have to first win Republican primaries in 2020/22 before they can start worrying about how it could hurt them in the general. Opposite situation for Manchin/Donnelly/Heitkamp, where it's all about November. I think the Dems will all vote No in the end, those three will know that their votes won't be needed anyway.
How are these people in the senate.
Justice should not be about 'you should have given the letter before so that we can have an FBI investigation'. It should be about finding out what's happened.
Justice should not be about 'you should have given the letter before so that we can have an FBI investigation'. It should be about finding out what's happened.
True, but the specific political dynamics in their respective home states wouldn't make it particularly difficult for them to vote no. For instance, there is a strain of native residents in Alaska who are against Kavanaugh, which Murkowski will be well aware of. Maine isn't a particularly conservative state and so Collins wouldn't be penalized for voting no.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...rkowski-and-the-role-of-alaska-native-voters/
Because this is an obvious ploy by the Democrats to use the FBI investigation to delay his appointment until the midterms are over and the Democrats can block a Republican Supreme Judge. This is pretty much confirmed when all the Democrats did during the questioning is ask him about requesting an FBI investigation. At the end of the day, there is not a single shred of evidence to support any of this, besides her word. It seems that these days, as long as you're a woman, you can claim that someone raped you back 50 years ago and that'll take you for granted.
Jesus christ.
Dianne Feintein raped me 36 years ago. Disprove my point? This is basically what the Dems are doing. I'm sorry, but you have to be incredibly naive to believe someone's words. There is not a single shred of evidence to support her claims.
OK, where were you 36 years ago?
Just have an investigation limited to 7 days. If they don't find anything, they can vote him in before the midterms. There's more than enough time. So easy.
San Francisco.
What an incredibly narrow-minded and naive statement.
her testimony is evidence
Who is going to limit it? The Dems are going to ask for delay, not enough evidence, etc.
Oh, I know that when it comes to the wider electorate within their states that No is arguably a more sensible way to vote, I just wonder to what extent Maine and Alaska Republicans reflect those wider strands of opinion (or whether there are enough 'Trump Republicans' there to potentially sink them in their renomination campaigns).
Anyway, it may be that the Republicans allow Collins (who's up for re-election earliest) a No vote if they can afford it.
Her testimony is just her word and words are not evidence. Why did she not press charges at the time, but she suddenly decides to do this?
Has he been confirmed yet?
What kind of evidence are you expecting?
If the Republicans wanted proof, they should have made the FBI investigate the allegation. This guy is about to get a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land, where he will decide upon matters that influence the lives of millions. The stakes are too high for an allegation like this to be ignored
The Dem talking right now has proposed a 7 day limit. The Thomas investigation took just 3 days.
Not enough evidence means he's off the hook and gets the job.
When the woman wants the FBI to investigate and the guy doesn't, that should tell you something.
They could have given the FBI a week and still have got the vote done before the midterms.
Keep drinking that Fox News koolaid man, you seem to have forgotten that two other accusers have come forward. Both with corroborating witnesses. But I guess it's a ploy by the Clintons to stop a conservative majority.
Have you ever thought that the people who were there at the party would have no reason to say they were there because they would be incriminating themselves?
At the end of the day, I'm convinced that Republicans would seat a convicted felon if it advanced their agenda in some way. And this is because people with the view point you describe don't care if people get hurt, as long as it isn't themselves.
Two, four, six... there's no upper limit! FDR proposed increasing the court from nine justices to 15 back when it was striking down parts of the New Deal...interesting.
Increase it by 2 and get two far left judges.
There were once 13 justices in the Court.interesting.
Increase it by 2 and get two far left judges.
Go big or go home, I'd say.