551–560 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.
And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...
For every one of the coming takes that Republicans will be hypocrites to appoint and confirm a justice (which they will) They do not give a fuck. That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate. This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.
> They do not give a fuck Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP. You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.
Your party aggressively screwed over a candidate who could have energized the base and still would have captured 99.99% of the center in a trade for a principle-less barely coherent snooze fest of a human being who would toe the old party line and then you claim the only remedy is to play as dirty as the other side?
Excuse me for not buying it.
I voted for Obama but the democratic party is bordering on as repulsive as the republicans these days and this type of thinking is to blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada's looking fairly decent at the moment, however similar threats and pressure from global bad actors to deal with including in political arena.
As a Canadian, it’s not that different. We just had our Finance Minister quit because he was taking money from a non-profit that gets most of it’s money from the Federal gov’t. Oh and his daughter got a cushy job there too. Completely based on merit no doubt. Trudeau says “oh we’re sorry about that”. And that’s it. No harm no foul.
US can't even manage to forceably remove major bad actors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is my conclusion too. Not only are democrats losers they perfectly fine with it too. They've let republicans out politic them every since Reagan. Another in a long line of humiliating political defeats at the hands of big money.
Huh? The Democrats have had two, 2 term presidencies since Reagan. 16 years in the last 32.
Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?
From back in 2019: ‘Oh, we’d fill it’: How McConnell is doing a 180 on Supreme Court vacancies in an election year https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
Why are there life-terms on the Supreme Court? Doesn't that incentivize the justices to hold on past their prime, dying waiting for a new president or resigning in a politically motivated fashion? And don't life terms create a race to the bottom where younger justices are favored for longer remaining life? Why not 20 year limits?
The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddling preparing for leaving office. For example, in the defense department, officials will make recommendations and then leave office and profit from those same companies. If you're in office for life, this common (and almost impossible to prevent) kind of corruption becomes basically a non issue.
The federalist papers would shed light on such things, but actually reading them (and the wealth of nations)is likely to turn you into an independent who dislikes both parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best we can look forward to is a decade of civil war if Biden manages to take office. Unless someone figures out how to neutralize Facebook and Q immediately. Biden's still talking about being able to make deals with McConnell. We're totally fucked. It will of course be incomprehensibly darker if Trump manages to hold power.
That's correct, the country is fkd either way. If T. wins, he will cement his dictatorship. If he loses, even if removed from power, the country will be close to civil war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hillary won the popular vote by 1.1% and currently the Republicans hold a razor thin Senate majority and have been substantially outpaced by Democrats in the House, so I'm not really sure where you get the idea that there's a "far disproportionate share of power/representation". It seems pretty proportionate to me.
You look at the core beliefs of the Republican Party: Anti-Abortion: about or above sixty percent of Americans support legal abortions Climate change: two thirds of Americans view it as a top priority and that the benefits of action outweigh the costs Guns: sixty percent to two-thirds of Americans support stricter gun control. 90–92% support mandatory background checks Taxing Wealthy: again, sixty percent to two thir…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about head kicks. I think you just need to be a political realist. The reality is that you need (edit: cooperation of the) Senate and Presidency to get a Justice nominated. Obama didn't have the Senate and didn't get his pick for Justice. Trump does, and will get his pick. The whole "Republicans are hypocrites" thing is true - but obviously so. Whatever was said about not doing it in election year was si…
Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas were all approved by a senate of an opposing party. Apparently you have to go back to the 1800s though to find a case where a Democratic president had a nominee appointed by a Republican Senate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things have no gap. Your either want the right to your own body, or a crusade to stop the murder of millions of babies. This drives most other politics.
Bill Clinton tried to thread that needle with the safe, legal, rare triad. I wish we could try that again.