661–670 of 1001 posts
Only after reading about this did I realise that RBG was Catholic. There would have been a lot of familiarity of thought and philosophy in their backgrounds. In some part, it makes it easier to disagree. Some of the arguments have been going on for centuries.
For those so certain that the Republican Senate is going to ram though someone, there are a few moderates left, and they've already decided thing can wait until after the election: "So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration. Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski" [0]: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it's time to fight back. Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS. McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you're right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.
Uhhh, the Senate confirms nominees. Expanding the court would just allow Republicans to name more justices...
This threat assumes that Democrats would take this action once they control the House and Senate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
McConnell is pretty transparent about his hypocritical political bullshit: > "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi... edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said i…
McConnell has done more harm to the USA than any other politician I can think of in recent memory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? Do I think a Supreme Court starting with the current one, with Ginsberg’s empty seat and probably Justice Breyer’s replaced by the kind of people the current Republican Party would appoint and confirm (assuming Trump gets a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate) would allow Trump to serve beyond the end of his second term w…
So now we’re claiming the entire US monetary system is going to collapse (and as a result most likely the worlds monetary system)? The more levels down we go in the comments here, the crazier the conspiracies.
No, that's not why outspoken critics of an incipient authoritarian regime would not be likely to be able to collect or enjoy their winnings if the regime was successful in establishing itself. The monetary system is in no way part of the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.
They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year. If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.
Especially since you yourself suggest packing it to give an immediate "Democrat" majority, when it's incredibly likely, even without a new nomination, the Supreme Court remains republican for at least 8 years.
Personally I think this is what democrats (and people like you) are hoping for. It'd give an excuse to pack the court day one and maybe not immediately lose all public support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not the precedent: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... > History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the…
I read it. The last time was over 150 years ago. Stop pretending this is a common occurrence.
Then you're back in the 1800s. But we routinely look back to the 1800s to establish what is accepted practice in our government.
For those so certain that the Republican Senate is going to ram though someone, there are a few moderates left, and they've already decided thing can wait until after the election: "So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration. Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski" [0]: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580…
Like anyone can take Collins at her word anymore.
This won’t happen. I’m a reasonable person and happy to change my mind with evidence, and don’t say this lightly, but the republicans do not give a crud about any of this. They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist. This is coming from a recent former republican. I miss George Will’s Republican party.
There is no reason to 'other' people like this. Parties are things that people adhere to, some for a season, some for a lifetime, but they reflect very little about their worth as human beings. I come from a large family and we represent the whole spectrum of political beliefs, in a single generation, and all my sibs are equally kind and selfless, regardless of their political affiliation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top. Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for. ~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come…
But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"
"white silence is violence"
googles
Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts.
So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bit shitty that I entertain the cognitive-dissonance of being "anti-racist" and "not having ever done anything that was anti-racist"
Then if I cookie-cutter myself out to everybody else - I now see how racism flourishes, whilst the majority tut-tuts.
Was that your point?