SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[twa]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Right, but what is the action?
The filibuster was killed.

 

How are the dems going to stall? I've yet to hear what the procedural mechanism will be to stop this. It sounds like there isn't one?

 

Maybe they can flee the country? 

Hide out in Bloombergs bunker?

 

They can always try insurrection

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

There is no reason for Trump to nominate someone unless this is one of the things that that person explicitly believes in. They might not even say it in their hearings but they have passed the "litmus test" prior to being nominated. 

 

This is why the GOP and all their corporate donors and even their base don't care about Trump's antics, his daily diminishing of the position of the presidency and America's standing in the world, the he is a disgusting piece of **** of a human being or that he worked with a foreign adversary to steal the presidency. They don't give a rat's ass about any of that because this is what's it's all been about. They ignore all that because they knew he would give them billions in tax cuts and he is going to give them supreme court justices that will uphold their white christian worldview in america 

 

I agree that people are letting Trump slide because they are getting what they want, but goursch said he'd walked out if asked to overturn roe v wade.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/scotus-hearing-neil-gorsuch-roe-v-wade/index.html
 

Your not all the wrong, but you aren't all the way right, either.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It's not good, but seriously, while I get that, it may happen no matter what we do because of bad timing.  Say we don't hold up this one and take back the senate, we can force a more moderate judge when next appointment comes up.  Say this backfires and we don't take back the senate, then we're ultra f'd.  We're taking a risk either way, only way to really stop what your talking about is to hold up the process until Trump leaves (which would be worse then what GOP did given how much time trump has left) we don't have the votes to stop this one, maybe the next one?

 

I don't think they can stop this one so it's probably moot. And I don't think they can take back the Senate, because the numbers are crazy bad for them in the number of seats being defended versus opportunities for pick up.

 

Honestly, if they somehow miraculously take back the Senate, I'm perfectly fine with leaving Kennedy's seat open until 2020 and 2024 if need be. I'm serious. Give that seat to an Alito clone, and everything is at risk. I'm not even talking abortion. The Heritage Foundation thinks that Griswold v. Connecticut was a bad decision. That's the one that says married couples can use contraception if they want.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I agree that people are letting Trump slide because they are getting what they want, but goursch said he'd walked out if asked to overturn roe v wade.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/scotus-hearing-neil-gorsuch-roe-v-wade/index.html
 

Your not all the wrong, but you aren't all the way right, either.

 

What is he going to say during his confirmation process? That he would happily overturn a 45 year established precedent?

That's my point. You think that comment will stop him from letting states chip away and chip away at abortion regulations and requirements until abortion is basically legally impossible in any way but name?

 

watch the Last Week Tonight segment on planned parenthood and how even with Roe v Wade, the deck is extremely stacked unfairly against anyone that wants to get one or even just seek accurate information to weigh their options during pregnancy. 

 

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I agree that people are letting Trump slide because they are getting what they want, but goursch said he'd walked out if asked to overturn roe v wade.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/scotus-hearing-neil-gorsuch-roe-v-wade/index.html
 

Your not all the wrong, but you aren't all the way right, either.

 

Here's a hint: Gorsuch is lying his ass off.

 

Anyway, they don't have to explicitly overturn Roe. They simply have to broaden the undue burden test in Casey to the point that Roe is effectively overturned. (The dirty little secret is that Roe v Wade isn't even all that important a case at this point. Casey is far more important in abortion rights). As long as there is one abortion clinics open in San Francisco, nothing will be seen as an undo burden.

 

They can keep Roe v. Wade alive, while making it immaterial.

 

It's possible that the Religious Right wants the actual case overturned explicitly, but the Religious Right seems to be thinking far more strategically these days based on the fact that they sold their soul to Trump.

[Llevron]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

Thats what makes it even more frustating. The gop acts like ****bags and gets a gain. The dems do it and get nothing for it and also have to defend themselves (and do a poor job of it.) 

 

Totally agree here. All things being equal I would prefer we not be in this position. But we are. So I think the dems have to lose the moral superiority if it means gaining the power. Scary part is what happens after that is anyone's guess. 

 

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

You cant talk about moral superiority if you’re not going to actually stick to it. And if you’re going to deviate do it for a win for ****s sake 

 

 

I have always thought moral superiority if about as good as "thoughts and prayers" when it comes to this stuff. You already know im a dick by nature. Add to that how morally superior Obama was - and how useless that ended up being without any power behind it. I feel ways about this 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

31 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Can you explain the path the dem take from here where the battle is not lost before they begin?

 

the battle was in November of 2016. How are they going to push this to beyond january? What’s the mechanism? 

 

The Senate needs a quorum of 51 to operate. The Dems have 49 Senators, and McCain is dying in Arizona. Flee to Canada.

 

I'm deadly serious.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I have always thought moral superiority if about as good as "thoughts and prayers" when it comes to this stuff.

 

Moral superiority is worthless because it's become obvious no one sticks to them anymore. They arbitrarily draw lines where it suits them and they don't mind changing those lines if they need to.

 

But the dems are big on talking about their moral superiority. they care about it. It's not for me.

2 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

The Senate needs a quorum of 51 to operate. The Dems have 49 Senators, and McCain is dying in Arizona. Flee to Canada.

 

I'm deadly serious.

 

I know.

 

It's why I keep asking the people saying "they dems need to stop this"... how?

 

Because they can't.

Be angry about it. Talk about it. Whatever.

 

But quit saying they should do something they can't do. They can't block this. Asking the GOP to not be hypocrites is a hilarious waste of everyone's time. Save the outrage campaign for September, you're going to need it then. At least it'll be of value then.

Edited June 29, 2018 by tshile

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

They aren't going to flip.

 

They have a few women. My hope lies with them and only them. 

 

But I dont expect it if I'm being honest. 

[NoCalMike]

The problem is there are no ethics in politics anymore. One side will find every loophole or justification to prevent something that is against the spirit of the process, then when the other side is thinking of doing it, of course they are called obstructionists.

 

When a new low is hit by the gov't it isn't looked at anymore as something that should never be repeated, nope, it becomes the new precedent for what can and likely will be done in the future.

 

There is no way getting around the fact that the GOP has pretty much been rewarded for their actions by not allowing Obama to pick a SCOTUS member.  

 

It's a sad commentary on where politics are now.

 

 

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Moral superiority is worthless because it's become obvious no one sticks to them anymore. They arbitrarily draw lines where it suits them and they don't mind changing those lines if they need to.

 

But the dems are big on talking about their moral superiority. they care about it. It's not for me.

 

 

This kind viewpoint rewards McConnell for what he did and have people justify electing Trump.  Politicians will often act below people's expectations and standards.  What would you expect from your elected representatives when you set the bar at the floor?

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Here's a hint: Gorsuch is lying his ass off.

 

Anyway, they don't have to explicitly overturn Roe. 

 

Right.  We are witnessing all over the country how little Roe V. Wade relevance has on the actual subject.  The strategy has clearly gone from banning the procedure to banning access to the procedure and little to nothing has been done to reverse any of it.

 

Also, who cares if Gorsuch said he wouldn't let Trump to tell him to overturn it?  Did he explicitly say he considers it settled law?  Did he say he would refuse to hear further challenges to it? Considering he just voted against a 42 year precedent, I doubt he isn't just waiting on the right case.

[Cooked Crack]

She'll rubber-stamp this one just like must Trump nominees.

[NoCalMike]

So she considers it settled law but it's ok if the SCOTUS nominee doesn't?

[Cooked Crack]

 

[tshile]

50 minutes ago, bearrock said:

This kind viewpoint rewards McConnell for what he did and have people justify electing Trump.

 

If you think the flaws with moral superiority either only apply to them, or started with  them, then you're missing the real picture here.

 

Selecting moral outrage and feigning moral superiority have been a problem with our country for an incredibly long time.

 

Refusing to play that game with people is not a contributing factor.

 

If anything, I'd argue failing to realize it's happening or just pretending it isn't is a contributing factor.

[twa]

All this talk about overturning precedent is amusing from the SSM crowd.

 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

If you think the flaws with moral superiority either only apply to them, or started with  them, then you're missing the real picture here.

 

Selecting moral outrage and feigning moral superiority have been a problem with our country for an incredibly long time.

 

Refusing to play that game with people is not a contributing factor.

 

If anything, I'd argue failing to realize it's happening or just pretending it isn't is a contributing factor.

I'm not saying selective (I assume this was what you meant) moral outrage or false moral superiority started with McConnell or Trump.  Unless you meant something different, I took your moral superiority to refer to actually being morally superior as opposed to people leaning on morality when it suits their purpose.  The problem isn't that people expect politicians to govern in a moral way, the problem is that people excuse immoral behavior when their side does it.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[tshile]

24 minutes ago, bearrock said:

problem is that people excuse immoral behavior when their side does it.

I think we're on the same side of this one.

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Claiming moral superiority over the GOP is pretty low hanging fruit.

 

There is no moral superiority. Only the moral inferiority of the assholes who have rotted the Republican Party from within. There are no conservative values guiding the current GOP.

[twa]

6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Claiming moral superiority over the GOP is pretty low hanging fruit.

 

There is no moral superiority. Only the moral inferiority of the assholes who have rotted the Republican Party from within. There are no conservative values guiding the current GOP.

 

People claim many things.

 

Maybe ya'll shoulda embraced the conservatives before they became a endangered species, instead ya talked about them the same way ya do the present mix.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just now, twa said:

Maybe ya'll shoulda embraced the conservatives before they became a endangered species, instead ya talked about them the same way ya do the present mix.

No I didn’t and who’s “ya’ll”?

[gbear]

Funny thing for me is while so many on here have strong feelings about Roe v Wade, that isn't the case or decision which would most drive me to vote.  I get those worrying something may or is likely to happen with another conservative on the court.  My worry goes in the other direction.  I worry about what will be even harder to change with another conservative on the court, Citizens United. 

[DogofWar1]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

People claim many things.

 

Maybe ya'll shoulda embraced the conservatives before they became a endangered species, instead ya talked about them the same way ya do the present mix.