Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[immortal13 4059]

Just now, bernorange said:

Question for the folks who follow this sort of thing ... who would Biden be likely to nominate if he wins the election and gets to fill the seat?

His pet turtle

[Gourmand 7774]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Mitch and Co. are not acting like a party that is confident of its position.  If they try and push this through before the election, that means they've given up on the election and don't care how many Ds they motivate to get out and vote, and it also, more importantly, means they don't think they will have power come January.

If they thought they would win, and believe me, they have an extensive amount of information at their disposal to help them determine this, they would have no problem delaying the nomination process.

Smart analysis but you are giving them way too much credit in the Department of Self Restraint. These (R) autocrats have power and will use it whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[horncyclist 1386]

6 minutes ago, thepop said:

Or 1 more and Mark Kelly. If we can make it that far.

I assume if there's 3, theres no way McConnell let's it go that far. In other news, McSally losing is going to be so fucking gratiftying.

 

Just dropped $100 for Crooked Media's Senate fund. They're gonna raise $30 million at the pace they're going. That'll be a nice bump for those races.

[cactusflinthead 27594]

 

[hobbes2702 12846]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Question for the folks who follow this sort of thing ... who would Biden be likely to nominate if he wins the election and gets to fill the seat?

My vote would be for Merrick Garland for the first. I’m not sure who for they should nominate for seats 10, 11, 12, and 13.

[JimmyJames 12271]

50 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Bye bitch

I miss him already. Such great times. 

[atomheartbevo 89449]

3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

There was a column from Jennifer Rubin last week on the devolution of the word conservative and the GOP.

I gotta ask. What is the conservative platform?

Let’s be honest: There is no conservative movement or party today. There is a Republican Party thoroughly infused with racism and intellectually corrupted by right-wing nationalism. But there is no party that believes in less or small government (though expect the GOP to hypocritically resume singing that tune as soon as a Democrat steps into the Oval Office).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/17/why-i-dropped-conservative-my-twitter-profile/

It's a good question.  The GOP is not it (they have no interest in being conservative), nor are the libertarians (they have no interest in reality), the Constitutional Party (way too much Bible thumping for my liking), etc.

There's probably a thread or two about it here, but if not, it would be an interesting one to start.

I do think the GOP is setting things up for a third-party conservative party/platform that doesn't already exist, and thanks to the internet, people are organized and polarized enough to do it.  Trump is the last straw that was needed.  He gave voice and face to the greed and fuckery inherit in the GOP leadership, and he said the quiet parts through a fucking megaphone for everybody to hear.

The problem is, any third party planning on doing it better than current/previous third parties, is going to have to contend with the GOP trying to split it up/take it over.  I watched this with the Tea Party - the GOP did a brilliant job of basically bringing it into the fold.  Way too many TP followers thought they were independent, not realizing that they were being funded and led by GOPers.

[hobbes2702 12846]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's a good question.  The GOP is not it (they have no interest in being conservative), nor are the libertarians (they have no interest in reality), the Constitutional Party (way too much Bible thumping for my liking), etc.

There's probably a thread or two about it here, but if not, it would be an interesting one to start.

I do think the GOP is setting things up for a third-party conservative party/platform that doesn't already exist, and thanks to the internet, people are organized and polarized enough to do it.  Trump is the last straw that was needed.  He gave voice and face to the greed and fuckery inherit in the GOP leadership, and he said the quiet parts through a fucking megaphone for everybody to hear.

The problem is, any third party planning on doing it better than current/previous third parties, is going to have to contend with the GOP trying to split it up/take it over.  I watched this with the Tea Party - the GOP did a brilliant job of basically bringing it into the fold.  Way too many TP followers thought they were independent, not realizing that they were being funded and led by GOPers.

The bigger problem in my eyes is with conservatism. What does that stand for socially, economically, etc. I’m having trouble even articulating anything that hasn’t been proven to be a lie designed to maintain power and wealth.

[DCA_HORN 725]

Mitch and Co. are not acting like a party that is confident of its position.  If they try and push this through before the election, that means they've given up on the election and don't care how many Ds they motivate to get out and vote, and it also, more importantly, means they don't think they will have power come January.
If they thought they would win, and believe me, they have an extensive amount of information at their disposal to help them determine this, they would have no problem delaying the nomination process.

I see it as leaving nothing to chance. That's why you didn't see the burn it all down mentality on here four years ago. Hillary thought she had it in the bag and while it was a bs maneuver it wasn't really a big deal because we'll just do it after the election. Say what you want but mitch and co have that Jordan like instinct.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

2 hours ago, Gourmand said:

What got them out to vote? Hillary, who in fact was the best, most qualified candidate EVER in my lifetime, or the endless stream of bullshit lies about her from the press which was shouted into the echo chamber from both sides of the political spectrum?

She was right, her crazy Bernie detractors were wrong, and here we are with this giant pile of steaming shit. Criticism of Hillary Clinton that basically amounted to her not being perfect enough cost this country dearly.

I agree with your biggert point last statement, but I will never stop calling out anti-HRC critics from the left because they caused this and in doing so they deprived us of a true leader at a time when this country most needs it.

Whatever her qualifications may or may not have been, she had a shitload of baggage from her Whitewater and healthcare days in the mid-90s.  Maybe you are not old enough to remember that, but holy shit was there an amazing amount of hate for her on the right.  An amazing amount of hate.  The kind of hate that believes she personally put a bullet through Vince Foster's head, and that she bathed in the blood of aborted fetuses.  The kind of hate that drove a lot on the right out to vote for Trump, who might not otherwise have been motivated to get out.

Keep in mind, when I joke about Obama being Muslim/Atheist/Kenyan/etc., these people were not enough to keep Obama out of office for two terms.   But they got off their asses and helped Trump.

She's out of the equation, and another old white guy is at the top of the ticket, so things are very different.  Plus, plenty have now seen Trump's performance in office.  Hell, I've got relatives who are openly talking about voting against Trump, when they had openly been Trump supporters and very much anti-Hillary.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

10 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

4-4??  Isn’t is currently a 5-3 conservative court?  This is what I don’t understand.  Trump should wait until after the election to nominate, in order to improve his odds of keeping the Senate.  If he loses, he push his guy through and the lame duck senate can help him.  If he wins, he can postponed the nomination until his 2nd term to score points with moderate republicans.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

14 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Smart analysis but you are giving them way too much credit in the Department of Self Restraint. These (R) autocrats have power and will use it whenever the opportunity presents itself.

No, if they had any self-restraint, they'd be showing it right now.  You can make the case that they are going to use power whenever they can, but Mitch's #1 job should be to use his power to make sure as many Republicans win or keep their seats as possible.  He is a very calculating motherfucker playing a long game when it comes to Senate power, and rushing through a nomination does not help keep that power, and in fact increases the chances he will lose that power.

Which means he has decided the SC seat is more important than retaining power in the Senate.

And, he actually runs a very serious risk of having it all thrown back in his face.  Even with Graham backing down, there's still a chance that enough Republicans in the hot seat, or those like Romney, could screw it all up.

Imagine that scenario - they try to rush through a nominee, and it fails.    Mitch would lose whatever power he has carefully assembled and cultivated over the past 20 years as a senior leader through times in and out of the majority, and you can bet that Trump would be absolutely destroying the GOP, trying to burn it to the ground on the way out.  His days would nothing but tweets raging against Republicans, and you can bet he'd be raging against Mitch.  Hell, he'd probably fire Mitch's wife as one of his first actions.

 

[Bateshorn 9905]

36 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Question for the folks who follow this sort of thing ... who would Biden be likely to nominate if he wins the election and gets to fill the seat?

A liberal law school grad under the age of 30?

[Paul Wesley 3277]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Whatever her qualifications may or may not have been, she had a shitload of baggage from her Whitewater and healthcare days in the mid-90s.  Maybe you are not old enough to remember that, but holy shit was there an amazing amount of hate for her on the right.  An amazing amount of hate.  The kind of hate that believes she personally put a bullet through Vince Foster's head, and that she bathed in the blood of aborted fetuses.  The kind of hate that drove a lot on the right out to vote for Trump, who might not otherwise have been motivated to get out.

Keep in mind, when I joke about Obama being Muslim/Atheist/Kenyan/etc., these people were not enough to keep Obama out of office for two terms.   But they got off their asses and helped Trump.

She's out of the equation, and another old white guy is at the top of the ticket, so things are very different.  Plus, plenty have now seen Trump's performance in office.  Hell, I've got relatives who are openly talking about voting against Trump, when they had openly been Trump supporters and very much anti-Hillary.

Superb post (says the also-a-former-Republican).

The 2016 election is still hard to wrap my head around. 

I think you could argue that Hillary was simultaneously the most qualified presidential candidate in history while also being the *only* candidate who could have lost to Trump.  The Republicans did a brilliant job of identifying potential Democratic nominees and then demonizing them on a daily basis for literally decades ("Vince Foster!!!"  "Benghazi!!!"). 

[Walser 1107]

I'm not going to go back and read the last 24 hours but I would like some more Trump supporters in this discussion and not banned. I hate going to read shit on Texags and Tigerdroppings as I soon find myself drinking the cheap scotch on a dirty linoleum floor. 

 

[Bateshorn 9905]

21 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

4-4??  Isn’t is currently a 5-3 conservative court?  This is what I don’t understand.  Trump should wait until after the election to nominate, in order to improve his odds of keeping the Senate.  If he loses, he push his guy through and the lame duck senate can help him.  If he wins, he can postponed the nomination until his 2nd term to score points with moderate republicans.

They don’t trust Roberts.  I would argue that they shouldn’t necessarily trust Gorsuch either on election issues unless the case is truly legally defensible.

Gorsuch is hard right, but Elena Kagan has done real work to get him to be open minded about bucking the GOP.

[bad_teammate 13132]

*Air Bud basketball ref thumbing furiously through a tome as Biden lifts a trans toddler in a judge's robes up onto the dais*

"Well there's nothing in a rulebook that says..."

[DDD Dad 14252]

RBG should have stepped down when Obama was President. 

So Mitch could block her replacement?

[Gatorubet 30115]

He is a very calculating motherfucker playing a long game when it comes to Senate power, and rushing through a nomination does not help keep that power, and in fact increases the chances he will lose that power.

Which means he has decided the SC seat is more important than retaining power in the Senate.

Or he knows that they will be losing the Senate - and he loses nothing by forcing the nomination.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5342]

21 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

A liberal law school grad under the age of 30?

There's no requirement to have a law degree. I say nominate them right out of high school. 

[Gourmand 7774]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Whatever her qualifications may or may not have been, she had a shitload of baggage from her Whitewater and healthcare days in the mid-90s.  Maybe you are not old enough to remember that, but holy shit was there an amazing amount of hate for her on the right.  An amazing amount of hate.  The kind of hate that believes she personally put a bullet through Vince Foster's head, and that she bathed in the blood of aborted fetuses.  The kind of hate that drove a lot on the right out to vote for Trump, who might not otherwise have been motivated to get out.

Keep in mind, when I joke about Obama being Muslim/Atheist/Kenyan/etc., these people were not enough to keep Obama out of office for two terms.   But they got off their asses and helped Trump.

She's out of the equation, and another old white guy is at the top of the ticket, so things are very different.  Plus, plenty have now seen Trump's performance in office.  Hell, I've got relatives who are openly talking about voting against Trump, when they had openly been Trump supporters and very much anti-Hillary.

 

If I weren't old enough to remember, I wouldn't think back to the arguments I had in my early 20's with my favorite aunt who also happened to be a nutter Republican brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh. If I weren't old enough to remember, I wouldn't suffer from the unrelenting anger I have towards otherwise reasonable centrists and left of center Obama/Bernie supporters who willfully participated in repeating and validating right-wing smears about Hillary that had long since been debunked. Whitewater was a joke of an investigation that went nowhere and found no wrongdoing on her part and demonstrated the depths to which scumbag Republicans will sink in attacking their political opponents.  The very fact that you bring up Whitewater or her strong fight in the early 90's for healthcare reform as an indictment against her and not an indictment against the anti-liberal machine in our mainstream press proves my point.

There was nothing there. Hillary's "baggage" is baggage of misogyny from both sides of the political aisle. I say this as a very left-leaning guy who's never truly "happy" with the Dem establishment, but I can say with absolute certainty that the jackasses who participated in smearing Hillary Clinton deprived us of the most qualified candidate in American history because of dumb shit like Whitewater and her emails. All of them share responsibility for the situation we're in.

/threadjack apologies

Edited September 19, 2020 by Gourmand

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

20 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

So Mitch could block her replacement?

No shit. But what about when Obama was president!?!? I'm sure if Garland was nominated a few months earlier it would have been chill. 

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Collins on record saying new president should appoint replacement. Need two more. I'm not sure if I see it. I don't think Romney will as he wasn't involved in the Garland fiasco and can maybe keep a clean conscience. On the other hand he voted to remove the President doing the appointing from office so there's that. Supposedly Grassley said he wouldn't vote on one during an election year but I doing McConnel launches his ram someone through strategy without Grassley in line.

 

Susan Collins "I don't think they should vote but if they do, I'll vote with them."

[softlynow 1783]

24 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Or he knows that they will be losing the Senate - and he loses nothing by forcing the nomination.

Even if they keep the Senate Mark Kelly could be sworn by Nov 30 and that might be enough to prevent a lame duck confirmation.

He’s going forward because he will win. That’s the calculation, always. Why not when every norm broken, every new height of hypocrisy reached only firms up the evangelical/deplorable/grifter/feed the rich base?

If there ever is a Dem-dominated federal government again they have to not be the pussies they always are. Anyone really think that’ll happen?

[atomheartbevo 89449]

1 hour ago, thepop said:

Obviously Collins is only saying this to help her re-election. My question is, what if she loses? At that point she could say "well i lost so nothing to lose" and confirm judge anyways.

She was bashing Trump in 2016, and as recently as last week, said he was wrong to withhold covid information back in February.  If she loses, it's going to be because Trump and Co. pulled her down.  It's not going to be how she wanted to end her career, so I don't see her bowing down to Trump after he helps lose her an election.  "This guy lost me popularity that I worked hard for, for 24 years, so I'm going to go give him one last gift before going home to people who are angry at him and me."

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

 

If I weren't old enough to remember, I wouldn't think back to the arguments I had in my early 20's with my favorite aunt who also happened to be a nutter Republican brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh. If I weren't old enough to remember, I wouldn't suffer from the unrelenting anger I have towards otherwise reasonable centrists and left of center Obama/Bernie supporters who willfully participated in repeating and validating right-wing smears about Hillary that had long since been debunked. Whitewater was a joke of an investigation that went nowhere and found no wrongdoing on her part and demonstrated the depths to which scumbag Republicans will sink in attacking their political opponents.  The very fact that you bring up Whitewater or her strong fight in the early 90's for healthcare reform as an indictment against her and not an indictment against the anti-liberal machine in our mainstream press proves my point.

There was nothing there. Hillary's "baggage" is baggage of misogyny from both sides of the political aisle. I say this as a very left-leaning guy who's never truly "happy" with the Dem establishment, but I can say with absolute certainty that the jackasses who participated in smearing Hillary Clinton deprived us of the most qualified candidate in American history because of dumb shit like Whitewater and her emails. All of them share responsibility for the situation we're in.

/threadjack apologies

The unelected president’s wife should never have been put in charge of something as important as health care reform in the 90s. It was a disaster waiting to happen and the disaster happened indeed. We’re all still paying a price for that. 

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

She was bashing Trump in 2016, and as recently as last week, said he was wrong to withhold covid information back in February.  If she loses, it's going to be because Trump and Co. pulled her down.  It's not going to be how she wanted to end her career, so I don't see her bowing down to Trump after he helps lose her an election.  "This guy lost me popularity that I worked hard for, for 24 years, so I'm going to go give him one last gift before going home to people who are angry at him and me."

I'd put Gardner in that boat, too.  Why do the ones going out give a shit at that point?

Senate rules question.  How many votes would it take to bring this to a vote?  50?  I assume Pence is a tie breaker here.....

[Horn Dog 9674]

1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

4-4??  Isn’t is currently a 5-3 conservative court?  This is what I don’t understand.  Trump should wait until after the election to nominate, in order to improve his odds of keeping the Senate.  If he loses, he push his guy through and the lame duck senate can help him.  If he wins, he can postponed the nomination until his 2nd term to score points with moderate republicans.

This is why I am on Team Mitch on this one.  If 4 Repubs grow a conscious and stop this then everyone is gonna be satisfied and talk about how decorum is back and the dems will not have any backbone to do what needs to actually happen...take the gloves off and fight barefisted.   Instead the court will stay 5-4 with Robert giving the occasional bone to the left but ruling with the right on the important shit.  What does it matter if they rule 6-3 instead of 5-4?  Losing these cases is losing.   We need them to spark nationwide outrage so dems can actually win instead of barely lose.   So..... Go Mitch!  Do it and do it soon!

[atomheartbevo 89449]

3 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

This is why I am on Team Mitch on this one.  If 4 Repubs grow a conscious and stop this then everyone is gonna be satisfied and talk about how decorum is back and the dems will not have any backbone to do what needs to actually happen...take the gloves off and fight barefisted.   Instead the court will stay 5-4 with Robert giving the occasional bone to the left but ruling with the right on the important shit.  What does it matter if they rule 6-3 instead of 5-4?  Losing these cases is losing.   We need them to spark nationwide outrage so dems can actually win instead of barely lose.   So..... Go Mitch!  Do it and do it soon!

Tie up Graham while he's at it.

[Gourmand 7774]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The unelected president’s wife should never have been put in charge of something as important as health care reform in the 90s. It was a disaster waiting to happen and the disaster happened indeed. We’re all still paying a price for that. 

Disagree completely. You can armchair quarterback the decision for her to lead the task force but by all accounts she was formidable advocate for health care reform. The reality is that Republicans wanted a First Lady in the mold of the 1950's housewife and not a 1990's working mom. Most of the anti-Hillary crusaders don't even know the particulars about that, let alone her role in passing CHIP.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

RIP ma'am.  Thank you for your service .

[Paul Wesley 3277]

33 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Susan Collins "I don't think they should vote but if they do, I'll vote with them."

That's exactly how I read that quote. 

She never said she'd vote "no."

[Bama Chick 28596]

What is the cutoff date to nominate and vote?

According to Lindsay Graham -

[Bama Chick 28596]

Question for the folks who follow this sort of thing ... who would Biden be likely to nominate if he wins the election and gets to fill the seat?

I hoping Merrick Garland.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I hoping Merrick Garland.

Ohhhh I changed my mind.




Hillary Rodham Clinton

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Disagree completely. You can armchair quarterback the decision for her to lead the task force but by all accounts she was formidable advocate for health care reform. The reality is that Republicans wanted a First Lady in the mold of the 1950's housewife and not a 1990's working mom. Most of the anti-Hillary crusaders don't even know the particulars about that, let alone her role in passing CHIP.

The reality is she failed. Who was to blame can be argued about all day but that was a great time to reform it and she blew it. She was in charge. You don’t get to not get blamed for failure when you are in charge. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

This is rich coming from a professional drive by shit poster. I have yet to read a single fozz post ever and thought, yeah that was a good substantive take.
 

You’re getting negged because your posts are worthless. What are you down almost 1000 now in less than one day?  That is a pretty impressive accomplishment. 

I’m unable to give any more rep today and it’s 100% from negging fozzz

[Gourmand 7774]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Ohhhh I changed my mind.




Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

yep

[Horn Dog 9674]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The reality is she failed. Who was to blame can be argued about all day but that was a great time to reform it and she blew it. She was in charge. You don’t get to not get blamed for failure when you are in charge. 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Horn Dog

[Red Five 40665]

36 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Tie up Graham while he's at it.

He'd be cool with that. 

[wildcat09 29258]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I hoping Merrick Garland.

Hell no. Absolutely fuck that. Merrick Garland was the compromise Obama offered to try to get Republican support and he’s old.

It needs to be someone they absolutely fucking hate. Someone who is just completely and totally abhorrent to them. If she had a legal background my vote right now would be for AOC.

In reality, it would probably be Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is currently a DC district court judge. She’s not well known but she is well qualified and Biden said he’d nominate a black woman.

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

10 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Ohhhh I changed my mind.




Hillary Rodham Clinton

She should be one of the two he nominates to fill the new 10th and 11th seats.  The GOP would collectively explode.

[Gourmand 7774]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The reality is she failed. Who was to blame can be argued about all day but that was a great time to reform it and she blew it. She was in charge. You don’t get to not get blamed for failure when you are in charge. 

I realize that she failed....in 1994. She was a skilled advocate who didn't know then how to play the D.C. game, but that was a long time ago. The important takeaway is that she walked a road of growth and experience that informed the kind of candidate she became, but Clinton Derangement Syndrome in our press corps poisoned our electorate with fake narratives and hyper focus on her political imperfections of style. In the meantime, the idiots in the electorate crowd thought it would really cool to elect an insult clown who had never held elected office because expertise and experience in the game of politics is way overrated and Hillary is such a bitch ya know?.

 

 

[Goredho 17349]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Mitch and Co. are not acting like a party that is confident of its position.  If they try and push this through before the election, that means they've given up on the election and don't care how many Ds they motivate to get out and vote, and it also, more importantly, means they don't think they will have power come January.

If they thought they would win, and believe me, they have an extensive amount of information at their disposal to help them determine this, they would have no problem delaying the nomination process.

The pure power play for the GOP is to do nothing before the election except use the empty seat as a means to get some wavering conservatives back to voting R for the SCOTUS seat.  If Trump wins and they still hold the senate after the election, don’t do shit until after Trump is sworn in again.  They get the conservative justice without any immediate political risk.  If the election goes poorly for them, ram Cruz or whoever through an abbreviated process in the lame duck period.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

If Biden wins the election but R’s keep the senate, Garland is the guy.  Otherwise it needs to be a super liberal or a middle finger move like Obama.

[Red Five 40665]

Merrick Garland is 67 years old. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Let's separate conservatives from Republicans.  Because plenty of us are plenty conservative, but have long since ditched the GOP.

DP

Edited September 19, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Let's separate conservatives from Republicans.  Because plenty of us are plenty conservative, but have long since ditched the GOP.

I'd agree to a point, but where do you go ?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Let's separate conservatives from Republicans.  Because plenty of us are plenty conservative, but have long since ditched the GOP.

TP... WTH ?

Edited September 19, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[Goredho 17349]

I’m pretty sure it’s hell if you still have to pause and wonder at this point.