Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[henrygandorf 29219]

not sure if this has been mentioned in all the "vote counting" discussion, but what's the quorum call for the senate?  51?

so if 47 dem senators + 3 others decide just to not show up, they can't ram shit through, correct?  that takes the number to 3 (not 4) and possibly 2, if they can get kelly in before the circus starts.  it also means they don't have to technically "vote no" on it, they can just stay home.

or i might not know what i'm talking about.

[4th&Five 41904]

 

[Sawbonz 28081]

 

4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

 Name one example. One. 

I hate to anastasis this thread, but she had the Senate version of the ACA “deemed passed”, because she didn’t have the votes to get it out of the house (vulnerable moderate dems would have had to vote no or would have lost their seats—which in many cases wound up happening anyway) without going to conference committee. No bill of this scope and import had ever been sent to the president using that procedure rather than a vote on the floor. People were stunned she did it. 

I remember it well because our AMA delegates came and spoke at the county medical society right after the AMA endorsed the bill prior to passage in the senate despite a large majority of members being against it. They were told by the administration that unless they endorsed the senate version they would not be allowed to participate when the  final version was hammered out in conference committee. When that never happened the AMA lost a whole lot of members including me.  Now she only had to resort to that because the house republicans decided absolutely to refuse to participate in writing a house version of the bill, but she did go against the norm.

That plus Reid killing the filibuster for federal judge confirmation helped get us where we are no doubt.  How he didn’t realize that move would ultimately kill the filibuster for SC as well is a head scratcher. My guess is he did know and didn’t care and again it was because Republicans refused to participate.

While those acts did help get us here, what McConnell is trying to do is on a completely different level. It is flat out dirty pool in the absolutely worst sense of the cliche. If he is successful, no one going forward will play fair, nor should they.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Goredho said:

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

No no, I ain't joining the democrats.

[Anastasis 23699]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I hate to anastasis this thread,

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

So now that I’ve taken some time to think, can anyone explain why Republicans (supposedly) think this will help them in the election? Is there even a single voter who cares enough about the SCOTUS to have it drive their voting decisions that wasn’t already planning on the next President replacing RBG? And if they ram it through before the election, are they counting on people voting for them as some sort of thank you?
I still think the country is beyond fucked, but the election math doesn’t make sense to me.

[JimmyJames 12271]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

I hate to anastasis this thread, but she had the Senate version of the ACA “deemed passed”, because she didn’t have the votes to get it out of the house (vulnerable moderate dems would have had to vote no or would have lost their seats—which in many cases wound up happening anyway) without going to conference committee. No bill of this scope and import had ever been sent to the president using that procedure rather than a vote on the floor. People were stunned she did it. 

I remember it well because our AMA delegates came and spoke at the county medical society right after the AMA endorsed the bill prior to passage in the senate despite a large majority of members being against it. They were told by the administration that unless they endorsed the senate version they would not be allowed to participate when the  final version was hammered out in conference committee. When that never happened the AMA lost a whole lot of members including me.  Now she only had to resort to that because the house republicans decided absolutely to refuse to participate in writing a house version of the bill, but she did go against the norm.

That plus Reid killing the filibuster for federal judge confirmation helped get us where we are no doubt.  How he didn’t realize that move would ultimately kill the filibuster for SC as well is a head scratcher. My guess is he did know and didn’t care and again it was because Republicans refused to participate.

While those acts did help get us here, what McConnell is trying to do is on a completely different level. It is flat out dirty pool in the absolutely worst sense of the cliche. If he is successful, no one going forward will play fair, nor should they.

 

 

If the dems take the senate and Biden wins then the filibuster is dead forever anyway. Moscow Mitch killed it starting with their stance against whatever Obama passed. Obamacare was originally a Fucking Republican proposal for Christ’s sake. They only opposed it because it came from the evil black man from Kenya that Future dear leader trump rightfully exposed as a fraud on twitter.

[Sawbonz 28081]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

If the dems take the senate and Biden wins then the filibuster is dead forever anyway. Moscow Mitch killed it starting with their stance against whatever Obama passed. Obamacare was originally a Fucking Republican proposal for Christ’s sake. They only opposed it because it came from the evil black man from Kenya that Future dear leader trump rightfully exposed as a fraud on twitter.

Calm down I’m agreeing with you about where we are. You just can’t say the dems didn’t help us get here

Also if the senators are going to be popularly elected the filibuster doesn’t make much sense anyway. Plus they don’t even really filibuster any more

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Calm down I’m agreeing with you about where we are. You just can’t say the dems didn’t help us get here

Also if the senators are going to be popularly elected the filibuster doesn’t make much sense anyway. Plus they don’t even really filibuster any more

Calmer than you are dude. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Let me just remind you that the Supreme Court has rejected prior restraint. 

[Sawbonz 28081]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Calmer than you are dude. 

I’m out of rep. You can thank fozzz for that 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m out of rep. You can thank fozzz for that 

Me too. They got us working in shifts!

[JimmyJames 12271]

I mean say what you will about the tenants of national socialism. But at least its an ethos!

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Ohhhh I changed my mind.




Hillary Rodham Clinton

Nah that would be good but she’s mid 70s

 

 

I would go with AOC. 
 

 

 

[wildcat09 29556]

33 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

I hate to anastasis this thread, but she had the Senate version of the ACA “deemed passed”, because she didn’t have the votes to get it out of the house (vulnerable moderate dems would have had to vote no or would have lost their seats—which in many cases wound up happening anyway) without going to conference committee. No bill of this scope and import had ever been sent to the president using that procedure rather than a vote on the floor. People were stunned she did it. 

I remember it well because our AMA delegates came and spoke at the county medical society right after the AMA endorsed the bill prior to passage in the senate despite a large majority of members being against it. They were told by the administration that unless they endorsed the senate version they would not be allowed to participate when the  final version was hammered out in conference committee. When that never happened the AMA lost a whole lot of members including me.  Now she only had to resort to that because the house republicans decided absolutely to refuse to participate in writing a house version of the bill, but she did go against the norm.

That plus Reid killing the filibuster for federal judge confirmation helped get us where we are no doubt.  How he didn’t realize that move would ultimately kill the filibuster for SC as well is a head scratcher. My guess is he did know and didn’t care and again it was because Republicans refused to participate.

While those acts did help get us here, what McConnell is trying to do is on a completely different level. It is flat out dirty pool in the absolutely worst sense of the cliche. If he is successful, no one going forward will play fair, nor should they.

 

 

Reid killed it for judges because he knew what he did or didn't do had absolutely no affect whatsoever on what Mitch McConnell would do if he became majority leader. The idea that the modern GOP wouldn’t immediately eliminate a procedural obstacle the moment they felt the slightest need to do so is absurd on its face. 

[totallynotabuttpirate 5477]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Merrick Garland is 67 years old. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

As it stands now the republicans as currently constructed will never control the house again until they change. Which as long as its the trump party will never happen. 

Which means the moment the dems control the senate and the presidency the filibuster is totally dead.

[Anastasis 23699]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m out of rep. You can thank fozzz for that 

I got y’all fam.   

[Horn Dog 10156]

I nominate Greta Thunberg or maybe even her little sister 

[Sawbonz 28081]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Reid killed it for judges because he knew what he did or didn't do had absolutely no affect whatsoever on what Mitch McConnell would do if he became majority leader. The idea that the modern GOP wouldn’t immediately eliminate a procedural obstacle the moment they felt the slightest need to do so is absurd on its face. 

The idea the same modern GOP that completely obstructed obama at every turn would immediately kill the filibuster for the SC if they needed to once that precedent was set is absurd on its face?

Not sure I agree 100% with your police work there

 

 

[hobbes2702 13351]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

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

13 not 11.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I got y’all fam.   

Somehow the surly gods let me rep you. Not sure why or what’s happening. But they did. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

59 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

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

I would love for you to attempt to articulate the differences your version of conservatism has from Trumpism lol.

[workswithseed 2201]

36 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

If the dems take the senate and Biden wins then the filibuster is dead forever anyway. Moscow Mitch killed it starting with their stance against whatever Obama passed. Obamacare was originally a Fucking Republican proposal for Christ’s sake. They only opposed it because it came from the evil black man from Kenya that Future dear leader trump rightfully exposed as a fraud on twitter.

You'd be happy to destroy the filibuster, it's a Jim Crow relic anyways.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

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.

She also has experience as a public defender.  That kind of thing is sorely needed at the Court.

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 hour ago, Gourmand said:

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?.

 

 

This isn’t the right thread but she may have the worst political instincts of any national level politician ever. She ignored the campaign advice of Bill, maybe the most effective politician ever (certainly in my lifetime) and Obama, the first black president in favor of some 30 year old. She ignored places like Wayne county and the Philadelphia metro and Milwaukee. She never went to those places after the convention despite Bill and Barack begging her to. I mean Obama won Iowa twice by putting in the time on the ground there  

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This isn’t the right thread but she may have the worst political instincts of any national level politician ever. She ignored the campaign advice of Bill, maybe the most effective politician ever (certainly in my lifetime) and Obama, the first black president in favor of some 30 year old. She ignored places like Wayne county and the Philadelphia metro and Milwaukee. She never went to those places after the convention despite Bill and Barack begging her to. I mean Obama won Iowa twice by putting in the time on the ground there  

 

 

 

Also, we laughed at it at the time, but the "deplorables" comment was very bad politics.  We had little idea what the deplorables could accomplish in the voting booth and elsewhere and Trump was on the verge of unleashing them.  Same is also true of Obama's "cling to their guns and religion."  Little did we know  . . . .

The royal we have neglected the deplorables/guns and religion crew for too long and now it has a mouthful of our collective ass.

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19279]

I do not normally donate, but fuck Mitch.

 

 

 

[Mapache 1117]

 

[atomheartbevo 90546]

3 minutes ago, Mapache said:

 

The only problem in that scenario, is that it's going to drive D turnout big time out of anger.

Trump showed in 2016 what happens when you can get people angry.

[atomheartbevo 90546]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Ohhhh I changed my mind.
Hillary Rodham Clinton

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

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

Maximum LOL would be Hillary and Michelle.

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

Mitch is going to beat McGrath by 10+ points. Please also donate to competitive Senate races if you want him out of power. 

[atomheartbevo 90546]

2 hours ago, Gourmand said:

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?.

1994 may have seemed like eons ago, but the baggage from that carried over through and after ACA.  And it may not be Hillary's fault (although as somebody else pointed out, she has awful political instincts), and honestly, it was the Dems' fault as a whole for how it was handled, but it absolutely affected healthcare legislation going forward.  In 2000, I was a volunteer on Ws, and we hammered Gore on it - he had made healthcare a major platform of his campaign if I recall correctly, but at the very least, he talked it up quite a bit, and we absolutely used it in phone banking, etc.  I heard the same cliches, slogans, etc., being brought out for ACA.

Edited September 20, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 90546]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

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

Fuck if I know.   I have been disappointed in the third parties, so I hope this election wrecks the GOP enough, that something else has to come along.

[wildcat09 29556]

43 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The idea the same modern GOP that completely obstructed obama at every turn would immediately kill the filibuster for the SC if they needed to once that precedent was set is absurd on its face?

Not sure I agree 100% with your police work there

 

 

...im confused now. I don’t know if I’ve had too many beers or we’re just using too many double negatives. I’m saying McConnell was always going to do whatever he had the power to do and that nothing Reid did or didn’t do would change that. If Reid hadn’t eliminated the filibuster for other judges and then a Dem minority filibustered Gorsuch, McConnell would still have eliminated the filibuster for scotus picks at that time.

[fattyflattie 4640]

7 hours ago, immamac said:

Good idea.

Wow. He wasn’t trolling, he disagreed. 

[nullset 0]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The only problem in that scenario, is that it's going to drive D turnout big time out of anger.

Trump showed in 2016 what happens when you can get people angry.

I think people expecting some huge boost in turnout are going to be disappointed. The importance of SCOTUS and ahistorical nature of what the GOP did in 2016 is too obscure for most voters. 

Even if it were to really rile people up, I think Republicans would take that tradeoff. Their plan for sometime has been to stock the judiciary with young right wing psychos and gerrymander like hell to maintain power in the face of changing demographics. They'd trade getting a supermajority on the court for the next 10+ years for invigorating the Dam base and reducing Trump's election chances without a second thought.

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

...im confused now. I don’t know if I’ve had too many beers or we’re just using too many double negatives. I’m saying McConnell was always going to do whatever he had the power to do and that nothing Reid did or didn’t do would change that. If Reid hadn’t eliminated the filibuster for other judges and then a Dem minority filibustered Gorsuch, McConnell would still have eliminated the filibuster for scotus picks at that time.

Gotcha. That is very possible. I think it made it easier for him with the lower court precedent having been set, but I can definitely see him doing it anyway 

[wildcat09 29556]

20 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I do not normally donate, but fuck Mitch.

 

 

 

He’s not gonna lose, but there’s 6-8 other Republicans who can. McGrath already has an insane amount of money so it’s better to donate to some of the other candidates.

[atomheartbevo 90546]

15 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I do not normally donate, but fuck Mitch.

 

 

 

Graham's opponent has a better shot of unseating Graham than McGrath. 

[henrygandorf 29219]

why do you people want mcconnell out of the senate?  i want him in the senate for the rest of his life.  in the minority.  forced to eat shit while we all watch in real time.

it's like turning on a terrible show your wife wants to watch, then pushing the mute button.

of course because of the archaic senate representation, that's the only hope the gop has for power in the next 8-12 years.

[atomheartbevo 90546]

4 minutes ago, nullset said:

I think people expecting some huge boost in turnout are going to be disappointed. The importance of SCOTUS and ahistorical nature of what the GOP did in 2016 is too obscure for most voters. 

Even if it were to really rile people up, I think Republicans would take that tradeoff. Their plan for sometime has been to stock the judiciary with young right wing psychos and gerrymander like hell to maintain power in the face of changing demographics. They'd trade getting a supermajority on the court for the next 10+ years for invigorating the Dam base and reducing Trump's election chances without a second thought.

Don't underestimate RBG's fanbase, and women in general.

And they can gerrymander to hell and back, but it can only take them so far - Texas is already a minority-majority state, and has been for years.  Hell, Texas wasn't expected to be a minority-majority state until right about now, but it switched years ago.

And that's on top of all of the East and West Coasters moving in from out-of-state.

How does the Mormon carry Texas in 2012 by 16 points, and Trump carries it by 9 over Hillary, who had a massive amount of people who hated her here?  

Republicans are fucking around and driving moderates and younger folks away, and the loss of Texas would gut them (we still had a Democrat Lt. Governor into 1999, and many older Republicans used to be Democrats, such as Rick Perry).  And Florida is already there - went for Obama twice, Trump won it by 1.2%.

Shit's changing too much for gerrymandering to help out.  There's a reason why so many Republican Representatives have retired the past 2-3 years.

[Gourmand 7778]

 In 2000, I was a volunteer on Ws...

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

why do you people want mcconnell out of the senate?  i want him in the senate for the rest of his life.  in the minority.  forced to eat shit while we all watch in real time.

it's like turning on a terrible show your wife wants to watch, then pushing the mute button.

of course because of the archaic senate representation, that's the only hope the gop has for power in the next 8-12 years.

I agree with this. I also think you will get your wish. Moscow Mitch will win and run the minority senate party for quite some time. 

I also think it’s important to keep some perspective on all this. Despite what Brisket may think, the republic has not fallen yet. Its on the ledge, but it hasn’t fallen over, yet. 

This election is kinda important though. So not only make sure you are registered to vote, because the republicans are currently trying to cull the rolls, but make sure your friends are too though. 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So now that I’ve taken some time to think, can anyone explain why Republicans (supposedly) think this will help them in the election? Is there even a single voter who cares enough about the SCOTUS to have it drive their voting decisions that wasn’t already planning on the next President replacing RBG? And if they ram it through before the election, are they counting on people voting for them as some sort of thank you?
I still think the country is beyond fucked, but the election math doesn’t make sense to me.

Or they know that they will never be forced to face a free and fair election again.  They're acting like they're not accountable to their voters.  Because they aren't.

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

 

 

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

 

There are many of us who were fools. I’ve admitted many times to being one of them. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

21 minutes ago, nullset said:

I think people expecting some huge boost in turnout are going to be disappointed. The importance of SCOTUS and ahistorical nature of what the GOP did in 2016 is too obscure for most voters. 

Even if it were to really rile people up, I think Republicans would take that tradeoff. Their plan for sometime has been to stock the judiciary with young right wing psychos and gerrymander like hell to maintain power in the face of changing demographics. They'd trade getting a supermajority on the court for the next 10+ years for invigorating the Dam base and reducing Trump's election chances without a second thought.

If they lose the Senate and presidency they are irrelevant on the national level for basically ever.

And if Trump voters understood that the Supreme Court was on the line the I’m quite certain it’s not very obscure.

[nullset 0]

18 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Don't underestimate RBG's fanbase, and women in general.

And they can gerrymander to hell and back, but it can only take them so far - Texas is already a minority-majority state, and has been for years.  Hell, Texas wasn't expected to be a minority-majority state until right about now, but it switched years ago.

And that's on top of all of the East and West Coasters moving in from out-of-state.

How does the Mormon carry Texas in 2012 by 16 points, and Trump carries it by 9 over Hillary, who had a massive amount of people who hated her here?  

Republicans are fucking around and driving moderates and younger folks away, and the loss of Texas would gut them (we still had a Democrat Lt. Governor into 1999, and many older Republicans used to be Democrats, such as Rick Perry).  And Florida is already there - went for Obama twice, Trump won it by 1.2%.

Shit's changing too much for gerrymandering to help out.  There's a reason why so many Republican Representatives have retired the past 2-3 years.

I sincerely hope you're right on the enthusiasm point, I'm just skeptical that SCOTUS will be the tipping point for a significant number of people given all the other shit this administration has done that should have people frothing at the mouth to vote. 

I think we're in complete agreement on the gerrymandering point - the changing demographics are too much for this iteration of the Republican party to have popular support for much longer, so the Repub plan has been for some time now to stock as many lifetime federal judges on the bench as possible to scuttle any positive legislation the Democrats pass. 

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

You can donate to Greenfield here: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/adopt-theresa-greenfield

[Planet Houston 4949]

51 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Mitch is going to beat McGrath by 10+ points. Please also donate to competitive Senate races if you want him out of power. 

This is what I donated to last night. They strategically allocate your donation to the most important senate races. 

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/getmitch