Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[jimmyjazz 46,977]

20 minutes ago, landman said:

Play by the rules?  The democrats are saying they'll reinvent the Supreme Court and stack it if Trump follows the Constitution and appoints a new justice.  They love to make up new rules. 

That's not a new rule.  It's perfectly legal.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

6 minutes ago, HornPhD said:

Wanting to add 2 seats is industry standard. I’m hearing a lot of people saying 4. I think 6 would be kind of money. 

yeah, maybe i should ask if we ever sat in designation.  would that be the money?

[yoladu 4,187]

8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Unless Breuer and Thomas wants to pull a RGB, they'll most likely will be gone next term.

Thomas, at 72, ain't retiring in the next 4 years if Biden is President. Why would anyone assume that?

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by yoladu

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

perhaps he was just hoping demographics take the wheel

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46,977]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Unless Breuer and Thomas wants to pull a RGB, they'll most likely will be gone next term.

"Pulling an RBG" is pretty much going to be status quo going forward.

[tokamak 6,685]

How hard do y'all think they'll actually come after Roe with their 6-3 majority? There's plenty in the GOP that are ideological purists on that, but I've always assumed that the Mitch McConnells of the world secretly don't want it overturned. Number one, it takes away the top issue that holds their coalition together, and #2 it kicks the hornets nest of the wider population that pays zero attention to the Supreme Court but would one day wake up, check their Facebook feed, and discover that abortion became illegal somehow.

[BradInATX 9,208]

4 minutes ago, tokamak said:

How hard do y'all think they'll actually come after Roe with their 6-3 majority? There's plenty in the GOP that are ideological purists on that, but I've always assumed that the Mitch McConnells of the world secretly don't want it overturned. Number one, it takes away the top issue that holds their coalition together, and #2 it kicks the hornets nest of the wider population that pays zero attention to the Supreme Court but would one day wake up, check their Facebook feed, and discover that abortion became illegal somehow.

Why would it kill their top issue, though? If Roe is overturned they get to campaign on "The Democrats are going to bring dead babies to your state!". It's probably even more powerful than their current abortion line, because right now the Dems are status quo.

I think Republicans would overturn Roe if they could, so long as they still have avenues to write big checks for their mistresses and daughters to get back-channel abortions.

Edited September 22, 2020 by BradInATX

[wildcat09 29,558]

3 minutes ago, tokamak said:

How hard do y'all think they'll actually come after Roe with their 6-3 majority? There's plenty in the GOP that are ideological purists on that, but I've always assumed that the Mitch McConnells of the world secretly don't want it overturned. Number one, it takes away the top issue that holds their coalition together, and #2 it kicks the hornets nest of the wider population that pays zero attention to the Supreme Court but would one day wake up, check their Facebook feed, and discover that abortion became illegal somehow.

They'll overturn it eventually, but they'll gut the rest of it (it's already mostly gutted of any substance) before that. Roberts and some of the smarter Republicans don't want to directly overturn it and risk any needless backlash, but that type has lost control of the party to the true believers. 

[Brisketexan 106,628]

7 minutes ago, tokamak said:

How hard do y'all think they'll actually come after Roe with their 6-3 majority? There's plenty in the GOP that are ideological purists on that, but I've always assumed that the Mitch McConnells of the world secretly don't want it overturned. Number one, it takes away the top issue that holds their coalition together, and #2 it kicks the hornets nest of the wider population that pays zero attention to the Supreme Court but would one day wake up, check their Facebook feed, and discover that abortion became illegal somehow.

I say fucking GO FOR IT:

Quote

A total of 77% say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe, but within that there's a lot of nuance — 26% say they would like to see it remain in place, but with more restrictions added; 21% want to see Roe expanded to establish the right to abortion under any circumstance; 16% want to keep it the way it is; and 14% want to see some of the restrictions allowed under Roe reduced. Just 13% overall say it should be overturned.

Kill Roe, either completely or practically, and piss off up to 3/4 of the country.  

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Some assholes are bigger than others.

 

(whoa, another Smiths reference (sort of)

After election day, You've Got Everything Now...

[atomheartbevo 90,548]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

With rampant voter suppression still in place and aided by Russian hacking in the midst of an economic catastrophe they'll engineer through their obstruction and blame on Biden?

With all of this rampant voter suppression, Trump won the electoral college in part, thanks to three states where he won by less than 1%, for a combined total of less than 90,000 votes.  He won Florida by 1.2%   People like Lindsey Graham are in races that shouldn't even be competitive.  And this voter suppression couldn't keep Obama from winning twice, even though, you know, he's a gay Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Community Organizer, Muslim, Atheist, Kenyan-born and Indonesian-raised black man.

Oh, they are trying hard to make it hard to vote, but we are just four years removed from Obama, and we watched states flip in 2018, and we see Senators sweating like pigs, that should be cruising to an easy re-election.

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Goddamnit what is it with all you fucking optimists?

Look, I stay out of much of CR, and went for like 4-5 months without even posting in it this summer, because a lot of shit is tiresome, way too Chicken Little, and just retreading the same stuff.

But I have friends that work for polling/data companies that sell their services to various politicians up to and including at the Congressional level, and I listen to what they say, and not what is posted on twitter or said by the MSM.  I also look at the money being raised, and the enthusiasm.  We know they are trying to make it hard to vote, but way too many of them are shitting bricks, because you can only make it hard to vote for so many. 

RBG's passing has struck a chord with a shitload of people, including a lot of women.   Alex Jones may think she sacrificed herself to GOTV for the left, but her death is helping GOTV, and is refocusing a lot of energy, and it's pretty late in the game.  The Rs don't exactly have a lot to get voters enthusiastic.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I say fucking GO FOR IT:

Kill Roe, either completely or practically, and piss off up to 3/4 of the country.  

I agree that it would be monumentally reckless to go after it.  Political well poisoning, and it would be self-inflicted.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,586]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I say fucking GO FOR IT:

Kill Roe, either completely or practically, and piss off up to 3/4 of the country.  

The question is what happens after they kill Roe V Wade.  You know the right wing evangelicals won't say now that abortion is illegal we are good.  They will want more.  I am thinking prayer in schools to start.  Maybe continue gutting public education and moving to "church schools".   What else would be on their "to do list"?  Once we are a Theocracy like Iran we will still have congress but the real power will be with the US "Mullahs" like Osteen, Fallwell Jr, Franklin Graham, Rick Warren, etc... Fun times ahead for us if they get what they want. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

52 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Mitch will bet a Senate majority for a chance to win a 6-3 SCOTUS majority and never think twice about it.

And as shitty as that will be (will, not would) we will probably survive and overcome that within a decade or so. But we will not overcome or fix anything with a permanently broken senate and an ongoing partisanization of everything. It is more important to win the Senate and grant statehood to Puerto Rico than to blow the senate by beating our chest about court packing only to lose winnable senate races in Maine, NC and elsewhere, and get nothing as a result. 

The Republicans will have a 6-3 court. It is a fait accompli. Luckily for America, the future behavior of confirmed Federal Judges is the worst bet in politics. The important thing right now is to win the Presidency and the Senate, and begin the hard work of righting the ship. The court majority will drag their heels ineffectively just as they did in the 30's, and ultimately roll. FDR threatened to pack the court to get them in line, too.

He did it AFTER he had dominant control over the legislative branch, and not before. There's a lesson in that. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Horn Dog 10,156]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Demographic trends seem to favor Dems gaining power and yet the hysterics want to change the rules and makeup -- to blow up the norms, just when those trends would favor the election of people who would enforce appropriate norms. 

1. Please explain where the dems want to "change the rules"?  The rules allow for everything that the dems are discussing just like "the rules" allow for what the pubs are discussing.

2. What good does it do for the dems to "gain power" but the following is true:

  -- Only repub presidents are allowed to appoint judges.

  --- Only dem administrations are subject to congressional oversight

   --- "Appropriate norms" only apply to dems and repubs are not punished when said norms are violated?

 

Like I said earlier, this is like playing a basketball game where the  other team if taking cheap shots and the ref has swallowed his whistle .  The answer is not to "play cleaner".  The answer is to become more aggressive, push the envelop, and force the ref to clean shit up. 

[alincoln 2,390]

8 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

The question is what happens after they kill Roe V Wade.  You know the right wing evangelicals won't say now that abortion is illegal we are good.  They will want more.  I am thinking prayer in schools to start.  Maybe continue gutting public education and moving to "church schools".   What else would be on their "to do list"?  Once we are a Theocracy like Iran we will still have congress but the real power will be with the US "Mullahs" like Osteen, Fallwell Jr, Franklin Graham, Rick Warren, etc... Fun times ahead for us if they get what they want. 

Lol

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

The question is what happens after they kill Roe V Wade.  You know the right wing evangelicals won't say now that abortion is illegal we are good.  They will want more.  I am thinking prayer in schools to start.  Maybe continue gutting public education and moving to "church schools".   What else would be on their "to do list"?  Once we are a Theocracy like Iran we will still have congress but the real power will be with the US "Mullahs" like Osteen, Fallwell Jr, Franklin Graham, Rick Warren, etc... Fun times ahead for us if they get what they want. 

1. as long as there are tests, there will always be prayer in school.

2. The people who insist there should be 'sanctioned' prayer are very, very wrong.  There is no need for it.

[wildcat09 29,558]

8 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

The question is what happens after they kill Roe V Wade.  You know the right wing evangelicals won't say now that abortion is illegal we are good.  They will want more.  I am thinking prayer in schools to start.  Maybe continue gutting public education and moving to "church schools".   What else would be on their "to do list"?  Once we are a Theocracy like Iran we will still have congress but the real power will be with the US "Mullahs" like Osteen, Fallwell Jr, Franklin Graham, Rick Warren, etc... Fun times ahead for us if they get what they want. 

The next big projects will be expanding religious freedom exemptions to permit conservative Christians to violate generally applicable laws that are meant to protect people and reviving substantive due process rights for businesses to poison and kill people with impunity.

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

There was a hundred years where that amendment didn't matter in huge swaths of the country. Words written on paper don't matter if people don't fight to give them power.

Shit, not huge swaths, the whole damn country.  The 14th was used briefly against the Klan and then it disappeared for a century. It's a powerful statement by itself, but you'd think it was enacted in 1971, not 100 years prior.

Not even Yankee abolitionists, or abolitionists anywhere in the world for that matter, were ready for truly equal rights for identifiable minorities (blacks, asians, women, Irish, Italians, etc.) in the 19th century, or for a goodly part of the 20th.  They disagreed with slavery, sure enough, but their moral enlightenment mostly stopped there.

Edited September 22, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[workswithseed 2,201]

40 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Thomas, at 72, ain't retiring in the next 4 years if Biden is President. Why would anyone assume that?

 

I guess it's good to know a Democrat isn't winning in 2028.

[Mdhorn 6,153]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

He won't have much say on budgets, a President Biden could undo a shitload of executive orders, many of which Mitch had some kind of say in, and a whole lot of new legislation could be pushed through that Mitch would not like.  And the Dems could pass through a lot of stuff that could strengthen or change up how we vote, and how redistricting works.

A 6-3 SCOTUS sounds sexy to Mitch until you realize the Dems will be doing a shitload of stuff that the SCOTUS will never touch.

Thought this was a redistricting year too so Mitch would stand to lose a lot should they lose governors and Congressional reps.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

 

 

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I guess it's good to know a Democrat isn't winning in 2028.

That's Don Jr's year

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

That's Don Jr's year

negged

[workswithseed 2,201]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

That's Don Jr's year

Meant 2024, but my point still stands.

[wildcat09 29,558]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Shit, not huge swaths, the whole damn country.  The 14th was used briefly against the Klan and then it disappeared for a century. It's a powerful statement by itself, but you'd think it was enacted in 1971, not 100 years prior.

Yup.  We knew exactly what it said and what it was intended for and yet the Court almost immediately turned it on its head entirely and cast it as intended to protect the business interests of wealthy southern whites and northern industrialists. 

[Dahobbs 18,192]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Meant 2024, but my point still stands.

Does it? What was your point? 

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Yup.  We knew exactly what it said and what it was intended for and yet the Court almost immediately turned it on its head entirely and cast it as intended to protect the business interests of wealthy southern whites and northern industrialists. 

I'd submit that it wasn't just the courts.  Legislatures all over the country enacted and maintained laws in violation of it for the next 100 years.  Jim Crow and the hundreds of federal laws attached to the US' brief in Moritz v. Comm. Internal Revenue, among others.  

Mostly unchallenged despite the plain language of the 14th.

[Guest Lobo]

Though I am morally opposed to it, the United States has a really interesting opportunity here with the RBG replacement on SCOTUS.  We can join Liberia and Myanmar as the only three nations that are both not on the metric system and who have made abortion illegal.  That's seriously great company.  I mean think about "The Greatest Country on Earth."  We could be mentioned in the same breath, ONCE AGAIN, with Myanmar and Liberia.  That is a tremendous legacy for President Trump.  THESE ARE THE DAYS! 

[workswithseed 2,201]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Does it? What was your point? 

It was a joke democrats won't win, and Thomas will be 82 at the end of that, and old people are likely to die, or not be mentally capable at that point. 

[Mdhorn 6,153]

42 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Why would it kill their top issue, though? If Roe is overturned they get to campaign on "The Democrats are going to bring dead babies to your state!". It's probably even more powerful than their current abortion line, because right now the Dems are status quo.

I think Republicans would overturn Roe if they could, so long as they still have avenues to write big checks for their mistresses and daughters to get back-channel abortions.

Surprised Dems aren't using allegations of unwanted hysterectomies on immigrants as a way to get around the Pro Life issue with voters.  No way the pro lifers on the religious side would support illegal reproductive procedures based on religious and ethical issues.    Right?  

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/unwanted-hysterectomy-allegations-ice-georgia-immigration

Edited September 22, 2020 by Mdhorn

[workswithseed 2,201]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

Though I am morally opposed to it, the United States has a really interesting opportunity here with the RBG replacement on SCOTUS.  We can join Liberia and Myanmar as the only three nations that are both not on the metric system and who have made abortion illegal.  That's seriously great company.  I mean think about "The Greatest Country on Earth."  We could be mentioned in the same breath, ONCE AGAIN, with Myanmar and Liberia.  That is a tremendous legacy for President Trump.  THESE ARE THE DAYS! 

Why not make Liberia a state while we're at it?

[Brisketexan 106,628]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Why not make Liberia a state while we're at it?

Because most of the Southern red states would be piss-mad jealous of the fact that Liberia is more functional than they are?

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

it would be a much bigger mistake to concede the opportunity to act on the court's vacancy in some hope of conciliatory interaction between the political factions down the road.

That just isn't going to fucking happen, and the notion that it might is a pipedream.

Of course it would be a huge mistake. Republicans run on the Supreme Court issue every Senate election, and with Trump 2016. And they’ve won the last few times with it.

I just listened to a pod that had a strong point. It’s a uniting issue for Republicans. Maybe as much as any other one. Even GWB popped up to speak up for Kavanaugh. You do what you were elected to do. 
 

Some other potential positives they mentioned that I haven’t seen here (surprise!). Hearings will highlight the voices of more radical grandstanders in Dem party.  Schumer, Harris etc. That’s actually in contrast to the moderate whom the party picked as a nominee. Also will likely help some Senate Republicans that are endangered. Also, if he picks Comey Barrett, it may be difficult for some on the Democratic side to not critique or attack her for her religion. A lot of Catholic swing voters in swing states. 
 

In any case, you don’t bother with people throwing a tantrum because you’re planning to use your Constitutionally granted, duly elected powers. 

[Dahobbs 18,192]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

It was a joke democrats won't win, and Thomas will be 82 at the end of that, and old people are likely to die, or not be mentally capable at that point. 

I'd keep working on your stand up routine before trying it with a live (or even dead) audience. 

[workswithseed 2,201]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Because most of the Southern red states would be piss-mad jealous of the fact that Liberia is more functional than they are?

But that would get us a cheaper foothold to Africa, without looking imperial.

[Brisketexan 106,628]

Just now, GRHorn said:

In any case, you don’t bother with people throwing a tantrum because you’re planning to use your Constitutionally granted, duly elected powers. 

Exactly.  

So, you're going to be good with a Dem Congress and POTUS someday doing all of the things I listed, with are all within their constitutional powers?  Will you go on the record with that, or would you prefer to stick with the perfect hypocrisy that is your party's brand?

[workswithseed 2,201]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I'd keep working on your stand up routine before trying it with a live (or even dead) audience. 

 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Imagine Chuck f'n Schumer and the rest of the old guard feeble Dems attempting to make a sales pitch to the American people for an expanded liberal court and adding two states, thus adding two stars to the flag, changing the map, all the history books, etc. I have a beach front property in Corsicana to sell you if you think there's even a remote chance of these cowards taking on this fight let alone winning it.   😂😂😂😂

No need to change the map. PR is going to have a side square like Hawaii has. DC is already on the map.

Plus, both are already filled with American citizens. Why do you hate Americans?

Plus the flag has changed a lot over the years.  Just like the Constitution.  I'm sure that every time a new state has ever been added, people were like "oh my God, think of the maps, the flags."  And you're the coward who is afraid of change. Flags and maps. Lol. You're afraid of your own shadow.  Which is why the west and northeast should secede. You and your pussy king aren't going to do shit about it. 

Personally, I would like to go back to the original 13 stars. Like the founders intended.

Edited September 22, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Dahobbs 18,192]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Exactly.  

So, you're going to be good with a Dem Congress and POTUS someday doing all of the things I listed, with are all within their constitutional powers?  Will you go on the record with that, or would you prefer to stick with the perfect hypocrisy that is your party's brand?

He is never going to answer you. 

[Brisketexan 106,628]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

He is never going to answer you. 

Because cowardice and hypocrisy are their brands.

[BradInATX 9,208]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

Some other potential positives they mentioned that I haven’t seen here (surprise!). Hearings will highlight the voices of more radical grandstanders in Dem party.  Schumer, Harris etc. That’s actually in contrast to the moderate whom the party picked as a nominee.

I'm worried about this myself, although I don't consider Harris at all a radical. But Schumer and some of the other nerds make the Democrats look bad almost every time they get a hot mic.

[wildcat09 29,558]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Mitch will bet a Senate majority for a chance to win a 6-3 SCOTUS majority and never think twice about it.

It is extremely funny to me that Rex Kramer/Dr. Beeper negged this. Of all the things I've said in this thread, this is what triggers ire?

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

He is never going to answer you. 

Yes I’d be fine with it. Sorry I have Brisket on ignore. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

19 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Yes I’d be fine with it. Sorry I have Brisket on ignore. 

Snowflake. 

[tantric superman 4,668]

1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

1. Please explain where the dems want to "change the rules"?  The rules allow for everything that the dems are discussing just like "the rules" allow for what the pubs are discussing.

2. What good does it do for the dems to "gain power" but the following is true:

  -- Only repub presidents are allowed to appoint judges.

  --- Only dem administrations are subject to congressional oversight

   --- "Appropriate norms" only apply to dems and repubs are not punished when said norms are violated?

 

Like I said earlier, this is like playing a basketball game where the  other team if taking cheap shots and the ref has swallowed his whistle .  The answer is not to "play cleaner".  The answer is to become more aggressive, push the envelop, and force the ref to clean shit up. 

Good point about changing the rules.  Just like I think it would be good politics for Dems to be firmer on appearing to be law and order, think it is good politics for Dems to counter the ending of norms by focusing on winning within the current set up of nine justices, a President and the Senate as it is.  

As to your basketball reference, the better solution would be to fire (vote out) the refs.   You're assuming that the ref has swallowed his whistle but won't bring it out if the other team fouls.   

[Chuckie Finster 22,978]

54 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I just listened to a pod that had a strong point. It’s a uniting issue for Republicans. Maybe as much as any other one. Even GWB popped up to speak up for Kavanaugh. You do what you were elected to do. 

Counterpoint: this is the first time I've seen it as a uniting issue for Democrats.  The money they have raised over the past few days is almost unbelievable.  There's not a single Republican voter in the country who cares enough about the Supreme Court that it would affect their vote that wasn't already planning to vote Trump.

The rest of your post harps on potential hypotheticals that might affect a small percentage of voters in specific states, while conveniently ignoring that your party is ramming through something that polling indicates is incredibly unpopular throughout the country.  

None of this changes the math nor will it stop 6-3 from happening, but the electoral effects of this will not favor the red in 2020. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Chuckie Finster

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,279]

We need to unfuck gerrymanderied districts and close the door on them the way California did. We also need to solve the issue of voter suppression. There is so much work to do to fix our republic. 

We need more HoR members. It is bullshit that it is capped at 435. A rep cannot reasonably represent a district with 1m constituents. That leaves people in the dust. I'd like to see each rep have about 100k constituents max.

 

[GRHorn 105]

22 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Snowflake. 

Lol. I can get the same points regurgitated by 20 other posters without the histrionics and delusions cluttering up the threads. It’s cleaner this way. 

[Tom 2,960]

45 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It is extremely funny to me that Rex Kramer/Dr. Beeper negged this. Of all the things I've said in this thread, this is what triggers ire?

 

Don't overthink it.  He's a certified pussy and he's negging all of us in this thread.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Tom

[GRHorn 105]

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Counterpoint: this is the first time I've seen it as a uniting issue for Democrats.  The money they have raised over the past few days is almost unbelievable.  There's not a single Republican voter in the country who cares enough about the Supreme Court that it would affect their vote that wasn't already planning to vote Trump.

The rest of your post harps on potential hypotheticals that might affect a small percentage of voters in specific states, while conveniently ignoring that your party is ramming through something that polling indicates is incredibly unpopular throughout the country.  

None of this changes the math nor will it stop 6-3 from happening, but the electoral effects of this will not favor the red in 2020. 

That was my initial impression as well. I just hadn’t heard a counter argument to it. It was compelling, but could well be wrong.