Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Oh look, you're raising a thing Democrats did one time 30 years ago.
Do you deny that it didn't happen?
Up to that point, with the exception to Watergate, Borking transformed to the beginning of what we see is happening now. It's very much germane to this conversation
Here's the thing, the Democrats today are not Teddy Kennedy's Democrats anymore. Similarly, the modern Republican party would probably scare the gak out of Reagan.
Democrats are worst now. Thank god that human scum Harry Reid is retired.
Look up Miguel Estrada.
I'm sorry, are you claiming that filibustering one nominee you find unacceptable is the same thing as a strategy to filibuster any possible nominee no matter who was named?
Pretty god damn close. Twenty-Eight fething months.
So, cry me a river over Garland. Please.
Or better yet, acknowledge that the Democrats threatened to do the same thing.
And here you're spamming the same dishonest claim about Biden. To repeat myself for maybe the twentieth time, Biden was attacking the politicisation of the nomination process and Bush's failure to consul with the senate. His key line from the same speech;
"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”
This is the exact fething opposite of the Republican strategy employed in 2106. Be honest and you will realise this.
feth no. You taking it word-for-word face value from a wiley, crafty politician.
You're smarter than this. Everyone knew what exactly Biden was threatening to do and the fact the circumstances didn't arise for him to do just that, doesn't excuse it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: At some point, you have to realize you're the problem by repeatedly providing the other half of these interactions. It's been years. He's not going to stop his behaviors. You're never going to provide the magical coherent argument that works, because you've already tried a thousand times. This won't be the time Lucy doesn't yank the football away, Charlie, while screaming gibberish about Vox\Slate\MSNBC.
That analogy is more perfect that you probably realise, because Charlie Brown always ends up trying to kick the ball.
So we are just supposed to believe your vaunted intuition over the words that he actually said, from a man that is not known to lie all that much? Sure, sure.
This is why it is hard to take you seriously Whem'
And, again, on "Borking."
They held a hearing, refused his nomination (with 54 against), and then accepted in Kennedy. And it was a valid move, Bork is an extreme ideologue, and one of only three nominees to be opposed by the ACLU. The man defended POLL TAXES for feths sake. I swear, you don't even read what I write.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 03:17:52
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Yes it happened, as I already said. The point is that it happened 30 years ago, and so trying to make it part of a "Democrats do it too" argument relies on some kind of notion of permanent, everlasting sin on the soul of party.
Up to that point, with the exception to Watergate, Borking transformed to the beginning of what we see is happening now. It's very much germane to this conversation
Yeah, that's true. And it was a cynical ploy by Democrats to rally their support groups, particularly on women's rights. As I've said a bunch of times, Teddy Kennedy was a turd and this was his plan.
The point of course, is that it is now 30 years on and it's the Republicans who are politicising more and more, and doing so in very dangerous ways.
Democrats are worst now. Thank god that human scum Harry Reid is retired.
Calling the Democrats worse now is just fething bonkers. Donald fething Trump, for god's sake.
As for Reid, meh. He wandered between mediocre horse trader and general feth up. Getting worked up about him is pretty obviously partisan.
Pretty god damn close. Twenty-Eight fething months.
Nope, you missed the argument. Estrada was blocked because of reasons to do with Estrada. Republicans committed to a block before Garland was even nominated. You keep pretending there is no difference there, because admitting the difference means admitting you are wrong.
So, cry me a river over Garland. Please.
I couldn't give a feth about Garland. You keep thinking that we must all be just as partisan as you are. As I've said before, I care about process and stable government. Whether one side or the other scores a win in slightly improving or reducing abortion access or gun rights or whatever I really don't care. What matters to me is stable government where representatives follow an agreed, reliable pattern.
You spent a while talking about calvinball, as a new kind of make up the ruels as you go along kind of governance. I guess if I'm anything what I am is the exact opposite of Calvinball.
feth no. You taking it word-for-word face value from a wiley, crafty politician.
And here it is. When you read an article saying Biden did the same thing, you take it at face value. When you read Biden's actual words from that speech, you conclude Biden must have been lying.
And even if Biden was lying, see how your argument shifted from "Biden said he'd do the same thing" to "okay, sure Biden didn't actually say he'd do the same thing, but he was lying". We've actually left defense of "Democrats do it too" and invented a new defense of "hypothetical Democrats would do it too, in my opinion, and if they otherwise they're lying."
You're smarter than this. Everyone knew what exactly Biden was threatening to do and the fact the circumstances didn't arise for him to do just that, doesn't excuse it.
Stop for a second and think about the Bork nomination. As you rightly said above, that was Democrats adding a whole new level of politicisation to nominations (they'd been political before, but never that political). And now here was Biden talking just four years later about a possible new nomination, and he was talking about removing the politics and going back to how it was just recently. Maybe he was actually telling the truth?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 03:39:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
There is nothing wrong with the minority party in the senate blocking a bill it doesn't like. That is an ordinary process, part of how the system is supposed to work. Normally this will involve some kind of negotiation between the parties, in which the minority party, recognising their weaker position, will negotiate for some compromise on the bill.
Then why is it you always seem to give this sort of deference to the Democrats? I mean, every word that you type here is the fact the Republcians are 'bad' and Democrats are just trying to do the 'reasonable' thing...
If I repeat the history of what has happened one more time, could you please just read it this time.
I give a lot of deference to what you write, because you really take the time to explain your point of view. But, repeating things over and over again with different words doesn't change the fact that your political interpretation obviously is bias'ed against the GOP. So, you'll be coming at this from what you think is the rational understanding, but tempered with that bias.
This changed in the mid-90s, when Newt Gingrich made an observation - the majority gains more than just their parts of the bill, they gain almost all of the credit for a functioning government. Gingrich then hatched the plan that from minority Republicans could threaten government dysfunction unless they got everything they wanted. Either they'd get the bills they want, or government would stop working and the Democratic majority would take the blame. This led to the government shutdowns, and endless observations from beltway insiders that politics suddenly got a lot more mean.
Not really.
Gingrich's Contract with America forced the B. Clinton administration to move back towards.
Yes, there were government shutdown, and yes the media/punditry made the GOP out as a pariah... but, really the next election that were largely unscathed.
Whether the strategy was the right thing... probably since it forced the Clinton administration to wheel-n-deal.
The strategy worked, and in the 2000 and 2002 elections Republicans won control of everything. This control didn't last long, in part because control never does, but also because GW Bush screwed up a lot. In the 2006 and 2008 elections the Republicans suffered some horrible reversals, and once Al Franken's senate seat was finally decided, Republicans were left without even the power to filibuster.
Yup. Here is glide over the hysteria in this time that Bush was literally Hitler... or something.
Seriously, the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) was a thing.
2008 also proved the theory that after 8 years of GOP President, we tend to elect the other party in... plus, the Bush-fatigue was undeniably a thing. Not to mention that Obama was/is a Rock Star on the campaign.
From there Republicans had a strong internal debate, on whether to modify their policies to something more mainstream, or push ahead. They decided to push ahead, and did so with an even more aggressive stance of Gingrich's strategy. In part this strategy was opened up by Obama's fairly naive campaign claims to return bi-partisanship to Washington, as now all Republicans had to do to make him break that promise was refuse to take part. The first part of this was to attack Obama on his healthcare reform - while Republicans couldn't filibuster a law, they could run merry hell in the two years before the 2010 mid-terms. So that's what they did, organising people to attend town halls with the intent of shouting down congressmen, and so give the appearance of some grassroots concern over a bill that hadn't even been theorised yet. Running stupid scare campaigns about death panels and so on.
Interestingly you chose the disasterous healthcare reform. The public wanted SOMETHING done... yes. But it's indisputable that when the public heard about the plan, the clear majority didn't like the overall direction. It was met with great skepticism.
Also, shortly after the election of 2008 when the Democrats and Obama started to work on their agenda, the grassroots Tea Party arose and became a "force to be reckeoned" with....
Like 2000, this worked. An energised Republican base monstered the 2010 mid-terms, and Republicans didn't just regain filibuster in the senate, they won control of the house. Now with a bit of power, gak got real. Republicans started using the debt ceiling as a threat. Government shut downs returned. The only stuff that reliably got through the house were partisan bills like repealing ACA that got shot down in the senate. When Republicans won the senate in 2014 that nonsense got filibustered in the senate. Funnily enough Obama's scarce use of veto was actually a sign of partisanship, he was regularly saved from having to use veto by Democratic senate filibuster.
I think you're giving too much credence to the idea that those were Newt's strategy. It's not really the case due to the rise of the Tea Party, which had major impact in the '10 midterms. This, is when they were elected to OPPOSE the Democrat/Obama agenda. They're job were to be the "stick in the mud".
Then we get to 2016, the final test of the Republican strategy. They were up against Clinton who was running on continuing Obama's work, and that wasn't a pretty marginal claim because very little had actually been gained. There hadn't been a major reform since the 2010 mid-terms. "What have you done for me lately" is a powerful thing in politics, and Republicans had made sure Obama couldn't answer that well.
Given this strategy works, why not do it? Because very few people are actually cyincal enough to plot to shut down a government they think isn't that bad. So the party and its base have to convince themselves that Obama and the Democrats are actually plotting to harm 'real Americans', take their guns, ban their religions, all that nonsense. It means spending 8 years saying Obama is the worst thing ever, then as soon as the 2016 campaign starts you have to switch to believing the current Democratic candidate should be locked up in prison. This makes it hard for a sensible candidate to win the primary.
Clinton was not the 'sensible candidate'. You may think so, but you'll never be able to convince the #NeverHillary people. I still say the Democrats fethed up royally by nominating Clinton, especially since Cheeto Jesus became the GOP nominee.
Remember how Romney won by default in 2012,
Vs. President Obama? You betcha... Vs. Campaign Superstar Obama? Well... no GOP candidate can compete with that really.
and then spent the whole campaign pretending he wasn't a centrist negotiator but was actually a hardliner?
Obama talks a good game. But, he sure as gak doesn't walk it.
Notice how in 2016 Trump won the nomination, but second place was Ted Cruz, and daylight before the next competitor?
Man... my boi Rubio would've taken Clinton to the woodshed. Cruz? Might had a chance, but he has that baggage that can hurt him badly.
And so while the strategy might win, what does it win? You got Trump in the Whitehouse, if Trump hadn't won then you probably would have got Ted Cruz.
Stop torturing me... I'd totally take The Zodiac Killer over Cheeto Jesus in a heart beat.
Just watch and see how much of what they claimed for 8 years that you defended here turned out to be obvious bs. Remember the panic over the debt - now Republicans are lining up behind an unfunded tax cut that will add 10 trillion to the debt. Remember how Republicans blocked Obama's $500 billion infrastructure plan, back when there was recession and it cuold have provided stimulus and jobs? Now Republicans are supporting Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan, when there's full employment and it will have no stimulus effect.
I'm watching with some seriously skeptical lenses.
I'm NOT happy about the trillion infrastructure plan...
So maybe just fething stop, you know?
No.
You aren't responsible for all of the republican party, but you are responsible every time you try and defend their antics.
Sure thing Seb.
So stop saying that Democrats are the same because they played politics with SC nomination 30 years ago.
No. I'm not drinking the koolaid that says Democrats are absolved of any shenanigans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Constitution only states "Advise & Consent"... with no other explanation as to what that specifically means.
Therefore, it's up to the Senate body to make the parliamentary rules to govern that. So... it violates diddly-squat.
As has been explained to you many times now, government process isn't just about what's written on the page, but about how things have been accepted as being done for a long time now. There's been more than 100 new democracies since 1960 and about half have been reversed (fortunately some later regained their democracy). If they fail it will be typically be in the first couple of election cycles because there is no accepted practice, no learned rules of the game beyond the constitution.
What you've written above basically takes that away from the US. It is an argument that outside of what is written on the page of the constitution, nothing else matters. Any idea of an accepted practice of how things have been done in the past just doesn't matter anymore. It takes you back to square one, as unstable as any first year democracy.
Consider for instance the door now open to Democrats to simply reject any Trump nominee, backing themselves to win the presidency and the senate in 2020. Based on your argument above, why not? What would stop the SC from being slowly whittled down to the last justice standing? Similarly, why shouldn't Democrats now threaten to filibuster any increase to the debt ceiling, just as Republicans did?
If there are no accepted rules to the game, and no notion that the first role of government is to provide a steady hand on the ship, what's to stop anyone doing anything to score a political win for their base?
No, that isn't what I'm arguing. It all depends on what each Senate votes for their parliamentarian rules.
You are looking at this as if it's going to cause some great danger in our society.
I fully expect the Democrats to play this card as well when they're in power.
No, absolutely fething not. The answer to one extreme party that doesn't give a gak about accepted process or stable government is not for the other side to stop giving a gak about accepted practice or stable government.
Tell that to Harry Reid. Don't you defend him by saying that he's responding to GOP obstructionims. If on the one hand, you criticize the GOP for their antics, then when Reid pull this gak that sets dangerous precedent that erodes the minority party and you defend him?
You're simply a Democratic Honk.
Nothing wrong with being a Democratic Honk... just admit it for once without trying to apply a veneer of impartiality. Cool?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Well... now you know how I felt when Reid nuked the filibuster...
This is exactly the point. Republicans pushed the limits of their power to block a ridiculous number of nominees, and Democrats responded by removing the filibuster. Do you see how this gak can escalate?
You're whitewashing Reid's and Obama's position.
They. Refused. To. Work. With. Their. Counterparts.
Hillary Clinton encapsulate what mainstream Democrats thinks of Republicans:
Jim Webb had that WTF look on his face when she said that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: So we are just supposed to believe your vaunted intuition over the words that he actually said, from a man that is not known to lie all that much? Sure, sure.
This is why it is hard to take you seriously Whem'
Sure Co'tors. Biden was ALL about unicorns and rainbows when he said that.
And, again, on "Borking."
They held a hearing, refused his nomination (with 54 against), and then accepted in Kennedy. And it was a valid move, Bork is an extreme ideologue, and one of only three nominees to be opposed by the ACLU. The man defended POLL TAXES for feths sake. I swear, you don't even read what I write.
No. Bork was unquestioningly qualified. He's not perfect, but you're not going to ever get perfect.
The Democrats’ craven, despicable, lying campaign against Bork basically herald the arrival of SCoTUS confirmation hearings as bare-knuckle political brawls.
"The nomination changed everything, maybe forever," says Tom Goldstein, publisher of the popular SCOTUSblog, which extensively covers the Supreme Court. "Republicans nominated this brilliant guy to move the law in this dramatically more conservative direction. Liberal groups turned around and blocked him precisely because of those views. Their fight legitimized scorched-earth ideological wars over nominations at the Supreme Court, and to this day both sides remain completely convinced they were right. The upshot is that we have this ridiculous system now where nominees shut up and don't say anything that might signal what they really think."
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/21 04:41:30
whembly wrote: Then why is it you always seem to give this sort of deference to the Democrats? I mean, every word that you type here is the fact the Republcians are 'bad' and Democrats are just trying to do the 'reasonable' thing...
Because we have a system where one party is trying to govern in a manner that at least vaguely resembles something responsible, even if they're flawed at times, while the other party is blatantly going off into raving lunacy. Please stop with this ridiculous both-sides-ism.
But it's indisputable that when the public heard about the plan, the clear majority didn't like the overall direction. It was met with great skepticism.
Mostly because the republican party spent the whole time lying about it and doing everything they could to portray Obama as the antichrist come to destroy everything. This is how we get the utterly absurd situation where a poll asking about the specific things that Obamacare does without using the word "Obamacare" finds higher support for the law than one which calls it "Obamacare". A lot of people hated it out of reflex and partisan politics, not because they had good reasons for doing so.
This, is when they were elected to OPPOSE the Democrat/Obama agenda. They're job were to be the "stick in the mud".
And this is what I mean about one party being run by raving lunatics. All that government shutdown stuff was a completely broken system. It was a spectacular failure of government, and it amazes me that anyone can look at that debacle and say "yep, they were doing their job".
Clinton was not the 'sensible candidate'. You may thing so, but you'll never be able to convince the #NeverHillary people.
Of course we won't convince them, because #NeverHillary is not dealing with reality. Clinton was a mainstream center-left politician, running on the straightforward party agenda of keeping the same policy goals that the democrats have had since 2008. She has a level of experience in government comparable to past presidents, and appeared at least as capable of doing the job as Bush, Obama, etc. The idea that Clinton is history's greatest monster and Trump is the sensible alternative is insane.
You are looking at this as if it's going to cause some great danger in our society.
Maybe not immediately, but in the long run this kind of stuff seriously undermines our entire system of government. Do you really want a situation where a single supreme court justice decides each case because the other eight have retired or died and both parties have implemented a "supreme court justices may not be nominated" policy like the republican party did against Obama? Do you want the democrats to declare that Trump is not allowed to appoint a supreme court justice, and then offer a "compromise" that they'll allow him to appoint one as long as it's Hillary Clinton?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You're smarter than this. Everyone knew what exactly Biden was threatening to do and the fact the circumstances didn't arise for him to do just that, doesn't excuse it.
Stop for a second and think about the Bork nomination. As you rightly said above, that was Democrats adding a whole new level of politicisation to nominations (they'd been political before, but never that political). And now here was Biden talking just four years later about a possible new nomination, and he was talking about removing the politics and going back to how it was just recently. Maybe he was actually telling the truth?
Let's look at the part you quoted: "I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”
He's hedging. The key piece is for the Whitehouse to work with the Senate.
Garland is unfit ideologically for GOP Senate... so they said 'no' in the form of 'we're not going to take up his nomination for vote'. THEN, the Turtle and GOP leadership chose to make it a campaign issue. (which was extremely risky as we'd know Clinton would nominate a more extreme jurist).
Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable. But, everyone knew Obama wasn't going to do that, so this is where we're at.
This isn't something that going to cause the American Government to crumble.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 04:52:15
Co'tor Shas wrote: So we are just supposed to believe your vaunted intuition over the words that he actually said, from a man that is not known to lie all that much? Sure, sure.
This is why it is hard to take you seriously Whem'
Sure Co'tors. Biden was ALL about unicorns and rainbows when he said that.
And, again, on "Borking."
They held a hearing, refused his nomination (with 54 against), and then accepted in Kennedy. And it was a valid move, Bork is an extreme ideologue, and one of only three nominees to be opposed by the ACLU. The man defended POLL TAXES for feths sake. I swear, you don't even read what I write.
No. Bork was unquestioningly qualified. He's not perfect, but you're not going to ever get perfect.
The Democrats’ craven, despicable, lying campaign against Bork basically herald the arrival of SCoTUS confirmation hearings as bare-knuckle political brawls.
"The nomination changed everything, maybe forever," says Tom Goldstein, publisher of the popular SCOTUSblog, which extensively covers the Supreme Court. "Republicans nominated this brilliant guy to move the law in this dramatically more conservative direction. Liberal groups turned around and blocked him precisely because of those views. Their fight legitimized scorched-earth ideological wars over nominations at the Supreme Court, and to this day both sides remain completely convinced they were right. The upshot is that we have this ridiculous system now where nominees shut up and don't say anything that might signal what they really think."
Rejecting one nominee for political reasons is not the same as refusing to accept any nominee. If Obama nominated some sort of extreme left-wing judge (who, for example, defends states banning guns instead of defending stats instating poll taxes) and they held a hearing and rejected him, I'd actually be fine with that. That's normal politics.
The republicans, even before Garland was chosen, stated that they would not accept any nominee. The instances are similar, but quite a bit different. I'm not saying that they should just "rubber-stamp" whatever Obama puts out, I'm saying they should actually hold hearings, and vote on nominees, and then OK one they find acceptable.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You're smarter than this. Everyone knew what exactly Biden was threatening to do and the fact the circumstances didn't arise for him to do just that, doesn't excuse it.
Stop for a second and think about the Bork nomination. As you rightly said above, that was Democrats adding a whole new level of politicisation to nominations (they'd been political before, but never that political). And now here was Biden talking just four years later about a possible new nomination, and he was talking about removing the politics and going back to how it was just recently. Maybe he was actually telling the truth?
Let's look at the part you quoted:
"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”
He's hedging. The key piece is for the Whitehouse to work with the Senate.
Garland is unfit ideologically for GOP Senate... so they said 'no' in the form of 'we're not going to take up his nomination for vote'. THEN, the Turtle and GOP leadership chose to make it a campaign issue. (which was extremely risky as we'd know Clinton would nominate a more extreme jurist).
Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable. But, everyone knew Obama wasn't going to do that, so this is where we're at.
This isn't something that going to cause the American Government to crumble.
They made it clear, even before Garland was nominated, that they would not consent to any nominee.
Not only that, most of the R's in congress already voted for him. The ones who voted against him didn't even cite his qualifications or beliefs, but the fact that they didn't think the court needed 11 justices.
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Of course he can, he's Whembly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 04:58:58
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
So you admit that it's blatant, unprecedented, partisanship?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
If that's how it works then the system is completely broken. You're suggesting a situation where the president no longer has the power to nominate anyone, they can only rubber-stamp the justice selected by the republican senators. And if the president doesn't accept their irrelevancy then the seat doesn't get filled. Do you honestly not see why this is a problem? Let's say the democrats do the same thing: any nominee Trump picks will be refused, period. But hey, if he nominates Hillary Clinton the democrats will change their mind and approve her, right?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
So you admit that it's blatant, unprecedented, partisanship?
In the same vein as Borking? Yes.
That's politics.
Are we going to suffer as nation because of this? Not really.
I get that you may be upset at the idea that Obama isn't able to gak the ideological spectrum of the court. But this isn't like Rome is burning....
whembly wrote: Then why is it you always seem to give this sort of deference to the Democrats? I mean, every word that you type here is the fact the Republcians are 'bad' and Democrats are just trying to do the 'reasonable' thing...
I don't talk much about the Democrats because there isn't much to say. I certainly don't like them all that much. They're a broadly 'meh' political party. They aren't going to set the world on fire, but they also, you know, aren't going to set the world on fire.
Here in Australia the two major parties, one left and one right, are both 'meh' parties as well. I don't really talk much about Australian politics because it's pretty dull.
I give a lot of deference to what you write, because you really take the time to explain your point of view.
And I give you a lot of time because you cop a lot of flak here on dakka, plenty of it from me, and you always take it in your stride. But Donald fething Trump just got elected, and you're posting like nothing has changed.
But, repeating things over and over again with different words doesn't change the fact that your political interpretation obviously is bias'ed against the GOP.
I think the GOP has been an increasing disaster for 20 years, yeah. Whether that's because I'm biased or because the GOP has actually been an increasing disaster for 20 years is the big question.
Gingrich's Contract with America forced the B. Clinton administration to move back towards.
Yes, there were government shutdown, and yes the media/punditry made the GOP out as a pariah... but, really the next election that were largely unscathed.
There was always dealing between the two sides. Gingrich's big idea was to rewrite the balance of power in those deals - instead of accepting that with a minority of power Republicans could win a minority of terms, instead they decided that a failure to get a deal done will fall on the majority in power.
Yup. Here is glide over the hysteria in this time that Bush was literally Hitler... or something.
That would be an important part of a history of the Democrats, in talking about the process that is radicalising that party. But that story will probably have to be written in 2020 or 2024 if they actually do go bonkers. But this is a summary of the crazy that's happened to the Republicans.
Interestingly you chose the disasterous healthcare reform. The public wanted SOMETHING done... yes. But it's indisputable that when the public heard about the plan, the clear majority didn't like the overall direction. It was met with great skepticism.
There was vitriol on the right before the Democrats had even chosen what plan they were going to attempt. The political theatre in the whole thing was obvious.
This isn't to defend the ACA, which at its core is an okayish bill heavily dependant on rube goldberg nonsense (again, Democrats are a meh party). Even worse than the actual bill was the Democratic effort to sell the thing - it has been law for 6 years and most people still don't understand what it actually does.
Also, shortly after the election of 2008 when the Democrats and Obama started to work on their agenda, the grassroots Tea Party arose and became a "force to be reckeoned" with....
And to this day you still think the Tea Party was a grassroots something or other. It was an operation funded by Republican stalwarts, namely the Koch Brothers, to rebuild enthusiasm within the party base, and also shift Republican politics in a direction they wanted (ie more radical).
I think you're giving too much credence to the idea that those were Newt's strategy. It's not really the case due to the rise of the Tea Party, which had major impact in the '10 midterms. This, is when they were elected to OPPOSE the Democrat/Obama agenda. They're job were to be the "stick in the mud".
You're missing how ideas and movements. Gingrich didn't plan to have a radical base subvert the Republican primaries more than a decade after he set his plan in motion. Things aren't that controlled. Hell, even the Koch Brothers wouldn't have expected what they ended up getting.
It might be a bit simple to say it all started with Gingrich, but you know it's a forum post not a dissertation. Many of the radicalizing forces in the GOP were already in place (some were decades old at this point). But Gingrich's strategy brought those radicalizing forces in to congress. What happened from there wasn't inevitable, but it put in place a momentum that has never been arrested.
Clinton was not the 'sensible candidate'. You may thing so, but you'll never be able to convince the #NeverHillary people.
You don't have to like Clinton, or Democrats, or their policies. But it's a simple matter of reality that Clinton's policy were very status quo, down the middle, same as we've always done, and based in numbers and an appreciation of how things work. ie sensible.
Vs. President Obama? You betcha... Vs. Campaign Superstar Obama? Well... no GOP candidate can compete with that really.
No, I was talking about the primary. Romney won the primary by default. He didn't win the general by default... because he didn't win the general
Man... my boi Rubio would've taken Clinton to the woodshed. Cruz? Might had a change, but he has that baggage that can hurt him badly.
Who gives a gak how Rubio would have done in the general, when he got slaughtered in the primary.
Stop torturing me... I'd totally take The Zodiac Killer over Cheeto Jesus in a heart beat.
This isn't about who you might have had in a magical alternative. This is about who you've got, and who you're gonna keep getting until the party sets itself straight.
No. I'm not drinking the koolaid that says Democrats are absolved of any shenanigans.
Democrats are responsible for what they do. To date, they've never nominated Donald fething Trump for the presidency, so they get to remain an ordinary 'meh' party. Meanwhile Republicans not only nominated Trump, they then got more than 60m people to turn and vote for that idiot.
So Republicans should own what they are.
No, that isn't what I'm arguing. It all depends on what each Senate votes for their parliamentarian rules.
Beyond those senate rules though, there are unwritten rules to the game. Those unwritten rules are essential to a decent government.
You are looking at this as if it's going to cause some great danger in our society.
I'm not one of these "america is gonna collapse" people. Because countries can drift by with dysfunctional governments for a very long time, their won't be collapse as long as the economy remains good enough.
But between 'collapse' and 'everything is awesome' there is a lot of ground. Having a congress full of people who's first priority is effective governance will move you much closer to 'everything is awesome'.
Tell that to Harry Reid. Don't you defend him by saying that he's responding to GOP obstructionims. If on the one hand, you criticize the GOP for their antics, then when Reid pull this gak that sets dangerous precedent that erodes the minority party and you defend him?
As I've said before, the filibuster was dependent on unwritten rules, that it would only be used sometimes, on very important things. Once a party decided to filibuster everything as a strategy, the erosion of the power of the filibuster became inevitable.
See how important unwritten rules can be?
Nothing wrong with being a Democratic Honk... just admit it for once without trying to apply a veneer of impartiality. Cool?
There would be something very wrong with me saying I was a honk for a party I don't particularly like. As I said above, the point is that democrats are meh much as they've always been, while Republicans are going through a very, very bad stage in their history.
You're whitewashing Reid's and Obama's position.
They. Refused. To. Work. With. Their. Counterparts.
We're basically at a point where Republicans state in public that they won't work Democrats no matter what, and then you come here and complain that Democrats aren't working with Republicans. It happened with ACA, and it happened with the SC nomination.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I get that you may be upset at the idea that Obama isn't able to gak the ideological spectrum of the court.
Well, at least you make it clear: anything is ok as long as it's your side benefiting from it, and the most important thing is to keep a 5-4 conservative majority on the court.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
If that's how it works then the system is completely broken. You're suggesting a situation where the president no longer has the power to nominate anyone,
No I'm not.
The GOP didn't stop Obama from nominating Garland, or anyone else. It takes two to tango.
they can only rubber-stamp the justice selected by the republican senators.
Yeah, put someone up that these senators would ideological agree.
And if the president doesn't accept their irrelevancy then the seat doesn't get filled.
Sucks that there's system of Checks and Balance... eh?
Do you honestly not see why this is a problem?
It's a problem in their own making...
Let's say the democrats do the same thing: any nominee Trump picks will be refused, period.
Trump can nominate anyone he wants. The Senate can't stop him for doing so. They can, however, not provide the 60th vote and we'd be stuck with where we're at now.
But hey, if he nominates Hillary Clinton the democrats will change their mind and approve her, right?
I wouldn't put it pass him to do that. ANd if the Democrats had 60 votes, they'll sure as feth shoo her in at the bench.
whembly wrote: I get that you may be upset at the idea that Obama isn't able to gak the ideological spectrum of the court.
Well, at least you make it clear: anything is ok as long as it's your side benefiting from it, and the most important thing is to keep a 5-4 conservative majority on the court.
Hey... if I had the powha, I'd make sure that the Senate has a responsibility to make sure that only suitable judges are elected to the SCoTUS, and if one is not an originalist, one is not a suitable judge.
Unfortunatly the SCoTUS is very much a political/polarising branch. If they can't simply interpret the law, then we might as well as expand the bench to 51 to some higher number jurist.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/21 05:27:49
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
So you admit that it's blatant, unprecedented, partisanship?
In the same vein as Borking? Yes.
Refusing to vote on any nominee is well beyond voting down a nominee because his beliefs are reprehensible. But I guess this is how far down this hole you are.
That's politics.
No it's not. I realize that's your one excuse for whenever "your guys" do something bad, but this is not just politics, it's well beyond the normal. This is the fething point.
Are we going to suffer as nation because of this? Not really.
Well, if Trump put's an anti-gay or anti-Muslim, or anti-press judge, we certainly will. But that's besides the point, and not even my argument.
I get that you may be upset at the idea that Obama isn't able to gak the ideological spectrum of the court.
I know this may be hard to get, but not everyone is as partisan as you. It's not about garland. It's about extreme obstructionism. If they D's did the same thing, I'd still be calling it BS.
But this isn't like Rome is burning....
You really don't actually read anything I write do you.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: The GOP didn't stop Obama from nominating Garland, or anyone else. It takes two to tango.
No, they didn't literally prevent him from nominating anyone, they just said "you're wasting your time if you nominate anyone, we will not even consider your nomination". You can nitpick all you want about the exact words used, but the simple fact here is that the republican party declared that the system was shut down until at least 2017 (and if Clinton had won it's a pretty safe bet the obstruction would continue).
Sucks that there's system of Checks and Balance... eh?
That's not "checks and balances", it's handing all power to the republican senators. The way the system is supposed to work is that the president has the nominating power, but the senate provides the checks and balances by having the ability to decline an extreme or unqualified nominee. Just like other checks and balances that power is supposed to be used rarely, to stop the worst excesses of a particular branch. It is NOT supposed to overturn the normal balance of power and make the president nothing more than a rubber stamp for the nominee chosen by the republican senators.
Trump can nominate anyone he wants. The Senate can't stop him for doing so. They can, however, not provide the 60th vote and we'd be stuck with where we're at now.
And then the system continues to be broken. Look, the bottom line here is that supreme court justices need to be appointed. There are supposed to be nine, and the system is not working if we have a steadily decreasing number of them because one or both parties has declared that no new justices can be appointed. The fact that the democrats can turn around and do the same thing the republicans have been doing doesn't mean that things are working, it just means that the democrats have decided that a completely broken system is better than the republican party holding the basic functions of the government hostage to get what they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hey... if I had the powha, I'd make sure that the Senate has a responsibility to make sure that only suitable judges are elected to the SCoTUS, and if one is not an originalist, one is not a suitable judge.
Unfortunatly the SCoTUS is very much a political/polarising branch. If they can't simply interpret the law, then we might as well as expand the bench to 51 to some higher number jurist.
Do you honestly not see the contradiction here? You complain that the supreme court is a political branch, while simultaneously advocating an explicit test of a judge's political beliefs as a condition for being appointed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/21 05:36:54
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: He's hedging. The key piece is for the Whitehouse to work with the Senate.
Yes, work with the senate. Find someone that the president wants, that 60 senators can accept. That's the process. That is not what the Republicans did in 2016. They didn't even wait for a nominee to be proposed before they committed to rejecting whoever the Democrats proposed.
Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable. But, everyone knew Obama wasn't going to do that, so this is where we're at.
Republicans didn't hold hearings, or make any comment at all about what was unacceptable about Garland. You are not describing what actually happened.
This isn't something that going to cause the American Government to crumble.
The diminishing of institutions never happen with a single, nor do they need to collapse completely for it to be bad. It isn't that hard an argument to recognise that you've have a pretty good run of it for a couple of centuries, going from rebel colony to hyperpower, and concluding that maybe you shouldn't feth with that too much. It's almost a conservative argument
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I get that you may be upset at the idea that Obama isn't able to gak the ideological spectrum of the court.
Well, at least you make it clear: anything is ok as long as it's your side benefiting from it, and the most important thing is to keep a 5-4 conservative majority on the court.
Hey... if I had the powha, I'd make sure that the Senate has a responsibility to make sure that only suitable judges are elected to the SCoTUS, and if one is not an originalist, one is not a suitable judge.
Unfortunatly the SCoTUS is very much a political/polarising branch. If they can't simply interpret the law, then we might as well as expand the bench to 51 to some higher number jurist.
"Originalist" Also known as "Support my interpretation of what the constitution means".
You keep holding up Scalia as some sort of non-partisan, but he claimed that originalsm mean that the 14th doesn't apply to different sexes, only different races, but then went and agreed with the Bush v. Gore decisions, which was very much not about race. Or his gak about the 11th. Or the weird gak with due process only applying to guns. He was just another partisan judge. He was the Conservative to RBG's Liberal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 05:51:42
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
You seem to have your timelines confused. Turtleman said they would not consider anybody Obama put up. Then Garland was nominated and a number of GOP senators started getting sweaty because they thought he looked like a good pick. So they decided to have informal meetings with him to save face in the media against their turtle overlord's wishes. Why would Obama rescind his nomination when it looked like a good one and he knew Turtleface wouldn't give a hearing anyway? It makes absolutely no sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 06:39:58
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
Except that if that had happened, it would have undermined their position further than it already was.... Want to look weak? Say you're not gonna vote for ANY nominee a president puts forward, then, when he puts one up you like, you say, "ooh shiny!! me want!" completely forgetting all about your original position of "we need to let the people decide in november" which apparently disregards the fact that a president is in office for FOUR years, not three and a half, or three.
I mean, the disgusting thing was, your vaunted republicans didn't even wait for Scalia to get cold, much less in the ground before they came out lock step the whole way with this BS. So, you'll just have to forgive me if I see your statements here as utter BS. And I think you know it's BS as well.
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
It is an impasse because Republicans have made it an impasse by refusing to consider any nomination by Obama.
You keep holding up Scalia as some sort of non-partisan,
It's hilarious because far and above by miles Scalia and Thomas are the two most partisan judges on the Court. Just reading their decisions is a lesson in twisting judicial logic to support ideological politics with no regard for anything other than politics (especially Scalia). Arguably Scalia was the most partisan judge to serve on the Court since Roger Taney (and adding to the hilarity, Taney was one of Scalia's personal heroes ).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/21 11:24:11
whembly wrote: Obama has had EVERY chance to rescind his Garland nomination and pick someone more favorable.
At which point the republicans continue their openly-stated plan of refusing to consider any of Obama's nominees and reject whoever he picks next. Seriously, you can't praise the republican leadership for their successful strategy of using a blanket refusal to consider new justices as a campaign strategy while simultaneously blaming Obama for not compromising.
Why not?
Had Obama said, "fine" here's a Scalia 2.0. You bet your ass they'd take it.
But, Obama isn't going to do that.
This is literally an impasse.
You seem to have your timelines confused. Turtleman said they would not consider anybody Obama put up. Then Garland was nominated and a number of GOP senators started getting sweaty because they thought he looked like a good pick. So they decided to have informal meetings with him to save face in the media against their turtle overlord's wishes. Why would Obama rescind his nomination when it looked like a good one and he knew Turtleface wouldn't give a hearing anyway? It makes absolutely no sense.
So I looked back. You're right... I was wrong. Turtleman did say that before Garland was picked.
You keep holding up Scalia as some sort of non-partisan,
It's hilarious because far and above by miles Scalia and Thomas are the two most partisan judges on the Court. Just reading their decisions is a lesson in twisting judicial logic to support ideological politics with no regard for anything other than politics (especially Scalia). Arguably Scalia was the most partisan judge to serve on the Court since Roger Taney (and adding to the hilarity, Taney was one of Scalia's personal heroes ).
Twisting judicial logic? The only thing you're right here is the fact that it's "arguable".
Sheeit... have you even read Bader's decision? Kennedy's obergefell ruling? Freak'n Roberts PPACA ruling?
Their rambling makes you wonder if the wrote them while playing 'FIND THAT SQUIRREL' with their legal aids.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 12:45:49
whembly wrote: if one is not an originalist, one is not a suitable judge.
If they can't simply interpret the law.
These statements are oxymoronic.
Plus, Whembly keeps conveniently ignoring the fact that an originalist approach to the Constitution also means Ted Cruz could not be President. So, yeah, originalist only when it's convenient for the Republicans.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: if one is not an originalist, one is not a suitable judge.
If they can't simply interpret the law.
These statements are oxymoronic.
Plus, Whembly keeps conveniently ignoring the fact that an originalist approach to the Constitution also means Ted Cruz could not be President. So, yeah, originalist only when it's convenient for the Republicans.
How do you figure that? His mum was born in the US...
What part of the constitution does it say anything about someone's mom?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: What part of the constitution does it say anything about someone's mom?
No that was the Declaration of Independence, something about the King of England's mother being fat and not being able to cook.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: if one is not an originalist, one is not a suitable judge.
If they can't simply interpret the law.
These statements are oxymoronic.
Plus, Whembly keeps conveniently ignoring the fact that an originalist approach to the Constitution also means Ted Cruz could not be President. So, yeah, originalist only when it's convenient for the Republicans.
How do you figure that? His mum was born in the US...
At the time of writing, a natural born citizen was accepted and defined by common law solely as someone born within the borders of the nation. I've already linked to this at least once, if not twice.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
ANd if the Democrats had 60 votes, they'll sure as feth shoo her in at the bench.
).
