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.

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically it has to be an organized church, and can't be an individual?

Uh, what? Individuals are free to keep their religious beliefs too. You can say "GAY MARRIAGE IS A SIN BURN IN HELL" all you want and the government is not going to stop you. The reason Kim Davis was forced to do her job is that she was acting in her capacity as an employee of the secular government, not as an individual in her private life.

I spent three decades of my life hearing about how my ethic group needed to be drug out and shot solely because of their subjugation by a foreign power. I spent those three decades watching as my ethnic group was lumped in with one of the most oppressive regimes of all time in every damn media outlet because of said subjugation. Don't fething lecture me about bigotry until your friend tells you TO YOUR FACE that everybody in your represented group needs wiped off the face of the planet.

I'm sorry that this happened, but perhaps you should let these experiences give you some empathy for the people who are hurt by anti-LGBT bigotry instead of dismissing the struggle to end that bigotry as "bickering" and both-sides-ism.

Ultimately she should have either changed jobs or asked to be moved to a different department. I guess you could factor in things like how long she had been working there, whether that issuing those certificates was an expectation of her employment but that's probably a bit of a stretch.

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically it has to be an organized church, and can't be an individual? So that's the criteria?

To clarify - we're seeking to find any religious group or individual required to to perform a same sex marriage whilst not acting as a representative of the government.

If you'd like to argue that representatives of the government should have their personal religious beliefs taken into account in choosing whether they fulfill their duties as a government representative then I'd have to ask; why do you hate the bill of rights?

 Just Tony wrote:
Also, what would be approved sources, as I'd like to not have to waste any more time on this than I have to.

For me there was nothing wrong with your sources. Excepting the fact that they didn't support your claim.

I somehow manage to wipe the asses of donkey-caves covered in white power tattoos who would love to do nothing more than rape and kill my black wife and daughters. I save the lives of these racist worthless pieces of humans, I keep them nice and comfortable and make sure they don't suffer after surgeries and give them more humanity in a 12 hour shift than they have managed to give to others in an entire lifetime.

I have zero empathy for someone who feels persecuted because they don't want to do their job for any particular group of people regardless of the reason why they want to discriminate against them.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Ultimately she should have either changed jobs or asked to be moved to a different department. I guess you could factor in things like how long she had been working there, whether that issuing those certificates was an expectation of her employment but that's probably a bit of a stretch.

She worked a government job. I don't know how it works in the UK, but you can't simply move departments or change jobs that easily. Literally every job has a specific title/job number. . . and that's from city to county, to state to federal jobs. If you want to move jobs, generally speaking you have to apply for it, and be hired (even if you've been working for the organization for years). It isn't like moving from Fry Cook to Burger Flipper.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Ultimately she should have either changed jobs or asked to be moved to a different department. I guess you could factor in things like how long she had been working there, whether that issuing those certificates was an expectation of her employment but that's probably a bit of a stretch.

She worked a government job. I don't know how it works in the UK, but you can't simply move departments or change jobs that easily. Literally every job has a specific title/job number. . . and that's from city to county, to state to federal jobs. If you want to move jobs, generally speaking you have to apply for it, and be hired (even if you've been working for the organization for years). It isn't like moving from Fry Cook to Burger Flipper.

Asked or applied, stated that she was no longer comfortable doing what she did. I honestly don't really care about the technicalities. The point is she should have changed jobs or dealt with it.

skyth wrote:Which ethnic group is that?

LIthuanian. Or, "Commie Pinko Bastards" or "Russians" since for some odd reason during the Cold War nobody could make the distinction between the subjugator and the subjugated.

Medium of Death wrote:Ultimately she should have either changed jobs or asked to be moved to a different department. I guess you could factor in things like how long she had been working there, whether that issuing those certificates was an expectation of her employment but that's probably a bit of a stretch.

Ideally that would be the best even possible. Worried your religious convictions will conflict with your job? Find another job. You don't get bit by sharks if you don't swim in their habitat.

Henry wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically it has to be an organized church, and can't be an individual? So that's the criteria?

To clarify - we're seeking to find any religious group or individual required to to perform a same sex marriage whilst not acting as a representative of the government.

If you'd like to argue that representatives of the government should have their personal religious beliefs taken into account in choosing whether they fulfill their duties as a government representative then I'd have to ask; why do you hate the bill of rights?

 Just Tony wrote:
Also, what would be approved sources, as I'd like to not have to waste any more time on this than I have to.

For me there was nothing wrong with your sources. Excepting the fact that they didn't support your claim.

Fair enough, was doing a quick dive through google as my time was/is finite here at work. And after a more extensive dive, I have found no other examples of churches being forced to actually perform the marriages, but I did find legal precedent for forcing churches to surrender their property for one, provided they have ANY part of the property open to the public and state law covers such things. And last I checked, the entirety of the church is open to the public...

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_rules_monmouth_church_gr.html

Granted, it isn't the smoking gun that some were looking for, but I reiterate that these things start small.

 Just Tony wrote:
And last I checked, the entirety of the church is open to the public...

But not for secular uses. That was the key difference, the church owned the property but operated it as one might handle a secular park, allowing it to be used for weddings and public events. It's just like how, if a church purchases an apartment building, they still have to comply with all relevant anti-discrimination housing laws. There's a long way to go from that to requiring churches to make their religious buildings open to anyone who wants to use them, or to perform religious services on demand.

Also, note that the church changed its policies to prevent all weddings on the property in question, and the gay couple that tried to sue to use it after the policy change had their case thrown out.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Ultimately she should have either changed jobs or asked to be moved to a different department. I guess you could factor in things like how long she had been working there, whether that issuing those certificates was an expectation of her employment but that's probably a bit of a stretch.

She worked a government job. I don't know how it works in the UK, but you can't simply move departments or change jobs that easily. Literally every job has a specific title/job number. . . and that's from city to county, to state to federal jobs. If you want to move jobs, generally speaking you have to apply for it, and be hired (even if you've been working for the organization for years). It isn't like moving from Fry Cook to Burger Flipper.

To clarify, she still works at her job making $80 thousand a year, she just has her deputy clerks actually sign the certificates now.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Kim Davis

The county clerk who refused to do her job? Sorry, she wasn't performing a religious service, but a secular one, so it falls under the purview of our secular laws.

I am sorry. I didn't make myself clear at all. We are in agreement.

I was guessing that she was one of those "poor poor persecuted Christians forced to support/endorse something they don't believe in" that Just Tony was hinting at.


My opinion on Kim Davis. Trigger warning!

Rosebuddy wrote:
The Democrats had orders of magnitude more impact on Clinton's campaign than Russia leaking emails did.

I say you're just repeating the same bad argument that you've repeated a bunch of times before... and in response you just repeat the same fething argument again.

I will explain this to you, again. Yes, Clinton and the Democrats made a whole bunch of screw ups. But those screw up don't somehow make it okay for Russia to attempt to manipulate the election, and if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia on this that most certainly is not okay. Consider a discovery that a football team used a performance enhancing drug in order to win a match, then people come out afterwards and say 'so what, the other team should have missed that pass or relied on that running strategy so the drugs are just an excuse and we shouldn't investigate or punish the drugs cheaters at all'.

It's a fething bonkers argument.

The incessant repetition of "there's totally an investigation now" despite no evidence for Trump being some kind of Russian state agent ever surfacing is straight up deranged.

You are absolutely, completely ignorant of the state of the investigations.

I don't for a moment trust that the Democrats have any kind of sane endgame for these accusations, if they have one at all.

Establish the state of interference by Russia, and the level of co-operation with any American citizens. The argument that such an investigation shouldn't be undertaken is extraordinarily ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
They were just waiting until they knew the results of the election before doing anything with him. If Trump won, great, don't appoint Garland. If Clinton won, anyone she'd pick would be worse, so they do a rush-job to put Garland in.

There was a very strong story going about during the election that McConnell had communicated to Obama via back channels that if Clinton won the election then McConnell would hold a special sitting of congress to appoint Garland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
That isn't the narrative that's being pushed. The reason I keep repeating that Clinton's poor campaigning is why she lost is because liberals keep going on about Russia or Comey or Bernie Bros and pretty much everything other than the Democrats' own failures. Sebster keeps characterising it as voters being whiny idiots who forgot what's good for them and who will all come crawling back to the Democrats who don't have to change a thing because losing like this is simply a part of the Law of Cycles to which all politics are eternally bound.

You're kind of close, but still miss the point. I don't think all voters are whiny idiots, just the ones who whine idiotically that a Democratic party that isn't as left wing as themselves is the same as the Republican party. A large chunk of these voters wise up after a term or two of someone like Trump or Bush in charge, sweeping Democrats back in to power. This is just how it is.

This doesn't mean this is all Democrats should do. It doesn't mean Democrats shouldn't push to be a much stronger party than they are (winning around half your elections, when the alternative is the absolute crazy of the modern Republican party is not a good result). Democrats should instead look to restructure and rebrand their policy set so it directly appeals to voters, and then go about making that policy set a clear sign of priorities, and a set of promises to voters about what the party is really all about. Clinton and Obama were both pretty decent on writing policy, but communicating that policy was something they didn't so much do badly, more they simply didn't do it at all.

They shouldn't do this in order win over people like Rosebuddy, or the many Americans who are quite like him. Trying to appeal to people who's personal identity is about being above and beyond the realities of politics is a waste of time. But there's a hell of a lot of disaffected voters who never heard how the minimum wage increase, or the ACA or the consumer credit laws benefited them.

 sebster wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The incessant repetition of "there's totally an investigation now" despite no evidence for Trump being some kind of Russian state agent ever surfacing is straight up deranged.

You are absolutely, completely ignorant of the state of the investigations.

This also hints at a somewhat skewed understanding of the Investigation - Evidence relationship.
One does not first have evidence and then do an investigation. Investigations are done to uncover evidence (or not, as the case may be).
One does not need evidence to start an investigation

If one already has evidence an investigation would be a waste of time.

This understanding can of course be born out of simple ignorance or lack of forethought, or it can stem from a hypocritical bias.
For example, one could look at the number of investigations into possible negligence in Bengazi, and compare that to the number of investigations into possible Russian interference in the US presidential election.

 Just Tony wrote:
Now Peregrine, here's the question: if a candidate is against fundamental beliefs that are at the core of your being, would YOU vote for them, even if they were the "better" candidate? Remember, MILLIONS of people are killed over beliefs and hardly any are killed over facts or rationality.

Even better, if someone was the "better" candidate in every way, but wanted to support DOMA and push the civil union position to try to cater to both the evangelicals AND the LGBT community, would you vote for that person?

I think the last three months have shown how important it is to have a competent person in the presidency. That such a need is much more important than a wedge issue like DOMA. I am pretty confident the next 3 years and 9 months will make this argument almost completely undeniable. I also expect most people will still not learn the lesson.

You make a good point about how many people have died over beliefs, compared to how many have died over facts or rationality. I think though, that rather than show what is important, all this actually does is show how very, very silly most people are when it comes to politics.

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Now Peregrine, here's the question: if a candidate is against fundamental beliefs that are at the core of your being, would YOU vote for them, even if they were the "better" candidate? Remember, MILLIONS of people are killed over beliefs and hardly any are killed over facts or rationality.

Even better, if someone was the "better" candidate in every way, but wanted to support DOMA and push the civil union position to try to cater to both the evangelicals AND the LGBT community, would you vote for that person?

I think the last three months have shown how important it is to have a competent person in the presidency. That such a need is much more important than a wedge issue like DOMA. I am pretty confident the next 3 years and 9 months will make this argument almost completely undeniable. I also expect most people will still not learn the lesson.

You make a good point about how many people have died over beliefs, compared to how many have died over facts or rationality. I think though, that rather than show what is important, all this actually does is show how very, very silly most people are when it comes to politics.

All the more reason to enact my social experiment. Vote in nothing but Democrats for the next 20 years, and watch as everything is handled and the naysayers are silenced. OR justified. Whichever way it goes down.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Clinton was the more suitable candidate, but her campaign in many ways ran as if it had a pre-ordained fate and she just had to go through the motions.

See, I never got the impression she was acting as if all she had to do was go through the motions. I think what happened is that Clinton ran a bad campaign for the simple reason that she is really, really bad at political campaigning. I mean, her campaign history so far is winning a NY senate seat as a Democrat, an achievement that a particularly uncharismatic loaf of stale bread could manage. She then ran for president, which she screwed up early by neglecting Iowa and letting fairly unknown newcomer Obama claim a lot of recognition and momentum. She then went neck and neck with Obama, eventually losing because she allowed Obama to press the case on super-delegates declaring... at a time when Obama had his best couple of sets of states, and before Clinton would have her last, best set. Eight years later she won soundly, by 12 point, but her best competition was a socialist, who had only been a Democrat for months before the election, and who was barely known before the primary began.

Throughout each of those campaigns, Clinton never managed to form a slogan that actually cut through.

I read a nice anecdote about Clinton the other day. Early in Obama's first term, at the depths of the recession, Obama sent a request to his cabinet, looking for job creating suggestions. It was just a brainstorming request, some ideas to start spitballing in to policy. Clinton responded the next morning with a 12 page, single spaced response with references. That's the sort of person Clinton is. It's all detail, all the time. That kind of thing works terrribly on the campaign trail. You give people detail and they think you're trying to trick them. Clinton spent half the campaign telling people to go to her website to read their extensive policy positions. Holy fething gak that was amazingly bad campaigning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
It was my understanding that the argument was more about the benefits tied to marriage rather than simply crushing the belief system and practices of a religous group. I guess I learned something. Better yet, a simpler solution would be to end benefits and tax breaks for being married, then there is NOTHING left of the argument except bending the beliefs of religious groups to cater to another group. There is a midline solution, but only one group is willing to accept it. That should speak volumes. Probably played a little into the election results as well.

When one group of people ask to be given equal rights, the solution isn't to compromise and given them some civil rights but not others, to appease a religious group committed to denying people those rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
It seems blocking EITHER party there is wrong, but who do you think will be sided with? Freedom to practice one's religion is a RIGHT in this country, but as we all know, you retain a right as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Refusing to marry a gay couple would infringe, of that I'm sure nobody would argue. But would forcing the religious group/person/church not be as well?

No-one is making a church or religious official marry anyone they don't want to marry. There's an issue with affiliated, secular services like cake making, but that's about provision of public goods vs bespoke services.

Separate but equal still exist. How many female only clubs can I not gain access to, yet there is an active movement to dismantle any all male groups, up to and including elite military units?

You can join plenty of men's clubs. They're everywhere. What you can't have is jobs and politically powerful groups restricted to just one gender.

How many exclusively black organizations are there that I can't access, or gain assistance from, or be affiliated with, yet DARE to make one that's caucasian exclusive no matter WHAT ethnic group.

You can join a Polish club, or a Scottish club. 'White' isn't an ethnicity. It's a catch all term given to all the ethnic groups that have been rolled up in to the group collectively seen as the majority, as 'normal'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp

Did you read this link? The church/reception hall argued that because the church offered not just Christian weddings, but wedding to anyone then they should be required to officiate gay weddings. The reception hall denied it and said they would close if forced to do so, and began legal action against the state. The state of Idaho confirmed they wouldn't make the business marry anyone they didn't want to marry. In the end the reception hall carried on with its lawsuit, complaining about the income they lost while they were voluntarily closed because they didn't know what the State of Idaho had decided about this issue.

I mean, if that's the case for religious persecution...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
She worked a government job. I don't know how it works in the UK, but you can't simply move departments or change jobs that easily. Literally every job has a specific title/job number. . . and that's from city to county, to state to federal jobs. If you want to move jobs, generally speaking you have to apply for it, and be hired (even if you've been working for the organization for years). It isn't like moving from Fry Cook to Burger Flipper.

People get moved within government departments all the time. It's the #1 way of resolving troublesome situations, move one of the people. This has built up something of culture of assuming that someone being transferred are trouble makers or incompetent. It isn't completely inaccurate. Sometimes you even get swaps, where two managers will get together and agree to swap employees, both solving the problem of a getting a difficult employee out of a problematic situation, while both also understand they're probably just inheriting a new problem down the line.

Not that any of that matters with Kim Davis, because her's was an elected position. You can't just swap someone out of that role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Granted, it isn't the smoking gun that some were looking for, but I reiterate that these things start small.

Maybe. But also lots of times they start at zero and they stay there. Afterall, there's still never been an attempt by government to make a church marry an inter-racial couple.

You have to consider it at least someone likely that no anti-gay church will ever be forced to marry a couple they don't want to marry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
All the more reason to enact my social experiment. Vote in nothing but Democrats for the next 20 years, and watch as everything is handled and the naysayers are silenced. OR justified. Whichever way it goes down.

While I'm totally in favour of you beginning that experiment by voting Democrat for the next 20 years, and in favour of you convincing everyone you know to do the same...

But as an argument it doesn't actually work. Thing is, no political party anywhere will take people to utopia. Very few problems have perfect solutions, and most political parties are a long way from optimum solutions. To the extent that any political party anywhere in the world is close to an optimum solution to any problem, it sure as hell isn't the Democrats. This lesson is clear through the Obama administration. He came in with big promises and big hopes that he could transform the nation. It didn't happen, it was never going to happen. Sure, once Republicans regained some power Obama faced a lot of obstruction, but even before then his policies showed the political realities that disappointed his supporter base. Because the practical realities of governing and the hard facts of the real world means those kinds of pie in the sky transformational efforts don't happen, what we get instead is small, incremental changes.

20 years of Democrats in charge will likely be just that, slight improvements on what was there before, plus the normal crop of scandals and feth ups. It won't answer any question clearly.

This doesn't mean all political parties are the same. No political party is that good, but some are real bad. Such as the Republicans right now. As shown by just 3 months in power.

 Just Tony wrote:
Granted, it isn't the smoking gun that some were looking for, but I reiterate that these things start small.

“These things” being ”crushing the belief system and practices of a religous group.”?

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
They were just waiting until they knew the results of the election before doing anything with him. If Trump won, great, don't appoint Garland. If Clinton won, anyone she'd pick would be worse, so they do a rush-job to put Garland in.

There was a very strong story going about during the election that McConnell had communicated to Obama via back channels that if Clinton won the election then McConnell would hold a special sitting of congress to appoint Garland.

The thing is, as election day got closer, and it looked like Clinton would win, a few GOP senators were floating the idea of continuing to refuse any nomination all the way through Clinton's term, too. Just talk, probably, but Cruz was one of them, and we all know he'll do anything to get attention.

Oh.

Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel

White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials does not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself and other members of the committee.

Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

My bet was that this is what Nunes saw...

And the info that caused Adam Schiff to walkback a bit by stating:
There Is No "Definitive" Proof Of Any Trump-Russia Connection

On Sunday's edition of 'State of the Union' on CNN, House Intelligence Committee top Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) explained that so far his investigation has turned up no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election.

"I don’t think we can say anything definitively at this point," Schiff said. "We are still at the very early stages of the investigation. The only thing I can say is that it would be irresponsible for us not to get to the bottom of this. We really need to find out exactly what the Russians did. Because one of the most important conclusions that the intelligence community reached is that they are going to do this again to the United States. They are doing it already in Europe. So we can say conclusively this is something that needs to be thoroughly investigated but it’s way premature to be reaching conclusions."

Keep in mind that the 'unmaskings' isn't, in itself, illegal. Just ripe for abuses... what would be illegal, is if someone leaked these reports after they were 'unmasked'.

Bizarro world ya'll.

,,since Friday :

The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

The Democrats should do whatever it takes to keep another Originalist from getting on the Supreme Court. If the Republicans were to nominate someone like Anthony Kennedy, however, I think the Democrats would vote to confirm.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

Say they do allow it to go to a vote, and the Republicans don't reach the needed 60 votes to "confirm" Gorsuch. I don't think the current administration and Republican party would think twice about ignoring the Senate's vote and placing Gorsuch on the Supreme Court regardless.

The Democrats should do whatever it takes to keep another Originalist from getting on the Supreme Court.

I don't think the GOP needs 60 in order to pass on their recommendation, just a majority. They need sixty to get to the point of voting. By requiring a filibuster, the Dems are essentially playing the same game we have derided the GOP of playing for the last eight years. Namely, obstructionism as all costs. I didn't like it then, I don't like it now. Let him get a vote. Save the ire and brimstone for the next one that would actually tip the court. Hold on a little longer, you old justices. Ginsberg will live just to spite Trump.

Plus, the American populace needs to learn every now and then that they need to actually vote. Want to see the most lopsided vote in history? Overturn roe v. Wade. The party that does that will no longer exist. Show one illegal coat hangar abortion in an alley on tv, and the opposing party is dead.

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the idea of blanket obstructionism and I'm not convinced that Gorsuch is the kind of unacceptable disaster that needs to be stopped at all costs. But, on the other hand, I don't really want to see republican obstructionism rewarded. If they declare that Obama isn't allowed to nominate anyone and are rewarded by having their nominee confirmed without incident then it's incentive to repeat the strategy again. If blanket obstructionism is met with equal obstructionism then maybe it makes people think twice about trying the same strategy in the future.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the idea of blanket obstructionism and I'm not convinced that Gorsuch is the kind of unacceptable disaster that needs to be stopped at all costs. But, on the other hand, I don't really want to see republican obstructionism rewarded. If they declare that Obama isn't allowed to nominate anyone and are rewarded by having their nominee confirmed without incident then it's incentive to repeat the strategy again. If blanket obstructionism is met with equal obstructionism then maybe it makes people think twice about trying the same strategy in the future.

Then the filibuster will be on it's deathbed.

Yay for Super-Sized-Me House of Rep... <ahem>, 'scuse me... meant Senate.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the idea of blanket obstructionism and I'm not convinced that Gorsuch is the kind of unacceptable disaster that needs to be stopped at all costs. But, on the other hand, I don't really want to see republican obstructionism rewarded. If they declare that Obama isn't allowed to nominate anyone and are rewarded by having their nominee confirmed without incident then it's incentive to repeat the strategy again. If blanket obstructionism is met with equal obstructionism then maybe it makes people think twice about trying the same strategy in the future.

Then the filibuster will be on it's deathbed.

Yay for Super-Sized-Me House of Rep... <ahem>, 'scuse me... meant Senate.

I, for one, am glad that the senate have at least a bit of maturity. The Dems there have been reluctant to make big moves. As have the GOP. Good. Big decisions need a bit of thought. Somebody needs to wear the big boy pants and act the grown up, cause it sure as gak isn't coming from the populist pres. or house.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

I, for one, am glad that the senate have at least a bit of maturity. The Dems there have been reluctant to make big moves. As have the GOP. Good. Big decisions need a bit of thought. Somebody needs to wear the big boy pants and act the grown up, cause it sure as gak isn't coming from the populist pres. or house.

If the Senate had maturity, they would have had hearings for Garland and then the Republicans would have voted to deny.

Instead, the GOP is stomping it's feet because the mean ol' Democrats won't let them celebrate after cheating.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the idea of blanket obstructionism and I'm not convinced that Gorsuch is the kind of unacceptable disaster that needs to be stopped at all costs. But, on the other hand, I don't really want to see republican obstructionism rewarded. If they declare that Obama isn't allowed to nominate anyone and are rewarded by having their nominee confirmed without incident then it's incentive to repeat the strategy again. If blanket obstructionism is met with equal obstructionism then maybe it makes people think twice about trying the same strategy in the future.

Then the filibuster will be on it's deathbed.

Yay for Super-Sized-Me House of Rep... <ahem>, 'scuse me... meant Senate.

I, for one, am glad that the senate have at least a bit of maturity. The Dems there have been reluctant to make big moves. As have the GOP. Good. Big decisions need a bit of difficultthought. Somebody needs to wear the big boy pants and act the grown up, cause it sure as gak isn't coming from the populist pres. or house.

It seems like the only people taking their jobs seriously in govt. lately are senators. Even Rubio found his big boy pants. Good for him. Why aren't my edits automatically appending lately? I look like I'm talking to myself, which ain't cool. Well that one did, sorta, so shrug. You guys know me. What do you think, left hand? *i think that person you quoted above you said it all, so shut up*

 infinite_array wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

I, for one, am glad that the senate have at least a bit of maturity. The Dems there have been reluctant to make big moves. As have the GOP. Good. Big decisions need a bit of thought. Somebody needs to wear the big boy pants and act the grown up, cause it sure as gak isn't coming from the populist pres. or house.

If the Senate had maturity, they would have had hearings for Garland and then the Republicans would have voted to deny.

Instead, the GOP is stomping it's feet because the mean ol' Democrats won't let them celebrate after cheating.

Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

You can say that it pissed you off... and its totally understandable.

What boggles the mind is that the Democrats *want* to filibuster Gorsuch in *retaliation* over the GOP's handling of Garland.

The time to do it, IMO, is if Souter or RBG retires.

Otherwise, why bother with the current filibuster rules? Right now, all of this is just an elaborate Kabuki theater. May be best to just nuke 'em all... and force these folks to make their case (up/down) rather than hiding behind archaic parliamentarian tactics.

 whembly wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

I, for one, am glad that the senate have at least a bit of maturity. The Dems there have been reluctant to make big moves. As have the GOP. Good. Big decisions need a bit of thought. Somebody needs to wear the big boy pants and act the grown up, cause it sure as gak isn't coming from the populist pres. or house.

If the Senate had maturity, they would have had hearings for Garland and then the Republicans would have voted to deny.

Instead, the GOP is stomping it's feet because the mean ol' Democrats won't let them celebrate after cheating.

Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

You can say that it pissed you off... and its totally understandable.

What boggles the mind is that the Democrats *want* to filibuster Gorsuch in *retaliation* over the GOP's handling of Garland.

The time to do it, IMO, is if Souter or RBG retires.

Otherwise, why bother with the current filibuster rules? Right now, all of this is just an elaborate Kabuki theater. May be best to just nuke 'em all... and force these folks to make their case (up/down) rather than hiding behind archaic parliamentarian tactics.

"Advise & Consent" would have been having the hearing for Garland and then using the Republican's majority in the Senate to deny his confirmation. Refusing to hold any hearings whatsoever while establishing a unprecedented rule by McConnell is as close to "cheating" as you can get. At least the Democrats have given Gorsuch his hearings, as undeserved as they are. It's absolutely disgusting for you to call what the Democrats are doing "elaborate Kabuki theater" and denying an up/down vote when Republicans refused to do the same when they had a safe majority.

And Democrats aren't filibustering Gorsuch in retaliation for Garland. They're filibustering because they don't want another conservative orginalist activist on the Supreme Court to make Americans suffer for generations to come. Like I said, if Republicans had bothered to nominate a moderate conservative that might swing every once in a while, we wouldn't be in this position. But the Republicans nominated an extremist and expect Democrats to choke down Gorsuch.

But I'm not going to have this conversation with you, because it's happened a dozen times before and always ends the same.

 whembly wrote:
Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

They didn't do what they are supposed to have done and you know it. Trotting out this pathetic "excuse" just makes you look like a stooge.

You should probably reconsider your actions.