That’s clearly problematic for a number of reasons, but why stop there?
Participation in Communion would be a deft launching point for the Democrats to segue into a credible accusation of cannibalism, if recent standards for credible accusations against SCOTUS nominees are any indication. We’re already living in a world where the rapist of Dr. Ford and many other women is deciding SCOTUS cases, so obviously Trump would want to undermine all that is good and decent by nominating a cannibal.
Of course, the dead tell no tales, which is VERY convenient for 2020 SCOTUS nominees.
‘So you say you eat this person, Jesus’, flesh and drink his blood? You say you also speak to him and that he sees all you do like some sinister form of Santa?
We also hear you have 7 children? Surely you’re aware of the damage this does to the environment?!
Fellow senators, we simply cannot allow a voice hearing cannibal, whose rutting damages the planet, to be approved to the highest court in the land.’
No. But if the GoP brings calamity on themselves, that’s their problem. And it becomes ALL of our problems.
The original problem was Trump poured gasoline on the fire instead of water, which allowed the democrats to pull their pandering bullshit. The democrats have blood on their hands without doubt, but you are fooling yourself if you think Trump made any moves whatever to lead and make the situation better as it first exploded.
Besides which, I NEVER at any point said let’s “wait and see”. And I NEVER at any point said we should live in fear of the democrats.
But voluntarily precipitating a constitutional crisis the GoP could have averted is not, and never has been, the same thing. If the words “the general welfare” mean anything, it means that the GoP has a duty to take steps to preserve the union rather than party politics.
They are the absolute masters of cutting off their noses to spite their face. Short term thinking.
First, the GoP changed the rules to suit themselves in 2016. They started this BS. Second, I actually don’t believe they would go as hard as the GoP has…but I 100% guarantee if the GoP does go "full retard"™ and lose, the Dems will rub their noses in it as long as possible.
First and very importantly, the “left” is not monolithic. There are and have been people on the left that we SHOULD try to work with, unless you think this polarization is good for the country (it’s not).
Secondly, the Republicans will commit political suicide if they try this.
Thirdly, and most importantly, this is not GoP land vs democrat land. This is the fucking Country we all live in. Don’t press the big red nuclear button. That SHOULD be off limits, but because we have selfish short-sighted narcissistic people in charge (and I’m NOT talking about Trump here, but Congress) they have decided their wants mean more than long-term consequences.
Yes. And it’s more than just a problem–that’s the End. That’s the End of checks and balances, of the republic as we know it.
We are nowhere near that, not even with the liberal justices as much as I completely dislike their jurisprudence.
As do I, if the GoP wants to push ahead with this. Vendetta will be realized by the Dems. That doesn’t make it right, but it is what will happen.
Exactly. This is in absolutely NOBODY’S best interest. Nobody.
There aren’t now, but that’s not the way it was and it’s not what should be. The Union was stronger when there were such agreements.
That was a joke, apparently not very good, but I try to produce jokes with a strong element of truth. In this case, it has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine and everything to do with the absurdity and severity of the accusations, all while being called “credible” by people with straight faces.
Catholicism just provided the convenient jumping-off point to an accusation of cannibalism, because accusations of being a monster rapist are so 2018. Credibility is a low bar these days, so it will be an interesting process that unfolds this go-round.
It WAS. In 2016 the GoP threw a fit and shut things down. Now they want to change their own rules again. I don’t buy it or agree with it. If it was always good then they shouldn’t have whined in 2016 (and there’d be no problem now). If it w as always bad, then they don’t get to change the norms back when it is convenient for their purposes.
That is neither country first nor even a good idea for the party.
It honestly didn’t use to be that way. It wasn’t until the last 15 years or so that it became the clusterfuck political battle it is now.
This is it - it was sold on a principle that has nothing to with party, that when the election is so close, the choosing of a justice should be deferred to let The People weigh in. It was done for purely partisan reasons, this was just the cover, but there is arguable principle there - and they changed the rules to accommodate that principle.
The principle no longer helps them, so they’re changing it back. Meaning, there is no principle in play at all - just power. It’s corruption.
But we hear the new, after-the-fact nonsense justification that it’s needed defense because Democrats will wrongly try to pack the court. The reason it’s nonsense is that if it happens, it wasn’t done wrongly - if Congress passes a law and the President signs it, no matter how dumb or retaliatory you think the law is, that’s the most legitimate exercise of power we have in our system.
So, it amounts to a defense of “we fear Democrats will legitimately pass laws we don’t like in the future, so we’re going to take illegitimate action now.”
(By the way, remember the scam called “constitutional conservatism”? Where are all the CCs now calling for good governance? It’d be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.)
Nick, I never said political battle was NEVER part of the appointment process. The comment was clearly implying a distinctly raised level of partisanship in recent years, not the absence of ANY partisanship ever.
And, do you see the common themes in most of those battles you linked?
Brandeis is confirmed with significant bipartisanship even after the hearings.
Johnson was filibustered because he was a lame duck and had already decided not to run for re-election. Also ethics was at play when Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment for a paltry $20,000 stipend (that wouldn’t even make the headlines today). In other words, it wasn’t party line partisanship.
Haynsworth was taken down over ethics–bipartisanship voting him down–
Again, small potatoes when seen from the 2010s level of corruption
Carswell was shot down by his own party–again going against the president’s wishes. Over qualifications no less–he was widely reversed on appeal and had little experience. Again, not party line politics of the same nature as today.
Bork - many things went on here, but again, not of the type we are witnessing today.
Clarence Thomas - probably the only example of what I was thinking of as partisanship. The narrowest confirmation margin in over 100 years–which by the way supports my contention that it wasn’t always this polarized and vitriolic, not yours.
Also it’s important that there was an actual serious
problem that needed to be addressed-- sexual harassment allegations. These played a major part of the proceedings and it’s doubtful that without these the confirmation would have been anywhere near as contentious.
So basically, all but 1 of the incidents have nothing to do with my comment.
I misunderstood, then. You’ll have to excuse me for reading into what’s said, when I’m having to see people talk about this being a “constitutional crisis”(no…sorry. It’s not. Many Republicans want to do what the Constitution authorizes now, while Democrats are stuck wishing the Constitution mandated a Garland confirmation back in 2016…there’s no constitutional crisis-just a political one) and acting like there’s some shocking divide(600,000 people died because the country was so divided over 150 years ago. 11 states did not even want to be a part of the United States over 150 years ago. They had to be militarily defeated and occupied.).
This doesn’t make sense - why does the Constitution mandate RBG be replaced now but the Constitution didn’t mandate Scalia being replaced immediately back in 2016?
You didn’t read my prior post clearly. The GOP had the votes to do this at the time and justified it with something they are clearly doing a 180 on. Sure they said it shouldn’t be done and now they are doing it. Doesn’t change the fact that it was within their legal voting right to do so both times.
Also, if Dems had proven their willingness to be bipartisan these past (4) years than I could see the GOP taking a different stance. Instead they have become more radicalized from a partisan impeachment down to city levels of riots. F’ em.
This is the point that moves me to the shrugged shoulder column. The DNC were not collegial, and to move from, admittedly shitty, refusal to give a Y/N to Garland to that vicious smear was an escalation that, if it doesn’t justify a response in kind, certainly explains it.
Graham’s final speech was a clear indication that the GOP weren’t going to play ball.
Note: My solution would be to make the Supreme Court much less powerful, and I think the only way to do that Is to convince the DNC that it is far too powerful. Walk arm in arm, and demand that 9 princes in black robes do not wield the power they do.
Edit: before everyone engages in a game of which sin came first, please note, I am aware they’ve all acted abysmally, and focusing on it is still missing the important opportunity to clip the judiciary’s wings.
So the GOP made a raw political play, arbitrarily changing the rules to suit themselves in 2016 - admittedly shitty, as you say. But when the time came for Kavanaugh’s confirmation - after the well had already been poisoned - the Democrats were supposed to be on their best behavior and confirm?
I opposed how the Democrats went after Kavanaugh, they went way too far (though I still think he shouldn’t be on the bench after his political pandering to the President, to me, that’s disqualifying), but I can’t quite stomach this “Rules of Propriety for Thee, but Not For Me” approach.
And more besides, even as Kavanaugh was treated poorly, that has nothing to do with the purported importance of the principle that no justice should be appointed close to an election. Either that principle is worthy, or it isn’t. That principle doesn’t change even if his process to confirm was awful and he was treated unfairly.
Oh, and one more final point - Kavanaugh is on the bench. GOP Senators whine like he got deepsixed (or Borked, if you will). He didn’t, the GOP won the battle and the war. But they get to retaliate against Democrats because…the Democrats were mean to now Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh?
It’s garbage. It’s all just an excuse to move the attention off of the GOP Senators being rank hypocrites and spineless ciphers with no integrity.
