Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Diahon]

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

Making America great?

he did that

trump's american, his family and associates are american

trumpsters who haven't yet died of this pandemic are american

so about a few million real americans, and shrinking?

[Eukaryotic Cells]

As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Surely this is parody lol

/benshapirovoice
You see, hypothetically, if you were anti-semitic...

[Geneviev]

Making America great?

he did that

trump's american, his family and associates are american

trumpsters who haven't yet died of this pandemic are american

so about a few million real americans, and shrinking?

No. Everyone is suffering right now.

[New haven america]

*snip*
Ben Shapiro would love you!

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

"Trump did so many great things!"

*Proceeds to provide detailed list of how, no, he did not do great things*

"You're just saying orange man bad, you Anti-Semite!"

Well A. Kowani never said "Orange man bad", B. They ain't being anti-Semitic, and C. Has it ever crossed your mind that people say Trump is bad because he's legitimately a bad person who's done bad things?

[Diahon]

he did that

trump's american, his family and associates are american

trumpsters who haven't yet died of this pandemic are american

so about a few million real americans, and shrinking?

No. Everyone is suffering right now.

nonsense

look at trump smile! look at his rallies! look at the suffering! the abyss he brings with him and the sicknesses and deaths he leaves in his wake -- HE LOVES IT! ALL OF IT!!!!

[Novus America]

Doubtful. 2016 was a gamble. Delay the hearings until after the election, and make it a a talking point. They lose, they hold the hearings for Garland and confirmed him to the bench. They win? High fives, tell Garland too bad and appoint who they want in January.


McConnell had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Was a particularly astute move on his part.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell.amp.html (posted an amp link to avoid the NYT paywall)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

Hard to say what they would have actually done, but my money is on "continue trying to block".

Which they would have a legal right to do. But it is hard to say what they would do. Point remains though it was not illegal for Obama to nominate, and it was not illegal to block the nomination.
Nor was it illegal for Trump to nominate and them to confirm.

The Senate decided to confirm one but not the other. Which was its legal ability to do.

[Albrenia]

*snip*
Ben Shapiro would love you!

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

Well:

Mexico didn't pay for the border wall.
He hasn't deported all the illegals.
He didn't repeal and replace Obamacare.
He didn't Lock Her Up.
He massively spiked the national debt.
He played more golf than Obama.
He still hasn't released his tax returns.
He hasn't made replacement, 'better' deals on Paris climate or the Iran nuclear deal.
They're dropping more bombs than under Obama.
The Wall isn't built.

Need I go on?

[Tarsonis]

Doubtful. 2016 was a gamble. Delay the hearings until after the election, and make it a a talking point. They lose, they hold the hearings for Garland and confirmed him to the bench. They win? High fives, tell Garland too bad and appoint who they want in January.


McConnell had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Was a particularly astute move on his part.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell.amp.html (posted an amp link to avoid the NYT paywall)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

Hard to say what they would have actually done, but my money is on "continue trying to block".

I don't think so. That was in March, when the whole thing was just getting going. He was selling the "no nominations in election year *wink wink* hard line. If Clinton had won he wouldn't have grounds to block and would be forced to hold hearings. Especially if they lost the Senate as well.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell.amp.html (posted an amp link to avoid the NYT paywall)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

Hard to say what they would have actually done, but my money is on "continue trying to block".

Which they would have a legal right to do. But it is hard to say what they would do. Pint remains though it was not illegal for Obama to nominate, abs it was not illegal to block the nomination.
Nor was it illegal for Trump to nominate and them to confirm.

The Senate decided to confirm one but not the other. Which was its legal ability to do.

I agree that it's all legal.

Is it all a good idea? I would lean towards no. Increasing partisanship with regards to things like Supreme Court nominations is a bad trend. We would certainly not be contemplating court packing right now if the Court was 5-4 liberal-conservative, then 4-5 liberal-conservative (which it would have been if Garland was confirmed and then Trump was elected).

[MC United]

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

"Trump did so many great things!"

*Proceeds to provide detailed list of how, no, he did not do great things*

My response was to his statement that President Trump didn't keep the vast majority of his promises.

Rather than admitting that President Trump has in fact kept his promises, he then proceeded to whine and gripe about the promises that he did keep.

"You're just saying orange man bad, you Anti-Semite!"

Yes, he is just saying "Orange Man Bad." And referring to Ben Shapiro, a prominent Jewish conservative (who has also now boarded the Trump Train), as if his agreement were somehow a negative, does smack of anti-semitism.

Well A. Kowani never said "Orange man bad"

He didn't have to. His statements speak for themselves.

C. Has it ever crossed your mind that people say Trump is bad because he's legitimately a bad person who's done bad things?

Nope, it hasn't. What has crossed my mind is four years of sour grapes, lies, sedition and attempts to overthrow the legitimately elected President of the United States.

[Kowani]

*snip*
Ben Shapiro would love you!

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

thiscannotbeserious

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

So we're just gonna ignore everything I said then? Cool? Cool.

[Novus America]

Which they would have a legal right to do. But it is hard to say what they would do. Pint remains though it was not illegal for Obama to nominate, abs it was not illegal to block the nomination.
Nor was it illegal for Trump to nominate and them to confirm.

The Senate decided to confirm one but not the other. Which was its legal ability to do.

I agree that it's all legal.

Is it all a good idea? I would lean towards no. Increasing partisanship with regards to things like Supreme Court nominations is a bad trend. We would certainly not be contemplating court packing right now if the Court was 5-4 liberal-conservative, then 4-5 liberal-conservative (which it would have been if Garland was confirmed and then Trump was elected).

Fair argument. I never said it was good, just objected to people saying it was illegal.

[MC United]

As an attempted insult, that falls short. As covert anti-semitism, let the reader decide.

Otherwise, since your response boils down to "Orange Man Bad!", I eagerly await your citation of the rest of that "vast majority of promises" President Trump didn't keep.

Well:

Mexico didn't pay for the border wall.
He hasn't deported all the illegals.
He didn't repeal and replace Obamacare.
He didn't Lock Her Up.
He massively spiked the national debt.
He played more golf than Obama.
He still hasn't released his tax returns.
He hasn't made replacement, 'better' deals on Paris climate or the Iran nuclear deal.
They're dropping more bombs than under Obama.
The Wall isn't built.

Need I go on?

Actually, you do.
Mexico's payment: see the NAFTA replacement. Money is fungible.
Illegals: work in progress.
Obamacare: see scrapping the individual mandate. Look for more progress in the second term.
"Lock Her Up": more of a crowd chant, but justice will eventually be done upon her.
National debt: problematic.
Tax returns: SO F***ING WHAT? Not required by law.
Paris/Iran: withdrawing was good enough.
Bombs: and winning more.
The Wall: 400 miles or so ARE built.

And with that, this incipient threadjack should come to an end.

[Diahon]

remove trump by any means possible,

No. Let's remove him through legal and respectable means so we don't stumble into a major constitutional and political crisis.

legality and respectability could not deal with trump before

what about now, that he represents (a fucking up of) both?

remove the rest of the gop for a generation or till it becomes as dead a party as the whigs,

I can stomach this if we get a more conservative party to replace them and the Dems split into a centrist neoliberal party and a socially progressive socialist party.

i genuinely do not care if the centrist neoliberals become the conservatives of the next eighty years (assuming humanity gets that far) -- they're comparatively saner than today's republicans, literally peddling death for fucking power, with a standard-bearer who wants people praise him till they're dead

get started with a social democratic plan for the united states

This would require the progressive wing of the Democrats to dramatically change their stance on regulations and corporate taxation because their model is probably closer to Labour (UK) than to the Nordic Model or Rhine Capitalism.

even a labourite social democracy is better than republican governance at this point in time, so

while rebuilding alliances with the world's democracies asap

Honestly, why do we even need alliances with democracies when we're not even standing together against oligarchies or autocracies in a meaningful way? Spreading democracy has been an ugly, brutish process that often overlooked local political cultures and attitudes. We can't keep the Germans from bolstering the Russian petroleum industry. The French have demonstrated a pretty open disregard both for our alliances and for our laws in some instances.

china is a thing

but even more than that, the ideological standoff in our time is not liberalism vs conservatism, but the standardizing role of democracy against the paradoxically centrifugal tendency of authoritarianism

[MC United]

So we're just gonna ignore everything I said then? Cool? Cool.

Yep, pretty much. Your opinion of Trump's policies were not germane to my response, and are of little interest in any event.

I suggest you take it to whatever Trump thread is appropriate.

[Albrenia]

Well:

Mexico didn't pay for the border wall.
He hasn't deported all the illegals.
He didn't repeal and replace Obamacare.
He didn't Lock Her Up.
He massively spiked the national debt.
He played more golf than Obama.
He still hasn't released his tax returns.
He hasn't made replacement, 'better' deals on Paris climate or the Iran nuclear deal.
They're dropping more bombs than under Obama.
The Wall isn't built.

Need I go on?

Actually, you do.
Mexico's payment: see the NAFTA replacement. Money is fungible.
Illegals: work in progress.
Obamacare: see scrapping the individual mandate. Look for more progress in the second term.
"Lock Her Up": more of a crowd chant, but justice will eventually be done upon her.
National debt: problematic.
Tax returns: SO F***ING WHAT? Not required by law.
Paris/Iran: withdrawing was good enough.
Bombs: and winning more.
The Wall: 400 miles or so ARE built.

And with that, this incipient threadjack should come to an end.

Big ol' list of cop-outs right there, since the fact that you're willing to settle for the crumbs given doesn't change the fact that they're broken promises or claims.

This does indeed seem to be a threadjack, so I'll not argue it further.

[Diahon]

so mcconnell adjourned further senate proceeding till november 9, without a discussion of covid relief?

takes balls to hold hundreds of millions hostage to get what you want, i say

[The Black Forrest]

Well:

Mexico didn't pay for the border wall.
He hasn't deported all the illegals.
He didn't repeal and replace Obamacare.
He didn't Lock Her Up.
He massively spiked the national debt.
He played more golf than Obama.
He still hasn't released his tax returns.
He hasn't made replacement, 'better' deals on Paris climate or the Iran nuclear deal.
They're dropping more bombs than under Obama.
The Wall isn't built.

Need I go on?

Actually, you do.
Mexico's payment: see the NAFTA replacement. Money is fungible.
Illegals: work in progress.
Obamacare: see scrapping the individual mandate. Look for more progress in the second term.
"Lock Her Up": more of a crowd chant, but justice will eventually be done upon her.
National debt: problematic.
Tax returns: SO F***ING WHAT? Not required by law.
Paris/Iran: withdrawing was good enough.
Bombs: and winning more.
The Wall: 400 miles or so ARE built.

And with that, this incipient threadjack should come to an end.

Actually that’s kind of a gauche move.

I copied that to the Trump thread and replied.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Neither am I.

I am well aware.

That post was for the other poster, not you. He probably thought I was a liberal as well.

[Kowani]

I am well aware.

That post was for the other poster, not you. He probably thought I was a liberal as well.

Ahh, fair enough.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

"Trump did so many great things!"

*Proceeds to provide detailed list of how, no, he did not do great things*

My response was to his statement that President Trump didn't keep the vast majority of his promises.

Rather than admitting that President Trump has in fact kept his promises, he then proceeded to whine and gripe about the promises that he did keep.

"You're just saying orange man bad, you Anti-Semite!"

Yes, he is just saying "Orange Man Bad." And referring to Ben Shapiro, a prominent Jewish conservative (who has also now boarded the Trump Train), as if his agreement were somehow a negative, does smack of anti-semitism.

Well A. Kowani never said "Orange man bad"

He didn't have to. His statements speak for themselves.

C. Has it ever crossed your mind that people say Trump is bad because he's legitimately a bad person who's done bad things?

Nope, it hasn't. What has crossed my mind is four years of sour grapes, lies, sedition and attempts to overthrow the legitimately elected President of the United States.

Pointing out the president's misdeeds isn't an attempted overthrow lmfao.

[Shofercia]

No it's perfectly legal, everyone barring the most angry of Dems just recognizes how disastrous it would be.

Hmmm. Guess the reps shouldn’t have blocked Garland since it was an election year eh?

If RvW goes down, I can see the court being packed.

That's actually a really good test to see if the confirmation was legit. There are plenty of wacko recent decisions, heck, one was even authored by Roberts who must be the only conservative thinking that casinos are more important than religious institutions, but to overturn Roe v Wade? That's pure partisanship. So if she overturns it - that's wrong, but if she doesn't, and makes decent rulings, she's legit. I'm willing to give ACB a chance.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm. Guess the reps shouldn’t have blocked Garland since it was an election year eh?

If RvW goes down, I can see the court being packed.

That's actually a really good test to see if the confirmation was legit. There are plenty of wacko recent decisions, heck, one was even authored by Roberts who must be the only conservative thinking that casinos are more important than religious institutions, but to overturn Roe v Wade? That's pure partisanship. So if she overturns it - that's wrong, but if she doesn't, and makes decent rulings, she's legit. I'm willing to give ACB a chance.

Indeed. I will give her a chance and hope my opinions are proven wrong. If you go back enough, there are comments from me not believing all the claims of stare decisis and he is an ideologue, political tool, etc., etc. I was wrong.

The concern is the branch of religion she follows. It’s rather hard core and I don’t believe her claims of leaving her religion at the door when she puts on the robe. Time will tell.....

[Tarsonis]

Why are we still acting like the court is a single issue body?

[Farnhamia]

Why are we still acting like the court is a single issue body?

Because we can! This ... is ... N! S! G!