Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 182: Vesuvius of Mendacities

(+) Yeah! (+)

Americans, please inform me:

Shouldn't the role of the court be to make impartial decisions based on rule of law? So having a system where you can theoretically overturn that law by appointing people of certain political leanings seems... Bad.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Americans, please inform me:

I'm technically North American so let me answer

Shouldn't the role of the court be to make impartial decisions based on rule of law? So having a system where you can theoretically overturn that law by appointing people of certain political leanings seems... Bad.

yes
---

Eddv posted...

I think its so he can bandy about '2 republican justices appointed' as a republican accomplishment ahead of the election.

This is definitely true, but I think the fearmongering over the stolen seat worked really well to turn out the vote last cycle, and I honestly think scaring Republican voters into "vote for our candidates or those evil Dems will block our nominee" will probably get a larger turnout than "hey we already got 2 seats aren't we doing a good job!"

I could be wrong though, and you may be entirely right. It doesn't really "matter" either way because like I said, even if the Republicans do terribly they'll still control the Senate.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Americans, please inform me:

Shouldn't the role of the court be to make impartial decisions based on rule of law? So having a system where you can theoretically overturn that law by appointing people of certain political leanings seems... Bad.

It wasnt originally intended that way....but in Marbury vs Madison the court contended it had the power to overturn the validity of laws based on their constitutionality and everyone was okay with it so that's just what the court does.

What people are most concerned with are things that were judicial law in the first place, like Gay Rights and Abortion Rights.

When people like Seph talk about an activist court they refer to things like that and its why you can generally just tell them to their face that they are bigoted.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Americans, please inform me:

Shouldn't the role of the court be to make impartial decisions based on rule of law? So having a system where you can theoretically overturn that law by appointing people of certain political leanings seems... Bad.

The issue is no one is a robot, and no one is apolitical.

Judges do a better job being impartial than most, I think, and even the justice I have the least respect for is obviously a strong legal mind. The issue comes from even if they aren't thinking about things in terms of "oh this will benefit republicans", they will frame things as "this is how I interpret the constitution, which is very conservative, thus the decisions I come to will benefit the republicans even if perhaps that isn't my true goal". Like even if you give all the Supreme Court justices the benefit of the doubt, the fact that some are more conservative than others, and Republicans will nominate a very conservative judge, will have consequences in their decisions.

There is debate between even the top legal minds about specifics about the law and the constitution, and as such they can overturn or affirm policy which has significant political ramifications.
---

red sox 777 posted...

You can't make language non-threatening simply by adding a disclaimer that you don't really mean what you say.

it's not that she didn't mean what she said, it's that she phrased it in a hypebolic/generalistic way. how is this so hard to comprehend? whenever trump gets criticized for something he said you always pop up here going "HE WAS OBVIOUSLY BEING HYPERBOLIC GUYS GEEZ" - not sure why you're having so much trouble with hillary's statement.

and as someone who hates hillary, i 100% agree with her comments about "deplorables" and i'm glad she made them. you can take your "BUT IF YOU SAY THAT YOU WON'T WIN" spiel and shove it. i'd rather "lose" than win by turning a blind eye to racism, homophobia and sexism. doing that is NEVER acceptable.
---

They shouldn't take the risk of losing the Senate and that Supreme Court seat. Holding it open would encourage Democrats to vote too.
---

red sox 777 posted...

They shouldn't take the risk of losing the Senate and that Supreme Court seat. Holding it open would encourage Democrats to vote too.

It didn't last time! At the very least, it encouraged Republicans more.

And, at the same time, they don't risk that. It isn't a real risk. Worst case scenario for them is like 51 senate seats. Best case could be like 56. I think holding it benefits them more, but of course I could be wrong. Like I don't see it being able to hurt republicans in any way because worst case scenario is they get the nominee they want anyway. If Dems keep all their conservative seats, those are the guys who work with Trump anyway AND they'd still have a majority anyway. There is no real risk to them here.
---

The Mana Sword posted...

Kennedy's retiring

RIP usa

But her emails.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

You can't make language non-threatening simply by adding a disclaimer that you don't really mean what you say.

it's not that she didn't mean what she said, it's that she phrased it in a hypebolic/generalistic way. how is this so hard to comprehend? whenever trump gets criticized for something he said you always pop up here going "HE WAS OBVIOUSLY BEING HYPERBOLIC GUYS GEEZ" - not sure why you're having so much trouble with hillary's statement.

and as someone who hates hillary, i 100% agree with her comments about "deplorables" and i'm glad she made them. you can take your "BUT IF YOU SAY THAT YOU WON'T WIN" spiel and shove it. i'd rather "lose" than win by turning a blind eye to racism, homophobia and sexism. doing that is NEVER acceptable.

Loads of people have problems with Trump statements despite the signs of hyperbole. Loads of people have problems with this Hillary statement despite much the same thing. Hyperbole and downplaying modifiers create ambiguity, which doesn't do much to alleviate threateningness. It does do a lot to convince people not afraid of the statement to start with that it doesn't mean anything bad.
---

lmao Trump just now saying Crowley lost because people got complacent, and says how that stuff happens

Trump would know a lot about that!
---

YES YES YES

What a day for the conservative movement. If Trump does the right thing, we may have our first true conservative majority in nearly 100 years.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

whenever trump gets criticized for something he said you always pop up here going "HE WAS OBVIOUSLY BEING HYPERBOLIC GUYS GEEZ" - not sure why you're having so much trouble with hillary's statement.

Because he's fucking incapable of being intellectually honest and consistent? It's fucking red sox dude. Don't bother.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Loads of people have problems with this Hillary statement despite much the same thing.

"loads of people have problems with a statement" is not an argument for why a statement shouldn't be made.
---

Kennedy retires.
---

Reg posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

whenever trump gets criticized for something he said you always pop up here going "HE WAS OBVIOUSLY BEING HYPERBOLIC GUYS GEEZ" - not sure why you're having so much trouble with hillary's statement.

Because he's fucking incapable of being intellectually honest and consistent? It's fucking red sox dude. Don't bother.

Telling Lasa to not bother is equally as hopeless <_<
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

YES YES YES

What a day for the conservative movement. If Trump does the right thing, we may have our first true conservative majority in nearly 100 years.

Why even that caveat? How do you think Trump might fuck this up?

This is one of those rare issues where he doesnt act like he knows everything. Give him a list, hell pick a name, bingo bango
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

YES YES YES

What a day for the conservative movement. If Trump does the right thing, we may have our first true conservative majority in nearly 100 years.

Why even that caveat? How do you think Trump might fuck this up?

This is one of those rare issues where he doesnt act like he knows everything. Give him a list, hell pick a name, bingo bango

He's claiming he wants to nominate a TV personality at the moment.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Telling Lasa to not bother is equally as hopeless <_<

i promise i'll stop responding to red sox when people stop engaging sephyg, who's far worse than red sox (i.e. never).
---

SupremeZero posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

YES YES YES

What a day for the conservative movement. If Trump does the right thing, we may have our first true conservative majority in nearly 100 years.

Why even that caveat? How do you think Trump might fuck this up?

This is one of those rare issues where he doesnt act like he knows everything. Give him a list, hell pick a name, bingo bango

He's claiming he wants to nominate a TV personality at the moment.

Trump Jr said that I thought
---

I hope he nominates Judge Napolitano.

I just want to see what happens. As a bonus as an actual libertarian he is sort of the best we can hope for.
---

Nominate Rudy. I just want this to become the biggest shitshow now.
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1011994162076573697?s=21

Harley-Davidson should stay 100% in America, with the people that got you your success. Ive done so much for you, and then this. Other companies are coming back where they belong! We wont forget, and neither will your customers or your now very HAPPY competitors!

This feels illegal
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Telling Lasa to not bother is equally as hopeless <_<

i promise i'll stop responding to red sox when people stop engaging sephyg, who's far worse than red sox (i.e. never).

Don't give me this whataboutism shit.
---

Judge Judy would be fun...
---

More likely judge Janine given that she shills for Trump every night
---

The conservative "movement" has all the mobility of a tapeworm and is just as beneficial to its host.
---

Reg posted...

Don't give me this whataboutism shit.

i will, in fact, give you this whataboutism shit. not sure why i get ganged up on when nobody gives a fuck about the tons of other users in here responding to trolls.
---

Enough people trusted the least experienced person to run in our lives over the most experienced person to run in our lives to let them reshape the law all around us, high and low.

I wasn't excited for Garland, but this timeline is worse.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

when nobody gives a fuck about the tons of other users in here responding to trolls.

Fuck you.
---

Like legit, you acknowledge your behavior is problematic, then you're like 'nah bro I'm gonna keep doing it'. It's the mindset of a small child.
---

I don't get why people are claiming Kennedy's retirement shows how elections matter. If Hillary had won, she wouldn't have been able to appoint a justice to fill the seat (or Gorsuch's seat, for that matter). Essentially the result would have a brief liberal majority on the court, likely leading to a popular backlash and a GOP landslide in 2020. The GOP pretty much had the court locked up after they stopped Obama from appointing Scalia's replacement; the presidential election didn't change a thing.
---

Do you really think the GOP would have been able to get away with keeping a seat open for 5 years?
---

It would have been a lot harder for Mitch to pull his "the people should decide" bullshit for 4 years, rather than just 9 months.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Do you really think the GOP would have been able to get away with keeping a seat open for 5 years?

If Hillary was president and could rile up Republicans even more than a black man in charge? Yeah.
---

Also, elections matter - because if people had voted in 2014, the GOP wouldn't have had enough power in congress to block the nomination.

All elections are important.
---

The Mana Sword posted...

Also, elections matter - because if people had voted in 2014, the GOP wouldn't have had enough power in congress to block the nomination.

All elections are important.

Yeah, the GOP gained 9 fucking Senate seats in 2014.
---

A review of June 2017:

https://us17.campaign-archive.com/?u=40b35ab3e6c83f389457bf3e9&id=b1e6cd4d38

Topics reflected on include:

*Being a jerk to Democrats
*Ignoring Russian sanctions
*Kris Kobach pushing for states' voter rolls
*Lawyers declining to defend Donald
*Bleeding Brzezinski

And more!
---

SupremeZero posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

YES YES YES

What a day for the conservative movement. If Trump does the right thing, we may have our first true conservative majority in nearly 100 years.

Why even that caveat? How do you think Trump might fuck this up?

This is one of those rare issues where he doesnt act like he knows everything. Give him a list, hell pick a name, bingo bango

He's claiming he wants to nominate a TV personality at the moment.

Yeah this. He is too unpredictable for me to celebrate just yet.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Do you really think the GOP would have been able to get away with keeping a seat open for 5 years?

Why not? They'd still have the really favorable Senate map in 2018, plus the trend of the president's party losing seats in midterms, plus Democratic voters just not caring about midterms unless there's an awful Republican president to motivate them. And the GOP leadership was starting to talk about it when it looked like Hillary would win, so I assume they'd at least try it.
---

I think Michael Avenatti might be running for President.

We have a street fighter in the White House who uses those skills to inflict harm on the most vulnerable. The answer is not more weak-kneed politicians or policy wonks. The answer is street fighters for good.

---

Eddv posted...

I think Michael Avenatti might be running for President.

We have a street fighter in the White House who uses those skills to inflict harm on the most vulnerable. The answer is not more weak-kneed politicians or policy wonks. The answer is street fighters for good.

I think he just nominated Guile
---

If Avenatti announced his campaign for Presidency after coming out to Guile's Theme, it would break the internet.

I'm not sold on him as a politician to be clear, but that would be an amazing moment.
---

So...thinking of Kennedy's retirement, how does this affect the Mueller investigation? Because at first glance, it strikes me as a new shortened timeframe for whatever Mueller hopes to have heard with the current Supreme Court before Donald picks a Judge to favor his defense.
---

Surprised at the guts from Schumer

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1012053928874307584?s=21

#breaking Schumer pulls a McConnell: "Our Republican colleagues should follow the rule they set in 2016: not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year. ... Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy."

---

Bonus terribleness is that Kennedy's retirement will almost certainly energize the GOP base and may result in the Republicans knocking out one or two more vulnerable Dems in the Senate.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Surprised at the guts from Schumer

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1012053928874307584?s=21

#breaking Schumer pulls a McConnell: "Our Republican colleagues should follow the rule they set in 2016: not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year. ... Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy."

Guts if a D does it. Cowardice if a R does. Lol
---

Midterms don't determine who will choose the next Justice.

I don't disagree with Shumer -- get mad and call them out -- but the point that's being made will ring a little hollow in 2019 in their best-case scenario of blocking through this election.

Or is their best-case scenario holding off until 2020...? Because I dunno if I want that either (in an ideal world where people play fair, which lol but the point stands).
---

Schumer isnt actually doing it, hes just calling him out. They already went nuclear over it.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Midterms don't determine who will choose the next Justice.

I don't disagree with Shumer -- get mad and call them out -- but the point that's being made will ring a little hollow in 2019 in their best-case scenario of blocking through this election.

Or is their best-case scenario holding off until 2020...? Because I dunno if I want that either (in an ideal world where people play fair, which lol but the point stands).

Best case scenario is holding it past the election, getting a Dem majority, and forcing Trump to pick a relative moderate.

Dont think thats particularly likely to happen!
---