Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 322: Anarchist Jurisdiction Since 2016

(+) Yeah! (+)

All Attorney Generals Are Bad
---

Corrik said...

Very surprised to see you say this!

Filling the seat is their job. They were wrong not to in 2016, but they are technically right to now.

We can call them out for hypocrisy, sure, but all the stuff about its too close to an election to fill a seat is just gamesmanship

You want to beat the Republicans, dont play by their rules, make them play by yours
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You want to beat the Republicans, dont play by their rules, make them play by yours

Good luck, when they don't care about the rules. Or laws. Or really anything except gaining more power.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luoa-ngcSDM&lc=UgzVGdTiILsfonVmTKh4AaABAg.9DtlB4tWlbs9DuUt3Ta6TN

Try to look at the comments here without wincing. Apparently the Democrats have been trying to destroy America since 1970. Wow does that sound ridiculous typing it.

That said, yeah Jimmy Kimmel was pretty pathetic there.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Good luck, when they don't care about the rules. Or laws. Or really anything except gaining more power.

That's exactly the point.

Dems are still trying to play by the rules when they should be making their own.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Filling the seat is their job. They were wrong not to in 2016, but they are technically right to now.

We can call them out for hypocrisy, sure, but all the stuff about its too close to an election to fill a seat is just gamesmanship

You want to beat the Republicans, dont play by their rules, make them play by yours

This is where I stand. All this outrage over them filling the seat is just ridiculous and these people getting so fired up about it don't get it. Yeah, it's hypocritical. But it's politics. You'll have that when each side is saying whatever they want to get what they want.

And Chris is right when he says this just gives people like Pelosi and Schumer more opportunity to cry about "Woe, we tried so hard to stop the evil Republican tyranny!" while pretending to care about doing something for people that aren't billionaires lining their pockets. They know exactly what they're doing. And that's not to say that Republican's allegiances don't align with billionaires either, it's just that Dems are better about masking that.

---

Don't worry guys, the new galaxy brain solution to the Supreme Court is here!

https://theweek.com/articles/938865/democrats-have-better-option-than-court-packing

Tldr: Since judicial review is a made-up power the court gave itself and is not actually in the constitution, we should simply ignore any rulings we don't like since they are non-binding.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dems are still trying to play by the rules when they should be making their own.

It's because they have too much faith in the process. But the process has failed. And it's time to recognize that.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

It's because they have too much faith in the process. But the process has failed. And it's time to recognize that.

*Taps topic title sign*
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Filling the seat is their job. They were wrong not to in 2016, but they are technically right to now.

If we're talking about their job, technically the Republicans did the right thing in 2016. They were elected to oppose the Obama administration, and they had a clear majority in the Senate. It's not fair to expect them to appoint a Supreme Court justice their voters wouldn't want.
---

Xeybozn posted...

If we're talking about their job, technically the Republicans did the right thing in 2016. They were elected to oppose the Obama administration, and they had a clear majority in the Senate. It's not fair to expect them to appoint a Supreme Court justice their voters wouldn't want.

It is fair to expect them to have a hearing
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Filling the seat is their job. They were wrong not to in 2016, but they are technically right to now.

We can call them out for hypocrisy, sure, but all the stuff about its too close to an election to fill a seat is just gamesmanship

You want to beat the Republicans, dont play by their rules, make them play by yours

And this is what Dems have done. This is why TheRock posted a dumb analogy that wasn't worth responding to. Each party moves the rules however best suits them by the law each time they get an opportunity. You have lordofthemorons over here going BUT THEY NEVER STOLE A SEAT QQ. They didn't have an opportunity to. They would have. Just like when Democrats started filibustering judicial appointments, the REPUBLICANS NEVER FILIBUSTERED THEM BEFORE QQ. Both parties change the rules when it is advantageous to them. They play as teams and the way the two party system is set up is that they can get away with this because one party basically has to have a majority.

Also, Chris the morning after pill thing was literally one of the dumbest things I ever read, bruh. Lol. Where Republicans fail and why their abortion arguments don't hit home is because they are against having birth control readily available. Because they wanna play the all life is precious card while also acting like premarital sex is a sin. It's dumb.

Every girl at like age 13 should have birth control provided by the state and not removed unless medical reasoning or signing a waiver that they acknowledge doing so means they are accepting responsibility for any birth that doesn't fall within 3 exceptions which would make it allowable.

The people would revolt because it's my body I shouldn't have to have birth control. Government control. Etc. But, let's be honest, that's a better solution than aborting.

You can't use a morning after pill every time you have sex unprotected, Chris.

---

Xeybozn posted...

If we're talking about their job, technically the Republicans did the right thing in 2016. They were elected to oppose the Obama administration, and they had a clear majority in the Senate. It's not fair to expect them to appoint a Supreme Court justice their voters wouldn't want.

Then it's the Democrats job to pack the court. After all, it's what their voters want. It's not fair to expect them not to pack the court when the voters want it.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Good luck, when they don't care about the rules. Or laws. Or really anything except gaining more power.

While having a distinct advantage in the chamber that controls these appointments.

"WHY DON'T DEMOCRATS DO MORE" is kinda hard when the Senate map consistently favors republicans, and when Democrats garner nearly 10% more votes than Republicans in a midterm and proceed to lose two senate seats.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Every girl at like age 13 should have birth control provided by the state and not removed unless medical reasoning or signing a waiver that they acknowledge doing so means they are accepting responsibility for any birth that doesn't fall within 3 exceptions which would make it allowable.

The people would revolt because it's my body I shouldn't have to have birth control. Government control. Etc. But, let's be honest, that's a better solution than aborting.

Yikes
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It is fair to expect them to have a hearing

Why waste time on that when they would have rejected any Obama nominee anyway? All the people involved had plenty of other work to do.

Dancedreamer posted...

Then it's the Democrats job to pack the court. After all, it's what their voters want. It's not fair to expect them not to pack the court when the voters want it.

This is a bad idea unless you plan on also addressing the Republican Party's permanent advantage in the Senate. Otherwise they'll just pack the court themselves after 2024.
---

"Dems are the same as Republicans! They bend the rules in their favor wherever and whenever possible!"

y'all miss the ACA saga or something?

---

Xeybozn posted...

This is a bad idea unless you plan on also addressing the Republican Party's permanent advantage in the Senate. Otherwise they'll just pack the court themselves after 2024.

This is why we abolish the senate altogether.

---

Xeybozn posted...

All the people involved had plenty of other work to do.

Why waste time on any vote thats gonna fail then?
---

Corrik7 posted...

And this is what Dems have done. This is why TheRock posted a dumb analogy that wasn't worth responding to. Each party moves the rules however best suits them by the law each time they get an opportunity. You have lordofthemorons over here going BUT THEY NEVER STOLE A SEAT QQ. They didn't have an opportunity to. They would have. Just like when Democrats started filibustering judicial appointments, the REPUBLICANS NEVER FILIBUSTERED THEM BEFORE QQ. Both parties change the rules when it is advantageous to them. They play as teams and the way the two party system is set up is that they can get away with this because one party basically has to have a majority.

Also, Chris the morning after pill thing was literally one of the dumbest things I ever read, bruh. Lol. Where Republicans fail and why their abortion arguments don't hit home is because they are against having birth control readily available. Because they wanna play the all life is precious card while also acting like premarital sex is a sin. It's dumb.

Every girl at like age 13 should have birth control provided by the state and not removed unless medical reasoning or signing a waiver that they acknowledge doing so means they are accepting responsibility for any birth that doesn't fall within 3 exceptions which would make it allowable.

The people would revolt because it's my body I shouldn't have to have birth control. Government control. Etc. But, let's be honest, that's a better solution than aborting.

You can't use a morning after pill every time you have sex unprotected, Chris.

The Republicans did filibuster judicial appointments (a ton)! Thats why Harry Reid killed the judicial filibuster for the lower courts!

---

---

Corrik7 posted...

This is why TheRock posted a dumb analogy that wasn't worth responding to.

It's the only apt analogy. One side keeps making up rules and the other doesn't. You keep accusing the side that isn't making up rules of making up rules. The Republicans make up a rule, the Dems have literally no choice but to follow it due to lack of power, then when it comes time to apply the rule again, the Republicans say "psyche!" and make a new rule.

There is no equivalency here.

---

Topic: Republicans just kicked a puppy
Corrik: Dems would have kicked a puppy too!
Topic: Republicans just stole candy from a baby.
Corrik: Dems would have stole candy from a baby too!
Topic: Republicans are being mustache twirlingly evil.
Corrik: Dems would be mustache twirlingly evil too!

Maybe try pointing out things the dems are actually doing wrong instead of constantly whining about hypothetical hypocrisy?


---

Xeybozn posted...

This is a bad idea unless you plan on also addressing the Republican Party's permanent advantage in the Senate. Otherwise they'll just pack the court themselves after 2024

Okay, but, the choices would be between "do nothing and let the Republicans steal a SCOTUS majority they'll have 100% of the time" and "Have intermittent periods where things can actually get done."

I've said since 2016 that what Republicans did with Garland was crossing the Rubicon to a MAD escalation over the court. It's no different than "packing" they just did it by a different means than a literal expansion of the court. If you don't respond to it you're just letting yourself be destroyed. Like that's what Mutually Assured Destruction was built on. They have an obligation to respond in kind.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Every girl at like age 13 should have birth control provided by the state and not removed unless medical reasoning or signing a waiver that they acknowledge doing so means they are accepting responsibility for any birth that doesn't fall within 3 exceptions which would make it allowable.

The people would revolt because it's my body I shouldn't have to have birth control. Government control. Etc. But, let's be honest, that's a better solution than aborting.

bruh you're proposing eugenics

---

xp1337 posted...

I've said since 2016 that what Republicans did with Garland was crossing the Rubicon to a MAD escalation over the court. It's no different than "packing" they just did it by a different means than a literal expansion of the court. If you don't respond to it you're just letting yourself be destroyed. Like that's what Mutually Assured Destruction was built on. They have an obligation to respond in kind.

Yep. They fire nukes, we fire nukes back. If we don't, they just keep nuking us.

---

Corrik, stop making up hypotheticals that never happened. There is absolutely ZERO reason to think, based on the Democrats' actions for at LEAST the past twenty years, that they would have held a seat open for a year in the hopes of winning the next election and getting to fill the seat themselves. Keep in mind that this is a party that allowed Clarence Thomas to be installed on the Court without a filibuster, despite his confirmation being WELL below the 60-vote threshold. Hell, there's even discussion (that I agree with) that the Dems, if they take power in the Senate, should abolish the filibuster and just force through as much legislation as possible with a simple majority, which would be fair play since the Republicans already did that with the Supreme Court nominations. But again, there is zero reason to think the Democrats would actually do this since, as has been mentioned, they play by the rules far more than their Republican counterparts, to their own detriment more often than not.

By your own logic of "well they WOULD have done it if they could!", I could point out your argument from the last topic about how its the Dems' own fault that Ginsburg's replacement is being fast tracked, because they filibustered Gorsuch. Like the Republicans WOULDN'T have just abolished the filibuster now if they hadn't already done it before.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

bruh you're proposing eugenics

Why not every boy gets a reversible vasectomy at age 11
---

Jakyl25 posted...

We can call them out for hypocrisy, sure, but all the stuff about its too close to an election to fill a seat is just gamesmanship

And you're absolutely wrong here. SC justice appointments routinely take on average 50+ days from nomination to vote, and never in the history of the United States of America has a nomination been been made this close to the election.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Why not every boy gets a reversible vasectomy at age 11

Do I... want to know what this is about?

---

I would assume that's an alternative to making girls get birth control at age 13?

---

Or basically the fact that when it comes to abortion rights, women are always forced to have choices made for their bodies but never men.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

And you're absolutely wrong here. SC justice appointments routinely take on average 50+ days from nomination to vote, and never in the history of the United States of America has a nomination been been made this close to the election.

On average

Im not saying to speed up the process. Its their job to proceed as they normally would. If they cant get it done before the end of the year then too bad for them.

If the idea is that they shouldnt do their jobs because its too close to an election then why are they even still in office? When you elect someone, you elect them for their full term. Thats part of the deal.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

This is why we abolish the senate altogether.

Fun fact: The Senate can't abolished (or lose the "all states have equal votes" rule) without the consent of every state. It's in the Constitution.

If you really want to fix the Senate, a more realistic way would be to make DC and Puerto Rico states, split California into 6 new states, and split New York City into 4 new states. That's enough new blue states to almost completely eliminate the GOP's built-in Senate advantage.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Why not every boy gets a reversible vasectomy at age 11

Deep cut but a good one

Dancedreamer posted...

Do I... want to know what this is about?

Corrik is over here literally proposing eugenics and Jakyl is referencing a deleted Bernie tweet, don't worry about it

---

Xeybozn posted...

Fun fact: The Senate can't abolished (or lose the "all states have equal votes" rule) without the consent of every state. It's in the Constitution.

I said that we need to, not that it'd be easy. The senate is wholly useless.

---

I usually don't like the "well, the other side would've done the same thing" arguments, but in this particular instance, it's just a fitting response to the situation. I will say Republicans were being dishonest in 2016 with their explanation for why they did not approve the appointment. It wasnt because it was an election year, it was because they didnt want a liberal justice appointed and they had the votes to block it.

Calling them out on hypocrisy for using the election year defense is fair game. But the bottom line decision to block the democratic nominee in 2016, but rush a Republican nominee in 2020 just makes sense from a tactics standpoint.

If the roles were completely reversed, and a republican president in 2016 got their last year appointee rejected by a Democratic majority senate, only to have a current democratic president have the option to appoint in their last year, do you really think the democratic majority senate would just decide to not rush an appointment? Especially if a republican was favored to win the upcoming election? Would you all on this board be saying, "well, it's only fair. I guess we should postpone and leave it up to the voters." I think not.

From a tactics standpoint, this just makes sense.

---

I do not think the Democratic party would do what the GOP is in this scenario, no.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

If the idea is that they shouldnt do their jobs because its too close to an election then why are they even still in office? When you elect someone, you elect them for their full term. Thats part of the deal.

Because we can see how in certain states, Republicans opted to strip incoming Democratic governors of their powers and abilities. That the first step of a peaceful transition of power is accepting the results and not sabotaging incoming politicians.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Because we can see how in certain states, Republicans opted to strip incoming Democratic governors of their powers and abilities. That the first step of a peaceful transition of power is accepting the results and not sabotaging incoming politicians.

Wisconsin is an example of this.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

I do not think the Democratic party would do what the GOP is in this scenario, no.

Same. They would have put it to an up and down vote and likely voted down an extreme candidate. They would have not have held the seat open for 14 months.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

I do not think the Democratic party would do what the GOP is in this scenario, no.

Of course not. I don't even think we'll retaliate, even though we absolutely should. They'll go RAH RAH RAH! Expand the Courts! and then get elected, and do nothing. Then we'll have more bad supreme court decisions. And in the event Clarence Thomas dies, Republicans will refuse to let Biden fill the seat, even if he dies on January 23rd 2021 because it's just too close to an election.

---

Like one party hates government and one party thinks the government is a good thing.

Which party do you think is going to sabotage a branch of government for 14 months? Hint, it's the one that did it.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Of course not. I don't even think we'll retaliate, even though we absolutely should. They'll go RAH RAH RAH! Expand the Courts! and then get elected, and do nothing. Then we'll have more bad supreme court decisions. And in the event Clarence Thomas dies, Republicans will refuse to let Biden fill the seat, even if he dies on January 23rd 2021 because it's just too close to an election.

You must have a lot of faith in the Democrats if you think they'd even run on expanding the courts.

Biden's team is already mad at Markey for saying that's what we should do.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Like one party hates government and one party thinks the government is a good thing.

Sorry to split hairs but the GOP absolutely does not hate government. They love government, but hate the fact that their opponents sometimes get a say in it.

---

Guff, I said this to Corrik and I'll say this to you:

What about the modern Democratic Party makes you think they would A. stall the Republicans' nomination in 2016 in the first place to install their candidate, and B. rush through a nomination with a month and a half before the next election, in stark hypocrisy to what they said in 2016? As much as the Republicans want to paint Democrats as this looming evil that will destroy the American way of life, Democratic politicians are fucking pussies who pride themselves--to their own detriment, kind you--on playing nice and being reasonable.

Hell, I remember that during the primary, one of the reasons I was MOST in support of Elizabeth Warren was because she was the only candidate that understood that the filibuster, as a rule, ONLY benefits the Republicans. And yet, when I tried arguing that abolishing the filibuster was a great idea, I got pushback not only from centrists, but from the Warren's left. Neither the moderates or progressives thought abolishing the filibuster was a good idea, and even if that opinion may have changed since the primaries, that's still the basic mindset we're looking at with the Democratic Party.

Honestly, the Democrats' biggest problem is the negative feedback loop on both sides of the coin. Democratic voters are fickle as fuck and easily dissuaded from voting, which leads to them abandoning the party after spending 4-8 years having to clean up the mess left behind by the outgoing Republican. Not trusting their unreliable voter base, Democratic politicians are cowards who play nice and try to push moderate legislation so as not to upset centrists and moderates who DO show up and DO swing allegiances. But this attitude then dampens support from Democratic voters, who feel like the party isn't doing anything. And both sides reinforce the other's negative actions, resulting in the Dems being a constant clusterfuck, while the GOP just needs to demonize us as bigger threats than bin Laden and their voters don't need to care about any sort of ideology.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

You must have a lot of faith in the Democrats if you think they'd even run on expanding the courts.

Biden won't, but Schumer's already said he's not ruling it out. That leaves the open for some candidates to run on it, while Feinstein and Kaine twiddle their thumbs and are like "ho hum, if only there were something we could do."

---

yeah no faith at all in Biden doing anything about the supreme court honestly

only angle I see is... waiting 4 years with the coming judicial shitshow, praying Biden doesn't go for a 2nd term, and making it an issue for the next dem primary (which I'd expect Kamala to have in the bag as the next party leader)

---

The fact that the ACA is already set up to immediately get struck down by the courts might force Biden's hand. Half of his appeal was on expanding the ACA. Other than that, not much hope.

---

I mean, the GOP are fighting a long-term losing battle here. They're struggling in every demo except uneducated rural whites. SC rulings against Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges would just made them struggle with even more with women (even white women) and suburban voters. The fact that immigration has fallen completely off the map for them as an issue heading into this election, and that trying to run on it in 2018 got them blasted.

It is reassuring that progressive ideals are moving forward in this country, it just sucks that the GOP are putting up some pretty damn good roadblocks.

---