Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 330: ...yes

(+) Yeah! (+)

I will say there's some good movement on the Senate front.

Greenfield/Ernst has moved from toss-up to slightly favored for Greenfield.
Gideon/Collins continues to move in Gideon's favor.

However, Cunningham has ceded ground to Tillis.

But the overall odds of taking the senate have now hit 75%, the highest they've ever been.

---

You know there's something wrong with a country when shouting insane conspiracy theories doesn't disqualify you from being President, but apparently thinking nobody should go bankrupt because they go to the doctor does.

---

https://twitter.com/ajentleson/status/1318876201348419586?s=21

Dems are very good at their job

---

She is a good candidate

---

Could Dems have stopped the hearings? From what little I've gathered, it seemed like 51 votes in the Senate and a willing President is all you need to do anything with the Supreme Court.

---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Could Dems have stopped the hearings? From what little I've gathered, it seemed like 51 votes in the Senate and a willing President is all you need to do anything with the Supreme Court.

So? They needed to show that this was all a sham. They failed miserably. They did much better with impeachment.

---

also RE: barrett

https://twitter.com/KTLA/status/1318808843871113218

like yeah nothing's going to change she is going to get rammed through no matter what but it's immensely frustrating that literally nothing matters in America

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

like yeah nothing's going to change she is going to get rammed through no matter what but it's immensely frustrating that literally nothing matters in America

Oh, it matters. That's a feature, not a bug. They like that she's homophobic.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

They needed to show that this was all a sham.

How exactly?

---

"use my words against me" was brought up multiple times.

Quoting people who said that they would NEVER ram a candidate through during an election year didn't do anything, what ELSE were they supposed to do?

Because honestly nominating and confirming a justice is the correct course of action to take, if you are going strictly by the rules in place.

It was just in 2016 that the rules got despicably ignored to screw Obama. But that screw over was presented as the "new precedent" only to be promptly ignored at literally the next opportunity to do so.

---

I'd also like to remind everyone as we get a 6-3 conservative majority that JaKyL voted for Jill Stein in a state that went barely red for Trump.

---

Corrik7 posted...

This is why the Senate doesn't want an agreed to bill between the House and the White House.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-and-nancy-pelosi-share-nearly-equal-blame-for-stimulus-failure-swing-state-poll-shows/ar-BB1afCbO

Does anyone have access to the actual poll question that was asked here? I don't put too much stock in a poll comparing Pelosi and Trump because it's the Senate Republicans that are the real problem on this particular issue.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

How exactly?

Id say not literally praising Republicans for how theyre handling the nomination would be a good start!

Do you disagree?

TheRock1525 posted...

I'd also like to remind everyone as we get a 6-3 conservative majority that JaKyL voted for Jill Stein in a state that went barely red for Trump.

Embarrassing post, honestly. Did Jakyls individual vote affect elect Trump when I wasnt looking?

---

pyresword posted...

Does anyone have access to the actual poll question that was asked here? I don't put too much stock in a poll comparing Pelosi and Trump because it's the Senate Republicans that are the real problem on this particular issue.

Hard to be the Senate Republicans if it hasn't gotten to them yet. That's why they need to agree to a deal and pass the buck to the Senate.

---

Imagine shit talking someone because they voted for who they thought was the best candidate. Shit talking exercising your right to vote for who you want.

---

Dems had no chance of stopping the nomination but helping legitimize the result was egregiously stupid

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Embarrassing post, honestly. Did Jakyls individual vote affect elect Trump when I wasnt looking?

Not that there's much of a point in calling out Jakyl randomly, but by your logic no individual person is responsible for voting for Trump

---

Dems couldn't really do anything to prevent Barrett's confirmation, but letting it go through with so little fight is going to make it hard to convince voters that SCOTUS is going to be a problem going forward. So this is a good sign that they won't make any serious efforts to reform the court for at least the next few years.

Now I'm actually really curious how hard the GOP will fight against Breyer's replacement if/when he retires (assuming Biden wins). Do they let a new justice through easily because they already control the court and it makes the Dems look bad for complaining about Trump's appointments? Or do they try to make the same sort of apocalyptic claims the Dems have been making about Trump's appointments because it's been normalized now and there's a chance for them to keep the seat open that way?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I'd also like to remind everyone as we get a 6-3 conservative majority that JaKyL voted for Jill Stein in a state that went barely red for Trump.

And I was wrong!
---

I don't even know why we let you make the topics!

---

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I don't even know why we let you make the topics!

Because his puns are pretty good and he's not blocking anyone from posting.
---

Also because I created this monster of a topic series
---

And he'll burn it down when he's good and ready

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also because I created this monster of a topic series

jakyl v. steiner v. ulti at mania pls

---

Well now that we're making wrestling references I feel bad because I just linked Jakyl to Seth Rollins

---

Burn it down.

---

Xeybozn posted...

Do they let a new justice through easily because they already control the court and it makes the Dems look bad for complaining about Trump's appointments? Or do they try to make the same sort of apocalyptic claims the Dems have been making about Trump's appointments because it's been normalized now and there's a chance for them to keep the seat open that way?

The latter. They'll oppose any nomination Biden makes if he gets to make the choice. And if they maintain control of the senate, they probably won't even get a hearing.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

The latter. They'll oppose any nomination Biden makes if he gets to make the choice. And if they maintain control of the senate, they probably won't even get a hearing.

Wrong.

You guys fearmonger so much.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Id say not literally praising Republicans for how theyre handling the nomination would be a good start!

Do you disagree?

Embarrassing post, honestly. Did Jakyls individual vote affect elect Trump when I wasnt looking?

There is a saying about this.

Effectively, if Jakyl had felt that he couldnt vote for Jill Stein, thousands like him would have felt the same.

---

Well, back in 2016 you had Senate Republicans - up to and including McCain - saying they wouldn't let Hillary fill Scalia's seat if she won and they retained control of the Senate and if that meant a 8 justice SCOTUS for four years well maybe that's okay, better even!

OTOH, Obama or Clinton replacing Scalia would have flipped the tilt of the court from 5-4 Conservative to 5-4 Liberal whereas a hypothetical Breyer vacancy under Biden wouldn't change things so the stakes wouldn't seem that high for them. Eh, probaby throw an absolute fit in an attempt to force Biden to pick someone more like Garland rather than an RBG but assuming such a vacancy happened in 2021/2022 I don't think they outright hold it open indefinitely.

In 2024 though if they have a Senate Majority? All of a sudden they'll swerve back to "can't fill it in an election year LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE" with no shame.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Dancedreamer posted...

The latter. They'll oppose any nomination Biden makes if he gets to make the choice. And if they maintain control of the senate, they probably won't even get a hearing.

Wrong.

You guys fearmonger so much.

Is there some reason to not expect a republican-led senate to do the exact same shit they've done the last decade?
---

As for how Senate Dems have handled Barrett's confirmation hearings. Fault is pretty much entirely on Feinstein for that one. She absolutely blew it on every level.

They probably should have just refused to participate in this at all but in the reality we inhabit it's not so much "Senate Dems were terrible" it's "Why the hell is Feinstein the ranking member what the fuck"

---

Lolo_Guru posted...

Is there some reason to not expect a republican-led senate to do the exact same shit they've done the last decade?

It was a very specific scenario. Wouldn't happen normally. Also, the Senate will be democrat led anyways.

---

Feinstein has to go. Surely California can find someone to replace her with that's built political capital that will be less damaging to liberal ideals than her.

---

xp1337 posted...

In 2024 though if they have a Senate Majority? All of a sudden they'll swerve back to "can't fill it in an election year LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE" with no shame.

This is why Breyer should retire 2 weeks after a Democratic President is elected.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

This is why Breyer should retire 2 weeks after a Democratic President is elected.

Inaugurated. After the election, McConnell would rush to fill that seat within two weeks.

---

I mean the issue is that Barrett basically gave a bunch of expect non-answers and didn't come off like a complete Lunatic ala Kavanaugh so now suddenly public sentiment has shift towards confirming her. Like they couldn't hit on her religious dogma because a) she basically refused to give any idea where she'd rule on anything and b) last time they played that angle it backfired.

Sadly its gonna take a major precedent getting overturned (like a Roe v Wade) to get anyone to really hop on board with court packing.

---

Inviso posted...

Inaugurated. After the election, McConnell would rush to fill that seat within two weeks.

Well, yeah.

So say Biden takes office January 20th, 2021
Breyer should be like "Yeah, I'm retiring" on February 3rd 2021.

---

With regard to Barrett, I will point out that to me whether or not I approve a Barrett is a separate issue from whether I approve of her nomination. Like, I don't think the GOP should be nominating a Supreme Court justice, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I do or do not approve of the person they end up picking.

I haven't watched any of the hearings, so I don't know what my impression of Barrett herself would be, though if I had to bet I would bet on my not approving of her.
---

Wasn't there a huge number of court appointments Mitch wouldn't let Obama fill? Triple digits IIRC.

---

pyresword posted...

With regard to Barrett, I will point out that to me whether or not I approve a Barrett is a separate issue from whether I approve of her nomination. Like, I don't think the GOP should be nominating a Supreme Court justice, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I do or do not approve of the person they end up picking.

I haven't watched any of the hearings, so I don't know what my impression of Barrett herself would be, though if I had to bet I would bet on my not approving of her.

Yes, this is the position that Republicans took in 2016. The benefit is that it was rather more respectful to Merrick Garland to make it completely clear that his rejection had nothing to do with him.

---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Wasn't there a huge number of court appointments Mitch wouldn't let Obama fill? Triple digits IIRC.

105 vacancies (88 District, 17 Court of Appeals). That constitutes about half of the 218 judicial appointments that Trump has had confirmed as of the start of the month which is a quarter of the entire federal judiciary (870 Article III judges). 64 vacancies still, 40 of which have nominees at some point in the process as of the beginning of the month also.

All of which is unprecedented as you might guess.


---

https://twitter.com/TexasTribune/status/1318921043294158853

A new Texas rule, recommended by Gov. Greg Abbotts office, will no longer prohibit social workers from turning away clients on the basis of disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

the fuck

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://twitter.com/TexasTribune/status/1318921043294158853

A new Texas rule, recommended by Gov. Greg Abbotts office, will no longer prohibit social workers from turning away clients on the basis of disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

the fuck

This reeks more of Patrick than Abbott tbh but it's horifically scummy either way.

Corrik7 posted...

Wrong.

You guys fearmonger so much.

Why do you just say things like we cant just look it up?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5df32430e4b0deb78b517322/amp

Here, heres Mitch McConnell literally bragging about it my dude.

---

I saw some clips from A Man For All Seasons (about Thomas More's trial for treason in England) and it raises an interesting question about the Garland nomination. The old legal maxim in English law (which presumably still applies when the US constitution was written) is that silence betokens consent. Judicial nominees are appointed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Thus, since the Senate was silent on the Garland nomination, it would be construed to have consented. While this legal maxim has been largely abrogated since then, is that not how a reasonable person in the 1780s would have understood it? I think Obama should have tried it - send Garland to the Supreme Court and see if they seat him.

Apologies if this has been posted already - I didnt read things closely here:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/oct/21/rudy-giuliani-faces-questions-after-compromising-scene-in-new-borat-film

Hey Q anon people I got a hot one for you.

---

oh god i was just reading about that story and what the fuck is reality any more

end the simulation release us from this hell

---

I would post the picture of him reclining on the bed with his hand down his pants, but there is no one in this topic I hate enough to force that evil upon.

---

wonder if borat 2 introduces the daughter character because borat himself is too well known now.

---