Yes, let's solve the problem of the republicans stealing a nomination by giving them two nominations. That sounds like a great deal.
The concept of the court being apolitical has obviously been dead for a good long while, but this would certainly be an interesting way to set fire to that particular corpse of an idea.
You install Garland first, right now. Then one of the conservative judges can retire (NOT KENNEDY), and we'll install your guy. So Thomas, Alito, Roberts take your pick.
You install Garland first, right now. Then one of the conservative judges can retire (NOT KENNEDY), and we'll install your guy. So Thomas, Alito, Roberts take your pick.
Here's a deal: they get Gorsuch in Scalia's seat, RGB picks her own replacement.
Here's another deal: they don't get to pick anybody, fuck them.
Psn:wazukki
+22
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The deal worked on the West Wing because they had a hard right and a hard left justice replacing a hard left and a hard right justice. The goal was to avoid filling the court with nothing but centrist moderates.
But Garland is already a centrist moderate (whom the Republicans suggested). It's a crap deal.
The deal worked on the West Wing because they had a hard right and a hard left justice replacing a hard left and a hard right justice. The goal was to avoid filling the court with nothing but centrist moderates.
But Garland is already a centrist moderate (whom the Republicans suggested). It's a crap deal.
I don't recall what the situation was like in the 90s but does anybody look at SCOTUS now and think that the problem is that there are too many moderates?
Well the plan as laid out does have Garland on the Court before the hypothetical nominee would resign so there isn't an obvious FU point ahead of that. I guess they could always move to impeach after the fact.
I can't imagine such a deal making it through the GOP.
As I heard somewhere once, if you're a thief you suspect everyone else is stealing from you. They'd be counting on the Democrats to backstab them after Garland was on the bench
Okay, so maybe I'm misreading the assumptions here, but that says that Garland would get a nomination.
... what if he doesn't get confirmed?
"ooops, now we have Gorsuch and need someone else" and the obvious next candidate in line is the conservativiest conservative that ever conserved.
This feels like a trap, though presumably I'm not the only one with that reaction.
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
The goal would be to get a vote on Garland
+5
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Eh. We don't have the numbers they did nor do we have the party line discipline. It is very unlikely meaningful opposition is something that could actually be accomplished.
They can showboat (and probably should from a PR standpoint) but it wouldn't accomplish much since they only have the final filibuster point where they have any even theoretical ability to obstruct.
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
no, the damage is already done, the Republicans have full control of the government and there is nearly nothing that can be done about it for at least two years
i see absolutely no reason not to make a show of resistance, futile though it actually is
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
Garland and Gorsuch sounds like the New Yorker variant of Goofus and Gallant.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Eh. We don't have the numbers they did nor do we have the party line discipline. It is very unlikely meaningful opposition is something that could actually be accomplished.
They can showboat (and probably should from a PR standpoint) but it wouldn't accomplish much since they only have the final filibuster point where they have any even theoretical ability to obstruct.
no, the damage is already done, the Republicans have full control of the government and there is nearly nothing that can be done about it for at least two years
i see absolutely no reason not to make a show of resistance, futile though it actually is
i think this is straying off topic though
I mean the pubs refused to move on it for 1 year, what's wrong with stalling for 2 more? :rotate:
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Eh. We don't have the numbers they did nor do we have the party line discipline. It is very unlikely meaningful opposition is something that could actually be accomplished.
They can showboat (and probably should from a PR standpoint) but it wouldn't accomplish much since they only have the final filibuster point where they have any even theoretical ability to obstruct.
We have *more* than they did for quite a while.
Which number are you referring to here?
Because last session they had us 54 senators to 46 (ish). Now they have us 52 to 48 (ish). So unless you're doing some sort of alternative facts thing here I do not follow what you mean.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Eh. We don't have the numbers they did nor do we have the party line discipline. It is very unlikely meaningful opposition is something that could actually be accomplished.
They can showboat (and probably should from a PR standpoint) but it wouldn't accomplish much since they only have the final filibuster point where they have any even theoretical ability to obstruct.
We have *more* than they did for quite a while.
Which number are you referring to here?
Because last session they had us 54 senators to 46 (ish). Now they have us 52 to 48 (ish). So unless you're doing some sort of alternative facts thing here I do not follow what you mean.
He means when we had a majority in the senate for Obama's first term.
i'm pretty much entirely resistant to the idea of rewarding the Republicans' bullshit obstruction and thwarting of their responsibiities with any form of compromise at this point, to be honest
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Eh. We don't have the numbers they did nor do we have the party line discipline. It is very unlikely meaningful opposition is something that could actually be accomplished.
They can showboat (and probably should from a PR standpoint) but it wouldn't accomplish much since they only have the final filibuster point where they have any even theoretical ability to obstruct.
We have *more* than they did for quite a while.
Which number are you referring to here?
Because last session they had us 54 senators to 46 (ish). Now they have us 52 to 48 (ish). So unless you're doing some sort of alternative facts thing here I do not follow what you mean.
He means when we had a majority in the senate for Obama's first term.
When all of Obama's Supreme Court choices pretty much sailed through in roughly average time?
That seems like way more an argument for what I'm saying then.
1. The GOP will backstab you every time.
2. Trump ain't never going to go along with it. He makes "the best picks, the best people", and you will never convince him to put up Obama's guy.
+10
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Again, depending on who the retiree is in this scenario, it's a pretty bum deal for Dems anyway.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Okay, so maybe I'm misreading the assumptions here, but that says that Garland would get a nomination.
... what if he doesn't get confirmed?
"ooops, now we have Gorsuch and need someone else" and the obvious next candidate in line is the conservativiest conservative that ever conserved.
This feels like a trap, though presumably I'm not the only one with that reaction.
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
You can have as many people on SCOTUS as you want so there would be no waiting in the wings, FYI. If somebody "betrayed" based on this deal it just results in a slightly packed court.
Okay, so maybe I'm misreading the assumptions here, but that says that Garland would get a nomination.
... what if he doesn't get confirmed?
"ooops, now we have Gorsuch and need someone else" and the obvious next candidate in line is the conservativiest conservative that ever conserved.
This feels like a trap, though presumably I'm not the only one with that reaction.
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
You can have as many people on SCOTUS as you want so there would be no waiting in the wings, FYI. If somebody "betrayed" based on this deal it just results in a slightly packed court.
Existing law says SCOTUS is to have 9 members.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Okay, so maybe I'm misreading the assumptions here, but that says that Garland would get a nomination.
... what if he doesn't get confirmed?
"ooops, now we have Gorsuch and need someone else" and the obvious next candidate in line is the conservativiest conservative that ever conserved.
This feels like a trap, though presumably I'm not the only one with that reaction.
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
You can have as many people on SCOTUS as you want so there would be no waiting in the wings, FYI. If somebody "betrayed" based on this deal it just results in a slightly packed court.
Existing law says SCOTUS is to have 9 members.
Congress can't bind Congress; it isn't an enforceable law so much as document saying 9 is totes the standard number.
Okay, so maybe I'm misreading the assumptions here, but that says that Garland would get a nomination.
... what if he doesn't get confirmed?
"ooops, now we have Gorsuch and need someone else" and the obvious next candidate in line is the conservativiest conservative that ever conserved.
This feels like a trap, though presumably I'm not the only one with that reaction.
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
You can have as many people on SCOTUS as you want so there would be no waiting in the wings, FYI. If somebody "betrayed" based on this deal it just results in a slightly packed court.
Existing law says SCOTUS is to have 9 members.
Congress can't bind Congress; it isn't an enforceable law so much as document saying 9 is totes the standard number.
"Can't bind congress" has never meant congress doesn't have to follow the law. It means congress can choose to change the law anytime it wants.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Once a norm is broken, it cannot be restored. Therefore Dems should not act as if the norm were still in place and should never allow a vote until the filibuster is eliminated.
It's also why you don't break the fucking norms, Mitch McConnnell.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Okay, so maybe I'm misreading the assumptions here, but that says that Garland would get a nomination.
... what if he doesn't get confirmed?
"ooops, now we have Gorsuch and need someone else" and the obvious next candidate in line is the conservativiest conservative that ever conserved.
This feels like a trap, though presumably I'm not the only one with that reaction.
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
You can have as many people on SCOTUS as you want so there would be no waiting in the wings, FYI. If somebody "betrayed" based on this deal it just results in a slightly packed court.
Existing law says SCOTUS is to have 9 members.
Congress can't bind Congress; it isn't an enforceable law so much as document saying 9 is totes the standard number.
"Can't bind congress" has never meant congress doesn't have to follow the law. It means congress can choose to change the law anytime it wants.
If they were required to have 9 justices, they would have already been in violation.
Also it worked on the TV show because it's a damn TV show.
The show was overly optimistic when it was on the air in general. In the current climate it is laughably absurd during its most reasonable and honest moments. Sorkin is definitely not the model for the current system.
Posts
The concept of the court being apolitical has obviously been dead for a good long while, but this would certainly be an interesting way to set fire to that particular corpse of an idea.
You install Garland first, right now. Then one of the conservative judges can retire (NOT KENNEDY), and we'll install your guy. So Thomas, Alito, Roberts take your pick.
this has to be contingent on Thomas going
Gorsuch > Thomas for sure
Here's another deal: they don't get to pick anybody, fuck them.
But Garland is already a centrist moderate (whom the Republicans suggested). It's a crap deal.
I don't recall what the situation was like in the 90s but does anybody look at SCOTUS now and think that the problem is that there are too many moderates?
Udall suggests that the resignation be contingent on Garland's confirmation. It's a good idea and if it happened, I would be satisfied.
I don't agree that setting the precedent that SCOTUS nominees are political tools deals should be made over is a good idea.
Withdraw Gorsuch
Re-nominate Garland
Confirm Garland
Someone else resigns
Re-nominate Gorsuch
Confirm Gorsuch
I can't imagine such a deal making it through the GOP.
As I heard somewhere once, if you're a thief you suspect everyone else is stealing from you. They'd be counting on the Democrats to backstab them after Garland was on the bench
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
That doesn't sound like something you can actually do, though. Whoever resigns has to resign before anybody can be confirmed, right?
If not that would be a different ridiculous problem whereby Congress could nominate and confirm people and have them, like, waiting in the wings for a seat.
we tried compromise across the board in Obama's first term and it just made them double down on their bullshit
Let's say you're the Senate Minority Leader.
What is your goal for SCOTUS noms? What does your preferred process look like, given that we can't go back in time?
What actions can you take in service to the goal?
The goal would be to get a vote on Garland
resist and obstruct
that's how the senate minority is apparently supposed to act now
the two choices now are to go along with the Republicans or to not go along with the Republicans. if they're going to have de facto rule of the government, I'd rather they be resisted at every turn than simply acquiesced to
Eh. We don't have the numbers they did nor do we have the party line discipline. It is very unlikely meaningful opposition is something that could actually be accomplished.
They can showboat (and probably should from a PR standpoint) but it wouldn't accomplish much since they only have the final filibuster point where they have any even theoretical ability to obstruct.
And then just didn't resign after Garland got a seat.
i see absolutely no reason not to make a show of resistance, futile though it actually is
i think this is straying off topic though
Garland and Gorsuch sounds like the New Yorker variant of Goofus and Gallant.
I propose a series of humorous illustrations.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
We have *more* than they did for quite a while.
I mean the pubs refused to move on it for 1 year, what's wrong with stalling for 2 more? :rotate:
Which number are you referring to here?
Because last session they had us 54 senators to 46 (ish). Now they have us 52 to 48 (ish). So unless you're doing some sort of alternative facts thing here I do not follow what you mean.
He means when we had a majority in the senate for Obama's first term.
When all of Obama's Supreme Court choices pretty much sailed through in roughly average time?
That seems like way more an argument for what I'm saying then.
2. Trump ain't never going to go along with it. He makes "the best picks, the best people", and you will never convince him to put up Obama's guy.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
You can have as many people on SCOTUS as you want so there would be no waiting in the wings, FYI. If somebody "betrayed" based on this deal it just results in a slightly packed court.
Existing law says SCOTUS is to have 9 members.
Congress can't bind Congress; it isn't an enforceable law so much as document saying 9 is totes the standard number.
"Can't bind congress" has never meant congress doesn't have to follow the law. It means congress can choose to change the law anytime it wants.
It's also why you don't break the fucking norms, Mitch McConnnell.
If they were required to have 9 justices, they would have already been in violation.
The show was overly optimistic when it was on the air in general. In the current climate it is laughably absurd during its most reasonable and honest moments. Sorkin is definitely not the model for the current system.