Obama won more votes and wasn't able to nominate someone he had every right to. You can't argue that the system works when your proposed solution is: just have one side control everything and you'll be fine!
what
he did nominate someone he had every right to nominate
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The biggest issue I have with the "let the vote decide" idea is that the GOP has, for a long time, done everything it can to stack that deck in its favor. Having a GOP-friendly court makes targeted disenfranchisement even easier.
Then everything is broken and we need a civil war. Or at least a Democratic party that can repeat their impossible feat, now lost to the dim mists of time (i.e. 2006). :P
GOP is selling us out to our enemies and trying to kill our people and subvert or sell off everything good about this country. They are already treating it like a war. Taking perfectly legal action against a specific action that has a generations-long effect on our system is hardly firing the first shot. Democrats are not required to fulfill the stereotype of cowardice in the face of adversity. Being good doesn't require playing nice and rolling over.
Incenjucar on
+17
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think it's fairly disingenuous to say that we want "payback." You don't betray against a betrayer in the prisoner's dilemma out of spite. You do it because in the short term it does the least amount of damage (compared betray/cooperate) and because in the long term it hopefully encourages the other party to once again be open to a cooperate/cooperate solution.
It's not important that we break the GOP because we dislike them, or because we're mad at losing; we have to do it because they are dangerous. It's incontrovertible that they handed over control of our control to people who, if nothing else, are compromised via blackmail by a foreign adversary thanks to those peoples' lies. (And there's plenty else.) If we don't stop them from quite literally selling out our country, we're not only going to find they've finished the job, we'll find ourselves locked out of the democracy (thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, criminal justice abuses, education dismantling, the dissolution of the rule of law, and SCOTUS decisions like Citizens United) and unable to change anything.
None of this is about payback. It's not payback when you find the need to punch someone while wrestling for control of the wheel--if they stopped trying to drive off the cliff with us in the passenger seat we wouldn't have to do this. The situation is utterly, monstrously regrettable. But we can't just do nothing while the cliff nears.
Two Three things:
1) you can break them by winning elections. The only way you impeach Gorsuch is if you already have the entire Congress, incl. a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. At that point, you've already taken the wheel, ejected the driver, and turned the car around.
The driver cannot be allowed to drive again until he's changed his ways. That requires shifting the Court (which due to the nature of the lifetime appointments and nomination process does not automatically match even a party who has a supermajority in Congress and the Presidency) to remove the conservative brake on "liberal" policies like expanding voting rights and curtailing the influence of monied interests in campaigns. You can do that through impeachments, packing, etc, but it will probably have to be done.
2) the prisoner's problem lens is flawed because in the prisoner's problem, the only people who suffer from retaliation are the prisoners. In this case, each iteration harms everyone.
Can you explain what you mean by this outside of the analogy?
3) You think that impeaching Gorsuch will somehow bring us back to a place where norms are respected and we return to cooperation. I disagree. No retaliatory iteration will get us back to civility - the rules must be changed and the GOP must lose consistently, for a long time, while we dismantle the alt right and re-establish the conservative party as one that doesn't accept evil into its ranks. This requires a de-escalation and a broad eschewing of hostility during a period where the Democrats control everything.
We only come back from this by running the table. Anything else just makes things worse.
I don't think impeaching Gorsuch will bring us back to place where norms are respected and we return to cooperation. I'm not sure we can get back to that place. Our democracy is fundamentally broken because a significant portion of the country and virtually all of their elected representatives are no longer [loyal to the country/believe in democracy/operate in reality], take your pick. Fixing our democracy is, if not impossible, the work of generations--defeating the politics of white supremacy, anti-intellectualism, and propaganda is a task roughly on par with deprogramming millions of North Koreans in a post-NK dictatorship scenario. That makes it priority 2. Priority 1 is getting and maintaining power away from Republicans, even if that means doing so through means that are less democratic or that will temporarily inflame partisan hostilities*.
Impeaching Gorsuch is not of primary concern to me, but I think it's the easiest step to take to shift the balance of the Court, as will be necessary in order to secure a long enough period of Democratic power required to start levelling the playing field again.
*I realize this is a real concern, but I'm also very sympathetic to the view that Republican partisan hostilities are inflamed already and constantly and for no reason. They were inflamed when Obama ate fancy mustard. As a group the party is simply irrational and it's rarely possible to appease them on their level.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
Did you miss the part in my earlier post where I said there was no counter-measure within the norms to fix this?
The whole reason I (and likely others) are so exasperated with you right now is because we keep saying "the ideal solution is not achievable!" and you keep going "why don't we just wait for the ideal solution to be achieved!" and when anything other than aforesaid impossible ideal solution is mentioned you get really indignant about it.
All the other options are worse than the ideal / doing nothing. Especially options that amount to "let's fuck them over as payback, but harder!" My best real-world suggestion is to figure out a way to win some elections.
for you, maybe.
There are plenty of people who do not have the option of just sitting this one out and hoping things are ok.
I think it's fairly disingenuous to say that we want "payback." You don't betray against a betrayer in the prisoner's dilemma out of spite. You do it because in the short term it does the least amount of damage (compared betray/cooperate) and because in the long term it hopefully encourages the other party to once again be open to a cooperate/cooperate solution.
It's not important that we break the GOP because we dislike them, or because we're mad at losing; we have to do it because they are dangerous. It's incontrovertible that they handed over control of our control to people who, if nothing else, are compromised via blackmail by a foreign adversary thanks to those peoples' lies. (And there's plenty else.) If we don't stop them from quite literally selling out our country, we're not only going to find they've finished the job, we'll find ourselves locked out of the democracy (thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, criminal justice abuses, education dismantling, the dissolution of the rule of law, and SCOTUS decisions like Citizens United) and unable to change anything.
None of this is about payback. It's not payback when you find the need to punch someone while wrestling for control of the wheel--if they stopped trying to drive off the cliff with us in the passenger seat we wouldn't have to do this. The situation is utterly, monstrously regrettable. But we can't just do nothing while the cliff nears.
Two Three things:
1) you can break them by winning elections. The only way you impeach Gorsuch is if you already have the entire Congress, incl. a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. At that point, you've already taken the wheel, ejected the driver, and turned the car around.
The driver cannot be allowed to drive again until he's changed his ways. That requires shifting the Court (which due to the nature of the lifetime appointments and nomination process does not automatically match even a party who has a supermajority in Congress and the Presidency) to remove the conservative brake on "liberal" policies like expanding voting rights and curtailing the influence of monied interests in campaigns. You can do that through impeachments, packing, etc, but it will probably have to be done.
2) the prisoner's problem lens is flawed because in the prisoner's problem, the only people who suffer from retaliation are the prisoners. In this case, each iteration harms everyone.
Can you explain what you mean by this outside of the analogy?
3) You think that impeaching Gorsuch will somehow bring us back to a place where norms are respected and we return to cooperation. I disagree. No retaliatory iteration will get us back to civility - the rules must be changed and the GOP must lose consistently, for a long time, while we dismantle the alt right and re-establish the conservative party as one that doesn't accept evil into its ranks. This requires a de-escalation and a broad eschewing of hostility during a period where the Democrats control everything.
We only come back from this by running the table. Anything else just makes things worse.
I don't think impeaching Gorsuch will bring us back to place where norms are respected and we return to cooperation. I'm not sure we can get back to that place. Our democracy is fundamentally broken because a significant portion of the country and virtually all of their elected representatives are no longer [loyal to the country/believe in democracy/operate in reality], take your pick. Fixing our democracy is, if not impossible, the work of generations--defeating the politics of white supremacy, anti-intellectualism, and propaganda is a task roughly on par with deprogramming millions of North Koreans in a post-NK dictatorship scenario. That makes it priority 2. Priority 1 is getting and maintaining power away from Republicans, even if that means doing so through means that are less democratic or that will temporarily inflame partisan hostilities*.
Impeaching Gorsuch is not of primary concern to me, but I think it's the easiest step to take to shift the balance of the Court, as will be necessary in order to secure a long enough period of Democratic power required to start levelling the playing field again.
*I realize this is a real concern, but I'm also very sympathetic to the view that Republican partisan hostilities are inflamed already and constantly and for no reason. They were inflamed when Obama ate fancy mustard. As a group the party is simply irrational and it's rarely possible to appease them on their level.
I think if trump is genuinely found to have been hearing a criminal conspiracy to defraud the electorate under the control of Russian spies, then his corruption is sufficiently deep that even republicans might consider impeaching Gorsuch to be a special case.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
Did you miss the part in my earlier post where I said there was no counter-measure within the norms to fix this?
The whole reason I (and likely others) are so exasperated with you right now is because we keep saying "the ideal solution is not achievable!" and you keep going "why don't we just wait for the ideal solution to be achieved!" and when anything other than aforesaid impossible ideal solution is mentioned you get really indignant about it.
All the other options are worse than the ideal / doing nothing. Especially options that amount to "let's fuck them over as payback, but harder!" My best real-world suggestion is to figure out a way to win some elections.
for you, maybe.
There are plenty of people who do not have the option of just sitting this one out and hoping things are ok.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Feel free to stop being vague in italics and just come right out with whatever silly goose comment you're thinking though.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
Did you miss the part in my earlier post where I said there was no counter-measure within the norms to fix this?
The whole reason I (and likely others) are so exasperated with you right now is because we keep saying "the ideal solution is not achievable!" and you keep going "why don't we just wait for the ideal solution to be achieved!" and when anything other than aforesaid impossible ideal solution is mentioned you get really indignant about it.
All the other options are worse than the ideal / doing nothing. Especially options that amount to "let's fuck them over as payback, but harder!" My best real-world suggestion is to figure out a way to win some elections.
for you, maybe.
There are plenty of people who do not have the option of just sitting this one out and hoping things are ok.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Feel free to stop being vague in italics and just come right out with whatever silly goose comment you're thinking though.
Well, I suppose the logical statement is that as a straight white relatively wealthy guy you can afford to wait till Gorsuch dies. People who might be disenfranchised or thrown in jail don't have the luxury of time.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
Did you miss the part in my earlier post where I said there was no counter-measure within the norms to fix this?
The whole reason I (and likely others) are so exasperated with you right now is because we keep saying "the ideal solution is not achievable!" and you keep going "why don't we just wait for the ideal solution to be achieved!" and when anything other than aforesaid impossible ideal solution is mentioned you get really indignant about it.
All the other options are worse than the ideal / doing nothing. Especially options that amount to "let's fuck them over as payback, but harder!" My best real-world suggestion is to figure out a way to win some elections.
for you, maybe.
There are plenty of people who do not have the option of just sitting this one out and hoping things are ok.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Feel free to stop being vague in italics and just come right out with whatever silly goose comment you're thinking though.
Well, I suppose the logical statement is that as a straight white relatively wealthy guy you can afford to wait till Gorsuch dies. People who might be disenfranchised or thrown in jail don't have the luxury of time.
Except having to prove I'm oppressed enough to have an opinion about the Supreme Court is fucking stupid, not to mention typical of the bullshit unhinged left.
Also I'm not wealthy and my wife and one child aren't straight so that sentiment can get fucked regardless and anybody who wants to pursue it is, as I predicted, a very silly goose indeed. I hate anyone who even makes me go down this path. Purity tests like this are a cancer on the left.
That doesn't prevent his statement that others are in more dire straights than you don't feel like they can wait n' see. You're the one purity testing by saying that because you can, they should be able to.
That doesn't prevent his statement that others are in more dire straights than you don't feel like they can wait n' see. You're the one purity testing by saying that because you can, they should be able to.
I'm definitely not saying that, at all. I'm saying that breaking the democratic institution more severely than it is now will be worse for everyone, not that some people can wait and see. That shit is entirely ck's bullshit invention but rip reading comprehension I guess.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
That doesn't prevent his statement that others are in more dire straights than you don't feel like they can wait n' see. You're the one purity testing by saying that because you can, they should be able to.
I'm definitely not saying that, at all. I'm saying that breaking the democratic institution more severely than it is now will be worse for everyone.
I don't think we should impeach people for nakedly political purposes
I don't think rolling around in the mud is the best response to dirty Republican tactics
And I think there's a solid chance SCOTUS would overturn an impeachment that had no real legal basis
That's like the least likely thing of all to happen.
Eh, I think arguably the Nixon case prohibits the review of impeachment procedures, but leaves open the possibility of reviewing whether an impeachment had an adequate substantive basis.
And certainly the Justices would be more open to that argument if one of them had just been arbitrarily knocked off the court.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I don't think we should impeach people for nakedly political purposes
I don't think rolling around in the mud is the best response to dirty Republican tactics
And I think there's a solid chance SCOTUS would overturn an impeachment that had no real legal basis
That's like the least likely thing of all to happen.
Eh, I think arguably the Nixon case prohibits the review of impeachment procedures, but leaves open the possibility of reviewing whether an impeachment had an adequate substantive basis.
And certainly the Justices would be more open to that argument if one of them had just been arbitrarily knocked off the court.
I think the SCOTUS really doesn't want to go defining what impeachment is about at all.
That doesn't prevent his statement that others are in more dire straights than you don't feel like they can wait n' see. You're the one purity testing by saying that because you can, they should be able to.
I'm definitely not saying that, at all. I'm saying that breaking the democratic institution more severely than it is now will be worse for everyone.
Again, can you explain what you mean by this?
The scene: 2019, the Democrats control the House and have a 70 person majority in the Senate.
Speaker Pelosi passes articles of impeachment for Neil Gorsuch to the Senate, who immediately remove him. Republicans lose their damn minds, respond by blocking literally every scrap of business in both Houses until silenced through parliamentary process they cannot resist. The court stands at 8 members because Trump renominates Gorsuch and Schumer cites McConnell's behavior as precedent for ignoring all nominees until the 2020 election is over.
Later that year, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito deadlock the Court on a civil rights case, leaving a decision standing that the left finds deeply unjust. Speaker Pelosi responds by passing articles of impeachment out of the House for all four of them because fuck it, why not. They brought this on themselves. Schumer gives a speech before the full Senate, declaring that Republicans have brought us to this point, that he's blameless and they must act to teach the malcontents and wreckers a lesson, and then the Senate removes them all. The SCOTUS stands at 4 members, and Schumer declares that if anyone in the nation wants a Supreme Court that functions, they can remove Trump from office. For a year, activists drive the nation as far to the left as they can.
The response is the opposite of what he hoped for... fueled by a level of outrage not seen since the Civil War, the right wipes away Democrats in all but a handful of areas nationwide. Ryan and McConnell return with a newly emboldened and empowered Trump in his 2nd term, and they immediately remove Soto, RGB, Kagan, and Bryer within a month of the election. Trump nominates a complete new Court and ushers in a rollback of civil rights that takes us back to the 40s. Precedent is discarded in pursuit of payback, and the nation begins to collapse under the weight of protests, civil disobedience, violent riots, and domestic terrorism sparked by the contraction in minority freedoms.
You can take it from there I figure. Each step over the next line by one side is a step the other does not need to take. Two years of respite isn't worth the storm that comes afterwards.
If we have enough to impeach Gorsuch we have a Democratic President
not at mid-terms. But these midterms won't produce enough Democrats to impeach Trump without GOP support. Nevermind removing a Justice for partisan reasons.
Does anyone favoring impeachment of Gorsuch actually think that it will happen? This seems like a lot of pages for a thought experiment.
It's not going to happen unless Trump and literally hundreds of other people from both the executive and legislative branches of government go to jail, ushering in something so far beyond a supermajority for Democrats that they can basically remake the nation in their own image.
And even THEN, we're still talking about Democrats here. There are already Dems talking about reinstating the 60 vote rule for SCOTUS nominees because we aren't content to never learn, we have to actively unlearn things.
I don't think we should impeach people for nakedly political purposes
I don't think rolling around in the mud is the best response to dirty Republican tactics
And I think there's a solid chance SCOTUS would overturn an impeachment that had no real legal basis
That's like the least likely thing of all to happen.
Eh, I think arguably the Nixon case prohibits the review of impeachment procedures, but leaves open the possibility of reviewing whether an impeachment had an adequate substantive basis.
And certainly the Justices would be more open to that argument if one of them had just been arbitrarily knocked off the court.
I think the SCOTUS really doesn't want to go defining what impeachment is about at all.
Eh, high crimes and misdemeanors are already well defined, and I'm sure many Justices would be very uncomfortable to have one of their peers impeached on the basis of total gibberish
Whereas, in contrast, Judge Nixon was both guilty as hell and had a very weak textual argument — there was no reason to sympathize with him and no reason to tell the Senate their (adequate and fair) procedures needed review
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
That doesn't prevent his statement that others are in more dire straights than you don't feel like they can wait n' see. You're the one purity testing by saying that because you can, they should be able to.
I'm definitely not saying that, at all. I'm saying that breaking the democratic institution more severely than it is now will be worse for everyone.
Again, can you explain what you mean by this?
The scene: 2019, the Democrats control the House and have a 70 person majority in the Senate.
Speaker Pelosi passes articles of impeachment for Neil Gorsuch to the Senate, who immediately remove him. Republicans lose their damn minds, respond by blocking literally every scrap of business in both Houses until silenced through parliamentary process they cannot resist. The court stands at 8 members because Trump renominates Gorsuch and Schumer cites McConnell's behavior as precedent for ignoring all nominees until the 2020 election is over.
Later that year, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito deadlock the Court on a civil rights case, leaving a decision standing that the left finds deeply unjust. Speaker Pelosi responds by passing articles of impeachment out of the House for all four of them because fuck it, why not. They brought this on themselves. Schumer gives a speech before the full Senate, declaring that Republicans have brought us to this point, that he's blameless and they must act to teach the malcontents and wreckers a lesson, and then the Senate removes them all. The SCOTUS stands at 3 members, and Schumer declares that if anyone in the nation wants a Supreme Court that functions, they can remove Trump from office. For a year, activists drive the nation as far to the left as they can.
The response is the opposite of what he hoped for... fueled by a level of outrage not seen since the Civil War, the right wipes away Democrats in all but a handful of areas nationwide. Ryan and McConnell return with a newly emboldened and empowered Trump in his 2nd term, and they immediately remove Soto, RGB, Kagan, and Bryer within a month of the election. Trump nominates a complete new Court and ushers in a rollback of civil rights that takes us back to the 40s. Precedent is discarded in pursuit of payback, and the nation begins to collapse under the weight of protests, civil disobedience, violent riots, and domestic terrorism sparked by the contraction in minority freedoms.
You can take it from there I figure. Each step over the next line by one side is a step the other does not need to take. Two years of respite isn't worth the storm that comes afterwards.
I bolded all the parts in your absurd apocalyptic scenario that have already happened.
Your scenario relies on some questionable assumptions, as well.
1- That Democrats will pull the trigger on mass impeachments prior to holding the Presidency and being able to replace them. This is a strategically poor idea. If nothing else, 2016 shows that Republicans are more motivated than Democrats by empty SCOTUS seats. Additionally, I expect Dems would prefer to pack rather than impeach, with the exception of Gorsuch. Basically, leaving the Court empty and unable to function doesn't do us much good.
2- That Trump will still be President in 2019 (or alternatively, isn't trying to get us back to the 1940s anyway)
3- That there's any madder Republicans could get that would cause an electoral shift. Trump got about as many votes as Romney and McCain, are you going to tell me the party didn't get angrier during Obama's admin? As far as the ballot box goes, they're at maximum rage and even the Dems decimating SCOTUS wouldn't change that.
4- If the nation was going to collapse under the weight of minority reactions to civil rights violations (and I know you're not racist but that is a really fucked up framing of events) it would have happened in the 60s.
Finally I'll just point out that your end result here is still pretty vague (nation "collapses" under weight of protests?) when it's not just "watch out, Republicans might win even harder if you try and stop them from winning."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Obi Wan. Still smarter to strike you down now and worry about ghosts later.
Speaker Pelosi passes articles of impeachment for Neil Gorsuch to the Senate, who immediately remove him. Republicans lose their damn minds, respond by blocking literally every scrap of business in both Houses until silenced through parliamentary process they cannot resist.
That's been the status quo since at least Obama took office. Obama's admin spent years maintaining concessions and compromises to the GOP, only to have to be rewarded with the a SCOTUS seat being stolen from him. The GOP will escalate the situation no matter what, and justify their actions later. The Dems laying down over issues like have one conclusion: a GOP monopoly over politics, an end game which has been in the making for decades.
People will only take being stabbed in the back too many times before they fight back - and this has been a long time coming.
I don't think we should impeach people for nakedly political purposes
I don't think rolling around in the mud is the best response to dirty Republican tactics
And I think there's a solid chance SCOTUS would overturn an impeachment that had no real legal basis
That's like the least likely thing of all to happen.
Eh, I think arguably the Nixon case prohibits the review of impeachment procedures, but leaves open the possibility of reviewing whether an impeachment had an adequate substantive basis.
And certainly the Justices would be more open to that argument if one of them had just been arbitrarily knocked off the court.
I think the SCOTUS really doesn't want to go defining what impeachment is about at all.
Eh, high crimes and misdemeanors are already well defined, and I'm sure many Justices would be very uncomfortable to have one of their peers impeached on the basis of total gibberish
Whereas, in contrast, Judge Nixon was both guilty as hell and had a very weak textual argument — there was no reason to sympathize with him and no reason to tell the Senate their (adequate and fair) procedures needed review
Not really, no as far as I've ever seen.
And collusion with a foreign power to rig an election is not "total gibberish" as you well know.
"Your options are do nothing and let them win, or try to fight them and they'll win anyway."
Y'know, you're really not helping with my depression and occasional suicidal ideation here.
I'm about at the point where I'm genuinely wondering if the country (or I) will make it to 250. Nine years out...
Win some elections.
With the Republican party and their good comrades doing everything they can to "fix" those? Color me not optimistic.
Especially with a possible future SCOTUS rubber-stamping all of their tactics to disenfranchise half the country as totes Constitutional, really.
It is nonsense to suggest there is a valid basis for impeaching Gorsuch
He has personally done nothing that is actionable, and realistically he's in that seat until he dies or retires
It would be better to focus your time and thought and energy on other political goals
No, it is not. You keep saying it, but that does not make it correct. You have raised no argument for why it's "nonsense" beyond just repeating the word constantly.
It is irrelevant if he himself has done anything. His position on the Court is entirely based on an election where one candidate colluded with a foreign power to interfere while the Senate Majority Leader who got him that seat covered for it. Again, you don't get to keep stolen property just cause the thief gave it to you rather then you stealing it yourself. Or maybe more accurately, if someone somehow rigs vote totals in an election and you end up getting elected because of it, you don't get to keep the position just because you didn't rig the results yourself. The whole process is invalid from the get-go. "Sure, someone changed all vote tallies but you weren't personally involved so you get to be Mayor anyway!". That's complete nonsense.
Gorsuch's presence on the court is fundamentally illegitimate. It's only likely to stand because the US system is busted but no one wants to actually do anything about it and would instead rather just keep pretending all is well as the GOP escalates again and again.
If we have enough to impeach Gorsuch we have a Democratic President
not at mid-terms. But these midterms won't produce enough Democrats to impeach Trump without GOP support. Nevermind removing a Justice for partisan reasons.
Yes at mid terms. Its the same requirement to impeach a Justice as it is a President.
"Your options are do nothing and let them win, or try to fight them and they'll win anyway."
Y'know, you're really not helping with my depression and occasional suicidal ideation here.
I'm about at the point where I'm genuinely wondering if the country (or I) will make it to 250. Nine years out...
Win some elections.
Yes, win elections, then impeach Gorsuch.
As I've said before, can't really do it any other way.
Responding to "we should impeach gorsuch" with "instead win some elections", is a complete bullshit response because in order to impeach gorsuch we would first necessarily have to win elections.
We are talking about what we should do once we control the government again.
If we have enough to impeach Gorsuch we have a Democratic President
not at mid-terms. But these midterms won't produce enough Democrats to impeach Trump without GOP support. Nevermind removing a Justice for partisan reasons.
Yes at mid terms. Its the same requirement to impeach a Justice as it is a President.
It' still not clear to me what impeaching him accomplishes. Their next presidential candidate is probably not going to be in Trump's position (so collusion isn't going to be a viable reason for removal), but their next SCOTUS pick may very well be brought about in the same way. The system is still broke. The only thing we get is to potentially avoid a couple of bad 5-4 rulings. Not a great prize for taking a sledgehammer to a system the other side has already structurally weakened.
Also, I'm not swayed by this "GOP will realize the errors of it's ways because prisoner's dilemma argument". This isn't a prisoner's dilemma. One side is going to win regardless, and they can win despite being betrayed. The only "both sides lose" scenario is a complete collapse of the system and probably a civil war.
I say it is nonsense because you are making honestly a silly — literally laughable — argument here
You want Gorsuch impeached because other people have broken laws and behaved corruptly, not because Gorsuch has personally done anything
The misconduct of others has nothing to do with the "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that Gorsuch would need to personally commit in order to make a subsequent impeachment lawful — there is no need to discuss what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, because you do not even credibly argue, in the first place, that he has engaged in any personal misconduct at all
Perhaps SCOTUS would not want to review the unconstitutional impeachment of a peer! And perhaps it would
Either way, you are arguing that we should flagrantly violate the rule of law for political advantage
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Posts
what
he did nominate someone he had every right to nominate
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
GOP is selling us out to our enemies and trying to kill our people and subvert or sell off everything good about this country. They are already treating it like a war. Taking perfectly legal action against a specific action that has a generations-long effect on our system is hardly firing the first shot. Democrats are not required to fulfill the stereotype of cowardice in the face of adversity. Being good doesn't require playing nice and rolling over.
The driver cannot be allowed to drive again until he's changed his ways. That requires shifting the Court (which due to the nature of the lifetime appointments and nomination process does not automatically match even a party who has a supermajority in Congress and the Presidency) to remove the conservative brake on "liberal" policies like expanding voting rights and curtailing the influence of monied interests in campaigns. You can do that through impeachments, packing, etc, but it will probably have to be done.
Can you explain what you mean by this outside of the analogy?
I don't think impeaching Gorsuch will bring us back to place where norms are respected and we return to cooperation. I'm not sure we can get back to that place. Our democracy is fundamentally broken because a significant portion of the country and virtually all of their elected representatives are no longer [loyal to the country/believe in democracy/operate in reality], take your pick. Fixing our democracy is, if not impossible, the work of generations--defeating the politics of white supremacy, anti-intellectualism, and propaganda is a task roughly on par with deprogramming millions of North Koreans in a post-NK dictatorship scenario. That makes it priority 2. Priority 1 is getting and maintaining power away from Republicans, even if that means doing so through means that are less democratic or that will temporarily inflame partisan hostilities*.
Impeaching Gorsuch is not of primary concern to me, but I think it's the easiest step to take to shift the balance of the Court, as will be necessary in order to secure a long enough period of Democratic power required to start levelling the playing field again.
*I realize this is a real concern, but I'm also very sympathetic to the view that Republican partisan hostilities are inflamed already and constantly and for no reason. They were inflamed when Obama ate fancy mustard. As a group the party is simply irrational and it's rarely possible to appease them on their level.
for you, maybe.
There are plenty of people who do not have the option of just sitting this one out and hoping things are ok.
I think if trump is genuinely found to have been hearing a criminal conspiracy to defraud the electorate under the control of Russian spies, then his corruption is sufficiently deep that even republicans might consider impeaching Gorsuch to be a special case.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Feel free to stop being vague in italics and just come right out with whatever silly goose comment you're thinking though.
Well, I suppose the logical statement is that as a straight white relatively wealthy guy you can afford to wait till Gorsuch dies. People who might be disenfranchised or thrown in jail don't have the luxury of time.
Except having to prove I'm oppressed enough to have an opinion about the Supreme Court is fucking stupid, not to mention typical of the bullshit unhinged left.
I'm definitely not saying that, at all. I'm saying that breaking the democratic institution more severely than it is now will be worse for everyone, not that some people can wait and see. That shit is entirely ck's bullshit invention but rip reading comprehension I guess.
Again, can you explain what you mean by this?
I don't think rolling around in the mud is the best response to dirty Republican tactics
And I think there's a solid chance SCOTUS would overturn an impeachment that had no real legal basis
That's like the least likely thing of all to happen.
Eh, I think arguably the Nixon case prohibits the review of impeachment procedures, but leaves open the possibility of reviewing whether an impeachment had an adequate substantive basis.
And certainly the Justices would be more open to that argument if one of them had just been arbitrarily knocked off the court.
I think the SCOTUS really doesn't want to go defining what impeachment is about at all.
The scene: 2019, the Democrats control the House and have a 70 person majority in the Senate.
Speaker Pelosi passes articles of impeachment for Neil Gorsuch to the Senate, who immediately remove him. Republicans lose their damn minds, respond by blocking literally every scrap of business in both Houses until silenced through parliamentary process they cannot resist. The court stands at 8 members because Trump renominates Gorsuch and Schumer cites McConnell's behavior as precedent for ignoring all nominees until the 2020 election is over.
Later that year, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito deadlock the Court on a civil rights case, leaving a decision standing that the left finds deeply unjust. Speaker Pelosi responds by passing articles of impeachment out of the House for all four of them because fuck it, why not. They brought this on themselves. Schumer gives a speech before the full Senate, declaring that Republicans have brought us to this point, that he's blameless and they must act to teach the malcontents and wreckers a lesson, and then the Senate removes them all. The SCOTUS stands at 4 members, and Schumer declares that if anyone in the nation wants a Supreme Court that functions, they can remove Trump from office. For a year, activists drive the nation as far to the left as they can.
The response is the opposite of what he hoped for... fueled by a level of outrage not seen since the Civil War, the right wipes away Democrats in all but a handful of areas nationwide. Ryan and McConnell return with a newly emboldened and empowered Trump in his 2nd term, and they immediately remove Soto, RGB, Kagan, and Bryer within a month of the election. Trump nominates a complete new Court and ushers in a rollback of civil rights that takes us back to the 40s. Precedent is discarded in pursuit of payback, and the nation begins to collapse under the weight of protests, civil disobedience, violent riots, and domestic terrorism sparked by the contraction in minority freedoms.
You can take it from there I figure. Each step over the next line by one side is a step the other does not need to take. Two years of respite isn't worth the storm that comes afterwards.
not at mid-terms. But these midterms won't produce enough Democrats to impeach Trump without GOP support. Nevermind removing a Justice for partisan reasons.
It's not going to happen unless Trump and literally hundreds of other people from both the executive and legislative branches of government go to jail, ushering in something so far beyond a supermajority for Democrats that they can basically remake the nation in their own image.
And even THEN, we're still talking about Democrats here. There are already Dems talking about reinstating the 60 vote rule for SCOTUS nominees because we aren't content to never learn, we have to actively unlearn things.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Eh, high crimes and misdemeanors are already well defined, and I'm sure many Justices would be very uncomfortable to have one of their peers impeached on the basis of total gibberish
Whereas, in contrast, Judge Nixon was both guilty as hell and had a very weak textual argument — there was no reason to sympathize with him and no reason to tell the Senate their (adequate and fair) procedures needed review
I bolded all the parts in your absurd apocalyptic scenario that have already happened.
Your scenario relies on some questionable assumptions, as well.
1- That Democrats will pull the trigger on mass impeachments prior to holding the Presidency and being able to replace them. This is a strategically poor idea. If nothing else, 2016 shows that Republicans are more motivated than Democrats by empty SCOTUS seats. Additionally, I expect Dems would prefer to pack rather than impeach, with the exception of Gorsuch. Basically, leaving the Court empty and unable to function doesn't do us much good.
2- That Trump will still be President in 2019 (or alternatively, isn't trying to get us back to the 1940s anyway)
3- That there's any madder Republicans could get that would cause an electoral shift. Trump got about as many votes as Romney and McCain, are you going to tell me the party didn't get angrier during Obama's admin? As far as the ballot box goes, they're at maximum rage and even the Dems decimating SCOTUS wouldn't change that.
4- If the nation was going to collapse under the weight of minority reactions to civil rights violations (and I know you're not racist but that is a really fucked up framing of events) it would have happened in the 60s.
Finally I'll just point out that your end result here is still pretty vague (nation "collapses" under weight of protests?) when it's not just "watch out, Republicans might win even harder if you try and stop them from winning."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Obi Wan. Still smarter to strike you down now and worry about ghosts later.
Y'know, you're really not helping with my depression and occasional suicidal ideation here.
I'm about at the point where I'm genuinely wondering if the country (or I) will make it to 250. Nine years out...
That's been the status quo since at least Obama took office. Obama's admin spent years maintaining concessions and compromises to the GOP, only to have to be rewarded with the a SCOTUS seat being stolen from him. The GOP will escalate the situation no matter what, and justify their actions later. The Dems laying down over issues like have one conclusion: a GOP monopoly over politics, an end game which has been in the making for decades.
People will only take being stabbed in the back too many times before they fight back - and this has been a long time coming.
Win some elections.
Not really, no as far as I've ever seen.
And collusion with a foreign power to rig an election is not "total gibberish" as you well know.
What's the other option?
With the Republican party and their good comrades doing everything they can to "fix" those? Color me not optimistic.
Especially with a possible future SCOTUS rubber-stamping all of their tactics to disenfranchise half the country as totes Constitutional, really.
He has personally done nothing that is actionable, and realistically he's in that seat until he dies or retires
It would be better to focus your time and thought and energy on other political goals
No, it is not. You keep saying it, but that does not make it correct. You have raised no argument for why it's "nonsense" beyond just repeating the word constantly.
It is irrelevant if he himself has done anything. His position on the Court is entirely based on an election where one candidate colluded with a foreign power to interfere while the Senate Majority Leader who got him that seat covered for it. Again, you don't get to keep stolen property just cause the thief gave it to you rather then you stealing it yourself. Or maybe more accurately, if someone somehow rigs vote totals in an election and you end up getting elected because of it, you don't get to keep the position just because you didn't rig the results yourself. The whole process is invalid from the get-go. "Sure, someone changed all vote tallies but you weren't personally involved so you get to be Mayor anyway!". That's complete nonsense.
Gorsuch's presence on the court is fundamentally illegitimate. It's only likely to stand because the US system is busted but no one wants to actually do anything about it and would instead rather just keep pretending all is well as the GOP escalates again and again.
Yes at mid terms. Its the same requirement to impeach a Justice as it is a President.
No; its not. And SCOTUS is loath to get into defining things for congress like that
Yes, win elections, then impeach Gorsuch.
As I've said before, can't really do it any other way.
Responding to "we should impeach gorsuch" with "instead win some elections", is a complete bullshit response because in order to impeach gorsuch we would first necessarily have to win elections.
We are talking about what we should do once we control the government again.
"Win some elections" is a useless response here
So the play is to remove Trump and Pence immediately, together, and install Pelosi as the President?
That would go over even better I'm sure.
Also, I'm not swayed by this "GOP will realize the errors of it's ways because prisoner's dilemma argument". This isn't a prisoner's dilemma. One side is going to win regardless, and they can win despite being betrayed. The only "both sides lose" scenario is a complete collapse of the system and probably a civil war.
And lose the next one, and get all the liberal justices impeached at once for no reason at all, and then The End.
You want Gorsuch impeached because other people have broken laws and behaved corruptly, not because Gorsuch has personally done anything
The misconduct of others has nothing to do with the "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that Gorsuch would need to personally commit in order to make a subsequent impeachment lawful — there is no need to discuss what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, because you do not even credibly argue, in the first place, that he has engaged in any personal misconduct at all
Perhaps SCOTUS would not want to review the unconstitutional impeachment of a peer! And perhaps it would
Either way, you are arguing that we should flagrantly violate the rule of law for political advantage