Bill should require a vote on the nominee. This would prevent fuckers like Mitch from stonewalling a nominee until their guy gets in and they can steal the seat. Then as an added incentive to discourage fuckery. If the seat isn't filled and the current POTUS loses re-election or doesn't run again. Then the leader of their party (would be POTUS if the party still retains the WH or the Senate majority leader gets to nominate someone for that seat. So kill the whole incentive to drag things out because it can't be used to steal seats and if they have to vote on the nominees, they are going to be less inclined towards fuckery because their shit strategy for gaining and keeping power is to avoid having a voting record.
1 year time limit for appointments would be an issue for when someone like McConnell wants to deny court picks. I would make it so that a nominee is accepted by default if the senate doesn't hold a vote
That wouldn’t work. It would be very easy if a party controlled both the Senate and White House to defacto put someone on the court without any hearings/debate. Just let the clock run out and you’ve got a justice.
And that would be different from our current situation how exactly? Keeping in mind Kavanaugh and Barret are sitting right there.
In the hypothetical situation, they wouldn’t even need to hold a vote to get someone on the court. Nominate, wait a year, and fresh scumbag justice on the court. At the minimum at least they have to vote on it right now.
EDIT: As an example, would we have gotten Christine Blasey Ford’s or Anita Hill’s testimony under the hypothetical system? They could have completely buried it through inaction
Yes, I think they would. It is really easy to spot when someone would be playing that stupid game. More directly though, those brave women tragically did not help the country despite their best efforts. We know there are at least two rapists on the court. Candidates just get pushed through regardless these days. It sucks, but it is what we have.
Bill should require a vote on the nominee. This would prevent fuckers like Mitch from stonewalling a nominee until their guy gets in and they can steal the seat. Then as an added incentive to discourage fuckery. If the seat isn't filled and the current POTUS loses re-election or doesn't run again. Then the leader of their party (would be POTUS if the party still retains the WH or the Senate majority leader gets to nominate someone for that seat. So kill the whole incentive to drag things out because it can't be used to steal seats and if they have to vote on the nominees, they are going to be less inclined towards fuckery because their shit strategy for gaining and keeping power is to avoid having a voting record.
Eh, just say the POTUS retains the ability to nominate those seats even after he leaves office, until such time as they are filled. The threat is that stonewalling means sooner or later a more favorable congress will approve anyways.
1 year time limit for appointments would be an issue for when someone like McConnell wants to deny court picks. I would make it so that a nominee is accepted by default if the senate doesn't hold a vote
That wouldn’t work. It would be very easy if a party controlled both the Senate and White House to defacto put someone on the court without any hearings/debate. Just let the clock run out and you’ve got a justice.
And that would be different from our current situation how exactly? Keeping in mind Kavanaugh and Barret are sitting right there.
In the hypothetical situation, they wouldn’t even need to hold a vote to get someone on the court. Nominate, wait a year, and fresh scumbag justice on the court. At the minimum at least they have to vote on it right now.
EDIT: As an example, would we have gotten Christine Blasey Ford’s or Anita Hill’s testimony under the hypothetical system? They could have completely buried it through inaction
Their testimony didn't prevent their abusers from being seated on the highest Court.
1 year time limit for appointments would be an issue for when someone like McConnell wants to deny court picks. I would make it so that a nominee is accepted by default if the senate doesn't hold a vote
That wouldn’t work. It would be very easy if a party controlled both the Senate and White House to defacto put someone on the court without any hearings/debate. Just let the clock run out and you’ve got a justice.
And that would be different from our current situation how exactly? Keeping in mind Kavanaugh and Barret are sitting right there.
In the hypothetical situation, they wouldn’t even need to hold a vote to get someone on the court. Nominate, wait a year, and fresh scumbag justice on the court. At the minimum at least they have to vote on it right now.
EDIT: As an example, would we have gotten Christine Blasey Ford’s or Anita Hill’s testimony under the hypothetical system? They could have completely buried it through inaction
Yes, I think they would. It is really easy to spot when someone would be playing that stupid game. More directly though, those brave women tragically did not help the country despite their best efforts. We know there are at least two rapists on the court. Candidates just get pushed through regardless these days. It sucks, but it is what we have.
This is basically how it used to work. McConnell's hardball approach was a big departure from how things mostly worked in the Senate. Where it was accepted that the President had the right to appoint people to the Court and also various agencies and "advice and consent" mostly involved some chest beating by the Senate and only the occasional sinking of a really bad candidate.
In some ways more importantly, this is the only way it can work. The current complete breakdown of many parts of the US government if you don't have both control of the Senate and the White House is just a straightforward result of how the system is designed. And the only way around it is the institutional norms that used to say you generally had to rubber stamp the President's picks.
I cannot see any way in which you don't get one situation or the other. Either Congress in some way acts as a real check on presidential appointments and thus you end up with a situation where divided government means the President can't appoint anyone. Or the President just gets his appointments because that's what happens when you win elections: you get to do actually do things. There's no threading the needle where you get to staff the government but only with good people.
McConnell's "Stop the Dems" plan was already 3 years along by the time Obama got the SCOTUS nom. It wasn't a departure from how things worked in the Senate, just a lack of the Dems being unable to adapt or prepare.
McConnell's "Stop the Dems" plan was already 3 years along by the time Obama got the SCOTUS nom. It wasn't a departure from how things worked in the Senate, just a lack of the Dems being unable to adapt or prepare.
It was absolutely a departure from how things worked in the Senate. Even Obama's previous appointments got Republican votes. And there's lots of presidents before Obama too. McConnell's strategy was always technically possible. It just didn't happen.
McConnell's "Stop the Dems" plan was already 3 years along by the time Obama got the SCOTUS nom. It wasn't a departure from how things worked in the Senate, just a lack of the Dems being unable to adapt or prepare.
Reid (D-NV) pulled the Nuclear Option and abolished the filibuster for appointments (aside from SCOTUS) in order to prepare/ adapt a response to McConnell's unadulterated obstruction. The problem was voters didn't give a shit about any of that and gave Republicans a Senate majority in 2014. Which made McConnell Majority Leader for the 114th Congress along with Speaker Boehner/ Ryan.
McConnell's "Stop the Dems" plan was already 3 years along by the time Obama got the SCOTUS nom. It wasn't a departure from how things worked in the Senate, just a lack of the Dems being unable to adapt or prepare.
Reid (D-NV) pulled the Nuclear Option and abolished the filibuster for appointments (aside from SCOTUS) in order to prepare/ adapt a response to McConnell's unadulterated obstruction. The problem was voters didn't give a shit about any of that and gave Republicans a Senate majority in 2014. Which made McConnell Majority Leader for the 114th Congress along with Speaker Boehner/ Ryan.
Also the Gang of 14 sabotaged him. Tweet anything about them at Adam Jentleson (Reid staffer) and he will either go on a 20 tweet tirade about those how those assholes did more to destroy the Democratic Party than anybody else or link to a previous thread where he's done that.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
McConnell's "Stop the Dems" plan was already 3 years along by the time Obama got the SCOTUS nom. It wasn't a departure from how things worked in the Senate, just a lack of the Dems being unable to adapt or prepare.
Reid (D-NV) pulled the Nuclear Option and abolished the filibuster for appointments (aside from SCOTUS) in order to prepare/ adapt a response to McConnell's unadulterated obstruction. The problem was voters didn't give a shit about any of that and gave Republicans a Senate majority in 2014. Which made McConnell Majority Leader for the 114th Congress along with Speaker Boehner/ Ryan.
I think it was McConnel who threatened to nuke the filibuster if the Democrats didn't stop filibustering Bush the lesser's nominees as well. I say this to say there was more of a history of blocking lower court appointments than there ever was for the Supreme Court until 2014 of course. The rest of this is of course spot on, but I think that bit of clarity is needed as well. It wasn't until the third pick that McConnel decided to go all in.
Alito got offended that the rest of the world considers his work primitive and barbaric, so blurted out this:
"I had the honour this term of writing I think the only supreme court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law," Mr Alito said.
"One of these was Boris Johnson, but he paid the price," he said, drawing laughter from the audience. Mr Johnson, who announced his intention to resign earlier this month after a string of scandals, had called the ruling "a big step backwards".
Mr Alito also referenced French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, who had condemned the "rolling back of constitutional rights" in the US during a speech to the UN earlier this month.
"What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine," Mr Alito said.
Prince Harry appeared to be referring to the abortion ruling when he said in his address to the UN: "From the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States, we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom..."
Mr Alito's previously unannounced speech was delivered to the Religious Liberty Conference on 21 July and emerged after the University of Notre Dame, who hosted the event, posted footage online on Thursday night.
Referring to religious liberty, he said it was "under attack in many places because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power".
Whoever in this thread was calling it that they would run to Europe to give their troll speeches nailed it.
People should straight up boycott Notre Dame over sponsoring this shit and giving people like Alito a platform to troll from.
...Notre Dame is in Indiana.
How to say you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.
Mr Alito, a devout Catholic, was speaking at a conference in Rome.
Rome is in Georgia.
Georgia, Eastern Europe.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Whoever in this thread was calling it that they would run to Europe to give their troll speeches nailed it.
People should straight up boycott Notre Dame over sponsoring this shit and giving people like Alito a platform to troll from.
...Notre Dame is in Indiana.
How to say you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.
Mr Alito, a devout Catholic, was speaking at a conference in Rome.
Rome is in Georgia.
Georgia, Eastern Europe.
I feel we have inadvertently blundered into the cursed frogurt skit from the Simpsons.
Regardless of that, the gall of Alito to dare to compain about pushback on his plans to murder 10s of thousands of women, and place hundreds of thousands into poverty is disgusting.
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
That's fascism for you. It's not just licking the boot but somehow getting off on it as well.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
+6
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
Occasionally some of them seem to revel in being hated.
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
That's fascism for you. It's not just licking the boot but somehow getting off on it as well.
Nah, fascism doesn't demand that the beaten love the whip. To fascists, the out group are bad and their opinions are irrelevant. Pretending you are doing the opressed a favor? That's an antebellum south thing, or some European monarchies.
The fact that Alito didn't come out firing defending the merits of the ruling tells you everything you need to know about the complete lack of legitimacy behind it. It's made up, calvin-ball bullshit, and there's nothing any of you peons can do about it.
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever
Alito got offended that the rest of the world considers his work primitive and barbaric, so blurted out this:
"I had the honour this term of writing I think the only supreme court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law," Mr Alito said.
"One of these was Boris Johnson, but he paid the price," he said, drawing laughter from the audience. Mr Johnson, who announced his intention to resign earlier this month after a string of scandals, had called the ruling "a big step backwards".
Mr Alito also referenced French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, who had condemned the "rolling back of constitutional rights" in the US during a speech to the UN earlier this month.
"What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine," Mr Alito said.
Prince Harry appeared to be referring to the abortion ruling when he said in his address to the UN: "From the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States, we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom..."
Mr Alito's previously unannounced speech was delivered to the Religious Liberty Conference on 21 July and emerged after the University of Notre Dame, who hosted the event, posted footage online on Thursday night.
Referring to religious liberty, he said it was "under attack in many places because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power".
Yeah Boris Johnson’s issue that lost him his office wasn’t that he was a corrupt right wing shithead that abused storied institutions to push his own self serving agenda, it was that he wasn’t hard enough on abortion.
This asshole has the gall to say he is the only justice to ever receive complaints from Europe. It's as though he never knew Queen Isabella of Spain threw a fit over the Amistad ruling
+12
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
This asshole has the gall to say he is the only justice to ever receive complaints from Europe. It's as though he never knew Queen Isabella of Spain threw a fit over the Amistad ruling
Robert Jackson also got some major pushback from certain quarters for procedural issues and interpretations used during the Nuremberg trials.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Also, “stop talking shit about foreign leaders, that’s not your job one bit, and your job is to present impartial judgments on US law. Want a new job? Then quit being a Supreme Court justice”
I think what rustled Alito’s jimmies is that it was his own class, political elites, that threw shade. He doesn’t give a shit what the plebs think and seems to like pissing us off.
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
Fascism paradoxically must be super strongest ever and also an innocent victim. They must be praised and petted because they are ultimately miserably insecure.
I think what rustled Alito’s jimmies is that it was his own class, political elites, that threw shade. He doesn’t give a shit what the plebs think and seems to like pissing us off.
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
Fascism paradoxically must be super strongest ever and also an innocent victim. They must be praised and petted because they are ultimately miserably insecure.
I think what rustled Alito’s jimmies is that it was his own class, political elites, that threw shade. He doesn’t give a shit what the plebs think and seems to like pissing us off.
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
Fascism paradoxically must be super strongest ever and also an innocent victim. They must be praised and petted because they are ultimately miserably insecure.
I think what rustled Alito’s jimmies is that it was his own class, political elites, that threw shade. He doesn’t give a shit what the plebs think and seems to like pissing us off.
Republicans have this weird thing where not only do they have to dominate politics and give Democrats no chance to exercise power, but they want us to like them for it.
Fascism paradoxically must be super strongest ever and also an innocent victim. They must be praised and petted because they are ultimately miserably insecure.
Posts
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I'd actually say that whomever wins the popular vote for president gets the two nominations.
Yes, I think they would. It is really easy to spot when someone would be playing that stupid game. More directly though, those brave women tragically did not help the country despite their best efforts. We know there are at least two rapists on the court. Candidates just get pushed through regardless these days. It sucks, but it is what we have.
Eh, just say the POTUS retains the ability to nominate those seats even after he leaves office, until such time as they are filled. The threat is that stonewalling means sooner or later a more favorable congress will approve anyways.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Their testimony didn't prevent their abusers from being seated on the highest Court.
This is basically how it used to work. McConnell's hardball approach was a big departure from how things mostly worked in the Senate. Where it was accepted that the President had the right to appoint people to the Court and also various agencies and "advice and consent" mostly involved some chest beating by the Senate and only the occasional sinking of a really bad candidate.
In some ways more importantly, this is the only way it can work. The current complete breakdown of many parts of the US government if you don't have both control of the Senate and the White House is just a straightforward result of how the system is designed. And the only way around it is the institutional norms that used to say you generally had to rubber stamp the President's picks.
I cannot see any way in which you don't get one situation or the other. Either Congress in some way acts as a real check on presidential appointments and thus you end up with a situation where divided government means the President can't appoint anyone. Or the President just gets his appointments because that's what happens when you win elections: you get to do actually do things. There's no threading the needle where you get to staff the government but only with good people.
It was absolutely a departure from how things worked in the Senate. Even Obama's previous appointments got Republican votes. And there's lots of presidents before Obama too. McConnell's strategy was always technically possible. It just didn't happen.
Reid (D-NV) pulled the Nuclear Option and abolished the filibuster for appointments (aside from SCOTUS) in order to prepare/ adapt a response to McConnell's unadulterated obstruction. The problem was voters didn't give a shit about any of that and gave Republicans a Senate majority in 2014. Which made McConnell Majority Leader for the 114th Congress along with Speaker Boehner/ Ryan.
Also the Gang of 14 sabotaged him. Tweet anything about them at Adam Jentleson (Reid staffer) and he will either go on a 20 tweet tirade about those how those assholes did more to destroy the Democratic Party than anybody else or link to a previous thread where he's done that.
I think it was McConnel who threatened to nuke the filibuster if the Democrats didn't stop filibustering Bush the lesser's nominees as well. I say this to say there was more of a history of blocking lower court appointments than there ever was for the Supreme Court until 2014 of course. The rest of this is of course spot on, but I think that bit of clarity is needed as well. It wasn't until the third pick that McConnel decided to go all in.
People should straight up boycott Notre Dame over sponsoring this shit and giving people like Alito a platform to troll from.
...Notre Dame is in Indiana.
How to say you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.
Rome is in Georgia.
Georgia, Eastern Europe.
University of Notre Dame sponsored the conference he was speaking at.
Plus everybody should boycott Notre Dame on general principles.
I feel we have inadvertently blundered into the cursed frogurt skit from the Simpsons.
Regardless of that, the gall of Alito to dare to compain about pushback on his plans to murder 10s of thousands of women, and place hundreds of thousands into poverty is disgusting.
That's fascism for you. It's not just licking the boot but somehow getting off on it as well.
Occasionally some of them seem to revel in being hated.
Nah, fascism doesn't demand that the beaten love the whip. To fascists, the out group are bad and their opinions are irrelevant. Pretending you are doing the opressed a favor? That's an antebellum south thing, or some European monarchies.
Uh, bwuh, it was actual Rome...
Alito has always been a troll in a robe.
Yeah Boris Johnson’s issue that lost him his office wasn’t that he was a corrupt right wing shithead that abused storied institutions to push his own self serving agenda, it was that he wasn’t hard enough on abortion.
The Strict Scrutiny podcast often calls him Trollito for that very reason.
Robert Jackson also got some major pushback from certain quarters for procedural issues and interpretations used during the Nuremberg trials.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Fascism paradoxically must be super strongest ever and also an innocent victim. They must be praised and petted because they are ultimately miserably insecure.
Eh. Who he's viewing as a pleb depends on the day and how much they manage to touch a nerve. He went after Adam Serwer (writer for The Atlantic) a little while ago.
Adam's not The Elite, but he's not a nobody either, so I guess it kind of depends on how you define it.
Alito goes after anyone who criticizes him. Not unlike Trump or any other authoritarian you can think of, he's incredibly thin-skinned.
Yeah, I think instead of it being An Elite or whatever, there is just a threshhold to his notice.