Forar, trying to make a point about the behavior of the right-wing media is not getting you anywhere because there's no reason for any of us to care. RWM is unconnected to reality, their opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
No one in here cares what they think.
Donald Trump receives information from Fox News, as evidenced by him livetweeting their shows, commenting with their talking points, referencing their guests and commentators.
Edit: Same with Alex Jones. And Steve Bannon is in the White House ffs!
I strongly disagree that their opinions and statements are irrelevant.
Dude please, now you are just ranting about things we are not discussing at all. Trump's information vectors are irrelevant to a discussion of whether the RWM would be mad about Soros junkets, and neither one is the slightest but relevant to the question of whether we should impeach Gorsuch. It's just venting anger.
*minor de-snarkification*
People were complaining about Scalia's paid vacations.
Other people said it was no big deal.
I posited that if this situation were reversed, there would be hell to pay from the right wing media.
That's how this started, and frankly I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to postulate. Fox, Infowars, and Breitbart have made bigger deals out of less.
And we both know that was far from 'ranting'.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
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.
Moreover when one party will not respect any rules change you make anyway.
I fail to see how, at this juncture, "Breaking the Republic" is bad for democrats or their constituents compared to the current norm of "Republican's are the only party that can govern". There indeed is a risk of breaking the government sooner but from where I am sitting defecting has a chance of bringing us back from the brink and not defecting does not.
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.
The electorate has refused to punish their elected officials for literally breaking the government. I don't agree elections will allow Dems to fix this problem. I am incredibly skeptical that a Constitutional amendment will go anywhere when it is proposed by Democrats. It will be opposed tooth and nail by Republicans and Republican-lead states no matter what.
Not sure we can ever go back to normalcy. That's the point. When one side always betrays, efforts to go back to normalcy by the other side are pointless and will result in concessions traded for no gain.
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.
The electorate has refused to punish their elected officials for literally breaking the government. I don't agree elections will allow Dems to fix this problem. I am incredibly skeptical that a Constitutional amendment will go anywhere when it is proposed by Democrats. It will be opposed tooth and nail by Republicans and Republican-lead states no matter what.
Not sure we can ever go back to normalcy. That's the point. When one side always betrays, efforts to go back to normalcy by the other side are pointless and will result in concessions traded for no gain.
getting a constitutional amendment through even a decade ago was a hilarious joke, to suggest it now is insane. You might as well say "learn magic and use that to make things better"
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.
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.
The electorate has refused to punish their elected officials for literally breaking the government. I don't agree elections will allow Dems to fix this problem. I am incredibly skeptical that a Constitutional amendment will go anywhere when it is proposed by Democrats. It will be opposed tooth and nail by Republicans and Republican-lead states no matter what.
Not sure we can ever go back to normalcy. That's the point. When one side always betrays, efforts to go back to normalcy by the other side are pointless and will result in concessions traded for no gain.
Fundamentally the issue remains that the right-wing in america, not the party but also like the mass of voters and all that, don't really think anything wrong has happened. The only thing that can happen here is power switches temporarily back to the Democrats but that doesn't stop anything because at no point will they have admitted that the things they are doing are wrong and they should stop. They will simply do it again and keep pushing till they inevitably regain power again.
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.
The electorate has refused to punish their elected officials for literally breaking the government. I don't agree elections will allow Dems to fix this problem. I am incredibly skeptical that a Constitutional amendment will go anywhere when it is proposed by Democrats. It will be opposed tooth and nail by Republicans and Republican-lead states no matter what.
Not sure we can ever go back to normalcy. That's the point. When one side always betrays, efforts to go back to normalcy by the other side are pointless and will result in concessions traded for no gain.
Fundamentally the issue remains that the right-wing in america, not the party but also like the mass of voters and all that, don't really think anything wrong has happened. The only thing that can happen here is power switches temporarily back to the Democrats but that doesn't stop anything because at no point will they have admitted that the things they are doing are wrong and they should stop. They will simply do it again and keep pushing till they inevitably regain power again.
And the pattern gets scarier every time. From Reagan to Bush to Trump is a line. I don't want to experience the next data point.
Forar, trying to make a point about the behavior of the right-wing media is not getting you anywhere because there's no reason for any of us to care. RWM is unconnected to reality, their opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
No one in here cares what they think.
Donald Trump receives information from Fox News, as evidenced by him livetweeting their shows, commenting with their talking points, referencing their guests and commentators.
Edit: Same with Alex Jones. And Steve Bannon is in the White House ffs!
I strongly disagree that their opinions and statements are irrelevant.
Dude please, now you are just ranting about things we are not discussing at all. Trump's information vectors are irrelevant to a discussion of whether the RWM would be mad about Soros junkets, and neither one is the slightest but relevant to the question of whether we should impeach Gorsuch. It's just venting anger.
*minor de-snarkification*
People were complaining about Scalia's paid vacations.
Other people said it was no big deal.
I posited that if this situation were reversed, there would be hell to pay from the right wing media.
That's how this started, and frankly I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to postulate. Fox, Infowars, and Breitbart have made bigger deals out of less.
And we both know that was far from 'ranting'.
You're not wrong about how they would behave, but we are not the RWM and I have to assume that our various opinions would be roughly similar if the shoe was on the other foot.
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.
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.
Well no shit, the only way we can make any plays is to win some elections, till then we're just fucked.
Republicans have escalated to using foreign actors to issue propaganda, calling for 2nd amendment solutions for when they lose elections, holding Supreme Court nominations hostage, and massive voter suppression campaigns. I'm not sure that impeaching gorsuch is an Escaltion.
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.
I'm unconvinced the answer to getting getting screwed over is laying down and taking it (especially over a vital organ in the US government like the SCOTUS). This is how new political norms are created, and the norm right now that the Republicans literally own the SCOTUS from here on out.
Why it is beyond the pale to get payback under those circumstances? When an injustice is done is your first response is to the victims to not do anything about it, like alert the authorities? The Dems are the opposition party, not the GOP's hazing recruit.
This is a serious breaking of democracy. That's why it's a constitutional crisis.
edit: Really starting to wonder whether you'd be ok with this were Gorsuch a liberal, I don't think it'd have taken you this long to acknowledge something is definitely wrong here. And you're not even that outraged by America's democracy being subverted.
edit: You got your wish for another Scalia on the court, hope your happy with the results.
While I understand the appeal of an approach that says, "Well, let's not do anything drastic and just let everything sort itself out," it's not an answer I'm ever gonna accept anymore.
Not when that answer means requiring me to put my faith in a ruling elite that constantly attempts to dehumanize my friends and erase their existence.
That's why Gorsuch's appointment pisses me off so much. It isn't just about the methods the GOP used to make it happen (which were completely and utterly ludicrous). It's about what they hoped to achieve by doing it. They used ethically bankrupt means to achieve inhumane ends.
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.
I'm unconvinced the answer to getting getting screwed over is laying down and taking it (especially over a vital organ in the US government like the SCOTUS). This is how new political norms are created, and the norm right now that the Republicans literally own the SCOTUS from here on out.
Why it is beyond the pale to get payback under those circumstances? When an injustice is done is your first response is to the victims to not do anything about it, like alert the authorities? The Dems are the opposition party, not the GOP's hazing recruit.
This is a serious breaking of democracy. That's why it's a constitutional crisis.
edit: Really starting to wonder whether you'd be ok with this were Gorsuch a liberal, I don't think it'd have taken you this long to acknowledge something is definitely wrong here. And you're not even that outraged by America's democracy being subverted.
edit: You got your wish for another Scalia on the court, hope your happy with the results.
Your edit is full of shit, Harry. My posts throughout have made it crystal motherfucking clear how I felt since day one on this issue. I've about had it with this thing where you just invent shit and try to pin it on me. You're being the cable news pundit who stays on his bullshit talking point no matter what. You're the talking head spouting utter nonsense and hoping no one has the memory or wherewithall to read a hundred pages just to prove you're wrong, again.
You are way the fuck out of line and I'm done responding to you.
+1
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.
Your edit is full of shit, Harry. My posts throughout have made it crystal motherfucking clear how I felt since day one on this issue. I've about had it with this thing where you just invent shit and try to pin it on me. You're being the cable news pundit who stays on his bullshit talking point no matter what. You're the talking head spouting utter nonsense and hoping no one has the memory or wherewithall to read a hundred pages just to prove you're wrong, again.
You are way the fuck out of line and I'm done responding to you.
Yes, you have - which is that what's happened isn't something to be that concerned about*. If people doubt my words they're free to check what you've said in this thread (I welcome it**), and the Scalia thing was from either the previous thread or the one before it. Of that, I remember quite clearly.
* I have said you're being more agreeable lately, but no, you don't share the degree of our outrage at the GOP doing this
** nor do they have to read the entire thread, merely the last few pages
I'll even admit I was crossing the line, for that I am sorry.
what conceivable legal basis would there even be for impeaching gorsuch
are the democrats just going to make something up? because if that's the case why stop at gorsuch
I think the point being made (and I could be wrong), is there's no legal basis. But that there doesn't NEED to be a legal basis. Congress can use whatever justification they feel like, and there's really nothing to prevent it.
Same as there was no legal reason that could have stopped Mitch McConnell from doing what he did (either refusing to hear Garland, or removing the filibuster for Gorsuch).
The argument that seems to be made, is that if we only go by what is legal, and not by what is normative, tradition and arguably "the right thing to do", then why not impeach Gorsuch?
As to why stop at Gorsuch, the belief I have is that until Democrats are able to say "Hey Republicans, you really want to go down this road?", Republicans, especially Mitch McConnell, will continue to do this, and will double down on it, if Democrats continue to play by rules that are no longer required. Either both sides adhere to norms, custom and the spirit of the law, or both sides abide by the letter of the law.
Gorsuch being impeached would be a reaction, and then a hopeful institution of codified rules (preferably by constitutional amendment) to prevent this wankery from ever happening again. I don't think many calling for the impeachment want to engage in this brinksmanship, but Republicans haven't given much choice.
The Gorsuch situation's a big enough problem to warrant drastic actions like impeaching him. We can survive putting impeachment on the table more easily than we can endure the theft of seats until the SCOTUS is so far right that Gorsuch looks like the token liberal.
Without addressing the problem, we're just waiting to see how many stolen seats it takes before we start Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo and/or see states earnestly trying secede.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
No.
Because the Dems aren't dicks who operate like the GOP. I don't know how you've seen to think both sides will do exactly the same thing under the circumstances. They're far from perfect, but identical to the GOP - nope.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
You don't think that people who vote republican aren't going to see this as being completely partisan? Because if they do (spoiler: they will), you can best believe the people they elect are going to use it as justification for impeaching any judge they don't like with even the faintest whiff of impropriety.
I agree with spool. There is no way that impeaching him doesn't make things much much worse without incontrovertible proof that he did something illegal. He's seated. Battle's over. Focus on keeping this shit storm from happening with basically every SCOTUS nominee going forward.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
You don't think that people who vote republican aren't going to see this as being completely partisan?
What aren't they going to see as completely partisan?
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
I know you believe this, and I understand why. You're approaching this whole idea from a place where you want things to be better and want to stop getting screwed by the Senate. But you're wrong; it won't be seen as punishing bad behavior. It'll be seen (and rightly so IMO) as escalated retribution, and will kick off yet another escalation from the GOP as soon as they return to power in the Congress. It will put in place a situation where the next GOP Congress removes every 'liberal' member.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
You don't think that people who vote republican aren't going to see this as being completely partisan? Because if they do (spoiler: they will), you can best believe the people they elect are going to use it as justification for impeaching any judge they don't like with even the faintest whiff of impropriety.
I agree with spool. There is no way that impeaching him doesn't make things much much worse without incontrovertible proof that he did something illegal. He's seated. Battle's over. Focus on keeping this shit storm from happening with basically every SCOTUS nominee going forward.
It's a real problem, but one where the alternative is equally troubling, and that indefinitely refusing to hold confirmation hearings for any nominee put forth by the opposing party becomes the new normal.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
You don't think that people who vote republican aren't going to see this as being completely partisan? Because if they do (spoiler: they will), you can best believe the people they elect are going to use it as justification for impeaching any judge they don't like with even the faintest whiff of impropriety.
I agree with spool. There is no way that impeaching him doesn't make things much much worse without incontrovertible proof that he did something illegal. He's seated. Battle's over. Focus on keeping this shit storm from happening with basically every SCOTUS nominee going forward.
It's a real problem, but one where the alternative is equally troubling, and that indefinitely refusing to hold confirmation hearings for any nominee put forth by the opposing party becomes the new normal.
Yea, but we have that problem regardless. The house is on fire. Impeaching Gorsuch without justifiable evidence is adding gasoline to the fire, and I'd rather not accelerate the burn. It gives us more time to figure out a solution to this clusterfuck.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
I know you believe this, and I understand why. You're approaching this whole idea from a place where you want things to be better and want to stop getting screwed by the Senate. But you're wrong; it won't be seen as punishing bad behavior. It'll be seen (and rightly so IMO) as escalated retribution, and will kick off yet another escalation from the GOP as soon as they return to power in the Congress. It will put in place a situation where the next GOP Congress removes every 'liberal' member.
They will escalate anyway. They literally just did by stealing a SCOTUS seat. That wasn't in reaction to anything other then them not wanting to lose control of the Court. The GOP has never needed a single reason to escalate or to make matters partisan. They have spent 30+ years escalating to reach this point. And they make everything partisan. They are literally making colluding with a foreign government to interfere in US elections a partisan matter right now.
So no, sorry, but this holds no weight. It's attempting to treat the Republican party as if they were good faith actors and doing this would just push them over the edge. They leapt off the edge decades ago.
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.
If the republicans win another election then they will inevitably get to nominate 2 new supreme court justices, replacing Kennedy and RBJ. If that happens, then they will not ever allow democrats to win another election.
The issue is that the Republicans are using corrupt methods to place people on the court, and that their selections are not based on who is the best legal mind but on who is the most right wing person they can get past their most centrist senator. Now, the democrats do the latter in reverse, but the problem is that corruption is corrupting. Gorsuch was appointed by corrupt means and is now seen as corrupted by every person on the left. 99% of democrats who know who he is would say he was a bad person who should not be on the court. As such, the perception of corruption removes his incentive to be fair. If he is fair, he is still seen as corrupt and hated. So he may as well become corrupt, as it will change no ones opinion of him.
And now that Gorsuch is considered corrupt, all republican members will be considered corrupt by democrats and vice versa. The system just falls to pieces. Honestly I think the only way forward is to change the system entirely, almost inevitably to a system where each person who wins the popular vote for president is allowed to select a supreme court justice to replace the longest seated justice 3 years after the election they win the popular vote in. If a justice dies, the other justices select their replacement.
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
You don't think that people who vote republican aren't going to see this as being completely partisan? Because if they do (spoiler: they will), you can best believe the people they elect are going to use it as justification for impeaching any judge they don't like with even the faintest whiff of impropriety.
I agree with spool. There is no way that impeaching him doesn't make things much much worse without incontrovertible proof that he did something illegal. He's seated. Battle's over. Focus on keeping this shit storm from happening with basically every SCOTUS nominee going forward.
It's a real problem, but one where the alternative is equally troubling, and that indefinitely refusing to hold confirmation hearings for any nominee put forth by the opposing party becomes the new normal.
Except it probably won't be the new normal. If the Democrats take back the Senate in 2018 (and that's unlikely, given the seats in play), and Kennedy DOES immediately retire as soon as the Senate is sworn in, do you think there won't be a raging shitstorm if Democrats refuse to hear a nomination until after the 2020 elections? Do you think Trump will not just declare "refusal to vote = consent"? Do you think at least enough craven Democrats wouldn't go "We have to build bridges!" if it did come to a vote?
It's simply not a partisan issue yet. It's a Republicans win, Democrats still keep thinking there are rules. That's what an impeachment of Gorsuch would mean. "You want to throw out the rules? Then let's do that. If you're willing to come to the table, we can do that too.". But taking impeachment of Gorsuch off the table is going into a compromise and conceeding half the difference off the top.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
don't you have to commit a crime to get impeached?
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
I know you believe this, and I understand why. You're approaching this whole idea from a place where you want things to be better and want to stop getting screwed by the Senate. But you're wrong; it won't be seen as punishing bad behavior. It'll be seen (and rightly so IMO) as escalated retribution, and will kick off yet another escalation from the GOP as soon as they return to power in the Congress. It will put in place a situation where the next GOP Congress removes every 'liberal' member.
I made a coherent argument on this same page (with a lot of agrees on it) that impeaching Gorsuch would not be retribution. Since you're saying it is with "and rightly so IMO" do you have a response to me?
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.
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.
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.
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.
honestly, if you have enough of congress to impeach a SCOTUS judge, you don't need to impeach a SCOTUS judge
the court is a weak tool for achieving policy and progress, and not even that strong at holding back policy vs a unified congress
they're only as important as they are because the our congresses have been so weak they've ceded all their power
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
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!
1) Gorsuch is a brick in the accelerator. He has to be removed once we have the wheel. Simply straightening will not fix this we must brake/turn around.
2) No. When one side defects and the other does not the side that does not defect loses more than they would if they also defected. Liberals and the people they represent will be better off if the democrats defect.
Also the game is iterated. If we ever want to get back to "cooperate x2" then we must defect until they come back to the table. Giving them everything they want and letting them screw us will not solve anything. As a famous politician once said* "Fool me Once? shame on you. Fool me twice? Can't get fooled again"
3) it is the only way; short of war or wishful thinking.
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
Posts
*minor de-snarkification*
People were complaining about Scalia's paid vacations.
Other people said it was no big deal.
I posited that if this situation were reversed, there would be hell to pay from the right wing media.
That's how this started, and frankly I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to postulate. Fox, Infowars, and Breitbart have made bigger deals out of less.
And we both know that was far from 'ranting'.
Moreover when one party will not respect any rules change you make anyway.
I fail to see how, at this juncture, "Breaking the Republic" is bad for democrats or their constituents compared to the current norm of "Republican's are the only party that can govern". There indeed is a risk of breaking the government sooner but from where I am sitting defecting has a chance of bringing us back from the brink and not defecting does not.
I truly do not know at this point.
getting a constitutional amendment through even a decade ago was a hilarious joke, to suggest it now is insane. You might as well say "learn magic and use that to make things better"
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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Fundamentally the issue remains that the right-wing in america, not the party but also like the mass of voters and all that, don't really think anything wrong has happened. The only thing that can happen here is power switches temporarily back to the Democrats but that doesn't stop anything because at no point will they have admitted that the things they are doing are wrong and they should stop. They will simply do it again and keep pushing till they inevitably regain power again.
And the pattern gets scarier every time. From Reagan to Bush to Trump is a line. I don't want to experience the next data point.
You're not wrong about how they would behave, but we are not the RWM and I have to assume that our various opinions would be roughly similar if the shoe was on the other foot.
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.
Well no shit, the only way we can make any plays is to win some elections, till then we're just fucked.
I'm unconvinced the answer to getting getting screwed over is laying down and taking it (especially over a vital organ in the US government like the SCOTUS). This is how new political norms are created, and the norm right now that the Republicans literally own the SCOTUS from here on out.
Why it is beyond the pale to get payback under those circumstances? When an injustice is done is your first response is to the victims to not do anything about it, like alert the authorities? The Dems are the opposition party, not the GOP's hazing recruit.
This is a serious breaking of democracy. That's why it's a constitutional crisis.
edit: Really starting to wonder whether you'd be ok with this were Gorsuch a liberal, I don't think it'd have taken you this long to acknowledge something is definitely wrong here. And you're not even that outraged by America's democracy being subverted.
edit: You got your wish for another Scalia on the court, hope your happy with the results.
Not when that answer means requiring me to put my faith in a ruling elite that constantly attempts to dehumanize my friends and erase their existence.
That's why Gorsuch's appointment pisses me off so much. It isn't just about the methods the GOP used to make it happen (which were completely and utterly ludicrous). It's about what they hoped to achieve by doing it. They used ethically bankrupt means to achieve inhumane ends.
Your edit is full of shit, Harry. My posts throughout have made it crystal motherfucking clear how I felt since day one on this issue. I've about had it with this thing where you just invent shit and try to pin it on me. You're being the cable news pundit who stays on his bullshit talking point no matter what. You're the talking head spouting utter nonsense and hoping no one has the memory or wherewithall to read a hundred pages just to prove you're wrong, again.
You are way the fuck out of line and I'm done responding to you.
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.
are the democrats just going to make something up? because if that's the case why stop at gorsuch
Yes, you have - which is that what's happened isn't something to be that concerned about*. If people doubt my words they're free to check what you've said in this thread (I welcome it**), and the Scalia thing was from either the previous thread or the one before it. Of that, I remember quite clearly.
* I have said you're being more agreeable lately, but no, you don't share the degree of our outrage at the GOP doing this
** nor do they have to read the entire thread, merely the last few pages
I'll even admit I was crossing the line, for that I am sorry.
Pretty sure they can find something debatable about how he was appointed, this isn't a Nixon situation as others have explained.
No need to lie, however the Dems do need to make sure we don't get a repeat of how Gorsuch got on the court. The GOP sure aren't going to do it.
Same as there was no legal reason that could have stopped Mitch McConnell from doing what he did (either refusing to hear Garland, or removing the filibuster for Gorsuch).
The argument that seems to be made, is that if we only go by what is legal, and not by what is normative, tradition and arguably "the right thing to do", then why not impeach Gorsuch?
As to why stop at Gorsuch, the belief I have is that until Democrats are able to say "Hey Republicans, you really want to go down this road?", Republicans, especially Mitch McConnell, will continue to do this, and will double down on it, if Democrats continue to play by rules that are no longer required. Either both sides adhere to norms, custom and the spirit of the law, or both sides abide by the letter of the law.
Gorsuch being impeached would be a reaction, and then a hopeful institution of codified rules (preferably by constitutional amendment) to prevent this wankery from ever happening again. I don't think many calling for the impeachment want to engage in this brinksmanship, but Republicans haven't given much choice.
Without addressing the problem, we're just waiting to see how many stolen seats it takes before we start Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo and/or see states earnestly trying secede.
i feel like i'm unclear on the actual process
if congress can do it to anyone then, again, why stop at gorsuch
No.
Because the Dems aren't dicks who operate like the GOP. I don't know how you've seen to think both sides will do exactly the same thing under the circumstances. They're far from perfect, but identical to the GOP - nope.
Because gorsuch is the only one there as a result of treasonous espionage.
that's exactly the argument the Impeach Him people don't care about. Aioua made it completely clear and "Damn the Consequences" is the only response. If Democrats do that to Gorsuch we move from a place where you only get a nomination if you hold the Senate and the Presidency, to a place where if you hold the House and the Senate, then the SCOTUS will immediately be emptied of all members perceived to be opposed to you.
It makes things MUCH WORSE.
No.
Also the "crime" is simply occupying the seat illegitimately based on collusion between his party and a hostile foreign power to gain that seat.
No, it moves to a place where bad behaviour is punished rather then encouraged.
You don't think that people who vote republican aren't going to see this as being completely partisan? Because if they do (spoiler: they will), you can best believe the people they elect are going to use it as justification for impeaching any judge they don't like with even the faintest whiff of impropriety.
I agree with spool. There is no way that impeaching him doesn't make things much much worse without incontrovertible proof that he did something illegal. He's seated. Battle's over. Focus on keeping this shit storm from happening with basically every SCOTUS nominee going forward.
What aren't they going to see as completely partisan?
I know you believe this, and I understand why. You're approaching this whole idea from a place where you want things to be better and want to stop getting screwed by the Senate. But you're wrong; it won't be seen as punishing bad behavior. It'll be seen (and rightly so IMO) as escalated retribution, and will kick off yet another escalation from the GOP as soon as they return to power in the Congress. It will put in place a situation where the next GOP Congress removes every 'liberal' member.
It's a real problem, but one where the alternative is equally troubling, and that indefinitely refusing to hold confirmation hearings for any nominee put forth by the opposing party becomes the new normal.
Yea, but we have that problem regardless. The house is on fire. Impeaching Gorsuch without justifiable evidence is adding gasoline to the fire, and I'd rather not accelerate the burn. It gives us more time to figure out a solution to this clusterfuck.
They will escalate anyway. They literally just did by stealing a SCOTUS seat. That wasn't in reaction to anything other then them not wanting to lose control of the Court. The GOP has never needed a single reason to escalate or to make matters partisan. They have spent 30+ years escalating to reach this point. And they make everything partisan. They are literally making colluding with a foreign government to interfere in US elections a partisan matter right now.
So no, sorry, but this holds no weight. It's attempting to treat the Republican party as if they were good faith actors and doing this would just push them over the edge. They leapt off the edge decades ago.
If the republicans win another election then they will inevitably get to nominate 2 new supreme court justices, replacing Kennedy and RBJ. If that happens, then they will not ever allow democrats to win another election.
The issue is that the Republicans are using corrupt methods to place people on the court, and that their selections are not based on who is the best legal mind but on who is the most right wing person they can get past their most centrist senator. Now, the democrats do the latter in reverse, but the problem is that corruption is corrupting. Gorsuch was appointed by corrupt means and is now seen as corrupted by every person on the left. 99% of democrats who know who he is would say he was a bad person who should not be on the court. As such, the perception of corruption removes his incentive to be fair. If he is fair, he is still seen as corrupt and hated. So he may as well become corrupt, as it will change no ones opinion of him.
And now that Gorsuch is considered corrupt, all republican members will be considered corrupt by democrats and vice versa. The system just falls to pieces. Honestly I think the only way forward is to change the system entirely, almost inevitably to a system where each person who wins the popular vote for president is allowed to select a supreme court justice to replace the longest seated justice 3 years after the election they win the popular vote in. If a justice dies, the other justices select their replacement.
It's simply not a partisan issue yet. It's a Republicans win, Democrats still keep thinking there are rules. That's what an impeachment of Gorsuch would mean. "You want to throw out the rules? Then let's do that. If you're willing to come to the table, we can do that too.". But taking impeachment of Gorsuch off the table is going into a compromise and conceeding half the difference off the top.
I made a coherent argument on this same page (with a lot of agrees on it) that impeaching Gorsuch would not be retribution. Since you're saying it is with "and rightly so IMO" do you have a response to me?
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.
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.
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.
the court is a weak tool for achieving policy and progress, and not even that strong at holding back policy vs a unified congress
they're only as important as they are because the our congresses have been so weak they've ceded all their power
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
2) No. When one side defects and the other does not the side that does not defect loses more than they would if they also defected. Liberals and the people they represent will be better off if the democrats defect.
Also the game is iterated. If we ever want to get back to "cooperate x2" then we must defect until they come back to the table. Giving them everything they want and letting them screw us will not solve anything. As a famous politician once said* "Fool me Once? shame on you. Fool me twice? Can't get fooled again"
3) it is the only way; short of war or wishful thinking.
*with a legitimately brilliant saying.
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