Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[bodiddley]

So let's say Kavanaugh goes down.  Which is fairly likely.  Just need 2 of Collins/Murkowski or Flake/Corker to vote against him.  That's 2 women and 2 anti-Trump GOPers.  Hell, there's even a chance that this doesn't even get to a vote.  Or the committee vote is against Kav.

And then IF the Dems take the Senate, how will things play out?

Could they actually refuse to consider any Trump nominee for the next 2+ years?  Tell Trump that they will only vote for Merrick Garland and no one else?  Give Trump a list of centrist candidates that both parties could vote for, and not too far off from Kennedy (a center-right type anyway)?

[Hamilton Samuels]

Justice isn't dead in this country, but, IF the Dems take November, it will be their job to take it off life support.

[LarryBnDC]

Published this morning:

https://exjournalistsunite.wordpress.com/2018/09/23/oh-brett-with-the-finish-line-in-sight-republicans-still-could-blow-it/

[kiidcarter8]

heh

"As another woman (and possibly a third) comes forward...."

Yeah, they just have to find her, then coach her for 6 days first.

[Yankguy1]

HEH!

[NeedsAdjustments]

HEH!

kiidcarter8 prefers the party that takes 6 days to accuse, with no evidence, a middle school teachers of sexual assault while publishing his name and address on twitter.

[NeedsAdjustments]

So let's say Kavanaugh goes down.  Which is fairly likely.  Just need 2 of Collins/Murkowski or Flake/Corker to vote against him.  That's 2 women and 2 anti-Trump GOPers.  Hell, there's even a chance that this doesn't even get to a vote.  Or the committee vote is against Kav.

And then IF the Dems take the Senate, how will things play out?

Could they actually refuse to consider any Trump nominee for the next 2+ years?  Tell Trump that they will only vote for Merrick Garland and no one else?  Give Trump a list of centrist candidates that both parties could vote for, and not too far off from Kennedy (a center-right type anyway)?

Republicans would confirm their nominee during the lame-duck session, though there is some question as tho how long that would take.  If, for example, they nominated him or her (who are we kidding, him) after the November election, it would be tight.

Which makes the GOP insistence on Kavanaugh that much more noteworthy.  Plenty of reliably conservative judges out there.  Presumably, many of them without a potential criminal offense on their record.  But they badly want the political operative they have been grooming for years on the court, and as McConnell says, will ram him through.  Whatever the risk.

[NeedsAdjustments]

So let's say Kavanaugh goes down.  Which is fairly likely.  Just need 2 of Collins/Murkowski or Flake/Corker to vote against him.  That's 2 women and 2 anti-Trump GOPers.  Hell, there's even a chance that this doesn't even get to a vote.  Or the committee vote is against Kav.

And then IF the Dems take the Senate, how will things play out?

Could they actually refuse to consider any Trump nominee for the next 2+ years?  Tell Trump that they will only vote for Merrick Garland and no one else?  Give Trump a list of centrist candidates that both parties could vote for, and not too far off from Kennedy (a center-right type anyway)?

Republicans would confirm their nominee during the lame-duck session, though there is some question as tho how long that would take.  If, for example, they nominated him or her (who are we kidding, him) after the November election, it would be tight.

Which makes the GOP insistence on Kavanaugh that much more noteworthy.  Plenty of reliably conservative judges out there.  Presumably, many of them without a potential criminal offense on their record.  But they badly want the political operative they have been grooming for years on the court, and as McConnell says, will ram him through.  Whatever the risk.

As for what the Democrats do if somehow they win the Senate and the GOP fails to ram through a candidate between November and January?  My guess is they give Trump a list of acceptable centrist candidates to choose from.

Unfortunately, as beneficial as that outcome would be for our democracy, its exceedingly unlikely that this will come to pass.

[LarryBnDC]

So let's say Kavanaugh goes down.  Which is fairly likely.  Just need 2 of Collins/Murkowski or Flake/Corker to vote against him.  That's 2 women and 2 anti-Trump GOPers.  Hell, there's even a chance that this doesn't even get to a vote.  Or the committee vote is against Kav.

And then IF the Dems take the Senate, how will things play out?

Could they actually refuse to consider any Trump nominee for the next 2+ years?  Tell Trump that they will only vote for Merrick Garland and no one else?  Give Trump a list of centrist candidates that both parties could vote for, and not too far off from Kennedy (a center-right type anyway)?

Republicans would confirm their nominee during the lame-duck session, though there is some question as tho how long that would take.  If, for example, they nominated him or her (who are we kidding, him) after the November election, it would be tight.

Which makes the GOP insistence on Kavanaugh that much more noteworthy.  Plenty of reliably conservative judges out there.  Presumably, many of them without a potential criminal offense on their record.  But they badly want the political operative they have been grooming for years on the court, and as McConnell says, will ram him through.  Whatever the risk.

As for what the Democrats do if somehow they win the Senate and the GOP fails to ram through a candidate between November and January?  My guess is they give Trump a list of acceptable centrist candidates to choose from.

Unfortunately, as beneficial as that outcome would be for our democracy, its exceedingly unlikely that this will come to pass.

If the Democrats win the Senate they should insist on Merrick Garland but most likely will hold open the seat until 2021 or until this administration goes down in flames, which is probably sooner than later.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Their paid for point of view has been driving decades of politics and the media coverage of politics toward one end. Control of the federal judiciary and Supreme Court for the foreseeable future in order to legally codify the results of their legislative thievery.

It was Barack OBama thru Harry Reid who blew up the the Senate Filibuster in judges to pack the courts of appeals with justices the dems favored

This is why they have exploited social wedge issues to their advantage, why they’ve engaged in wholesale gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Gerrymandering is perfectly legal and favors the party that wins state control of drawing legislative districts. SCOTUS appointments are entirely different. Those Justices are appointed by POTUS who is elected in a national election and need the advice and consent of the US Senate comprised of Senators elected by statewide elections. The original Constitution provided that the  state legislators would appoint the US Senators but was amended in the early 20th century to allow direct election of the Senators. (17th Amendment) This happened just a few years AFTER the so-called Gilded Age
There has been no interest by anyone going backward in Senate selections.

[whiskeypriest]

So let's say Kavanaugh goes down.  Which is fairly likely.  Just need 2 of Collins/Murkowski or Flake/Corker to vote against him.  That's 2 women and 2 anti-Trump GOPers.  Hell, there's even a chance that this doesn't even get to a vote.  Or the committee vote is against Kav.

And then IF the Dems take the Senate, how will things play out?

Could they actually refuse to consider any Trump nominee for the next 2+ years?  Tell Trump that they will only vote for Merrick Garland and no one else?  Give Trump a list of centrist candidates that both parties could vote for, and not too far off from Kennedy (a center-right type anyway)?

Under a normal administration Kavanaugh would have jumped ship at the behest of the administration already ("Partisan attacks, dysfunctional Congress, not putting my family through this Blah blah blah") and a female nominee put up in his place, maybe Amy Barrett. Which would give time for the lame duck Senate to move on the nomination.

In the unlikely event the Dems win the Senate, and Grassley fails to ram through a nominee, the Dems would try to get a more moderate conservative, off Fedearlist Society List, justice from Trump.

[whiskeypriest]

Their paid for point of view has been driving decades of politics and the media coverage of politics toward one end. Control of the federal judiciary and Supreme Court for the foreseeable future in order to legally codify the results of their legislative thievery.

It was Barack OBama thru Harry Reid who blew up the the Senate Filibuster in judges to

move lower court appointments past an obstructionist Senate minority that refused to allow a vote on essentially any nominees, and only after other attempts to break the logjam had failed.

This is why they have exploited social wedge issues to their advantage, why they’ve engaged in wholesale gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Gerrymandering is perfectly legal and favors the party that wins state control of drawing legislative districts. SCOTUS appointments are entirely different. Those Justices are appointed by POTUS who is elected in a national election and need the advice and consent of the US Senate comprised of Senators elected by statewide elections. The original Constitution provided that the  state legislators would appoint the US Senators but was amended in the early 20th century to allow direct election of the Senators. (17th Amendment) This happened just a few years AFTER the so-called Gilded Age
There has been no interest by anyone going backward in Senate selections.

Thank you for the uninteresting and irrelevant 3rd grade civics lesson.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Their paid for point of view has been driving decades of politics and the media coverage of politics toward one end. Control of the federal judiciary and Supreme Court for the foreseeable future in order to legally codify the results of their legislative thievery.

It was Barack OBama thru Harry Reid who blew up the the Senate Filibuster in judges to

move lower court appointments past an obstructionist Senate minority that refused to allow a vote on essentially any nominees, and only after other attempts to break the logjam had failed.

This is why they have exploited social wedge issues to their advantage, why they’ve engaged in wholesale gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Gerrymandering is perfectly legal and favors the party that wins state control of drawing legislative districts. SCOTUS appointments are entirely different. Those Justices are appointed by POTUS who is elected in a national election and need the advice and consent of the US Senate comprised of Senators elected by statewide elections. The original Constitution provided that the  state legislators would appoint the US Senators but was amended in the early 20th century to allow direct election of the Senators. (17th Amendment) This happened just a few years AFTER the so-called Gilded Age
There has been no interest by anyone going backward in Senate selections.

Thank you for the uninteresting and irrelevant 3rd grade civics lesson.

You are more than welcome. I’m glad you understood it.

[bodiddley]

Gerrymandering is not perfectly legal if its done with discriminatory intent.

[Yankguy1]

Red's a teacher, after all.