dawp
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2005
- 11,347
- 2,709
- 136
I think reagan nominating Bork was malintentioned. he had to know borks history with nixonNot to mention that Reagan’s next nomination was confirmed. Malintent not found.
I think reagan nominating Bork was malintentioned. he had to know borks history with nixonNot to mention that Reagan’s next nomination was confirmed. Malintent not found.
I have in other threads on the topic, and a quick Google search yields numerous articles that caution why court stacking is a bad idea.
The judiciary is meant to be the neutral arbitrators of Constitutionality. Judicial appointments should be a relatively uninteresting function of government. Instead, both parties perceive the judiciary as their partisan Maginot line to protect their legislative achievements. Who fired the first shot in politicizing the judiciary? Who cares. In my lifetime, there’s been a series of escalations. Democrats attacked the character of Bork, to the extent that the term “borked” exists in the Webster dictionary as a form of political defamation. Democrats also obstructed Bush’s appellate court appointments because Republicans have had better success in building a pipeline of judges to SCOTUS.
In retaliation, the GOP in turn escalated the use of the filibuster to obstruct Obama judicial appointments and took the unprecedented step of blocking a SCOTUS nomination.
In your mind, I am sure it is acceptable for the Democrats to further escalate by packing the court. This short sighted strategy of course assumes that the GOP will never be in a position again to respond in kind.
Mitch and Reid broke the Senate together. I accept that you will never acknowledge this.
Which is good, but we've all played X-Com, so we know just how much of a guarantee that isn't.Fivethirtyeight has boosted Biden victory odds to 80%.
They’re both in the kitchen. I’ll make some tea.The pot is wondering where’s the kettle.
Trump does lie all the time, so its fair game to point that out. Doesn’t change the fact that “borked” is a recognized term for political character assassination. My feelings are irrelevant as it relates to observable truth.More ignorance from you. You could show just a tiny bit of decency and at least fact check your feels. Your “character assasination” (another gop talking point), was not unprecedented as pointing out ones questionable actions isn’t beyond the pale. That would be like claiming that bringing up the fact that trump lies all the time is unfair. That would be incredibly stupid.
I relied on historical fact and opinions written well outside the GOP sphere. I mostly read the Atlantic, the New Yorker, Politico and the NY Times.So declining to approve of a Supreme Court nomination is what started this? You say this despite the fact that less than 20 years earlier (as in two presidents prior) Nixon had two nominations rejected and there were five rejections prior to that after the civil war.
For someone who claims to be outside the echo chamber you sure do seem real good at repeating gop talking points.
You are a perfect example of why “both side” bitches are intellectually lazy. Instead of relying on actual facts, you relied on your feels, which relied on bs talking points.
They’re both in the kitchen. I’ll make some tea.
Well, Biden's mic will be on and that could go not only to the TV feed but to the PA in the facility, pretty much drowning out Trump's whatever if Trump's mic is off. Additionally, it's possible to have either or both candidates wear sound isolating headphones/earbuds, that block out ambient sound, and if those are noise cancelling they could be configured to only be so while the candidate is talking, i.e. when it's their turn. It's doable. Lots of doable stuff isn't done but it's not an insurmountable problem, is what I'm saying. The important thing is that the candidates can hear the moderator and hear their opponent when appropriate. If it's candidate X's turn to speak and enjoy silence from their opponent, that's doable. Additionally, the flack can be blocked from the TV feed, and that would be quite appropriate. Candidate X can blather, but nobody would hear him, even the people in the facility if the mic-ed candidate's feed goes through the PA system.The problem with just cutting the mic off is that when Trump won't shut the fuck up, Biden, Wallace, and everyone else in the room will still hear him talk. Just us at home won't. And it will still have an effect on Biden for sure.
They basically need him in a sound proof box so when his mic is off no one can hear his fat ass blabbing.
“Why would I allow the Debate Commission to change the rules for the second and third Debates when I easily won last time?” Trump said Thursday on Twitter.
Using the Trump projection translator, he lost biglyTrump just tweeted he doesn't want any rule changes because he thinks he won.
Fivethirtyeight has boosted Biden victory odds to 80%.
Which is good, but we've all played X-Com, so we know just how much of a guarantee that isn't.
Trump does lie all the time, so its fair game to point that out. Doesn’t change the fact that “borked” is a recognized term for political character assassination. My feelings are irrelevant as it relates to observable truth.
Well, Biden's mic will be on and that could go not only to the TV feed but to the PA in the facility, pretty much drowning out Trump's whatever if Trump's mic is off. Additionally, it's possible to have either or both candidates wear sound isolating headphones/earbuds, that block out ambient sound, and if those are noise cancelling they could be configured to only be so while the candidate is talking, i.e. when it's their turn. It's doable. Lots of doable stuff isn't done but it's not an insurmountable problem, is what I'm saying. The important thing is that the candidates can hear the moderator and hear their opponent when appropriate. If it's candidate X's turn to speak and enjoy silence from their opponent, that's doable. Additionally, the flack can be blocked from the TV feed, and that would be quite appropriate. Candidate X can blather, but nobody would hear him, even the people in the facility if the mic-ed candidate's feed goes through the PA system.
Oh, I know! And I've been arguing for months now that while complacency is bad, so is cynical fatalism.If the election were held today Trump would be at a 9% chance of winning according to 538.
The 538 projection is based on Election Day and it presumes he will improve. Every day he doesn’t improve he’s changes on Election Day will go day some. The presumption he will improve some may not come true. If he doesn’t improve his election chances are in the single digits.
That means his team is working overtime to change the rules.Trump just tweeted he doesn't want any rule changes because he thinks he won.
Or bail out.That means his team is working overtime to change the rules.
They are literal trash. All of them. At this point anybody who votes for Trump to me is also trash.
I don't care what they do. Nazis in the 30's had families. Fascists walked their dogs and pet them. KKK members baked pies and shared with neighbors. Stalinists bought each other shots at the bar and gregariously told stories. Whatever.
Still fundamentally they were trash humans.
They won't bail out. They need a flip of the script. They're brainstorming, trying to get some angle, some wedge into Biden's armor. Trump's personal instinct is to try to get under his opponent's skin. He's been doing this since he threw his hat in the ring in 2016. He isn't going to stop. Any chance he gets he's on attack. People noticed he's got no plans for the country. Maybe he'll throw some meat on that fire in the next debates.Or bail out.
But if the rules basically disable his "style" that, being a bully, then he can't participate.They won't bail out. They need a flip of the script. They're brainstorming, trying to get some angle, some wedge into Biden's armor. Trump's personal instinct is to try to get under his opponent's skin. He's been doing this since he threw his hat in the ring in 2016. He isn't going to stop. Any chance he gets he's on attack. People noticed he's got no plans for the country. Maybe he'll throw some meat on that fire in the next debates.
But if the rules basically disable his "style" that, being a bully, then he can't participate.They won't bail out. They need a flip of the script. They're brainstorming, trying to get some angle, some wedge into Biden's armor. Trump's personal instinct is to try to get under his opponent's skin. He's been doing this since he threw his hat in the ring in 2016. He isn't going to stop. Any chance he gets he's on attack. People noticed he's got no plans for the country. Maybe he'll throw some meat on that fire in the next debates.
I was around for those hearings and the opposition was legit. It's not "character assassination" when you are pointing out Borks published and legal history of hostility towards civil rights, LGBT and being a general prick of man.
If you are fine with a supreme court justice who believes Freedom of Speech is only protected when its political speech and all other speech is not observed...then he's your guy
If you believe the Civil rights act is bullshit...then he's your guy.
If you want someone who is willing to act in an unethical manner on befalf of the president then he's your guy.
The only people morning the loss of Bork are those who are pissed off about black, gays and non-evangeilcal people daring to open their motuhs when Jesus is speaking.
A basic review of Supreme Court nominations, failed and successful would probably be useful for you.