Ted Cruz and the Incredibly Shrinking Supreme Court

[Cthulhu 2020]

What's funny is Republicans have a very real chance of losing the senate due to Trump creating voter apathy among Republicans. Democrats are pretty united that while Hillary isn't a great candidate, stopping Trump from getting in the white house is of the utmost importance, meanwhile the alt-right has alienated much of the moderate right. And the ultimate irony is that they believe they speak for some silent majority, when in reality they could have rallied the "Silent majority" under a better banner. Instead they picked Trump, and continue to defend and justify Trump's failings, ineptitude, misdeeds, and all around fuckery, alienating that silent majority and have sent them either running to the Hillary camp, or just plain old staying home. For a classical moderate conservative, Hillary is the perfect pick. And that staying home is what is going to potentially cost them the senate.

So if the Dems win the senate because her fuhrer Trump loses gloriously and manages to disenfranchise enough Republican voters, have fun with Hillary's picks for supreme court. Obama's picks were all moderates, sitting squarely in the middle when it came to policy decisions. Hillary has a whole basket of very liberal judges lined up, so Republicans get to cry giant tears if they lose the senate, because it means losing the supreme court to very liberal judges.

As we've also seen a good majority of the Bernie supporters are in the Clinton camp (so much for Bernie or bust) meanwhile less than 10% went to Trump. I imagine Hillary conceding on many of the issues that were important to Bernie voters helped there big time. And for anyone who thinks Clinton is going to betray that and do the opposite... rofl, the Democrats stand to lose and lose and lose for decades to come if the Bernie camp is pissed off. The cost of some more college subsidies and creating greater government subsidized health care is small compared to the cost of not having control. Some of the Berners still holding out may think she's lying, but you have to be blind deaf and dumb to not realize that appeasing your voting bloc to stay in power is just as important as having that power to further your own status and goals.

[Sargerasraider]

What's funny is Republicans have a very real chance of losing the senate due to Trump creating voter apathy among Republicans.

The Republicans are defending 24 seats to the Democrats 10. Current RealClearPolitics average has them losing only a net of 2 seats which would be a small miracle even if Trump weren't the nominee. It will be very close and I think we'll have a good sense of where things are going on 11/9.

[Lenonis]

*snip*

Oopsy, didn't see the mod edit until too late.

Back on topic -- Anyone want to try to argue that the GOP isn't obstructionist? I always enjoyed the "it's POTUS and the Dems who are being obstructionist, not the GOP" arguments that were made out of something even flimsier than paper.

[Chrysia]

Royalty has always done crazy shot that nobody else is allowed to do. Not having evidence of marriages outside of 2 emperors does not qualify as proving that Rome had gay marriages.

You still haven't justified your claim that the Senate can dissolve the other two branches of government in direct contradiction to the fucking Constitution.

[Machismo]

The Republicans are defending 24 seats to the Democrats 10. Current RealClearPolitics average has them losing only a net of 2 seats which would be a small miracle even if Trump weren't the nominee. It will be very close and I think we'll have a good sense of where things are going on 11/9.

538 has it going better for the Democrats:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...=2016-forecast

It will be interesting to see which is right.

[Lenonis]

The Republicans are defending 24 seats to the Democrats 10. Current RealClearPolitics average has them losing only a net of 2 seats which would be a small miracle even if Trump weren't the nominee. It will be very close and I think we'll have a good sense of where things are going on 11/9.

I'm not sure we're looking at the same things.

Missouri is a statistical tie given the margins of error.
Illinois is going to flip to the dems.
Wisconsin is going to flip to the dems.
Indiana the Dem candidate has a healthy lead.
Pennsylvania is a statistical tie.
New Hampshire is a statistical tie.

In no race does a Republican flip a Dem held seat.

All of this from the RCP site. So care you elaborate on what data you are talking about?

538 has a large chance the Dems flip the Senate.

[Chrysia]

538 has it going better for the Democrats:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...=2016-forecast

It will be interesting to see which is right.

RCP tends to be biased slightly conservative.

[BannedForViews]

But if a Republican was to be elected President, let's roll out the red carpet. These clowns are amazing in both obstructionism and hypocrisy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rt-seat-empty/

Don't pretend like Democrats don't also "obstruct" Republican nominees. He isn't a hypocrite, he is supporting his cause. His cause is to not have Democrats in power. It is quite a noble cause and I wish him well at it.

[Machismo]

RCP tends to be biased slightly conservative.

I think RCP is a bit off when it comes to actually making decisions, and yes, it does seem to favor conservatives. I think their real problem is that they are so hesitant to make determinations in battleground states. 538 nailed it in 2012, I mean it was scary accurate.

[Chrysia]

Don't pretend like Democrats don't also "obstruct" Republican nominees. He isn't a hypocrite, he is supporting his cause. His cause is to not have Democrats in power. It is quite a noble cause and I wish him well at it.

Democrats have never refused to meet a nominee for months.

[Tijuana]

But if a Republican was to be elected President, let's roll out the red carpet. These clowns are amazing in both obstructionism and hypocrisy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rt-seat-empty/

Democrats have refused many many Republican nominations. Why are you acting like this is some scandalous thing to deny one?

I mean the term "Borked" is a direct reference to Bork being denied his seat by Democrats.

[Lenonis]

Don't pretend like Democrats don't also "obstruct" Republican nominees.

When has this happened? And I mean actually happened, not have one or two people shoot off at the mouth?

EDIT -- the real problem with this isn't objection to a specific nominee, but rather the blanket statement that any nominee wouldn't be considered. So Hillary could nominate the perfect candidate and they wouldn't proceed with it. That's just not how things are supposed to work.

And given the constant original intent "what would the founding fathers want" nonsense from the right, for them to support this, once again, just shows the party is just nothing but pure hypocrisy.

Can't wait to see them go down in flames this election -- only wish they'd lose every seat they have up for election to really get the message across. Ah well.

[Chrysia]

Democrats have refused many many Republican nominations. Why are you acting like this is some scandalous thing to deny one?

There is a difference between rejecting a nominee and refusing to rule on a nominee.

[Tijuana]

When has this happened? And I mean actually happened, not have one or two people shoot off at the mouth?

Robert Bork, Harriet Myers...

I mean we could look them all up or w/e but surely you are aware that the reason there is congressional confirmation in the process, that congress can deny the seat. Why else would they be involved in the process?

[Chrysia]

Robert Bork, Harriet Myers...

I mean we could look them all up or w/e but surely you are aware that the reason there is congressional confirmation in the process, that congress can deny the seat. Why else would they be involved in the process?

Both of them received confirmation hearings...

[Lenonis]

Robert Bork, Harriet Myers...

I mean we could look them all up or w/e but surely you are aware that the reason there is congressional confirmation in the process, that congress can deny the seat. Why else would they be involved in the process?

Jesus.

Robert Bork has a vote for christ sake.

Harriet Myers had a hearing and did so poorly the White House withdrew the nomination.

That isn't obstructionism. In fact that's the exact opposite -- that's having the process move as intended.

Holy cow....

[Wyrt]

He does realize it's their job to do this thing right? If they want to deny a justice then they are supposed to give advice to the president about why that person is being denied and what would make a more appropriate justice.

"Herp derp, you is Democrat so we won't do our job, hurr durr," is just straight unconstitutional.

[Tijuana]

Jesus.

Robert Bork has a vote for christ sake.

Harriet Myers had a hearing and did so poorly the White House withdrew the nomination.

That isn't obstructionism. In fact that's the exact opposite -- that's having the process move as intended.

Holy cow....

It's not obstructionism to deny a former president's choice.

This is not new either.

[fengosa]

Robert Bork, Harriet Myers...

I mean we could look them all up or w/e but surely you are aware that the reason there is congressional confirmation in the process, that congress can deny the seat. Why else would they be involved in the process?

The senate disapproved of those candidate and others were nominated in their place. Merrick Garland was nominated to the first circuit 100-0 so that's not the issue here. Also, nowhere did the dems suggest 4 years of obstructing nominations the way Cruz did.

[Lenonis]

It's not obstructionism to deny a former president's choice.

This is not new either.

It's obstructionism to not hold hearings or proceed with the process. How is this even a debate? Do you really not understand the differences here?