Agreed. Some people in here are saying that the RBG replacement right will tamp down the Democrats "enthusiasm" for the election and get the neo-con right fired up. Which is patently false. I agree with you that the Democrats are going to "fightin' mad" about this and it will only galvanize the left more.
- - - Updated - - -
We just need four.
- - - Updated - - -
He lost in 2016, except for 50,000 votes spread out over three battleground states. Please don't forget that Trump lost the popular election by an almost record margin, for having won the EC.
- - - Updated - - -
I would recommend all you suggest as well, but I'm remembering from somewhere that Congress can't pass a law that requires a supermajority to change or replace. I definitely could be wrong.
What I really think needs to happen is passing the EC "replacement" - the pact between states to have all their EC votes go to the popular majority winner. I can never remember the fucking name of that thing though.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah - if I had to guess, it's indicting Hunter Biden.
I don't know that the Dems have their version. What could be said about Trump that hasn't already been said?
- - - Updated - - -
Even if the Biden win and the Senate flips?
- - - Updated - - -
I have a dark feeling that Trump, if he loses, will still avoid literal handcuffs. I would love to see him in them, of course, in Rikers Island waving his Pence Pardon through the bars.
What would be interesting and possibly more likely, is Trump watching his children arrested and jailed.
Yeah, I was surprised too. Looked genuine.
That said, my inner cynical thinks he didn't even know who she was in that moment so he went with a safe "she led an amazing life".
About calling democrats "far left"... when your cult leader calls actual Nazis very fine people, everyone looks to be far to your left.
World needs more Goblin Warriors https://i.imgur.com/WKs8aJA.jpg
I fear you may be right here. I think Democrats need to stop going for the moral high ground and just metaphorically (because I know we have a few Cultists in here who think every Left leaning person is supportive of violence) punch the Republicans in the face. The Democrats have spent far too long being the victim of what can only be likened to a spousal abuse. They try to be better than the person putting them down but still making excuses for why they're being beaten up or gaslit.
“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
That's definitely possible (Trump not recognizing the name), but regardless, it was one of the very few genuine moments we've seen from him. And I prefer to be intellectually honest when it comes to the GOP, giving kudos where they are deserved, and in this case, he could have fucked that initial reaction up in so many different ways, but didn't.
Just as a detail note - it was when he initially stepped back at the news, and took a moment. Haven't seen him do anything human in awhile.
You do realize that currently it is technically already 5-3 even without her seat refilled. So I am not sure it would make any difference for your challenge statement.
- - - Updated - - -
I did not always agree with Ginsberg's ruling or ideas, but she was a strong, idealistic, amazing person who rose to the top of her profession.
So as much as I had problems with a lot of her opinions, she had amazing life that everyone should at least respect.
I disagree. When it comes to Trump, Roberts was NOT a fan, and so in that arena of law, I believe the court was sitting at least 5-4. Keep in mind that the court ruled 7-2 against Trump in the tax records case.
When it comes to the election shenanigans we're sure to see, I don't think it's possible to predict where the court will fall.
Roberts is tricky for sure. He definitely believes in the power of the Executive branch, but in a facially neutral case like election law, he might side with, yanno, whichever side justice is on.
He's more concerned with his legacy more than anything else, so he's a selfish asshole nonetheless.
What's more concerning is that the next Justice off the board is another liberal, and only then might Thomas decide he can safely retire if there's a 7-2 majority.
The case the surprised me was this one:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1618_hfci.pdf
Some of the conservatives on the Court aren't overstepping their bounds, but I fear that there could be pressure put on them by certain groups.
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
To be honest I think they've learnt their lesson from that disaster.
The democrats took the high ground and then the republicans ripped up every rule and norm they came across, and the democrats were big giant losers because of it.
So I don't think they'll be repeating that mistake.
Though I don't know how far they will go, at bare minimum I fully expect the democrats to rip up the fillibuster.
Hopefully though they will go much further than that and grant DC statehood, allow puerto rico to have referendum on it, as well as appoint 2 new SCOTUS judges.
The ever shrinking minority party should not nor ever have the lions share of political power.
The one thing the democrats cannot do is shift the focus of the election to this.
They need to remain focused on the economy and the virus. I fear this is going to take up too much of their messaging moving forward, which will not end well for them.
You mean like Obama's first 2 years?
These are the Democrats we're talking about here. They're better by far than the Republicans, but they're still basically a center-right ideological group. They may favor worker rights more and business rights less, but the Democrats have been in charge multiple times since the tax rate was where it should be. Did we see taxes go up on businesses or the wealthy? Nope. Puerto Rico still hasn't voted in favor of statehood. And lets not forget Guam guys. Noone has adjusted the number of SCOTUS members in over a 150 years, and if the party of "bad governance" won't do it, the Democrats sure won't.
Hell, I would honestly be surprised if the Post Office is fixed.
I don't expect the Democrats to actually do much this cycle other than not be deplorable.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Called it in 2015.
There will be confirmation hearings soon. Now, it doesnt matter who wins in nov.
I find all the fantasies about blocking a nomination, stacking the court after the elections etc fucking adorable.
Reality check guys...
Democrats will lose. Chuck Schumer will moan and gasp and sigh and put his glasses on the tip of his nose then he'll bend over and let Moscow Mitch walk all over him.
Murkowski and Romney and the rest will moan and sigh and then give Mitch his 51-49 vote.
Nancy Pelosi will moan and sigh, wear a 5000 dollar scarf, tear up some papers on TV (Yaaaaaasss Queeeeen/s) then just say - Nothing can be done.
Then come the contested elections in November and the 6-3 SCOTUS will vote 4 to 5 to hand Trump the presidency (Roberts will vote with the libs to protect his spot in the history books then retire to be replaced by another lunatic) . Then Barr can start arresting liberals and protesters for sedition and the 6-3 SCOTUS will rubber stamp every insanity that the GOP tells them to.
The notion that the Democratic Party will somehow do anything to prevent this is fucking hilarious. Chuck Schumer's and Nancy Pelosi's DNC only exists to lose to the GOP and silence progressives within the party.
Gimme a break.
I hope ya'll ready for Gilead but dumber. Cuz it's coming.
Last edited by Mihalik; 2020-09-19 at 07:02 PM.
Even if the Dems block this (and they absolutely can btw because the senate operates on an unanimous consent system), I can't imagine Biden putting anyone on the court better than a Romney. They'll then proceed to not focus on the courts once again because of their insane sense of moral high ground.
Not news that the dems want to do the bare minimum to keep their positions of power - as long as they can continuously string people along by remaining the opposition party, they never have to worry about hard stuff like court packing and expansive legislation like M4A.
People will go with it because at the end of the day, what other choice do they have?
Last edited by infinitemeridian; 2020-09-19 at 07:08 PM.
If her ego had not been so big she could have retired back when the dems still had the power to push somebody through.