What are Your Thoughts on Democrats Calling Supreme Court Illegitimate, and State AG’s Vowing not to Enforce Abortion Bans? (1 Viewer)

[ekbeats]

They can.  I don't have to agree with all prosecutorial decisions, but it's pretty clear they can.

Did you see the Gascon decision a few weeks ago?  Thoughts?

 

[Rich Conway]

Did you see the Gascon decision a few weeks ago?  Thoughts?

There seems to be an awful lot going on there.  I'm not sure I understand the details just from that article.  In short, I don't really know.

 

[parasaurolophus]

There seems to be an awful lot going on there.  I'm not sure I understand the details just from that article.  In short, I don't really know.

In short Gascon is one of the worst people on earth. 

 

[GordonGekko]

Small aside.... I'm not so sure. Granted current politics warps everything but really... there are 13 federal districts, there should 13 Justices.

If the current SCOTUS makeup was 6-3 in favor of left leaning Justices over Conservative leaning Justices, would you feel the same way on the uptick to 13 with Republicans holding POTUS and Congress?

What happens if an expanded SCOTUS one day in the future ends up 8-5 that favors the left? Once you open that can of worms to expand the Court, you can't complain if it happens again. What happens when demands for the Court to shift to 17 arise? When does the court packing stop?

In the past you've said SCOTUS Thomas should recuse himself from cases over his wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas' comments and text messages. Do you understand what a dangerous slippery slope that creates?

In the past you've also called for SCOTUS Thomas to resign from the Court over his wife's J6 controversy. This ignores that SCOTUS does not have a formal Code of Ethics. The reason for that is it would involve Congress and start to seep at the issues of Separation Of Powers, which impacts Checks And Balances.

Here's a crazy idea. Have your Party just win elections. Lots of them. Literally find great people who care about the public who go out and deliver wins for everyday working class people and their kids and make their lives so much better. Then those people will want to come out and vote for those officials. Replicate that many times and you can have the majorities in place to get the kinds of policies and laws you want and have them upheld. How about that instead? YOU KNOW, THOSE PESKY ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES.

Venezuela tried what you are talking about and how did that work out for them? 

All the Conservatives here should get together and chip in and get you a Banana Republic gift card for Xmas.

 

[renesauz]

Attempting to pack SCOTUS will trigger an open civil war.

Also looking at history, FDR tried it and took massive losses because of it. And it's unlikely Manchin will move on the filibuster. It will end his political career. He and his daughter will have to live in hiding the rest of their lives if he nuked the filibuster.

Pablo Escobar and Los Pepes as historical context. Fringe radicals on both sides will selectively target the families of all Senators. All of them. Team Blue or Team Red, won't matter.

If a Senator is assassinated, the value of the threat has to be repeated. If a family member of a Senator is picked off, then that Senator has to weigh out the lives of the family they still have left. This is the methodology used by both Pablo Escobar and Los Pepes.

All of Congress and their families would need to be sequestered. Likely won't happen until after the first few staged attacks. And for how long?

I'd personally prefer not to live in an upscale version of Venezuela. Some of you still see politics like a team sport. 

Packing the Court is a bridge too far for the extremists on both sides of the aisle. It's a force multiplier on every political wedge issue in the country.

While I generally agree with this statement, you do realize that MANY folks believe McConnel and Trump packed THIS supreme court, right? Many are still angry that Obama's nomination never even got a hearing with plenty of time to do so, yet Trump's was quite literally pushed through with very little time to spare.  (To be fair, they both should have gone through, and Conservatives would still hold a slim majority now)

 

[Rich Conway]

In short Gascon is one of the worst people on earth. 

That may well be, but certainly not due solely to the contents of that article.

Besides, he's got the entire list of MAGA politicians ahead of him on that worst people list. 

 

[Mookie]

How about AG's not enforcing gun restrictions?

Again, prosecutorial discretion is a real thing.  Prosecutors are politically accountable.

 

[Mookie]

While I generally agree with this statement, you do realize that MANY folks believe McConnel and Trump packed THIS supreme court, right? Many are still angry that Obama's nomination never even got a hearing with plenty of time to do so, yet Trump's was quite literally pushed through with very little time to spare.  (To be fair, they both should have gone through, and Conservatives would still hold a slim majority now)

If Garland were on the Court, and not Gorsuch, Roe would still be good law.  McConnell and the Republicans most definitely packed the Court, which has led to its recent failings as it is degenerating into a political institution.

 

[Coach Beard]

Not so fast.  There was some precedent to what Mitch and the Republicans did in both instances.  There haven't been a whole lot of instances where a SC vacancy has opened up in an election year where there is split government (ie - Dem Pres, Repub. Senate) and a Presidential nomination has been made.  It has only happened 3 times in our history prior to 2016 (1844, 1852, and 1888).  In the first two instances the Senate tabled the nomination and let it lapse, exactly as Mitch did with the Garland nomination.  In 1888, we had our one and only instance  where the Senate took up a vote and confirmed the nominee - and that was a Republican Senate.  To summarize, when the scenario listed above has come up, the historic custom has always been the Senate gets to decide if they want to take up the nomination or table it.  When Democrats controlled the Senate (one time, in 1852) they didn't take up a vote and let it lapse.  0-1.  When Republicans controlled the Senate (twice, in 1888 and 2016) they confirmed once and they let it lapse once.  1-1.  The other instance (1844) was when the Whig party controlled the Senate, and they let it lapse.  0-1.

And it's not like that custom hasn't been known to politicians.  Strom Thurmond talked about it so much in1968 (on a SC promotion rather than a vacancy) that some started referring to it as the Thurmond Rule.

And then there's this guy, who in the middle of an election year where there was a Republican President and Democrat Senate, said these words on the Senate floor:

That guy?  Joe Biden.

A little feedback…

The 19th century Republican Party and the 19th century Democratic Party bear no resemblance to the parties of those names today.  So saying things like “And that was a Republican Senate” about an action from 1888 doesn’t have the implication you’re trying to make and signals to high-information people about US political history that you aren’t one of them.  
The major parties as they exist today didn’t start to take shape until the 1960s.  The Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society redrew the political party lines.    

The 1844 Supreme Court nominee, Edward King, was a national figure by 1844 jurist standards because of his work establishing equity courts in Pennsylvania.  The resistance to his nomination wasn’t because of an election timetable, but because of his work and beliefs.  King was nominated again for SCOTUS in 1845 and his nomination was refused to be considered a second time.  So claiming King’s nomination lapsed because an election was coming isn’t supported by the available evidence.

When Republicans refused to hear Garland’s nomination in 2016, Biden’s floor speech from 1992 was frequently touted by conservatives as justification for the action, claiming the Vice President agreed with the action.  Sometimes the speech was given unearned importance by calling it things like “Biden Doctrine” even though no actions followed the speech.  Giving the speech some sort of Paul Harvey treatment today is strange given how often it was brought up from 2016-2020.

 

[ekbeats]

A little feedback…

The 19th century Republican Party and the 19th century Democratic Party bear no resemblance to the parties of those names today.  So saying things like “And that was a Republican Senate” about an action from 1888 doesn’t have the implication you’re trying to make and signals to high-information people about US political history that you aren’t one of them.  
The major parties as they exist today didn’t start to take shape until the 1960s.  The Civil Rights Movement and the Great Society redrew the political party lines.

I appreciate the feedback, but I’m not all that interested in impressing the “high information” crowd.  That’s not why I’m here.

Your point on party platforms changing is a fair one.  And for the most part I agree with you that the political parties of 2022 can trace most of their dna back to the monumental realignment that occurred in the 60’s.  I’d also add that the Trump Presidency has ushered in another era of substantive change that is still sorting itself out.  Unfortunately the stench of his personality has been a huge distraction in analyzing these changes.   But there are some trends that appear to be real.  Latinos are joining the Republican ranks in big numbers, as are suburban Moms who are completely turned off by Democrat wokism.  So yeah, parties change.  But the history doesn’t.  Everyone is free to define the period and policies that best reflects today’s Republican Party, and if that bears any resemblance to the party of 1888.  It doesn’t change the fact that Republicans are the only party that has ever approved a Supreme Court nominee during an election year when the vacancy was created.

The 1844 Supreme Court nominee, Edward King, was a national figure by 1844 jurist standards because of his work establishing equity courts in Pennsylvania.  The resistance to his nomination wasn’t because of an election timetable, but because of his work and beliefs.  King was nominated again for SCOTUS in 1845 and his nomination was refused to be considered a second time.  So claiming King’s nomination lapsed because an election was coming isn’t supported by the available evidence.

There's evidence.  The Whigs wanted John Crittenden for the Supreme Court, and if Whig candidate Henry Clay were to win the upcoming Presidential election, “Crittendon no doubt would receive the appointment, if the filling of the vacancy could be delayed until after the election.” [New York Journal of Commerce, March 19, 1844]

There’s another Whig newspaper editorial that encouraged the Senate – “Better the bench should be vacant for a year, than filled for half a century by corrupt or feeble men, or partisans committed in advance to personal beliefs.” [National Intelligencer, April 26, 1844]

When Henry Clay failed to win the Presidency, a former Whig Reporter of the Supreme Court wrote a letter to Justice John McLean: “I was not the advocate of the confirmation of Judge King, when hopes were entertained that we would elect Mr. Clay.  The question now is presented in in very different aspects, and I most earnestly desire that he shall be confirmed.” [John McLean Papers MSS, letter of Peters to McLean, Dec. 6, 1844]  

When Republicans refused to hear Garland’s nomination in 2016, Biden’s floor speech from 1992 was frequently touted by conservatives as justification for the action, claiming the Vice President agreed with the action.  Sometimes the speech was given unearned importance by calling it things like “Biden Doctrine” even though no actions followed the speech.  Giving the speech some sort of Paul Harvey treatment today is strange given how often it was brought up from 2016-2020.

My point in bringing up Thurmond and Biden was noted - “And it's not like that custom hasn't been known to politicians.”  I was refuting the Democrat’s argument that what McConnell did was unprecedented.  The very post I responded to called it “cheating the spirit of the law.”  The spirit of a law is best indicated by the customs that developed from it.  And evidence of this is best seen in the politicians who knew of it and cited it.  As Joe Biden said, “President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”  Hard to criticize what Mitch did in light of the historical facts.

 

[dkp993]

If Garland were on the Court, and not Gorsuch, Roe would still be good law.  McConnell and the Republicans most definitely packed the Court, which has led to its recent failings as it is degenerating into a political institution.

This is simply not true, Garland wasn’t ever getting though. He didn’t have the votes.  

 

[Mookie]

This is simply not true, Garland wasn’t ever getting though. He didn’t have the votes.  

And why is that? 

 

[dkp993]

And why is that? 

He wasn’t getting through the Senate.  The GOP controlled it at the time and no R’s were breaking rank to vote in a “left” judge. 

 

[Mookie]

He wasn’t getting through the Senate.  The GOP controlled it at the time and no R’s were breaking rank to vote in a “left” judge. 

Proving my point.  The Republicans weren't ever going to accept ANY Obama nomination as they were Hellbent on stacking the Court with their political shills.  They turned the Court into their own political wing, and can't criticize those who question its legitimacy and independence.   

 

[IvanKaramazov]

He wasn’t getting through the Senate.  The GOP controlled it at the time and no R’s were breaking rank to vote in a “left” judge. 

This is another thing that needs to die.  Garland was a perfectly well-qualified nominee.  There was no good reason why any Republican should vote against him.  "I don't like how I think he'll vote" shouldn't be accepted as a legitimate reason for voting against a president's nominee.

 

[dkp993]

Proving my point.  The Republicans weren't ever going to accept ANY Obama nomination as they were Hellbent on stacking the Court with their political shills.  They turned the Court into their own political wing, and can't criticize those who question its legitimacy and independence.   

OK. So. Like the Democrats don’t do the exact same thing. And besides that is not what I quoted from you. You were talking about McConnells blocking of the nomination. The point I was making was ultimately that was a pointless act. Which for the record was exactly McConnell‘s point in that he wasn’t getting through so we’re not gonna hear him. To me that’s a shortsighted decision because all that does is focus the attention on you not putting him through. But either way the results were going to be the same.

 

[dkp993]

This is another thing that needs to die.  Garland was a perfectly well-qualified nominee.  There was no good reason why any Republican should vote against him.  "I don't like how I think he'll vote" shouldn't be accepted as a legitimate reason for voting against a president's nominee.

This I 100% agree with, But that’s not the reality of what actually happened or would’ve happened. That’s more wish casting about how it should go. 

 

[dickey moe]

This is another thing that needs to die.  Garland was a perfectly well-qualified nominee.  There was no good reason why any Republican should vote against him.  "I don't like how I think he'll vote" shouldn't be accepted as a legitimate reason for voting against a president's nominee.

Good luck... that cat's been out of the bag since the late 80s.

 

[jm192]

While I generally agree with this statement, you do realize that MANY folks believe McConnel and Trump packed THIS supreme court, right? Many are still angry that Obama's nomination never even got a hearing with plenty of time to do so, yet Trump's was quite literally pushed through with very little time to spare.  (To be fair, they both should have gone through, and Conservatives would still hold a slim majority now)

But now we're playing word games.

Most people mean "Expanding the court to give yourself the majority" when they say court packing.  McConnel certainly played politics to get their guys/gals.  But they didn't go creating new spots to get their way.  So if we're going to argue "Well McConnel packed the court," then we really need a new phrase for what the Democrats are looking to do.  

I suspect we won't see them expand it to 10 or 12.  We probably need 13, just enough to give the Democrats the majority.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

What about This?

 

[tymarsas]

What about This?

Clearly awful. Reading that person's tweets makes it very obvious he is a hateful person. Anger doesn't justify saying stuff like that.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Clearly awful. Reading that person's tweets makes it very obvious he is a hateful person. Anger doesn't justify saying stuff like that.

The number of white liberals in the last week referring to Thomas using that word has been quite alarming. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But now we're playing word games.

Most people mean "Expanding the court to give yourself the majority" when they say court packing.  McConnel certainly played politics to get their guys/gals.  But they didn't go creating new spots to get their way.  So if we're going to argue "Well McConnel packed the court," then we really need a new phrase for what the Democrats are looking to do.  

I suspect we won't see them expand it to 10 or 12.  We probably need 13, just enough to give the Democrats the majority.  

This is all true.  Also, history did not actually begin in 2016.  

We should commission a couple of teams -- one representing the red tribe and one representing the blue tribe.  Each team has one job: list and describe all the outrages, indignities, and atrocities inflicted on your tribe's judicial nominees by the other tribe from 1987 up until today.  We can look at each team's narrative and decide whether either side really has any business whining about the past or demanding restitution.  (The answer will be that both tribes have behaved terribly and both should be ashamed of themselves). 

 

[Snotbubbles]

It doesn’t say anything about concealed firearms either. 

Why do people keep saying this?  The term "bear" means "to carry".         

 

[Snotbubbles]

Why won't he consider equal protection analysis for abortion laws on the basis of gender?  

From Dobbs:

Others have suggested that support can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but that theory is squarely foreclosed by the Court’s precedents, which establish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification and is thus not subject to the heightened scrutiny that applies to such classifications.

Neither Roe nor Casey saw fit to invoke this theory, and it is squarely foreclosed by our precedents, which establish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification and is thus not subject to the “heightened scrutiny” that applies to such classifications.17 The regulation of a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny unless the regulation is a “mere pretex[t] designed to effect an invidious discrimination against members of one sex or the other.” Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484, 496, n. 20 (1974). And as the Court has stated, the “goal of preventing abortion” does not constitute “invidiously discriminatory animus” against women. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 273–274 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, laws regulating or prohibiting abortion are not subject to heightened scrutiny. Rather, they are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures.1

 

[Snotbubbles]

While I generally agree with this statement, you do realize that MANY folks believe McConnel and Trump packed THIS supreme court, right? Many are still angry that Obama's nomination never even got a hearing with plenty of time to do so, yet Trump's was quite literally pushed through with very little time to spare.  (To be fair, they both should have gone through, and Conservatives would still hold a slim majority now)

They certainly should have had a hearing for the sake of appearances but the Senate wasn't going to confirm Garland even with a hearing and they were under no obligation to do so.    

 

[Snotbubbles]

Proving my point.  The Republicans weren't ever going to accept ANY Obama nomination as they were Hellbent on stacking the Court with their political shills.  They turned the Court into their own political wing, and can't criticize those who question its legitimacy and independence.   

It would have been hard for them to pack the Supreme Court with their political shills if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016.  They also had no idea RBG would die.  

 

[tymarsas]

The number of white liberals in the last week referring to Thomas using that word has been quite alarming. 

It appears that user account is just a troll account. But it should've been banned about 3 seconds after they made that tweet.

 

[Westerberg]

The democrats could pretty much do anything they want right now if they themselves were a unified front. They aren't. 

That isn't an attack on the principles of our government, its the nature of our government.  It's ok that some change is slow. I totally get that there are many marginalized people who will never agree with me on that. I really do get it. But in a democratic system it is better for the government to move slow in policy and catch up to the people than the other way around. At least IMHO.

Huh? The point is that these changes are not slow. We’re having rapid change that we are powerless to stop.

Even if Dems were unified, what could they do right now?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Huh? The point is that these changes are not slow. We’re having rapid change that we are powerless to stop.

Even if Dems were unified, what could they do right now?

Roe was a sudden change that its opponents were powerless to stop.  Our only recourse was to win a bunch of elections, appoint a bunch of judges, and flip the court.  That took half a century.

By way of contrast, you've seen (or should have seen) Dobbs coming for years.  Pro-choicers have had ample warning to get their act together.  And unlike pro-lifers under Roe, pro-choicers under Dobbs have lots of power to get their way -- all they have to do is pass bills through state legislatures, which is an option that Roe took off the table when the shoe was on the other foot.  California is free to pass whatever maximalist pro-choice legislation they want; pro-life states were never allowed that opportunity.

You guys are going to have to persuade people to vote for you and get your way that way, just like everybody else.  The days of the court handing you unearned wins seems to be over.  As the old saying goes, when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I do have some hope that we can pass a federal law on abortion as it so popular. Certainly not a guarantee, but there is hope. Overall though, in no way can Congress match the speed at which this court will legislate. We are at their mercy.

Incidentally, you might disagree with the court's reasoning in Dobbs, but what they did in that case is the diametrical opposite of legislating.  Roe was legislation.  Discovering a previously-unknown right to life in the penumbras of the 14th amendment would have been legislation.  Telling states to work it out on their own through the legislative process may be a lot of things, but it's definitely not legislation.  

Sometimes these discussions feel like an extended example of projection.  You guys want the court to give you legislative wins that you can't get on your own, so when it decides not to go along with that you just lop accusation of legislating from the bench out there because why not.  (Somebody braver than me might note the recent uptick in racist barbs directed at Clarence Thomas and spin that into a story about projection as well.)

 

[jm192]

Huh? The point is that these changes are not slow. We’re having rapid change that we are powerless to stop.

Even if Dems were unified, what could they do right now?

They've been working on this for almost 50 years.  How is that Rapid?  

This was the result of hundreds of election victories.  This happened because two Republican Presidents were elected over a 16 year span.  This happened because Republicans won enough elections to be in the majority.  And that's just "return abortion to the states.  The actual abortion bans are the results of Republicans winning elections at the state level.  

Your post reads like a magic wand was waved, and everything changed in an instant.  That's not the case.  

You say you're powerless to stop it.  But, this happened because enough people voted one way.  Those people had the power to make it happen.  Do people that vote Democrats not hold the same power as people that vote Republican?  

 

[BladeRunner]

If Garland were on the Court, and not Gorsuch, Roe would still be good law.  McConnell and the Republicans most definitely packed the Court, which has led to its recent failings as it is degenerating into a political institution.

I see now that we're now redefining what "pack the court" means to fit the narrative.

FYI:  Filling existing SCOTUS seats is not "packing the court". 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I see now that we're now redefining what "pack the court" means to fit the narrative.

FYI:  Filling existing SCOTUS seats is not "packing the court". 

Projection.

 

[Westerberg]

Incidentally, you might disagree with the court's reasoning in Dobbs, but what they did in that case is the diametrical opposite of legislating.  Roe was legislation.  Discovering a previously-unknown right to life in the penumbras of the 14th amendment would have been legislation.  Telling states to work it out on their own through the legislative process may be a lot of things, but it's definitely not legislation.  

Sometimes these discussions feel like an extended example of projection.  You guys want the court to give you legislative wins that you can't get on your own, so when it decides not to go along with that you just lop accusation of legislating from the bench out there because why not.  (Somebody braver than me might note the recent uptick in racist barbs directed at Clarence Thomas and spin that into a story about projection as well.)

Just stop. This is just semantics. If you take away rights, you’re legislating. 

 

[Westerberg]

Roe was a sudden change that its opponents were powerless to stop.  Our only recourse was to win a bunch of elections, appoint a bunch of judges, and flip the court.  That took half a century.

By way of contrast, you've seen (or should have seen) Dobbs coming for years.  Pro-choicers have had ample warning to get their act together.  And unlike pro-lifers under Roe, pro-choicers under Dobbs have lots of power to get their way -- all they have to do is pass bills through state legislatures, which is an option that Roe took off the table when the shoe was on the other foot.  California is free to pass whatever maximalist pro-choice legislation they want; pro-life states were never allowed that opportunity.

You guys are going to have to persuade people to vote for you and get your way that way, just like everybody else.  The days of the court handing you unearned wins seems to be over.  As the old saying goes, when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.  

Congrats on you had earned victory, I guess.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Just stop. This is just semantics. If you take away rights, you’re legislating. 

This is a howler.  

 

[Westerberg]

They've been working on this for almost 50 years.  How is that Rapid?  

This was the result of hundreds of election victories.  This happened because two Republican Presidents were elected over a 16 year span.  This happened because Republicans won enough elections to be in the majority.  And that's just "return abortion to the states.  The actual abortion bans are the results of Republicans winning elections at the state level.  

Your post reads like a magic wand was waved, and everything changed in an instant.  That's not the case.  

You say you're powerless to stop it.  But, this happened because enough people voted one way.  Those people had the power to make it happen.  Do people that vote Democrats not hold the same power as people that vote Republican?  

This isn’t just about Roe. And it doesn’t really matter how we got here. I have to say that the suggestion that this state of affairs is the result of democracy in action is amusing.
 

The fact is that now 6 folks do essentially have a magic wand to do as they please with our laws. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

 

 

[Westerberg]

This is a howler.  

Thanks

 

[Rich Conway]

Do people that vote Democrats not hold the same power as people that vote Republican?

Actually, due to gerrymandering and structural considerations of the Senate and electoral college, they don't.  We can debate whether that's a good or bad thing, of course.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The fact is that now 6 folks do essentially have a magic wand to do as they please with our laws.

"Now."

 

[BladeRunner]

Actually, due to gerrymandering and structural considerations of the Senate and electoral college, they don't.  We can debate whether that's a good or bad thing, of course.

Oh, GTHO with that.  You want to take a look at some of the Democrats gerrymandered districts?

Don't act all pious and imply that this is only a Republican thing.  It's the same across the board.  The Democrats have some, the GOP has some.

 

[timschochet]

President Biden’s solution: get rid of the filibuster in order to codify the right to an abortion. 
 

I support this idea. It’s very unlikely that the Democrats will get a 60 vote majority any time soon. It’s also very unlikely that any Republican senators would actually agree to a compromise of 15-20 weeks. So this becomes the best option. Ending the filibuster fills me with unease because it’s a break from tradition, but both sides have already gone way too far down that path anyhow. 

There are two Democratic senators who will not agree to breaking the filibuster. Therefore in order for this to happen, Democrats need to gain 2 more seats in the Senate, and hold the House. That will be a tough challenge this year, but not impossible. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Oh, GTHO with that.  You want to take a look at some of the Democrats gerrymandered districts?

Don't act all pious and imply that this is only a Republican thing.

It's not that only one side tries it, it's that one side has been more successful with it.    It's not incorrect to point out what RC said that those things lean R now, so kicking it to the states is not as simple as "go out and vote for it".   What would be the last repubilcan president we would have had if it was just going off what we vote for - Bush Sr? 

 

[Zow]

This is another thing that needs to die.  Garland was a perfectly well-qualified nominee.  There was no good reason why any Republican should vote against him.  "I don't like how I think he'll vote" shouldn't be accepted as a legitimate reason for voting against a president's nominee.

And Obama voting against Roberts (perhaps the most qualified candidate ever) was equally BS. 

 

[timschochet]

And Obama voting against Roberts (perhaps the most qualified candidate ever) was equally BS. 

It was one of the main reasons I would not vote for Obama- I thought he was too partisan. 

 

[BladeRunner]

It's not that only one side tries it, it's that one side has been more successful with it.    It's not incorrect to point out what RC said that those things lean R now, so kicking it to the states is not as simple as "go out and vote for it".   What would be the last repubilcan president we would have had if it was just going off what we vote for - Bush Sr? 

Let's be clear hear:  Guys like @Rich Conway are only complaining because the GOP is beating the DNC at it's own game.  He's not upset about gerrymandering - he's upset that his side isn't doing it better.

He wouldn't be complaining if the DNC was "winning" at it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

President Biden’s solution: get rid of the filibuster in order to codify the right to an abortion. 
 

I support this idea. It’s very unlikely that the Democrats will get a 60 vote majority any time soon. It’s also very unlikely that any Republican senators would actually agree to a compromise of 15-20 weeks. So this becomes the best option. Ending the filibuster fills me with unease because it’s a break from tradition, but both sides have already gone way too far down that path anyhow. 

There are two Democratic senators who will not agree to breaking the filibuster. Therefore in order for this to happen, Democrats need to gain 2 more seats in the Senate, and hold the House. That will be a tough challenge this year, but not impossible. 

I think we should get rid of the legislative filibuster.  It was okay when it was a extreme measure that was rarely used, but now it's just a de facto super-majority requirement to pass any non-budgetary legislation, and we already have plenty of veto points in the system.  We don't need another one.

 

[BladeRunner]

President Biden’s solution: get rid of the filibuster in order to codify the right to an abortion. 
 

I support this idea. It’s very unlikely that the Democrats will get a 60 vote majority any time soon. It’s also very unlikely that any Republican senators would actually agree to a compromise of 15-20 weeks. So this becomes the best option. Ending the filibuster fills me with unease because it’s a break from tradition, but both sides have already gone way too far down that path anyhow. 

There are two Democratic senators who will not agree to breaking the filibuster. Therefore in order for this to happen, Democrats need to gain 2 more seats in the Senate, and hold the House. That will be a tough challenge this year, but not impossible. 

Harry Reid approves because it worked out so well the last time.

I still find it funny that Democrats always float this idea as if they will be in power forever.  We told you guys the last time that doing something like this would bit you in the ###.  Has Roe v Wade not taught you anything?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Let's be clear hear:  Guys like @Rich Conway are only complaining because the GOP is beating the DNC at it's own game.  He's not upset about gerrymandering - he's upset that his side isn't doing it better.

He wouldn't be complaining if the DNC was "winning" at it.

On the flip side, would you and others complain if that was happening?