The Republican Primary is going to be insane.

[Plasmodium]

You guys think George Mitchell (D who confirmed Thomas) is a fool or a saint?

I think he was a normal guy and running confirmation hearings was his duty.   I think the duty of the Senate Majority Leader now is to pack the court at levels.  I don't think Schumer is getting it done.

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

You guys think George Mitchell (D who confirmed Thomas) is a fool or a saint?

I think he was a normal guy and running confirmation hearings was his duty.   I think the duty of the Senate Majority Leader now is to pack the court at levels.  I don't think Schumer is getting it done.

Joe Biden did everything he could to get Thomas's nomination railroaded.  But at that time, there was more collegiality among the Senators and often members of the opposite party would vote based on objective criteria rather than emotion and ideology.   We have gotten away from that and that is too bad.   Makes for bad spectacle.   The Rs have never gone after any D nominee with the unfettered vengeance that the Ds have to R nominees. 

mspart

[Plasmodium]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

Joe Biden did everything he could to get Thomas's nomination railroaded.  But at that time, there was more collegiality among the Senators and often members of the opposite party would vote based on objective criteria rather than emotion and ideology.   We have gotten away from that and that is too bad.   Makes for bad spectacle.   The Rs have never gone after any D nominee with the unfettered vengeance that the Ds have to R nominees. 

mspart

Turns out, character judgement is one of Joe Biden's strengths.  Maybe he knew Ginni as well.

[Nailbender]

7 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Here's why I disagree:  under the normal course of business, we would have had one Democrat nominated justice (Garland) and two Republican nominated justice (I would guess it would have been Gorsuch and Coney Barrett).  Instead, the Republicans "stole" one.  Expansion of the court is the Democrats only move to take that power back.  In a governmental apparatuses that used to be held to "norms", that's no longer the case, and if one side isn't going to abide by norms, the other side shouldn't be abiding by those norms that the first side is flouting, otherwise the second side will jsut get trampled.

It's made worse by the fact that Republicans are, as of now, a minority party within the population, and they're governing w/ significant minority policies, like their stances on abortion, etc.  These are policies that don't even have full-throated support WITHIN their party, let alone throughout the country.  Another example:  registration for gun owners.  The most hardcore Republican I know, one of my best friends, is adamant that people should have to register their guns and that it should be treated similar to cars and driver's licenses.  I'm talking a guy at the shooting range every couple of weeks.  He swears his range buddies all feel the same way.  I can't speak for them, I'm only at the range occasionally.  I know the cops I deal with in my job (I'm a Public Defender) all feel that way, too.  And yet, right now, the governor of my state is pushing to remove requirements for even carrying a concealed firearm, let alone firearm ownership at all.  The Republicans, of whom I was until very recently a registered member (although, to be fair, that was more from laziness, I was the definition of a RINO for the last several years and am now NPA) seem to be controlled by a very loud minority within their own party.

 The most hardcore Republican guy you know is still only the most hardcore Republican that you know. 

You know some guys who own guns? Great, me too. None of the ones I know are volunteering to register anything.

You know some police? Great, me too. A large contingency of the police fire their weapon yearly to qualify and that's it. They don't have some kind of super opinion on firearms. Police also deal daily with some of the worst our society has to offer. I can understand why they would feel they're job would be safer and easier if citizens were not armed. This doesn't mean they belong to some kind of moral majority, nor do you.

Being pro life is not a majority opinion? That is true, until you dig a little deeper. Ask people if they believe in a woman's right to choose and you get "Yes". Ask them if abortion is okay for any reason at any time and you often get different answers. You can tell yourself that conservative thinking is the minority, that doesn't make it so.

These things are not as simple as you're making them and in no way give you any standing to claim the court for your own. Your post reads for me as that the court doesn't currently agree with you so obviously that justifies whatever it takes to correct it. Regardless of what precedents need to be set or ignored and what future burdens it could create because the other guys did it first. Doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me.

 

TLDR VERSION

You seem to be using a lot of words to say "They started it" and "the ends justify the means".

 

 

[Nailbender]

8 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Here's why I disagree:  under the normal course of business, we would have had one Democrat nominated justice (Garland) and two Republican nominated justice (I would guess it would have been Gorsuch and Coney Barrett).  Instead, the Republicans "stole" one.  Expansion of the court is the Democrats only move to take that power back.  In a governmental apparatuses that used to be held to "norms", that's no longer the case, and if one side isn't going to abide by norms, the other side shouldn't be abiding by those norms that the first side is flouting, otherwise the second side will jsut get trampled.

It's made worse by the fact that Republicans are, as of now, a minority party within the population, and they're governing w/ significant minority policies, like their stances on abortion, etc.  These are policies that don't even have full-throated support WITHIN their party, let alone throughout the country.  Another example:  registration for gun owners.  The most hardcore Republican I know, one of my best friends, is adamant that people should have to register their guns and that it should be treated similar to cars and driver's licenses.  I'm talking a guy at the shooting range every couple of weeks.  He swears his range buddies all feel the same way.  I can't speak for them, I'm only at the range occasionally.  I know the cops I deal with in my job (I'm a Public Defender) all feel that way, too.  And yet, right now, the governor of my state is pushing to remove requirements for even carrying a concealed firearm, let alone firearm ownership at all.  The Republicans, of whom I was until very recently a registered member (although, to be fair, that was more from laziness, I was the definition of a RINO for the last several years and am now NPA) seem to be controlled by a very loud minority within their own party.

The most hardcore Republican guy you know is still only the most hardcore Republican that you know. 

You know some guys who own guns? Great, me too. None of the ones I know are volunteering to register anything.

You know some police? Great, me too. A large contingency of the police fire their weapon yearly to qualify and that's it. They don't have some kind of super opinion on firearms. Police also deal daily with some of the worst our society has to offer. I can understand why they would feel they're job would be safer and easier if citizens were not armed. This doesn't mean they belong to some kind of moral majority, nor do you.

Being pro life is not a majority opinion? That is true, until you dig a little deeper. Ask people if they believe in a woman's right to choose and you get "Yes". Ask them if abortion is okay for any reason at any time and you often get different answers. You can tell yourself that conservative thinking is the minority, that doesn't make it so.

These things are not as simple as you're making them and in no way give you any standing to claim the court for your own. Your post reads for me as that the court doesn't currently agree with you so that justifies whatever it takes to correct it. Regardless of what precedents need to be set or ignored and what future burdens it could create because the other guys did it first. Doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me.

 

 

TLDR VERSION

You seem to be using a lot of words to say "They started it" and "the ends justify the means".

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

The most hardcore Republican guy you know is still only the most hardcore Republican that you know. 

You know some guys who own guns? Great, me too. None of the ones I know are volunteering to register anything.

You know some police? Great, me too. A large contingency of the police fire their weapon yearly to qualify and that's it. They don't have some kind of super opinion on firearms. Police also deal daily with some of the worst our society has to offer. I can understand why they would feel they're job would be safer and easier if citizens were not armed. This doesn't mean they belong to some kind of moral majority, nor do you.

Being pro life is not a majority opinion? That is true, until you dig a little deeper. Ask people if they believe in a woman's right to choose and you get "Yes". Ask them if abortion is okay for any reason at any time and you often get different answers. You can tell yourself that conservative thinking is the minority, that doesn't make it so.

These things are not as simple as you're making them and in no way give you any standing to claim the court for your own. Your post reads for me as that the court doesn't currently agree with you so that justifies whatever it takes to correct it. Regardless of what precedents need to be set or ignored and what future burdens it could create because the other guys did it first. Doesn't seem like sound reasoning to me.

 

 

TLDR VERSION

You seem to be using a lot of words to say "They started it" and "the ends justify the means".

"Started it" and "ends justify the means" describe McConnell's GOP in 2016, eh?

[Nailbender]

7 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

"Started it" and "ends justify the means" describe McConnell's GOP in 2016, eh?

Sure. So what? 

[Plasmodium]

8 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Sure. So what? 

Sounds like everyone is on the same page around here.  That was fast.

[VakAttack]

19 hours ago, mspart said:

OK, thank you for the explanation.  

1.  It is perfectly allowable for Ds to expand the court if they can get that done.   But it is not good optics.   It is necessarily an admission that your point of view is not as mainstream as  you thought so you will rig the game to get your way.   That's how I see it.   Like the kid that doesn't get his way and takes his ball home.  Same juvenile reasoning. 

2.  The Constitution says the President has the power to nominate justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate.   That does not mean that the Senate is bound to consent to the choice.   Ds made that quite clear with Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh.  Successful and declining the first, not on the other two though they tried mightily.  The majority Senate, by remaining silent, did their Constitutional duty of providing advise and consent.   In the latter case, the hearings were rapid I agree, but were just. 

Again, you want it both ways.   You don't get that in life or in politics.   But people still expect it.   Regardless, McConnell played the hand dealt to him.   It doesn't matter if you like or don't like Schumer, he would have done the same thing.   AND, you would not complain about it, far from it.   You would applaud.   Thus showing that you are not idealistic in this matter, but boldly and partisanly political.  To put it plainly, McConnell's move was wrong.  Schumer, if he did the same, would be valiantly and vociferously validated.  For you, it is not that it was done that is the problem, but who did it.  That is not a very objective way to look at this. 

mspart

1. It's not good optics to the people who already don't like them.

2. How is it "necessarily an admission that your point of view is not mainstream"?  The reason they don't have a majority is because McConnell gamed the system and because of the happenstance of when Justice Bader Ginsburg died.  This is poppycock.  EDIT:  Just to add here, the party having a majority of the Justices is almost always a matter of happenstance of the death of a Justice, not about which party holds the more mainstream opinion.  For that you would look towards which party gets more votes from the American people.

3.  They didn't "advise and consent."  They didn't even consider it or give any reasoning where, again, a very middle of the road candidate with nothing controversial in his history was just ignored and not because of who he was as a jurist, but because "the American people should have a chance to weigh in on who nominates the next Justice?"  They should?  My understanding was these were non-elected positions?  it was a gaming of the system.

4.  "You want it both ways...."  You're just projecting here.  My logic is consistent.  The Republicans shouldn't have done what they did.  However, since they did it, the Democrats choice is either to do another shitty thing, or just get trampled.  If you and I were playing Monopoly, and we agreed before hand that nobody could puchase properties until they had gone around the board twice, but then you just started immediately buying properties, I'm an idiot if I wait until I have gone around the board twice because "that was the agreement."  You are the logically inconsistent one here:  you want it to be ok for the Republicans to game the system to their advantage and not be ok for the Democrats to also game the system.

5.  Bork was voted down with the assistance of SIX Republican Senators.  This was a bipartisan dismissal of his nomination. And, notably, he, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, all got their hearings.  Anything remarkable come out of the Merrick Garland hearings?  Wait, they didn't happen?

Edited March 24, 2023 by VakAttack

[Nailbender]

5 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Sounds like everyone is on the same page around here.  That was fast.

I very much doubt that. In fact, I'm sure of it. I just looked behind me and there were no flying monkeys. 

[mspart]

4 hours ago, VakAttack said:

1. It's not good optics to the people who already don't like them.

2. How is it "necessarily an admission that your point of view is not mainstream"?  The reason they don't have a majority is because McConnell gamed the system and because of the happenstance of when Justice Bader Ginsburg died.  This is poppycock.  EDIT:  Just to add here, the party having a majority of the Justices is almost always a matter of happenstance of the death of a Justice, not about which party holds the more mainstream opinion.  For that you would look towards which party gets more votes from the American people.

3.  They didn't "advise and consent."  They didn't even consider it or give any reasoning where, again, a very middle of the road candidate with nothing controversial in his history was just ignored and not because of who he was as a jurist, but because "the American people should have a chance to weigh in on who nominates the next Justice?"  They should?  My understanding was these were non-elected positions?  it was a gaming of the system.

4.  "You want it both ways...."  You're just projecting here.  My logic is consistent.  The Republicans shouldn't have done what they did.  However, since they did it, the Democrats choice is either to do another shitty thing, or just get trampled.  If you and I were playing Monopoly, and we agreed before hand that nobody could puchase properties until they had gone around the board twice, but then you just started immediately buying properties, I'm an idiot if I wait until I have gone around the board twice because "that was the agreement."  You are the logically inconsistent one here:  you want it to be ok for the Republicans to game the system to their advantage and not be ok for the Democrats to also game the system.

5.  Bork was voted down with the assistance of SIX Republican Senators.  This was a bipartisan dismissal of his nomination. And, notably, he, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, all got their hearings.  Anything remarkable come out of the Merrick Garland hearings?  Wait, they didn't happen?

I'll take these as I see them.

1 and 2:   You are just thinking Ds vote in this country?   Well it is roughly 33% D, 33% R, and 33% I.   It is those darn pesky Independents that you need to keep good optics for.  

3.  Doing nothing is advise and consent.   Advise and consent does not mean a vote has to be taken.  If they had had a vote and Garland got shot down, you'd be upset that it was hyper partisan.  

4.  Not projecting on "you want it both ways".  I am looking and reading what you have written and made an informed observation.   Sorry you don't like it.

5.  Bork was Borked by the Ds.   They made a verb out of his last name, but I suppose you knew that.   In a similar way, the Rs supported certain of their caucus for the Jan 6 committee.  Pelosi said no.   She didn't even hear them.   She completely ignored  them.   She assembled the most partisan committee the House has ever seen.   According to the rules, both parties provide their nominations to the committee.   Never has the Speaker completely ignored that.   Now this does not rise to the same level perhaps you say, but it is the same playbook.   Again, you want it both ways. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

I'll take these as I see them.

1 and 2:   You are just thinking Ds vote in this country?   Well it is roughly 33% D, 33% R, and 33% I.   It is those darn pesky Independents that you need to keep good optics for.  

3.  Doing nothing is advise and consent.   Advise and consent does not mean a vote has to be taken.  If they had had a vote and Garland got shot down, you'd be upset that it was hyper partisan.  

4.  Not projecting on "you want it both ways".  I am looking and reading what you have written and made an informed observation.   Sorry you don't like it.

5.  Bork was Borked by the Ds.   They made a verb out of his last name, but I suppose you knew that.   In a similar way, the Rs supported certain of their caucus for the Jan 6 committee.  Pelosi said no.   She didn't even hear them.   She completely ignored  them.   She assembled the most partisan committee the House has ever seen.   According to the rules, both parties provide their nominations to the committee.   Never has the Speaker completely ignored that.   Now this does not rise to the same level perhaps you say, but it is the same playbook.   Again, you want it both ways. 

mspart

1.  https://news.yahoo.com/poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-expanding-supreme-court-as-confidence-wanes-194217399.html

"Expansion was supported by 51% of independents, 72% of Democrats and just 27% of Republicans."

2.  No.  It isn't.  Advice or consent.  You just saying it is doesn't make it so.  It's refusal to even consider it, and it wasn't based on the quality of the candidate, they refused to even consider it based on only their own partisan predilections.

3.  The word "informed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this not backed up by your actual writing.  You very much are projecting, as evidenced by the fact you just make a blanket statement about how I want it both ways when I showed you exactly how I did not want it both ways, how I said that the Democrats should be playing byt the same rules as teh Republicans, which is to say, the strictest letter of the law, and not previous norms that are no longer being followed.  You are the one advocating for two different standards, where the Republicans should be allowed to flout the norms, but the Democrats should just pretend they still exist.

4.  Six Republicans.  Bork wasn't close to making it through.  And that's with two Democrats voting for his nomination.  I didn't even discuss the January 6 hearings, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China or how I want it both ways when I haven't even espoused an opinion on the subject.

[mspart]

Hey Vak,

1.  If this is correct, why didn't the Dems do it when they had the opportunity in 2021-2022? 

2.  We must agree to disagree here.

3.  No I'm saying no one could blame the Dems if they McConnell'd an R SCOTUS justice nomination.   There would be plenty who would try, but it has been done once, it will happen again for either side given the opportunity.   What you are failing to understand is that you would have been ecstatic if the shoe was on the other foot and Schumer did this same thing with the same opportunities.   That is wanting it both ways -  For McConnell not to do it but for Schumer to do it.   That is in essence what you are saying.  And you want to rush and take it by force by increasing the number of justices.   Again, wanting it both ways.   You want a liberal court.   You had a liberal court for decades and it made you happy.   Now there is a more conservative court and it wouldn't matter if it was 5-4, 6-3, 7-2 or 8-1, you would not be happy with that and propose various ways to circumvent it.   You want a liberal court by any means necessary.   You feel it was stolen from you and you want it back.   It was an extraordinary set of circumstances that fell McConnell's way (he did nothing illegal which is your measure here).   I don't know of any other time when so many justices were changed out in such a short period of time. 

4.  I have no idea how it has anything to do with the price of tea in China.   Honestly I don't.  I was presenting you an example of tit for tat.  I assume you were happy with the makeup of the Jan 6 committee.  If not, I am wrong on that, and withdraw that insinuation.   But I also assume you are happy with the direction the Jan 6 committee was going and hoped that the House would maintain a D majority so it could continue.   Again, if that is not the case, I withdraw the insinuation.  In other words, I believe you were happy for Pelosi to deny years of decorum and go against the standard policy that had been followed for almost forever.    But you are angry at McConnell for doing what he did.   They essentially did the same thing.   One makes you happy and content, the other makes you angry. 

mspart

[El Luchador]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:29 PM, Plasmodium said:

Turns out, character judgement is one of Joe Biden's strengths.  Maybe he knew Ginni as well.

Oh yes, he really can pick em.

[Plasmodium]

23 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Oh yes, he really can pick em.

What does this pic have to do with him?

[El Luchador]

Just now, Plasmodium said:

What does this pic have to do with him?

Just another shinning example of Brandon's bad judgment. 

[Plasmodium]

Just now, El Luchador said:

Just another shinning example of Brandon's bad judgment. 

So, nothing specific?

[El Luchador]

Just now, Plasmodium said:

So, nothing specific?

Do you not know who that is?

[Plasmodium]

Just now, El Luchador said:

Do you not know who that is?

No, I don't.

[El Luchador]

He is Sam Brinton, formerly with the depth of energy. Sam has a bit of a problem outside of what appears obvious. He likes to go to airports and steal luggage from women then wear their clothes in public. 

[El Luchador]

 

 

 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

He is Sam Brinton, formerly with the depth of energy. Sam has a bit of a problem outside of what appears obvious. He likes to go to airports and steal luggage from women then wear their clothes in public. 

Just read up on them.  They have had an interesting career, nuclear waste prevents fission from being a viable source of energy in my view.  As far as the arrests go, well that is sort of thing that costs people their jobs.  It did for they.  Interesting you bring up someone charged with crimes this petty, particularly since their job was  below presidential appointee level.  Not even selected by Biden?

[Mike Parrish]

The return of ‘crazy town’

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/03/26/the-return-of-crazy-town-00088865

[El Luchador]

3 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

The return of ‘crazy town’

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/03/26/the-return-of-crazy-town-00088865

When you can't make it past the head line without showing your glaring bias and agenda,  you're probably fake news. 

[Mike Parrish]

14 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

When you can't make it past the head line without showing your glaring bias and agenda,  you're probably fake news. 

When you can't even manage to read the URL...

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/03/26/the-return-of-crazy-town-00088865

How do you exchange gasses without external assistance?