The Republican Primary is going to be insane.

[El Luchador]

58 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

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?

Yes I read the link, then I began to read the article,  it was garbage so I stopped wasting my time.  I don't bother with propaganda. 

[Mike Parrish]

Well, this makes a lot of sense.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Mar27-6.html

 

Underlying poll

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-transformation-of-the-american-electorate/

[VakAttack]

On 3/24/2023 at 5:07 PM, mspart said:

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

1.  Because they didn't have the votes from all of their Senators?  Is your argument that politicians always vote with what's in line with what their constituents want?

2.  N/A

3.  Again, so you're saying the Dems should just play by the rules established by their opponents, thus ceding advantages to them.  "You can only go outside the norms in ways that are approved by your opponent."  That's just stupid, bad politics, and a recipe for losing.  You're literally saying that only one party should be allowed to violate the norms.  You then follow up explicitly showing how I am saying that if one party is going to break norms, than the other party should feel free to, and then just saying the phrase "you want it both ways", despite me literally saying that the democrats should play the same way the Republicans do.  You understand that just repeating the phrase "you want it both ways" doesn't make it true, right?

4.  You're changing topics to places you feel you are on more stable ground, nobody was talking about the January 6 committee.  Then you're making assumptions.  I don't care who was on the committee, though I had no problem w/ Pelosi saying "hey, you can't put people on the committee that are obviously very likely to be subpoenaed by said committee."  The Democrats didn't refuse to have any Republicans on the committee, they refused a few certain members that were likely to be requested to testify at said committee, and then McCarthy, rather then picking from any of his other 215ish members (or by allowing the other 3 members he had nominated that hadn't been objected to to serve), cried and refused to appoint anybody, and thus volunteers were taken.  Then you're comparing it to McConnell just obstructing a perfectly valid nomination.

[mspart]

54 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

1.  Because they didn't have the votes from all of their Senators?  Is your argument that politicians always vote with what's in line with what their constituents want?

2.  N/A

3.  Again, so you're saying the Dems should just play by the rules established by their opponents, thus ceding advantages to them.  "You can only go outside the norms in ways that are approved by your opponent."  That's just stupid, bad politics, and a recipe for losing.  You're literally saying that only one party should be allowed to violate the norms.  You then follow up explicitly showing how I am saying that if one party is going to break norms, than the other party should feel free to, and then just saying the phrase "you want it both ways", despite me literally saying that the democrats should play the same way the Republicans do.  You understand that just repeating the phrase "you want it both ways" doesn't make it true, right?

4.  You're changing topics to places you feel you are on more stable ground, nobody was talking about the January 6 committee.  Then you're making assumptions.  I don't care who was on the committee, though I had no problem w/ Pelosi saying "hey, you can't put people on the committee that are obviously very likely to be subpoenaed by said committee."  The Democrats didn't refuse to have any Republicans on the committee, they refused a few certain members that were likely to be requested to testify at said committee, and then McCarthy, rather then picking from any of his other 215ish members (or by allowing the other 3 members he had nominated that hadn't been objected to to serve), cried and refused to appoint anybody, and thus volunteers were taken.  Then you're comparing it to McConnell just obstructing a perfectly valid nomination.

3.   No I'm saying the Ds should play by the rules that have been established and used for decades.  

4.  No, if you can't see the similarity here, I guess we have to agree to disagree.   I was correct that you were in agreement with the makeup of the Jan 6 committee, which Pelosi did by changing the rules in the middle.   So this is an example you accepting it in one case and not in another.   So much for consistency. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

3.   No I'm saying the Ds should play by the rules that have been established and used for decades.  

4.  No, if you can't see the similarity here, I guess we have to agree to disagree.   I was correct that you were in agreement with the makeup of the Jan 6 committee, which Pelosi did by changing the rules in the middle.   So this is an example you accepting it in one case and not in another.   So much for consistency. 

mspart

3.  The Republicans just eschewed the rules, lol.  You're literally arguing for the sides to follow different sets of rules.

4.  Again, you're dragging this to January 6, where Pelosi did something she is explicitly allowed to do.  And, in this scenario, we're in a post-norms world as seen by the Garland situation, so again, no, I don't think the Democrats should be playing by norms if the Republicans aren't going to.  Plus, again, she approved 3 of the 5 nominations, all three of whom voted not to certify the valid 2020 election; she rejected two people who clearly were not fit to serve on that particular committee.  Example:  a man is on trial for a crime.  Two of his best friends are probably not fit to be jurors on that trial, especially if there's a strong possibility they were witnesses to that crime.

[Mike Parrish]

14 minutes ago, mspart said:

3.   No I'm saying the Ds should play by the rules that have been established and used for decades. 

When did the Democrats ever refuse to give a SCOTUS nominee a vote for over a year to run out a Republican POTUS' time?

[mspart]

7 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

3.  The Republicans just eschewed the rules, lol.  You're literally arguing for the sides to follow different sets of rules.

4.  Again, you're dragging this to January 6, where Pelosi did something she is explicitly allowed to do.  And, in this scenario, we're in a post-norms world as seen by the Garland situation, so again, no, I don't think the Democrats should be playing by norms if the Republicans aren't going to.  Plus, again, she approved 3 of the 5 nominations, all three of whom voted not to certify the valid 2020 election; she rejected two people who clearly were not fit to serve on that particular committee.  Example:  a man is on trial for a crime.  Two of his best friends are probably not fit to be jurors on that trial, especially if there's a strong possibility they were witnesses to that crime.

Why is Pelosi explicitly allowed to do this but McConnell was not? 

 

3 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

When did the Democrats ever refuse to give a SCOTUS nominee a vote for over a year to run out a Republican POTUS' time?

As far as I know they didn't.   The issue is that you folks are really upset that the Ds did not think of this earlier.   If Donald Trump were President right now, and in early 2024 Kavanaugh croaked, would you be concerned in the least if Schumer did not hold a vote on Trump's nominee?   Of course not, you would voice no concern whatsoever but would applaud the move, regardless if McConnell did this first or not.   I expect it this to happen again in the future.  The collegiality of the Senate dissolved a long time ago.   McConnell was the first to do something that you would applaud if Schumer did instead.  Or would you be screaming that Schumer can't do this, it is against the rules, like you are with McConnell?   Honestly, I can't see this happening.   This is the definition of hypocrisy.  This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.  

And to remedy the situation, you want to do what Bibi N is trying to do in Israel, change the judiciary by legislation.  Based on your arguments, I'm sure you were yelling, you go Bibi!!  You go Bibi!! 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

Quote

3.   No I'm saying the Ds should play by the rules that have been established and used for decades. 

Quote

The issue is that you folks are really upset that the Ds did not think of this earlier.

Quote

This is the definition of hypocrisy.  This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.  

lolol

[Plasmodium]

Unbelievable conversation.

[VakAttack]

24 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

lolol

 

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Unbelievable conversation.

I feel like I'm taking ***duck duck goose** crazy pills, lol.

[VakAttack]

32 minutes ago, mspart said:

Why is Pelosi explicitly allowed to do this but McConnell was not? 

 

As far as I know they didn't.   The issue is that you folks are really upset that the Ds did not think of this earlier.   If Donald Trump were President right now, and in early 2024 Kavanaugh croaked, would you be concerned in the least if Schumer did not hold a vote on Trump's nominee?   Of course not, you would voice no concern whatsoever but would applaud the move, regardless if McConnell did this first or not.   I expect it this to happen again in the future.  The collegiality of the Senate dissolved a long time ago.   McConnell was the first to do something that you would applaud if Schumer did instead.  Or would you be screaming that Schumer can't do this, it is against the rules, like you are with McConnell?   Honestly, I can't see this happening.   This is the definition of hypocrisy.  This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.  

And to remedy the situation, you want to do what Bibi N is trying to do in Israel, change the judiciary by legislation.  Based on your arguments, I'm sure you were yelling, you go Bibi!!  You go Bibi!! 

mspart

...my point is that, since McConnell is not abiding by norms, the Democrats should not either.  You understand that the Garland situation predated the January 6 hearings, correct?  The general concept of time and all that?

[mspart]

Oh yes, I understand that completely.   Hence the reason I called it tit for tat. 

McConnell changed no rules, but I admit he changed decorum on the topic, but worked within the rules.   But you are suggesting a wholesale change of the rules so you can have your way.   Like I said it is a little like the kid who takes his ball home because he didn't get his way and regardless of your poll, I don't think it would be looked well upon by the majority of voters.    It would not end up like Israel, but I don't think Ds would be held in high esteem the next go around.  

mspart

[VakAttack]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

Oh yes, I understand that completely.   Hence the reason I called it tit for tat. 

McConnell changed no rules, but I admit he changed decorum on the topic, but worked within the rules.   But you are suggesting a wholesale change of the rules so you can have your way.   Like I said it is a little like the kid who takes his ball home because he didn't get his way and regardless of your poll, I don't think it would be looked well upon by the majority of voters.    It would not end up like Israel, but I don't think Ds would be held in high esteem the next go around.  

mspart

What is the rule they are changing?

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

What is the rule they are changing?

They aren't changing the rule, because the House won't go there, but as I demonstrated the D Senate wants to change the number of justices from 9 to 13 so they can have a liberal majority like they used to have.   That is changing the rules.   Do you not agree?   

mspart

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

They aren't changing the rule, because the House won't go there, but as I demonstrated the D Senate wants to change the number of justices from 9 to 13 so they can have a liberal majority like they used to have.   That is changing the rules.   Do you not agree?   

mspart

Where is this rule written down?

[mspart]

18 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Where is this rule written down?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/

Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869.

Per https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices   the rule is written down in the law, The Judiciary Act of 1869.   Yes, Congress can change that, but that is a 150+ year rule.   Changing that is changing the rules.

mspart

[VakAttack]

So...to be clear...Congress can change the number of Justices...and has done so before multiple times, including literally in the Act you cite...and I am advocating that Congress should change the number of Justices....but that's changing the rules...even though the rules explicitly tell you that Congress can set the number of Justices....so....why is following the rules also changing the rules?

[mspart]

You did not include the detail that I very clearly communicated.   You make it sound like the number of justices has been changing recently which is not the case.   The number of justices has been static since 1869, which I went to great detail to document for you.   But you just cruised right past that like it wasn't even there.   Over 150 years of 9 justices.   It has served us well.   Changing the number will certainly change the rules. 

Let's say you did this, change the number of justices.   What would stop the Rs from making an adjustment such as going back to 9 or upping it to 17 or some other number?   And then what would stop the Ds from doing similar?  I don't think this is the correct answer to the issue that seems to plague you.   But it could be accomplished.   But by doing so, I don't think the majority of Americans would accept it as a better way, only that petulant Ds didn't get their way so they are forcing SCOTUS to rule they way they want it to.  

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

In a Marquette Law School poll released Wednesday, 51% of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat favored increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, versus 49% who were strongly or somewhat opposed. Expansion was supported by 51% of independents, 72% of Democrats and just 27% of Republicans.

That is a really slim number.   I think once done, the number of Independents wishing it different would increase.   This could be a make or break deal for the Ds.   They might get their 13 but at what cost?   Changing the rules that have been in place for a century and a half is not something to trifle with. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

That is a really slim number.   I think once done, the number of Independents wishing it different would increase.   This could be a make or break deal for the Ds.   They might get their 13 but at what cost?   Changing the rules that have been in place for a century and a half is not something to trifle with. 

After the current SCOTUS decided that stare decisis is no longer a governing principle in jurisprudence, I think we;ll take our chances.

Thanks for your concern.

[VakAttack]

34 minutes ago, mspart said:

You did not include the detail that I very clearly communicated.   You make it sound like the number of justices has been changing recently which is not the case.   The number of justices has been static since 1869, which I went to great detail to document for you.   But you just cruised right past that like it wasn't even there.   Over 150 years of 9 justices.   It has served us well.   Changing the number will certainly change the rules. 

Let's say you did this, change the number of justices.   What would stop the Rs from making an adjustment such as going back to 9 or upping it to 17 or some other number?   And then what would stop the Ds from doing similar?  I don't think this is the correct answer to the issue that seems to plague you.   But it could be accomplished.   But by doing so, I don't think the majority of Americans would accept it as a better way, only that petulant Ds didn't get their way so they are forcing SCOTUS to rule they way they want it to.  

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

In a Marquette Law School poll released Wednesday, 51% of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat favored increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, versus 49% who were strongly or somewhat opposed. Expansion was supported by 51% of independents, 72% of Democrats and just 27% of Republicans.

That is a really slim number.   I think once done, the number of Independents wishing it different would increase.   This could be a make or break deal for the Ds.   They might get their 13 but at what cost?   Changing the rules that have been in place for a century and a half is not something to trifle with. 

mspart

So doing something unprecedented (McConnell) = ok.  Doing something precedented (court expansion) = not ok, changing the rules.  But I'm the one who wants it both ways.

[mspart]

17 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

After the current SCOTUS decided that stare decisis is no longer a governing principle in jurisprudence, I think we;ll take our chances.

Thanks for your concern.

When will that be Mike?  And you are very welcome.  I'm always concerned about my intermat forum buddies. 

mspart

[mspart]

16 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

So doing something unprecedented (McConnell) = ok.  Doing something precedented (court expansion) = not ok, changing the rules.  But I'm the one who wants it both ways.

I'm not sure I would put it that way.   There are various pieces of legislation that never get a hearing because it is not allowed to get a hearing, either by committee bosses or by majority leader or Speaker.   This is precedented on a wide level.   What McConnell did was no different.   He held the nomination until a new President was selected.   If Clinton had won, he would have moved forward with Garland is my guess.   That is not what happened of course.  

But holding pending legislation in limbo is a time honored activity.   It is neither unprecedented nor is it outside the rules.   Doing something "precedented" 150 years ago is not even similar. 

But I think we should agree to disagree here.   You have your opinion and think going to 13 justices so you can get your way is a great idea.   I think it is sour grapes because you no longer have a liberal court you can count on.  

Maybe it would be easier to just get abortion legislation though Congress and get a signature, but that appears not to placate you.   You want SCOTUS to legislate what you can't legislate.   That is the true motivation here really. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

3 hours ago, mspart said:

I'm not sure I would put it that way.  

Dude, you literally put it that way.

On 3/27/2023 at 1:48 PM, mspart said:

 McConnell was the first to do something that you would applaud if Schumer did instead. 

 

[Mike Parrish]

Has there been another nomination that did not receive a vote in the Senate for over a year, thereby running out the current president's term?

[mspart]

19 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

After the current SCOTUS decided that stare decisis is no longer a governing principle in jurisprudence, I think we;ll take our chances.

Thanks for your concern.

When will that be Mike?  And you are very welcome.  I'm always concerned about my intermat forum buddies. 

mspart