mspart

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

I guess we'll see when we see. How does he make it to Final X at this point? Auto invite or does he need to qualify at some other tourney? mspart

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

Correct! mspart

Fake news https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/politics/legal-drama-surrounding-trump-reaches-a-fever-pitch/index.html The Manhattan grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the case pertaining to Trump’s alleged role in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star will sit on Thursday, a source familiar with the investigation told CNN. As always, they need better sources. mspart

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

Lee got caught on a crazy move. When was the last time you saw anyone do anything like that? Maybe Sadulaev vs Snyder in the World Finals. When Lee got turned around, he looked shocked, at least how I remember it. He had the presence of mind to get his arms free but it was too late at that point. Regarding forfeiting the rest of his matches, not unheard of. It happens from time to time. My guess is, without a National Championship possible, why put the knees in further harm. Not worth the risk for 3rd place. Especially if he has Olympic aspirations. mspart

Yoel Romero defected I think. Not during wrestling but when he went MMA. mspart

I'm not following your argument here. Your last statement states "exploit this rule". What do you mean by "this rule"? Also, your last statement says, "McConnell's exploiting of another rule?" What do you mean by "another rule"? If you could respond to these questions, that would be great. In addition, you are saying the court has been has high as 10 justices. So that is precedent to go to 13 justices per the Senate Ds stated goal as noted earlier? You know, they should not pussy foot around and just go straight for 21 - Get 'er done!! mspart

You have tried to say that packing the court does not mean increasing the number. But now you admit that is exactly what you want to do. Dishonesty in argument is not a good look. mspart

I think you know the difference Plasi. Who here anywhere said that packing was illegal? No one that I know of. That is a spin argument you guys are putting out there to get away from the actual topic. As to your last statement, I wish both sides would play by the same rules. But it is apparent that this is not the case for a majority of Ds. D's want all the advantages of power even when they are not in power. mspart

So you are not arguing to increase the number of justices like the Senate has been doing? https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-democrats-plan-to-pack-the-supreme-court Last week, Democrats in the Senate and House introduced legislation to pack the Supreme Court by adding four new justices. This marks a dramatic change. I find this very difficult to believe your first statement quoted above. Your post on 3/21 does not indicate a willingness to wait. Unfortunately, Congress per the Constitution would have to make this happen. House is in R territory. Not happening for another 2 years at least. You are backtracking now. Perhaps not, but it is very hard to reconcile the above two statements of yours. mspart

Yes true. But you do not say anything here about how bad she handled the emails. You only say she was not indicted. Again, can't you see you are doing the same thing you are complaining about? Your basic argument for Hillary is that she was running for president and shouldn't be indicted because that would disenfranchise millions of Americans who wanted to vote for her. That was the overriding argument, not that she broke the law. Now we have another declared candidate, and you want him in jail as fast as possible. Again, can't you see you are doing the same thing you are complaining about? Trump’s legal team had appealed that ruling, which said the lawyer, Evan Corcoran, must provide evidence to prosecutors because his legal services may have been used to facilitate a possible crime — obstruction of government attempts to recover highly sensitive documents — according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sealed court proceedings. As part of Howell’s ruling, Corcoran was ordered to give the Justice Department notes, transcripts of recordings, and invoices in his possession, according to a person familiar with the matter, who said the judge has reviewed that material and concluded there was evidence suggesting Trump may have misled his own attorneys in the classified-documents matter. On the panel were Florence Pan, a former D.C. Superior Court judge, and J. Michelle Childs, a former South Carolina judge. Both were nominated by President Biden to the federal bench, and Childs was on the president’s shortlist of potential nominees to fill the Supreme Court opening created by the retirement of Justice Stephen G. Breyer. The third judge on the panel, Cornelia T.L. Pillard, was nominated by President Barack Obama. Interesting makeup of the 3 judge panel. And how long do you think it will take to get this before another judge and have this reversed? You must know by now this will go on forever. The language in the article says that Trump may have, that there is evidence Trump may have, but there is no concrete statement reported from the court that I would think should be necessary to drive the elimination of attorney client privilege. If there was a definitive statement from the court that Trump did, then attorney client privilege could be suspended. I guess we'll see how this parses out. mspart

How will you pack the court without adding justices? I don't believe your argument because that argument is not your position on the matter. mspart

Hillary was caught red handed grossly and knowingly mishandling State Dept emails both classified and not. She tried to get rid of the evidence using bleachbit. She had the email server in an unsecure location. If Trump had done this you guys would want to throw the book at him. But Hillary? No problem. She's old and doesn't understand this stuff. And she wants to be President? She knew enough to have a server set up to house this information so it could not easily be traced. She knew enough to get bleachbit and try to wipe the hard drive. That is obstruction of justice but you don't care obviously as noted in your post above. You will whitewash these pecadillos away while piling on Trump. Do you not see the inconsistency of your position? mspart

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-says-special-prosecutor-has-evidence-trump-may-have-broken-law-sources/ar-AA18UOht Judge says special prosecutor has evidence Trump may have broken law: Sources Quite the definitive statement. mspart

No, I don't think that is illegal. According to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. I think it is unnecessary and not fruitful to increase the number. What's to stop it from becoming a 50 justice panel, or 1000 justice panel when certain political parties feel put upon? It loses credibility as an institution at that point. I'm sure you think it already has but adding justices is not the answer to that issue. Somehow you guys think that a liberal court is just great. You've always had one so you don't know any different. But you think a conservative court is and should be illegal. You are the guys that are unreasonable here. Conservatives have been waiting for decades for the opportunity now present and you guys figured it would never happen. Now you are panicking. Classic case of giving crap and telling the recipient to be grateful, but not taking it. mspart

Again, that is an ignorant and pathetic statement void of understanding and logic. There were 9 justices. There are now 9 justices. Packing the court means to increase the amount of justices so you can get the majority in the vernacular of today. That didn't happen in 2016-2017. Even you can't pretend that happened. McConnell didn't manufacture vacancies on the court, they all lined up to make that happen. He took advantage of the opportunity the same Schumer would have had he had the ability. And don't even try to tell me that is an untrue statement. You are asking Schumer to do something far worse. To increase to 15, pack those additional 6 with liberal judges so there is a vast liberal majority on the court. Don't even try to deny this. McConnell used circumstances presented to him to his favor, the same Chucky would if he had had that opportunity. McConnell did not try to make a change to the number of justices. But that is what you are advocating inshallah. If you guys want to pack the court with more justices so you can choose who they will be, guess what will happen when an R senate and R President come? And then the SCOTUS just gets bigger and bigger until it becomes meaningless. And maybe that is really where you want to go with this. Because as sure as Lee lost in the semi finals, that will happen. mspart

The court is no more packed than the rules allow. You are rebalancing it? That is an ignorant statement. Let us all know when it was balanced before now. Please, that would be rich. With 9 on the bench, it is never balanced. When did you complain about the makeup of the court before Trump's administration? That would be interesting. mspart

It did not happen. Grand Jury is still meeting. Not sure who gets to laugh and point. Trump detractors I suppose. mspart

Just some general comments. Again, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it and it might not be to your liking in the long run. This is the problem with short term thinking. mspart

Those two are awesome!! mspart

So you are of the opinion that Trump controls the Rs? This the great hope of the Ds for sure. You guys should be ecstatic that he is running and not complain about it. But I don't share that opinion. I think when the tangibles and intangibles are compared, Trump loses a lot of luster that he once had. Is he influential? Yes. Able to control GOP fundraising? I don't think so. Trump is old news. Just like Biden is. Neither should prevail in 2024. mspart

Ross Perot did it and that did not break the Rs. They just came back the next time. Trump is polarizing for sure, even among the Rs. I don't think it would have too long of a lasting effect. Just Trump's success (or non-success) in picking winners in 2022 should give a lot of his supporters pause. mspart

As I have said elsewhere, the Stormy Daniels thing has been investigated by the FEC and no charges were ever leveled. The DA is essentially trying to make something happen where there was nothing to see according to FEC. You break laws, you should be held liable. No one is above the law. However this DA is straining at a gnat and will not prevail. This is politically motivated in my opinion. mspart