Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Republican senators insist the president only nominate center right justices.

Yet it's obviously their intent to nominate far right justices.

I think clinton should go with more liberal judges. And she should play the political game on them. First a liberal asian judge. Then a liberal hispanic judge. Just slowly burn away their support among every voting group they are pursuing unless they start acting more fairly.

Besides, their candidate loves strong communists - republicans should be more open to left wing justices now.

Seriously-- I heard on the way home Cruz and then McCain had announced they would indefinitely not approve justices and that the court could function fine with 7 or 6 or 5 justices. McCain has since walked his statement back but he shouldn't have made it in the first place.

Personally, I think the supreme court should start playing as much hardball as they can ethically with republican policies until the republicans start to treat the institution of the court with respect again. But I'm not a supreme court justice.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Hispanic liberal? Asian liberal?

Why not "competent" "best" or even "most" liberal?

Bigot much?
3 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Hispanic liberal? Asian liberal?

Why not "competent" "best" or even "most" liberal?

Bigot much?


Because nominating a qualified liberal hispanic justice who the republicans vote down will cost them the hispanic vote. Likewise because nominating a qualified liberal asian justice who the republicans vote down will cost them the asian vote.

Bigot? No- but a realist who's sick and tired of republican hypocrisy- yup.

So stick it to them unless they start negotiating in good faith. If they are vote down your qualified candidate anyway, then give them candidates that will cost them for the next generation.

I'm suspecting they will suddenly rush garland through after the election too. Just really pissed off at republican senators tonight after hearing them spew on the news.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Hispanic liberal? Asian liberal?

Why not "competent" "best" or even "most" liberal?

Bigot much?


It has nothing to do with bigotry.

It's called strategically outmaneuvering your opposition, something you certainly know nothing about.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
maxo-texas wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Hispanic liberal? Asian liberal?

Why not "competent" "best" or even "most" liberal?

Bigot much?


Because nominating a qualified liberal hispanic justice who the republicans vote down will cost them the hispanic vote. Likewise because nominating a qualified liberal asian justice who the republicans vote down will cost them the asian vote.

Bigot? No- but a realist who's sick and tired of republican hypocrisy- yup.

So stick it to them unless they start negotiating in good faith. If they are vote down your qualified candidate anyway, then give them candidates that will cost them for the next generation.

I'm suspecting they will suddenly rush garland through after the election too. Just really pissed off at republican senators tonight after hearing them spew on the news.


Oh. Now that you've clarified that in your opinion Asians and Hispanics are the bigots you've... you've... dug a deeper hole?

Thanks for the clarification. I was a little uncertain if it was a slip or outright belief that Asians and Hispanics can't appreciate ideas/integrity/competence over race.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Maxo-texas, I disagree.

The 1st thing that should happen is for the Senate by majority vote to change the rules in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster for SCJ or at least drastically reduce the number of votes needed for cloture. If it were 51 or 52 then the Repuds would still have some say.

I think 51 would be best. This would be 50 plus the Vice-Pres. or the Repuds could hold back 1 Senator from voting and the final vote would be 50 to 49 and the VP would not get to be a tie breaker. In this case the Dems would need any one Republican Senator to vote with them. Therefore, the Repuds would have to all be willing to vote no or abstain which would make them all look very, very bad, especially if [as you said] the SC nominees are minorities.

OTOH, there is a lot to be said for getting rid of filibusters completely. I don't trust the Repuds to put it back if they ever get a slim majority and need it. I.e. they don't control both the House and/or Pres. I hope this is clear.

So, just try to roll over them with no filibuster at all. I say try because I expect 1 Dem to vote with the Repuds, anyway.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Hispanic liberal? Asian liberal?

Why not "competent" "best" or even "most" liberal?

Bigot much?

If there were a legitimate rating system to determine those, then sure. Realistically you get a list where the candidates all different have varying strengths and weaknesses that cannot be directly compared to determine the "best". As such they are all "best", but for differing reasons. If one criteria is increasing diversity on the court, the "best" could be the Asian American candidate.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Go8ng from 'let the will of the people decide after the election' to 'we don't think the will of the people is worth listening to' is going to be a hellava gymnastics show.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ito 2017!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is very little in the constitution of the USA about how SCJ are picked. It's basically tradition that there are confirmation hearings for example. None of this has been tested in the SC. So if the Senate refuses to vote on SCJ for the new president, then she should push back hard. Giv them a deadline and let the SC sort it out.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Ross
United States
Charlotte
NC
flag msg tools
badge
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
By the way, Hillary said during one of the debates that her litmus test for the court was someone who would overturn Citizens United.

That should have alarmed everyone. But the Dems have done a great job lying about Citizens United so everyone thinks it's about "dark money" (like the kind Hillary scoops up daily) instead of more properly about a citizen's corporation's right to participate in the electoral process.


FTFY
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Ross
United States
Charlotte
NC
flag msg tools
badge
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Albatros28215 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
By the way, Hillary said during one of the debates that her litmus test for the court was someone who would overturn Citizens United.

That should have alarmed everyone. But the Dems have done a great job lying about Citizens United so everyone thinks it's about "dark money" (like the kind Hillary scoops up daily) instead of more properly about a citizen's corporation's right to participate in the electoral process.


FTFY


Curious. Do you want to silence labor unions, too? They would also be denied their right to participate in the process if Citizens United was upheld.

Let's be blunt. Democrats are complete hypocrites about Citizens United, because they benefit from the decision just as much if not more than Republicans. They blather vagueries about "dark money" while raking in the cash, illegally coordinating with PACs, slurping up every penny from Wall Street (while letting Wall Street itself pick cabinet members), and hiring thugs to commit acts of violence at Republican rallies.

So really, when it comes to Citizens United, I want all Democrats to just admit they're bloviating. Hillary doesn't mean it. It's just as much a bone to throw to her lefty supporters as "CLOSE GITMO!" was for Obama. And it's still open. And it never will be closed while he's president.


I want mega$$ out of politics - full stop.

And BTW a nice distraction from the OP's point; this Cruz stance is indefensible from a variety of aspects: Previous right wing rhetoric, constitutional, even moral. These chosen "nuclear options" are creating a self fulfilling prophesy - government that can do nothing right because a wing of the government has decided to prevent any action. While that sounds like nirvana to some, the last set of government shutdowns should provide some clue as what the vast majority of the governed think.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Ross
United States
Charlotte
NC
flag msg tools
badge
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


Are you voting for Hillary?


Whomever I vote for, it will be mainly to prevent the billionaire oligarch from holding an federal executive position and standing as commander in chief.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
By the way, Hillary said during one of the debates that her litmus test for the court was someone who would overturn Citizens United.

That should have alarmed everyone. But the Dems have done a great job lying about Citizens United so everyone thinks it's about "dark money" (like the kind Hillary scoops up daily) instead of more properly about a citizen's right to participate in the electoral process.


LOL, this is the single most idiotic thing I've read on RSP today. Complains about corruption, then says Citizens United was a good thing. You can't make this shit up people. Only in right wing 'Merica people. shake
11 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

Let's be blunt. Democrats are complete hypocrites about Citizens United, because they benefit from the decision just as much if not more than Republicans. They blather vagueries about "dark money" while raking in the cash, illegally coordinating with PACs, slurping up every penny from Wall Street (while letting Wall Street itself pick cabinet members), and hiring thugs to commit acts of violence at Republican rallies.


So getting rid of it would benefit the people and get big money out of both sides of the aisle. Where's the downside?

If you talk about getting rid of it and don't follow through, that should haunt you next election.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
By the way, Hillary said during one of the debates that her litmus test for the court was someone who would overturn Citizens United.

That should have alarmed everyone. But the Dems have done a great job lying about Citizens United so everyone thinks it's about "dark money" (like the kind Hillary scoops up daily) instead of more properly about a citizen's right to participate in the electoral process.


Corporations aren't people.

Obviously, neither are Unions.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
jonb wrote:
LOL, this is the single most idiotic thing I've read on RSP today.


You should read some of YOUR posts.


I write them. Of course I read them. And they inevitably make far more sense than your posting that Citizens United has somehow been good for reducing corruption rather than a key tool which makes it far easier for corporations to buy elections.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure I see the hypocrisy, it's a continuation of a questionable policy that they have in place now.


But I really wonder why Cruz thought it was a good idea to announce it before elections.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Al Ross
United States
Charlotte
NC
flag msg tools
badge
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
I'm not sure I see the hypocrisy, it's a continuation of a questionable policy that they have in place now.


But I really wonder why Cruz thought it was a good idea to announce it before elections.



The hypocrisy lies in the party line reasoning for the Merrick stall - "Let the people speak in the upcoming election". Now that the word is most likely NO FUCKING WAY to Trump, and OMG the Senate is now in play... well now there's a different tune!
7 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Albatros28215 wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
I'm not sure I see the hypocrisy, it's a continuation of a questionable policy that they have in place now.


But I really wonder why Cruz thought it was a good idea to announce it before elections.



The hypocrisy lies in the party line reasoning for the [Justice] Merrick stall - "Let the people speak in the upcoming election". Now that the word is most likely NO FUCKING WAY to Trump, and OMG the Senate is now in play... well, now there's a different tune!

Exactly, now it sounds more like, "We will wait until we are in charge again."

This is so contrary to the "Tradition" in America that it isn't even on the list of possibilities. And conservatives are supposed to respect 'tradition'.

Like I said the Dems should just change the rules. At this point what difference could it possibly make? I'm positive that the Repuds will do it as soon as it benefits them. So, we should beat them to the punch, so to speak. The possibility of 3 SCJ in the next 2 years makes it well worth it. The older liberal SCJs might retire in the next 2 years, or even this coming Summer.

The Dems should not take the mid-term election for granted either, they should act decisively while they can.

5 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Hispanic liberal? Asian liberal?

Why not "competent" "best" or even "most" liberal?

Bigot much?


No shit. Mac sees skin color instead of qualifications. Disgusting. He wants to play politics to drive wedges between us instead of uniting us on common ground. Terrible racism in play here that sees people as tokens to be pushed around a board rather than as human beings.


Whatever invites your party to further fuck itself for the next 20 years, man.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
Their "Best Case Scenario" were after the elections with FEWER "R"-stallers no longer in 'office'! They can go "B" 'elsewhere'. cool
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A good possible tactical response by Clinton from my favorite blog:
www.electoral-vote.com


If Hillary Clinton wins the White House and Republicans hold the Senate, please locate the nearest fall-out shelter, which may be behind you. It's possibly going to be nuclear war. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has now joined Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in proposing to leave the seat of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia vacant indefinitely, effectively meaning "until there is a Republican president," which could take 4, 8, or more years. Constitutionally, there is no reason the Court can't have 8 justices. The number is set by federal law and has varied over the years from 6 to 10. Thus, the Senate would be clearly on viable constitutional grounds refusing to confirm any of appointees of a potential President Clinton. Of course, some day the shoe might be on the other foot, with a Republican president and a Democratic Senate, but maybe the Republicans will take their chances on that.

Needless to say, after pleading with the Senate to do its job for a few months, Clinton's patience might run out. There are things she could do on her own to get some things decided, however. For example, suppose she issued an executive order saying that no undocumented immigrant who has been in the country for at least 5 years, has no criminal record, and who has paid federal income taxes will be deported, nor will any members of that person's family. The Republicans would immediately sue her. She could probably successfully argue that the case should be heard in D.C., and the resulting appeal should be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There are currently 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit Court, of whom Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge. One of the judges was appointed by George H.W. Bush, three were appointed by Bill Clinton, three were appointed by George W. Bush, and four were appointed by Barack Obama, giving Democratic appointees a 7 to 4 majority. If they decided this case (or any other case about executive orders) in favor of the President, the Republicans would appeal to the Supreme Court, which would likely split 4 to 4, leaving the D.C. Court ruling as binding. Clinton would quickly discover that the only way to govern was by executive order and rulings of the D.C. Court. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would be legal until a future Supreme Court took up the cases. (V)
4 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
einsteinidahosu wrote:
A good possible tactical response by Clinton from my favorite blog:
www.electoral-vote.com


If Hillary Clinton wins the White House and Republicans hold the Senate, please locate the nearest fall-out shelter, which may be behind you. It's possibly going to be nuclear war. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has now joined Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in proposing to leave the seat of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia vacant indefinitely, effectively meaning "until there is a Republican president," which could take 4, 8, or more years. Constitutionally, there is no reason the Court can't have 8 justices. The number is set by federal law and has varied over the years from 6 to 10. Thus, the Senate would be clearly on viable constitutional grounds refusing to confirm any of appointees of a potential President Clinton. Of course, some day the shoe might be on the other foot, with a Republican president and a Democratic Senate, but maybe the Republicans will take their chances on that.

Needless to say, after pleading with the Senate to do its job for a few months, Clinton's patience might run out. There are things she could do on her own to get some things decided, however. For example, suppose she issued an executive order saying that no undocumented immigrant who has been in the country for at least 5 years, has no criminal record, and who has paid federal income taxes will be deported, nor will any members of that person's family. The Republicans would immediately sue her. She could probably successfully argue that the case should be heard in D.C., and the resulting appeal should be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There are currently 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit Court, of whom Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge. One of the judges was appointed by George H.W. Bush, three were appointed by Bill Clinton, three were appointed by George W. Bush, and four were appointed by Barack Obama, giving Democratic appointees a 7 to 4 majority. If they decided this case (or any other case about executive orders) in favor of the President, the Republicans would appeal to the Supreme Court, which would likely split 4 to 4, leaving the D.C. Court ruling as binding. Clinton would quickly discover that the only way to govern was by executive order and rulings of the D.C. Court. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would be legal until a future Supreme Court took up the cases. (V)


The difference is with Clinton, it will be a figurative nuclear war. With Trump it might be a literal nuclear war.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jonb wrote:
You can't make this shit up people. Only in right wing 'Merica people.


Don't be too harsh on your country. It's only (among rich industrialised countries) worse there, not unknown elsewhere. Our Brexit campaign went round the country with an out and out lie on the side of its bus. Of course Farage is now supporting Trump. Birds of a feather.

Edit: reversed autocorrect of Farage into garage. Or at least I'm claiming that rather than finger trouble.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.