|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2018 15:11:13 GMT -5
Schumer said he'd use every thing he had to defeat any Trump nominee before Kavanaugh was even nominated. They probably had the scripts all written out with fill-in-the-blanks for the nominee's name.
I thought it was Schumer but it was Durbin that said they'd defeat Trump's nominee "At all costs".
This is war. It has always been war. It's understandable because Democrats can't win on policy. Trump's election proves that. All they have is character assassination. That's been the plan all along. The Republicans don't know how to play that game but they'll learn by this. They're already preparing to impeach most of the Democrats on the judiciary committee for lying to congress. Any sane voter, which eliminates most Democrats, understands what's been done.
If something turns up that proves me wrong I'll apologize but meanwhile I'd be embarrassed to be a Democrat just now.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 1, 2018 15:17:45 GMT -5
I think it should be a federal crime for people to bitch, moan and cry in their beer when their party and ideological peers own the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. Like, shut up already. Or at least direct all your complaints to your Senators, Congressmen and ... I don’t know, do Supreme Court Justices have emails and voicemails?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 1, 2018 15:22:37 GMT -5
I’d forgive him for it if heartfelt. I must admit however I had difficulty forgiving Bill Clinton and Lance Armstrong. Attempted rape aside, I’d have no problem forgiving Kavanaugh for lying about his excessive drinking. No problem at all. Although he’d have to admit to it first. That doesn’t mean he ought to be on the Supreme Court, though. His testimony proved that he doesn’t have the temperament and that he is not even remotely bipartisan and impartial.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 1, 2018 15:37:32 GMT -5
Now here's a fine how-do-you-do. Both the left and right wings of this form are gloomily predicting a loss for their side. EDIT: Well, except for Peter. Well, I've had the advantage of living and working among the gutless, morally bankrupt, assholery that defines "inside the beltway". What really separates Trump in this environment is that he's got no reason to hide his true self. We've all made peace with it. He gets shit done that needs to be done. A lot of personal flaws can be overlooked. Not like he's cheating anyone. Just fighting back. And the rest of the resident jack-offs think they're getting away with something. And truly, no matter what you think of Trump, he hasn't done anything wrong yet. No moves to declare himself emperor for life. No storm troopers in the streets. An economy that's bubbling along nicely. Etc. Now comes Kavanaugh and the knives come out. Pure vindictive slander. No evidence. No proof. Nothing. Thanks, Fienstien. Hope rotting in hell was worth it. Y'all got your FBI investigation, for what it's worth (what idiot is going to contradict his previous testimony under penalty of felony?). That should give enough cover for some of the more hard pressed Democrats to break from the suicide train once nothing is found. Go get 'em Brett. Bet you and Clarence Thomas can tell some tales when you get there.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2018 15:49:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 1, 2018 16:24:29 GMT -5
The thing that bothers me most about Kavanaugh isn't the Roe v. Wade issue, though that does bother me. What bothers me most is the devotion he has shown toward strengthening presidential powers. There was a massive public reaction to the aggrandizement of those powers during an era that's come to be called the Imperial Presidency (per Arthur Schlesinger's book), culminating in the Nixon era, when Congress set about to rein in those powers, for example by passing the 1973 War Powers Act, and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Over the following decades, leading up to today, the balance once again has been shifting back toward the White House - partly through dereliction of duties on Capitol Hill. From what I've seen about Kavanaugh's political philosophy, I gather he is fully on board with this trend back toward executive imperialism, and would materially add to it at every opportunity - and that is exactly why Trump nominated him. Well then, you should embrace him, right? It's conservatives who wish: 1. the balance of power away from the executive, 2. A congress that sets law and policy, and 3. A supreme court subservient to the constitution.Those may be conservative values (though I'm not sure about #1), and I do indeed embrace them, but from what I've seen, Trump embraces conservative values only when it suits his megalomaniacal tendencies, and Kavanaugh consistently favors a stronger executive than I'm comfortable with.
|
|
|
Kavanaugh
Oct 1, 2018 16:24:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by coachdoc on Oct 1, 2018 16:24:52 GMT -5
If he does not do that and still gets appointed this affair will remain a stain on his persona the rest of his life. We've come down to this point. There isn't anything he could do that would satisfy those who don't want him now. It's a lesson that the Republicans will probably never learn -- that they will never win the admiration of Democrats unless they become Democrats. They will always be the villains in our entertainment media. They will always be the bad guys in our schools. And as the Democrats get more and more antifa and "Democratic Socialist" in their attack, it's going to become increasingly dangerous to be Republican. The Jeff Flake/CNN set-up in the elevator was no accident. The Republicans have been tantalized by the football of friendship and respect over and over again, only to have it pulled back every time. No compromise has ever gained them anything but the perception of lacking the character to stand by their promises and represent their constituents. In other words, the "stain on his persona the rest of his life" that you mention? It was a fait accompli the instant he was nominated by a Republican president. Scalia had no such scandal in his past. He was reviled. Republicans have to simply get used to that. Their goal should be to better the country. That should be enough. Um, Garland?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2018 16:41:30 GMT -5
We've come down to this point. There isn't anything he could do that would satisfy those who don't want him now. It's a lesson that the Republicans will probably never learn -- that they will never win the admiration of Democrats unless they become Democrats. They will always be the villains in our entertainment media. They will always be the bad guys in our schools. And as the Democrats get more and more antifa and "Democratic Socialist" in their attack, it's going to become increasingly dangerous to be Republican. The Jeff Flake/CNN set-up in the elevator was no accident. The Republicans have been tantalized by the football of friendship and respect over and over again, only to have it pulled back every time. No compromise has ever gained them anything but the perception of lacking the character to stand by their promises and represent their constituents. In other words, the "stain on his persona the rest of his life" that you mention? It was a fait accompli the instant he was nominated by a Republican president. Scalia had no such scandal in his past. He was reviled. Republicans have to simply get used to that. Their goal should be to better the country. That should be enough. Um, Garland? Yeah, Garland came up after the Democrats lost. That's why the Republicans want to get Kavanaugh in before the election.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 1, 2018 16:47:28 GMT -5
To John's point about a congress that sets law and policy: due to growing partisan paralysis over the past several decades, the U.S. Congress has become so ineffective that it can hardly agree on anything. We're way past p. 7 here, but I would just point out that weak and stumbling legislatures in other countries historically have led to public impatience and disgust, which have provided fertile ground for the ascendancy of despots.
We don't need to start messing with the Constitution, in my view, but we do need a serious overhaul of our system, starting with an end of gerrymandering (maybe the most important reform needed, so the art of compromise can be restored), and revision of the budget process to restore the way Congress used to make law and policy: through individual appropriations bills, not the monstrosity called the Continuing Resolution.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 1, 2018 16:50:15 GMT -5
the U.S. Congress has become so ineffective that it can hardly agree on anything. Again, I think that's the very flawed presumption that has brought us to the brink of civil war.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 1, 2018 16:52:55 GMT -5
Um, Sotomayor, um Kagan, um Ginsberg.
The Rs made nice. Well, one hell of a lot nicer than this mess.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 1, 2018 17:03:54 GMT -5
the U.S. Congress has become so ineffective that it can hardly agree on anything. Again, I think that's the very flawed presumption that has brought us to the brink of civil war. Wow. I didn't think anybody would disagree with that.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 1, 2018 17:29:24 GMT -5
Again, I think that's the very flawed presumption that has brought us to the brink of civil war. Wow. I didn't think anybody would disagree with that. It's the unevenness of expectations when "getting things done" is judged by a progressive agenda. When the goal is as it has been -- doing anything is better than doing nothing -- all issues are judged by progress. Whether or not progress should desirable or is headed in the right direction is the question begged. And since progressing is all that is demanded, Democrats win every compromise. Nothing is judged by the success of the plan or policy. It's all "getting things done".
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 1, 2018 17:41:54 GMT -5
If he does not do that and still gets appointed this affair will remain a stain on his persona the rest of his life. It really boils down to not having the character to admit to flawed behavior and apologize for it and that is a big deal for most people. Stain? It's already there. No amount of "Come to Jesus" is going to change that. And as for the rest of his life, it look pretty rosey if he gets approved. (Probably pretty rosey if he doesn't. He gets to go on being a Federal judge. Not a bad gig by my standards.)
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 1, 2018 17:42:11 GMT -5
Again, I think that's the very flawed presumption that has brought us to the brink of civil war. Wow. I didn't think anybody would disagree with that. Count me among the disagrees. You want a peaceful, harmonious and civil nation? Limit the Federal government to Federal things. The feds exist, constitutionally, to provide a basic civic infrastructure. The rest belongs to the States. We've spent 100 years trying to federalize everything. Where we are, strife wise, is the natural and inevitable result. So either go back to the model the constitution envisioned, or throw it away. Our in between (square peg / round hole) strategy is failing.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 1, 2018 17:45:02 GMT -5
To John's point about a congress that sets law and policy: due to growing partisan paralysis over the past several decades, the U.S. Congress has become so ineffective that it can hardly agree on anything. We're way past p. 7 here, but I would just point out that weak and stumbling legislatures in other countries historically have led to public impatience and disgust, which have provided fertile ground for the ascendancy of despots. We don't need to start messing with the Constitution, in my view, but we do need a serious overhaul of our system, starting with an end of gerrymandering (maybe the most important reform needed, so the art of compromise can be restored), and revision of the budget process to restore the way Congress used to make law and policy: through individual appropriations bills, not the monstrosity called the Continuing Resolution. I think that if you take a good look at what Trump has been trying to do you might see that it is what you claim to want. This is the first year individual appropriation bills have been passed in a hell of a long time but Democrats have resisted. Trump is trying to restore the order presented in the constitution. Perhaps he could use your help.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 1, 2018 17:50:18 GMT -5
To John's point about a congress that sets law and policy: due to growing partisan paralysis over the past several decades, the U.S. Congress has become so ineffective that it can hardly agree on anything. We're way past p. 7 here, but I would just point out that weak and stumbling legislatures in other countries historically have led to public impatience and disgust, which have provided fertile ground for the ascendancy of despots. We don't need to start messing with the Constitution, in my view, but we do need a serious overhaul of our system, starting with an end of gerrymandering (maybe the most important reform needed, so the art of compromise can be restored), and revision of the budget process to restore the way Congress used to make law and policy: through individual appropriations bills, not the monstrosity called the Continuing Resolution. I think that if you take a good look at what Trump has been trying to do you might see that it is what you claim to want. This is the first year individual appropriation bills have been passed in a hell of a long time but Democrats have resisted. Trump is trying to restore the order presented in the constitution. Perhaps he could use your help. I might even add that much of the "grab of executive power" that everyone is complaining about with Trump is ironically merely the undoing of Obama's executive power grab that progressives had no problem with. Again, progressives are okay with a strong executive. Dictator, even. It's far more streamline when the goal is to "get things done".
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 1, 2018 19:32:54 GMT -5
To John's point about a congress that sets law and policy: due to growing partisan paralysis over the past several decades, the U.S. Congress has become so ineffective that it can hardly agree on anything. We're way past p. 7 here, but I would just point out that weak and stumbling legislatures in other countries historically have led to public impatience and disgust, which have provided fertile ground for the ascendancy of despots. We don't need to start messing with the Constitution, in my view, but we do need a serious overhaul of our system, starting with an end of gerrymandering (maybe the most important reform needed, so the art of compromise can be restored), and revision of the budget process to restore the way Congress used to make law and policy: through individual appropriations bills, not the monstrosity called the Continuing Resolution. I'm seeing an easier way that's coming courtesy of Trump. The last 20 or 30 years has seen an incredible escalation in the Legislature's ability to punt to the Executive to get things done. Legislation is a pain in the ass and an open threat to political careers (Who me? I didn't vote for that. Sure, noone did. That's the point.) So we've perfected the punt to the Executive strategy. Also known as the Executive Order or the Supreme Court ruling (2 effective ways of getting your way without actually having to prove anything). Started in 2008 the wheels were set in motion with a court-enforced non-Congressional ammendment to a real law that had stood for 45 years. The amendment was needed because physics makes the intended outcome impossible to accomplish (and impossible to pass through Congress which has been tried and predictably failed). Literally, "U.S. v. God". The reversal effort will launch this year before Christmas. Once we get back to the fundamentals of making Congress pass legislation the scales will balance. Of course, maybe they'll still wimp out and never pass anything else. But niether will anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 1, 2018 19:41:14 GMT -5
You are absolutely right, but I don't know why you think I don't include Obama among executives who have been aggrandizing power.
Also, I think your barb about progressives (like me, I presume you mean) who define a successful congress as one that enacts major legislative packages like wars on poverty is misguided in two ways. First, I am not a progressive, and I absolutely do not so define congresses. In fact, when I was covering Congress in print and on the air, and when editing other people's copy, I used to insist people avoid saying things like "the House today failed to enact the so-and-so bill," when the more accurate wording was "the so-and-so bill failed an important test on the House floor today." You see the difference. When a bill is voted down in Congress, it's not Congress that failed anything. It's the bill that failed. Second, I am not talking about one side caving in on big legislative packages involving lofty principles. I am talking about splitting differences, for example in appropriations bills, in such a way that everyone walks away believing they have gotten something out of the deal. That's the kind of legislative compromising that has kept this country in business for more than 200 years - and without periodic shutdowns. For that matter, it's how the economy works. People making deals. People on either side who define that as "selling out," I suggest, are part of the problem. Right now we have a Congress - especially a House - full of people afraid that if they even whisper the word "compromise," they will be defeated in the next primary by somebody who talks an even more radically partisan game. And they probably will be. And that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 1, 2018 19:41:40 GMT -5
Wow. I didn't think anybody would disagree with that. Count me among the disagrees. You want a peaceful, harmonious and civil nation? Limit the Federal government to Federal things. The feds exist, constitutionally, to provide a basic civic infrastructure. The rest belongs to the States. We've spent 100 years trying to federalize everything. Where we are, strife wise, is the natural and inevitable result. So either go back to the model the constitution envisioned, or throw it away. Our in between (square peg / round hole) strategy is failing. I don’t see how limiting the scope of the federal government would make things more harmonious. It would solve some problems and create others. Although I’m sure you think the change would be positive in general, I’m inclined to think it’d be the exact opposite. One of us is right. The other is wrong. Ignoring who’s who, where’s the harmony?
|
|