Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Itssoeasy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Its not an equal Court. A 5-4 Court has just become 5-3.

So, if theres an election related SCOTUS battle, Biden's chances of being declared as a result of any SCOTUS decision just went into the toilet!!

It’s an equal court in terms of no of justices Tom. I realise the ideological make up isn’t equal.

dark crystal

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1307106318839435270

Is it possible that if Murkowski, Collins, Romney and perhaps Grassley (who has also stated he would not vote for a replacement in 2020) refuse to vote for a replacement whilst Trump is still in office, Republicans won't be able to replace RBG's seat before a new President is (hopefully) elected?

Or could Mitch McConnell push someone through anyway, despite his previous statements regarding it being unfeasible to fill any SCJ vacancies in an election year?

dark crystal

The vultures are already circling :mad:

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1307109300981174273

TomOnBoard

dinorebel wrote: »

Murkowski and Romney have committed to not confirming until after Inauguration Day


*from Twitter so not confirmed

That would turn a 53:47 Republican advantage into a 51:47 with 2 abstensions. Still works for Mc Connell.

If 1 more abstains, then its 50:47 with 3 abstensions. Still works for Mc Connell.

If 2 more abstain, then its 49:47 with 4 abstensions. Now thats still a simple majority. Is that sufficient? Mc Connell would argue Yes. Schumer would argue No. If that works for Mc Connell at 49:47, then with even more abstensions, it works all the way down to 47:47 for Mc Connell, because that would be a tie, and Pence would have a casting vote. Game over!

On the other hand, if those Reps who refuse to confirm actually vote against, instead of just abstaining, then today's 53:47 becomes 51:49 with Murkowski and Romney joining the Dem caucus. Mc Connell still wins, even if another one does the same. However, if 4 vote against instead of abstaining, then no confirmation could follow.

So, another 2 Rep Senators need to join the entirety of the Dem caucus, AND signal that they would vote against to stop Mc Connell. Thats a very big ask!

Overheal

dark crystal wrote: »

The vultures are already circling :mad:

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1307109300981174273

They're cashing in all their chips for this. This is Boardwalk and Park Place for them.

vetinari

It's to be expected, the Republicans have never shown much honor in general.
They've been okay with a borderline traitor in the white house

Inquitus

RIP RBG, Mitch there's a special place in hell for you!

Kiith

There was zero chance that Mitch and the Republicans would have any shred of decency and hold off appointing a judge. 17 Republicans in 2016 signed a note saying a judge shouldn't be pushed through in an election year, and i fully expect 17 of them to do a full 180 without even the slightest hint of embarrassment.

This will be done in record time, and the Supreme Court will be massively stacked for decades. Bye bye Roe vs Wade, and many other "liberal" laws.

If the Senate is flipped and Biden wins, can they increase the number of judges to 9? Would that be a majority Senate decision, or 2/3?

Igotadose

In other news. seems like Jared in fact did say f off to business leaders and the states when it came to PPE earlier in the year. Basicaly, let them eat cake.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/jared-kushner-let-the-markets-decide-covid-19-fate

PropJoe10

Overheal wrote: »

They're cashing in all their chips for this. This is Boardwalk and Park Place for them.

Mitch McConnell is a diseased slug of a man. Pure and simple.

Igotadose

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Mitch McConnell is a diseased slug of a man. Pure and simple.

Obama calls for the Senate to hold off until the next President is inaugurated:

"Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in."

https://obama.medium.com/my-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-5a925b627457

StringerBell

Biden has made the same remarks. That the position of the Republican Senate in 2016 must hold true now.

Its a pointless exercise on their part but they do have to be seen to say it I guess. The thing that may stay the hand of Mconnell, at least initially is that there are a number of Senators who wouldn't want to be seen to ram it through before the election as they are in tight races, Graham being the most prominent, Collins another, Murkowski and others have said they won't vote on it before the election previously I believe (as has Graham, but that was 2 years ago so wouldn't take it to the bank)

If they lose the election they will have no problem burning the house down on their way out the doors though during the lame duck session so in my mind it is likely just a matter of when rather than if.

banie01

The actual threat to US democracy implicit in this moment should terrify every fair minded US citizen.

Stacking the SC at this particular juncture, really will leave many centre, centre left and in particular leftists, or indeed just plain old fair minded social democratic types, questioning the overt politicisation of Judicial appointments.

It is a short step to moving from deflation at being unable to sway a politically stacked court.
To taking violent action to open up seats on that stacked court, that can be filled by a senate likely with an opposite political view.

It's a short idealogical leap from political opposition in a stacked system, to insurrection.
The foibles and failings of presidential government are becoming ever more apparent.

The usual arguments against presidentialism are playing into sharp focus Stateside.
That it's the form of government most often at least claimed by banana republics, is quite ironic.

PropJoe10

Even the fact that the highest court of justice in the US is so political is weird to me. The judiciary should surely be independent from political considerations. Bizarre, bizarre country.

Christy42

Remember when knocking down a statue was considered to be erasing history?

Well apparently changing history so that you look great doesn't count.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-calls-patriotic-eduction-says-anti-racism-teachings-are-child-n1240372

salmocab

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Even the fact that the highest court of justice in the US is so political is weird to me. The judiciary should surely be independent from political considerations. Bizarre, bizarre country.

It’s a country founded on an inept setup. They vote for too many positions like sheriffs and educators, the electoral college is a moronic thing and judges being appointed politically is a recipe for bad things as politicians the world over rarely have the best interests of the greater country at heart when given this type of power.
If you were starting a new country and someone suggested these things you’d throw them out of the meeting and tell them to live elsewhere.

StringerBell

banie01 wrote: »

The actual threat to US democracy implicit in this moment should terrify every fair minded US citizen.

Stacking the SC at this particular juncture, really will leave many centre, centre left and in particular leftists, or indeed just plain old fair minded social democratic types, questioning the overt politicisation of Judicial appointments.

It is a short step to moving from deflation at being unable to sway a politically stacked court.
To taking violent action to open up seats on that stacked court, that can be filled by a senate likely with an opposite political view.

It's a short idealogical leap from political opposition in a stacked system, to insurrection.
The foibles and failings of presidential government are becoming ever more apparent.

The usual arguments against presidentialism are playing into sharp focus Stateside.
That it's the form of government most often at least claimed by banana republics, is quite ironic.

This is what you get when you have the ridiculous purity tests and circular firing squad that is present on the left.

Power begets power. This is the situation you risk when you allow someone like trump into office.

dark crystal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well then Mitch McConnell is a hypocrite then. He said on the record he didn’t think that a judge should be voted on before an election.

Many Republicans said this, including notorious turncoat Lindsey Graham. In fact, he said 'you can playback this tape and quote me' after he made his position clear in 2016. Let's see what his position is in 2020...

If it's possible to dislike any politician even more than Trump or McConnell, I'd have to say it's Ted Cruz for me. Slimy, two-faced, hypocritical and without a shred of integrity. After Trump insulted both his wife and his father, he is now one of the top Trump sycophants. What kind of person does that make you? Seriously?

Anyway, here he his in yet another weasly interview given after RBG's death. Watch how his position has magically changed on this issue - again.

https://twitter.com/JimLaPorta/status/1307148294557257729

Only a few weeks back, him and a cohort of other like-minded white GOP males, decided that one of their priorities during this pandemic was to write to the FDA to remove Mifeprex, an abortion pill, from sale, calling it "imminent hazard to the public health" despite An FDA database showing that only 24 out of 3.7 million women in the U.S. who had a medication abortion died between September 28, 2000, and December 31, 2018 (not just from Mifeprex alone). 24 women in 18 years and he wants it banned for being a hazard to public health!

He is a zealot and despite his protestations in 2016, you can see exactly why he'll happily row back on his stance in 2016 regarding appointing Supreme Court judges, if it means it gets him one step closer to controlling what a woman can do with her own body.

TomOnBoard

dark crystal wrote: »

Many Republicans said this, including notorious turncoat Lindsey Graham. In fact, he said 'you can playback this tape and quote me' after he made his position clear in 2016. Let's see what his position is in 2020...

If it's possible to dislike any politician even more than Trump or McConnell, I'd have to say it's Ted Cruz for me. Slimy, two-faced, hypocritical and without a shred of integrity. After Trump insulted both his wife and his father, he is now one of the top Trump sycophants. What kind of person does that make you? Seriously?

Anyway, here he his in yet another weasly interview given after RBG's death. Watch how his position has magically changed on this issue - again.

https://twitter.com/JimLaPorta/status/1307148294557257729

Only a few weeks back, him and a cohort of other like-minded white GOP males, decided that one of their priorities during this pandemic was to write to the FDA to remove Mifeprex, an abortion pill, from sale, calling it "imminent hazard to the public health" despite An FDA database showing that only 24 out of 3.7 million women in the U.S. who had a medication abortion died between September 28, 2000, and December 31, 2018 (not just from Mifeprex alone). 24 women in 18 years and he wants it banned for being a hazard to public health!

He is a zealot and despite his protestations in 2016, you can see exactly why he'll happily row back on his stance in 2016 regarding appointing Supreme Court judges, if it means it gets him one step closer to controlling what a woman can do with her own body.

Yes, and on top of all the valid points you make, there is the fact that, for whatever reason, Trump put Cruz onto his new list of possible Supreme Court nominees earlier this month... Frightening or what???

dark crystal

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Yes, and on top of all the valid points you make, there is the fact that, for whatever reason, Trump put Cruz onto his new list of possible Supreme Court nominees earlier this month... Frightening or what???

It's terrifying.

PropJoe10

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Yes, and on top of all the valid points you make, there is the fact that, for whatever reason, Trump put Cruz onto his new list of possible Supreme Court nominees earlier this month... Frightening or what???

This is the same Ted Cruz whose father was involved in the assassination of JFK, according to Trump in the 2016 election campaign.

aloyisious

As the first ballots have already been cast [yesterday and today] for Nov's presidential election, where are these ballots held until the vote count can start after close of actual voting on the 03rd Nov?

Going back to Florida again, which is going to be a very important state in the race, with the storm hitting and flooding it now and an apparent fact that up to 130,000 U.S Puerto Rican territory citizens moved to Florida after the 2017 hurricane disaster, will there be a Latino swing against Trump in the presidential election race there - if those Puerto Rican US citizens got extra voting rights by moving to Florida? I'm mindful of the fact that U.S Puerto Ricans territory citizens can vote in the party presidential primaries, they cannot vote in the actual Nov presidential race between Trump and Biden. Puerto Rico also suffered earthquakes last year and this year.

Given that Mike Bloomberg has said he's prepared to place $100 Million of his fortune in Florida to support Biden, if X amount is used against the present state GOP senators [both republicans] as well as Trump, will either of them cut and run from support of Trump due to his handling of Puerto Rico and covid-19?

aloyisious

PropJoe10 wrote: »

This is the same Ted Cruz whose father was involved in the assassination of JFK, according to Trump in the 2016 election campaign.

That alone, if one was to link the fake accusation to Cruz's father being Cuban who moved to Canada where Ted was born, would have blunt inferences to Ted's Dad holding an anti-Kennedy bias - said bias also held by Bay of Pigs veterans Trump was very happy to take an award from after the same election. I don't know how Trump's line will play out in Texan & Florida's local election moves.

PropJoe10

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vacant-seat-fill/index.html

What a guy. Not even an ounce of shame. The woman is dead less than 24 hours.

ExMachina1000

PropJoe10 wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vacant-seat-fill/index.html

What a guy. Not even an ounce of shame. The woman is dead less than 24 hours.

The world keeps on turning. That's just the reality of life

pixelburp

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The world keeps on turning. That's just the reality of life

I presume you're at least passing aware of the irony of the whole scenario? Of a sitting (Republican) president having to pick a SC nominee in election year and Mitch McConnells previous utterances on the subject in 2016?

ExMachina1000

pixelburp wrote: »

I presume you're at least passing aware of the irony of the whole scenario? Of a sitting (Republican) president having to pick a SC nominee in election year and Mitch McConnells previous utterances on the subject in 2016?

No I'm not aware of the situation. Only that a great trailblazing lawmaker has died and already they are looking to replace her.
But that's just life. Doubtful they will find someone half as good as she was. Different times.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Non not aware of the situation. Only that a great trailblazing lawmaker has died and already they are looking to replace her.
But that's just life. Doubtful they will find someone half as good as she was. Different times.

Would be worth informing self, the Republicans used the excuse that a supreme court judge can't be replaced in an election year back in 2016.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would be worth informing self, the Republicans used the excuse that a supreme court judge can't be replaced in an election year back in 2016.

Who are they looking to replace her with?

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Who are they looking to replace her with?

That's not addressing what I said. They actively blocked an appointment because it was an election year...