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

PropJoe10 · 22-09-2020 3:15pm

Headshot wrote: »

So with the debate coming up at the end of the month, where will it be held and do we know who will be over seeing the debate yet?

I am genuinely looking forward to the VP debate. But I bet Mike Pence isn't. Harris is going to absolutely destroy him.

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 3:32pm

Romney has come out in support of moving forward to fill the seat, that will be that so. I hope they get absolutely crucified in this and subsequent elections.

Leroy42 · 22-09-2020 3:43pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Romney has come out in support of moving forward to fill the seat, that will be that so. I hope they get absolutely crucified in this and subsequent elections.

If they can get it through, which I see no reason why not, that will make it 3 SCOTUS during Trumps term. From the GoP POV, they didn't think Trump had a chance in hell 4 years ago, and are now walking away with SCOTUS tied up for many years to come and many conservative judges now in place across the country.

Regardless of how the POTUS election goes, once they don't completely crash in the Senate election (and I don't see evidence of that in the polls) then they will be more than happy with the last four years.

EltonJohn69 · 22-09-2020 3:52pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Romney has come out in support of moving forward to fill the seat, that will be that so. I hope they get absolutely crucified in this and subsequent elections.

I just watched the Romney documentary, I thought he had a bit more character to him then to be Trumps errand boy

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 4:00pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I just watched the Romney documentary, I thought he had a bit more character to him then to be Trumps errand boy

I don't think he is, but I think as a conservative who is safe from the hypocrisy claim and when it became clear that his opposition probably wouldn't have been enough to stop it he got in line and is happy to have a conservative appointed to the court even though it will upset the balance of the court and all the other negative connotations.

Leroy42 · 22-09-2020 4:00pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I just watched the Romney documentary, I thought he had a bit more character to him then to be Trumps errand boy

That is a bit unfair. He is GoP senator, the constitution gives senators the right to vote on SCOTUS if and when an opening occurs.

That the GoP pulled a fast one in 2016 is just part of the game, had the DNC not been so cock sure that HC would walk it anyway they probably should have put up a bigger fight.

The voting public, who vote for Senators, clearly felt that it was reasonable, given that the GOP still retain the majority.

Whilst i am completely against the whole politicalisation of the courts, that is the system that they currently have. It is up to the DNC to change that if and when they net get back into power.

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 4:02pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

If they can get it through, which I see no reason why not, that will make it 3 SCOTUS during Trumps term. From the GoP POV, they didn't think Trump had a chance in hell 4 years ago, and are now walking away with SCOTUS tied up for many years to come and many conservative judges now in place across the country.

Regardless of how the POTUS election goes, once they don't completely crash in the Senate election (and I don't see evidence of that in the polls) then they will be more than happy with the last four years.

It's absolutely incredible to think donald trump will have picked 3 sitting supreme court justices (in one term no less!) and will have such a long lasting impact on American lives so long after he is dead and buried alright. Incredible.

I think there's a chance this backfires on them in the down ballot races, but as it's the US I wouldn't put much money on it.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 4:19pm

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

Retr0gamer · 22-09-2020 4:32pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

True but just because they can and will do it doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't complain about something which will be so damaging to the country and also takes a massive scuttery dump over the legacy and dying wish of a remarkable woman. Not to mention the O'Connells hypocrisy.

The media has been pretty quiet today about the US hitting the grim milestone of 200,000 dead from Covid-19.

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 4:53pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

Kinda reads like you don't know what happened/ or what you're talking about. I have no idea which it is.

eire4 · 22-09-2020 5:26pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

All you say there is factually correct and true. The caveat I would put forward though is that at this point the Supreme Court which should be an independent arbiter of the law has been holed below the water line.

Nody · 22-09-2020 5:27pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

If they can get it through, which I see no reason why not, that will make it 3 SCOTUS during Trumps term. From the GoP POV, they didn't think Trump had a chance in hell 4 years ago, and are now walking away with SCOTUS tied up for many years to come and many conservative judges now in place across the country.

Regardless of how the POTUS election goes, once they don't completely crash in the Senate election (and I don't see evidence of that in the polls) then they will be more than happy with the last four years.

Because 3 republican senators have said they are not going to vote for it is why not; they don't have the majority to push it through anymore. This is as well ideal for Trump to be honest because he can go to election with the rest of the party on the third seat without having to actually get it confirmed (i.e. re-elect me and you get a third judge).

Overheal · 22-09-2020 5:29pm

I'm not, quite sure if this belongs here, but, it is Trump's world now and stranger things are sure to happen. I felt that, given it's nature it should be savored here like a fine wine that it is, and not like, the dregs of CA/IMHO who will take a sip from it and carry on bickering. No! It needs to be treated like the fine upscale smoking lounge pulp that it is, I say.

I present to you the Actual Cover for Boehner's new memoir/book:

EihPnRfWoAAnVwt?format=jpg&name=900x900

*sniff* ah, that's good egocentrism.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 5:53pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

True but just because they can and will do it doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't complain about something which will be so damaging to the country

They can absolutely criticise the nominee on the grounds you've laid out above but that's not the only thing they're doing. They're criticising on the grounds that it's somehow unjust to appoint a Justice in an election year when every single President has nominated somebody whenever a vacancy arose. Election year or no.

Not only that, they're threatening to flip the system if they don't get their way. Packing the court, eliminating the filibuster entirely, packing the Senate etc.

If Democrats actually hold a principled belief that it's wrong to nominate a Justice in an election year, then why did Obama nominate Merrick Garland? There's no grounds to that belief at all. McConnell was being too cute by half in saying that the 2016 election was grounds to reject Garland. They would have rejected him in any case yet certain Senate Republicans have a misplaced sense of bipartisanship when it comes to judicial appointments dating back to the days before Dems got rid of the filibuster on judicial appointments (when Republicans confirmed two previous Obama Supreme Court nominees). They felt they needed to make a non-partisan justification for rejecting Garland. Completely misguided as they had to know the Democrats would never have shown the same courtesy. Nor should they have. Elections have never influenced this process in the past.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

and also takes a massive scuttery dump over the legacy and dying wish of a remarkable woman.

With all due respect to RBG, her legacy and her "dying wish" shouldn't mean squat when determining her successor.
This isn't some aristocracy where Judges appoint their successors. That seat didn't belong to her. It pre-existed before and it'll be around long after she's gone.
Seriously, who did she think she was to believe she could dictate this process post-mortem?

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not to mention the O'Connells hypocrisy.

As for McConnell's so called hypocrisy, there were two components to McConnell's rejecting Garland in 2016:
1.) Our job is to advise and consent and only confirm Justices we believe will interpret the Constitution correctly and we have no obligation to confirm a nominee who we believe doesn't share those principles. We don't trust this President to nominate someone who fits that description so we're not holding hearings.

2.) There's an election in November and the people should have the chance to elect somebody who can fill this seat with the Justice they want.

As I've said reason 2 is complete BS. Republicans and Democrats knew this and still know it. That was McConnell trying to be too clever at the time and screwing himself politically 4 years later.

Still it's not actually hypocrisy on McConnell's part since only the 2nd reason applies this time around. The 1st does not since Senate Republicans happen to approve of the nominees on Trump's list. McConnell made it clear he thought the 2nd reason was only essential if the 1st was true. Yes, I agree, this is McConnell winding himself into a pretzel but you can't actually accuse the guy of inconsistency.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 6:13pm

eire4 wrote: »

All you say there is factually correct and true. The caveat I would put forward though is that at this point the Supreme Court which should be an independent arbiter of the law has been holed below the water line.

Exactly. And one political party started using the court to shoe horn their political priorities into law without to need actually legislate. That would be the Democrats.

The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 6:20pm

DoD funnelling $$ to their budwans under the pretext of Covid relief. Where's William Proxmire when you need him?
"A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/

eire4 · 22-09-2020 6:24pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Exactly. And one political party started using the court to shoe horn their political priorities into law without to need actually legislate. That would be the Democrats.

The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.

The claim you make about the Republicans is risible. They are just as guilty of what your saying the Democrats are. For example they have made it a mission to overturn abortion rights in the US and that is exactly what the president said he was and would do with any nominees he put forward. Making sure their nominees do the bidding of big business has also been important in recent and previous Republican appointees.

The dangerous reality is that the supreme court as a legitimate independent arbiter of the law has as I said before been holed below the water line and the Republicans have been front and centre in that coming to pass as well.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 6:25pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

1.) Our job is to advise and consent and only confirm Justices we believe will interpret the Constitution correctly and we have no obligation to confirm a nominee who we believe doesn't share those principles. We don't trust this President to nominate someone who fits that description so we're not holding hearings.

Funnily, the Constitution just states that Advise and Consent is what's needed. It doesn't say how the Senate provides it, which is the ticket. Otherwise, Justices might never be confirmed. So, even though Garland was proposed far in advance of the election, throw principle out the window (which is, when the President proposes someone, the Senate through it's process advises and consents, or not, which has been known to happen as well cf. Robert Bork for example).

Basically, what you're doing to rubberstamp this behavior is, "Whoever gets the Majority in the Senate gets to choose the SC judges." Sad place you're striving for, and has been readily stated, a minority of the population is dictating who is on the SCOTUS, since a minority population state like, say, Wyoming, has as much impact as say, Florida or California.

I don't think that's what the Founders intended.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 6:51pm

eire4 wrote: »

The claim you make about the Republicans is risible. They are just as guilty of what your saying the Democrats are. For example they have made it a mission to overturn abortion rights in the US and that is exactly what the president said he was and would do with any nominees he put forward.

Did it ever cross your mind that Roe V Wade could have been wrongly decided?

Also none of Trump's Supreme Court Justices so far would ever vote to overturn Roe. None. They maybe textualists but their squishy when it comes to bad precedents and have shown they won't overturn established precedents. There's only one Justice currently on the Court who would definitely overturn Roe and that's Clarence Thomas.

Even if Roe was overturned (which it won't be any time in the near future) all that means is that States would have the chance to decide for themselves if the want abortion or not.

eire4 wrote: »

Making sure their nominees do the bidding of big business has also been important in recent and previous Republican appointees.

What does "doing the bidding of big business mean? Any examples?

eire4 wrote: »

The dangerous reality is that the supreme court as a legitimate independent arbiter of the law has as I said before been holed below the water line and the Republicans have been front and centre in that coming to pass as well.

It's more the case that interpreting the Constitution as it was written leads to outcomes that certain people don't like. Rather than putting those questions directly to the people by actually legislating, they've decided to appoint Justices who misinterpret the Constitution in aid of causes they agree with.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 7:11pm

You just have to wonder, what motivates someone working for the NIH for years, to have been the leading anti-masker at "Redstate." Prior to that he criticized the Ebola response.

Fair play to the Daily Beast in finding this guy out, he was being actively destructive in his writings. Seems like he's 'retiring' from his government job, I hope his pension goes away.

Some people are just filled with hate, I guess.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/redstate-covid-troll-streiff-is-actually-bill-crews-and-he-actually-works-for-dr-anthony-fauci

"The managing editor of the prominent conservative website RedState has spent months trashing U.S. officials tasked with combating COVID-19, dubbing White House coronavirus task force member Dr. Anthony Fauci a “mask nazi,” and intimating that government officials responsible for the pandemic response should be executed.

But that writer, who goes by the pseudonym “streiff,” isn’t just another political blogger. The Daily Beast has discovered that he actually works in the public affairs shop of the very agency that Fauci leads.

William B. Crews is, by day, a public affairs specialist for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases."

banie01 · 22-09-2020 7:11pm

Florida just got even more interesting!

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/517522-bloomberg-pays-fines-for-32000-felons-in-florida-so-they-can-vote

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has reportedly raised more than $16 million in an effort to help convicted felons in Florida register to vote.

The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimated Bloomberg's fundraising push has already paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons, Axios reported.

"The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and no American should be denied that right," a Bloomberg spokesperson told the news outlet. "Working together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, we are determined to end disenfranchisement and the discrimination that has always driven it.

Probably snag far more Dem voters for the $16m this has cost, than the Dems would if they threw 3 times the money at advertising.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 7:15pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Funnily, the Constitution just states that Advise and Consent is what's needed. It doesn't say how the Senate provides it, which is the ticket.

They provide it by having a vote. How else would they provide it?

Igotadose wrote: »

Otherwise, Justices might never be confirmed. So, even though Garland was proposed far in advance of the election, throw principle out the window (which is, when the President proposes someone, the Senate through it's process advises and consents, or not, which has been known to happen as well cf. Robert Bork for example).

How is that throwing out the principle? You just said yourself the Senate has the right to withhold its consent from the President's nomination.

That's exactly what happened with Merrick Garland.

The fact that they didn't have hearings was irrelevant. They have no obligation to hold hearings.

"[The President] with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court"

All that means is that the President needs the Senate to sign off on his appointments. The "process" by which that happens is entirely up to the Senate.

Igotadose wrote: »

Basically, what you're doing to rubberstamp this behavior is, "Whoever gets the Majority in the Senate gets to choose the SC judges."

Yep. That's literally what "advice and consent" means.

As long as the parties disagree on how to govern there will always be partisanship in this process.

Igotadose wrote: »

Sad place you're striving for, and has been readily stated, a minority of the population is dictating who is on the SCOTUS, since a minority population state like, say, Wyoming, has as much impact as say, Florida or California.

I don't think that's what the Founders intended.

Emm, that's exactly what they intended.

Why you think they gave the States equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Reps?

The basic principle is that if you want to get something important done, simple majorities shouldn't be enough.

The Founders thought the only way you should get something big like a Supreme Court nomination done is either through consensus or compromise. In other words it shouldn't be as simple as 51% of the population dictating to the other 49%.

If the Senate was made proportional and every issue was being decided by the States with the biggest populations. California, New York etc. Smaller states in the middle of the country would break away in rapid fashion.

Detritus70 · 22-09-2020 7:42pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Not only that, they're threatening to flip the system if they don't get their way. Packing the court, eliminating the filibuster entirely, packing the Senate etc.
.

It's all legal and correct. Republicans throwing a tantrum over it won't change that

eire4 · 22-09-2020 7:55pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Did it ever cross your mind that Roe V Wade could have been wrongly decided?

Also none of Trump's Supreme Court Justices so far would ever vote to overturn Roe. None. They maybe textualists but their squishy when it comes to bad precedents and have shown they won't overturn established precedents. There's only one Justice currently on the Court who would definitely overturn Roe and that's Clarence Thomas.

Even if Roe was overturned (which it won't be any time in the near future) all that means is that States would have the chance to decide for themselves if the want abortion or not.

What does "doing the bidding of big business mean? Any examples?

It's more the case that interpreting the Constitution as it was written leads to outcomes that certain people don't like. Rather than putting those questions directly to the people by actually legislating, they've decided to appoint Justices who misinterpret the Constitution in aid of causes they agree with.

It is utterly risible your claim that Republicans have not been front and centre alongside Democrats in destroying the supreme courts legitimacy as an independent arbiter of the law.

Your either being disingenuous or wilfully ignorant to claim that the presidents appointees would "never" vote to overturn abortion rights. They both would and whoever the next nominee will have that as one of their litmus tests as well to be nominated. Amy Barrett if nominated has made it clear she is anti-abortion rights. Both Kavanagh and Gorsuch will given the opportunity vote to overturn abortion rights. Kavanagh in his nomination process was evasive and would not say he would not overturn Roe v Wade and in the recent abortion rights case in Louisiana both Gorsuch and Kavanagh showed why they received such strong support from anti abortion activists during their nomination process by voting against.

The 5-4 decision in citizens united v fec lead by the Republicans was an example of Republican judges doing the bidding of big business. In this case and a series of other ones before hand such as Buckley and First National Bank of Boston they used the pretext of free speech to allow big corporations and wealthy individuals to buy politicians with impunity. The more recent McCutcheon case continued this trend.

Now we have the current situation and we will see who the nominee is. But the front runner Amy Barrett is anti- abortion right out of the gate. She of course is only a recent presidential appointee to the federal courts but has 2 abortion rights cases and has ruled against abortion rights both times plus has stated a clear personal anti abortion stance.

eire4 · 22-09-2020 7:58pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

It's all legal and correct. Republicans throwing a tantrum over it won't change that

Funny how when it comes to Republicans and their apologists it is so often do as I say not as I do.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 8:16pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

All that means is that the President needs the Senate to sign off on his appointments. The "process" by which that happens is entirely up to the Senate.

Yep. That's literally what "advice and consent" means.

As long as the parties disagree on how to govern there will always be partisanship in this process.

And, what's wrong in today's Senate, is the outsized influence of political parties, which aren't provided for at all in the Constitution. They're, well, a convenience mechanism for the voters. I don't think the Founders envisioned them, or professional full time politicians for that mater.

The Founders thought the only way you should get something big like a Supreme Court nomination done is either through consensus or compromise. In other words it shouldn't be as simple as 51% of the population dictating to the other 49%.

If the Senate was made proportional and every issue was being decided by the States with the biggest populations. California, New York etc. Smaller states in the middle of the country would break away in rapid fashion.

On that last point I think we'll have to disagree. No State in the modern world would break away; sit back and watch what happens post-Brexit day for a reasonable example. What's missing in today's Senate and hyper-polarized US politics is compromise, so I guess to the victors belong the spoils.

I think the Founders, through the Electoral College and the Senate, wanted to build trust with the smaller states that they wouldn't be buffaloed. THe trouble is, the pendulums swung till the larger states and hence majority of the public are disenfranchised. This is why you see things like 'Montana votes are worth 16x those of California' or whatever it is, and higher still for Senate seats. Ireland-style PRV might work. Then you might actually get some compromise.

Brussels Sprout · 22-09-2020 9:45pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Not only that, they're threatening to flip the system if they don't get their way. Packing the court, eliminating the filibuster entirely, packing the Senate etc.

Ok so you're going down the textualist route and letting McConnell off the hook on the basis that there's nothing stopping him as set out by the constitution from behaving the way that he did. So the precedent set by previous Senates where they at least met nominees and held hearings rather than rejecting the notion out of hand before a nominee was even picked. Ok.

If that is your firmly held belief then it's a bit odd to complain about the Democrats potentially deciding to throw precedence out the window by adding additional supreme court justices via eliminating the filibuster rule. Neither the supreme court size nor the filibuster are in the constitution after all.

The way that you say it, If the Democrats cry foul about McConnell's actions in jettisoning precedence then they're "throwing a tantrum". However if they decide to embrace this philosophy themselves, reject precedence and push the constitution to its edges then they get called out regardless.

Let's be frank. You're tying yourself up in knots here trying to create a coherent and consistent message which, through sheer coincidence I'm sure, just seems to be all about bashing the Democrats, supporting McConnell's actions and generally defending the indefensible.

Water John · 22-09-2020 10:08pm

Amazingly, Trump is not tweeting about the news of the day, 200,000 dead.

Itssoeasy · 22-09-2020 10:34pm

Just to say something about the Supreme Court. I think I’ve said it before that while the US constitution is a revered document by Americans and by non Americans, for such a foundational document it’s very vague at times. All it says about the Supreme Court is that one shall exist and the number of justices was set by congress not the constitution. There’s no direction as to numbers. It’s the same with the impeachment and the Chief Justice. All it says is the Chief Justice shall preside over an impeachment.

Water John · 22-09-2020 10:48pm

The FDA are raising the guidelines for EUA of new vaccine. Trump will have a melt down, and we'll be hearing of deep state from the alt right.

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

Comments