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

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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.

Then maybe it would be better to inform yourself before posting. It's just a waste if time reading your posts otherwise and contributes nothing to the discussion

Biden said Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever come across.
Cruz is not liked by most people.

If the Dems swing both the Presidency and the Senate they can increase the number of Judges. Maybe put time limits on them or retirement age, while they're at it.

Water John wrote: »

Biden said Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever come across.
Cruz is not liked by most people.

All the more reason for the GOP to stick him in.

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...

The best appraisal of the character of Lindsey Graham by an ex-GOP strategist:

“People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he’s doing now,” Schmidt says. “The way to understand him is to look at what’s consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That’s Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump’s the newest shark in the sea. Lindsey has a real draw to power — but he’s found it unattainable on his own merits.”

Leroy42 wrote: »

And this is exactly why the GoP need to act now. Polls are against a Trump victory, so they well never get another chance.

This could turn SCOTUS super conservative for a generation, regardless of the voting public.

It's a double-edged sword.

If they push too far the majority will snap back against them.

There's a backlash building, and between decades of failed economic policy, growing fascism from the far right, and the current civil rights and pandemic related unrest, if they take the piss now, they could be making a rod for their own back.

Perhaps the strategic move might be to nominate someone middle of the road (like a Garland or whatever an equivalent Republican choice would be), placate the Dems into not taking the nuclear option and, if not reversing progressive legislation, at least holding their ground on things like the 2nd amendment.

Of course, it's difficult to know what elected Republicans actually want.
So long as they can make an issue of abortion legislation and fearmonger about everything under the sun, it's a driving force to get their base out to vote. I certainly don't think Mitch McConnell gives a **** about abortion legislation, one way or the other.

On the more practical side of things, some federal appointments have been happy to act as lapdogs for Trump, but it's been notable that the supreme court have not followed suit, with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh being decidedly more sane in their decisions than the likes of Alito. Unless they appoint someone seriously corrupt, it's far from certain they can use the SC to destroy the rule of law and start dismantling democracy.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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!

Susan Collins has indicated she won't vote for a SCJ before the 3rd of November. No surprise given that she is poised to lose her seat in the upcoming election in Maine. But she hasn't indicated whether she would defect or abstain.

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1307412600397987842

Also given that the Arizona election between Mark Kelly and Martha McSally is a special one, I think Mark Kelly can be seated by Nov 30th for the start of the next cycle. He is way ahead in the polls right now.

So say after Nov. 30th, if you have Romney, Collins and Murkowski abstaining and Kelly seated, that's 49-48. That's assuming Romney and Murkowski do abstain (no indication yet).

But yes a big ask, but it could be very tight. Nevertheless, another media circus event no doubt on the horizon.

He's just started his rally...and is onto filling that seat. Seems a bit crass.

Would the Trump family women have much sway on advice for his political decision-making and future where it comes to how U.S women would react to a nomination of a man versus that of a woman for the vacancy caused by RBG's death? He seems to rely on his daughter [and son-in-law] for advice so I suppose his wife would have his ear as well. Neither woman are part of the GOP Washington set, nor bound to it, except by membership of the Trump family as it arrived in Washington politics in the last 5 years.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Good to see all wearing masks. Turned it off after 20 seconds. Same shīte on repeat

Were they all (or even the majority) wearing masks? That's an improvement.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Good to see all wearing masks. Turned it off after 20 seconds. Same shīte on repeat

Yep same lies over and over for months now. They seemed to love it though. You'd have to think they are the minority as surely people arent that stupid. Gonna be so interesting either way in November!

A Fox News host had a discussion with Mike Allen co-founder of Axios AND Jamie Weinstein on what could happen if Trump and the GOP added a judge of their choice to the USSC. The discussion followed on from the report that Chuck Schumer had a phone conversation with other Dem senators over such a GOP move, what is now being called "The Nothing Is Off The Table" call.

One of the suggestions from MA was that the Dems [if they win the senate and presidency] may move to give Washington DC and Puerto Rico the status of statehood, meaning there'd be an extra 4 U.S senators. Adding extra judges to the USSC & scrapping the senate filibuster were on the MA theorized Dem wish-list as well.

At the moment, following on from a row between the DOJ and Puerto Rico dating from 2017 over the wording of a local resolution on Puerto Rico holding a referendum on whether to move from territorial status to one of statehood, the funding provided for by the U.S congress for a referendum has been withheld by the DOJ, blocking Puerto Rico from holding a statehood referendum. Puerto Rico has only one member of Congress as things stand now. https://thehill.com/latino/516976-puerto-rico-governor-asks-justice-department-to-reconsider-stance-on-statehood

hetuzozaho wrote: »

He's just started his rally...and is onto filling that seat. Seems a bit crass.

Seems ? It is crass and they know that but as has been shown time and time again they don’t give a **** how something looks.

Did I see somewhere that Tump has announced that he’s going to nominate a woman? No doubt it would be Ivanka if he thought he could get away with it. The fact that she’s not a lawyer might be the only thing to stop him.