‘Your credibility... will die in this room’

[craig]

a bigger government tends to take from us what we need.

Population density is driving bigger government. High density areas require more government and frankly less personal freedom then less densely populated areas. Individualist were once told to " go west young man". But unoccupied liveable land is less available. Texas will soon go blue because their large cities will soon outweigh the rest of the state.

 

[mrjurrs]

Now that is a convincing argument, NOT. Why is it inaccurate

Filibuster-Dems wouldn't eliminate filibuster? Care to bet pink slips?
Need for judges-There are about 870 federal judges. Since that number last increased, America's population has grown by 90 million people.
DC Statehood- Unconstitutional? Simply incorrect.

 

[bluesmoke]

Collins won't vote on her before the election. Will that matter?

Too little, too late. Collins didn't say she would oppose the nomination, did she? Maine knows she can't be trusted based on what she said in sentiment and thought and then voted on in reality quite diff during the Kavanaugh nomination.

 

[MaryP]

Too little, too late. Collins didn't say she would oppose the nomination, did she? Maine knows she can't be trusted based on what she said in sentiment and thought and then voted on in reality quite diff during the Kavanaugh nomination.

I imagine she will vote for Barrett when the time comes. I was just wondering if her and Murkowski's refusal to vote prior to the election would influence the numbers. Apparently they are the only holdouts, so no.

 

[MaryP]

I read yesterday that if the Dems boycott the vote on Monday, they do not technically have a quorum, but the Republicans are ignoring that.

 

[bluesmoke]

Gerrymandering has zero impact on who is in the Senate or the White House. It can only impact state races and the House if Representatives, which as I recall, the Democrats won in 2018.

That doesn't make gerrymandering is OK, misrepresenting the desires of the constituents while also creating an unfair advantage for incumbents or a political party. Or w/o effect in our political system, legislation and governance. Close races can easily be said to be decided because of effective gerrymandering. Dems won in 2018, but in a closer contest, gerrymandering could make the diff.

 

[Moon]

That doesn't make gerrymandering is OK, misrepresenting the desires of the constituents while also creating an unfair advantage for incumbents or a political party. Or w/o effect in our political system, legislation and governance. Close races can easily be said to be decided because of effective gerrymandering. Dems won in 2018, but in a closer contest, gerrymandering could make the diff.

I didn’t say it was okay, it’s just irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

 

[bluesmoke]

Who would do the nominations?

The president. As before, unless someone is chosen that is not objectionable, whether on the appellate level or the SC, the position won't be filled. It is so difficult to maintain the votes among a party's own super majority, the nominee wouldn't have to be too much "better" than the last.

 

[bluesmoke]

I imagine she will vote for Barrett when the time comes. I was just wondering if her and Murkowski's refusal to vote prior to the election would influence the numbers. Apparently they are the only holdouts, so no.

Murkowski, as expected, has already signaled she will vote for Barrett. The holdout was nothing more than posturing for a "looking good" moment.

 

[bluesmoke]

I didn’t say it was okay, it’s just irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

Of course its relevant. It's the state that has control over voting sites and other critical factors to effectively suppress the vote in areas that would vote for a Senate or President that is of the opposing party. Red states right now are doing what they can to require ballots be received by election day, not date stamped by election day as had been usual. The state can ban transportation of voters to polling stations. There are many things states can do, when the power vested in the state is wielded by those elected with the benefit of gerrymandering.

 

[MaryP]

Murkowski, as expected, has already signaled she will vote for Barrett. The holdout was nothing more than posturing for a "looking good" moment.

I was talking about Collins.

 

[Moon]

Of course its relevant. It's the state that has control over voting sites and other critical factors to effectively suppress the vote in areas that would vote for a Senate or President that is of the opposing party. Red states right now are doing what they can to require ballots be received by election day, not date stamped by election day as had been usual. The state can ban transportation of voters to polling stations. There are many things states can do, when the power vested in the state is wielded by those elected with the benefit of gerrymandering.

States can only do what’s allowed for in their laws. Some states allow votes to be received after Election Day and some don’t. Some allow for mail in ballots to be counted before Election Day and other do not. The Constitution allows states to determine their own laws, and yes they may be impacted by gerrymandering.

What’s not impacted by gerrymandering is the election of Senators, and they are the ones who will vote on Barrett’s confirmation, which is what we were talking about before you dove headfirst down the gerrymandering rabbit hole.

 

[bluesmoke]

I was talking about Collins.

You were also talking about Murkowski to do with her refusal to vote prior to the election and being a "holdout". I only added that Murkowski had signaled she would vote for Barrett so she was no longer a holdout.

 

[bluesmoke]

States can only do what’s allowed for in their laws. Some states allow votes to be received after Election Day and some don’t. Some allow for mail in ballots to be counted before Election Day and other do not. The Constitution allows states to determine their own laws, and yes they may be impacted by gerrymandering.

What’s not impacted by gerrymandering is the election of Senators, and they are the ones who will vote on Barrett’s confirmation, which is what we were talking about before you dove headfirst down the gerrymandering rabbit hole.

I gave you the factors that can suppress the vote and affect voter turnout based on the party as came into power through the assistance of gerrymandering. Do you deny that gerrymandering cannot affect the election of officials whom have the power to do what affects the vote? Because that voter suppression/turnout can thereby affect any election by the people of the state, incl Senators and POTUS. If you can't see or acknowledge that, I can't give you cognition or the will to admit such.

 

[Moon]

I gave you the factors that can suppress the vote and affect voter turnout based on the party as came into power through the assistance of gerrymandering. Do you deny that gerrymandering cannot affect the election of officials whom have the power to do what affects the vote? Because that voter suppression/turnout can thereby affect any election by the people of the state, incl Senators and POTUS. If you can't see or acknowledge that, I can't give you cognition or the will to admit such.

Of course, gerrymandering affects the election of local officials and Representatives. It does not affect presidential or senatorial elections. Voter suppression can be caused by a number of things. In my opinion the enthusiasm for a particular candidate will have more influence than gerrymandering.

 

[bluesmoke]

Of course, gerrymandering affects the election of local officials and Representatives. It does not affect presidential or senatorial elections. Voter suppression can be caused by a number of things. In my opinion the enthusiasm for a particular candidate will have more influence than gerrymandering.

More influence does not mean gerrymandering will have none which is your claim. You just admitted that gerrymandering does have influence, however slight you may deem. I'm saying gerrymandering makes a huge diff when successful. Both side do it. Reps do it better.

 

[Rich2018]

Just for the sake of clarity, nothing in the US Constitution limits the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Does that mean Biden could raise it to say 11...and the trim it back to 9 (by cutting two conservative justices) ?

Better still to have term limits for SC justices.

 

[bluesmoke]

Does that mean Biden could raise it to say 11...and the trim it back to 9 (by cutting two conservative justices) ?

Better still to have term limits for SC justices.

I see nothing the Dems have in them, what it takes in their body politic, to increase the number of justices that would effect change in the balance nor do limiting terms have any impact on the existing court.

 

[Rich2018]

I see nothing the Dems have in them, what it takes in their body politic, to increase the number of justices that would effect change in the balance nor do limiting terms have any impact on the existing court.

Biden has gone on record that he doesn't favor this, but others have expressed opposite views and no-one (including Biden) has ruled this option out

What do you need to "see" to think that packing the court is a viable option ?

 

[bluesmoke]

Biden has gone on record that he doesn't favor this, but others have expressed opposite views and no-one (including Biden) has ruled this option out

What do you need to "see" to think that packing the court is a viable option ?

"no one has ruled this option out" isn't exactly a strong endorsement of packing the court.

Even if the Dems got a 50 + VP tiebreaker advantage, I doubt that Manchin or Hickenlooper will vote for a liberal justice let alone support a strategy of packing the court. Even with the outside possibility of a 52 + VP in the 2022 election, the biggest impracticable is that to effectively pack the court would take adding four, count'em, 4, "liberal" justices to the court.

I see very little fight in the Dems or ability to communicate their vision or cause with the electorate. Nor do the Dems effectively defend themselves in any timely manner against attacks by the Reps, if at all, however outrageous the attack, let alone go on offense.

I see those roadblocks. I don't see what it takes to overcome those roadblocks. I need to see Dems working together as well as did the Reps to stall Obama and win state legislatures and Congress so often, and two non-pop presidential elections over the last 20+ yrs.

 

[Rich2018]

"no one has ruled this option out" isn't exactly a strong endorsement of packing the court.

It's not (from Biden)

It (packing the court) does however remain an option

Even if the Dems got a 50 + VP tiebreaker advantage, I doubt that Manchin or Hickenlooper will vote for a liberal justice let alone support a strategy of packing the court. Even with the outside possibility of a 52 + VP in the 2022 election, the biggest impracticable is that to effectively pack the court would take adding four, count'em, 4, "liberal" justices to the court.

I don't think any Democrat senators would vote against Biden on this

However the issue won't come to a head if the returns sensible rulings. If the SC were to (hypothetically) overturn Wade V Roe (abortion issue, and other contentious issues) then "packing the court" will become an increasingly viable option for Biden

I see very little fight in the Dems or ability to communicate their vision or cause with the electorate.

I suspect that is because you're not a Democrat
For a bankrupt agenda, bereft of any imagination or ambition, you need look no further that what Trump offered America

I see those roadblocks. I don't see what it takes to overcome those roadblocks. I need to see Dems working together as well as did the Reps to stall Obama and win state legislatures and Congress so often, and two non-pop presidential elections over the last 20+ yrs.

I don't

I want to see the Democrats working together with a positive agenda, and not be defined in negative ambitions, as the Republicans have been for a generation or more.

 

[Captain America]

If there GOP continues on this path and confirms a new justice - all bets are off and the rules no longer matter to the majority in control.

The GOP will get it rubbed in their own faces and they invited it.

One would hope so but the democrats are slow to learn. They rather hold hands with the GOP and sing Kumbaya and go for the olive branch bi-partisan approach. Hopefully, after Trump is out, they will have learned their lesson. But I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Lutherf]

Rammed it through.....with...60 votes, after McConnell laid down the law that there would be ZERO yes GOP votes no matter how many concessions were made to the GOP.

LOL.

If you remember correctly, the Democrats even had to make concessions to their own side to get the bill through.

 

[JasperL]

If you remember correctly, the Democrats even had to make concessions to their own side to get the bill through.

Yes, that's common as dirt, and is a regular feature of every major bill passed since the founding I expect. The members of Congress compromise with each other to get something done. It's politics, nothing unusual or even unsavory about that process as a concept.

The point is the ACA passed through regular order in the Congress. It cleared the House then overcame a filibuster in the Senate and so received 60 votes in favor on that side, then was signed by Obama. There's nothing unique or extraordinary about that. McConnell's Senate "rammed through" all kinds of legislation on party-line votes, many more confirmations were "rammed through" the same way.

 

[Rich2018]

If you remember correctly, the Democrats even had to make concessions to their own side to get the bill through.

And to you that is a sign of weakness no doubt

To me it's a sign of flexibility and willingness to listen to others

Of course you've just experienced 4 years of Trump's tyranny so compromise is probably a word you don't recognize.