Biden creates commission to study adding Supreme Court justices (4/9/21)

[Gondwanaland]

Horse shit. You make good points without resorting to lying. However irritated you are at the Dems trying to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, it is in no way comparable to hundreds and thousands of people violently storming the halls of Congress and physically preventing Congress from confirming, murdering a police officer, and so on. It's a ridiculous point you're making here.

Except hundreds of leftists did in fact, after a speech by a Democrat house (iirc) member calling on women to "rise up", stormed the Senate building and tried battering the SCOTUS doors. Quite a few were arrested. So kindly take your claims of lying and shove then where the sun dont shine.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

And they literally staged a similarly violent insurrection to stop a SCOTUS judge from being confirmed. The latter simply didnt get the disparaging term of "insurrection" because the mainstream media happened to agree with their cause.

No, they really didn’t. Making up stuff and saying “This apple is the same thing as a couch” won’t bring anyone any closer to being able to take a seat on your apple.

I”m sorry you feel the media should have agreed with the cause of Trump supporters on Jan 6th.

 

[Gondwanaland]

No, they really didn’t. Making up stuff and saying “This apple is the same thing as a couch” won’t bring anyone any closer to being able to take a seat on your apple.

I”m sorry you feel the media should have agreed with the cause of Trump supporters on Jan 6th.

Except they did. Wishing it away does not erase it from existence.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Democrats are just too stupid to realize the pandora's Box they are clamoring to open. Luckily there are still a few sane Democrats, but a shrinking few, in the Senate. I don't want the Republicans to have a filibuster-free Senate any more than I want the Democrats to have it... but too many people are just too stupid and power hungry to think rationally. forever.

This just isn't a sober analysis of the situation. Whether you support it or not, it makes more strategic sense for the Democrats to eliminate the filibuster for the simple reason it's going to be far easier for them to get to 51 votes than 60 votes, and on the most important, contentious issues, the ones that matter most for both parties, McConnell is just going to abandon the filibuster anyway as he did with the Supreme Court nominees.

I don't want the Republicans to have a filibuster-free Senate any more than I want the Democrats to have it.

Based on the history of your comments on this forum. I do not believe you.

 

[Gondwanaland]

This just isn't a sober analysis of the situation. Whether you support it or not, it makes more strategic sense for the Democrats to eliminate the filibuster for the simple reason it's going to be far easier for them to get to 51 votes than 60 votes, and on the most important, contentious issues, the ones that matter most for both parties, McConnell is just going to abandon the filibuster anyway as he did with the Supreme Court nominees.



Based on the history of your comments on this forum. I do not believe you.

McConnell only abandoned it for scotus nominees because Democrats already abandoned it several years earlier for judicial nominees.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Except they did. Wishing it away does not erase it from existence.

If you care to link to stories detailing the storming of the hearing room, the deaths involved, and the destruction of property I am open to your argument. NOne of this was reported, so if your point is these things happened and the media covered it up, you should be able to prove that.

I’ll wait.

 

[Gondwanaland]

If you care to link to stories detailing the storming of the hearing room, the deaths involved, and the destruction of property I am open to your argument. NOne of this was reported, so if your point is these things happened and the media covered it up, you should be able to prove that.

I’ll wait.

I'll link when I get home. As to deaths, there weren't any. But then, there was only one homicide on Jan 6th, and that was the murder of an unarmed protester by some law enforcement officer (but hey, she wasnt black so her life doesnt matter to y'all).

 

[jmotivator]

This just isn't a sober analysis of the situation. Whether you support it or not, it makes more strategic sense for the Democrats to eliminate the filibuster for the simple reason it's going to be far easier for them to get to 51 votes than 60 votes, and on the most important, contentious issues, the ones that matter most for both parties, McConnell is just going to abandon the filibuster anyway as he did with the Supreme Court nominees.

My analysis was sober, yours is not. Yours is power drunk. You don't consider the long term effect of essentially eliminating the minority party in the Senate because you are too myopic to conceive of the Democrats ever being the minority party again. You try to justify it by arguing that the outcome will make it easier on the Democrats which isn't rational.

What you fail to comprehend is that the power you want for the Democrats will eventually be in the hands of someone you don't want, and by then it will be too late for you to do shit about it. The checks and balances in the US were built specifically to avoid power hungry groups trying to do exactly what you want to see happen, because it doesn't end well.

Based on the history of your comments on this forum. I do not believe you.

Well, you believe a great many things that are not true. Show my anywhere that I was a proponent of the Republicans removing the legislative filibuster? You won't find it. As much as I have hated the Democrats over the last 4 years, I never once suggested that Trump and McConnell should remove the filibuster to cut the Democrats out of the process. Even when the used the filibuster over 100 times in 2020 alone to block policy that I believed would be beneficial.

 

[Anthony60]

The Repubs deserve what they get.

So do the Democrats, only 10 times worse. Seems they are trying to destroy our system and tilt it in their favor, so that they never pay a price and are never out of power. That is what is really going on here.

 

[jmotivator]

And they also voted with Republicans to pass a necessary 2 trillion rescue package. Zero Republicans joined Democrats to pass the second necessary rescue package.

You are using anecdotes that aren't even pertinent to a filibuster argument to justify eliminating the filibuster now. Again, over 100 examples of bills that are subject to a filibuster that were blocked by Democrats last year... and you bring up a bill that was passed through reconciliation as your evidence of the need to eliminate the filibuster? I thought you were smarter than that nonsense, Cardinal.

 

[jmotivator]

The Repubs deserve what they get.

You guys don't seem to get that the Democrats won't be in power forever.

 

[skeptic llc]

Well, Trump's appointees didn't help him steal the election.

I'm torn on this. I do see merit in adding more judges when you think how much our population has grown. Should 9 people hold this much power over a country of 320 million? I don't know.

But I don't want to see courts packed just to tip back the balance of the court.

In the past I would agree about being torn. But now ... modern conservatives, if faced with an unfavorable SCOTUS, would pack the court 100 times out of 100. It's time to stop pretending they are for fair play. Whatever power they get they will abuse, so they need to not get too much power. That means expand SCOTUS and make it harder for a single president/senate to manipulate the composition, IMO.

 

[skeptic llc]

You guys don't seem to get that the Democrats won't be in power forever.

Right? Rs abused the crap out of their time in power, and Ds need to realize their time in the sun is limited -- hurry up and use it for maximum structural advantage, just as Rs did. The other party isn't playing fair anymore, so stop pretending anything about principle matters.

 

[Cardinal]

You are using anecdotes that aren't even pertinent to a filibuster argument to justify eliminating the filibuster now. Again, over 100 examples of bills that are subject to a filibuster that were blocked by Democrats last year... and you bring up a bill that was passed through reconciliation as your evidence of the need to eliminate the filibuster? I thought you were smarter than that nonsense, Cardinal.

Yes, all facts that render your point invalid are “anecdotes” and “not pertinent.”

 

[skeptic llc]

Yes, all facts that render your point invalid are “anecdotes” and “not pertinent.”

Not even following the thread just like this reply.

 

[skeptic llc]

You are using anecdotes that aren't even pertinent to a filibuster argument to justify eliminating the filibuster now. Again, over 100 examples of bills that are subject to a filibuster that were blocked by Democrats last year... and you bring up a bill that was passed through reconciliation as your evidence of the need to eliminate the filibuster? I thought you were smarter than that nonsense, Cardinal.

Now I'm following, and you seem to ignore how your party just says no to everything when Ds are in charge. That's not just an anecdote -- your party serves as a full blown clot in the pipes whenever they don't get to run everything. It's as if you took a small disagreeable child, spray-painted it with orange hair, and tasked it with doing anything in its power to **** shit up.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I believe that they have considered this and are accounting for it as one of the pillars of their "plan".

Step one: eliminate the filibuster, paving the way to pass anything and everything they want.

Step two: grant Puerto Rico and Washington DC statehood, giving them 4 juiced in Senate seats for generations. This would all but guarantee them a permanent majority.

Step three: Pack the court. This takes away the worry that any of their cooky ideas will ever be overturned.

It seems that they are bent on tearing this country apart and rebuilding it in a way which guarantees that they never again have to compromise on anything.

All of these are unlikely to happen. The Democratic Party represents a more diverse coalition than the picture Tucker Carlson has painted for you. The Republican Party has become a fascist, far-right, authoritarian political organization. The Democratic Party is home to far more moderates and independent thinkers.

Also, none of this stuff is any different compared to Republicans passing legislation to make it more difficult for people to vote and therefore more difficult for Democrats to win elections: it's entirely legal, entirely constitutional, and also incredibly unfair to the opposition. And Republicans are all on board for making it more difficult for Democrats to win using the pathetic excuse of their lies about voter fraud.

So, let's make a deal. Stop trying to make it more difficult for blacks and minorities to vote, and we'll do things like decide to not end the filibuster for the time being.

If Republicans are going to treat politics like a zero-sum game and use scorched earth tactics, why should Democrats sit back and watch it happen? Certainly, you'd expect a reaction, right?

 

[Taylor]

Now I'm following, and you seem to ignore how your party just says no to everything when Ds are in charge. That's not just an anecdote -- your party serves as a full blown clot in the pipes whenever they don't get to run everything. It's as if you took a small disagreeable child, spray-painted it with orange hair, and tasked it with doing anything in its power to **** shit up.

You must be young.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

McConnell only abandoned it for scotus nominees because Democrats already abandoned it several years earlier for judicial nominees.

So what? SCOTUS nominees are far more important than judicial nominees, and why was McConnell blocking all the judicial nominees in the years prior?

 

[jmotivator]

Yes, all facts that render your point invalid are “anecdotes” and “not pertinent.”

Well, no. It just shows you lack the necessary facts to back up your point. Your one anecdote isn't even evidence of a Republican filibuster.

 

[jmotivator]

Now I'm following, and you seem to ignore how your party just says no to everything when Ds are in charge. That's not just an anecdote -- your party serves as a full blown clot in the pipes whenever they don't get to run everything. It's as if you took a small disagreeable child, spray-painted it with orange hair, and tasked it with doing anything in its power to **** shit up.

No, that is a lie that your party tells dumb people to justify the absurd power grab, and that lie to people like that because they know their followers won't bother to look it up.

Again, the Democrats won't be in power forever, and your party is too stupid to realize that. They are paving the way for an authoritarian state... so do they want to be authoritarians, or are they too stupid to realize what they are doing?

 

[skeptic llc]

You must be young.

I'm old enough to remember when we had two functional political parties. You?

 

[lurchadams]

Actually in my opinion states that have about the same population of dc with two senators can screw a state with a population of twenty million or more. The combined population of the dakotas, wyoming and montana put together equal a small state in population and yet the senators from those states can almost kill any legislation. In my opinion, the senate is one of the main problems with our politics.

You can't constantly cheat and pack the court with knuckle-draggers like Thomas and Kavanagh and expect there to be no consequences. You can't deny a president his appointment and expect there to be no consequences.

You're reaping what you've sewn, my friend. Deal with it!

 

[skeptic llc]

No, that is a lie that your party tells dumb people to justify the absurd power grab, and that lie to people like that because they know their followers won't bother to look it up.

No need to look it up, I lived through it. Do you actually think it is a lie (like, you are too uninformed and/or young to remember), or are you just playing?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

My analysis was sober, yours is not. Yours is power drunk. You don't consider the long term effect of essentially eliminating the minority party in the Senate

The checks and balances in the US were built specifically to avoid power hungry groups trying to do exactly what you want to see happen, because it doesn't end well.

All it does is lower the threshold to pass legislation. That's it. It doesn't eliminate the minority party. It just makes the minority party less important.

because you are too myopic to conceive of the Democrats ever being the minority party again. You try to justify it by arguing that the outcome will make it easier on the Democrats which isn't rational.

What you fail to comprehend is that the power you want for the Democrats will eventually be in the hands of someone you don't want, and by then it will be too late for you to do shit about it.

The structural impediment to the Democrats acquiring 60 Senate seats isn't going away any time soon, not within the next decade or so at the least. It's far easier for Republicans to maintain a 60-seat majority given the rural/Republican bias inherent in 2-seats per state for the Senate than it is for Democrats to maintain a 50-seat majority.

And so what if the Republicans have 51 seats in some years? The Democrats can just take it back in subsequent years and reverse everything the Republicans did.

Your argument against ending the filibuster, in the terms of the strategic benefit to the Democrats, just doesn't make any sense.

Well, you believe a great many things that are not true. Show my anywhere that I was a proponent of the Republicans removing the legislative filibuster? You won't find it. As much as I have hated the Democrats over the last 4 years, I never once suggested that Trump and McConnell should remove the filibuster to cut the Democrats out of the process. Even when the used the filibuster over 100 times in 2020 alone to block policy that I believed would be beneficial.

Your comments represent someone who is a hyper-partisan. This is the first time in a year of reading your posts that you've said anything remotely resembling a moderate or good-faith sort of comment about our political systems, and this is coming, interestingly, in an environment where Republicans and Conservatives have no power except for in the Supreme Court. Now, suddenly, you're Mr. Let's get a long? I don't believe you. When Trump was the President, you would often say things on this forum like you hope the Democrats, "eat shit."

The Democrats have already been through this with the Republicans. Nothing the Republicans do is ever done in good faith anymore. And every term of Congress it's the same thing. It's a situation similar to Lucy with the football.

As a moderate Democrat, even I am tired of being disappointed by the lack of good faith by the Republicans.

I am especially open to ending the filibuster given the suppression of voting by Republicans across the country such as we've seen in Georgia and Texas.

If Republicans are going to rig things at the state level to prevent Democrats from winning, then why shouldn't the Democrats respond by making it easier to pass legislation?