I have no doubt that Mitch McConnell will make it happen. Everyone who opposed seating Merrick Garland on the grounds that it was an election year would reveal themselves as a shameless hypocrite if they demanded that RBG be replaced before Trump's first term ends, but that will not dissuade McConnell, and I doubt it will dissuade any other Senate republicans who did the same.
Honestly, what Republican senators would value their own integrity over the chance to put another right-leaning justice on the court before a Democrat has a chance to win the presidency?
What worries me is not just the long-term effect of another right-wing justice. My concerns are more near-term. Having a chance at appointing a Trump loyalist gives the Trump administration a powerful, powerful ally if they ever try to pull an unconstitutional trick and have the Supreme Court let them get away with it. The Constitution only means as much as the people who have the legal power to interpret it.
If the GOP can place a Trump loyalist on the court, they have a much better shot of getting away with almost anything they could do to sabotage a free election. I think Trump's lawyers and allies are smart enough to see that opportunity.
I have no doubt that Mitch McConnell will make it happen. Everyone who opposed seating Merrick Garland on the grounds that it was an election year would reveal themselves as a shameless hypocrite if they demanded that RBG be replaced before Trump's first term ends, but that will not dissuade McConnell, and I doubt it will dissuade any other Senate republicans who did the same.
Honestly, what Republican senators would value their own integrity over the chance to put another right-leaning justice on the court before a Democrat has a chance to win the presidency?
What worries me is not just the long-term effect of another right-wing justice. My concerns are more near-term. Having a chance at appointing a Trump loyalist gives the Trump administration a powerful, powerful ally if they ever try to pull an unconstitutional trick and have the Supreme Court let them get away with it. The Constitution only means as much as the people who have the legal power to interpret it.
If the GOP can place a Trump loyalist on the court, they have a much better shot of getting away with almost anything they could do to sabotage a free election. I think Trump's lawyers and allies are smart enough to see that opportunity.
The thing is, he has already lost the three he was going to. I honestly cannot think of who #4 is. I have read that if Mark Kelly wins in Arizona, he will be seated by November 30th because McSally was appointed. But that means holding off McConnell for 72 more days.
I have no doubt that Mitch McConnell will make it happen. Everyone who opposed seating Merrick Garland on the grounds that it was an election year would reveal themselves as a shameless hypocrite if they demanded that RBG be replaced before Trump's first term ends, but that will not dissuade McConnell, and I doubt it will dissuade any other Senate republicans who did the same.
Honestly, what Republican senators would value their own integrity over the chance to put another right-leaning justice on the court before a Democrat has a chance to win the presidency?
What worries me is not just the long-term effect of another right-wing justice. My concerns are more near-term. Having a chance at appointing a Trump loyalist gives the Trump administration a powerful, powerful ally if they ever try to pull an unconstitutional trick and have the Supreme Court let them get away with it. The Constitution only means as much as the people who have the legal power to interpret it.
If the GOP can place a Trump loyalist on the court, they have a much better shot of getting away with almost anything they could do to sabotage a free election. I think Trump's lawyers and allies are smart enough to see that opportunity.
The thing is, he has already lost the three he was going to. I honestly cannot think of who #4 is. I have read that if Mark Kelly wins in Arizona, he will be seated by November 30th because McSally was appointed. But that means holding off McConnell for 72 more days.
There's a thin chance that Grassley will oppose it too. He's not a traditional ally for Democrats in well, anything - but he was pretty clear that he would not take up filling a seat on the SCOTUS as the Judiciary Chair if one opened in Trump's final year (he is not that anymore, Lindsey Graham is the chair now). It's impossible to know, but there's a hail mary that this would reflect on how Grassley would vote.
If I am Biden right now, I'm making phone calls to any GOP senator I can think of with the following agreement: They hold off on seating a Justice, and Biden will personally announce and commit tp Garland as his pick to fill the seat(Before the election. Like. Next week). The idea being that maybe you can pick off enough votes to keep the seat from being filled by promising a center-left, fairly old and well vetted candidate.
It's a long shot, but it might be enough to hold a coalition of Murkowsi, Collins, Grassley and Romney firm.
Failing that, it needs to be all out war. Fillibuster needs to be removed. PR and DC made states, and the SCOTUS expanded to 13 seats within the first 100 days of Biden's administration.
I have no doubt that Mitch McConnell will make it happen. Everyone who opposed seating Merrick Garland on the grounds that it was an election year would reveal themselves as a shameless hypocrite if they demanded that RBG be replaced before Trump's first term ends, but that will not dissuade McConnell, and I doubt it will dissuade any other Senate republicans who did the same.
Honestly, what Republican senators would value their own integrity over the chance to put another right-leaning justice on the court before a Democrat has a chance to win the presidency?
What worries me is not just the long-term effect of another right-wing justice. My concerns are more near-term. Having a chance at appointing a Trump loyalist gives the Trump administration a powerful, powerful ally if they ever try to pull an unconstitutional trick and have the Supreme Court let them get away with it. The Constitution only means as much as the people who have the legal power to interpret it.
If the GOP can place a Trump loyalist on the court, they have a much better shot of getting away with almost anything they could do to sabotage a free election. I think Trump's lawyers and allies are smart enough to see that opportunity.
The thing is, he has already lost the three he was going to. I honestly cannot think of who #4 is. I have read that if Mark Kelly wins in Arizona, he will be seated by November 30th because McSally was appointed. But that means holding off McConnell for 72 more days.
There's a thin chance that Grassley will oppose it too. He's not a traditional ally for Democrats in well, anything - but he was pretty clear that he would not take up filling a seat on the SCOTUS as the Judiciary Chair if one opened in Trump's final year (he is not that anymore, Lindsey Graham is the chair now). It's impossible to know, but there's a hail mary that this would reflect on how Grassley would vote.
If I am Biden right now, I'm making phone calls to any GOP senator I can think of with the following agreement: They hold off on seating a Justice, and Biden will personally announce and commit tp Garland as his pick to fill the seat(Before the election. Like. Next week). The idea being that maybe you can pick off enough votes to keep the seat from being filled by promising a center-left, fairly old and well vetted candidate.
It's a long shot, but it might be enough to hold a coalition of Murkowsi, Collins, Grassley and Romney firm.
Failing that, it needs to be all out war. Fillibuster needs to be removed. PR and DC made states, and the SCOTUS expanded to 13 seats within the first 100 days of Biden's administration.
This is where the timidity of most elected Democrats (as in, anyone who isn't a member of The Sqaud or their adjacent) reveals itself to be their most glaring flaw and weakness. And Biden is the fucking avatar of respectability politics.
By their own reasoning, they should wait until after the election. Having double standards because of self interest is absolutely toxic in politics and it's going to turn every Supreme Court vacancy into a corrupt mockery of an appointment as the rules constantly shift to allow whoever holds the cards at the time to get their way. It undermines the respectability of the seat itself, and is corrosive to a democratic system.
By their own reasoning, they should wait until after the election. Having double standards because of self interest is absolutely toxic in politics and it's going to turn every Supreme Court vacancy into a corrupt mockery of an appointment as the rules constantly shift to allow whoever holds the cards at the time to get their way. It undermines the respectability of the seat itself, and is corrosive to a democratic system.
I appreciate you taking this position. That being said, if they DO get it pushed through, the weakness the Democrats will show by just laying down for it will be just as destructive. I will forgive alot. I won't forgive them letting themselves get bulldozed on this. This is going to be the ugliest 3-4 months since the '60s, possibly since the Civil War.
By their own reasoning, they should wait until after the election. Having double standards because of self interest is absolutely toxic in politics and it's going to turn every Supreme Court vacancy into a corrupt mockery of an appointment as the rules constantly shift to allow whoever holds the cards at the time to get their way. It undermines the respectability of the seat itself, and is corrosive to a democratic system.
I agree with this entirely.
I will say - My ultimate preference would have been for Garland to be confirmed in 2016 and whomever Trump picks to be confirmed in 2020. I think the intent is rather clearly that the President should be allowed to fill a vacancy in the SCOTUS under their term. This would be normal politics.
Since that Democratic norm has been absolutely burned to the ground, it should at least go both ways.
By their own reasoning, they should wait until after the election. Having double standards because of self interest is absolutely toxic in politics and it's going to turn every Supreme Court vacancy into a corrupt mockery of an appointment as the rules constantly shift to allow whoever holds the cards at the time to get their way. It undermines the respectability of the seat itself, and is corrosive to a democratic system.
I appreciate you taking this position. That being said, if they DO get it pushed through, the weakness the Democrats will show by just laying down for it will be just as destructive. I will forgive alot. I won't forgive them letting themselves get bulldozed on this. This is going to be the ugliest 3-4 months since the '60s, possibly since the Civil War.
So question then - what does "not laying down" mean in this case? The GOP technically hold all the cards on this issue today. If 4 senators dont grow a conscience in the next month, there isnt necessarily anything the Democrats can do to stop the process from playing out.
Do you mean after the election? If so, we agree there. The GOP is playing unbelievably dirty. The Democrats will need to get into the mud.
By their own reasoning, they should wait until after the election. Having double standards because of self interest is absolutely toxic in politics and it's going to turn every Supreme Court vacancy into a corrupt mockery of an appointment as the rules constantly shift to allow whoever holds the cards at the time to get their way. It undermines the respectability of the seat itself, and is corrosive to a democratic system.
I agree with this entirely.
I will say - My ultimate preference would have been for Garland to be confirmed in 2016 and whomever Trump picks to be confirmed in 2020. I think the intent is rather clearly that the President should be allowed to fill a vacancy in the SCOTUS under their term. This would be normal politics.
Since that Democratic norm has been absolutely burned to the ground, it should at least go both ways.
If it doesn't go both ways then I don't even know what we're doing anymore. We might as well just toss the entire thing in the trash at that point. Because it will all be meaningless. Which is exactly what Trump, McConnell and Bill Barr hope to achieve.
Yep, absolutely right, we should emulate the people we despise. Got it.
Probably you should just fuck off Michelle.
Got it will do.
Fucking off now.
Laters all.
You don’t need to fuck off at all. I personally understand where you are coming from. Her life should be celebrated. There should be a time of mourning and reflection. But guess what? There isn’t because of who is running the United States.
Please go check Trump’s twitter feed, the medium he uses to communicate to the world what he is thinking about. There isn’t a peep about Ginsberg. He doesn’t care about her life, just like he doesn’t care about anyone’s lives outside of himself and his immediate family, and the latter is still debatable.
McConnell briefly praised her before saying her replacement will be named within 40 days.
The rest of the country can praise and celebrate her life all they want, but at the same time, those that don’t give a shot about anything but themselves are going to be calling the shots about this.
As I stated previously, time is not a luxury. You go to the mattresses, and you go TONIGHT, and gear up. You cannot shame Mitch McConnell. The only response is to promise reprisal.
Nevermind the fact that even if this DOES get stopped, 52% of us who voted in 2012 are STILL owed a fucking Supreme Court Justice.
The inevitable Trump v. Biden 2020 election case will go to the Supreme Court because Trump will not go quietly. If Roberts can’t swing the court to sanity, Trump will win that case and will remain President.
I predict civil war or mass exodus out of the US. Maybe both.
The inevitable Trump v. Biden 2020 election case will go to the Supreme Court because Trump will not go quietly. If Roberts can’t swing the court to sanity, Trump will win that case and will remain President.
I predict civil war or mass exodus out of the US. Maybe both.
I don't think people in general appreciate just how close to he cliff we are. People are counting on institutions that have been collapsing for almost 5 years to save them. And the canary in the coalmine of all of it was McConnell's move on Merrick Garland.
The biggest thing I am scared of when Biden is President there will be a visible far right that will spawn in the GOP like we see within the Democratic party. That's when the civil war or mass exodus will begin. Those 'good ol' boys' will be given carte blanche as long as they cause as much shit with protests and riots to get a military response out of Biden. Hope it doesn't come to that extreme.
On the other hand it would be a dream for trump if the protests in the streets now turn very violent and martial law has to be ordered, thus postponing the election. So many variables and futures.
My nightmare would be Trump wins, protesters are then labelled as terrorists and the army is sent in to clean the streets. Scary.
By the way these "moderate" who people say no today will face pressure from McConnell and Trump. Then they will fold like a napkin and confirm some radical right winger, guaranteed.
They're just saying no today to get us to shut up and leave them alone.
They will stick the knife in our backs later. And then they think that there will be nothing we can do to fight back at that point, it'll already be done.
They think we'll either bend over and take it or just turn the other cheek and laugh it off like "those crazy scamps got us again!"
This country is screwed. The 87 year old woman holding everything together just died.
Well, personally I think the selection should wait until after the election but I give that about a 'critical hit' chance of happening (1/20). Somebody like Ron Paul or Ted Cruz, who really don't like Trump, could make a stand, but I doubt it in this political climate. Having said that, I've mentioned before that I rather like the SCOTUS being on the conservative side and I really don't think it would be as much of a disaster as many of you think. Judges are supposed to be impartial, and I think most of them are to varying degrees. Even Kavanaugh has surprised with some of his rulings. Just because somebody's viewpoint doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean they're villains. Trump is off the rails, but that doesn't mean his selection will be.
I agree with the other notion going around that the Democrats lay down to easily though. That's what I meant before when I said Democrats 'talk'. That's also why I was for Bernie Sanders. I doubt Bernie would have gotten much of what he wanted if he'd been elected, but it sure as shit wouldn't have been because he quit...
Well, personally I think the selection should wait until after the election but I give that about a 'critical hit' chance of happening (1/20). Somebody like Ron Paul or Ted Cruz, who really don't like Trump, could make a stand, but I doubt it in this political climate. Having said that, I've mentioned before that I rather like the SCOTUS being on the conservative side and I really don't think it would be as much of a disaster as many of you think. Judges are supposed to be impartial, and I think most of them are to varying degrees. Even Kavanaugh has surprised with some of his rulings. Just because somebody's viewpoint doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean they're villains. Trump is off the rails, but that doesn't mean his selection will be.
I agree with the other notion going around that the Democrats lay down to easily though. That's what I meant before when I said Democrats 'talk'. That's also why I was for Bernie Sanders. I doubt Bernie would have gotten much of what he wanted if he'd been elected, but it sure as shit wouldn't have been because he quit...
Whether it would be a disaster or not is not even remotely the point. Obama was elected fair and square and did not get his pick. Not that his pick was voted down, but that the GOP said "nah, you don't get to do that anymore. In fact, no Democrat does". That is their position. Flat-out, without any equivocation. Only Republican Presidents can make Supreme Court picks. That is their stated belief, almost across the board with maybe 3-5 exceptions in the entire party in the House and Senate combined.
To do a complete turn on the EXACT reasoning they used to not give any Obama nominee a hearing the moment the situation is reversed is nothing but brazen raw power. The means and the end. So what in the ever-loving fuck is the recourse for someone on the left (the MAJORITY of the voters in the country) and what are they supposed to do?? Enlighten me. We elect a President with 52% of the vote and a runaway EC win, and the Republicans rip up the rulebook that has existed for over two centuries. Four years later, they tape it back together, ignoring their unequivocal position they are all on the record stamping to their foreheads. And, indeed, basically all but admitting it was always their PRECISE intention to backtrack on it the entire time.
There is simply no way this shit can continue to work when one side is operating in this kind of bad faith. There is no game if one side is simply ignoring the rules. Even rules THEY THEMSELVES established. So how long do you expect the person on the other end of the table to keep playing?? It's like if the Yankees and the Mets were playing in the World Series, and the Yankees declared that they get 5 outs every inning and the Mets still only get 3. The Mets would not participate in that game. Yet, somehow, we're expected to, with stakes a million times more important. And if we don't win, it's because we "didn't have better players", rather than the fact that the other team had 18 more at-bats. Yeah, it's theoretically possible to win games in those circumstances. But not over any sustained period of time.
A minor point I am curious on since there were talks of Trump nominating Ted Cruz: how would that work? Would he vote on his own nomination?
He's not actually going to nominate Cruz. He'll find someone else. If he did nominate Cruz, he'd probably vote for himself because why not nothing means anything anyway certainly not ethics.
A minor point I am curious on since there were talks of Trump nominating Ted Cruz: how would that work? Would he vote on his own nomination?
I dont think there's any technical rule or requirement preventing him from voting on himself, but I am rather certain that he would resign from the Senate while being confirmed. They would only go this route if they felt like there was a 100% chance of his confirmation, and because the Governor of Texas is a Republican who can appoint a Republican to take his seat.
I honestly think if they try this it boosts Democratic turnout more. As I mentioned, Republicans already vote on the court. They reached their apex on that a long time ago. Everyone who believes that is the #1 issue on the right is already voting for him, without question.
But the Dems are not nearly at that cap. Now even Biden fence-sitters are looking at a 6-3 conservative majority for most of the rest of their life. As I heard someone say last evening "who has been up all night with knots in their stomach??" Liberals and the left. Nothing motivates like fear.
And if they do succeed, and you win, as @BallpointMan said, you ram everything down their throat (as they are so fond of describing everything that way). You nuke the filibuster, expand the court by 4 (one for each seat they stole, and one more each for their hubris) and grant DC and Puerto Rico Statehood for 4 more Senators. Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" are the only rules they understand.
McConnell has also sat on a vital second stimulus bill amidst 10%+ unemployment for months, but they will rush back for this. He's pure evil.
Ok, I'll jump in the fray, because I like discussions about politics, and I have a question. Not sure if this is thread is the correct place to ask that question, though (and sorry for interrupting the discussion about elections).
My question is: do you think that hate speech falls under the scope of freedom of speech? Personally, I don't think it does, for more or less the same reason that you can't falsely shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Although these cases are different in several important ways, they do have something in common, which is that you are doing something else in addition to merely speaking. In the case of falsely shouting "fire!" you are creating panic, in the case of hate speech you are discriminating people. The whole discussion, as far as I see it, is if discrimination should be considered a criminal activity. I believe it should, because it can be argued that it's speech that is both false and dangerous, even if it's not immediately evident as the example of falsely shouting "fire!".
A minor point I am curious on since there were talks of Trump nominating Ted Cruz: how would that work? Would he vote on his own nomination?
He's not actually going to nominate Cruz. He'll find someone else. If he did nominate Cruz, he'd probably vote for himself because why not nothing means anything anyway certainly not ethics.
He's not going to nominate Cruz. He's going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who has long been at the top of Evangelical's wish list. She is rabidly anti-choice. It will be a referendum on Roe.
Ok, I'll jump in the fray, because I like discussions about politics, and I have a question. Not sure if this is thread is the correct place to ask that question, though (and sorry for interrupting the discussion about elections).
My question is: do you think that hate speech falls under the scope of freedom of speech? Personally, I don't think it does, for more or less the same reason that you can't falsely shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Although these cases are different in several important ways, they do have something in common, which is that you are doing something else in addition to merely speaking. In the case of falsely shouting "fire!" you are creating panic, in the case of hate speech you are discriminating people. The whole discussion, as far as I see it, is if discrimination should be considered a criminal activity. I believe it should, because it can be argued that it's speech that is both false and dangerous, even if it's not immediately evident as the example of falsely shouting "fire!".
Thoughts?
So hate speech, IMO, goes back to Liberty and what it should mean in a democratic society. You are allowed to live your life and say what you want to say as long as it doesn't negatively affect another person.
So Canada's law reads as follows:
Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
So, if it is said publicly, it is. If it is said privately, it isn't and it has to effect an identifiable group of people and not just one individual.
I honestly think if they try this it boosts Democratic turnout more. As I mentioned, Republicans already vote on the court. They reached their apex on that a long time ago. Everyone who believes that is the #1 issue on the right is already voting for him, without question.
But the Dems are not nearly at that cap. Now even Biden fence-sitters are looking at a 6-3 conservative majority for most of the rest of their life. As I heard someone say last evening "who has been up all night with knots in their stomach??" Liberals and the left. Nothing motivates like fear.
And if they do succeed, and you win, as @BallpointMan said, you ram everything down their throat (as they are so fond of describing everything that way). You nuke the filibuster, expand the court by 4 (one for each seat they stole, and one more each for their hubris) and grant DC and Puerto Rico Statehood for 4 more Senators. Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" are the only rules they understand.
McConnell has also sat on a vital second stimulus bill amidst 10%+ unemployment for months, but they will rush back for this. He's pure evil.
I do agree this will end up being a windfall for the election chances of Democrats. I see a few possible scenarios:
A - The SCOTUS pick is rammed through before the election. With the new SCOTUS member already seated, this will probably serve to deincentivize the GOP a bit (they will have already gotten what they wanted). Democrats turn out like crazy because they're so upset at the dismantling of Democratic norms.
B - The SCOTUS pick is held up by a few rogue senators. This will probably amp up turnout on both sides, motivating each out of fear.
C - The SCOTUS pick is held tactically, with a vote scheduled for after the election, in hopes that it will galvanize GOP turnout. This has the same effect as B, but results probably in the pick being rammed through during the lame-duck if Trump loses (or the Senate flips).
In all three cases, I think one thing we need to pay attention to is: How do Independents poll/vote on the issue? My priors say that Independents will largely want the court to stay relative close in power between the sides. IIRC, When Scalia passed away, Independents preferred that he be replaced with a Conservative justice. I'd be willing to bet a lot that Independents will say the same thing for RBG - that she should be replaced by a liberal judge. They understand the court already has 5 conservative members. I bet the split will be something like 80-20 against a conservative justice before the election.
You can imagine incredible turnout for Dems + Independents that do not like the pick rallying to hand Biden a pretty huge victory +5 or 6 senate seats.
As a parting thought - this selection will become a referendum on Roe v Wade. While the country is relatively evenly split on Pro-life vs Pro-choice (Pro-Choice has a small advantage IIRC, but it goes back and forth a bit): Roe v Wade is actually pretty popular. The conventional thinking here is that there's a segment of people who are personally pro-life, but dont want to overturn 50 years or precedent based on it.
So running against RvW will be dangerous for Republicans because it's just not a very popular position to take.
So, if it is said publicly, it is. If it is said privately, it isn't and it has to effect an identifiable group of people and not just one individual.
Interesting. So according to Canadian law, from the extent of the imprisonment, hate speech would qualify as a felony, or at least something more serious than a Class A misdemeanor.
Another question: if hate speech is espoused on a privately owned website, such as a forum, would that be considered public or private? Personally, I believe it would have to be considered as if was said in public, but I could be wrong.
The new line on the right is that there was ALWAYS two qualifiers to the Garland situation. One being that it was divided government, and the second being that Obama was in his second term rather than his first.
Absolutely NO ONE made these arguments at the time. Indeed, they only emerged within the last 12 hours. The sophistry these people engage in with their pedantic bullshit is beyond infuriating.
C - The SCOTUS pick is held tactically, with a vote scheduled for after the election, in hopes that it will galvanize GOP turnout. This has the same effect as B, but results probably in the pick being rammed through during the lame-duck if Trump loses (or the Senate flips).
Is it possible for Trump's pick to be rammed through if the Senate flips?
As a parting thought - this selection will become a referendum on Roe v Wade. While the country is relatively evenly split on Pro-life vs Pro-choice (Pro-Choice has a small advantage IIRC, but it goes back and forth a bit): Roe v Wade is actually pretty popular. The conventional thinking here is that there's a segment of people who are personally pro-life, but dont want to overturn 50 years or precedent based on it.
Isn't it more a question of definitions? As you say the country is evenly split on whether people describe themselves as pro-life or pro-choice. However, what they mean by that description is less clear-cut. Around 20% say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and 25%-30% that it should be legal in all circumstances. The rest think it should be legal in some circumstances - and some of those support Roe vs Wade (which can fit under that umbrella). That results in a roughly 2:1 majority in favor of maintaining Roe vs Wade. Poll results over time in the US are reasonably stable on the abortion issue - see here.
So, if it is said publicly, it is. If it is said privately, it isn't and it has to effect an identifiable group of people and not just one individual.
Interesting. So according to Canadian law, from the extent of the imprisonment, hate speech would qualify as a felony, or at least something more serious than a Class A misdemeanor.
Another question: if hate speech is espoused on a privately owned website, such as a forum, would that be considered public or private? Personally, I believe it would have to be considered as if was said in public, but I could be wrong.
It would be public since anyone can see it. If it was something like a WhatsApp message to a group of friends, that leaked, then it wouldn't be.
And yes, under extreme circumstances hate crime alone would be punishable by imprisonment. Basically what the person said would have to incited unrest that caused considerable damage. Considerable in the last sentence being vague as possible.
C - The SCOTUS pick is held tactically, with a vote scheduled for after the election, in hopes that it will galvanize GOP turnout. This has the same effect as B, but results probably in the pick being rammed through during the lame-duck if Trump loses (or the Senate flips).
Is it possible for Trump's pick to be rammed through if the Senate flips?
As a parting thought - this selection will become a referendum on Roe v Wade. While the country is relatively evenly split on Pro-life vs Pro-choice (Pro-Choice has a small advantage IIRC, but it goes back and forth a bit): Roe v Wade is actually pretty popular. The conventional thinking here is that there's a segment of people who are personally pro-life, but dont want to overturn 50 years or precedent based on it.
Isn't it more a question of definitions? As you say the country is evenly split on whether people describe themselves as pro-life or pro-choice. However, what they mean by that description is less clear-cut. Around 20% say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and 25%-30% that it should be legal in all circumstances. The rest think it should be legal in some circumstances - and some of those support Roe vs Wade (which can fit under that umbrella). That results in a roughly 2:1 majority in favor of maintaining Roe vs Wade. Poll results over time in the US are reasonably stable on the abortion issue - see here.
It's not only possible to do it in the lame duck, that is likely what they are going to wait for. Because doing so before that dooms Gardner, Collins, McSally and possibly Tillis to almost certain defeat.
Lindsay Graham might want to be careful with what he does here. His opponent is polling damn close, and there is literally video of him saying "use these words against me if I change my position on this issue". But they are all on the record. They don't give a shit. They view the hypocrisy as a power and dominance move.
In other news, here we have Trump supporters protesting.......other people voting. And not by mail, but in person. I've been saying it for 3 years. They do not believe anyone who votes for a Democrat deserves any rights whatsoever:
C - The SCOTUS pick is held tactically, with a vote scheduled for after the election, in hopes that it will galvanize GOP turnout. This has the same effect as B, but results probably in the pick being rammed through during the lame-duck if Trump loses (or the Senate flips).
Is it possible for Trump's pick to be rammed through if the Senate flips?
It's not only possible to do it in the lame duck, that is likely what they are going to wait for. Because doing so before that dooms Gardner, Collins, McSally and possibly Tillis to almost certain defeat.
Hmm, not sure how I misinterpreted that - the original seems perfectly clear. Must be my bedtime I think .
Comments
Honestly, what Republican senators would value their own integrity over the chance to put another right-leaning justice on the court before a Democrat has a chance to win the presidency?
What worries me is not just the long-term effect of another right-wing justice. My concerns are more near-term. Having a chance at appointing a Trump loyalist gives the Trump administration a powerful, powerful ally if they ever try to pull an unconstitutional trick and have the Supreme Court let them get away with it. The Constitution only means as much as the people who have the legal power to interpret it.
If the GOP can place a Trump loyalist on the court, they have a much better shot of getting away with almost anything they could do to sabotage a free election. I think Trump's lawyers and allies are smart enough to see that opportunity.
The thing is, he has already lost the three he was going to. I honestly cannot think of who #4 is. I have read that if Mark Kelly wins in Arizona, he will be seated by November 30th because McSally was appointed. But that means holding off McConnell for 72 more days.
There's a thin chance that Grassley will oppose it too. He's not a traditional ally for Democrats in well, anything - but he was pretty clear that he would not take up filling a seat on the SCOTUS as the Judiciary Chair if one opened in Trump's final year (he is not that anymore, Lindsey Graham is the chair now). It's impossible to know, but there's a hail mary that this would reflect on how Grassley would vote.
If I am Biden right now, I'm making phone calls to any GOP senator I can think of with the following agreement: They hold off on seating a Justice, and Biden will personally announce and commit tp Garland as his pick to fill the seat(Before the election. Like. Next week). The idea being that maybe you can pick off enough votes to keep the seat from being filled by promising a center-left, fairly old and well vetted candidate.
It's a long shot, but it might be enough to hold a coalition of Murkowsi, Collins, Grassley and Romney firm.
Failing that, it needs to be all out war. Fillibuster needs to be removed. PR and DC made states, and the SCOTUS expanded to 13 seats within the first 100 days of Biden's administration.
This is where the timidity of most elected Democrats (as in, anyone who isn't a member of The Sqaud or their adjacent) reveals itself to be their most glaring flaw and weakness. And Biden is the fucking avatar of respectability politics.
I appreciate you taking this position. That being said, if they DO get it pushed through, the weakness the Democrats will show by just laying down for it will be just as destructive. I will forgive alot. I won't forgive them letting themselves get bulldozed on this. This is going to be the ugliest 3-4 months since the '60s, possibly since the Civil War.
I agree with this entirely.
I will say - My ultimate preference would have been for Garland to be confirmed in 2016 and whomever Trump picks to be confirmed in 2020. I think the intent is rather clearly that the President should be allowed to fill a vacancy in the SCOTUS under their term. This would be normal politics.
Since that Democratic norm has been absolutely burned to the ground, it should at least go both ways.
So question then - what does "not laying down" mean in this case? The GOP technically hold all the cards on this issue today. If 4 senators dont grow a conscience in the next month, there isnt necessarily anything the Democrats can do to stop the process from playing out.
Do you mean after the election? If so, we agree there. The GOP is playing unbelievably dirty. The Democrats will need to get into the mud.
If it doesn't go both ways then I don't even know what we're doing anymore. We might as well just toss the entire thing in the trash at that point. Because it will all be meaningless. Which is exactly what Trump, McConnell and Bill Barr hope to achieve.
You don’t need to fuck off at all. I personally understand where you are coming from. Her life should be celebrated. There should be a time of mourning and reflection. But guess what? There isn’t because of who is running the United States.
Please go check Trump’s twitter feed, the medium he uses to communicate to the world what he is thinking about. There isn’t a peep about Ginsberg. He doesn’t care about her life, just like he doesn’t care about anyone’s lives outside of himself and his immediate family, and the latter is still debatable.
McConnell briefly praised her before saying her replacement will be named within 40 days.
The rest of the country can praise and celebrate her life all they want, but at the same time, those that don’t give a shot about anything but themselves are going to be calling the shots about this.
As I stated previously, time is not a luxury. You go to the mattresses, and you go TONIGHT, and gear up. You cannot shame Mitch McConnell. The only response is to promise reprisal.
Nevermind the fact that even if this DOES get stopped, 52% of us who voted in 2012 are STILL owed a fucking Supreme Court Justice.
I predict civil war or mass exodus out of the US. Maybe both.
I don't think people in general appreciate just how close to he cliff we are. People are counting on institutions that have been collapsing for almost 5 years to save them. And the canary in the coalmine of all of it was McConnell's move on Merrick Garland.
On the other hand it would be a dream for trump if the protests in the streets now turn very violent and martial law has to be ordered, thus postponing the election. So many variables and futures.
My nightmare would be Trump wins, protesters are then labelled as terrorists and the army is sent in to clean the streets. Scary.
They're just saying no today to get us to shut up and leave them alone.
They will stick the knife in our backs later. And then they think that there will be nothing we can do to fight back at that point, it'll already be done.
They think we'll either bend over and take it or just turn the other cheek and laugh it off like "those crazy scamps got us again!"
This country is screwed. The 87 year old woman holding everything together just died.
I agree with the other notion going around that the Democrats lay down to easily though. That's what I meant before when I said Democrats 'talk'. That's also why I was for Bernie Sanders. I doubt Bernie would have gotten much of what he wanted if he'd been elected, but it sure as shit wouldn't have been because he quit...
Whether it would be a disaster or not is not even remotely the point. Obama was elected fair and square and did not get his pick. Not that his pick was voted down, but that the GOP said "nah, you don't get to do that anymore. In fact, no Democrat does". That is their position. Flat-out, without any equivocation. Only Republican Presidents can make Supreme Court picks. That is their stated belief, almost across the board with maybe 3-5 exceptions in the entire party in the House and Senate combined.
To do a complete turn on the EXACT reasoning they used to not give any Obama nominee a hearing the moment the situation is reversed is nothing but brazen raw power. The means and the end. So what in the ever-loving fuck is the recourse for someone on the left (the MAJORITY of the voters in the country) and what are they supposed to do?? Enlighten me. We elect a President with 52% of the vote and a runaway EC win, and the Republicans rip up the rulebook that has existed for over two centuries. Four years later, they tape it back together, ignoring their unequivocal position they are all on the record stamping to their foreheads. And, indeed, basically all but admitting it was always their PRECISE intention to backtrack on it the entire time.
There is simply no way this shit can continue to work when one side is operating in this kind of bad faith. There is no game if one side is simply ignoring the rules. Even rules THEY THEMSELVES established. So how long do you expect the person on the other end of the table to keep playing?? It's like if the Yankees and the Mets were playing in the World Series, and the Yankees declared that they get 5 outs every inning and the Mets still only get 3. The Mets would not participate in that game. Yet, somehow, we're expected to, with stakes a million times more important. And if we don't win, it's because we "didn't have better players", rather than the fact that the other team had 18 more at-bats. Yeah, it's theoretically possible to win games in those circumstances. But not over any sustained period of time.
He's not actually going to nominate Cruz. He'll find someone else. If he did nominate Cruz, he'd probably vote for himself because why not nothing means anything anyway certainly not ethics.
I dont think there's any technical rule or requirement preventing him from voting on himself, but I am rather certain that he would resign from the Senate while being confirmed. They would only go this route if they felt like there was a 100% chance of his confirmation, and because the Governor of Texas is a Republican who can appoint a Republican to take his seat.
But the Dems are not nearly at that cap. Now even Biden fence-sitters are looking at a 6-3 conservative majority for most of the rest of their life. As I heard someone say last evening "who has been up all night with knots in their stomach??" Liberals and the left. Nothing motivates like fear.
And if they do succeed, and you win, as @BallpointMan said, you ram everything down their throat (as they are so fond of describing everything that way). You nuke the filibuster, expand the court by 4 (one for each seat they stole, and one more each for their hubris) and grant DC and Puerto Rico Statehood for 4 more Senators. Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" are the only rules they understand.
McConnell has also sat on a vital second stimulus bill amidst 10%+ unemployment for months, but they will rush back for this. He's pure evil.
My question is: do you think that hate speech falls under the scope of freedom of speech? Personally, I don't think it does, for more or less the same reason that you can't falsely shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Although these cases are different in several important ways, they do have something in common, which is that you are doing something else in addition to merely speaking. In the case of falsely shouting "fire!" you are creating panic, in the case of hate speech you are discriminating people. The whole discussion, as far as I see it, is if discrimination should be considered a criminal activity. I believe it should, because it can be argued that it's speech that is both false and dangerous, even if it's not immediately evident as the example of falsely shouting "fire!".
Thoughts?
He's not going to nominate Cruz. He's going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who has long been at the top of Evangelical's wish list. She is rabidly anti-choice. It will be a referendum on Roe.
So hate speech, IMO, goes back to Liberty and what it should mean in a democratic society. You are allowed to live your life and say what you want to say as long as it doesn't negatively affect another person.
So Canada's law reads as follows:
Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
So, if it is said publicly, it is. If it is said privately, it isn't and it has to effect an identifiable group of people and not just one individual.
I do agree this will end up being a windfall for the election chances of Democrats. I see a few possible scenarios:
A - The SCOTUS pick is rammed through before the election. With the new SCOTUS member already seated, this will probably serve to deincentivize the GOP a bit (they will have already gotten what they wanted). Democrats turn out like crazy because they're so upset at the dismantling of Democratic norms.
B - The SCOTUS pick is held up by a few rogue senators. This will probably amp up turnout on both sides, motivating each out of fear.
C - The SCOTUS pick is held tactically, with a vote scheduled for after the election, in hopes that it will galvanize GOP turnout. This has the same effect as B, but results probably in the pick being rammed through during the lame-duck if Trump loses (or the Senate flips).
In all three cases, I think one thing we need to pay attention to is: How do Independents poll/vote on the issue? My priors say that Independents will largely want the court to stay relative close in power between the sides. IIRC, When Scalia passed away, Independents preferred that he be replaced with a Conservative justice. I'd be willing to bet a lot that Independents will say the same thing for RBG - that she should be replaced by a liberal judge. They understand the court already has 5 conservative members. I bet the split will be something like 80-20 against a conservative justice before the election.
You can imagine incredible turnout for Dems + Independents that do not like the pick rallying to hand Biden a pretty huge victory +5 or 6 senate seats.
As a parting thought - this selection will become a referendum on Roe v Wade. While the country is relatively evenly split on Pro-life vs Pro-choice (Pro-Choice has a small advantage IIRC, but it goes back and forth a bit): Roe v Wade is actually pretty popular. The conventional thinking here is that there's a segment of people who are personally pro-life, but dont want to overturn 50 years or precedent based on it.
So running against RvW will be dangerous for Republicans because it's just not a very popular position to take.
@jjstraka34
He has to walk the walk, but our Democracy might be forever changed in the next 100 days.
Interesting. So according to Canadian law, from the extent of the imprisonment, hate speech would qualify as a felony, or at least something more serious than a Class A misdemeanor.
Another question: if hate speech is espoused on a privately owned website, such as a forum, would that be considered public or private? Personally, I believe it would have to be considered as if was said in public, but I could be wrong.
Absolutely NO ONE made these arguments at the time. Indeed, they only emerged within the last 12 hours. The sophistry these people engage in with their pedantic bullshit is beyond infuriating.
Isn't it more a question of definitions? As you say the country is evenly split on whether people describe themselves as pro-life or pro-choice. However, what they mean by that description is less clear-cut. Around 20% say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and 25%-30% that it should be legal in all circumstances. The rest think it should be legal in some circumstances - and some of those support Roe vs Wade (which can fit under that umbrella). That results in a roughly 2:1 majority in favor of maintaining Roe vs Wade. Poll results over time in the US are reasonably stable on the abortion issue - see here.
It would be public since anyone can see it. If it was something like a WhatsApp message to a group of friends, that leaked, then it wouldn't be.
And yes, under extreme circumstances hate crime alone would be punishable by imprisonment. Basically what the person said would have to incited unrest that caused considerable damage. Considerable in the last sentence being vague as possible.
It's not only possible to do it in the lame duck, that is likely what they are going to wait for. Because doing so before that dooms Gardner, Collins, McSally and possibly Tillis to almost certain defeat.
Lindsay Graham might want to be careful with what he does here. His opponent is polling damn close, and there is literally video of him saying "use these words against me if I change my position on this issue". But they are all on the record. They don't give a shit. They view the hypocrisy as a power and dominance move.
In other news, here we have Trump supporters protesting.......other people voting. And not by mail, but in person. I've been saying it for 3 years. They do not believe anyone who votes for a Democrat deserves any rights whatsoever:
Hmm, not sure how I misinterpreted that - the original seems perfectly clear. Must be my bedtime I think