Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

[KG1]

As I sure you know, a Romney or HRC pop into a state, get a residence set up and use their massive name recognition and war chests from other campaigns and clobber a representative or state level politician that has no chance. Thai is how they get elected. Also, particularly on the republican side, the left voters often change parties in primaries to defeat the real conservatives they fear..

I don't think Romney would've acted or voted any differently no matter what State he ran in. Then again perhaps he would'nt have won in any other State. Maybe that's why he picked Utah.

 

[Ingomike]

I don't think Romney would've acted or voted any differently no matter what State he ran in. Then again perhaps he would'nt have won in any other State. Maybe that's why he picked Utah.

Absolutely! The liberal RINO took the absolute sure thing, thereby weakening the party, rather than actually go out and win that very winnable Michigan seat where his RINO BS would be preferable to a democrat seat.

 

[Route 45]

This thread needs this...

[video=youtube;fh1QfY_FTWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh1QfY_FTWU[/video]

 

[jamil]

I don't think Romney would've acted or voted any differently no matter what State he ran in. Then again perhaps he would'nt have won in any other State. Maybe that's why he picked Utah.

Probably chose based on polling.

 

[jamil]

This thread needs this...

[video=youtube;fh1QfY_FTWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh1QfY_FTWU[/video]

Yeah. Here’s the thing about calling out the Republicans’ hypocrisy. They have to be hypocrites too. They now hold the position that they ridiculed Republicans for in 2016. Neither side really gives a ****. They play the game to win.

 

[KLB]

Yeah. Here’s the thing about calling out the Republicans’ hypocrisy. They have to be hypocrites too. They now hold the position that they ridiculed Republicans for in 2016. Neither side really gives a ****. They play the game to win.

I think you are missing a Democrats in that somewhere.

 

[Expat]

My leftist cousin posted a political cartoon on FB that had the elephant spouting the lines the other party had in the Garland incident and vice versa. I commented that I agreed that both side are hypocritical, it is all about political power. He got upset said I didnt understand the point and the cartoon was satire...

 

[chipbennett]

Lagoa is Catholic, so the left can still try to impose their religious intolerance.

I believe that their attacks against ACB are not strictly due to her Catholicism, but rather because she has ties to what they are calling a "cult" (but is really nothing more than a Catholic sect that holds some charismatic beliefs).

 

[chipbennett]

Although instinct tells me to ram it through hard and fast, I'm aware of the possibility of that backfiring. For instance, if a couple RINOs vote no, and then lose their senate seats because of it. That would be a bad thing whether Trump wins or loses. As much as I despise Romney and the other RINO's, they're slightly better than a dim, IMHO.

The history of Senate confirmation votes of SCOTUS is interesting:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

For those interested, RGB was confirmed 96-3.

.

McConnell has the votes. Both Gardner and Romney are in. Collins will be allowed to vote no to protect her seat.

The argument that voting for a conservative SCOTUS nominee will hurt a GOP senator's reelection bid is, IMHO, gaslighting nonsense being pushed by Democrats, the media (but I repeat myself), and #NeverTrumpers (again I repeat myself).

 

[chipbennett]

I don’t think that at all. I think the more probable outcome is a pissed off democrat electorate will turn out hoping to gain the supermajorities (Or near to) in both houses, allowing for an expansion of the court, and general changing of house and senate rules. I’ve heard more than a few people say this.

I think this ignores - or, at least, discounts - the realities of the electorate and what motivates across the spectrum.

There is the super-left (I don't want to say far left, because I'm not trying to be derogatory), which is maybe 30% of the electorate, who have been super-energized since November 9, 2016. They are already energized. The problem for your assertion is that they almost fully encompass the part of the left and left-leaning who are highly driven by judicial nominations and the courts in general. So, those who would be motivated by the chance to vote for someone who will get to replace RBG with a far-left justice will see that motivation eroded when the seat is filled before the election.

By contrast, the right is generally (at least, as I understand it) more motivated by judicial nominations and the courts. The right has generally been demoralized by those we elect moving to the left after we elect them, and/or otherwise being ineffective when in power. Seeing those we elect actually act like we elected them to act, by confirming constitutional/conservative nominees - especially to SCOTUS - motivates the right to reward those elected officials with re-election and retaining their power.

Combine that with the "law and order" bloc, and the independents/centrists who are sick of the left's anarchist tactics and threats of continued violence, and this election is not shaping up well for the Democrats. Confirming a conservative SCOTUS justice will all but seal the deal.

 

[chipbennett]

I watched a stream with Robert Barnes, and he advocated for Lagoa too. His arguments were persuasive, and similar to yours. He was also of the opinion that nominating Lagoa is a smart political play because it uses intersectionality (female, Latina, Cuban descent, daughter of immigrants) against any Democrats who oppose her nomination.

Where Barnes and I disagree is that he is entirely wrong on ACB, and I think she would be an equally fine pick in terms of jurisprudence. I don't know what his deal is, but he is blatantly misrepresenting her opinions, particularly with respect to the lockdowns/Jacobsen.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah. Here’s the thing about calling out the Republicans’ hypocrisy. They have to be hypocrites too. They now hold the position that they ridiculed Republicans for in 2016. Neither side really gives a ****. They play the game to win.

That is true to a certain extent, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy on both sides... but it is NOT equal.

The situation now is not the same as in 2016. When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, there was no precedent for an opposing party Senate confirming his nomination. In fact, the Democrats and their media propagandists not withstanding, the 11 times this occurred in our history prior, they met the fate Garland did, no confirmation (either no vote or voted down) prior to the election.

It would have been unprecedented for the Republican Senate to have confirmed Garland in 2016.

Ditto now... there is no precedent for a President and an agreeable Senate holding off. None, in fact the history is the opposite.

So, yeah, the "rules of the game" have a certain amount of hypocrisy "baked in".

In my lifetime, one side predominately has been the side that over and over took advantage of the "rules" when it suited them and over and over cried "no fair" like a three year old and sought to change the rules when they did not. Now is no different.

I don't side with infants throwing tantrums. (no one here, referring the Jack*** party in general)

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah. Here’s the thing about calling out the Republicans’ hypocrisy. They have to be hypocrites too. They now hold the position that they ridiculed Republicans for in 2016. Neither side really gives a ****. They play the game to win.

It is all political. Where I am now, but where I wasn't when I was younger, is being 100% okay with that. The Democrats make up the rules to suit their desired outcomes and then cry foul with Republicans play by the same rules the Democrats made up. And for most of my life, Republicans have been too unwilling and/or afraid to treat the Democrats in kind - or, at least, to use the same constitutionally enumerated authority to make up the rules to suit their desired outcomes. And I see where that has gotten us as a country. So, screw it. Elections have consequences. As long as you are not acting extra-constitutionally, exercise your constitutional authority when we put you in the majority.

More and more, I'm coming to the conclusion/realization that the politicization is a feature, not a bug, of the system set up by our founders. The legislature can play political games because the legislature is the most directly responsible to the electorate. That is why we know that the left's threats to pack the courts and to expand the Senate (through DC, PR, USVI statehood) are mere bluster.

 

[KLB]

It is all political. Where I am now, but where I wasn't when I was younger, is being 100% okay with that. The Democrats make up the rules to suit their desired outcomes and then cry foul with Republicans play by the same rules the Democrats made up. And for most of my life, Republicans have been too unwilling and/or afraid to treat the Democrats in kind - or, at least, to use the same constitutionally enumerated authority to make up the rules to suit their desired outcomes. And I see where that has gotten us as a country. So, screw it. Elections have consequences. As long as you are not acting extra-constitutionally, exercise your constitutional authority when we put you in the majority.

More and more, I'm coming to the conclusion/realization that the politicization is a feature, not a bug, of the system set up by our founders. The legislature can play political games because the legislature is the most directly responsible to the electorate. That is why we know that the left's threats to pack the courts and to expand the Senate (through DC, PR, USVI statehood) are mere bluster.

It all works so much better when the Senators are beholden to the states not the voters though.

 

[chipbennett]

It all works so much better when the Senators are beholden to the states not the voters though.

I am fully in support of repealing the 17th amendment. Direct election of senators and federal imposition of individual income taxes have done incalculable damage to the federal makeup of our Republic.

 

[HoughMade]

I am fully in support of repealing the 17th amendment. Direct election of senators and federal imposition of individual income taxes have done incalculable damage to the federal makeup of our Republic.

This.

 

[jamil]

My leftist cousin posted a political cartoon on FB that had the elephant spouting the lines the other party had in the Garland incident and vice versa. I commented that I agreed that both side are hypocritical, it is all about political power. He got upset said I didnt understand the point and the cartoon was satire...

Sounds to me you understood it perfectly.

 

[churchmouse]

Sounds to me you understood it perfectly.

He deflated the cousins political point.

 

[jamil]

He deflated the cousins political point.

Yep.

Whah? Democrats hypocrisy? No way. We're the good guys.

 

[OakRiver]

Where Barnes and I disagree is that he is entirely wrong on ACB, and I think she would be an equally fine pick in terms of jurisprudence. I don't know what his deal is, but he is blatantly misrepresenting her opinions, particularly with respect to the lockdowns/Jacobsen.

I will admit that I have to re-read some of her opinions to see what he saw that I didn't.