American Politics Discussion Thread

[DaveV]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mccon...rg-garland

“The McConnell rule applies when the Senate and White House are controlled by *different* parties, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.”

Conveniently ignoring the bolded text in the very same article, a few lines down from what you quoted:

"McConnell has always honored a straightforward principle when it comes to these matters, and the principle is to block as many Democratic nominees and confirm as many Republican nominees as is politically feasible. Every supposed micro-rule guiding his behavior is really just an application of this overarching macro-rule."

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Of course, there's no actual principles at all, it's only about practicality and power.  The Republicans took both their 2016 and 2020 positions simply because it favored them.  They will push through a nominee because they can and for exactly no other reason.

Democrats fail to understand this, and thus become willing/unwilling puppets of an austerity project that has lasted 40 years and cost millions of lives. Democrats are idiots for not playing power politics, for abandoning machine politics in cities, for allowing republicans to even have a say in their states and cities. Prime examples of this is how Cuomo allowed a republican state senate for so long (and wanted it to stay that way!) This is the textbook definition of a controlled opposition. In Philly, much to the chagrin of the democrats, a progressive candidate was elected to one of the two guaranteed "minority party" seats in the at-large city council. I believe they actually tried to protect those two republicans from being ousted.The democrats fetishize compromise and balance, their ideal legislature is 51 democrats an 49 republicans, so that they can just get filibustered, while the republicans would have no regrets over being the sole political party.

oh and dont forget bush v. gore 2000, democrats rolled over with little fight.

[Charriu]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mccon...rg-garland

“The McConnell rule applies when the Senate and White House are controlled by *different* parties, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.”

That quote comes from former aide to Senator Tom Cotton: Sean Davis. But when was this said in 2016 in connection to the open seat then?

[Gustaran]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mccon...rg-garland

“The McConnell rule applies when the Senate and White House are controlled by *different* parties, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.”

Seriously, do you actually believe that crap? Everybody with half a brain knows it's a fictional "rule" made up in retrospect.

“The McConnell rule applies when the Cleveland Cavaliers are NBA champions, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.”

[mackoti]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mccon...rg-garland

“The McConnell rule applies when the Senate and White House are controlled by *different* parties, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.”

Seriously, do you actually believe that crap? Everybody with half a brain knows it's a fictional "rule" made up in retrospect.

“The McConnell rule applies when the Cleveland Cavaliers are NBA champions, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.”

So there is no rule? So is wild world? Then why complain? 

[darrelljs]

There's the constitutional rule, which places no obligation on the senate to hold a vote. Traditionally they have, and what goes around comes around, but Mitch neither broke nor created a rule.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

Well there is no specific law that the president can't ask other countries to interfere in US elections and try to coerce them to do so; therefore it's fine!

It's sad to see authoritarian drift occur in the US and the party that is supposedly all gun ho about defending freedom being a willing participant.

And yes, democrats are stupid and contrary in a million ways as well, but this whole Trump timeline is just bizarre. Future presidents (both parties) will have some big scandal and we will all go, "that was just a Monday for Trump". NOT a good precedent for the future btw.

[mackoti]

Well there is no specific law that the president can't ask other countries to interfere in US elections and try to coerce them to do so; therefore it's fine!

It's sad to see authoritarian drift occur in the US and the party that is supposedly all gun ho about defending freedom being a willing participant.

And yes, democrats are stupid and contrary in a million ways as well, but this whole Trump timeline is just bizarre. Future presidents (both parties) will have some big scandal and we will all go, "that was just a Monday for Trump". NOT a good precedent for the future btw.

So because Trump nominates someone on Scotus is a big scandal? Is his prerogative from what I read...This doenst sound very bad for me and as darrel said what goes around comes around. IF Trump would nominate Garland you think dems would be so against?

[Gustaran]

A functioning democracy needs not only leaders that respect the letter of the law, but the spirit. If you really think just because "What goes around, comes around" the problem is not serious, I predict a rude awakening.

What if a future senate majority refuses to confirm any judge not appointed by "their" president? What if democrats resort to court packing and appoint 6 ultra liberal judges the next time they have a majority? All possible and lawful. The only problem is that the supreme court is going to lose all credibility. And what do you do, once the first police jurisdictions are ignoring court rulings (see mask mandates)? The polictical system is slowly going to erode.

The problem is that even conservative voters used to demand a minimum of political decency, but that is gone and I doubt it is going to come back anytime soon. Anything is acceptable as long as the guy doing it is on your side.

IF Trump would nominate Garland you think dems would be so against?

Do you really understand the problem here? Traditionally, the supreme court justice had to be confirmed by a larger majority of the senate (I think 60 seats?). In that way, the justice usually needed support from both parties, so somebody with extreme views or lacking expertise would have problems getting confirmed. In that way, the confirmed justice (and the court itself) gains a lot of credibility, because even though there are "liberal" and "conservative" judges, they ususally needed a bi-partisan confirmation.

To answer your question: Of course democrats would vote for Garland - because he is a moderate candidate. Instead one of Trump's favourites is Amy Coney Barrett, a right wing extremist/religious fundamentalist.

[Miguelito]

...but this whole Trump timeline is just bizarre. Future presidents (both parties) will have some big scandal and we will all go, "that was just a Monday for Trump". NOT a good precedent for the future btw.

 As I said,  I'm observing from far away,  but near universal consensus here was  that W Bush was an embarrassment, war criminal,  corrupt,  out of his depth, and so on,  and now the good sane times of his presidency are remembered fondly.