SCOTUS Watch

[Paingod]

Why not both? McConnell is obviously the devil, but Avenatti can also be an imp. We can absolutely go after more than one cause for the problem.

Yup, but given equal effort is like saying King Kong is on the same playing field as Curious George.

[Skinypupy]

While he's been strongly hinting at it, Trump is now just flat-out accusing Dr. Ford of making the whole thing up.

“The way they really tortured him and his family, I thought it was a disgrace. I thought it was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen. So I have been hearing that, that now they’re thinking of impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax, that was set up by the democrats. Using the democrats’ lawyers…”

“It was all made up. It was fabricated. And it’s a disgrace. I think it’s going to really show you something come November 6th.”

Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.

[Paingod]

Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.

No, no, no. We're just disagreeing.

This is normal. /facepunch
This is normal. /facepunch
Just a disagreement. /kneegroin
Be cool. Just relax. /uppercut
We're in charge now. /throatchop

See? Just a little disagreement. Can't we be civil? The GOP isn't doing anything wrong. /roundhousekick

[LordMortis]

While he's been strongly hinting at it, Trump is now just flat-out accusing Dr. Ford of making the whole thing up.

“The way they really tortured him and his family, I thought it was a disgrace. I thought it was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen. So I have been hearing that, that now they’re thinking of impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax, that was set up by the democrats. Using the democrats’ lawyers…”

“It was all made up. It was fabricated. And it’s a disgrace. I think it’s going to really show you something come November 6th.”

Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.

Will have to look this up and get context later when I have time. The newslet talks about Ford before and after quote. But do not say how POtuS draws Ford from this quote. He's a piece of shit and you damned well that's the inference being set up but is the inference being set up by him or by a quote out of context.

In context, it's conceivable he is ripping the Democratic leadership for the way they handled while concurrently addressing the credibility other accusers, allowing the audience to conflate his meaning. It's not like he never ever ever does that. I think his cries of fake news, while not justified, require the author and reader to practically be lawyers when consuming news from or about this administration.

[Kraken]

They want to neutralize #MeToo with #NotMe, as I understand it. Put those uppity broads back in their place.

[Skinypupy]

While he's been strongly hinting at it, Trump is now just flat-out accusing Dr. Ford of making the whole thing up.

“The way they really tortured him and his family, I thought it was a disgrace. I thought it was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen. So I have been hearing that, that now they’re thinking of impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax, that was set up by the democrats. Using the democrats’ lawyers…”

“It was all made up. It was fabricated. And it’s a disgrace. I think it’s going to really show you something come November 6th.”

Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.

Will have to look this up and get context later when I have time. The newslet talks about Ford before and after quote. But do not say how POtuS draws Ford from this quote. He's a piece of shit and you damned well that's the inference being set up but is the inference being set up by him or by a quote out of context.

In context, it's conceivable he is ripping the Democratic leadership for the way they handled while concurrently addressing the credibility other accusers, allowing the audience to conflate his meaning. It's not like he never ever ever does that. I think his cries of fake news, while not justified, require the author and reader to practically be lawyers when consuming news from or about this administration.

The video is right there. Start at 2:26, he flat-out claims that all of the accusations are fabricated and made up.

I don't see any possible context that would make his statement read otherwise.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, yeah, obviously. Appointed and confirmed means he did nothing wrong and all accusations are lies. Truth is malleable.

[Kurth]

Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.

No, no, no. We're just disagreeing.

This is normal. /facepunch
This is normal. /facepunch
Just a disagreement. /kneegroin
Be cool. Just relax. /uppercut
We're in charge now. /throatchop

See? Just a little disagreement. Can't we be civil? The GOP isn't doing anything wrong. /roundhousekick

Feel better now?

[Sepiche]

Feel better now?

Not until Republicans are shattered as a viable political party, thanks for asking.

[Pyperkub]

Feel better now?

Not until Republicans are shattered as a viable political party, thanks for asking.

A new racist party will just emerge. Sorry, but that's America.

[Kurth]

Feel better now?

Not until Republicans are shattered as a viable political party, thanks for asking.

Great plan. Be sure to report back on the progress on that front.

[pr0ner]

Feel better now?

Not until Republicans are shattered as a viable political party, thanks for asking.

So you want the same thing Trump and his ilk want, but in reverse? Yeah, that'll go well.

[geezer]

Feel better now?

Not until Republicans are shattered as a viable political party, thanks for asking.

So you want the same thing Trump and his ilk want, but in reverse? Yeah, that'll go well.

Personally, I'd be happy to have a reasonable *conservative* party as a counterbalance to whatever the Democrats become. But the Trumpist deplorable core that dominates the "Republican" primaries right now? Yep, I want 'em marginalized, ignored and stuffed back into whatever hole they came from.

[GreenGoo]

Yawn.

Call me when Sepiche has access to the WH twitter account.

Until then keep your "both sides" crap to yourself while the GOP prez is busy victim shaming a sexual assault victim to the whole world because she messed with his political SCOTUS nomination, which was his least shameful thing he did this week while representing your country.

When he gets reeled in, then we can talk about who's doing more damage to politics in that country. Otherwise leave Sepiche be. I think he's earned his spite.

[Kraken]

Another center-right party will emerge eventually, whether from the ashes of the GOP or anew. But the GOP has to fall before that can happen. The way things are going now, that might take a very long time.

[LordMortis]

Personally, I'd be happy to have a reasonable *conservative* party as a counterbalance to whatever the Democrats become. But the Trumpist deplorable core that dominates the "Republican" primaries right now? Yep, I want 'em marginalized, ignored and stuffed back into whatever hole they came from.

I want to be part of that counterbalance (with a few very "progressive" exceptions and the recognition and a few commonsense ones too)

[Pyperkub]

Another center-right party will emerge eventually, whether from the ashes of the GOP or anew. But the GOP has to fall before that can happen. The way things are going now, that might take a very long time.

Problem is that it can't win without the deplorables.

They'd be about as relevant as the Greens in the US.

[Kurth]

Yawn.

Call me when Sepiche has access to the WH twitter account.

Until then keep your "both sides" crap to yourself while the GOP prez is busy victim shaming a sexual assault victim to the whole world because she messed with his political SCOTUS nomination, which was his least shameful thing he did this week while representing your country.

When he gets reeled in, then we can talk about who's doing more damage to politics in that country. Otherwise leave Sepiche be. I think he's earned his spite.

Yeah. What was I thinking? Trump and his GOP loyalists and enablers and the significant portion of the population that supports them are so irredeemably evil, why bother critically examining anything that is said or done so long as it’s in furtherance of the Resistance? It’s time to focus on the ends. To hell with consideration of the means. Just a bunch of “both sides” crap, right?

What a load of horseshit. There's No Such Thing As "Whataboutism":

Call it what you will: whataboutism, moral equivalence, two-wrongs. There are a thousand names for it, but one idea: my side is not subject to the same moral laws as the other guy. There are excusing factors. The gigantic scale of the other guy’s mistakes make mine irrelevant.

But this is nonsense. “Whataboutism” is a propaganda term. There’s not one law for the goose and one for the gander. Moral rules apply across the board. That’s what makes them rules. Crime is crime. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, wherever it applies.

...

What we cannot do, what we should not do, is junk the search for moral truth as “moral equivalence.” The accusation of “whataboutism” is different than context-hunting: it dismisses out of hand the possibility of moral critique. It rejects the idea that moral comparison is possible. But when we speak of power, moral comparison must always be possible.

...

It will be true when the Democrats are in power again, and when Donald Trump is retired – or, hopefully, in prison. It will be true when the next far-right jackass takes the White House, and makes Trump look dignified in comparison. It will be true when America is no longer powerful, and some other country has its hands on the wheel. That’s the nice part about ethical truth: it doesn’t go away when it stops being convenient for you and yours. Now, what about that?

[Paingod]

Trump and his GOP loyalists and enablers and the significant portion of the population that supports them are so irredeemably evil...

I wouldn't call them irredeemably evil - but I do feel they're completely selfish and opposed to the way humanity needs to move as a whole for the world to get beyond infighting and into the next stage of social evolution, where humanity has a shot at surviving a global cataclysmic event, like another meteor strike.

why bother critically examining anything that is said or done so long as it’s in furtherance of the Resistance?

Was it repealing EPA rules to protect wildlife? Was it trying to kill ACA? Was it ripping families apart at the border? Is it trying to cut off the flow of refugees coming into the country? Was it pouring trillions into the pockets of the super-rich? Was it installing a proven liar and possible sex offender into the highest court in the land? Was it saying liberals killed by right-wing racists during a protest were partly to blame for their own deaths? Was it releasing a memo basically saying "The world is fucked, let's party" in regards to climate change? Is it our orange baby-man leader picking on victims of sexual assault, mocking handicapped people, shitting on our allies, destroying trade agreements, envying dictators? Is it covering up or ignoring his thousands of lies? Is it trying to marginalize his scandals and crimes? Is it the way they're claiming liberals want to burn the world while they're pouring gasoline on everything?

What, exactly, is the GOP doing right now that warrants critical examination?

Yes, I'm angry. That doesn't preclude me from wanting to see a silver lining somewhere. I'm just not seeing it, is all. Please show me.

[malchior]

Trump and his GOP loyalists and enablers and the significant portion of the population that supports them are so irredeemably evil...

I wouldn't call them irredeemably evil - but I do feel they're completely selfish and opposed to the way humanity needs to move as a whole for the world to get beyond infighting and into the next stage of social evolution, where humanity has a shot at surviving a global cataclysmic event, like another meteor strike.

This is ultimately the problem - whatever is happening here is happening all over the world right now. It is happening in the UK. It is happening in Eastern Europe. The world is re-ordering itself along ghastly mostly authoritarian lines and many people are simply not getting it. They keep using the norms of the past to measure this era. And that is naive now. This whole ordeal proved that. There was almost no way Kavanaugh makes it through a confirmation process pre-2016.

why bother critically examining anything that is said or done so long as it’s in furtherance of the Resistance?

Was it repealing EPA rules to protect wildlife? Was it trying to kill ACA? Was it ripping families apart at the border? Is it trying to cut off the flow of refugees coming into the country? Was it pouring trillions into the pockets of the super-rich? Was it installing a proven liar and possible sex offender into the highest court in the land? Was it saying liberals killed by right-wing racists during a protest were partly to blame for their own deaths? Was it releasing a memo basically saying "The world is fucked, let's party" in regards to climate change? Is it our orange baby-man leader picking on victims of sexual assault, mocking handicapped people, shitting on our allies, destroying trade agreements, envying dictators? Is it covering up or ignoring his thousands of lies? Is it trying to marginalize his scandals and crimes? Is it the way they're claiming liberals want to burn the world while they're pouring gasoline on everything?

What, exactly, is the GOP doing right now that warrants critical examination?

Yes, I'm angry. That doesn't preclude me from wanting to see a silver lining somewhere. I'm just not seeing it, is all. Please show me.

I'm with you on this anger too. Your excellent list left off a big one which was that the goddamn President of the United States is on tape basically espousing he is ok with sexually assaulting people and a dozen women came forward to complain about his conduct too. We are living with monsters of human beings running the world, which admittedly is probably not entirely new, but they were at least shackled by social convention. Now they are pretty much off the hook. What conduct is off the table? We can't know because we never find a bottom. Yet we are supposed to worry about the people without power? I don't know about that.

I also don't think shattering the GOP is realistic. They deserve to die but we live in times where moral authority is dead. And we have to figure out how to live in this new post-liberal hellscape. In the end I don't see a good outcome even with "positive results" in the forthcoming elections. If the Dems take the House, the war within Congress may escalate with Trump stepping in to fill the void. He certainly has shown he won't unite and drive forward centrist reform as the divided Congress did in the 90s via Clinton. If the Dems don't take the House, then they consolidate power around Trumpism.

[Zarathud]

We'll worry about Democrats abusing power, violating governmental norms, and blatantly lying to cram down their partisan agenda once they're in a position to do anything objectionable. The Republicans have gone too far.

Whataboutism is the act of distracting by accusing the other side of hypocrisy. The Party of Lies worrying about the Truth is bullshit, pure and simple. It's a shitty argument made by people crapping all over the place. Criticizing the bullshit isn't moral relativism.

[GreenGoo]

Yawn.

When half of partisan conservative writers are coming out against their own president, you are going to have to work a little harder kurth.

I don't think everything the GOP does is inherently a problem, but their spineless support of Drumpf, their dirty political tactics (specifically McConnell with GOP support) and their refusal to leave the 1950's on social issues makes them the party of deplorables.

As far as I'm concerned their support of Drumpf alone is reason to despise them. It's shameful. The 2016-20210 2017-2021term is going to be it's own chapter in history books, so I don't want to hear about how heavy criticism of the GOP in 2018 is unfair or unreasonable.

Defending this nonsense is unreasonable.

Alt-facts. That that is a thing is enough.

[Unagi]

2016-2020 (please don't add another year)

[Defiant]

Technically, it's 2017-2021. But we know what ya mean.

[GreenGoo]

I need to be corrected. It's the only way I'll learn.

[em2nought]

2016-2020 (please don't add another year)

2016-2024 if they maintain hold on the house.

[Kurth]

GreenGoo, I think you are tired. You keep yawning. Get some sleep.

I have no problem whatsoever with criticizing Trump or the GOP or the legion of deplorables that put them in power and are keeping them there. I do have problems with (1) the notion that success for the Dems and the left equates to shattering and utterly eradicating the Republican Party, and (2) the constant refrain that critical examination of the left is just an exercise in “whataboutism” or “both sides-ism.”

On (1), we need two sane, functioning political parties for our system to work. Until there’s some hint that there’s a viable third party option, the GOP is what we’ve got to deal with. Talk of leaving it in a smoldering heap of ash is both fantastical and counter-productive.

On (2), there’s not much more to say. Shutting down criticism of the Dems and the left on the basis that it’San exercise in “whataboutism” and a waste of time because they’re not in power is stupid and dangerous for the reasons set out in that Paste article.

[malchior]

On (1), we need two sane, functioning political parties for our system to work. Until there’s some hint that there’s a viable third party option, the GOP is what we’ve got to deal with. Talk of leaving it in a smoldering heap of ash is both fantastical and counter-productive.

It is pretty fantastical to think the GOP will ever be a sane, functioning party again too. Looking down the timeline into the future what mechanism will feasibly restrain them? Here is a basic war game on this. An ever shrinking minority will likely retain control of the Senate. The House will likely switch hands but will that remain so through 2020? That will come down to redistricting which will be happening generally under the supervision of a possibly partisan Supreme court. Maybe the Dems eventually get control the House in a semi-permanent or stable state for a near future. Then there will almost certainly be war between the chambers. As we saw with Obama, the President often then steps into the leadership void. That isn't a great future either because the Presidency probably will still teeter back and forth. And the electoral college is still balanced in favor of the shrinking minority. Add in that any Presidential action is generally ephemeral via the rules making processes at the moment. That is horrendous for policy continuation reasons and stable governance but still better than the alternative which is autocracy. Either way this set of circumstances hardly speaks to a restraining force on the GOP to be sane. They face little meaningful competition on the whole.

Out of all this, I think there is increasing evidence that both the GOP and the Dems have a grasp of the implications of the above. That is why you see a lot of the trial balloon type activity aiming at the base versus the general population now. McConnell literally just said out loud that if they still have control of the Senate he would go back on his own 'policy' and sit a SCOTUS chief during a Presidential election. The Dems are talking about packing the SCOTUS. The future is almost certainly more polarization and more unrest.

[pr0ner]

McConnell literally just said out loud that if they still have control of the Senate he would go back on his own 'policy' and sit a SCOTUS chief during a Presidential election.

This is a misrepresentation of McConnell's (terrible) position. His "policy" is that when POTUS and the Senate are of different parties, no SCOTUS nominees should be discussed during an election year. 2020 would be POTUS and Senate (if McConnell is still in charge) of the same party, so 2016's "tradition" wouldn't apply.

[Smoove_B]

Doesn't matter what he said. The new rule (apparently) is that if the PotUS and Senate are aligned, whomever the PotUS nominates, the Senate approves. Love of beer, sexual assault allegations, demeanor - none of that matters. Republican President nominates someone while Republicans control the Senate? That person is confirmed. Democrat nominates someone and the Senate is controlled by the Republicans? We're not holding a hearing. And if we somehow are forced to hold a hearing, they're not going to be confirmed.

To be clear, if we somehow pull out of this nosedive and control shifts back to the Democrats, I suspect the rubber-band to power abuse will just shift sides. We're no longer in some type of "middle ground" political environment anymore - it's going to be scorched earth philosophy while you're in charge and hope you can maintain control as long as possible - because when the pendulum rubber-bands to the other side you're going to get slaughtered.

[pr0ner]

Yep.

That kind of attitude exists amongst the citizenry, too. Especially here in DC.

[GreenGoo]

To be clear, if we somehow pull out of this nosedive and control shifts back to the Democrats, I suspect the rubber-band to power abuse will just shift sides.

Maybe, but I don't think that's true. Who do you foresee seizing and abusing power like that on the Dem side? Pelosi? She's not half as ruthless, despite Rep assurances that she's twice as bad. She makes deals with the other side of the aisle all the time. At least she calls out bullshit when she sees it, which is more than I can say for most politicians on either side.

[GreenGoo]

Yep.

That kind of attitude exists amongst the citizenry, too. Especially here in DC.

I think this is a direct outcome of politics but more importantly conflict making for profitable media, and that conflict being stoked by media organizations. Decades and decades of us vs. them reporting. Fox news absolutely tells their viewers what to think about the news they report. I'm sure other organizations do too, although I don't think it's fair to say that other organizations are as guilty of it as Fox is, and that's not even talking about the more outrageous right wing blogs and personalities that are used by more main stream media to get their message out there, and spring board off of them.

Alex Jones/infowars had WH press credentials, for fuck's sake. Tell me again how this is typical of both sides.

[Paingod]

when the pendulum rubber-bands to the other side you're going to get slaughtered.

Has there been an escalation I didn't miss, or did this just rocket out of right field? I mean - like - did the Right say "1.5" and then the Left said "1.75" so the Right said "2.0" and the Left Said "2.3" and then the Right went all "11.2" ... or was it more gradual? I feel like Trump and the GOP just turned it up to 11 since 2016, but things before that were like pissing back and forth - normal politics.

At any rate - if that means the Democrats need to go to 15 to compensate, I'm okay with it - until I see what that means, exactly. Then I'll probably flip the checkers board and storm out of the room.

[malchior]

McConnell literally just said out loud that if they still have control of the Senate he would go back on his own 'policy' and sit a SCOTUS chief during a Presidential election.

This is a misrepresentation of McConnell's (terrible) position. His "policy" is that when POTUS and the Senate are of different parties, no SCOTUS nominees should be discussed during an election year. 2020 would be POTUS and Senate (if McConnell is still in charge) of the same party, so 2016's "tradition" wouldn't apply.

It is only a 'misrepresentation' of the *latest version* which of course changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. The change about a different President he just made up on the fly *again* this week. The below is from an interview during the Gorsuch nomination process in 2017.

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL:​ You don’t fill Supreme Court vacancies in the middle of a presidential election. That’s what Joe Biden said back in 1992. And he’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.​​

CHUCK TODD: So is this the policy? Should that be the policy?​​

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: We knew exactly —

CHUCK TODD: Should that be the policy going forward? Are you prepared to pass a resolution that says, “In election years, any Supreme Court vacancy,” and have it to be the sense of a Senate resolution that say, “No Supreme Court nominations will be considered in any even-numbered year.” Is that where we’re headed?​​

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: ​Chuck, with all due respect, that’s an absurd question. We were right in the middle of a presidential election year. Everybody knew that neither side, had the shoe been on the other foot, would have filled it. But that has nothing to do with what we’re voting on this year. Why don’t we talk about what we’re voting on this week. And that’s this extraordinarily well-qualified nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.​​

[Smoove_B]

Has there been an escalation I didn't miss, or did this just rocket out of right field?

I'm far from a political historian, but over the last few years I've come to believe that this is all the culmination of a movement that started in the 1970s (possibly earlier), with respect to the ultimate direction of our country. I think that having Obama elected was the lightning strike that was needed to finally galvanize the deplorables into mask-off Trump fever in 2015/16.

Maybe, but I don't think that's true. Who do you foresee seizing and abusing power like that on the Dem side? Pelosi? She's not half as ruthless, despite Rep assurances that she's twice as bad. She makes deals with the other side of the aisle all the time. At least she calls out bullshit when she sees it, which is more than I can say for most politicians on either side.

Abuse takes many forms. The GOP's version of abuse won't look like the Democrat's version of abuse, but the goal will be the same - steamroll over what was just done, reverse it and hope to god you're party controls the direction of the nation for sufficiently long enough time as to make the inevitable reversal of power and their subsequent undoing of everything more difficult. "Abuse" in this sense is forcing one way instead of finding compromise. I think the days of compromise are over - as evidenced by the last ~4 years. There are no more moderates; only extremists. It does not pay to stake out a middle ground.

[GreenGoo]

Abuse takes many forms. The GOP's version of abuse won't look like the Democrat's version of abuse, but the goal will be the same

Maybe.

I think there's a reason we're talking about this now and not during Obama's stint, or even Bush's stint (I fully admit we talked about his misleading the country re:starting a shooting war in Iraq) although I'm sure the Rips and Msd's of the world see it differently. I think objectively though, that the two are not equatable.

I take Grif's point about the Dems abolishing the fillibuster, at the same time, it was being used not just to slow a process down and magnify the country's awareness, it was being used to simply stop forward motion. I don't know what the solution for this should have been, it's your system not mine, but I doubt the filibuster was designed to simply stop anything the losing (for lack of a better word) side didn't like. To make matters worse, everyone just decided that you didn't really need to filibuster, because that's too much work, you just need to say you're filibustering and then go home and eat dinner. That was particularly fucked up, as it ground everything to a halt, permanently as far as I could tell, without any effort at all on the filibustering side. I think you should have to work for it.

Anyway, we'll see in 2 to 6 years. Probably. Maybe. Or whenever the Dems win another election.

[noxiousdog]

Abuse takes many forms. The GOP's version of abuse won't look like the Democrat's version of abuse, but the goal will be the same

Maybe.

I think there's a reason we're talking about this now and not during Obama's stint, or even Bush's stint (I fully admit we talked about his misleading the country re:starting a shooting war in Iraq) although I'm sure the Rips and Msd's of the world see it differently. I think objectively though, that the two are not equatable.

Perhaps. I think it was certainly a stepping stone. Between the Iraq war and passing an irresponsible tax cut, they were able to con the traditional conservatives and steamroll the liberals.

[GreenGoo]

Perhaps. I think it was certainly a stepping stone. Between the Iraq war and passing an irresponsible tax cut, they were able to con the traditional conservatives and steamroll the liberals.

I threw in a bit more in my original post.

In fairness though, I remember that a significant number of Dems were for the war in Iraq, in part because the country was coming off of 9/11 and the desire to do *something* was strong, and Bush's obfuscation regarding motivations were enough of an excuse.

Family guy does a bit about Peter asking a deserting Iraqi war vet if he was just going to let Iraq get away with 9/11 (and the vet explains why that's nonsense). I think for a large portion of America they either believed the propaganda or just ignored reality in order to go beat up some people in the middle east because 9/11. I don't exactly blame them, because I wanted to see those responsible be punished as well. Sitting back and letting the intelligence agencies do their work for a decade was not a satisfying idea.

Anyway, my point is, assuming memory serves, there were plenty of Dems who went along with the Iraqi war, even if some of them did so "with much concern and doubt".

[Unagi]

The way I remember it was that Afghanistan was supported by dems, but Iraq was described as a bad idea and having nothing to do with 9/11. They (the dems) were greatly frustrated by the 'wmd' and 'yellowcake' crap that was being played.