Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:29 pm**

They get to lay out a narrative because they can count on the media to be incompetent and not do its job. This is the worst sort of "I'm just stating the facts" type reporting. Greenwood managed to deliver blow by blow reporting without any context. That is masterfully idiotic considering this type of nonsense is a big factor in the Orange One's ascendance. I get that they can't dedicate every article to drawing 100% of the big picture but at least make a passing mention to contrast what sort of infuriating garbage Pence's remark are.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:03 pm**

Chuck Todd got McConnell to basically admit he was just winging it when he made up the 'last year' rule.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:23 pm**

Smoove_B wrote:Sounding like a Star Wars villain, McConnell says, "Feel no guilt.":

Mitch McConnell told his leadership team in private this week what’s becoming increasingly obvious on Capitol Hill: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch probably won’t get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

But the Senate majority leader had an equally pressing message: Republicans should have no compunction about pulling the trigger on the “nuclear option” — with Democrats resisting a high court nominee as well-pedigreed as Gorsuch.

...

McConnell’s attempt to buck up his GOP ranks, relayed by three sources in attendance, underscores the high stakes of the Gorsuch battle as the Senate barrels toward a likely nuclear showdown next week: His confirmation is, to put it mildly, a can’t-lose for Republicans.

That was true after Senate Republicans waged a yearlong blockade of Merrick Garland that positioned the GOP to pick someone else now. But the spectacular collapse of the Obamacare repeal effort last week makes Gorsuch all the more urgent for President Donald Trump and reeling Hill Republicans.

McConnell is so confident that Republicans will win the Gorsuch fight that the Kentucky Republican predicted he’ll be confirmed by a week from Friday.
In summary: Continue to support party before country.

I hate it. I do. But this isn't a Republican problem only. Democrats complaining of it should remember that it was them that started down this slippery slope. It's convenient when your party is in power. But as I predicted then, it is now biting Democrats in the butt. It was a mistake then as it is now. But the democratic party opened this door.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:27 pm**

We've got four years* of obstructionism ahead of us. Hopefully when we elect the next president, we'll be wise enough as a country to elect someone who actually wants to unify us again.

*or less

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:29 pm**

hepcat wrote:We've got four years* of obstructionism ahead of us. Hopefully when we elect the next president, we'll be wise enough as a country to elect someone who actually wants to unify us again.

*or less

The President can be Ghandi - why would a Congress controlled by the other party go along with him?

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:34 pm**

hepcat wrote:We've got four years* of obstructionism ahead of us. Hopefully when we elect the next president, we'll be wise enough as a country to elect someone who actually wants to unify us again.

*or less

Uh, 2 years. It's not the President who has been the problem, it's Congress.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:42 pm**

I guess I'm just hopeful that a president could actually bring both parties towards compromise at times. And Trump is definitely not that kind of a leader.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:46 pm**

hepcat wrote:I guess I'm just hopeful that a president could actually bring both parties towards compromise at times. And Trump is definitely not that kind of a leader.

I wish I could be that optimistic. Assume the math doesn't change - could any Dem candidate running against the Orange one unify the country? Maybe but odds are super long.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:51 pm**

It doesn't have to be a dem. I'm hoping we see a third, centrist party emerge someday that actually has some weight.

But as you said, this is just me being unrealistically optimistic.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:04 pm**

Chrisoc13 wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:Sounding like a Star Wars villain, McConnell says, "Feel no guilt.":

Mitch McConnell told his leadership team in private this week what’s becoming increasingly obvious on Capitol Hill: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch probably won’t get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

But the Senate majority leader had an equally pressing message: Republicans should have no compunction about pulling the trigger on the “nuclear option” — with Democrats resisting a high court nominee as well-pedigreed as Gorsuch.

...

McConnell’s attempt to buck up his GOP ranks, relayed by three sources in attendance, underscores the high stakes of the Gorsuch battle as the Senate barrels toward a likely nuclear showdown next week: His confirmation is, to put it mildly, a can’t-lose for Republicans.

That was true after Senate Republicans waged a yearlong blockade of Merrick Garland that positioned the GOP to pick someone else now. But the spectacular collapse of the Obamacare repeal effort last week makes Gorsuch all the more urgent for President Donald Trump and reeling Hill Republicans.

McConnell is so confident that Republicans will win the Gorsuch fight that the Kentucky Republican predicted he’ll be confirmed by a week from Friday.
In summary: Continue to support party before country.
I hate it. I do. But this isn't a Republican problem only. Democrats complaining of it should remember that it was them that started down this slippery slope. It's convenient when your party is in power. But as I predicted then, it is now biting Democrats in the butt. It was a mistake then as it is now. But the democratic party opened this door.

Well, in terms of who first "opened the door", it depends. Democrats nuked the judicial filibuster (other than SCOTUS nominees), in response to Republicans filibustering an unprecedented number of nominees (and trying to prevent any Obama nominees to openings on the DC Circuit). But then democrats first blocked a nominee (Bork) on ideological grounds, so...depends where you start.

What I worry about long-term is that our system depends in significant part on norms of cooperation between parties. But McConnell has shown pretty compellingly in the past 8 years that the opposition party benefits politically from obstructing, so that it's contrary to the opposition party's self-interest to provide the necessary cooperation. So those norms (and our ability as a country to function efficiently) are only going to erode further over time.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:16 pm**

Yeah the Republicans being rewarded for their idiocy is disappointing. I'm still shocked it somehow worked out for them. Especially obstructing president Obama's supreme court nominee. I cannot believe people were OK with that. Even conservatives should have been upset with what was clearly an abuse of power.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:01 pm**

El Guapo wrote:
Well, in terms of who first "opened the door", it depends.

I blame the Federalists.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:40 pm**

hepcat wrote:I guess I'm just hopeful that a president could actually bring both parties towards compromise at times. And Trump is definitely not that kind of a leader.

Thing is, Obama tried, and was able to come to agreements with Boehner. It was the rest of the House which was the problem (though it is unclear whether Obama would have been able to swing enough Dems as well, but Boehner was completely submarined by his caucus).

Rather like Trump and Health Care. The main reason it didn't pass wasn't that it was a crappy bill, it's that the Freedom Caucus (who also submarined Boehner) killed it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:22 am**

An argument against using the filibuster for this fight.

I think it is a good one - getting the filibuster nuked this early in Trump's Presidency is a huge strategic blunder.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:31 am**

malchior wrote:An argument against using the filibuster for this fight.

I think it is a good one - getting the filibuster nuked this early in Trump's Presidency is a huge strategic blunder.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Save the fight for when it might really matter. Don't show your hand this early.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:39 am**

After reading more about Gorsuch, I think he's a well-respected appellate judge even if I disagree with him. But his narrow interpretation of the law's role in society will make him a terrible Supreme Court Justice.

After 6 years of Republican obstructionism culminating in Garland's denial, the Democrats have to draw a line and stand for something. They're going to lose this battle, but the larger war may be a different story.

This is the filibuster for judicial nominees to the Supreme Court only. Force Mitch's hand, he's going to play it anyway.

The Republicans have been playing the Benghazi tune for years, and the Democrats will do the same over the filibuster.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:44 am**

Reducing American style democracy one nuke at a time. Let's see how well we operate with such reduced checks and balances, and hyper-partisanship ruling Washington (now, with laws!).

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:48 am**

Gorsuch is getting confirmed either way. Whether one thinks the filibuster is a good idea mainly comes down to whether you think the Republicans are less likely to nuke the SCOTUS filibuster if Trump nominates a clear extremist in any future SCOTUS openings. I'm pretty convinced that McConnell would nuke the judicial filibuster in defense of any Trump nominee. Given that, probably better to force him to nuke it, rather than wait and have it get used against a future democratic SCOTUS nominee.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:39 am**

El Guapo wrote:Gorsuch is getting confirmed either way.

True.

Whether one thinks the filibuster is a good idea mainly comes down to whether you think the Republicans are less likely to nuke the SCOTUS filibuster if Trump nominates a clear extremist in any future SCOTUS openings.

What about someone who is truly way outside the mainstream? As the NY Times piece I linked argues? That is the type of candidate you could split votes on from Moderate Republicans in purple states. Gorsuch doesn't raise that level of animosity plus it doesn't affect the status quo balance. Once a RBG or Breyer goes the bets are all off as the balance lurches hard to the right and then the Dems will have *zero* leverage to attempt to peel off votes.

I'm pretty convinced that McConnell would nuke the judicial filibuster in defense of any Trump nominee. Given that, probably better to force him to nuke it, rather than wait and have it get used against a future democratic SCOTUS nominee.

I'd still like to understand what is the return here? Other than stamping of feet. Placating an upset base? Empty rhetoric like maintaining energy? This is pretty much throwing away a little for nothing. Sure it is only a little but giving up anything for absolutely nothing in return is senseless.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:06 am**

malchior wrote:Once a RBG or Breyer goes the bets are all off as the balance lurches hard to the right and then the Dems will have *zero* leverage to attempt to peel off votes.

It's cute that you think McConnell will suddenly start playing fair.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:09 am**

msteelers wrote:
malchior wrote:Once a RBG or Breyer goes the bets are all off as the balance lurches hard to the right and then the Dems will have *zero* leverage to attempt to peel off votes.
It's cute that you think McConnell will suddenly start playing fair.

Strawman much?

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:19 am**

Chrisoc13 wrote:
malchior wrote:An argument against using the filibuster for this fight.

I think it is a good one - getting the filibuster nuked this early in Trump's Presidency is a huge strategic blunder.
That's exactly how I feel about it. Save the fight for when it might really matter. Don't show your hand this early.

I think the Dems should force McConnell's hand now, and distance themselves from any responsibility for enabling this administration and the GOP's agenda.

I also think there is a principle involved regarding the Garland blockade.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:29 am**

Loves me some Mitch McConnell quotes:

"It should be unsettling to everyone that our colleagues across the aisle have brought the Senate to this new low," the Kentucky Republican said from the Senate floor.

McConnell added Democrats could still "do the right thing," saying that "history will be watching and the future of the Senate will hang on their choice."

How this lipless turd is able to control the narrative is the real story.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:37 am**

Pyperkub wrote:I think the Dems should force McConnell's hand now

How is this not playing into his hand?

distance themselves from any responsibility for enabling this administration and the GOP's agenda.

How does this accomplish this? That story will be all but forgotten by Monday.

I also think there is a principle involved regarding the Garland blockade.

Fair enough. How does this change that? Again point to any substantive return other than feeling like they did something? No matter how feckless it is.

This is why the Democrats keep losing. They make stupid move after stupid move. We need them to act with purpose not with their hearts.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:45 am**

malchior wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:I think the Dems should force McConnell's hand now
How is this not playing into his hand?

distance themselves from any responsibility for enabling this administration and the GOP's agenda.
How does this accomplish this? That story will be all but forgotten by Monday.

I also think there is a principle involved regarding the Garland blockade.
Fair enough. How does this change that? Again point to any substantive return other than feeling like they did something? No matter how feckless it is.

This is why the Democrats keep losing. They make stupid move after stupid move. We need them to act with purpose not with their hearts.

There's no winning this one. There's only "losing horribly" and "losing horribly but making the other side pay for it".

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:03 pm**

NickAragua wrote:
malchior wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:I think the Dems should force McConnell's hand now
How is this not playing into his hand?

distance themselves from any responsibility for enabling this administration and the GOP's agenda.
How does this accomplish this? That story will be all but forgotten by Monday.

I also think there is a principle involved regarding the Garland blockade.
Fair enough. How does this change that? Again point to any substantive return other than feeling like they did something? No matter how feckless it is.

This is why the Democrats keep losing. They make stupid move after stupid move. We need them to act with purpose not with their hearts.
There's no winning this one. There's only "losing horribly" and "losing horribly but making the other side pay for it".

Incorrect. It's part of a larger game. The NYT has it right:

Republicans have benefited from their partisan approach. They won’t stop just because Democrats ask nicely and submit to Gorsuch. Democrats are right to force McConnell to be the one who takes the partisan step of eliminating the Supreme Court filibuster. Likewise, Democrats should be aggressive in blocking Trump nominees to lower courts.

Paeans to bipartisanship may sound good, but in this case they don’t ultimately promote bipartisanship.

It really is a matter of fighting fire with fire, and smearing the GOP and McConnell's name all over it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:58 pm**

All the Democrats have now is angry constituents. They can't buckle or lessen the pressure, or they will face the backlash too -- or even worse lose support.

The more we see an incompetent Imperial President and ineffective Congress that ham-handedly railroads its one-party agenda, the better chance the Democrats have for a surprise surge in 2018.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:54 am**

Not the Supreme Court, but...

A federal appeals court ruled for the first time Tuesday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, setting up a likely battle before the Supreme Court as gay rights advocates push to broaden the scope of the 53-year-old law.

The 8-to-3 decision by the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes just three weeks after a three-judge panel in Atlanta ruled the opposite, saying employers aren't prohibited from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.

The 7th Circuit is considered relatively conservative and five of the eight judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, making the finding all the more notable.

Court: Civil Rights law prohibits discrimination of LGBT

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:34 am**

According to documents provided to Buzzfeed and Politico, Gorsuch uses a passage from the 1984 article almost word for word to describe a case about a child with Down syndrome without citing the article by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma.

Buzzfeed News and Politico also identified other instances in which Gorsuch borrowed ideas and language from law journal articles without properly citing the sources.

link

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:41 am**

So he's a plajiurist?

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:46 am**

Pypercub wrote:
Incorrect. It's part of a larger game. The NYT has it right:

Republicans have benefited from their partisan approach. They won’t stop just because Democrats ask nicely and submit to Gorsuch. Democrats are right to force McConnell to be the one who takes the partisan step of eliminating the Supreme Court filibuster. Likewise, Democrats should be aggressive in blocking Trump nominees to lower courts.

Paeans to bipartisanship may sound good, but in this case they don’t ultimately promote bipartisanship.
It really is a matter of fighting fire with fire, and smearing the GOP and McConnell's name all over it.

I think this is absolutely wrong. The fact that the Republicans have benefited from their obstructionist bullshit does not mean the Democrats should do as they do. If you see someone cheating and getting away with it, does that mean you should start cheating as well? An elementary school kid knows the answer to that question almost reflexively.

Obstructing Gorsuch is flat out wrong. It's black and white.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:50 am**

Defiant wrote:
According to documents provided to Buzzfeed and Politico, Gorsuch uses a passage from the 1984 article almost word for word to describe a case about a child with Down syndrome without citing the article by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma.

Buzzfeed News and Politico also identified other instances in which Gorsuch borrowed ideas and language from law journal articles without properly citing the sources.
link

Good grief. This is almost laughable if it weren't so embarrassing.

From the author of the purportedly "plagiarized" work:

The White House also provided a statement from Kuzma defending the similarities between her article and Gorsuch's book.

“I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the ‘Baby/Infant Doe’ case that occurred in 1982. Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language," she said in a statement provided to Buzzfeed News.

If the Democrats are going to sink to the level of the Republicans and pointlessly try to obstruct Gorsuch, they should at least call a spade a spade and admit what they are doing. Don't try to act like it's justified because there's something wrong with Gorsuch.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:57 am**

Isgrimnur wrote:So he's a plajiurist?

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:03 am**

Kurth wrote: If the Democrats are going to sink to the level of the Republicans and pointlessly try to obstruct Gorsuch, they should at least call a spade a spade and admit what they are doing. Don't try to act like it's justified because there's something wrong with Gorsuch.

Hey, I'm all for blocking Gorsuch to prevent a supreme court seat from being stolen. But it's the *media* that reported on this.

(Also, there seems to be a range of opinions on what Gorsuch did: "six experts on academic integrity contacted independently by POLITICO differed in their assessment of what Gorsuch did, ranging from calling it a clear impropriety to mere sloppiness.")

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:10 am**

Defiant wrote:
Kurth wrote: If the Democrats are going to sink to the level of the Republicans and pointlessly try to obstruct Gorsuch, they should at least call a spade a spade and admit what they are doing. Don't try to act like it's justified because there's something wrong with Gorsuch.
Hey, I'm all for blocking Gorsuch to prevent a supreme court seat from being stolen. But it's the *media* that reported on this.

I'm going to assume you are being ironic here, but just in case you aren't and it's lost on you, this is directly out of Trump's playbook: "I'm not saying Cruz's dad was in a conspiracy with Lee Harvey Oswald, I'm just repeating what the *media* already reported on."

Then again, it worked for Trump, so given that game theory is all the rage these days, why not take a page out of his book, I guess. #SAD

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:15 am**

Kurth wrote:
I'm going to assume you are being ironic here, but just in case you aren't and it's lost on you, this is directly out of Trump's playbook: "I'm not saying Cruz's dad was in a conspiracy with Lee Harvey Oswald, I'm just repeating what the *media* already reported on."

If there's evidence that some of those "experts on academic integrity" are equivalent to conspiracy nuts, I'm open to hearing it. But otherwise, I assume they're, you know, experts on the topic and not Alex Jones wannabees.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:23 am**

Defiant wrote:
Kurth wrote:
I'm going to assume you are being ironic here, but just in case you aren't and it's lost on you, this is directly out of Trump's playbook: "I'm not saying Cruz's dad was in a conspiracy with Lee Harvey Oswald, I'm just repeating what the *media* already reported on."
If there's evidence that some of those "experts on academic integrity" are equivalent to conspiracy nuts, I'm open to hearing it. But otherwise, I assume they're, you know, experts on the topic and not Alex Jones wannabees.

Definitely a safe bet on assuming unnamed experts on a topic are legit.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:25 am**

Kurth wrote:
Pypercub wrote:
Incorrect. It's part of a larger game. The NYT has it right:

Republicans have benefited from their partisan approach. They won’t stop just because Democrats ask nicely and submit to Gorsuch. Democrats are right to force McConnell to be the one who takes the partisan step of eliminating the Supreme Court filibuster. Likewise, Democrats should be aggressive in blocking Trump nominees to lower courts.

Paeans to bipartisanship may sound good, but in this case they don’t ultimately promote bipartisanship.
It really is a matter of fighting fire with fire, and smearing the GOP and McConnell's name all over it.
I think this is absolutely wrong. The fact that the Republicans have benefited from their obstructionist bullshit does not mean the Democrats should do as they do. If you see someone cheating and getting away with it, does that mean you should start cheating as well? An elementary school kid knows the answer to that question almost reflexively.

Obstructing Gorsuch is flat out wrong. It's black and white.

+1, and to your plagiarism comment below that post as well.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:29 am**

Kurth wrote: Definitely a safe bet on assuming unnamed experts on a topic are legit.

Well, only three of the six appear to be unnamed.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:31 am**

Isgrimnur wrote:So he's a plajiurist?

Nope.. A playjurist.

Octopus Overlords

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch