Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:34 pm

The Lincoln Project continues to confuse me. I believe they sincerely hate Trump and Trumpism, but do their principles really go so far as to be willing to see another dedicated liberal on the Court?

Kudos if so. It just seems that few of these people would be making the same moves against, say, President Jeb Bush's third SC pick, and that makes me wonder.

Even when I considered myself a dyed in the wool conservative (and someone who would probably be part of the Lincoln Project today), I always appreciated the liberal justices on the court. I kind of like the idea of 4 vs. 4 with a swing vote justice. (Note, do not take this as an endorsement of any kind of "let the parties appoint justices" approach to the SCOTUS. I think there is huge value in lifetime appointments, even if there are also some negatives.)

Holman wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:34 pm

The Lincoln Project continues to confuse me. I believe they sincerely hate Trump and Trumpism, but do their principles really go so far as to be willing to see another dedicated liberal on the Court?

Kudos if so. It just seems that few of these people would be making the same moves against, say, President Jeb Bush's third SC pick, and that makes me wonder.

I'm not sure even hardcore conservatives that aren't diehard Trumpists want Justice Ted Cruz.

When the majority of US citizens fear for their rights, and possibly the very survival of the Republic, because one diminutive octogenarian died at the wrong time, things are probably whacked beyond redemption.

Kraken wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:01 am When the majority of US citizens fear for their rights, and possibly the very survival of the Republic, because one diminutive octogenarian died at the wrong time, things are probably whacked beyond redemption.

This is the thought that I simply can't get out of my head today. The fact that one not-particularly-unexpected death could have such a massive ripple effect on the future direction of an entire nation is, frankly, absurd.

Yet here we are.

Holman wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:38 am We had to do something, so last night we binge-donated to four Dem candidates for senate:

John Hickenlooper (CO), Mark Kelly (AZ), Sara Gideon (ME), Cal Cunningham (NC)

Here's a list of senate candidates with chances of flipping Republicans out:

1. John Hickenlooper - CO
2. Mark Kelly - AZ
3. Sara Gideon - ME
4. Cal Cunningham - NC
5. Theresa Greenfield - IA
6. Jon Ossoff - GA
7. Steve Bullock - MT
8. Raphael Warnock - GA
9. Jaime Harrison - SC

Recurring weekly donations are best because they make campaign planning easier.

Don't bother donating to McConnell's opponent. She already has enough money to cause him trouble, but she's not going to win.

What do you think is the best way to contribute? Directly to their campaign? Through ActBlue? Does ActBlue have a general fund where they can disperse it to the most needed candidates?

gbasden wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:28 am

Holman wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:34 pm

The Lincoln Project continues to confuse me. I believe they sincerely hate Trump and Trumpism, but do their principles really go so far as to be willing to see another dedicated liberal on the Court?

Kudos if so. It just seems that few of these people would be making the same moves against, say, President Jeb Bush's third SC pick, and that makes me wonder.

I'm not sure even hardcore conservatives that aren't diehard Trumpists want Justice Ted Cruz.

Eh, there's no chance Trump would tap Cruz or Cotton right now. He couldn't afford to lose another R vote in the Senate right now. It'll likely be Amy Coney Barrett.

Trump announced it would be a woman and Barrett is a Scalia patterned originalist. I think she is gotta be on the very, very short list. Especially since she'll make the religious right very, very, very happy. She has said she is anti-precedent if it conflicts with the Constitution. Another pick could be Rao. We would know we're fucked proper because Rao is a ardent Trumpist.

In other news, Graham has said the rules have changed after Kavanaugh. Not a surprise. He is a pathetic creature.

* Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open.

* Chuck Schumer don’t conspire as hard or effectively as Mitch McConnell.
* Lindsay Graham is a sniveling bastard with no principles.

How is the health of Justice Thomas? Another death in a Democratic Presidency could restore balance.

Alefroth wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:31 am

Holman wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:38 am We had to do something, so last night we binge-donated to four Dem candidates for senate:

John Hickenlooper (CO), Mark Kelly (AZ), Sara Gideon (ME), Cal Cunningham (NC)

Here's a list of senate candidates with chances of flipping Republicans out:

1. John Hickenlooper - CO
2. Mark Kelly - AZ
3. Sara Gideon - ME
4. Cal Cunningham - NC
5. Theresa Greenfield - IA
6. Jon Ossoff - GA
7. Steve Bullock - MT
8. Raphael Warnock - GA
9. Jaime Harrison - SC

Recurring weekly donations are best because they make campaign planning easier.

Don't bother donating to McConnell's opponent. She already has enough money to cause him trouble, but she's not going to win.

What do you think is the best way to contribute? Directly to their campaign? Through ActBlue? Does ActBlue have a general fund where they can disperse it to the most needed candidates?

We donated directly to the campaigns. The list above is in basically most-vulnerable-GOP-opponent order.

But we've donated to ActBlue before, and they're a good option too.

Zarathud wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:30 am * Chuck Schumer don’t conspire as hard or effectively as Mitch McConnell.
* Lindsay Graham is a sniveling bastard with no principles.

How is the health of Justice Thomas? Another death in a Democratic Presidency could restore balance.

Thomas is just 71. I haven't heard of any health issues with him.

Breyer is now the oldest at 81.

Alito is 70. Roberts is 65. Trump's appointees will be with us into the 2050s.

Holman wrote:The Lincoln Project continues to confuse me. I believe they sincerely hate Trump and Trumpism, but do their principles really go so far as to be willing to see another dedicated liberal on the Court?

Kudos if so. It just seems that few of these people would be making the same moves against, say, President Jeb Bush's third SC pick, and that makes me wonder.

I assume there’s a little bit of what happened to me in 2008 going on here. When I started to consider Obama for real, I suddenly notice the incredible amount of lying and bullshit that the GOP engaged in to smear him, and it soured me on the entire party rather than just McCain’s campaign.

When the NeverTrumpers went full anti-Trump, it would be very difficult for them to miss the fact that Trump’s malevolent incompetence was only allowed to fester and rot the fabric of democracy due to the will of McConnell. You cannot observe the last four years without coming to the conclusion that McConnell is the Sauron of our tale. I’m not shocked that the Lincoln Project sees that as well.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:43 am

Holman wrote:The Lincoln Project continues to confuse me. I believe they sincerely hate Trump and Trumpism, but do their principles really go so far as to be willing to see another dedicated liberal on the Court?

Kudos if so. It just seems that few of these people would be making the same moves against, say, President Jeb Bush's third SC pick, and that makes me wonder.

I assume there’s a little bit of what happened to me in 2008 going on here. When I started to consider Obama for real, I suddenly notice the incredible amount of lying and bullshit that the GOP engaged in to smear him, and it soured me on the entire party rather than just McCain’s campaign.

When the NeverTrumpers went full anti-Trump, it would be very difficult for them to miss the fact that Trump’s malevolent incompetence was only allowed to fester and rot the fabric of democracy due to the will of McConnell. You cannot observe the last four years without coming to the conclusion that McConnell is the Sauron of our tale. I’m not shocked that the Lincoln Project sees that as well.

Did any of today's prominent NeverTrumpers criticize McConnell under Obama? Did they call for a vote on Garland?

Holman wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:54 amDid any of today's prominent NeverTrumpers criticize McConnell under Obama? Did they call for a vote on Garland?

Not really. At best it's mixed. Rick Wilson called it smart politics at the time. Tom Nichols after the fact bashed it (about a year after Trump won). They are against Trump and what he did to the GOP. They were not against the GOP project up until Trump co-opted it. What I don't see is them recognizing that they all played a part at the partisan warfare that enabled Trump. But that isn't just a NeverTrump trait. The near entirety of the major media players don't ever acknowledge their massive failures. Comey et. al. still think they acted righteously. This system is falling apart because everyone thinks they are doing their best.

I would be content with Amy Barrett. Sure, she's way more conservative than I am, but she's also a top-notch legal mind and frankly...kind of a ridiculously accomplished person.

I don't know much about Roa, but from what I've seen, she's mostly just a lackey. Screw that.

RunningMn9 wrote: I assume there’s a little bit of what happened to me in 2008 going on here. When I started to consider Obama for real, I suddenly notice the incredible amount of lying and bullshit that the GOP engaged in to smear him, and it soured me on the entire party rather than just McCain’s campaign.

When the NeverTrumpers went full anti-Trump, it would be very difficult for them to miss the fact that Trump’s malevolent incompetence was only allowed to fester and rot the fabric of democracy due to the will of McConnell. You cannot observe the last four years without coming to the conclusion that McConnell is the Sauron of our tale. I’m not shocked that the Lincoln Project sees that as well.

I saw the seeds of this bullshit during the Clinton years, and I had known about Newt Gingrich before being Speaker and power made him a maniac.

Holman wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:54 am

Did any of today's prominent NeverTrumpers criticize McConnell under Obama? Did they call for a vote on Garland?

George Will did

Little Raven wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:23 am I would be content with Amy Barrett. Sure, she's way more conservative than I am, but she's also a top-notch legal mind and frankly...kind of a ridiculously accomplished person.

I don't know much about Roa, but from what I've seen, she's mostly just a lackey. Screw that.

Yes, in normal times she would be a good choice. Trump could do much worse. The republic is not going to end because she is on the Supreme Court. I just hope that this doesn’t turn into a Kavanaugh like hearing. Save the rhetoric for McConnell/Trump, not the nominee.

Oh the Hill! They had been pretending but i have to say nice use of the villain reveal at a dramatic moment.

Grifman wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:39 am

Little Raven wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:23 am I would be content with Amy Barrett. Sure, she's way more conservative than I am, but she's also a top-notch legal mind and frankly...kind of a ridiculously accomplished person.

I don't know much about Roa, but from what I've seen, she's mostly just a lackey. Screw that.

Yes, in normal times she would be a good choice. Trump could do much worse. The republic is not going to end because she is on the Supreme Court. I just hope that this doesn’t turn into a Kavanaugh like hearing. Save the rhetoric for McConnell/Trump, not the nominee.

None of this matters until we hear from her husband and The People of Praise.

Little Raven wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:23 am I would be content with Amy Barrett. Sure, she's way more conservative than I am, but she's also a top-notch legal mind and frankly...kind of a ridiculously accomplished person.

I don't know much about Roa, but from what I've seen, she's mostly just a lackey. Screw that.

Under normal times, yes. Now, no f’ing way. That seat cannot be filled until after the election, no matter who it is.

Holman wrote:Did any of today's prominent NeverTrumpers criticize McConnell under Obama? Did they call for a vote on Garland?

How much did I criticize the GOP in 2005? Sometimes you don’t see the problem until you see the problem.

As clear as it is to me that RBG's seat should not be filled until after the election, if Trump and the Senate do conspire to rush a nomination through before then (which they will), don't you think that will spell their doom? At least, Trump's?

Setting aside Trump's die hard base, I have to think there a bunch of conservative voters (especially religiously-motivated conservative voters) who hold their nose when voting for Trump and justify doing so based on the Supreme Court. After RBG, there aren't many more seats that have a high probability of needing to be filled in the next four years. Those voters would have gotten 3 solidly conservative votes in exchange for putting Trump in office with little chance for additional Supreme Court dividends being paid during the next term. Isn't there a chance this makes them far less likely to turn out for Trump this year?

Also, if Trump manages to push through another SC nomination, the Democrats' message to voters should be loud and clear: This is what happens when you don't turn out to vote. I would think it would ratchet up the enthusiasm of Dem voters through the roof.

Silver lining?

malchior wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:59 am Trump announced it would be a woman and Barrett is a Scalia patterned originalist.

If it's not Ivanka, I think it'll be Barrett.

Some have mentioned the possibility if they try to push through a nominee in a lame-duck session, that you and the House can move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.

Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Rule Out Impeachment Proceedings To Stall Senate From Proceeding With SCOTUS Nominee

Kurth wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:00 pmAs clear as it is to me that RBG's seat should not be filled until after the election, if Trump and the Senate do conspire to rush a nomination through before then (which they will), don't you think that will spell their doom? At least, Trump's?

I do. Mind you, I mostly think Trump is doomed anyway, but I certainly don't think this HELPS him win in November.

I think there are a LOT of people that really don't like Trump but really honestly fear a liberal dominated court. If another conservative is seated, I think those people get a lot less motivated. And on the flip side, the Republicans have milked a LOT of mileage out of this issue for the last decade. That now shifts over to the Democrats, and it will stay that way for years to come.

Based what happened with both Kavanaugh and the Trump impeachment vote, you'll kindly excuse me if I don't believe a single GOP politician's words right now. Let's see what happens when there's an actual vote that is called.

Not supporting taking up a vote does not equal not voting to confirm a judge if brought to the full Senate...

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:43 pm Not supporting taking up a vote does not equal not voting to confirm a judge if brought to the full Senate...

Little Raven wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:02 pmIf another conservative is seated, I think those people get a lot less motivated. And on the flip side, the Republicans have milked a LOT of mileage out of this issue for the last decade.

That, or they are so happy with their better than expected SC outcome under Trump, that they reward him for it with their vote.

As many people don't like Trump that voted for him, there are also hordes that are single issue voters, and that issue is abortion. Hordes.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:52 pm

Little Raven wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:02 pmIf another conservative is seated, I think those people get a lot less motivated. And on the flip side, the Republicans have milked a LOT of mileage out of this issue for the last decade.

That, or they are so happy with their better than expected SC outcome under Trump, that they reward him for it with their vote.

As many people don't like Trump that voted for him, there are also hordes that are single issue voters, and that issue is abortion. Hordes.

But those people are already voting Trump and already baked into the numbers.

The danger for the GOP is that threatening Roe movies Obama-Trump voters back towards Biden. You wouldn't know it from the both-sides coverage, but America is decidedly pro-choice. A significant number of trump voters in 2016 actually believed that he was a pro-choice Republican.

Skinypupy wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:08 am

Kraken wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:01 am When the majority of US citizens fear for their rights, and possibly the very survival of the Republic, because one diminutive octogenarian died at the wrong time, things are probably whacked beyond redemption.

This is the thought that I simply can't get out of my head today. The fact that one not-particularly-unexpected death could have such a massive ripple effect on the future direction of an entire nation is, frankly, absurd.

Yet here we are.

It's not just the one death though. It has taken years of Trump's work alongside other Republicans to work things so that this one death has such an impact. The path this country is on has not always been a path that everyone was happy with. Sometimes it was a path that many people hated. But it always, in my lifetime, felt sort of predictable and not completely deranged. Today's US feels unpredictable and deranged to me. Given that, this death is magnified in impact. Some people have written that they think she should have stepped down back when Democrats could have found a decent replacement but that's asking a lot of her. How was she supposed to know this is where the country was going? Even when Trump was running for President I didn't think millions of people would actually vote for him.

Holman wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:59 pm
The danger for the GOP is that threatening Roe movies Obama-Trump voters back towards Biden. You wouldn't know it from the both-sides coverage, but America is decidedly pro-choice. A significant number of trump voters in 2016 actually believed that he was a pro-choice Republican.

America is pro-choice, and something like twice as many pro-choice voters voted for Trump as pro-life voters who voted for Clinton, but for how many people is that an issue that will change their vote?

Defiant wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:11 pm

Holman wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:59 pm
The danger for the GOP is that threatening Roe movies Obama-Trump voters back towards Biden. You wouldn't know it from the both-sides coverage, but America is decidedly pro-choice. A significant number of trump voters in 2016 actually believed that he was a pro-choice Republican.

America is pro-choice, and something like twice as many pro-choice voters voted for Trump as pro-life voters who voted for Clinton, but for how many people is that an issue that will change their vote?

We forget, but a big part of the appeal for Obama-Trump voters was that Trump seemed not to be a traditional social-issues Republican.

That appeal is already deeply tarnished, but it goes out the window if he nominates a social-conservative justice.

Defiant wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:11 pm

Holman wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:59 pm
The danger for the GOP is that threatening Roe movies Obama-Trump voters back towards Biden. You wouldn't know it from the both-sides coverage, but America is decidedly pro-choice. A significant number of trump voters in 2016 actually believed that he was a pro-choice Republican.

America is pro-choice, and something like twice as many pro-choice voters voted for Trump as pro-life voters who voted for Clinton, but for how many people is that an issue that will change their vote?

It's not about changing votes, it's about getting butts to the polls. If the left has been cool toward Biden so far, they're inflamed now.

gameoverman wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:50 pmSome people have written that they think she should have stepped down back when Democrats could have found a decent replacement but that's asking a lot of her. How was she supposed to know this is where the country was going? Even when Trump was running for President I didn't think millions of people would actually vote for him.

Some people are idiots who lack any understanding of the fundamental nature of the Supreme Court. RBG’s job was never to hold on to her seat so as to ensure it remained a “liberal” seat and didn’t flip to a “conservative” seat. Despite the stupid and self-defeating partisan nature of our politics today, the court doesn’t (and shouldn’t) see itself that way.

There aren’t red and blue seats at the Supreme Court, and RBG never had any obligation to try to change that.

Kurth wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:14 pmSome people are idiots who lack any understanding of the fundamental nature of the Supreme Court. RBG’s job was never to hold on to her seat so as to ensure it remained a “liberal” seat and didn’t flip to a “conservative” seat. Despite the stupid and self-defeating partisan nature of our politics today, the court doesn’t (and shouldn’t) see itself that way.

Yup. Which is why I'm much less concerned about the partisan leanings of the nominee and much more concerned about their legal acumen.

The parties are in a state of flux at the moment. I'm not at all confident that either party is going to look remotely the same in 10 years, much less 15 or 20. So as long as Trump is willing to put an actual top mind on the Court, and not an under qualified lackey, I will grudgingly accept it. Not that my acceptance means anything either way, of course.

Little Raven wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:18 pm

Kurth wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:14 pmSome people are idiots who lack any understanding of the fundamental nature of the Supreme Court. RBG’s job was never to hold on to her seat so as to ensure it remained a “liberal” seat and didn’t flip to a “conservative” seat. Despite the stupid and self-defeating partisan nature of our politics today, the court doesn’t (and shouldn’t) see itself that way.

Yup. Which is why I'm much less concerned about the partisan leanings of the nominee and much more concerned about their legal acumen.

The parties are in a state of flux at the moment. I'm not at all confident that either party is going to look remotely the same in 10 years, much less 15 or 20. So as long as Trump is willing to put an actual top mind on the Court, and not an under qualified lackey, I will grudgingly accept it. Not that my acceptance means anything either way, of course.

His smartest move would be to nominate a highly qualified, politically uncontroversial woman who might even draw a Dem vote or two. Not that trump ever makes smart moves, or that I know who that might be...but it's what I'd do if I were worried more about my reelection than ideology.

Kraken wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:39 pm

Little Raven wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:18 pm

Kurth wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:14 pmSome people are idiots who lack any understanding of the fundamental nature of the Supreme Court. RBG’s job was never to hold on to her seat so as to ensure it remained a “liberal” seat and didn’t flip to a “conservative” seat. Despite the stupid and self-defeating partisan nature of our politics today, the court doesn’t (and shouldn’t) see itself that way.

Yup. Which is why I'm much less concerned about the partisan leanings of the nominee and much more concerned about their legal acumen.

The parties are in a state of flux at the moment. I'm not at all confident that either party is going to look remotely the same in 10 years, much less 15 or 20. So as long as Trump is willing to put an actual top mind on the Court, and not an under qualified lackey, I will grudgingly accept it. Not that my acceptance means anything either way, of course.

His smartest move would be to nominate a highly qualified, politically uncontroversial woman who might even draw a Dem vote or two. Not that trump ever makes smart moves, or that I know who that might be...but it's what I'd do if I were worried more about my reelection than ideology.

So we should expect either Justice Palin or Justice Coulter, then.