Octopus Overlords

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Wait, it's the fault of the Democrats for not hypnotizing McConnell into approving Garland?

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

The Democrats could have forced Garland through? Or is that a wild misreading?

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Agreed... But the Democratic party were playing by rules I like much better than the ones they would have been playing by to force Garland through. In a round about way they won, though, at least from this sample size of 1. The aggregate of what they do vs what the GOP does... I don't foresee the day I vote for GOP at any level ever again. While I am not, nor will I ever be a registered democrat, for all intents and purposes I may as well be at this point.

LordMortis wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:49 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Agreed... But the Democratic party were playing by rules I like much better than the ones they would have been playing by to force Garland through.

I'm losing it here. Let's be crystal clear here. There was no way to FORCE Garland through. There was no Constitutional, procedural, or legal mechanism at all. Aside from holding a physical gun to McConnell's head and marching him to the floor to call a vote on Garland.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:46 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Wait, it's the fault of the Democrats for not hypnotizing McConnell into approving Garland?

Yes.

It's amazing that Republicans seem to be able to do anything they want and the Democrats can't.

They could have shut down the senate until Garland was confirmed. They could have been on every news program every day saying the Senate was shirking its constitutional duty.

Regardless of how or why, it didn't get done.

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:56 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:49 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Agreed... But the Democratic party were playing by rules I like much better than the ones they would have been playing by to force Garland through.

I'm losing it here. Let's be crystal clear here. There was no way to FORCE Garland through. There was no Constitutional, procedural, or legal mechanism at all. Aside from holding a physical gun to McConnell's head and marching him to the floor to call a vote on Garland.

And yet, the ACA got passed.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:57 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:56 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:49 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Agreed... But the Democratic party were playing by rules I like much better than the ones they would have been playing by to force Garland through.

I'm losing it here. Let's be crystal clear here. There was no way to FORCE Garland through. There was no Constitutional, procedural, or legal mechanism at all. Aside from holding a physical gun to McConnell's head and marching him to the floor to call a vote on Garland.

And yet, the ACA got passed.

Wut?

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:57 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:56 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:49 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Agreed... But the Democratic party were playing by rules I like much better than the ones they would have been playing by to force Garland through.

I'm losing it here. Let's be crystal clear here. There was no way to FORCE Garland through. There was no Constitutional, procedural, or legal mechanism at all. Aside from holding a physical gun to McConnell's head and marching him to the floor to call a vote on Garland.

And yet, the ACA got passed.

uhhhhh...when they had 60 Democratic Senators (I guess technically 59 when the final bill was passed).

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:04 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:57 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:56 pm

LordMortis wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:49 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Agreed... But the Democratic party were playing by rules I like much better than the ones they would have been playing by to force Garland through.

I'm losing it here. Let's be crystal clear here. There was no way to FORCE Garland through. There was no Constitutional, procedural, or legal mechanism at all. Aside from holding a physical gun to McConnell's head and marching him to the floor to call a vote on Garland.

And yet, the ACA got passed.

Wut?

My bad. I didn't think that got done with a Democratic majority.

Regardless, they didn't do enough.

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:01 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:50 pm

Defiant wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:43 pm If credible claims of sexual assault were uncovered, as happened with Kavanaugh, then I would hope they would bring it up.

Politically, that was a disaster. One the Democrats are not keen to repeat.

Yeah totally. Only a month later the Republicans got smashed to a pulp at the polls.

This. And it certainly felt like there was a chance (not a great chance, but a significant one) that it would end the nomination.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:56 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:46 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:23 pm The bottom line is that nothing matters - it's a dog and pony show and she's going to be rubber stamped in like Kavanaugh was. That's how this works - Mitch McConnell has all but stated it plainly and openly. This is theater; it will be a 100% party-line vote for confirmation because the GOP is a cult.

That and it's their constitutional right to do so. The failure of the Democratic party to force Garland through is their fault.

I get it. It sucks. But put the blame where it belongs.

Wait, it's the fault of the Democrats for not hypnotizing McConnell into approving Garland?

Yes.

It's amazing that Republicans seem to be able to do anything they want and the Democrats can't.

They could have shut down the senate until Garland was confirmed. They could have been on every news program every day saying the Senate was shirking its constitutional duty.

Regardless of how or why, it didn't get done.

And in response McConnell would have...not confirmed Garland. Public opinion is firmly on the side of the Democrats in not confirming Barrett right now, but that's not going to stop McConnell from confirming her.

I mean, it's certainly arguable that Democrats should have made more of a stink over Garland. The case that that would have led to his confirmation is paper thin, though.

They could have shut down the senate until Garland was confirmed.

This. It was McConnell's prerogative to not let the nomination enter the Senate. At that point, the Senate could have ground to a halt... "Legally"

If Democrats refuse to participate in roll call votes, the Senate will come to a halt for lack of a quorum.

(Note: I don't agree with any of it and would have turned hostile on the Democrats, much in the way the GOP is dead to me now)

LordMortis wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:18 pm

They could have shut down the senate until Garland was confirmed.

This. It was McConnell's prerogative to not let the nomination enter the Senate. At that point, the Senate could have ground to a halt... "Legally"

Except it wouldn't. Those tactics have been essentially been eliminated via rules changes over the years. The filibuster itself for 'unlimited debate' with the phone book reading is largely a thing of the past and there are ways to get around that. The Senate has transformed procedurally a long way. The minority has some power there but it isn't at the level people think it is. There are some very real trade offs. If you grind the business of the Senate to a halt on bills, then you invite them to start using that bandwidth to shovel judges through the pipe. About the only thing they can actually do is get scarce and then that opens the doors to recess assignments. More trade offs. What it comes down to is people are so, so, so misaligned with what is happening in Washington. We depended on norms to keep the ship afloat. And those norms are all smashed.

Edit: To define trade off - it'd be a price paid in the Republicans' advantage that would still result in Merrick Garland not being seated. Oh you won't let us pass this Post Office re-naming Bill? Cool. Let's see we have 5 more Neomi Rao clones ready to be confirmed to the bench. Come at us.

Here's a question: when is the next time that a Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed during a time when the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by different parties? 10 years? 30? Never?

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:32 pmHere's a question: when is the next time that a Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed during a time when the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by different parties? 10 years? 30? Never?

After the next national crisis.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:32 pm Here's a question: when is the next time that a Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed during a time when the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by different parties? 10 years? 30? Never?

I don't think we have any way of knowing. It wouldn't surprise me to never see a Republican (of the current framework; the party could re-invent itself) as president again.

The Senate is more up in the air, but I think there will be a real push for Puerto Rico (which should be a state or given its indepence) and not for DC (which shouldn't), which will still give the Democratic party an advantage. In addition, there could be some real voter eligibility reform.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:32 pm Here's a question: when is the next time that a Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed during a time when the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by different parties? 10 years? 30? Never?

Depends. Republican President. Democratic Senate. They probably would. I don't have a reason to think they wouldn't. They might put up a big fight to get someone less ideological in but that'd be the extent of it if the current leadership class is the model. The reverse wouldn't be true because the Republicans have made it a project to greatly restrict the Democrats seating justices at all levels for the better part of a decade now. Heck some Republican Senators explicitly said they'd never agree to a Democratic President sitting a nominee. But at the heart, these hypotheticals would probably follow the track of current political fights and end being waged in a highly asymmetric fashion. If the Republicans keep the Senate we might find out in the next 4 years.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:45 pmIt wouldn't surprise me to never see a Republican (of the current framework; the party could re-invent itself) as president again.

The purpose of political parties is to take and hold power. If a party is no longer able to do that, it will either die, change, or be co-opted by someone else looking to take and hold power.

If the Republicans get stomped as badly as I expect them to be, then the Republicans will realign themselves, just as the Democrats did after their pantsing in '84. I have no idea what that realignment will look like, though.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:55 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:45 pmIt wouldn't surprise me to never see a Republican (of the current framework; the party could re-invent itself) as president again.

The purpose of political parties is to take and hold power. If a party is no longer able to do that, it will either die, change, or be co-opted by someone else looking to take and hold power.

If the Republicans get stomped as badly as I expect them to be, then the Republicans will realign themselves, just as the Democrats did after their pantsing in '84. I have no idea what that realignment will look like, though.

The key of course is going to be the mid terms. It will be interesting to see if the public at large (and with any legislative achievements) is still as angry at Republicans then as they are now.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:59 pmThe key of course is going to be the mid terms. It will be interesting to see if the public at large (and with any legislative achievements) is still as angry at Republicans then as they are now.

Yeah. If Republicans do well in the midterms, then the party will be able to say "Well, the problem was Trump." (although even then it will matter what kind of Republican does well in the midterms. The Tea Party was able to essentially devour the Republicans from within during the Obama years.)

If the Republicans do poorly in the midterms...where they have historically prospered, then it will be clear that a much deeper purge is necessary.

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:59 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:55 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:45 pmIt wouldn't surprise me to never see a Republican (of the current framework; the party could re-invent itself) as president again.

The purpose of political parties is to take and hold power. If a party is no longer able to do that, it will either die, change, or be co-opted by someone else looking to take and hold power.

If the Republicans get stomped as badly as I expect them to be, then the Republicans will realign themselves, just as the Democrats did after their pantsing in '84. I have no idea what that realignment will look like, though.

The key of course is going to be the mid terms. It will be interesting to see if the public at large (and with any legislative achievements) is still as angry at Republicans then as they are now.

Right. If they are still paying attention then yes maybe the ship will turn away from disaster slowly. Especially since it seems likely the Republicans are going to flip back into full obstruction and outrage mode.

Got to love Trump's lack of subterfuge. He admits it is a sham. He says call it a sham and move on because he thinks it helps him. He doesn't realize McConnell is *done* with him.

Yeah, from McConnell's perspective what Trump is saying is to cram through ACB so nakedly that it increases the risk that she gets rejected (even if mildly) in order to make time to do something that McConnell would rather not do anyway (pass a stimulus bill that spends money on poor people).

She is near the top of my list for people I want kicked to the curb. What a moral coward. Enough with this bullshit equivocating.

malchior wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:10 pm She is near the top of my list for people I want kicked to the curb. What a moral coward. Enough with this bullshit equivocating.

Hah, a little late, don't you think? That is the sound of a senator on the way to repudiation at the polls.

FWIW I think there's a pretty high chance that Collins does ultimately vote no, just because the electoral math is so straightforward for her (and because McConnell has a few extra votes). She's behind in her race, but not *way* far behind, and so even a small ding for voting for ACB could mean the difference between victory and defeat.

I think there's a decent chance she votes yes if McConnell suddenly needs her to, or in the lame duck session if need be, OR if her polling collapses and she gives up on reelection.

Prediction: 100% of sitting GOP Senators vote "yes" to confirm. They're all in too deep now; better to stay in the good graces of the party than try to game the voting public. Also, F all the GOP Senators. I look forward to seeing them retired.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:57 pm Prediction: 100% of sitting GOP Senators vote "yes" to confirm. They're all in too deep now; better to stay in the good graces of the party than try to game the voting public. Also, F all the GOP Senators. I look forward to seeing them retired.

I think Collins and Murkowski vote no, everyone else votes yes. One might wonder why Senators like Gardner and McSally aren't gettable as no votes given the electoral peril they are in, but for them I think they're both sufficiently doomed that they're probably more focused on their post-Senate cushy consulting gigs, and on those crossing McConnell would be fatal.

Collins has a compelling self-interested case to vote no, as I said. Murkowski's a little more interesting, but I think she's sufficiently secure and independent of McConnell that she can genuinely vote her principles for the most part, and this stuff seems to bother her.

100%

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:01 pmCollins has a compelling self-interested case to vote no, as I said. Murkowski's a little more interesting, but I think she's sufficiently secure and independent of McConnell that she can genuinely vote her principles for the most part, and this stuff seems to bother her.

The people of Maine are sick of Collins' shit and I honestly think she's doomed. I've been getting piles of ads from both sides in the mail.

Every single one against Collins mentions how she's just handing money to corporate donors and raking it in herself. Ads mentioning money she's taken from special interests and ads mentioning how she voted to slash corporate taxes. We all know what that's about. Oddly, nothing about her uncertain noncommittal every time something happens or how she constantly "hopes someone learns a lesson".

Every single one against Gideon claims she's forsaken women and looks the other way when they're sexually assaulted. What this is was a case where there were rumors that a Maine House Representative (Dillon Bates) was sexually assaulting girls at an academy where he was also a faculty member. Gideon confronted him, letting him know that if it was true she was going to expect him to resign. When it was later found to be accurate, she was right there, first in line to kick him out.

Collins would have us believe that Gideon should have forced him out because of an unsubstantiated rumor. That's her entire platform against Gideon.

Graham really comes off as a "mansplainer" at times and the old white man that he is. Feinstein in her questioning tried to pin Barrett down on how she would decide issues which with any nominee is a non starter since no nominee is going to have the perception of bias before hearing a case but it at least seemed like a good exchange between the two.

$iljanus wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:11 am Graham really comes off as a "mansplainer" at times and the old white man that he is. Feinstein in her questioning tried to pin Barrett down on how she would decide issues which with any nominee is a non starter since no nominee is going to have the perception of bias before hearing a case but it at least seemed like a good exchange between the two.

I'm inclined to think the better decision for Democrats would be to just boycott the hearings entirely. The core objection to Barrett's confirmation (which is also the simplest to explain) is just the McConnell rule - you decided that this was an important principle (or pretended that it was), we can't have two sets of rules for Republicans vs. Democrats, so this has to wait until 2021. Boycotting the hearings would amplify that point, and emphasize the illegitimacy of it all. And on top of that you have the COVID outbreak which is another reason to not hold hearings.

Showing up and asking her about particular cases isn't going to achieve anything, and seems like it'll just muddy the waters in terms of messaging.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:18 amI'm inclined to think the better decision for Democrats would be to just boycott the hearings entirely.

This I would love to see, for the Republicans to nominate and approve a judge with half the room as completely absent, empty chairs. It should send a powerful message. It wouldn't be heard, but it'd be more than they're doing now.

If you're playing a game with someone who keeps changing the rules to suit them, you stop playing the game.

Paingod wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:28 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:18 amI'm inclined to think the better decision for Democrats would be to just boycott the hearings entirely.

This I would love to see, for the Republicans to nominate and approve a judge with half the room as completely absent, empty chairs. It should send a powerful message. It wouldn't be heard, but it'd be more than they're doing now.

If you're playing a game with someone who keeps changing the rules to suit them, you stop playing the game.

It also sets up the "well if you're going to go ahead with this, you're effectively saying that Republicans can confirm in an election year but not Democrats". Which is unfair and untenable, which then sets up a variety of SCOTUS reform / 'court packing' measures for 2021.

Which in turn is the strongest argument Democrats can make to Republican senators in terms of not confirming Barrett. "Look, if you want to make sure to cement a conservative majority, you *shouldn't* confirm Barrett. If you do we'll have to look into court packing, and if we do we're obviously not going to add just one seat. If you don't confirm her then assuming Biden wins he'll confirm a replacement and we'll have a 5-4 court. But with the political wind out of our sails on court packing we won't be able to go beyond that."

Logically that's a great argument.

Realistically the GOP is Gollum, sneaking up on Sam in Shelob's tunnel and getting his ass beat when all he had to do was wait and bide his time. He just had to gloat over his victory, though.

(I just passed this point in my Audiobook)

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:18 am

$iljanus wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:11 am Graham really comes off as a "mansplainer" at times and the old white man that he is. Feinstein in her questioning tried to pin Barrett down on how she would decide issues which with any nominee is a non starter since no nominee is going to have the perception of bias before hearing a case but it at least seemed like a good exchange between the two.

I'm inclined to think the better decision for Democrats would be to just boycott the hearings entirely. The core objection to Barrett's confirmation (which is also the simplest to explain) is just the McConnell rule - you decided that this was an important principle (or pretended that it was), we can't have two sets of rules for Republicans vs. Democrats, so this has to wait until 2021. Boycotting the hearings would amplify that point, and emphasize the illegitimacy of it all. And on top of that you have the COVID outbreak which is another reason to not hold hearings.

Showing up and asking her about particular cases isn't going to achieve anything, and seems like it'll just muddy the waters in terms of messaging.

There is some political theater value to draw a line between the stances of each side, even if the confirmation is pretty much decided. But if the Democrats are going to go through with this they certainly need to hammer home the fact that this is a process that is completely a power grab before an election.

Graham bringing up Citizens United and lamenting about all this money floating around made me laugh since he’s just being a snowflake because all that “mystery” money ain’t going to him.

McConnell is directly responsible for stopping campaign finance reform. Lindsey benefitted from the calculated Republican decision it would help them. Feed him to the lions.

Sen. Whitehouse of RI brought placards outlining the Republican senators hypocrisy in holding this nomination along with their political agenda of supporting a nominee that would go their way regarding the ACA, Roe v Wade , Obergefell v Hodges.

Now he brought out a placard titled “THE SCHEME” and is outlining the various groups pouring dark money into the nominee campaign process.

Give this guy a Tony!

Wow, he still has more placards! And out comes the red marker!

Judge Barrett is being very patient with him. But occasionally I think she looks like she’s going to send him to his room with no supper.

I guess if the nomination is a forgone conclusion, just swing for the fence! (Oh, no questions yet for Judge Barrett)

I'm not watching because why waste time? However, seems like I missed something decent. Apparently the increasingly credulous press is already starting to act all shocked that he had the nerve to not ask her questions as if asking questions matters.

As entertaining as Sen. Whitehouse's X-Files info dump was, I'm pretty impressed by Sen. Klobuchar's actual questioning of Judge Barrett.