What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (2 Viewers)

Bruce Dickinson said:
Given how many years Republicans let the whole “Obama might have been born in Kenya” thing run and how the majority of self-indentifying Republicans still believed it as recently as last year... I’m good with taking 90-120 days to figure out if there was anything untoward about this SCOTUS retirement and replacement, especially given the potential financial ties between Kennedy’s son and the Trump Organization. 
Click to expand...
Maybe, I guess. But the means to an ends sure feels like it’s built on a foundation of crappy reporting that also impugns the hell out of Kennedy.

 
stlrams said:
IMHO it would hurt the Dems if they shut the gov't as a tactic to negotiate SC nomination.
Click to expand...
But not that republicans did it over immigration.

so it’s not about the economy and it’s effect...it’s about feelings.

thanks...I figured as much

 
knowledge dropper said:
Sounds like a solid plan from the “adults in the room.”
Click to expand...
They need to run with the Kennedy/Kavanaugh quid pro quo thing.  Push that conspiracy as far as it can go ?.

The desperation is getting thick.  If Dems don’t take the House or the Senate in the next election I expect we’ll see a 2016-level meltdown.

 
Hugh Jass said:
Maybe, I guess. But the means to an ends sure feels like it’s built on a foundation of crappy reporting that also impugns the hell out of Kennedy.
Click to expand...
What if it was a small piece of a large pile that also included the possibility the current President only won the election because he conspired with a foreign government to do so?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
No, it isn't.  The electoral college is the reason Trump is president.  I think you're getting two different things confused.
Click to expand...
This seems inaccurate. Trump took both Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which are heavily gerrymandered. I think I read Michigan was considered the most heavily gerrymandered state in the country. Those electoral college votes were a direct result of the gerrymandering.

Am I being too literal or am I missing sarcasm?

 
jonessed said:
They need to run with the Kennedy/Kavanaugh quid pro quo thing.  Push that conspiracy as far as it can go ?.

The desperation is getting thick.  If Dems don’t take the House or the Senate in the next election I expect we’ll see a 2016-level meltdown.
Click to expand...
This seems to be a full-blown freakout over replacing a conservative justice with a slightly different flavor of conservative justice.

If the Democrats fail to take the senate and Trump gets to replace RBG or Breyer, I don't even know how people would respond.  

 
Ranethe said:
This seems inaccurate. Trump took both Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which are heavily gerrymandered. I think I read Michigan was considered the most heavily gerrymandered state in the country. Those electoral college votes were a direct result of the gerrymandering.

Am I being too literal or am I missing sarcasm?
Click to expand...
Neither of those states allocate their electoral votes by congressional district.  They both award their EVs by the overall popular vote across the state.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
What if it was a small piece of a large pile that also included the possibility the current President only won the election because he conspired with a foreign government to do so?
Click to expand...
What if the entire government is compromised? We need to shut it down and replace everyone...just to be sure.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This seems to be a full-blown freakout over replacing a conservative justice with a slightly different flavor of conservative justice.

If the Democrats fail to take the senate and Trump gets to replace RBG or Breyer, I don't even know how people would respond.  
Click to expand...
I’m open to the possibility there is some residual disappointment over how naming Scalia’s successor was handled.  IMO if Merrick Garland was given a proper confirmation process and evaluation, there wouldn’t be the hand-wringing we’re seeing over Kavanaugh.

The half-century or so of unethical behavior from Trump might be a factor, too.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
What do you think of the idea of delaying Kavanaugh’s confirmation until the Mueller investigation concludes?
Click to expand...
Why would Republicans agree to do that? Mueller has been stringing that investigation out for over a year.  He could easily string it out another one or two.  In the meantime, the world continues to spin.

Trump is President and the Congress is Republican.  If you don’t like it, beat them at the polls.  Until then, suck it up.

 
jonessed said:
Why would Republicans agree to do that? Mueller has been stringing that investigation out for over a year.  He could easily string it out another one or two.  In the meantime, the world continues to spin.

Trump is President and the Congress is Republican.  If you don’t like it, beat them at the polls.  Until then, suck it up.
Click to expand...
Shorter than Benghazi and Whitewater. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
Why would Republicans agree to do that? Mueller has been stringing that investigation out for over a year.  He could easily string it out another one or two.  In the meantime, the world continues to spin.

Trump is President and the Congress is Republican.  If you don’t like it, beat them at the polls.  Until then, suck it up.
Click to expand...
How about “until the Mueller investigation concludes or six months, whichever comes first”?  Capping the wait at about half the delay between Scalia’s death and the first hearing to replace him?

 
jonessed said:
Great example. Outside of some screaming and hollering, everybody went about their business.

The investigation will continue, just like everything else.
Click to expand...
I added Whitewater too. My main point being nobody on the Republican side should say boo about the length of the Mueller investigation. 

They will, of course. But they absolutely shouldn't. 

 
Reagan didn't get to make any SCOTUS nominations when the IC was investigating Iran-Contra.  How shameless for McConnell to abandon this bipartisan precedent.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
The most likely scenario for a government shutdown is Trump triggering one by refusing to sign a spending bill without also getting funding for a border wall and power to deport the DACA kids.  Dems would just need to stall until Trump throes his next border wall tantrum.

And if you think the GOP would lose any votes over a government shutdown initiated by Trump to keep the brown people out of the country, I don’t think you’ve been paying much attention to what the party has become since Trump hijacked it.
Click to expand...
Trump didn't hijack the GOP. It is what many people in the party worked very hard to make it since the day Strom Thurmond joined. 

 
jonessed said:
Why would Republicans agree to do that? Mueller has been stringing that investigation out for over a year.  He could easily string it out another one or two.  In the meantime, the world continues to spin.

Trump is President and the Congress is Republican.  If you don’t like it, beat them at the polls.  Until then, suck it up.
Click to expand...


IvanKaramazov said:
Neither of those states allocate their electoral votes by congressional district.  They both award their EVs by the overall popular vote across the state.
Click to expand...
This is the deal. It is time to "win bigly" in order to get the desired outcomes. Otherwise, sucking it up is in the cards right now. Remember this feeling in November 2018 and 2020.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I remember when Clinton couldn't nominate any justices while the Whitewater investigation was ongoing.  Can't believe McConnell changed the rules to allow nominations to move forward now.
Click to expand...
It's really shocking. It's almost as if he'll do anything to put party over country. Crazy.

 
knowledge dropper said:
The “I’m going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I get a Justice I want” crowd is in rare form today. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, where did they ever get the idea of amending existing rules and even fabricating nonexistent ones to serve blatantly partisan interests on Court appointments. I can't imagine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
I saw a quote someplace where he said he changed his mind on this issue as a direct result of his first-hand experience with the Clinton investigation.  That's actually pretty cool if that's the case.  In general, I think we should applaud people who learn from their experience, recognize mistakes, change their minds when warranted, and publicly acknowledge doing so.  This is a very good habit of mind.

That said, I still think he was right the first time.
Click to expand...
I'll take the opposite view.  If you do something "bad," it's all to convenient to do that "bad" thing and then say "I shouldn't have done that, and I don't think other people should be able to do it either."  It's got the feel of a woman who took advantage of her legal ability to have an abortion, but then has a change of heart and advocates for making abortion illegal.  Puke. 

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
So when McConnell ignored the Garland nomination and refused to hold hearings, what rule was McConnell following?  

And do you think McConnell’s decision to not move forward on Garland was ethical or unethical?
Click to expand...
This is easy. The rule McConnell was following was: “No President shall have a Supreme Court nominee confirmed unless the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same party, at least so long as I am Senate Majority Leader.”

It was unethical as hell.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
The rule he was following was "I have a majority, and I'll use it as I damn well please."

Unethical.
Click to expand...
Do you think McConnell’s previous unethical behavior regarding SCOTUS nominations fuels resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination?  

If Merrick Garland is on the Supreme Court today, do you think we would see the same level of resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination today?  (Feel free to substitute Gorsuch for Kavanaugh, given Gorsuch would probably have been nominated to replace Kennedy had he not replaced Scalia.)

 
The weird thing is when people try to frame the McConnell rule as “No President shall have his Supreme Court nominee confirmed within a year before a midterm election.” It had nothing to do with midterms.

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
More difficult that you think.

But I guess years and years of jurisprudence could fly out the window because a Bush disciple and 53 year old lifetime appointee feels a debt is owed to Donald J. Trump. 

Crazier things are happening every day with this administration.
Click to expand...
I think this, in combination with Kavanaugh’s intro, is a more viable argument. I’d add that Kennedy was handing down decisions while apparently seeking to name his successor. The Hawaii opinion, where he basically said the administration was lying about its national security basis for the travel ban but then concurred with the majority, is really weird in this context. 

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
So when McConnell ignored the Garland nomination and refused to hold hearings, what rule was McConnell following?  

And do you think McConnell’s decision to not move forward on Garland was ethical or unethical?
Click to expand...
He was using the power he had as Senate Majority Leader.  I expect Democrats will use any rule, law, or tactic to slow down Kavanaugh as well.  Unfortunately for them they don’t control the Senate so their options are more limited.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think this, in combination with Kavanaugh’s intro, is a more viable argument. I’d add that Kennedy was handing down decisions while apparently seeking to name his successor. The Hawaii opinion, where he basically said the administration was lying about its national security basis for the travel ban but then concurred with the majority, is really weird in this context. 
Click to expand...
If one was working with the administration to fix the next SCOTUS pick what would be the best way to avoid detection - agreeing with everything the administration does or picking a high profile policy to oppose?

ETA - I'm not saying I believe there was a fix. I'm merely posing a hypothetical in response to the NBC report and Saints' post. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
No, it isn't.  The electoral college is the reason Trump is president.  I think you're getting two different things confused.
Click to expand...
Again, a nitpick: Gerrymandering led to state laws disenfranchising the poor and minorities.  Because of the electoral college, only a relatively small number of folks had to be disenfranchised for it to have a massive effect. 

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
Do you think McConnell’s previous unethical behavior regarding SCOTUS nominations fuels resistance to Kavanaugh’s nomination?
Click to expand...
Yes, the previous escalation of chicanery always leads to the next escalation in a never-ending cycle of destroying our constitutional democracy. It’s been going on for decades, and it’s saddening.

 
jonessed said:
He was using the power he had as Senate Majority Leader.  I expect Democrats will use any rule, law, or tactic to slow down Kavanaugh as well.  Unfortunately for them they don’t control the Senate so their options are more limited.
Click to expand...
And in 2020, when the Democrats have the White House and the Senate, they’ll pack the Court with 13 total Justices.

Then it will be the Republicans’ move.

 
Opie said:
As the Constitution reads (as of now), a sitting president cannot be indicted.....he must first be removed from office.
Click to expand...
Just another thought on this. And yeah I don’t want you to strain yourself I’m merely using this because this will be a Trumpite argument, and it’s out there, including Giuliani himself.

Kavanaugh argued that Clinton could be impeached for obstruction for 1. delaying his interview by Starr until he had to be subpoenaed, and 2. lying to the press in an effort to mislead the public, Congress and the investigation. I don’t want to revisit the point about the 2009 article but Trumpites should know what this guy actually argued for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet J said:
Again, a nitpick: Gerrymandering led to state laws disenfranchising the poor and minorities.  Because of the electoral college, only a relatively small number of folks had to be disenfranchised for it to have a massive effect. 
Click to expand...
Gerrymandering isn’t new.  The Democrats are just reeling from getting annihilated in local elections over the past decade.

The shoe will eventually fall to the other foot again.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top