I dunno, reading your posts recently seems like you're rooting for Trump to win. It's interesting to me that Kamala is devil incarnate but Trump...who just flat out said throw out the ballots and that there would be a peaceful transition if we just didn't have ballots...just a continuation...and has said time and time again that he might not respect the results...isn't. I mean, you're big 2A guy right? You said that Democrats would take your guns away, and that's a big fear... Well, what's the point of 2A if you're going to tolerate a wannabe fascist anyway? What is a bigger transgression of the constitution? Assault rifle bans OR just not respecting the results of an election and remaining president? It's crazy that so many people on the right are cool with this. I guess they realize they've lost the culture war years ago and know the only way they can win to force people to abide by their rules.
Vote by mail is a widely used alternative. Some states (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah) have all-mail voting. And contrary to the liar-in-chiefs efforts to suppress votes, there are no examples of widespread or even significant numbers of voter fraud that ha been the result of mail-in voting. What is clear that there are significant benefits to mail voting (increased convenience, reduced costs, and most important, increased participation). That is especially important in this election. So people should vote... by mail or in-person, whatever is their preference.
While I am the harshest critic of the trump, its unfortunate that people used the funeral of Justice Ginsburg to vocalize their opposition to trump.
What are you basing the fact that you believe there are quite a few? The more people than not believes the Scotus should be picked by the next president. The Politico/Morning Consult poll released Monday shows that plurality of voters surveyed (50%) said whichever candidate wins in November — President Donald Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden — should choose the next justice because the election is "fewer than 50 days away." Thirty-seven percent said Trump should get to decide because he is currently president. Another 12% had no opinion.
Seriously having the court "zigzag" in size is making things more stable? Really? I agree the Republicans will have to move on from a Trumpist party. Demographics alone will dictate that. That doesn't mean they have to move on from a conservative party. For cultural issues like abortion, gun control, the role of religion in society those are issues that have been with the Republican party well before Trump and aren't really defined by Trump like anti-immigration is. The Republican party if it wants to survive likely will have to be what GW Bush tried to make it. A conservative party but one that is welcoming to ethnic diversity. That still doesn't mean that progressives will like most of what that party does or mean that Republicans won't retaliate. This would be like thinking there wouldn't be Republican retaliation after Reid invoked the "nuclear option."
This guy does not make much sense, especially saying that packing the court will de-radicalize the Republican party. And then he pretty much agrees with RocketsJ about the power of voting. Now that's interesting.
Yes, for reasons stated. If Republicans want to enlarge the court they'd have to win elections, as you are very very, very fond of lecturing people about. Frankly, with an enhanced voting rights act, enforced by an unpacked Supreme Court, it's going to be extremely difficult for them to do this, in terms of ever getting the House of Representatives back, but if they do, they'll have to pivot back to the center and get rid of QAnon crazies, armed gangs, and sociopaths that currently run things there. Without that though, they'd never get the ability to expand the court, so realistically this could not happen for 4 years (to get a trifecta) but probably longer, and they'd pay a cost (because their new centrist members are likely to suffer in this regard). But if it happened - so ****ing what? At least we got 4 years of nondecrepit judging out of it rather than three more decades of unilateral rule. Your worst case nightmare scenario is not that bad. It's preferable to the current bullshit outcome you favor of lockign in right wing control for 2-3 decades (unless theoretical low probablility events of filibuster proof majority trifectas and the right pattern of judicial retirements occurs - this is not likely) LOL, this is what RNC Insiders wrote in 2012 after Romney was beaten more badly than they anticipated, they said they should stop being such hard right douches politically and policy wise - tell me what happened since then? Your whole "do nothing and everything will work out" program has not worked. It didn't work in 2009. It certainly didn't work in 2017. Why do you think it will work all of a sudden? It's time to try something else. Maybe it won't work out, but 30 years of wackos like Clarence Thomas and Samuel ALito exercising unchecked, unthwarted, unelected power over the government is as bad as the disaster you're afraid of and a pathetic prescription for our present moment with large swathes of the country in literal and metaphorical flames - but it's yours.
Wanted to respond to this. It's been almost a week since Ginsburg passed away and I'm not seeing much change in the polls. Also I don't think independents are where you think they are. Most polls show Biden winning them comfortably even in the swing states. As someone who has not only considered himself an independent most of my adult life but also spent a lot of time working with the MN Independence party which was based on centrism the impression I get is that many independents despise Trump and think he is undermining the stability of the country. While many like myself have big reservations about things like expanding the USSC Trump is a greater and present threat. The fight over stacking the court is still hypothetical.
Reagan announced that O'connor would be his nominee on July 7 1981 source, 43 days before the official nomination on August 19, and 79 days before she was confirmed. So there there was a lot more time to vet O'Connor even though she was only officially nominated only 32 days before confirmation.
You're looking at the Republican party and really Conservatives as just being QAnon Crazies. While I can accept that you personally might view them that way it certainly isn't the case. They certainly are the most visible but that would be like saying that Ilhan Omar is representative of the Democratic party. Republicans were winning elections, controlling Congress well before Trump, QAnanon or the TEA Party. There are plenty of Americans who support the message of limited government and Judeo-Christian values. Further there is always the danger of the overreach on the part of a Democratic majority. This is the Heisenberg theory of the judicial stability. We will make it more stable by making the number of Justices temporally indeterminate. Also you're really bringing up filibuster proof majorities? Does that mean you've changed your opinion on filibusters. Further you bring up the right pattern of judicial retirements. You in this very thread have stated getting around judicial retirements by changing the number of justices. All of the things you say are low probability you're arguing for a way to get around that probability by manipulating the number of justices. Except that undercuts the argument that Belkin presents and you echo that the Republicans will have to separate themselves from their radicals to win. I myself do continue to believe that in the long term the GOP can't survive as a Trumpist party that doesn't mean that they still can't win Senate or state house majorities for years to come. Further as stated even a non-Trump but conservative party can still be very relevant for the foreseeable future. Besides that just looking at recent history. Republicans have controlled the Senate for the last 10 years. While Democrats have won the Presidency 8 out of the last two years they have only controlled the Senate for 6 and only 2 years with a Democratic president. Now I can see you're either not reading much of what I post or just not engaging honestly. I've already stated several times how a conservative majority on the USSC can be gotten around. Further clarify what you're citing in 2009. Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to the USSC and Obama passed his only other signature piece of legislation besides ACA, his stimulus bill, so something from the Democratic side worked. For 2017 it's pretty hard to get stuff passed when you don't have the majority in House, Senate, or control the Presidency. Again voting..
I just saw that clip and the crowd chanting "VOTE HIM OUT!" Understand the passion but really low class. Trump is still the President and this is a state funeral.
lol cmon man. Last time trump faced a crowd in DC he tear gassed them . plus , it’s ginsburgs funeral . I’m pretty sure she is not rolling over in her grave because people are chanting vs being completely stoic
Yes it's Ginsburg's funeral and while she had strong views she also showed a lot of comity and friendship to those who opposed and not just Scalia. When Kavanaugh first got to the court Ginsburg went out of her way to make him feel welcome. There is a time and place for all of this.
How about we call out the person who has debased the office of the President to a point where people feel impassioned enough to chant "VOTE HIM OUT" at the funeral of a beloved Supreme Court Justice. Maybe he shouldn't have shown up to it in the first place. Come one man, blaming the people booing him is pretty ridiculous as it is not like this is happening in a vacuum. He has earned those boos anytime he steps in public, especially when he, and his party, is hypocritically attempting to fill her spot in the Supreme Court as we speak. I understand you have called him out before, but people tend to reap what they sow, and trump sure has sowed a lot of inappropriate behavior. Bringing up the fact that Trump is "still the President" means nothing when the man himself has no respect for the office and is currently floating ideas of trying to maintain power even if he loses.
