The answer is literally every single jurist on Trump's shortlist. There's no coterie of "above it all" judge/lawyer Republicans who won't sign on to right wing crazy. Look at William Barr. Oops.
Which way does the trendline go, @rocketsjudoka - from 2008 birtherism to where we are now? What is Trumps level of support in the Republican party @rocketjudoka? How many QAnon people are running for congress @rocketsjudoka ? How did the Republican party respond to that report that they had to stop being so crazy in 2012 and pivot? I asked the question but you deigned not to answer. You have a plain habit of citing the world as you wish it to be in perfect centrist land, not citing any evidence for it being that way , and then moving on to the next point. The world is not the way you wish it to be, this is not the Republican party in the 1990's, which is why there are thigns like Never Trump, Lincoln Project etc exist, why all of the establishment Republicans are endorsing Biden - and the current trajectory is not only not good it's batshit insane. That's bullshit, as mentioned above. This could only happen when a complete trifecta flip occurs, which historically takes at least 4 (due to Trump) but really is unlikely to happen for more than 8. As time goes on it becomes less and less likely for the Republicans to hold the house, It becomes less and less likely due to the Senate's rural bias too, which is why we should add DC/PR. No, I'm using your stated (terrible) preference for the filibuster I'm stating that your preferred approach ahs not worked and is statistically unlikely to work, and we'll be stuck with an unelected, demagogic conservative court ****ing things up for decades in your approach - tens of millions will suffer. What do you say to them? Sorry the intent of the framers is that you suffer (which both false by itself and wrong even if it were true). Instead we can change the number, end dead hand control, have better administration of justice, and deescalate future fights. THis approach is way more compelling than what you're selling - which is "well win the senate, hope the republicans stop being evil and stupid, and hope for the best" - as far as I can tell. I"ll say it's actually hard to define any policy approach of yours becuase liek I said you're very reactive. I didn't ask you about undercutting anything - I asked you, using your own logic what path the GOP chose after its last slapdown, further crazy or big tent? Why do you think this decision is going to change when it didn't Yes, that's why when we have the chance we need to change the rules. Control of trifectas is unlikely - time to get to work, I'm not reading it because you're hooked on the dumb idea that I'm somehow arguing against voting or taking control of the Senate. Obviously we should do that. But that's not enough, we have to roll back the stacked courts and ill-gotten gains, or else we're in the same untenable place that we are now, which is a literal constitutional crisis already. I mean for ****'s sake, if your'e really saying the best we can hope for is maybe 2-3 years of governability (2007-10) out of the last 12, maybe this should be a clue that we need some structural reforms? Because that's a total failure of governement. But maybe I'm not giving you enough credit - other than "Win the senate and hope for the best" - what is your plan? Maybe you wrote it and I skipped over it.
Low class? What does him being President have to do with him disrespecting people on a daily basis? You have to give respect to get respect. I see why Sam gets infuriated at you.
Really? Are you being facetious, or .... Just for starters, Biden openly stated that he would make Beto O'Rourke, who advocated confiscated guns, as his new gun czar. Might agree with you on 1a as far as laws, but there are all sorts of factors limiting conservative free speech. The various counter culture movements. All the social media outlets quite openly stifling free speech. The total bias of the MSM. citation? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Attacked the highly biased 'free press', and called them out for not doing their jobs? Yes, indeed he has. Is there a reason he shouldn't? Should the press NOT be called to task for biased and false reporting??? He banned 'a certain news org' from the WH briefing for physically assaulting an aide. You can have a debate on exactly what term to use, but it would certainly inappropriate, and definitely worthy of a ban (which was temporary).
OK so what is? Can Republicans win as a Trumpist party or not? The argument presented by Belkin that you echoed is that Republicans will have to moderate to get back to winning yet you're pointing out that since 2012 they didn't need to moderate to win again. As I said this is undercutting the very argument that Belkin put forward that forcing the Republicans hand by changing majority rules will be a net win since Republicans will have to change. Personally I agree in the long run they will but this does point out that they can still win as a Trumpist party. Are you or are you not arguing now that the Republicans can win as a Trumpist party? In the piece from Belkan he wrote, "f you unrig the system, the GOP will have to be de-radicalized at least a bit in order to win elections, and that is what will make the courts safe from Republican retaliation. They’ll be less radical as a party." Do you agree with that argument as a good reason to make major changes like stacking the court? Do you now see that what you're bringing up that the Republican party didn't get less radical but got more radical shows that they could still win. 4 and 8 years isn't that long of a time. You wrote: So you just brought that up to troll and you really don't believe what you wrote? That said that is a very good argument for why we need things like the filibuster so any changes to court make up are harder to undue. Thank you for making that argument. Oh yes what do I say to the tens of millions who suffered because on an internet forum I took a different view from someone else. That's the second time someone in this thread has said something like that to me. I really didn't realize I and Clutchfans Debate and Discuss have such power.. I never sad the Republicans will stop being evil or stupid. That is the argument that Belkan put forward (I do think there is quite a bit to it though). In fact from what I said from the progressive POV even if they aren't a Trumpist party they continue to be evil. My argument is that the tools that protect the minority in this particularly instance certainty on the size of the court, should be there when very likely the Democrats find themselves in the minority again. Provided they can win the Senate this time. Again none of this will even be up for actual Congressional debates unless that happens. So yes WIN THE SENATE. As stated I believe demographics alone will make it very difficult for the Republicans to remain a Trumpist party. It doesn't mean they won't be a Conservative party. You just said you're not going to read it so I'm guessing you didn't read some of my other posts. Fair enough. You can craft and pass legislation to get around the USSC. For example with the ACA. Repass it with the mandate specifically as tax power. That gets around the argument currently being made that the ACA cannot stand without the mandate and also meets Robert's argument that it is a tax. If that doesn't work pass pieces of the ACA as separate legislation such as that insurance companies can't deny insurance on preexisting conditions. Greatly expand Medicare / Medicaid. Again we have three branches of government. If you can control two out of three you can still get a lot done. For that matter I agree with DC and PR statehood. I agree for reasons that don't have to do with diluting a GOP majority but yes that will do that.
He is the still the President and this is a solemn and an official state occasion. Whether Trump disrespects people on a daily basis or not this is not about him personally but about the occasion. There are plenty of times and places to boo Trump.
Why will they have to and what if they don't? Why would Republicans move away from a Trumpist party? More importantly, why would Republicans move back to "norm", to govern with integrity, fairness, honor and to not lie/misrepresent-about-everything? Is this about just one person? Most Republican in Congress can't stand the guy, but do his bidding because of power. Once you have surrendered all your moral, integrity and honor for power, what make you go in reverse? I mean, it's certainty possible, but I think it's in the order of 0.00somethign %. It's about power. Give me a good reason the Republican would return back to "norm" in some future when they get power again, and they will, especially in the Senate (in fact, now more likely than the past after a 6-3 court and cases after cases of voter suppression and manipulation goes in their favor).
Roberts? He just ruled against Trump with the Census question. This painting the other side as completely evil serves no purpose. They will have because they will lose power. Not saying they will move back to norm because they stopped that before Trump.
I did forget about O'Rourke. He does hold an extreme position on gun. His most extreme position is mandatory buy-back of AR15. He also wants to ban AR15 and have universal background check with red flags law. AR15 was banned once and 2A was alive and kicking at the time. Machine guns are essentially banned and 2A is alive and kicking now. I don't consider these "ripping" 2A apart. The best test for 1A is when you don't agree with the speech. Justification for suppressing free speech and the press because you agree that the speech or press is bad, bias, inappropriate or whatever that is "worthy" of the suppressing it is being against 1A. The only exception has been for immediate security (can't yell fire). FWIW, I disagree on the bias of the media (there is bias, but not universal) - but it's completely irrelevant when it comes to 1A. You can google for these: - "a true enemy of the people" as referring to certain magazines and news station - "with all the fake news coming out of nbc and the networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their license?" - demanded NFL owners fire players - blocked critics from following his twitter account On the EO that went after private companies (social media platforms): https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ https://www.engadget.com/trump-executive-order-social-media-section-230-144905272.html https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/...edia-censorship-executive-order-analysis-bias https://www.npr.org/2020/06/02/8683...ech-companies-will-chill-future-online-speech https://www.justsecurity.org/70477/...twitter-capitalizing-on-right-wing-grievance/
They will lose power and will gain power. It's not a forever state. And when they aren't in power, why would they suddenly act "norm" again? Not having power to be effective is different from going back to "norm". I think you are referring to being effective... ?
Don't have the answer to that but Republicans have no always been this way, they even ran Newt out. I really hate describing all Republicans a certain way, just look at all the ones working to get rid of Trump. I think the real damage Trump has done is causing Democrats and Republicans to look at each other like the Hatfields and the McCoys and just agreeing with a political party makes you evil.
Uh, the dude's whole argument is that if you change the court rules, Republicans have to moderate, something I entirely agree with. You seem very confused, the argument is that change rules, force moderation, things get brought back into the fold It's not "don't change rules, a bunch of magic, maybe moderation happens" - this sounds a lot similar to what you're saying. I'm arguing that it's more difficult for a Trumpist to win if they don't have hard right Trumpists on the federal bench. Honestly, I fell you are simply not even able to listen to this argument at a basic level. You've staked out your customary, centrist position, and you're making middle school or lower level arguments against it - I'm doing things like assuming facts as you argue them, and you're still ssaying, "OH NOW YOU AGREE WITH ME DO YOU" - no dude, I don't, I'm just telling you that even if the world is the way you see it, your remedies are highly questionable. That's what we thought in 2012,but it made them become an authoritarian party that is trying to literally destroy democracy as we know it. Now you want to take that bet and play it forward into 2021, while they are furtther into the abyss - that is a far riskier bet than risking the supreme court expanding to 20 people in 2026, which apparently is your worst fear, not mass deportations, climate chagne wildfires, police violence, disenfranchisement, incarceration, systemic racism etc that will be visited and inflicted on people in the interim and if/when you're wrong, and that will not only be not stopped, but encouraged by a Trumpist judiciary. But, you're willing to conscientously object to this and hope it will change....rather than try to bring the change. It almost seems immoral at this point. LOL, it's not "a lot done" - 2-4 governable years a decade is NOT ACCEPTABLE - I don't know why you've been cowed so badly to think that it is. We've been facing the problems that are currently consuming us (climate change, healthcare, racism...to name a few) for decades and made almost zero progress. Now the emergencies are here, and you think it's good enough? Let's try 3 out of 3 branches of government, and let's try the party that more people support and that is screwed by a bunch of antiquated structures, , and that actually has an interest in governing rather than in power. Instead of having to legislate around an undemocratic, hard right trumpist supreme court, make the court more like America. Unpack the court. It's in our power to do it, you have not presented your alternative case at all, unless "you may be able to get SOME things done with 2 out of 3 branches and a renegade unaccountable judiciary that is working to undercut your control every second of every day on voting rights" - we've tried this, it doesn't work. It won't work again. There is no evidence it will work, there is no evidence it will work with an even more Trumpist judiciary. There is no evidence. You have presented no evidence. That's just a terrible, terrible, terrible argument.
Trump is just one person. It took a whole party (with a few, very few rare exception) to went party over country and now there is talk to do the same on the DEM side. He is a symptom and a cause and his enablers are as responsible. For the first time in our history there is doubt of a peaceful transfer of power. And silence. Republican aren’t evil, they believe in their value but they have abandoned their own values in pursuit of them. Power hungry. I don’t see them giving up on it, going back and I’ve seen no good reason to think otherwise, yet.
His enablers have a reason when Trump does them no good he will be thrown over. Just look at Newt he was Proto Trump. They will have to give up power when they lose the majority. Politics go in cycles, the pendulum will swing just look at 2018.
On a graph with Republican’s (those in power) behaviors on one axis and time on the other, starting with time of Newt in Congress to now, what do you get? It’s devolution of behaviors. The pendulum of power swing, the behaviors is one on an ever increasing bad trend. What will reverse that? I see nothing yet. Reminder that the whole point is: should Dem sit around and gamble that Rep will come back to “norm”? If you feel that is needed and we can’t depend on republican to simply get back there on their own, what do you do? Don’t you have to find a way to get them there instead of hope and wish? What would that be? Perhaps you have to even the playing field once you are in power and protect it from being gamed afterward. And you install new laws and process to protect good behaviors and punish and discourage bad behaviors.
Demographics.. A Trumpist Nativist party that is anti-immigrant and plays and fast and loose with racism can't survive as the country get's more and more diverse. We've already seen in CA and other Western States. AZ and TX are rapidly moving that way too. When TX goes blue it will be very very difficult to win a national election again unless that change parts of their message. To emphasize again this doesn't mean that they can't still be a conservative party.
Yet you've made the argument that after the post mortem of the 2012 the Republicans doubled down on extremism and still won. Also as we've discussed before rules did change. The Senate Democrats invoked the nuclear option which if I recall you supported. So which is it? Will they have to win by moderating or can they still win by going extreme? I've already stated that I think they will have to moderate because of demographics but it seems like because you're unwilling to agree with any part of what I'm presenting you've presented a counter to what your own citation was pushing. I'm pointing that out. Further I never said anything about "magic".. I said "demographics". I think that is a fair argument and can go along with that. I will point out though that in 2016 the courts had nothing to do with the election. Again you words are: The basis of this argument is to get around things like the judicial lifetime appointments by stacking the court. My argument is that doing so will also allow a future GOP majority then to also get around life time appointments by either appointing more judges or shrinking the court. You state above that is unlikely. Yes you're assuming facts as I argue them as such then are arguing against yourself. You're arguing that protections such as filibuster proof majorities and right pattern of judicial retirements occur are unlikely so the expanded and ideologically aligned court you want can stay. but that's counting on those protections remaining which the basis of this debate does away with. Leaving the aside the hyperbole that I personally here on Clutchfans D&D will be responsible for all of the above. How will expanding the court affect what happens now in this election? I agree those are all potential problems but if the Democrats can win the Senate, Presidency and retain house a lot of those will be addressed and through means not relying upon the USSC. Or is your contention that the USSC is all that matters and nothing can be changed unless the ideological makeup is changed? Where have I said it's "good enough"? You accuse me of middle school argument yet much of your argument is strawmen, hyperbole and insults. This portion I can see we have a fundamental disagreement on philosophy. What you view as "antiquated structures" I view those as the fundamental basis of our country and necessary for the resilience of our country. I've also presented several times how things can be done even without ideological control of the court. You're now arguing that that's not good enough so you expect that it's only good unless you can get everything. Sorry the country doesn't work that way and isn't how it was intended. The foundational idea of the structure of government is to divide power and require compromise. You accuse me of being a centrist / moderate and I accept that. I don't think you're offended by me saying you're a progressive. I think this shows the fundamental difference in our thinking that colors so many disagreements the centrists and the progressives. I will head off the inevitable response which will be what do you do then when Trump and the Republicans are tearing down norms and institutions so they can get their way. I firmly oppose that. This is why Trump has made me more small 'c' conservative because of the erosion of Constitutional principles of things like the separation of powers. I will go even further to say that if it gets to the point that vote doesn't matter anymore such as by partisan electors who don't follow the popular vote of the states then that will be the time to take up arms. If that happens, and I think it is very unlikely to happen even though Trump says it. None of this debate regarding expanding the court, doing away with the filibuster matters as the whole basis of republican democracy is undercut.
Let me make this as clear as possible: Republicans with the current tilted structure (packed court, senate rural tilt) have shown that they can still retain power in spite of being fewer in number and in spite of sponsoring toxic, unpopular policies - this is true at the national and state levels, we see this over an d over again. We also see that as a party they have no underlying commitment to democracy and will work to undermine democracy to unmentionable extremes, from tolerating a barely coherent idiot gangster (and that's a mild definition) as their liege lord and master, to outright arguing for vigilante murder and that 200,000 Americans dead in a year is kinda no big deal and all sorts of horrors. We can either make the structure more fair with our "once every 10 years" chance to make it fair.... ....Or we can hope it gets better on its own. There is about a decade or more's worth of evidence indicates that it will not get better on its own here. There are dozens of autocratic countries (Brazil, for example) that indicate that demographics don't magically save you from a rigged game. What is your basis for saying "demographics" will change enough to make a difference here, or change quickly enough for the maybe 20/30 year time span we have to save democracy and basically the planet? Do you have any math, or you just read "The Emerging Democratic Majority" once and decided that it's probably enough so don't worry about anythign else. This is not correct - the Voting Rights act was gutted by John Roberts in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, which has been his lifelong mission, in addition to many other pro-vote suppression decisions that were issued in the past decade by the Supreme and lower and state courts. It's patently absurd to say that had nothing to do with the election. Very few political scientists or historians would agree with your fundamental philosophy. The history of a stacked, conservative minority veto power over institutions is absolutely shameful with things lilke Dred Scott v. Sanford, pieces of **** like Roger Taney, the "Four Horsemen" of the 1930's who helped prolong the Great Depression and tried to drag us back to the Gilded age, your beloved filibuster which wasn't invented until the framers were dead and never really used until the Jim Crow era, by Jim Crow senators. It's also wrong to say that changing the size of the Supreme court is not a historical precedent. It changed four times in the 19th century. It changed zero times in the 20th. Despite of course the caseload of federal courts expanding exponentially in the last 151 years since the last expansion. By not changing it, we're breaking with precedent. None of these thigns are "the fundamental basis of our country" - nobody would who studies this would actually believe this. (that is however, the kind of thing that Tom Cotton and Mitch McConnell would want people like you to think, that to be held hostage by a bunch of racist white southerners is our heritage and lot in life) Our government structures and our country are lliterally crumbling and burning, the instruments of minority control that currently seek to encourage and foment this are part of the problem. They are very definitely not part of the solution.
The Demo has been shifting and projection of it is known by everyone, especially by Republican who have feared losing the majority. So what have they done? Stack the court. Suppress vote. Gerrymander. So on. So as long as they have power and do what's needed to shift the landscape back to their favor they will continue to win, and they will especially in the Senate. We can't even rule out an attempt to just ignore election results and have the Court rule in their favor. Depending on a demographic change without considering the landscape is the gamble, one where I would bet the Republican will win. History has shown plenty of places around the world where minority maintain power over majority. The US isn't immune to that. The DEM can protect it from happening, if they act soon enough and not wait around and bet on Demo change or behavior change.
