All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

Notable names on Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominees List Gets New Scrutiny

Mr. Trump now has about 40 potential nominees to choose among. Before listing the new candidates last week, he singled out three judges from earlier lists who are widely believed to remain front-runners: Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago; Thomas M. Hardiman of the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia; and William H. Pryor Jr. of the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta.

[PaulBullion]

Aren't MAGA people convinced that all the Trumps are missing the "silent majority" and Trump will win in a landslide?

So why not take time to find a perfect candidate for the Supreme Court after the election? They are so unhappy with Roberts being all "RINO" and ****, should they not beware a rushed nomination process?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I actually have a lot of respect for Gorsuch. He's the type of Justice who I at least give credit for adhering to his style of Judicial Review and while we certainly would not agree on key issues, I trust him to follow his code unlike Alito or Thomas. Unfortunately, his role on the court is marred by the shady tactics that got him his seat, which will be made even more shady should another Justice get placed between now and January 4th.

Honestly all things considered... Gorsuch in application was not a huge loss for Democrats on an ideological perspective. Garland was already kind of a compromise pick because Obama didn’t want to make waves on Scalia’s replacement being too far left. Then I think Trump came in and gave a redder shade of Garland thinking Democrats wouldn’t make waves because theoretically the court went less right.

However that’s application. The problem always was the steal. If Obama got to nominate a guy who was going to be liberal most of the time, the yeah losing RBG sucks but it’s just Scalia and her successors flipping seats for a moderate conservative and a moderate liberal. Now Trump gets 3 picks that are going to be moderate conservative, hard conservative and if it’s Barrett/Cruz/Cotten you’ll get a paragon of fringe right wing. Add in Alito and Thomas. That’s your 5-4 majority. Then Roberts has to decide if he wants to be on the losing end of 5-4’s or if he wants to give it 6-3 majorities so that decisions are less controversial.

The other big danger is Breyer. He’s 82. He may have one more term in him, but he’s the danger of being the one who goes next. Kennedy retired at the same age Breyer is now so he could get Kavanaugh (a pupil) to be his successor. Someone really needs yo talk to Breyer and tell him that the second Democrats get power he needs to make a top 5 list and give it to whoever the President is and he prepared to enjoy retirement. Because you cannot afford to lose him (especially because I think Thomas is probably thinking the same if Republicans have power in the next 15 years)

Basically it’s numbers game and it’s being manipulated. I think that court is going to be a lonely place for Kagan and Sotomayor.

[Tami]

Aren't MAGA people convinced that all the Trumps are missing the "silent majority" and Trump will win in a landslide?

So why not take time to find a perfect candidate for the Supreme Court after the election? They are so unhappy with Roberts being all "RINO" and ****, should they not beware a rushed nomination process?

My guess

1st - They want to fill every seat in the SCOTUS ASAP. They feel it's their one goal in life.
2nd. - Outwardly they may d=say Trump will be re-elected, inwardly they know that anything can happen and they don't want to take any chances
3rd. - McConnel is a Ghoul, a Scumbag, and a toady of Russia and Trump. An honest to goodness Renfield. He takes joy in making everyone hate him.

Also, if Trump doesn't get his nominee he'll throw a Twitter Temper Tantrum the likes of which we haven't seen before.

[kidfresh512]

My guess

1st - They want to fill every seat in the SCOTUS ASAP. They feel it's their one goal in life.
2nd. - Outwardly they may d=say Trump will be re-elected, inwardly they know that anything can happen and they don't want to take any chances
3rd. - McConnel is a Ghoul, a Scumbag, and a toady of Russia and Trump. An honest to goodness Renfield. He takes joy in making everyone hate him.

Exactly. Realistically till Nov 30th assuming Mark Kelly can beat McSally for John Mcains old seat Mitch would need 4 defectors to not get what he wants. Since Mark could apparently be seated by Nov 30th if he wins we are down to 3. By then they will know if they are lame ducks, or have won their elections and can act with impunity.

Theres almost no reality where they wont get an appointment done.

It will be down to what do Dems do next after that. Again its about getting more Senators and statehood for DC and Puerto Rico as the easiest options. Then taking a hard look at packing the court

[babyblob]

I love how Trumpers and Fox news is justifying Mitch's flip that you shouldnt appoint a SC justice in an election. All are claiming there is just too much at stake and we cant let a Dem like Biden pick a hardcore lefter. Fox is going from dancing on RBG grave to extreme scare tactics on who Biden would appoint.

[The no face guy]

The narrative of history can't just be determined by empirical facts, since there are all sorts of editorial judgments. For obvious reasons, we're going to learn more about George Washington than the typical Virginian born in 1732. We're going to learn more about the major wars than about other random five year periods.

For the most part, I do think people try to avoid distorting history to their own political ends, although that's usually because they don't think they're wrong. I'm sure there are some cynics out there trying to sell books, but many of the people in power pushing contentious views think they're in the right.


The fight over interpretations of history is complicated, so while this might not be a wise battle, it's not the equivalent of a new version of the Hitler youth.

There are inconsistencies in the packaging of the 1619 project about whether it is meant to balance other systems, or represent unvarnished truth. Is it meant to add to a complex discussion, or does it function as a syllabus by itself? They've described it both ways.

Part of the pushback against critical theory, as represented by the 1619 project and Howard Zinn, is the view that it's the progressive equivalent of teaching creationism in science class, and the argument is that it should be stomped out just as quickly.

There also other arguments about whether we should have this level of national control over the curriculum, or whether it should be left up to states and local governments.

There's a whole different argument about whether the Trump administration getting involved helps in any way. Teachers tend to be more progressive than the median voter, so many teachers who were on the fence were more likely to be on board once a deeply unpopular partisan figure like Trump got involved. A similar thing occurred when Trump started opining on school reopenings. For younger Americans, who also tend to be more progressive, President Trump hating something probably makes it more appealing, so if their school doesn't cover the 1619 project, they'll seek out the information themselves.

The narrative of history must be driven by empirical evidence, otherwise the science of humanities will become completely discredited. If I have my work published in the Journal of American History and omit key data in my study, I am gong to get roasted in peer reviews, regardless of my political persuasion.

In terms of editorial judgments, that is a consideration for the commercial market, as your country has a culture of people writing history (Bill O Reilly, New York Times Journalists) that are not historians, and I do trust them to be politically unbiased when writing.

I am bothered by Trump's patriotic history idea, because Trump is the flip side to the left in the culture war, and he is also a big fan of Andrew Jackson.

I don't want to see a high school American textbook that talks about the glorious accomplishments of Andrew Jackson, but whitewashes the Indian Removal Act out of the text. I doubt this will be the case, but it is a concern nonetheless.

[Tendrin]

That's different from saying he did anything wrong by mentioning facts that do not seem to be in contention, and telling Senate Republicans not to commit to anything.

There's a really good chance that will happen.

As I said before, Trump and the Senate legally have the power to do so. Amy Coney Barrett has probably vetted well enough to be announced on Monday.

It really depends on what's in officials's best interests.

Most Republican Senators would prefer a conservative justice to whatever progressive justice Biden is likely to nominate. The way to sway them would be to show that there's some kind of alternative.

Susan Collins is according to polls the underdog in a tight race, so it would be helpful for the prospects of delaying the vote on a new justice if she decides that it's in her best interests to vote that way. Will it depress turnout with the conservative base? Would it upset potential employers (IE- right wing think tanks) in the event she loses? Will it provide her an opportunity to remind voters that she isn't a generic Republican? Other Senators up for reelection (Ernst, Gardner, Thoms, Perdue, Graham) are going to make similar calculations.

Trump could be swayed by an argument that it's in his best interests to make this an election issue, perhaps by announcing who he'll nominate, and daring Biden to do the same, rather than having a vote next month. A 6-3 conservative majority on the courts would give some Republicans reason to stay home, or vote for Biden, when the courts seem secure for the next few years.

Democrats could also consider what they have to offer. McConnell certainly wants a 6th conservative justice, and knows how to count to fifty plus Pence. If Romney, Collins and Murkowski all vote against a new nominee, he still has the votes. What do Democrats have to negotiate, and would the activist base accept that?

... as usual, you pretend to completely fail to understand your own party and the breathtaking cynicism with which they operate.

They will offer nothing to the Democrats if they have 50+Pence. The Democrats have nothing they want. There is literally nothing in the world they wouldn't give up, even Mitch's precious senate majority, for a 6-3 conservative majority. Everything that they have done has been about locking in minority rule and they are on the cusp of doing that for generations.

Their offer to the Democrats will be 'whatcha gonna do about it, crybabies', and then they'll fill the seat. You think the GOP cares about the abolishment of the filibuster? Don't make me laugh. They know being out of power is a temporary situation, and they'll gladly find other ways to obstruct senate business without it, and then run on 'restoring protections to the minority' which they'll magically never do, as long as they can pummel democrats with it.

And the Democrats will protest, offer a lot of thunder, and then will realize that there is simply nothing they can do to stop it. Once again, the future of the Republic rests in the hands of the same people who have damned it, and have gleefully demonstrated over and over that the only thing they care for is the exercise of power and ensuring minority control of the Republic remains in their hands. There is no democratic institution they won't dismantle to do so.

We, unlike you, have no illusions about what Mitch meant when he said, "By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly using his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.
President Trump's nominee will recieve a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

Either now, or in the lame duck session, they will lock aq 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court and there is not a thing any of us can do about it.

[Kuro no Shinigami]

Amy Coney Barrett is probably the favorite.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...l-views-703347

She was considered the runner-up to Kavanaugh last time, so she's been vetted. She became a conservative favorite when Democrats pressed on her Catholic faith during the Senate confirmation hearing.

If it's her, then the next hearing will make Kavanaugh hearing look like s cakewalk.

[Tendrin]

Really, it's all going to come down to if Grassly, Murkowski, Collins, and Romney are going to keep their words. That's it.

The future of the Republic is going to come down to the integrity of four members of the Republican party, a party which has zero frigging integrity.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Really, it's all going to come down to if Grassly, Murkowski, Collins, and Romney are going to keep their words. That's it.

The future of the Republic is going to come down to the integrity of four members of the Republican party, a party which has zero frigging integrity.

Romney is probably a sure bet to NOT confirm. Grassley screws it up though and then it’s a tie. Also a lame duck Collins I wouldn’t trust.

My guess is they either get Murkowski to commit to taking cover for Collins as payback for Kavanaugh or they tell Collins that they are at the finish line and she’ll be taken care of.

You will then have a 51-49 Senate win. I think Grassley pretty much gets Pence involved regardless.

[Gray Lensman]

I love how Trumpers and Fox news is justifying Mitch's flip that you shouldnt appoint a SC justice in an election. All are claiming there is just too much at stake and we cant let a Dem like Biden pick a hardcore lefter. Fox is going from dancing on RBG grave to extreme scare tactics on who Biden would appoint.

McConnel has always been proud of being a hypocrite.

[KOSLOX]

Really, it's all going to come down to if Grassly, Murkowski, Collins, and Romney are going to keep their words. That's it.

The future of the Republic is going to come down to the integrity of four members of the Republican party, a party which has zero frigging integrity.

Grassley definitely won't, it's weird to see him and integrity mentioned in a paragraph together.

[Ragged Maw]

Republicans are treating this like a game. So Democrats need to stop the idealism with nothing to show for it. You know what it is, play to win.

Threaten to stack the courts. Threaten to impeach justices. Threaten to end the filibuster. Threaten to make DC and Puerto Rico states. Have the resolve to make good on those threats. Let them know there is a price for this.

It's the people like McConnell and Cruz, and the Federalist Society that have made the courts as perverse as they are.

Do not become the thing which you hate, and that you know is wrong.

............It's kind of a dilemma. On the one hand, while the "two wrongs dont make a right" spiel can be naive and oversimplifying the proverbial rubix cube of societal (and life) issues, I'd also argue the more pragmatic reason for being "the bigger man" is largely to avoid a series of escalations where each side keeps upping the ante in unscrupulous/shady tactics - cause, "we must win at all costs, dammit!" - until disaster and almost guaranteed tragedy results.

So I'd say it's best to only "go low" if you're positive the consequent opposing reaction or fallout will be mild or can be adequately mitigated.

[Tendrin]

Grassley definitely won't, it's weird to see him and integrity mentioned in a paragraph together.

I definitely think you're right.