Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?
All of the LABELS and REASONS serve only to obfuscate the simple. Politicians act in their best interests at the moment. End of story.
There is value in releasing a statement that implies some high ground "reason". But only because we humans are wired to latch onto and accept a "reason".
So much simpler to just acknowledge that they did the calculation and acted on the highest utility.
Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
Now we need U. S. Marshals or some other reliable law enforcement agencies to protect the Senators around the clock until the vote.
That, plus push for one or two more votes just in case the unthinkable happens.
Has it really gotten that partisan that not even one purple state democrat wouldn’t vote for nomination, whoever it might be? To think not that long ago voting on judges was nearly unanimous a lot of the time.
Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?
Certainly it will help but if they had 51 without him it's not as important.
He graduates from a RINO with a capital R to a small r, but still mostly in the dog house for the impeachment vote.
No sitting at the grownups table with Mitch yet.
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:04 pm
Has it really gotten that partisan that not even one purple state democrat wouldn’t vote for nomination, whoever it might be? To think not that long ago voting on judges was nearly unanimous a lot of the time.
i think you’ve got one too many negatives in that statement.
I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
Alternate Ending -
When the new Justice recuses herself in the face of the Trump v. Biden case, Chief Justice Roberts, wanting to avoid a potentially deadlocked Court, reinstates retired Justice David Souter for the one case.
Trump loses in a 4-5 decision with Souter casting the swing vote against him.
Would it make a good movie?
glennds wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't Gorsuch and Kavanaugh also recuse themselves of a Trump vs. Biden case since they were also appointed by Trump?
Because you may oftentimes be guilty of over-generalizing based upon limited information / evidence and viewing / interpreting such information / evidence through a super narrow viewpoint which then results in you grossly missing the mark?
Vinny
Last edited by vnatale on Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't Gorsuch and Kavanaugh also recuse themselves of a Trump vs. Biden case since they were also appointed by Trump?
Technically, yes.
Look, I'm not saying any of this is going to happen. Just illustrating the obvious point that we're in uncharted territory and almost anything can happen. Usually we have history and tradition as a barometer against which to form our expectations. Here, all tradition is out the window, and it's anyone's guess how this will play out. Orderly is not a word that comes to mind.
So yes, Supreme Court justice recusals are unlikely, but only a short few years ago, everything that is happening before our eyes would have seemed unlikely.
Because you may oftentimes be guilty of over-generalizing based upon limited information / evidence and viewing / interpreting such information / evidence through a super narrow viewpoint which then results in you grossly missing the mark?
I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
I'm sorry, but you are not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. No conservative could possibly do anything other than vote for Trump in this election, because the alternative is the destruction of the Republic.
The content of Vinny's post is not his own. It is a quote from an article from the Greenfield Recorder, authored by a self-described "conservative-leaning attorney."
My first impression, upon reading the post, was, "Why the hell should I care what this nobody thinks?" Is the mere attribution of an opinion to somebody who managed to acquire a law degree supposed to influence me?
I, too, am a conservative-learning lawyer, and I adhere to pretty much the opposite view, finding the article one more tired iteration of the relentless Alynski-esque "never stop accusing the republicans of what we're doing" theme. Historically, the hallmark of the PP forum has been the quality of the contributors' analysis. Has the posting of articles in droves and the attribution of an idea to somebody with a credential supposed to substitute for reasoned analysis?
On live right now. Outstanding! You can catch the end of it now. Or, watch it later.
Tons of insight into the Supreme Court. How it fits into this country, and how Congress abdicates much of its responsibilities and, instead, leaves it to the Supreme Court.
Example is the Republicans attempt to repeal Obamacare via the Supreme Court and Scalia's response to them, "You keep funding it every year!"
Vinny
Washington Journal
James Wallner Discusses the Senate & Upcoming Supreme Court Confirmation Battle
R Street Institute Senior Governance Fellow James Wallner discusses the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle in the Senate.
I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
I'm sorry, but you are not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. No conservative could possibly do anything other than vote for Trump in this election, because the alternative is the destruction of the Republic.
The content of Vinny's post is not his own. It is a quote from an article from the Greenfield Recorder, authored by a self-described "conservative-leaning attorney."
My first impression, upon reading the post, was, "Why the hell should I care what this "nobody" thinks?" Is the mere attribution of an opinion to somebody who managed to acquire a law degree supposed to influence me?
I, too, am a conservative-learning lawyer, and I adhere to pretty much the opposite view, finding the article one more tired iteration of the relentless Alynski-esque "never stop accusing the republicans of what we're doing" theme. Historically, the hallmark of the PP forum has been the quality of the contributors' analysis. Has the posting of articles in droves and the attribution of an idea to somebody with a credential supposed to substitute for reasoned analysis?
vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:50 am
On live right now. Outstanding! You can catch the end of it now. Or, watch it later.
Tons of insight into the Supreme Court. How it fits into this country, and how Congress abdicates much of its responsibilities and, instead, leaves it to the Supreme Court.
Example is the Republicans attempt to repeal Obamacare via the Supreme Court and Scalia's response to them, "You keep funding it every year!"
Vinny
Washington Journal
James Wallner Discusses the Senate & Upcoming Supreme Court Confirmation Battle
R Street Institute Senior Governance Fellow James Wallner discusses the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle in the Senate.
I've mentioned this here before. EVERY federal elected or appointed official swears to uphold the Constitution, and they all outsource this duty to the Supreme Court.
A prime recent example is Bush saying, as he signed the McCain/Feingold repeal of the first amendment (aka campaign finance reform) that he thought it was unconstitutional and the court would throw it out. Well then don't sign it!
Another is Eisenhower saying that he thought it wasn't constitutional to send federal troops to integrate schools. But just because the court thought it was, he did anyway. He should have said no. He took an oath!
Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 pm
Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL
I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.
I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!
Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!
Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 pm
Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL
I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.
I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!
Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!
Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 pm
Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL
I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.
I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!
Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!
Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!
Vinny
Gotta be Anthony...
I knew I could count on my paisan! If you are male and Italian, good chance it's either your first name or your middle name!
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
I hate to say something even slightly disparaging of a woman who is genuinely and deservedly a national figure, but ...
I do think the Republicans are rather transparently acting in their own self interest to push through a nomination quickly. However, think about why we are in this position in the first place: it’s because Ginsburg did not resign when it became obvious she could not serve any longer. Instead she hung onto the post in order to forestall a nomination from the current administration.
The situation is not at all similar to what happened to Scalia. That was genuinely an unexpected event. This was not.