US Election 2020 - Pt 3

[Kieppie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1320882017890959367

Congratulations on the Democrats setting a precedent where no SCOTUS will ever be appointed except if the party holds majority in the senate.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

I mean no, this is just false

Insider

The latest news from Business Insider

www.businessinsider.com

During a campaign appearance, McConnell was asked whether he believed that a compromise on a deal between $1.8 trillion and $2.2 trillion was possible.

"I don't think so," he said, adding, "That's where the administration's willing to go.

"My members think what we laid out — a half a trillion dollars, highly targeted — is the best way to go. So that's what I'm going to put on the floor."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/21/why-mitch-mcconnell-is-trying-kill-big-stimulus-before-election/

So let’s cut through all that and focus on this unfortunate reality:
Mitch McConnell will do all he possibly can to kill any big stimulus bill before the election. And he’ll probably succeed.
If President Trump wins reelection on Nov. 3, there will probably be a sizable stimulus passed shortly after, with the Senate majority leader’s support.
If Joe Biden wins and Republicans hold the Senate, McConnell will do all he can to strangle the Biden presidency by preventing any big stimulus from passing, no matter how bad the economic misery from the recession gets.
If Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate, we’ll get a big stimulus in the new year.

The White House vowed Wednesday to push hard for a COVID-19 stimulus bill worth about $2 trillion, but chances of such a rescue package getting through both chambers of Congress appeared slim as Senate Republicans sought to advance a more modest measure.

Chief of staff Mark Meadows insisted that President Trump is “willing to lean” on Republican senators to pass a stimulus bill with a substantial price tag.

Senate Republicans tried to pass a much more limited $500 billion stimulus bill that mostly aimed to refill the popular, small business-benefiting Paycheck Protection Program.


Senate Democrats blocked the piecemeal measure, saying it was both too small and loaded with poison pills such as a provision to shield corporations from coronavirus-related lawsuits.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) glossed over the Democrats' complaints and argued it was more important for them to accept his version of relief than none at all.

Bottom line: the Dems will not capitulate and rather will take nothing....

 

[cerebus]

Thankfully Biden will not pack the courts. He's been in the politics game for far too long to know this ends (in a thumping Democrat defeat in the mid-terms). Moderate Republicans who vote for Biden are not voting for left-wing court-packing.

Nonsense. There would be no problem with him expanding the court. The situation is clear as day, the Supreme Court currently represents a minority interest that will happily strip away rights that the vast majority of Americans still support.

 

[cerebus]

Bottom line: the Dems will not capitulate and rather will take nothing....

No the bottom line is McConnell is overtly admitting to stalling relief until after the election.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Did I say it was illegal? It's perfectly legal just like it would have been to appoint Garland. It would also be legal to expand the court to maintain partisan balance.

So on what basis is AOC arguing that the SC should be packed? Because the Democrats can't win enough Senate elections? Is that really it?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Have you checked yourself for TDS ?

Have you had yourself tested for dementia?

The Right: "Look even CNN is criticizing the Left"
The Left: "Yes, but remember you Republicans says that CNN is fake news"

The Left: "Look even FOX is criticizing the Right"
The Right: "Yes, but remember you Leftists says that Fox is fake news"

The Left: " The Right has TDS"

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

No the bottom line is McConnell is overtly admitting to stalling relief until after the election.

Nonsense

 

[greg0205]

Isn't Fox ALSO fake news?

Wait! Are you defending Fox?

Isn't their takedown of Lindsey one thing we can *all* agree on?

Yeah Greg. Guess you missed the part where people are held to certain standards on that side.

Lindsey has been considered a "do nothing" for quite a while. He's right up there with Pelosi and Schumer.

I thought you're all for cleaning your own house? And now you complain when it's suggested?
To quote @Sollie "No standards, but double standards"

Lindsey Graham is a feckless gut maggot. Albeit one with a semi-decent troll game.

To be clear, I have no problem with Senate process. My issue is with Ron.

And Mitch

And Lindsey

And Tom

And Martha

And Kelly

And Rafael

And John C

And John K

And Marsha

And Susan

And Marco

And Cory

And Rick

And David

And Chuck

And Josh

And Ben

And Rand

And Mitt

... you get the picture.

 

[R13...]

Trump seems pretty pissed off that COVID isn't going away as an election issue. Seems pretty triggered going by his tweeting. Not sure what he expected really. He could have still handled the whole thing better even while still advocating for less strict lockdowns.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Nonsense. There would be no problem with him expanding the court. The situation is clear as day, the Supreme Court currently represents a minority interest that will happily strip away rights that the vast majority of Americans still support.

There'd be a huge problem with packing the court since it has remained unchanged since 1869 for a reason: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/09/why-us-supreme-court-nine-justices/

Since then, the Supreme Court has remained stable with nine justices serving on the bench. But that doesn’t mean politicians haven’t tried to change things up. Most famously, in the late 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt grew frustrated as the Supreme Court began striking down the New Deal laws he’d crafted to end the Great Depression. In February 1937, he floated the idea of increasing the membership of the Supreme Court to 15 justices.

The idea was wildly unpopular—even among Roosevelt’s supporters. It was described as “court packing,” an attempt to sway the court in his favor by creating new seats filled by justices he would be able to appoint and would thus likely be sympathetic to his policies. The Senate Judiciary Committee decried the president’s reform bill as “an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country.” Ultimately, the Senate voted against the plan 70-20.

Why the U.S. Supreme Court has nine justices

The U.S. Supreme Court changed size seven times in its first 80 years, from as few as five justices to as many as 10. Now, some argue it’s time to revisit the issue.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Wait! Are you defending Fox?

Isn't their takedown of Lindsey one thing we can *all* agree on?

 

[cerebus]

So on what basis is AOC arguing that the SC should be packed? Because the Democrats can't win enough Senate elections? Is that really it?

Regardless if Dems win the Senate the SC is enormously powerful in its ability to interpret the Constitution, and as I just said, currently skewed so heavily right that it had become a Republican court.

 

[The Free Radical]

Trump / Pence 2020

It's the sitting President's constitutional prerogative, with majority Senate approval, to appoint a SC Justice vacancy as soon as possible. Delaying the selection and appointment for after the election results would be obstruction of fair and Constitutional justice.

The Presidents powers extend to the very last day of his seating, and do not somehow diminish in the run up to an election. Trump won the 2016 elections fair and square (within the law), and is doing his job as the Constitution requires of him.

The Democrats would have done exactly the same if they had were empowered to do so. Trump and his party could not foretell the three vacancies in his term and he played the cards as they were served.

Attempting to 'stack' the SC with Democrat judges would not go down well with Constitutionalists. In fact, the SC itself would have to have the final say on the constitutionality of such a move if the spat goes legal (without a doubt it will).

 

[konfab]

Regardless if Dems win the Senate the SC is enormously powerful in its ability to interpret the Constitution, and as I just said, currently skewed so heavily right that it had become a Republican court.

That is the fault of people who seem to think that you should have a "living" constitution as opposed to one that is actually written down on a dead tree carcass.

Had the SC just followed interpretation to mean filling in the blanks for what is written as opposed to coming up with whatever them and their dog wants it to be, the court would never have become politicised. A politicised court is the punishment that progressives have inflicted upon society by bypassing the correct way you implement societal reform (with a constitutional amendment).

 

[greg0205]

Trump / Pence 2020

It's the sitting president's constitutional prerogative, with majority Senate approval, to appoint a SC Justice vacancy as soon as possible. Delaying the selection and appointment for after the election results would be obstruction of fair and constitutional justice. The Presidents powers extend to the very last day of his seating, and do not somehow diminish in the run up to election. Trump won the 2016 elections fair and square, and is doing his job as the constitution requires. The Democrats would have done exactly the same if they had were empowered to do so.

Barack Obama circa 2016 would like a word; or are you going to hide the hypocrisy behind your 'with majority Senate approval' thing?

 

[ShaunSA]

This thread is gold!

Keep going guys! You're in that final stretch. Finish line just in front

 

[greg0205]

Speaking of hypocrisy...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1320674031251550208

 

[Ancalagon]

Nonsense. There would be no problem with him expanding the court. The situation is clear as day, the Supreme Court currently represents a minority interest that will happily strip away rights that the vast majority of Americans still support.

Well, we'll see. If Trump wins, then the Supreme Court represents the majority.

Remember, they controlled both the Presidency and enough of the Senate to get this done. In other words, the fact that they were able to appoint ACB at all is because they are the majority, in more than one sphere of government. Possibly all spheres of government but I'm not sure.

Time will tell. One week to go.

 

[Ancalagon]

Barack Obama circa 2016 would like a word; or are you going to hide the hypocrisy behind your 'with majority Senate approval' thing?

The fact is, at both times, the Republicans controlled the Senate, so they get to do what they want.

Remember, the reason that they control the senate is because they got enough of the vote. Its literally democracy at work. They would not have control of the senate without the support of the people.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

The fact is, at both times, the Republicans controlled the Senate, so they get to do what they want.

Remember, the reason that they control the senate is because they got enough of the vote. Its literally democracy at work. They would not have control of the senate without the support of the people.

Please do not trigger the Left any further with your facts and logic.