Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Oct 20 00:50:37 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Dukhat: Tulsi bwing a Russian asset
Habebe
Member
Sat Oct 10 10:07:58
Perhaps you are just mistaken, due to people repeating this nonsense so often ( HRC)

But you said the evidence was overwhelming that Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian asset. Possibly Jill stein as well.

Evidence howevwr shows this was just HRC trying to draw attention away from her emails and paint her enemies as she perceives them as Russians.Causw you know. Muh Russia.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 10 10:11:17
In case this thread is election predictions continued.

It seems its time to abandon the swamp if the GOP wants to avoid following Trump down the toilet.

http://www...-raise-gop-fears-blue-n1242753
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 10 10:13:34
But I do agree. Trump 2020! The GOP should tie theselves even harder to that mast and the great popularity Trump has in the population.

What could possibly go wrong from a GOP perspective with a democratic controlled house, senate and presidency?
Habebe
Member
Sat Oct 10 10:18:51
Well, if Trump loses, the Senate will likely follow anyway.

Obama had both the House and the Senate for 2 years, still didnt change much.

Harris could be a concern, a california Democrat as acting potus, but we will see.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 10 10:44:52
I think you are underestimating the willingness to go to great lengths to avoid something like Trump ever happening again.

The legislatures in that scenario are important unless you think Biden will be vetoing democratic bills.

My best advice to the GOP is to not rush the supreme court appointment. Wait until after the election. If the democrats make a full sweep, then do not confirm.

Confirmation will trigger an expansion of the courts (at all levels) to clear the way for DC and PR statehood.
Rugian
Member
Sat Oct 10 10:48:33
"Confirmation will trigger an expansion of the courts"

This is not how the American government works. "Dont do x or we will destroy the entire system of checks and balances" is political terrorism, not a valid strategy.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 10 11:01:44
Ruggy
Dont be such a dramaqueen.
habebe
Member
Sat Oct 10 11:14:55
Jergul, It's a lack of coherent focus. Biden will have almoar no say. The executice branch will effectivley be run HRC/Pelosi/Harris at the highest level.

Obama wasn't vetoing libwral bills.

The Republicans should install ACB asap. It will likley be too unpalatable to pack the court. Regardless the GOP will only lose the Senate for 2 years at most.

PR isnt a guaranteed Democratic win anyway. The Govwrnor of PR has endorsed Trump.
Rugian
Member
Sat Oct 10 11:32:05
Jergul thinks that not wanting to see the destruction the independence of the judicial branch is "dramaqueen" behavior. Lmao

I can understand why you wouldnt think of it as a big deal of course. The USSR didnt need an independent judiciary, so why should anyone else?
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 10 13:38:15
habebe
The GOP is just as vulnerable in two years as it was this cycle. Its defending way more seats than the DNC in 2022 too.

I am not sure why you favour rule by decree as much as you seem to indicate. The system is designed for the legislatures to pass laws, not the executive branch. The use of executive orders to bypass the division of powers is perhaps the destruction of the American system Ruggy is talking about.

Installing ACB now after refusing to do the same 4 years ago is perfectly legal. But then, so is expanding the federal courts at all levels.

The PR Governor is unelected and universally dispised. The endorsement probably hurt Trump amongst PRcans in florida (25% of all hispanics there).

PR will tend to vote democrat.
Habebe
Member
Sat Oct 10 22:55:28
"Installing ACB now after refusing to do the same 4 years ago is perfectly legal. But then, so is expanding the federal courts at all levels"

Yes. But one is likely less palatable in the long term. I could be wring though.

I'm not advocating rule by decree, I'm just pointing out that perhaps fear of liberal overreach is exaggerated.
Chicago is not California though.

As for PR, they probably will tens to lean Democratic, but its not a lost cause like DC.

DC will be hard to make a state legally. Even liberal judges would be hard pressed to allow that.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 00:43:44
I say likley to be less palatable based on my experience as an American. Many will cite FDR who even while being worshipped, found it to be unpalatable to US voters to pack the court, however I find that to be a poor cite since it was almost 100 years ago.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 02:15:44
"Installing ACB now after refusing to do the same 4 years ago is perfectly legal. But then, so is expanding the federal courts at all levels."

Your sort of wrong here btw, it is not legal to expand the courts right now. It is absolutley legal to nominate a SC Justice.

There is a legal route to expanding the court with out changinf the constitution, but you musr change the laws, so they are not the same.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 02:37:13
I meant that it is perfectly constitutional to pass the required legislation. That was obvious from the context (laws decide how many federal judges there are).
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 02:40:14
Ultimately though, I think it will come down to how Trump and the GOP use the current status to persue agendas. Will they confirm the justice? Will they contest the election outcome in outlandish ways?

If they do, then the DNC is likely to change to rules. Though it only has a 65% chance of controlling enough to do that as things stand.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:16:28
I just really don't from.the GOP pov, see why they wouldn't push through ACB.

There is a lot to gain, little to lose. It will not sway voters this election one way or another.

Changing the amount of Justices , I think will be a much more unpalatable choice and again, the Republicans have a huge advantage in the Senate generally. look at election maps for example, almost the whole country looks Republican by that measure*
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 03:35:37
Well, we will see how flipflopping on not appointing judges plays out for vulnerable senators.

There are reasons why the Senate is suddenly in play you know.

The DNC cannot give statehood to DC and PR without expanding the courts is the conscequence of confirming ACB.

Nothing is more unpalatable to the DNC than another Trump.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 03:37:50
What is up with Trump trying to run against Hillary again? That is like the stupidest non-covid move ever (the covid stuff is beyond stupid).
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:54:12
"There are reasons why the Senate is suddenly in play you know."

And none of them are because of ACB.

It has much more to do with the numbers and what seats are up.

It's a big reason why Congressional leaders are from safe states. Mitch Mconnel nor Pelosi are never going to threatened by the opposing party for their seat.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:55:12
Hillarry is an easier target and is still viewed as deeply rooted in the higher eschelons of the DNC.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 03:59:15
Self-serving flipflops play a role.

Well, Trump can lose the election anyway he likes.
Habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 06:42:53
http://new...ys-voters-don-t-170433889.html

I figured this a good place to drop this in. Biden just said that voters don't deserve to know his stance on court packing, and alluded that this is a distraction that Trump prefer we talk about.
Habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 06:46:27
Just pointing this out.

The Democrats will argue that the potuses private tax returns must be made public, but defend not deserving the right to know biden/harris stance on court packing, a major political issue at the moment.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 09:46:31
Habebe
I don't think they have a stance on it yet. It depends on conditionals.

Its also not a question for presidential candidates as they have no role to play beyond vetoing legislation and nominating judges if legislation does in fact change.

The question is relevant for senate and congressional candidates.
Rugian
Member
Sun Oct 11 09:55:39
"Its also not a question for presidential candidates as they have no role to play beyond vetoing legislation and nominating judges if legislation does in fact change."

I cant believe I actually used to take you seriously.

So by this standard, we dont need to know any presidential candidate's stances on anything that would likely be enacted through legislation. Wowza.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 10:22:08
Ruggy
I meant that if you want to make an issue of expanding the federal courts, then it would be better to target candidates who will actually be doing that.

There are lots of things you can ask presidential candidates. Just don't be surprised if they sidestep politically sensitive questions.

Its what happens when presidental candidates do not make a habit of lying outright.

I understand you may have forgotten what it is like.

Ad absurdium fallacy. In case you were wondering what flawed debating technique you just employed.
Habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 11:14:58
1. Considering how close the Senate is Harris very likely will be voting on it. Remember, the VP is also the President of the Senate.

2. In no way shapw or form would the democrats push a bill of this magnitude without presidential support, its political suicide.
Rugian
Member
Sun Oct 11 11:22:57
"The president also plays a leading role in federal legislation and domestic policymaking. As part of the system of checks and balances, Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution gives the president the power to sign or veto federal legislation. Since modern presidents are also typically viewed as the leaders of their political parties, major policymaking is significantly shaped by the outcome of presidential elections, with presidents taking an active role in promoting their policy priorities to members of Congress who are often electorally dependent on the president.[16]"

Wiki. Since this is something we apparently need to go over here.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 12:08:22
habebe
Most likely outcome now is 51 senate seats for the democrats.

Pelosi would probably lead any judicial reform. Why expose the executive office?

Ruggy
Already covered. Are you still suprised that politicians sidestep?

Its a contingency thing anyway. If the GOP actually does flipflop on no appointments in an election year and the DNC takes the Trifecta and congress moves on judicial reform, will you support it or what?
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Sun Oct 11 12:11:25
http://pbs...XkAAipDk?format=jpg&name=small
Rugian
Member
Sun Oct 11 12:16:38
Jergul

You've become a complete caricature of yourself. Presidential candidates are expected to outline their policy positions during the race; this is not a disputable fact and we will not be debating it here.

That goes double for something as significant as "do you propose to destroy the independence of one of the three branches of the federal government."

If Biden can reveal the outline of his tax plans, he can answer that question.
Rugian
Member
Sun Oct 11 12:18:19
And yes, presidents are major influencers in what legislation is advanced by Congress, being as they are de facto leaders of their party. To claim otherwise merely shows your stunning ignorance of the American system.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 12:23:19
Ruggy
Judicial reform is not current DNC policy. Biden is under no legal obligation to expound on what ifs.

Incidentally, why are you not outraged by the GOP "destroying the independence of one of three branches" by appointing a judge in an election year?
Habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 12:24:41
I think Jergul takes himself less seriously than we do, often trolling/fucking around for amusement.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 12:25:01
So Biden is the leader of the DNC now? Your threads generally think he is just a placeholder that the communists will oust right after the election.

You are all over the place, boyo. Have a glass of water and perhaps a carrot. It might help.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 12:28:08
Last was to ruggy :)
Rugian
Member
Sun Oct 11 12:53:10
"Judicial reform is not current DNC policy. Biden is under no legal obligation to expound on what ifs."

This is...a...take, I grant you. I fucking idiotic one, but a take none the same.

The issue is germane to this election and several high-ranking Democrats have come out for it. If Biden is not for court packing, all it takes is for him to say "I'm not for it" and the issue is kaput. The fact that he can't means that it's not.

"Incidentally, why are you not outraged by the GOP "destroying the independence of one of three branches" by appointing a judge in an election year?"

This is literally not a thing. Judges can of course be nominated by presidents and confirmed by the Senate in an election year, provided of course that both of those bodies wish to do so.

"So Biden is the leader of the DNC now?"

The party, not the DNC. Two different things.

"Your threads generally think he is just a placeholder that the communists will oust right after the election."

Which makes it all the more alarming that he can't commit to not packing the court. If he won't do it, why would the progressives counting down the days until they can oust him do so?
Rugian
Member
Sun Oct 11 12:57:08
"Kaput"

Sorry, I forgot how much you hate it when I use German loan words. Substitute "doubleplusfinished" there.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 13:14:23
Ruggy
It literally is a thing when the GOP uses lying/flipflopping on appointability in an election year to pack the supreme court.

You say they used the legal options available when the opportunity arose and were in no way bound by their previous position.

Fair enough.

What was your point?

Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Oct 11 13:42:02
Rugian's point is that hypocrisy is not an issue for him as long as it advances his political agenda.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 11 22:21:25
> Expecting consistency from Capitol Hill
> Cheering the increasing partisanship of the courts and its appointments
> Getting angry over legislative maneuvering

Lol
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 11 22:21:49
Sorry you didn't get another Living Document faggot to advance your agenda, faggots
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 00:29:54
1. Lets clarify that thw term 'coirt packing" specifically means adding seats to the bench.

2. Dukhat has clearly avoided this thread. Probably wont go throwing out the same nonsense accusations.


In short on the Supreme Court ( rhymes) while I think Mitch's conduct is frowned upon, I think that will fade quicker and that packing the court will have more push back.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 04:09:02
1. Court packing means filling it with your brand of judges.

2. Judicial reform or expanding federal courts means adding more judges.

The GOP packed the courts with its judges by keeping seats vacant when it controlled the senate, but not the presidency.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 04:21:29
No, your wrong.In Norway perhaps it means this, not in the US.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 04:33:29
I am correct.

The GOP has already packed to courts by way of keeping vacancies open until it controlled the presidency. The DNCs only short term solution to reversing that has two steps:

1. Expanding the courts
2. Then packing the courts with its flavour of judges.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 04:34:15
Moral of the story. Don't let people with political agendas teach you English.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 04:50:09
The term court packing goes back to FDR and his plan to add 6 seats to the SC.

I habe no idea where your definition comes from.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 05:05:19
Turns out the GOP at State level has recently tried to expand state supreme courts 10 times and has succeeded twice in recent years.

What is your position on the GOP expanding State level supreme courts?
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 05:08:19
Actually I thought it was 20 times.

I honestly don't know enough about the state SC issues to have a stance.But in general it sounds shady.

The GOP in TX also sued to.get the libertarian candidates off the ballot. That is blatant voter suppression. The GOP is not perfect, not even close.
Rugian
Member
Mon Oct 12 09:02:01
Habebe

Do you see how jergul just makes up completely random arguments as he goes along?

There is no need to debate him on the definition of court packing. If choosing judges from your own ideological side is considered "court packing," then the term loses all meaning. In that case, Obama was also guilty of court packing, as was Bush before him and Clinton before him. That standard is nonsensical.

And as for playing hardball with the judiciary, theres plenty of blame to go around. Keep in mind that Democrats held up judicial appointments during the GWB years that the GOP at the time threatened to invoke the nuclear option.

Also recall that Biden himself was a chief contributor to the current partisan nature of Supreme Court nominee hearings, when he tanked Bork's confirmation on purely political grounds.

Democrats are plenty at fault in this race to the bottom. But nothing that theyve done so far is going to be even remotely comparable to if they commit to court packing and turning SCOTUS into a Democratic-run superlegislature.

They need to be stopped.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 10:03:15
The GOP is mishandling this any way you slice it.

It wants to lock down its wins because there are not costs and there is nothing the democrats can do about it.

Wrong only two counts. There are costs and there is something the democrats can do about it.

Doing something most people do not want done costs votes. Doing something a few people really want done and has them accepting outragous behaviour also has costs. If the conservative judges are already appointed, then why would that be an argument for evangelicals to vote for Trump and his congressional supporters?

Trump is down about 10% for white evangelicals compared to in 2016. That will get worse if Barett is appointed.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 11:47:05
Jergul, Your logic is flawed.

1. Just because the Democrats CAN do something, ts an act so distasteful it will likely cost them more.

2. I doubt pushing through the. Appointment will cost any votes.

3. If dangling ACB is a draw, keeping Biden from packing the court is even more of a draw.

4. Polls show that court appointees this election are more important to Biden voters.

538 has a good podcast on this where Nate pretty much points out there is very little.to lose and a lot to gain.

I feel like you would suck at chess.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Oct 12 12:40:07
The two of you should play chess.
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 12:52:11
That could be fun. I havnt played in a while but I'm down.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 14:10:06
Some of the ones that care are certainly going to vote Biden and democratic candidates for Congress. As are most people as it turns out.

I think you and the GOP are gauging this wrong.

Expanding, then packing the federal courts is not only a goal, its a means to an end.

It allows DC and PR to gain statehood and fundamentally shift the Senate, House and Electoral balance.

You are seriously underestimating that never trump [again] energy in the democratic camp.

You are triggering this by pushing your luck with the existing supreme court balance.

habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 14:44:36
I mean its a we will see game at this point.

PR is lean Democrat, not solid.Not sure what PR's stance is on the issue, I know AOC wants sovereignty.

DC seems a long shot even with a liberal court.

Even more so you think they have the political will to do all this.This is like a super woke college kids political dream.

Its possible. Not plausible IMHO.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 15:09:03
habebe
Why play into solidifying the political will? You say their is not downside. Well, there is. You are just gambling on the democrats not pulling the trigger.

6:3 is a gambit for a generation. It will take forever for the democrats to bring the court back into balance with conventional means.

But if it does expand the court, then it also has to lock in the change.
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 15:24:44
"You are just gambling on the democrats not pulling the trigger"

Yes , I dont think they will go that far. You seem.to be under the assumption that all democrats are that extreme. Even if in theory they somehow accomplish all of this before the Republicans take power back, whats yo stop them from doing the same?

Time and Time again Mitch has shown he is Bobby Fischer in this game.

For arguments sake, lets say they pack the court, 15 justices. And they make DC and PR a state.

You dont think the Republicans will win back enough power to end this?
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 15:31:29
http://www...-to-win-the-supreme-court/amp/
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 15:46:52
Democrats could also consider adding states to the union. If both Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico became solidly Democratic states (not necessarily a safe assumption in the case of Puerto Rico), the Senate’s Republican lean would be reduced from 6.6 points to 4.5 points. If D.C. and Puerto Rico joined and California were split into three states that ranged from Democratic-leaning to solidly blue, it would deplete further to 2.5 points. But that also goes to show you how robust the Republicans’ advantage is. You could add four Democartic states (D.C., Puerto Rico, California/A and California/B) and the Senate would still have a slight Republican tilt.

And that is not factoring in the pushback from enacting that slew of partisan legislation.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 19:35:18
habebe
Win back enough power to reestablish the current status quo with a 6-3 (though in the form of 15-7)? Perhaps some day.

You illustrate the problem of pushing confirmation now. The democrats have nothing to lose by expanding the court. Its not as if the GOP is holding moral highground after confirming someone in an election year.

You forget that the electoral college also tilts GOP compared to the population. The last time a repulican won the popular vote was in 1988.

http://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/51

"Passed House (06/26/2020)

Washington, D.C. Admission Act

This bill admits certain portions of Washington, DC as the 51st state. The bill defines state as the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth."

Heh, its already passed the house.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 22:19:25
"The democrats have nothing to lose by expanding the court. "

Again this is where we disagree, but its really a mattwr of opinion. I think any party trying to add seats to the SC like that would have massive backlash.I won't really debate the issue because its a matter of opinion, but if there ever was a time for it, its now I guess.

"
The last time a repulican won the popular vote was in 1988."

Well that is just wrong. GWB not only won the popular vote he won the majority vote.You can check on how much, but I definitley remember , in 2004 he won thw majority.

Aa for passing the house, you act like that's an accomplishment. The house is a Looney bin, always has been.
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 13 00:57:33
habebe
I did check. He lost by 0.50%
Habebe
Member
Tue Oct 13 01:08:42
http://en....d_States_presidential_election

GWB got 50.7%

Kerry got 48.3%
habebe
Member
Tue Oct 13 01:42:46
http://en....d_States_presidential_election

I think your mistaking the 2000 election

GWB 47.9%
Gore 48.4%

Where neither candidate won a majority, but Gore won a plurality of the popular vote but lost the election.
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Oct 13 06:37:21
[Rugian]: "There is no need to debate him on the definition of court packing. If choosing judges from your own ideological side is considered "court packing," then the term loses all meaning. In that case, Obama was also guilty of court packing, as was Bush before him and Clinton before him. That standard is nonsensical."

This appears to be the argument employed by the DNC outlets at the moment. They're intentionally conflating "court-packing" with "the appointing of judges" in order to make court-packing seem like just deserts for the GOP not waiting until 2021 to appoint a new Associate Justice. Already it seems to be filtering down successfully to the low-level discourse of the meme world:

Consider these comments from Imgur:
http://imgur.com/gallery/nDudFxL
• "They are ignoring the precedent that they themselves just set. Laws are built on precedent." (this refers to the "precedent" set by Mitch McConnell and others who *appointed* judges when the GOP had the chance; the only recent precedent for court-packing is the 1937 Bill)
• "Only Republicans are allowed to appoint judges. Don’t get what you’re missing" (does not realize that the DNC is attempting to court-pack, not just appoint)
• "It's about packing the courts with Republican party judges, which is what they've done with 100 or so federal positions. They're accusing as usual, the Democrats of doing what they, themselves have been doing. They don't want the Democrats interfering their their match fixing." (thinks that the GOP was "packing the courts" when they were *appointing* judges)

..
I've said this a few times lately, but DNC definition re-writing has become par for the course. I'm surprised that the Wiki page on the 1937 Bill hasn't already been vandalized and guarded by DNC Wiki contributors. This happened with the Wiki page on "Fascism".

This may be redundant for anyone who caught my post before, but the Wiki page on Fascism included left and center fascism prior to the 2016 election, but it was slowly revised throughout Trump's presidency to omit entirely any mention of left fascism. The Wiki page now states affirmatively that fascism is *only* a far-right ideology. It omits even the scholarly works written during World War II, and the discussion tab declares that any attempt to argue otherwise will be reversed as vandalism. Meanwhile, if you look at who effected this change on the Wiki page, it traces back primarily to *one* individual who has a Twitter page which is highly contentious and pro-DNC. I'm doing a full write-up currently, but it could be a while :\
jergul
large member
Tue Oct 13 11:01:24
habebe
You got it right twice. I had no idea court packing was a term used to decribe FDRs threat to expand, then pack the judiciary unless the supreme court folded (which it did). I will probably still use the term to describe the 6:3 btw. That one thing is called something does not mean other things cannot be called it. Female dobermans and German shepards are both bitches after all.

The source I used on popular vote was either incorrect, or I misread it.
Habebe
Member
Tue Oct 13 11:25:08
It may be a specidic term to the US.

As for the election, considering the 2000 election was also GWB and was by .50% it was likely that which got mixed up.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share