CraigM
3842
When being held accountable to your constituents is called bullying, and you erect fences and hire forces to not have to answer to them…
Poor thing, she should clutch her pearls tightly once she gets them back from Lindsay Graham.
CraigM
3846
The truism about any headline that is a question being ‘no’ holds true here Frum.
Those of you saying that congressional Democrats did all they could forget that not a single Democratic Senator chokeslammed Mitch McConnell through a table at Hell in a Cell, despite most of them being more virile than him, and therefore I declare them worthless.
The problem isn’t that the Democrats handled it poorly. The issue is that the Republicans have learned the lessons of Trump. Nothing matters anymore. If the President of The United States can hold a rally and openly mock a survivor of sexual assault and be rewarded with laughter and applause, nothing you say or do really matters. If The President of the United States can tell five blatant lies a day with no apparent consequences, then only the smallest of fig leaves is required to justify even the most obviously farcical and morally bankrupt decisions.
The only way to fix this is to show them it matters by voting them out but I suspect they’ve corrupted enough of their base at this point to nullify even that. Republicans are now willing to vote for pedophiles and would rather side with Russia than with Democrats. The Republican base is fine with caging children. They are fine with corruption and criminal behavior and sexual assault so long as it’s being done by Republicans.
It’s not just the propaganda. People with authoritarian leanings are going to be on board with literally anything the authoritarians propose. The psychological underpinnings of authoritarian leanings are fear bases so, yeah, there’s where your propaganda comes in but a certain percentage of the population was always going to be vulnerable to that manipulation and the Republicans have successfully captured them. There may be more of us than them but gerrymandering will stem some of that imbalance.
It strikes me that you don’t really understand how any of this stuff works. You can’t term limit Justices because it is the Constitution that gives them a lifetime tenure, so to term limit them you have to amend the Constitution, which means (per the Constitution) you need 67 votes in the Senate. Dems aren’t likely to have 67 Senate votes in our lifetime. It has been 4 decades since either party had that many. And you need 3/4 of the states to ratify that amendment, which also isn’t going to happen.
The 60 vote rule is just a Senate rule. If the Democrats get control of the Senate anytime in the near future, it will surely be by a slim margin less than 60 votes. Why would they change the rules then to 60 votes since that would allow the Republicans to filibuster everything? Even if they were dumb enough to do that, if and when Republicans have 51 votes or more again, they’ll just change the rule to suit themselves, which they can do, because the majority makes the rules.
I get that you’re frustrated. Me too. But you’re blaming Democrats for fecklessness without pointing to any actual thing they could have done differently, or to anything they can actually do if and when they have power again.
As a practical matter, it does. The Constitution says Justices hold their office during good behavior, which has been interpreted to mean until they retire or die or are impeached. And it as been interpreted that way since the beginning.
You can interpret it anyway you want. The fact of the matter is it doesnt. So the good news is it can be interpreted for term limits just as easily, @ravenight is perfectly correct.
You can offer any interpretation you like, but your interpretation is irrelevant. The courts decide, and they will not decide to term limit themselves no matter how much you want that. @ravenight is wrong, as are you. This is settled law.
Precedents can be overturned, but I doubt we’ll get such a decision from the Supremes any time soon, as you write.
I don’t think there has ever even been an argument made that the tenure isn’t lifetime. It’s not even a legal question in this country, and never has been. It’s like saying that maybe we should challenge the idea that Presidents appoint them, and hope we can get the Court to agree. It’s contrary to the actual text of the Constitution.
I’m not disagreeing with you about how “good behavior” has been interpreted, and it largely makes sense, to have an independent Judiciary (or did). It’s just that the literal words “for life” are not in the Constitution.
And of course no one ever questioned the part about the President appointing federal judges.
Norman Ornstein had some advice for Democrats (read through his twitter feed, he has good ideas) but here’s one example:
And Tom Nichols - who initially came out very strongly in favor of Kavanaugh:
(There’s some interesting back and forth in that thread too.)
When it turned out the FBI investigation was a complete farce controlled by Don McGann, it was game over. I don’t think Flake intended that, I do believe he was actually serious. But for him it was always a way to find a way to justify the inevitable Yes vote, just like it was for Collins. If the roles were reversed and a Dem nominee had any questionable background, that nominee would have been yanked immediately and replaced with some moderate olive branch.
Recent examples of Republicans controlling the narrative:
2004 - “Morality” (aka states banning gay marriage.)
During the budget fights during Obama’s term, the narrative was DEFICIT.
The 2016 elections turned into immigration, “economic anxiety” and email server management (and the temerity of a woman with political ambitions. Same thing will happen if/when Kirsten Gillibrand or Kamala Harris runs.)
The tax scam bill - can Republicans get a win?
BK nomination - Did Democrats overplay their hand and give the midterms to the Republicans
This has been said before (many times probably) but:
- DC and PR statehood (which is the right thing to do regardless)
- Increase the number of representatives in the House
- Prosecute trump and his cronies to the fullest extent of the law
- Release all of BK’s documents withheld by the GOP
- Require tax returns be released for all candidates - House, Senate, Executive and including SCOTUS nominees (the latter may already be true.)
- Pass Warren’s anti-corruption bill
And something has to be done about the media (e.g. Fox News.) I have no idea what that could be though.
Anyway.
Bears repeating - Vote, contribute, get involved as others have said.
So after having perhaps a slightly dismissive attitude to a poster over* something which you are proven factually wrong about you then proceed to tell me I am also “wrong” for pointing out your error.
I know you have been told this before, but your debating style is really poor at times. You are coming across as a left wing Trump. I say this in the spirit of I want voices on the left to get better and be effective whenever possible. Just some unasked for advice. Naturally you are welcome to disregard it or think about it as you will.
*I edited this from my false accusation Scott had called someone clueless. Which he did not. I apologise.
Anyway as a way of adding to everyones rage. This is a good point.
