On the other hand, anyone who thinks, absent Reid’s ‘reform’, that McConnell doesn’t stonewall the Scalia replacement until after the inauguration is way too credulous.
We’re in a very destructive cycle now.
Not good.
On the other hand, anyone who thinks, absent Reid’s ‘reform’, that McConnell doesn’t stonewall the Scalia replacement until after the inauguration is way too credulous.
He wasn’t going to allow a vote under any circumstances.
His credo would probably be, ultimately, understand what they will do to us, and do it to them first.
So we’re cool with citizens deciding for themselves what laws are and are not constitutional? I could swear there was a process for figuring this out…
Do you remember the judge in Massachusetts who was arrested for helping an illegal alien, to use the legal term, evade ICE?
We’re at a point where our agendas (and world views) are so incompatible with each other that order is breaking down.
These gun restrictions are seen as a direct attack on rural America for example, and rural culture. That’s where the anger is coming from, it’s an existential fight.
But none of this is occurring in a vacuum. Look at how conservatives pushed through the limit on the SALT deduction.
That was a clever way to screw over blue state voters.
(Philosophically I don’t like the SALT deduction because low tax states end up subsidizing high tax states. States should be free to adopt high cost models, but not at the expense of others.)
Am I “cool” with all of this?
On the one hand this country is coming apart the seams and this is unequivocally bad for all of us. And this is a good example of that self destructive cycle in action.
For me, civil disobedience is a higher good though, and I’m not bothered when people make stands on principle, as long as they’re willing to pay the legal price for their actions. The law isn’t always right, and I admire the personal courage involved.
So with that said, I suppose I am. But I’m not ignorant to the damage that comes from it.
No. His actions are in no way limited by what he thinks Democrats would do. His limiting factor, if there is one, is based on what he thinks he can do – explicitly ignoring both norms and consequences. His sole motivation is strengthening the GOP’s stranglehold on the country.
CraigM
4653
This is precious. Literally 100% wrong. Those high tax states? We subsidize the fuck out of those low tax states. States like Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma? They literally would not function without massive transfers from California, New York, Illinois and others.
Illinois, where I spent most of my life? We sent about $1500 more in federal taxes, per person, than we received in federal spending. Indiana and Missouri? They recieved 1600 and 3000 more per person in federal spending than they paid in federal taxes.
We literally transfer tax revenue from ‘high tax’ states that enable artificially low taxes in those states.
So they can fuck off with that salt nonsense.
See, this is objectionable. It’s impossible to look at the Dem’s track record and honestly conclude that they would refuse to consider the President’s appointee, refuse to hold hearings, refuse to hold a vote. It’s the sort of unnecessary fuck you that only comes from one side.
The NY Times, February 22nd 2016
WASHINGTON — As a senator more than two decades ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued that President George Bush should delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, until the presidential election was over, and that it was “essential” that the Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until then.
We literally transfer tax revenue from ‘high tax’ states that enable artificially low taxes in those states.
To support federal policies which aren’t necessarily popular in those states.
Look at the opposition to Medicaid expansion in red states.
is based on what he thinks he can do – explicitly ignoring both norms and consequences.
That conclusion is incompatible with what he said about the nuclear option.
ShivaX
4659
Caught in a lie? Time to move the goal posts.
Just ignore him, it’s not worth it.
magnet
4660
Seriously? Not this again.
President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed… once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over
We went over this already.
Biden didn’t say that Bush shouldn’t name anyone to the SCOTUS. He said that if a vacancy arose immediately before an election then Bush should wait until after the election, ie the lame duck period in late November or December, so that Senators could devote their full attention without being distracted by their own reelection campaign.
MichaelD
4661
Wait, you think what he says is relevant? That is so cute!
Yup. All that will matter is partisan loyalty. Instead of spending money in a ego-fueled circle jerk, the candidates should be spending it on continually funded, issues-focused advocacy groups. Warren should be setting up her own organization to fight corporate corruption. Bernie should be setting one up for single-payer. Inslee should be running a national climate change org. And the DNC should require them to pay a fine to the DNC for any speech against another Dem candidate outside of the DNC organized debates. It should be a game of building support for your best issues and a campaign against the other side, not each other. This airtime niggling over details that won’t make it through the Senate is wasted.
Alstein
4663
I think eventually we’re going to get to a point where either might makes right, or the federal government will be defanged by a nullification crisis.
The day California decides to ignore the federal government, and enough Dems block any attempt to punish CA over it, we’ll be back to Articles of Confederation days.
I already think we’re at the point where a Constitutional Convention is needed because things are going to go that far sooner rather than later. I want as much leverage as possible when that happens.
If you’re offering this as an example of the Dems refusing to even go through the motions of considering a nomination, you’ve missed the mark spectacularly badly.
Yes, indeed. Even then, Biden wasn’t refusing on behalf of the Dems to consider a nomination should one be offered.
Enidigm
4666
I’m pretty sure if she literally needed transfusions of co-ed blood to keep her wheels spinning she’d have no shortage of offers. I’d suspect whole organ transplants would not be off the table, such is the desperation everyone feels. Lungs? Sure. Heart? I’m going to die anyway, may as well be for a good cause!
Crap.
They’re going to hear the case. Instead they could have refused and let the lower court rulings stand.
I fear this bodes ill.
