Impeachment requires process and such. Either add more up to nine and stack it that way or just eliminate seats down to some odd number. In either case just be as ridiculously partisan as possible.
The problem is deeper than just the Supreme Court though. There has been a wholesale takeover in the entire federal judiciary that will have a bigger and longer lasting impact than the SCOTUS itself most likely.
Yet, when we complained about Mitch ruining precedent in order to stack the courts, you shrugged and said "ehn, they're playing within the rules of the game". Este is just suggesting what you previously endorsed. Play within the rules of the game and treat the process like zero-sum.
Actually I think it started when Mitch refused to even have a hearing for Obama's nomination claiming it was too close to the election. That was definitely a new twist to partisanship not seen before.
Problem is that he and others like him didn't start advocating for those tactics until his side started losing. It's especially hypocritical because he and others tried to claim the moral high ground by acting like his side was above using such dirty, underhanded tactics.
Gods, you're odious. So, when Mitch does it, you won't call it out. But when people realize that they can only fight fire with fire, they're "hypocrites". You won't help keep the peace by calling out dirty play. You'll just use your voice to maintain the status quo of one party (yours) damaging bipartisanship.
I was hoping you'd self-reflect. But no, doubled-down on your thesis.
Have you ever played Prisoner's Dilemma? Your plan in the game is "cheat" and then "whine if they cheat too".
Just pointing out, yet again, that for all the moral grandstanding the American left does, they sure are quick to abandon their stated morals once those morals become a hindrance to their political gain.
Actually, they have stood by and watched the GOP completely abandon all pretenses about their willingness to suborn the process over a period of several decades, so that "sure are quick" is flatly wrong.
They watched Nixon cheat.
They watched Reagan cheat.
They watched GWBush cheat.
They watched Trump cheat.
In between they watched every GOP led congress put "make a Democrat administration look bad" ahead of even pretending to be interested in the good of the country every single time.
And now that they are showing the slightest inclination to just call the GOP out for their actions they get tarred for "abandoning the moral high ground." C'mon man.
The post I originally quoted wasn't a slight inclination to call out the GOP. It was an outright call to adopt completely partisan tactics that the poster in question has criticized as undemocratic when his political opponents engage in them.
Which is fine. If he wants the Democrats to start doing that though, he really loses all right to claim any moral superiority. Because it doesn't matter what cause you are fighting for, once you start using the same tactics as your opponent, you become the same, morally, as your opponent.
It also doesn't matter what cause you are fighting for if you are committed to allowing your opposition to cheat such that you never have any chance at winning.
Of course. I'm not taking issue with the cause of even with the advocating of adopting the same tactics of your opponent. What I take issue with is the claiming of moral superiority.
I disagree. If I'm a serial arsonist going around burning down people's houses, it may be morally right to stop me, but it would not be morally right to stop me by burning down my house.
It would if no other effective option was available, and that's sort of the point. The GOP has been "burning down our house" for decades and all efforts to stop them while following the rules that they do not have failed. So where is the option?
Gods, you're odious. So, when Mitch does it, you won't call it out. But when people realize that they can only fight fire with fire, they're "hypocrites". You won't help keep the peace by calling out dirty play. You'll just use your voice to maintain the status quo of one party (yours) damaging bipartisanship.
I was hoping you'd self-reflect. But no, doubled-down on your thesis.
Have you ever played Prisoner's Dilemma? Your plan in the game is "cheat" and then "whine if they cheat too".
I disagree. It is a slow grinding process, but I have faith that the endless arguments will get through to Commodore. He does not strike me as being nearly as irredeemable as your statement suggests. If he were i suspect that he'd have just quit the arguments and abandoned us long ago.
I disagree. It is a slow grinding process, but I have faith that the endless arguments will get through to Commodore. He does not strike me as being nearly as irredeemable as your statement suggests. If he were i suspect that he'd have just quit the arguments and abandoned us long ago.
The problem is deeper than just the Supreme Court though. There has been a wholesale takeover in the entire federal judiciary that will have a bigger and longer lasting impact than the SCOTUS itself most likely.
Yea, well McConnell changed the rules as soon as he got his president with a majority in the senate. Its basically just acknowledging the senate is dead as a "bipartisan" chamber. There can be no moral high ground when the arbiter of morals has been completely planted by one side. So we run it like a parliamentary judiciary one side runs for 4-8 then the other side gets a go. There does not seem to be any other option. Its that or let GOP run roughshod like they have for almost 40 years now.
The death of bipartisanship is a good thing insofar as bipartisanship was basically constituted by the exclusion from the political process of people who were screwed over by the policies all the rich people were politely agreeing on.
The death of bipartisanship is a good thing insofar as bipartisanship was basically constituted by the exclusion from the political process of people who were screwed over by the policies all the rich people were politely agreeing on.
Senate confirms Alabama Judge Andrew Brasher for federal appeals court post
Updated 6:40 PM; Today 5:40 PM
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew BrasherU.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama
479
shares
By Howard Koplowitz | hkoplowitz@al.com
A Montgomery federal court judge was elevated to a seat on a federal appeals court Tuesday after the U.S. Senate voted along party lines confirming Judge Andrew Brasher to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Brasher, who quickly rose up the ranks from Alabama’s solicitor general to a federal judgeship, was confirmed in a 52-43 vote in the Senate. His nomination faced criticism from the Alabama NAACP and other groups, who contended that he would be unfair to African Americans after he supported gutting key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
