RIP Senate.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by blackfox, Apr 6, 2017.

  1. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #1
    I could embed links - but's it's pretty common knowledge at this point - the Senate majority used the "nuclear option" and brought down the vote threshold from 60 to 51 (a simple majority). This is a sad day, regardless of your partisanship. Congressional majorities will change, and this is just a bad, reactionary idea. The Senate was supposed to be the more deliberative and serious body of Congress, to offset the more volatile House. We've lost an important pillar of governance. Consequences could be severe. Thoughts?

    link anyway:
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/gorsuch-fillibuster-us-senate-214992
     
  2. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #2
    Really the worst consquence I can imagine as a conservative would be the Democrats somehow gaining office in 2020, holding majority house and senate, and it's a stretch, but gaining house and senate majority in 2018. If the current Republicans keep screwing it up, their time will come to and end. And depending on how bad things will get from now as we've just about eclipsed the first 100 days, the future Democrats could use the next 4 years as a rally cry. You can't sweep the ********* that's happened since the new government took office.

    Worst case scenario for the neocon clique of the Republican party that's made it a joke? Total democratic rule for 8-12 years (2020-?), allowing them to steamroll everything through they can think of and reversing anything Trump and Co. have done. Gorsuch will be on the stand, but assuming a total democratic ruling party, you can expect the next 2-3 justices to be liberals. Which would change the landscape for a century (immediate + after effects).

    This is presuming the Democrats can come up with someone with a bright mind who isn't prone to have mud slung at them. People involved in the Clinton rigging need to be excommunicated from the party. Bring another Barack Obama or two, and you'll ensure over a decade of control.

    Though you also have to take into account the age of those serving in congress now. They're mostly quite old. Who knows what the next batch of congressional leaders (and I use that phrase very lightly here) will do.
     
  3. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #3
    Well, at least for the moment, this is only an extension of removal of filibusters for judicial appointees -- the Democrats removed them for non-supreme-court appointees, and now the Republicans have removed them for the supreme court. Given what the Republicans did to Garland last year, I think the whole issue is kind of moot anyway; if you can block a nominee for an entire year, it isn't too much harder to block one for two years, or for four. So yeah, the whole mechanism is screwed up already; whoever has a majority in the Senate can pretty much do whatever they want, forget about compromise.

    But, the Republicans didn't remove the filibuster for legislation. They're still too nervous about that, so maybe it'll stay a little longer. Still, they've now allowed the camel's nose into the tent; shouldn't be too much longer before the camel comes all the way in...
     
  4. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    Well, that's the absurd/troubling thing. This is happening over Gorsuch - who is basically a Conservative Judge replacing another one (Scalia). Shouldn't be a huge deal. Yet, the reality is that Congress is so deeply fractured that they're willing to win a (minor) battle to lose the war. At what point do they attempt to actually govern?
     
  5. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #5
    Ripe for the double standards argument that erupted a year ago.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 6, 2017 ---
    It isn't about him being conservative at all. While Gorsuch is conservative by name, he's quite liberal in other things or wishes to abstain from questioning. The furor is over blocking Garland for a year and expecting the liberals to roll over and play dead for Gorsuch. I can't imagine a single judge who is as conservative as Scalia.
     
  6. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #6
    This, I don't really get. Honestly. Do you like Obama more because he's got a pretty face? Because he's younger? Because he's a better speaker?

    Because in terms of policy issues, there really isn't a huge difference between the two. They've both worked in the same party to advance the same policies for a very, very long time...
     
  7. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #7
    Are you asking me specifically? I wasn't a fan of BO. People preferred BO over Clinton in 2008 because he didn't have the baggage she did. And since 2008, she accrued more baggage. The tides of civil debate when running for POTUS died a while back. When the emails story leaked and how the DNC rigged it so Clinton got the vote and not Sanders, it threw more fuel onto the fire. Presuming the law allowed for a third term, BO vs. Trump would have resulted in a landslide for BO, regardless of how strong the middle America/blue collar vote was for Trump.

    Sans Palin, McCain would have been a stronger contender against BO in 2008. 2008's McCain had more stamina, respect and rigor than he does now. He's all talk, but no huff now. Spineless. The man had enough respect for BO to correct a woman at a rally who blasted BO. 2012's election didn't have the same class. 2016's election... well you get the picture.
     
  8. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    Yes. I agree. When i talk about them governing - I mean all of them - not just the current GOP majority. It's pathetic.
     
  9. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #9
    Nah, that's not the issue at all. There are quite a number of Democrats who are just fine with Gorsuch.

    The problem is Garland. The problem is that the Republican party decided that "hey, we control the Senate, so we can just deprive the Democratic president of his power to nominate Supreme Court appointees." Which they then did. It didn't matter who Obama chose; they opposed the nominee simply because Obama chose him.

    If you start a precedent where Democrats allow Republican presidents to choose nominees, and Republicans don't allow Democratic presidents to choose nominees, where does that get you? We've already reached the point where concessions and compromises are out the window. McConnell sowed these bitter seeds last year, and is reaping the harvest this year.
     
  10. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #10
    When Gorsuch was critical of Trump's plan a few weeks ago, a lot of people were taken aback. They presumed that while Gorsuch had conservative leanings, he would kowtow to Republicans. It's clear he won't and due to this rift, the Republicans didn't want to press the matter to make it look as if he should have bias. While I can't agree with Gorsuch being on the stand, even if I share a party with the guy, I can say that he's got quite a lot of surprises that will likely upset the neocons in office.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 6, 2017 ---
    This is true, but it can also come back to bite them in the ass. If I were in office, the last thing I'd presume was that if I'm voting for a conservative judge, that I expect them to follow the current party's trends.
     
  11. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #11
    Nah, I disagree. Had there been a law allowing a third term, you'd have seen all the same stories, only thrown at Obama rather than Clinton. There'd have been a scandal about how the DNC forced Bernie out of the running against Obama (for the exact same reason, too -- Berine isn't a Democrat, for goodness sakes!). There'd have been all the talk about his Red Line, about Benghazi (now placed at his feet rather than Clintons), at his "allowing" Russia to take Crimea, at all the baggage he's accrued over the last eight years. That's the beauty of being forced to leave office after eight years -- suddenly, the entire world forgets everything they didn't like about you and decides that you were a great guy.

    Plus, you'd have all those crazy conspiracy theories thrown at Obama rather than Clinton. Obama has a body double! Obama's mother shot JFK! Obama is tapping my phones! ;)

    I don't think the election would have been much different. The Red team would still have voted for Trump, the Blue team for Obama, and given that they got more votes out in the heart of the country, the Red team would have won.
     
  12. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #12
    Hard to imagine. Incumbrents get party support off the bat. They have a very high chance of being picked, regardless of who the other guy is, presuming the incumbent didn't mess up badly.

    Plenty of stuff were brought up in 2012 to justify Romney winning. At one point, it looked really bad for the Dems.

    Except he accrued plenty of bagged prior to his second term. The GOP was anti-Russia during the Crimea issue. They didn't want us involved. They also criticized BO for not doing anything. This is the playbook of the current GOP. Whine and do nothing, and whine some more when things don't work out your way. But conjure up a ****-storm when someone who's got a D next to their name does it.

    That's how it would have played out in 2012. Except it didn't. Trump in 2012 would not have flied. From 08 to 12, Obama already had enough bagged to overwhelm other candidates. A leaked video in 2012 killed Romney's chances. You think Trump would have survived the media onslaught then? Trumps rhetoric conditioned people to think it's normal. How do you explain someone who polled so badly for over a year before his ratings began to improve. Issue after issue at that.
     
  13. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #13
    Clinton was very nearly the "incumbent" choice this time. :) She'd supported the party for decades, she was a close second in the running in 2008, she'd earned her chops in Congress and as Secretary of State. Most other folks went ahead and dropped out when it became clear she was running. Bernie was upsetting a lot of apple carts when he threw his hat into the ring; I don't see him making a different choice going up against Obama rather than Clinton, nor do I really see much of a different result.

    Yup! Obama is a great man, and a great politician, but he's not perfect. :) And honestly, I like Romney; I think he'd have made a fine president himself. The 2012 election gave us two decent choices, in my opinion.

    He might not have filed; but if he had, I suspect he'd have done quite well. The people who voted for Trump last year weren't interested in either Romney or Obama in 2012; those two candidates were all about staying the course, where Trump got the folks who were more interested in "burning the whole house down".

    The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus folks have been around for quite some time now, but neither party has been addressing their issues at all. Trump was the first presidential nominee who seemed to appeal directly to their desires, and the results speak for themselves. I think he'd have gone gangbusters in 2012, just as he did last year; populism works!
     
  14. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #14
    That's not how it works. There was no incumbent this time (thanks for the correction!). And flied and not filed. Trump's behavior would have cost him in 2012. Trump's behavior reflected in the polls for over a year before he began gaining traction and thus improve. That more than a year's time. Condition the people long enough and they'll believe it. Tea Party and Freedom Caucus are off-shoots of the Moral Majority that changed the face of the GOP in the 1970s, because earlier attempts didn't work out. They managed to get Reagan in bed with the church.
     
  15. SusanK macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #15

    I voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. I've never voted for a Clinton. I vote in Ohio. There is Dem support in this state but not for Clinton.
     
  16. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #16
    I voted for both Clinton and for Obama. But, I have to say, there is no significant Dem support in the section of Ohio where I live; this is a deep-red section of the state. I'm an outlier here. :(
     
  17. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    I thought the Freedom Caucus was the Tea party now...
     
  18. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #18
    Oh! I didn't even notice the spelling; I was using quotes to say that Clinton was "effectively" the incumbent. :) She'd paid her dues in full, she had the chops for the job, so it was her turn at the top of the party.

    Um, really? That's not how I remember it. I remember more than a dozen different candidates all trying wade in the shallow side of the pool (keeping as many conventional Republicans on side as possible), while only dipping their toes into the deep end (the "Tea Party" and such). Trump went at it from the other side. There were more conventional votes to be had, but all the unconventional ones stuck with Trump. And, therefore, Trump got a solid block of votes in every primary, whereas all the rest were diluted between plenty of other candidates.

    After a while, with Trump getting few votes each time but everyone else getting even fewer, Trump had racked up a significant amount of wins; and it basically became impossible to beat him.
     
  19. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #19
    Nah. He started light at first. Got some flack, let off and then began again. If his "grab them by the ****" video leaked way earlier, it would have affected him hard from the get go. Trump's made it possible to now speak your mind without repercussion... or has he? We're just about 100 days into this mess and who knows how the rest will turn out provided the entire administration doesn't go down. Expect the investigations to remain open for a year or two.
     
  20. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #20
    Technically, the Freedom Caucus is a group of Representatives in the House of Congress, and the Tea Party is an ultra-conservative political movement. So, pretty much the same politics, but different bodies of people. :)
     
  21. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
  22. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #22
    He started light at first? He said this when he threw his hat into the ring:

    "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

    This is a classic "dog whistle" (if not an outright claxon) to the far-right. To people who believe immigrants are evil. To people who think brown skin is evil. He took this quote right out of a book Ann Coulter had just published, so he knew exactly the audience he was aiming for.

    Trump started right where he ended -- trying to get the hard-right onto his side. And it worked!
     
  23. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #23
    Compared to his later rhetoric, it's light.
     
  24. SusanK macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #24
    This is a blue county. The Dem usually must carry this county by a large margin to offset downstate GOP votes.

    Dem support usually comes easy but the 2016 election was a difficult one.
     
  25. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #25
    The important thing wasn't Scalia's identification as a conservative. He was just a bad person. Dying doesn't change that, although I'm mainly glad that he's no longer on the Supreme Court.

    Consider one of his opinions, for which he rightfully received a lot of criticism. At the time, the use of DNA evidence was becoming feasible for a greater number of cases. Judges always seem to have a terrible understanding of statistics for some reason.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC1.html

     

Share This Page