The Kavanaugh saga

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 90 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Aug 23, 2019 5:31 PM
posted by O-Trap

As for a meltdown, not yet.  If she passes near (or after) the election, look for Democrats to try to do the same thing Republicans did that ultimately resulted in Gorsuch's appointment.

They'll make the Repubs look really hypocritical (which that accusation is like a gnat to politicians), but the Dems can't stop it without controlling the Senate.

What it would do is give the Dems justification for adding seats to the SCOTUS.   But they're probably prepared to keep RBG on life support for 5 more years, if need be.

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Aug 23, 2019 8:32 PM
posted by gut

They'll make the Repubs look really hypocritical (which that accusation is like a gnat to politicians), but the Dems can't stop it without controlling the Senate.

What it would do is give the Dems justification for adding seats to the SCOTUS.   But they're probably prepared to keep RBG on life support for 5 more years, if need be.

The funny part about how that will play out is that both sides will be hypocritical then.

It's one of the things I love watching about politics.  It's like reality TV, but better.

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 90 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Aug 23, 2019 8:42 PM
posted by O-Trap

The funny part about how that will play out is that both sides will be hypocritical then.

It's one of the things I love watching about politics.  It's like reality TV, but better.

I really don't know anymore what politicians actually believe/plan vs. what they just throw out as chum for the useful idiots.

But adding seats to the SCOTUS is an awful, awful idea.  It's very troubling that Dems are trying to press their slight edge in popular support into rigging the game so they don't have to compromise.  That's a progressive ideology - true liberals would be mortified over the thought of the majority doing an end around state rights and minority interests.

And I laugh at people who rail against big money and big corporations influencing politics....but, ummmm, where do you think all those trillions for free shit are going?  I'm sure there's no big money corporate interest behind the Green New Deal.  Nope, pure as the driven snow.

CenterBHSFan 333 - I'm only half evil
7,259 posts 44 reps Joined Nov 2009
Sat, Aug 24, 2019 12:42 PM
posted by O-Trap

Because of RBG's new cancer news?  Hasn't she beat cancer like a dozen times now?  Gotta give her credit for her persistence.

 

Yeah she's a tough old bird!

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 8 reps Joined Jul 2013
Sat, Aug 24, 2019 9:41 PM

This time its pancreatic......not good

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Aug 26, 2019 12:00 PM
posted by gut

They'll make the Repubs look really hypocritical (which that accusation is like a gnat to politicians), but the Dems can't stop it without controlling the Senate.

What it would do is give the Dems justification for adding seats to the SCOTUS.   But they're probably prepared to keep RBG on life support for 5 more years, if need be.

 

 

Well, we knew for a fact we were getting a new president in ’16; we do not know about ’20 ………deferring to the incumbent makes sense. 

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Aug 26, 2019 1:52 PM
posted by QuakerOats

Well, we knew for a fact we were getting a new president in ’16; we do not know about ’20 ………deferring to the incumbent makes sense. 

If it's part of the duties of office, and the person is still in office, then it's equally reasonable to not defer if you believe you have a good candidate.  There's no logical framework for deferring.  Neither is there anything in writing to defend it.

As such, I guess I'd like to hear why you think it "makes sense" just because there will be someone else in office.  Connect those dots, if you would.

majorspark Senior Member
5,459 posts 28 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Aug 26, 2019 2:10 PM

The democrats will be employing a taxidermist soon.

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 90 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Aug 26, 2019 3:31 PM
posted by O-Trap

If it's part of the duties of office, and the person is still in office, then it's equally reasonable to not defer if you believe you have a good candidate.  There's no logical framework for deferring.  Neither is there anything in writing to defend it.

There's a reason the Senate has to confirm.  Now McConnell broke with tradition, but I don't really have a problem with what he did.  That said, I'm not sure where you draw the line.  1 year?  3 years before an election?  Or as long as you have until losing control of the Senate?

Plus, it's not like Obama put up an uber liberal.  Garland seemed like a pretty good moderate.

like_that 1st Team All-PWN
29,228 posts 306 reps Joined Apr 2010
Mon, Aug 26, 2019 3:39 PM
posted by Spock

This time its pancreatic......not good

I thought that is what she always had.   It's pretty amazing she has been able to fight it for so long.  She is one tough SOB.

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 8 reps Joined Jul 2013
Mon, Aug 26, 2019 6:12 PM
posted by like_that

I thought that is what she always had.   It's pretty amazing she has been able to fight it for so long.  She is one tough SOB.

My guess is 6 months with this diagnoses.  

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 90 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Aug 26, 2019 6:32 PM
posted by Spock

My guess is 6 months with this diagnoses.  

That they successfully treated it and she's cancer free?

Login

Register

Already have an account? Login