POTUS Donald Trump

[Mike Sixel]

****. ****. ****.

 

Let me be more clear.

 

****. ****. ****.

 

and many of you thought I was exaggerating when I said this presidency would be really, really, really bad....

[jimmer]

****. ****. ****.

 

Let me be more clear.

 

****. ****. ****.

 

and many of you thought I was exaggerating when I said this presidency would be really, really, really bad....

I was always on the 'we are so fraken boned camp'.

[gunnarthor]

 

****. ****. ****.

 

Let me be more clear.

 

****. ****. ****.

 

and many of you thought I was exaggerating when I said this presidency would be really, really, really bad....

Honestly, I knew it would be bad but I'm starting to think that this is the end of America as a true republic. I really don't think my kids will grow up with the same freedoms I had.

(I mean, it won't matter since they'll be upper class white kids but still ...).

[jimmer]

We are pretty much in a dictatorship at this point. And we have a guy who acts just like a dictator in the oval office.

 

Worst president of all time? That's how it'll probably end up if it isn't there already.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Kennedy was no moderate. He sided with the monied and powerful and kicked the little guy nearly every time. Because he tossed the occasional bread crumb to the left, he was given the reputation as thoughtful and centrist swing vote. My opinion, of course. The world is not a better place because of him. Like I said, good f***ing riddance.

[Mr. Brooks]

Kennedy was no moderate. He sided with the monied and powerful and kicked the little guy nearly every time. Because he tossed the occasional bread crumb to the left, he was given the reputation as thoughtful and centrist swing vote. My opinion, of course. The world is not a better place because of him. Like I said, good f***ing riddance.

Except he will be replaced by someone who will ALWAYS vote with the right, and someone young enough to do so for the next 30 years.

 

And the "few breadcrumbs" he threw to the left were pretty damn significant for the little guy, like Obamacare and gay marriage.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Kennedy was no moderate. He sided with the monied and powerful and kicked the little guy nearly every time. Because he tossed the occasional bread crumb to the left, he was given the reputation as thoughtful and centrist swing vote. My opinion, of course. The world is not a better place because of him. Like I said, good f***ing riddance.

 

so true, much better to have a conservative there, taking away all our rights as individuals (other than gun rights).......I think you are missing the forest for the trees here....

[PseudoSABR]

He did author Citizens United, which in many ways, is traceable to Trump's eventual election.

[Badsmerf]

The democrats better find a way to take control of the Senate to limit the damage. If they control it, Trump will be pushed into nominating a moderate. Stay positive... which leads me into the next paragraph.

 

This is far worse a presidency than I was expecting.

[Mr. Brooks]

The democrats better find a way to take control of the Senate to limit the damage. If they control it, Trump will be pushed into nominating a moderate. Stay positive... which leads me into the next paragraph.

 

This is far worse a presidency than I was expecting.

They will confirm a replacement before the midterms.

[Mike Sixel]

 

They will confirm a replacement before the midterms.

 

agreed.

 

dems need to filibuster the **** out of it somehow

[Mr. Brooks]

agreed.

 

dems need to filibuster the **** out of it somehow

They can't. Republicans changed the Senate rules for confirmation to get Gorsuch confirmed. Filibuster is no longer an option.

[Mike Sixel]

 

They can't. Republicans changed the Senate rules for confirmation to get Gorsuch confirmed. Filibuster is no longer an option.

 

sigh. thanks for cheering me up!

[PseudoSABR]

Flake is our only hope.  He promised over the weekend to block any judicial nominee in committee if Trump/McConnell refuses to allow a vote on the tariffs.   Perhaps Collins or others wouldn't be thrilled with a far-right Supreme Court, as I believe she may be pro-choice.

[Mr. Brooks]

Flake is our only hope. He promised over the weekend to block any judicial nominee in committee if Trump/McConnell refuses to allow a vote on the tariffs. Perhaps Collins or others wouldn't be thrilled with a far-right Supreme Court, as I believe she may be pro-choice.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

From a Huffington Post article:

 

 

WASHINGTON ― The Senate voted Tuesday to confirm one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, Kyle Duncan, a lawyer who built his career on fighting abortion rights, LGBTQ rights and voting rights.

 

Every Republican voted to confirm Duncan, 45, to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. One Democrat voted for him, Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.).

 

There’s nothing particularly surprising about Republicans lining up behind a Republican president’s court pick. In fact, not a single GOP senator has voted against any of Trump’s judicial nominees, aside from one no vote cast by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

 

But what’s puzzling is that Republican senators who identify as pro-choice or pro-LGBTQ rights keep voting to confirm lifetime judges poised to chip away at those rights ― and the interest groups that praise these senators for their views seem to be ignoring their contrary votes on judges, whose decisions will affect generations of people.

 

Take Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Both are pro-choice; Murkowski is a member of several GOP organizations that support abortion rights, including the Republican Majority for Choice, and Collins just won a big award from Planned Parenthood.

 

“Throughout my service in the Senate, I have been a strong proponent of measures to promote and protect women’s health and expand all Americans’ access to quality health care,” Collins said in November when she received her award.

 

And yet, both just voted to confirm Duncan, who led the legal fight against the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. He also wrote a brief in opposition to a Washington state law that required pharmacies to stock birth control, and co-authored a brief supporting Texas’ extreme restrictions on abortion that the U.S. Supreme Court later struck down as unconstitutional.

 

They voted in July to confirm 53-year-old John Bush as a U.S. circuit judge. He had compared abortion to slavery and referred to them as the “two greatest tragedies in our country.”

 

They voted in October to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, then 45, to the 7th Circuit. She had suggested Roe v. Wade was an “erroneous decision” and called the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit “an assault on religious liberty.”

 

They voted in August to confirm Kevin Newsom, then 44, to the 11th Circuit. He had equated the rationale of Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 Supreme Court decision upholding slavery.

 

They voted in December to confirm Leonard Steven Grasz, 56, as a U.S. circuit judge. He had compared the “personhood” of fetuses to the civil rights of Native Americans and African-Americans. He’d also argued that lower courts should be able to overrule Supreme Court decisions on abortion rights because “abortion jurisprudence is, to a significant extent, a word game.”

[Squirrel]

 

agreed.

 

dems need to filibuster the **** out of it somehow

But it won't matter. The Dems aren't retaking the Senate and it's the Senate that votes on this.

[gunnarthor]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/anthony-kennedy-retires-supreme-court/h_e3390175b3b5176f73c98623683230ab

 

Sen Feinstein's statement:  "We’re now four months away from an election to determine the party that will control the Senate. There should be no consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until the American people have a chance to weigh in."

[D. Hocking]

 

Flake is our only hope.  He promised over the weekend to block any judicial nominee in committee if Trump/McConnell refuses to allow a vote on the tariffs.   Perhaps Collins or others wouldn't be thrilled with a far-right Supreme Court, as I believe she may be pro-choice.

 

Flake more often follows up his tough talk with falling in and voting the party line.

 

Has Collins shown any independence since she folded for the Tax vote due to some vague promises she got regarding health care which were soon shown to be illusory?  

 

While I do think whoever Trump chooses will be worse than Kennedy, he did spend the last couple of weeks being the fifth vote on some decisions that would make Scalia smile from heaven (or elsewhere).  He also announced his retirement to make sure Trump has time to get a replacement before in the midterms.

[TheLeviathan]

Dems change the rules in 2013 from 60 to 51 and we are all paying for it.  They opened up the door with good intentions but now the Republicans have bull-dozed it down to inject their minions into the Court.

 

This polarized means of governing is only leading to more and more anti-republic tactics.  We may really be screwed, as much as I want to resist the doom and gloom.

[gunnarthor]

 

Dems change the rules in 2013 from 60 to 51 and we are all paying for it.  They opened up the door with good intentions but now the Republicans have bull-dozed it down to inject their minions into the Court.

 

This polarized means of governing is only leading to more and more anti-republic tactics.  We may really be screwed, as much as I want to resist the doom and gloom.

True but they got rid of the filibuster b/c the GOP wouldn't let Obama's nominees get through so I understand why they did it. And even if they hadn't, there's no way the GOP wouldn't have gotten rid of the filibuster to get Gorsuch confirmed.

[TheLeviathan]

 

True but they got rid of the filibuster b/c the GOP wouldn't let Obama's nominees get through so I understand why they did it. And even if they hadn't, there's no way the GOP wouldn't have gotten rid of the filibuster to get Gorsuch confirmed.

 

I agree, but this has been an escalating issue.  Both parties have taken to overcoming opposition by changing the rules or finding shortcuts rather than working with each.  And when you make it ok to change the rules, don't be surprised when the ******* in the room takes the most advantage of it.

 

That is as much a danger to our Republic as anything.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

so true, much better to have a conservative there, taking away all our rights as individuals (other than gun rights).......I think you are missing the forest for the trees here....

Maybe so. This is my gut reaction and maybe opinions will change. But I think there's some Stockholm syndrome happening on the left and I want no part of that.

[PseudoSABR]

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/6/20/17480304/how-democrats-can-shut-down-senate

 

Possible means on stonewalling the Kennedy replacement?

[Mr. Brooks]

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/6/20/17480304/how-democrats-can-shut-down-senate

 

Possible means on stonewalling the Kennedy replacement?

Is that what we want to turn our Senate into though?

I certainly don't, not even if it benefits my beliefs.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Is that what we want to turn our Senate into though?
I certainly don't, not even if it benefits my beliefs.

If you allow one party to shutdown the government or procedurally manipulate the normal conduct of business, but don't want your party to do the same, you may as well concede your beliefs. 

 

I agree, it's ugly; but the sanctity of the Senate as an institution is long since dead; and the high road is the path to subjugation not righteousness.

[TheLeviathan]

Win elections, not erode political structures. Escalation of this conduct harms us all sooner or later.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Win elections, not erode political structures. Escalation of this conduct harms us all sooner or later.

But the mechanism of the elections are harmed by this very conduct.  The erosion of the Voting Rights act, gerrymandering etc. all implicate the capacity to win elections.  Throwing the court further right for decades will greatly impact the ability of the non-right to get elected.

[TheLeviathan]

But the mechanism of the elections are harmed by this very conduct. The erosion of the Voting Rights act, gerrymandering etc. all implicate the capacity to win elections. Throwing the court further right for decades will greatly impact the ability of the non-right to get elected.

Losing local elections is what caused most of the other issues too.

 

To borrow some cold war terminology, the nuclear option only results in MAD. I get the stakes are high but don't pretend that suggestion is anything other than an affront to our Republic. That's just what it is.

[Mike Sixel]

Divide the nation. seriously.

[Mr. Brooks]

If you allow one party to shutdown the government or procedurally manipulate the normal conduct of business, but don't want your party to do the same, you may as well concede your beliefs.

 

I agree, it's ugly; but the sanctity of the Senate as an institution is long since dead; and the high road is the path to subjugation not righteousness.

For the record I'm an Independent, so I don't have a party. Though I certainly lean left both in my beliefs and in my opinion of the state of the two parties at this time.

 

While I agree that the left often plays too nice, and needs to fight fire with fire more often, I'm just not sure I'm ok going that far. There are political manipulations, and then there is just plain making a mockery of the government.

 

And while I'll certainly concede that the right has already crossed the line into Mockeryville, I'm not sure we can recover if both sides do.