Politics And Current Events

[tifosi77]

Seeing a lot of rage on Twitter directed at RBG. Namely, why she didn't just retire at age 80 around the time Obama's second term started.

The question itself is valid, I suppose. According to NPR, she wanted to match or surpass John Paul Stevens' record of serving until 90.

This is something that I've said many times over the last several years in quiet hours to Mrs Tif, which dovetails with your comments about her cult of personality. She was quite fond of her persona, and enjoyed that public profile, and I think it was to her ultimate detriment. Because she didn't want to put that to an end, she prolonged her tenure beyond the point at which she could've expected a replacement by anything close to a similar-minded jurist. Just how it appeared to me as an observer.

I should also note that Mrs Tif has a t-shirt with caricatures all of the past and present lady SCOTUS justices with the phrase "The Supremes" underneath that she wears to marches and such.

[tifosi77]

Historically the reason for lifetime appointments was so that justices wouldn't have to run for election and that it would make them less likely to be liable to corruption.

There was also an understanding that they wouldn't serve for so long until they were medically incapacitated.

I don't think limiting their service to 25 years given the rise in life expectancy is out of the realm of rational argument.

I don't disagree with you, just noting that the logic of this framework breaks down in the difference between an appointment and an elected office. If a judge or justice is appointed, by definition they don't have to worry about running/campaigning for the office. So the rationale for lifetime appointment sort of doesn't apply. It's a self-defeating argument.

25 years in office or 80 years of age, whichever comes first. You'd know ahead of time which judges/justices were up for replacement at the time of an election; Scalia would've known he was up for replacement before the term that followed his death commenced, RBG would've been out at the start of Obama's second term, etc.

[Troy Loney]

On a completely different note, I was thinking about the Administration's foreign policy successes, and wondering how much they are actually going to tout them between now and November or focus more on domestic issues.

When Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, how many countless foreign policy experts warned that war was imminent? The way that the Administration has started to achieve the dual goal of isolating Iran while normalizing Israeli relations with their neighbors has been nothing short of a major foreign policy achievement.

I know people are loathe to give his Administration credit for anything, but they have accomplished more in that region than their predecessors did in eight years. Still a long way to go of course, but major steps in the right direction. For all the bluster about Trump's finger being on the nuclear button, he has proven to be a peacemaker over there.

Nothing happens overnight. The normalizing of relations between israel and other countries is just formalizing something that was already a happening. Trump and kush are getting absolutely worked over by Middle East autocrats. The situation remains stable as long as those leaders can maintain their rule. These countries are forming a coalition against Iran and getting the us to unequivocally back them up. The extension of the war in yemen is gross and highlights the problem with Saudi Arabia. This isn’t new as Obama allowed their regional leadership to create situations like that.

[Freddy Rumsen]

We were told repeatedly by the experts that Trump killing Sulemani and/or the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem would result in WWIII.

They've been a net positive in the region, as has sidelining the Palestinians.

Where did you read the normalization of relations between Israel and the Gulf States was happening anyway? Because Netanyahu didn't act like that, neither did the Emirati.

The lulz worthy video of Lurch with his glasses on his nose is emblematic of how the Obama Sec of State people were awful.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Here are Trump's top 3.

[faftorial]

Look for the end of the filibuster if the Dems take over in November and McConnell gets this confirmation through.

Do you mean the filibuster in general? Or specific to judicial nominations? Because if you're talking the latter, that was done away with a couple years ago.

In general.

[Troy Loney]

We were told repeatedly by the experts that Trump killing Sulemani and/or the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem would result in WWIII.

They've been a net positive in the region, as has sidelining the Palestinians.

Where did you read the normalization of relations between Israel and the Gulf States was happening anyway? Because Netanyahu didn't act like that, neither did the Emirati.

The lulz worthy video of Lurch with his glasses on his nose is emblematic of how the Obama Sec of State people were awful.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/excl ... iddle-east

[Troy Loney]

And I don’t mean to be arguing that this is some sort of disaster, just that this isn’t some foreign policy slam dunk that is going to boost trumps credentials.

This sort of coalition building could create conditions for continuing escalations of conflict in the region.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Everybody be flip-flopping.

[Freddy Rumsen]

That is not good (the intercept is good).

[count2infinity]

[Freddy Rumsen]

[tifosi77]

Not sure what authority McConnell has in the matter, but the AZ Senate special election just got lot more interesting.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Yep. He gets seated November 30th so that changes things for the lame duck.

[MWB]

There’s no good answer for an arbitrary cutoff point of when a president should be able to nominate a justice. If you put it to the extreme (a day before leaving office or a day before losing an election), it seems a little silly for an exiting president to nominate. Right now we’re on the edge of that, as the process averages 2-3 months to complete from nomination to appointment. The fly in the ointment is obviously 2016, where refusing to appoint for eight months seems quite unreasonable. So what’s the “right” thing to do?

I feel like the obvious answer is their last day in office. It seems equally silly to say "well he's almost gone, so why listen to him?". It's that position's job to nominate so why limit it? If it doesn't get through, then so be it. I thought it was a dumb argument to wait the last time. You're right, any date is arbitrary. The absolute end makes as much sense to me then any other date.

Yeah, that does make sense. The problem would be if you have someone who has done an abysmal job and it’s known he’s losing the election.... but that could be taken care of through the process.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Zero percent of this is surprising.

[MWB]

Everybody be flip-flopping.

Of course they are. They would be doing their constituents a complete disservice not to. Obama had the nomination taken from him. Now isn’t the time to sit back and say, “listen, we know you’re better at politics than us, so we’re just gonna take the L.”

[Troy Loney]

87% of the people that read this article hate themselves.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Zero percent of this is surprising.

People wrap themselves in what they agree with. Listening to opposing viewpoints and trying to understand the other side isn’t en vogue anymore

Reddit is a good example of this. Go to r/politics and post something pro-conservative and you’re going to get pooped on. Go to a conservative sub and post something pro-liberal and the same thing will happen

I’m not sure how we got here; I guess maybe the internet

[Shyster]

Everybody be flip-flopping.

Yup. President Obama in 2016 was still calling for a vote on Garland in October.



If there could have been an October vote in 2016, there can be an October vote in 2020.

[AuthorTony]

If there could have been an October vote in 2016, there can be an October vote in 2020.

But there wasn't.

[faftorial]

People wrap themselves in what they agree with. Listening to opposing viewpoints and trying to understand the other side isn’t en vogue anymore

I'm a Hannity viewer but mostly for the laughs.

[Troy Loney]

Zero percent of this is surprising.

People wrap themselves in what they agree with. Listening to opposing viewpoints and trying to understand the other side isn’t en vogue anymore

Reddit is a good example of this. Go to r/politics and post something pro-conservative and you’re going to get pooped on. Go to a conservative sub and post something pro-liberal and the same thing will happen

I’m not sure how we got here; I guess maybe the internet

It’s a self-sustaining ecosystem.

I can’t speak to how the conservative sectors operate, but from what I can tell. The liberal, Chris Hayes types, who represent the meritocratic, nerdzo, Liz Warren wing act appalled whenever conservatives say ridiculous ****. And these types, who can’t shake their love for the idea of honorable politicians, say ridiculous things and get dunked on. Leftists dunk on both sides of this, but whose mentality equates to “both sides are terrible” and have no functioning theory for how to run the country.

[MWB]

If there could have been an October vote in 2016, there can be an October vote in 2020.

But there wasn't.

Yeah, I mean, that’s kind of the whole argument, lol.

[King Colby]

Both sides showing how big of dadholes they are.

The president's job is to nominate a justice when a seat is open. There shouldn't be any other considerations. And there had damn well better be a good reason for a senator to vote against it.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical. This **** show, and the one in 2016, and the Cavanaugh one, is a true testament to how sad things are.