1. Get fucked. 2. Credit where it's due, arguing that Democrats shouldn't use every possible legal option at their disposal because it might embolden their opponents to do the same is some pretty ballsy gaslighting, considering how the Republicans have already been doing exactly that since at least 2010.
It's worked well enough for the GOP, only replace "something" with "shit", and it only stuck because you and those like you will lap it up as long as someone screams "OMG socialism!!!" loud enough. What IS this socialist agenda you fear so much? Enumerate it. I'm willing to bet it's hardly the existential horror you proclaim. I definitely doubt it would let 200,000 people die because the economy couldn't take a love-tap.
I don’t think it’s wise to impeach a president several times. It makes your side look weak, it sets a dangerous precedent and would be generally bad for the country as a whole. They could use other means to hold him accountable that, you know, wouldn’t tear the country apparat. Nancy Pelosi is certainly welcome to try and impeach him again, but I don’t think it work out in her favor.
Do you hold the same to be true for all repeat offenders? Are you proposing a special "three strikes and you're safe" law for elected officials? Name them. I'll wait.
They withheld one supreme court nomination from Obama, and countless other nominations at lower levels. They're absolutely trying to pack the courts.
Depends on what you mean by "pack". No they didn't try to add more justices, but they did everything they could to ensure that there would be more justices following a specified ideology than any other. Sounds like a difference without a distinction. But keep on dancing...
And how would you have felt 4 years ago? If Democrats were majority in the Senate and Obama tried to ram through supreme court justice? Then you would have been all in favor of Republicans using whatever "political weapons" at their disposal? Also, there is plenty to impeach trump. Just because the Republican controlled Senate has zero morals does not mean it's a "political weapon".
Elections, withholding revenue for something the president wants, override vetoes just to name a few. Congress has given up a lot of its power over the presidency, all they have to is exercise it, but they don’t.
I think the Republicans should push hard to nominate a justice right before the election. It will be a winning strategy.
Thinking some about it, I don't know why Republicans would push so hard to do it before the election. They can always do it in a lame duck session; they obviously have no qualms about shitting on the floor on their way out. It can't help them in any election-related cases; they've already got a 5-3 majority. It can only incense Dem-leaning voters and increase turnout in the attempt, let alone the success. And if they succeed, it could seriously dampen Republican turnout. What do they need Trump for anymore, with a 6-3 majority? On the other hand, maybe that's the point. Getting back to a less thoroughly embarrassing obstructionism would probably suit McConnell fine.
The Republicans of course! Think of all the undecided voters that would decide for them. They should totally do it full bore.
Which is the exact governing model of Trumpublicanism - Crime and corruption so bold, so frequent, so overwhelming, that the typical gaurdrails of the system simply cannot respond in kind. "Flood the zone with shit" in the immortal words of Steve Bannon
Bullshit. Mitch holding open 100+ seats in the last Congress under Obama was an express play to allow the (hopefully) Republican successor to pack the courts, and that's exactly what happened. Court packing is not JUST adding seats if you can entirely manipulate the seats which already exists. Plus you can tell the ignorant masses that it's all business as usual and get away with more.
Everyone makes mistakes hiring people. Successful people are good at recognizing when to fire people. When you've run a big organization you take a lot on faith, and learn that resumes are bullshit, and word of mouth rep is often very flawed. For every Bolton or Omorosa hired we've been blessed (so far) with an Omorosa or Bolton fired. Acting on new information is called rational. Criticize the initial judgment, great, but don't be blind and fail to recognize the final result.
RBG herself said that a nomination should go forward in an election year. I think we should honor her wishes.
Scalia died in February 2016. That's a teensy bit different than seven weeks before the election (when early voting has already started). It's not "the will of the people" this time.
I have to say that the canonisation of RBG by elements on the "left" - when one looks at her actual history, which was very mixed - leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And several of the arguments being used by both sides are completely bogus. No, the fact that it was her "dying wish" not to be replaced until after the election doesn't matter. People don't get to dictate policy from beyond the grave. Yes, Republican are utterly hypocritical for reversing their arguments from four years ago. The reality is that this turns on a question of power and nothing else. It appears that whatever their gyrations, Republicans understand that much better than their opponents.
