I understand where you're coming from, and I share fully your analysis of the Republicans (with a few rare exceptions, who have no real influence in the party and are considered "RINO's" by Trump's bootlickers). But I think the long-term results of the Democrats playing the game the same way would be worse than trying to at least stay within hailing distance of "fair play". To be sure, I have no illusions about the Democrats. For the most part, they are more interested in power than in what's actually "good for the American people", and are not above dirty tricks themselves. But if they stoop to the level of the Republicans, the only choices America will have are between two equally corrupt parties that will literally do anything it takes to stay in power. We aren't far from that now, but I can't encourage the Democrats to go even further in that direction. I can even hope (naive of me, I know...) that some of them will try to clean up the game a bit, having seen how corrupt and power-hungry the Republicans are and what it leads to. Joe Biden, for all his faults, is at least a more or less nice person. I don't want to see him become Donald Trump with a "D" by his name, or a mere puppet of a thoroughly corrupt party in the same mold as the Republicans.
This is why I say the dems are missing the obvious signs the establishment is all about corruption and a wealth and power grab. They can get stuff passed when they want to, and that stuff is often money for businesses that contribute to their PACs. People are mad at me for not supporting Biden, but I am just putting him where he belongs with the corrupt problem facing america. Low information voters do not get the nuance or the problems with biden, so there has to be a constant fight against him. If you really want to know, at least there is a fight. That is a respect for the idea they can change. I do not even bother with fighting the republicans like @The Ghost of Crazy Horse or @T.R because I have no respect for them. I fight with Biden voters because they might actually pay attention to things and lean a bit. I really do not expect much, but I see you need to kick full force or else they start thinking trump is OK.
The penalty was payable through your federal income tax return, therefore it was a tax. Ask any accountant if they have ever heard the term tax penalty. Anyone else looking forward to having this Karen on the Supreme Court for the next 40 years?
The thought just occurred to me... The only reason many Republicans agreed to support Trump was that he agreed to nominate SCOTUS Justices from a list generated by The Federalist Society... and he's done that... and Republicans continued to support him. After RBG's replacement is confirmed, he will deliver an insurmountable conservative majority on the supreme court. That's something even Reagan was unable to do and there's little to no chance that Biden will be able to undo it in one term. So after this judge is nominated and confirmed, what do they need Trump for? Now hear me out on this.... We could be rid of this asshole. Is it really worth it to look the other way when Trump commits his daily/weekly scandals? Is it OK to see the CDC, once a shining beacon to the world when it comes to public health in a state of shame and doubt? We could restore some sense of normality, address the pandemic with real data... maybe even get back to an era of compromise as unlikely as it seems.
Great, except the damage will be done if the SCOTUS appointment goes through. Bye bye Roe v. Wade. Bye bye ACA. Bye bye 40 years of (very slow) progress.
Wishful thinking, my dear Alpha.... Getting a conservative majority was just one of the many attractions that Trump held for conservatives. "Telling it like it is," owning the libs, draining the swamp, undoing anything Obama did, keeping immigrants out are some of the many things that attracted his base. There is and always will be more work to do on all these fronts. Hell, even if someone took out Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor in a Pelican Brief-like purge and Trump got to replace all of them, there are still umpteen district and appellate court judges that could use his knack for appointing people./sarcasm The possible success of getting a justice on the Court who will finally help overturn Roe and affirmative action, and enshrine conservative takes about criminal law/procedure and constitutional rights will cause his base to think that he has the ability to do the other things on his agenda, even though he realistically does not. For his base, it isn't even looking the other way when we talk about 200k dead from coronavirus, or whichever of his many policy failures you might want to point to. Those things just don't exist.
I know... But if I'm being honest, we lost that battle in 2016. Hell, they gutted the 1964 Voting Rights Act and still 13% of black men voted for Trump. 28,000 people in Detroit voted and left the vote for POTUS blank. (No one points to Obama's failure to fix Flint, MI water but I have a feeling that this combined w Hillary's negligence to address it is the reason). #ElectionsHaveConsequences At this point, there's nothing a Democrat can do to prevent a SCOTUS appointment before inauguration day. All we can do is to continue to fight to pick up the pieces after this is done. I blame the Bernie Bots and Third Party Voters. They had a chance to prevent this and they chose not to.
A great history teacher I once had used to say the Supreme Court was the whole enchilada. I still agree with that assessment. He was also good at reminding us that those on the right are perfectly fine with “legislating from the bench” if it suits their political leanings. It’s incredible how giddy the right wingers are today. They just know Roe v. Wade is going in the trash bin and they can’t control themselves. The only caveat is that it’s the men who seem to be happier about it than the women.
Not to get off in the weeds with this dead horse, but maybe if the President himself hadn't consistently lied about that fact there wouldn't have been so much blowback?
Murkowski isn't ruling anything out Careful now. You're not suppose to actually think for yourself anymore. These days it's all team sports. You're either red or blue. No middle ground allowed.
That's exactly the opposite of what Bork said. He said, "women and blacks who know my record need not fear me". This is coupled with other comments of his like, "In eight cases involving substantive issues I voted for the claim of the minority or the woman, seven times out of eight. In labor cases I have a lot of votes for labor unions and employees, so that nothing that has happened in the past five and a half years, it seems to me, to provide any basis for opposition now."
I've been googling for 10 minutes. Please provide a link - both of you - to any source with that quote.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/19/...-forth-spirited-defense-of-his-integrity.html Unfortunately that MIGHT be behind a paywall if you have already used up your limited number of free NYT articles.
Another article from NYT, might NOT be behind a paywall. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/19/us/the-bork-hearings-bork-on-fears-look-at-my-record.html
Just googled it and @GhostEcho is correct. Forgive me, I was young at the time... but in my defense, read this 1987 NYT article regarding Bork's record. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/19/us/the-bork-hearings-bork-on-fears-look-at-my-record.html Wikipedia: Bork opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying that the provisions within the Act which prohibited racial discrimination by public accommodations were based on a principle of "unsurpassed ugliness"
Another NYT article regarding Bork and abortion rights: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/08/us/abortion-bork-and-the-88-campaign.html Judge Bork's nomination, however, raises the prospect of sudden changes in the nation's law on the subject. He has made clear that he believes the Supreme Court erred in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision striking down state laws against abortion. May Spur Rights Movement
Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily a Bork fan (he held to a lot weird positions that I don't like). My criticism was in response to that one claim only.
I saw that article, and yes, it is behind a "wall" because I refuse to sign up for something even if it's free just so I can read the news. But, that is the only source I've found. Not even on NPR or cSpan. And, from what I can see of the quote, it someone commenting on something he said a day later. So, I'll ask again, is there any source showing what he said and why?
Well, it was an opponent quoting him during his confirmation hearing. So if even his opponent said that he said "women and blacks who know my record need not fear me", I can assume safely that he DIDN'T say "women and blacks who know my record fear me".
I read Bork's book Slouching Towards Gomorrah 25 years ago and, though I didn't agree with him on several points--his views on censorship come readily to mind--I found his arguments very, very compelling.
I find the entire concept of "original intent" complete sophistry. It just shows that very intelligent,well-educated people are just as susceptible to the lure of truthiness as the idiots among us.
This is why she needs to be on the court, to shut Roberts down the next time he tries to pull something like that.
Why? Words have meaning, and we write them down so that we can communicate them to others. If the words have straightforward meaning, they should be interpreted straightforwardly. If they have more complexity, then looking at original intent helps determine their meaning. A priority must be given to a straightforward reading and original intent, otherwise the Constitution could just be: I'm not sure it's any more intelligent to claim absurdities like "regulate interstate commerce" means "compel intrastate commerce", or that "the right of the people" really is means "power of the state."
"Truthiness" - there's a word I haven't heard in a while. Maybe because there isn't even a pretense to truth coming from the WH.
If everybody agreed on what everything in the Constitution meant, we wouldn't need a court system to interpret the laws. The meaning and implications of the wording of the Constitution have been debated since before it was adopted; witness The Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers. You might as well believe in Biblical Inerrancy and a flat earth.
I didn't argue against judicial interpretation. I argue that some forms of interpretation are more legitimate than others.
