President Donald Trump

[nots]

How is this different than in June of 1992 when then Senator Biden, who was serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, threatened to do pretty much the same thing, though only 5 months before the election. Of course, there was no nominee at the time, it was just talk. But, wasn't this essentially what the GOP did when there was a nominee under Pres. Obama.

IIRC, Shumer (not a fan of either him or his niece/cousin, or whatever their relationship is) said nearly the same thing in 2007 when he said he would block any additional Bush nominees because he thought the Court was too conservative. That was almost 18 months before the election of Obama.

To me the only difference was the Dems threatened, while the GOP actually carried out the threat. And both of these Dem leaders openly criticized the GOP for doing just what they threatened.


In any case, today wlll be interesting. The whole Muslim Ban flap will become old news once Trump announces his SOTUS pick. Whether the ban should become old news or not is a completely different story.

The GOP was very aggressive with the decision to not act on Garland. Amazingly, they drew an inside straight, won the election and now have control. Had it gone the other way, I think Clinton would have passed over Garland and found someone to the left RBG. It will be interesting to me to see how aggressive the Dems want to get in return. It's fascinating poly sci stuff.
There is little doubt in my mind, if the roles had been reversed, the Dems would have done the same thing as witnessed by the remarks you referenced. Schumer's response was exceptionally telling because objection was out of anger at the ideological bent of the nominees, not an election year debate.

[Bernie Brewer]

This is one of those questions that answers itself. See the bolded portions. Could there have been any more important difference than talking about it or actually doing it?

I'm not even going to parse completely Senator Biden's remarks. (Suffice it so say there is no "Biden Rule" as McConnell would have you believe.) Biden gave a lengthy address that day. For reasons he explained, Biden urged President Bush to consider not sending up a nominee until after the heated election was over. Within ten minutes, however, Biden promised that a moderate Supreme Court nominee would be considered. He never said, despite what McConnell now claims, that a nominee should never be considered in an election year. Of course, conservatives have taken a very small portion of the tape of Biden's remarks, lacking the context of the remainder, and have used it to further their agenda.


So, not to put too fine a point on it, but its the difference between considering shooting someone and actually shooting someone. And then justifying the shooting by saying that the other guy thought about doing it.

Again, this is not my area of "expertise" (not that I am even sure what my area of expertise would be), and I'll defer to you on this point. It just feels like these are sort situations are the unofficial rules of the game and either side uses them to their own self-serving benefit. While one side may talk a good game and the other may raise the stakes and take action, I suspect there are equal examples of both sides in both roles.

[nots]

Again, this is not my area of "expertise" (not that I am even sure what my area of expertise would be), and I'll defer to you on this point. It just feels like these are sort situations are the unofficial rules of the game and either side uses them to their own self-serving benefit. While one side may talk a good game and the other may raise the stakes and take action, I suspect there are equal examples of both sides in both roles.

Today's angels are tomorrow's hypocrites.

[Bernie Brewer]

That's what I'm saying!! I suspect Hillary would have found the most liberal nominee she thought she could get through to scorn the GOP. I hope Trumps pick is Gorsuch, the least objectionable on his list, at least to me.

[Moonlight J]

That's what I'm saying!! I suspect Hillary would have found the most liberal nominee she thought she could get through to scorn the GOP. I hope Trumps pick is Gorsuch, the least objectionable on his list, at least to me.

I disagree. She still would have had to fight against a GOP controlled Congress for that. She would have likely left Garland in place or picked someone similar to her slightly left views.

[swampdragon]

Shouldn't this be a major concern for all - even conservatives

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html

[Sour Masher]

Shouldn't this be a major concern for all - even conservatives

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/u...en-bannon.html

Of course it should. He has a political strategist inputting on national security issues, instead of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. As many have pointed out, that is incredibly dangerous. And when that political strategist is not only unqualified to be at the table, but has eagerly claimed he wants to fiddle while the government burns, it is a recipe for disaster.

Bannon is a very dangerous man, and seems to rival Kushner as having the most influence on Trump. If I have to choose, I'm hoping he listens to Kushner more, as he at least seems to be a lot less dangerous than Bannon.

But not enough people seem to care. Most of what Trump does is ill-advised and inappropriate, but his base just roles with it, and in his delusional, self-inflated state, where he really did win the popular vote, "bigley" if it weren't for rampant cheating against him, he has a mandate to do whatever he wants. The country's only recourse is to fight him on his quest to destroy the principals on which this country was founded, try to work with him on the few things he seems to want to do that are good for the country, and push back hard in 2018 to limit his power, and push him out in 2020. An early look at available seats in 2018 don't give me a ton of confidence about that though. Not unless trump really poison's the well for a lot of incumbents.

[Moonlight J]

Shouldn't this be a major concern for all - even conservatives

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/u...en-bannon.html

would be akin to Obama putting Jeremiah Wright in this position. Or, less hyperbolic, George Soros.

[cardboardbox]

Having been a Psychology Major a long time ago, every time I watch or listen to the new President, I am convinced that he is a textbook narcissist.

damn, two presidents in a row?

[cardboardbox]

How is this different than in June of 1992 when then Senator Biden, who was serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, threatened to do pretty much the same thing, though only 5 months before the election. Of course, there was no nominee at the time, it was just talk. But, wasn't this essentially what the GOP did when there was a nominee under Pres. Obama.

IIRC, Shumer (not a fan of either him or his niece/cousin, or whatever their relationship is) said nearly the same thing in 2007 when he said he would block any additional Bush nominees because he thought the Court was too conservative. That was almost 18 months before the election of Obama.

its not any different.

[cardboardbox]

The GOP was very aggressive with the decision to not act on Garland. Amazingly, they drew an inside straight, won the election and now have control. Had it gone the other way, I think Clinton would have passed over Garland and found someone to the left RBG. It will be interesting to me to see how aggressive the Dems want to get in return. It's fascinating poly sci stuff.
There is little doubt in my mind, if the roles had been reversed, the Dems would have done the same thing as witnessed by the remarks you referenced. Schumer's response was exceptionally telling because objection was out of anger at the ideological bent of the nominees, not an election year debate.

That's what I'm saying!! I suspect Hillary would have found the most liberal nominee she thought she could get through to scorn the GOP. I hope Trumps pick is Gorsuch, the least objectionable on his list, at least to me.

I disagree. She still would have had to fight against a GOP controlled Congress for that. She would have likely left Garland in place or picked someone similar to her slightly left views.

The assumption all last year until election night was that Clinton would win. The assumption for almost all of that time was that democrats would have 50+ senate seats. If she'd won, there's a pretty good chance she's have the senate also and could have nominated an extremely liberal judge and Schumer would have followed the Reid playbook by nuking the filibuster.

[cardboardbox]

Any one of those moves would have caused a furor among Democrats. The combination of those moves — and all of them being made within the first full week of the Trump presidency — sent people opposed to Trump’s agenda into an absolute frenzy.

That frenzy was defined by a single question: How can he be doing this?

The answer is simple, if noxious, to those who oppose Trump: He ran for president on exactly the sorts of ideas he has begun to implement as president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.b36a9aa9b40d

[Sour Masher]

You are right about that CBB--he isn't doing anything he didn't promise to do. I still maintain, based on polling, that he didn't get elected based on doing any of the stuff he has done so far though. I think he won, because he made job promises in the rust belt, and promised to rebuild America, using American workers. We'll see if/when he gets to that.

[nots]

You are right about that CBB--he isn't doing anything he didn't promise to do. I still maintain, based on polling, that he didn't get elected based on doing any of the stuff has done so far though. I think he won, because he made job promises in the rust belt, and promised to rebuild America, using American workers. We'll see if/when he gets to that.

He did meet with the heads of various unions on Monday, the heads of the automakers on Tuesday and has done some arm twisting regarding jobs and plants beyond that. It hasnt gotten nearly as much attention but it is going on.

[baldgriff]

I do believe that there are plenty of people out there that voted Trump as he would likely pick less liberal judges for SCOTUS. SCOTUS nominations were probably the number 2 reason to vote against HRC if you were not a liberal.

Immigration (THE WALL) was probably the biggest reason. The wall is meant to stop ILLEGAL or "Undocumented" immigration from continuing - as to my understanding.


Also he may not have won the popular election, but if you go county by county he won almost 90% of the country. He didnt win the large population centers, but he pretty much swept the rest of the country. So while he may not have won the popular vote - if you put up a red/blue map it is pretty convincing.

http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/