Politics is the name of process by which humans make decisions together, nothing more.Originally Posted by Bart Carter
Unless one person has absolute authority to make decisions, politics is present whenever you have more than one human in a situation.
But politics seems to be defined as "decision making I don't like" while "common sense" is "decision making I agree with" for many.
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
Some folks are taking the news quite calmly.
https://twitter.com/@twitter/status/1307362054861393923
P.S. I don't know if this is real, but it's 2020 so ...
" La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
"There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib
That's an overly simplistic view, and since SCOTUS has been with us since the time of the founding fathers and "interpreting" since then it seems like that was the goal. The Constitution is a framework, not a complete body of law.
Quick examples off the top of my head:
When is a search "unreasonable"?
What makes a crime "infamous"?
How soon after an arrest is a "speedy trial"?
What's the point where bail is "excessive"?
How much compensation is "just"?
All Constitutionally issues, but nothing in the way of definitions or bright line rules written into the document. You have to look at external sources, including case law, to determine what those terms mean and how they were to be applied. That's not to say the courts don't overreach. Miranda being a perfect example, one that's incredibly embedded in our culture now but the "right" to have a police officer be your civics teacher if you're in custody is a "right" completely invented by SCOTUS, which has resulted in decades of hair splitting over exactly when "custody" begins. But to say the Constitution is crystal clear and it's possible to simply "apply it" like it's a stencil simply ignores reality.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Which is the greater motivator to get out the vote.....
1. SCOTUS nomination already filled?
2. SCOTUS nomination hanging open in the wind for the winner of the election?
And.... Which voters will come out in greater numbers for an open seat, D or R?
Maybe we should ask Hillary.
I'm with Jody. Fill it now. Let Mitch make it hurt.
Bird in the hand.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Ultimately it's a decision for legislators in DC, with us commoners not among them.
I think it's a mistake and will backfire rather spectacularly, but since we're all just spectators let's see what happens.
It will backfire? What will happen? Politicians on both sides being partisan and hypocritical? Whatever side that has more power to possibly abuse it? Impeachment nonsense, foreign agitators blamed for influencing the election? Large protest, rioting and arson? Extremist groups fooling people into believing their cause is to better this country. Politicians threatening to dismantle the 2nd Amendment while handicapping our first responders.
This is 2020, whatever DJT or McConnell does this country will be a mess for awhile. But hopefully we can get one Justice in there to even things out until the Dems try to increase the amount of SCOTUS Judges that can sit on the bench.
Continuing the trend of strictly partisan decision making and selection, I recommend they change the title from "Justice" to "Just-us".
Politics is no different than rooting for whichever pro team you happen to follow. They're all richer than you, only care about you to the extent you keep paying them more money, and in the end leave you feeling empty.
That said, I'd still like to see the vacancy filled before the election, feelings be damned. Failure to do so will be a major loss, imho.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Beyond destiny, this election's being set up, intentionally, to be a hot mess. We need the SC to be intact.
Man, you're gonna be drowning in likes in an hour because if the GD subforum loves nothing more in the Covid-enforced boredom it's Outrage, Fuck Yous, and Let's Burn It Downs.
That doesn't mean the position you're taking is well-reasoned, though. If you were being tactical about it you'd just say 'Lie and say we're not going to confirm a replacement' then see how the election goes. If you keep the Senate and lose the Presidency, just do an about face, confirm a conservative justice and do your "lol libruhl tears" dance. The SCOTUS nomination you want happens either way, but one of these ways has a possible mitigating effect on Democratic voter turnout.
If you do it now, you further enrage The Left (tm) who have already been turning out in record numbers. The results of every federal election after 2016 have been covered and the Cliff's Notes version is Not Good for the GOP. You could push the election results from just a Trump loss to a Trump loss and a Senate reversal that would result in the Democrats taking that newfound 51 vote threshold and going to town.
You're basically risking your own actions pumping up their turnout for no gain because you can get what you want with even a modicum of subterfuge. And since we're all just doing Realpolitik and saying to hell with norms and whatnot, not doing so means you're making a tactical blunder.
I gotta disagree with you, @jh9, assuming I'm reading you right in your post above.
Not taking advantage of the opportunity to put a conservative in the SC now is like hoping that the felon holding you at gunpoint won't hurt you if you don't resist. I prefer not to put my trust in the better angels of politicians...(of any stripe). Have we learned nothing from the skulduggery of recent years?
Strike while the iron is hot.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote