• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
France's center-right primary voters are really extremely stupid people.

They threw away the presidency to vote for a guy who wasn't covered at all until the last week of the campaign.
 

Barzul

Member
This is why Gorsuch should be confirmed. This isn't the hill to die on. If it was Pryor, I wouldn't be saying this.

The Good: As far as I’m concerned, the most important thing to look for in a Supreme Court justice right now is a willingness to stand up to executive power. For at least the next four years (in all likelihood), the White House will be occupied by a narcissist with a proclivity for authoritarianism. We aren’t yet two weeks in to Trump’s administration, and we’re already barreling toward one or more constitutional crises. Oddly and perhaps in spite of himself, of the three names said to be on Trump’s shortlist (Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman and William Pryor), Gorsuch appears to be the most independent and has shown the most willingness to stand up to the executive branch. Here’s President Obama’s acting solicitor general, Neal Katyal, in the New York Times today:

In particular, he has written opinions vigorously defending the paramount duty of the courts to say what the law is, without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal statutes, including our immigration laws.

In a pair of immigration cases, De Niz Robles v. Lynch and Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Judge Gorsuch ruled against attempts by the government to retroactively interpret the law to disfavor immigrants. In a separate opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, he criticized the legal doctrine that federal courts must often defer to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal law, warning that such deference threatens the separation of powers designed by the framers.

A proven record of standing up to the executive branch when it oversteps its authority on immigration — that seems pretty important and relevant right now.

From this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uld-take-it/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5b4aedb813b3
 

Vixdean

Member
This is why Gorsuch should be confirmed. This isn't the hill to die on. If it was Pryor, I wouldn't be saying this.



From this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uld-take-it/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5b4aedb813b3

None of this is the point. He's going to be confirmed no matter what. Democrats need to filibuster him as a matter of principle over Garland's treatment and the suggestion by Republicans during the campaign that only they get to seat SCOTUS justices from now on.
 

Blader

Member
I've found Perez's arguments and public appearances during the DNC chair campaign more convincing, or reassuring, than Ellison's, but maybe he's just a better speaker than Ellison is.
 
Nice.

@kylegriffin1
There's wider awareness of and support for the Women's March than the Tea Party held at its height of power in 2010 http://wapo.st/2juUwjv

C3lUzb0WEAIBAZ0.jpg
 

jmdajr

Member
Being a career politician is terrible. You can't be afraid of losing elections. Do what's right, crazy fucking primary voters be damned.
 
If DeVos actually fails the vote, then it means that moderate GOP senators ARE feeling the kind of political pressure that usually we only see the NRA put on Senators.

Which means that the protests ARE working and Democrats need to focus on appealing to the protesters.
 

kirblar

Member
I've found Perez's arguments and public appearances during the DNC chair campaign more convincing, or reassuring, than Ellison's, but maybe he's just a better speaker than Ellison is.
My worry is that if Obamas crew is backing him, they don't understand how to fix the DNC.
 

tuxfool

Banned
What happens in the second round. Where do the center-right voters go and can Le Pen still pick off leftists?

Center-Right voters go to Macron. His official position is that of a pure Centrist.

Ultimately what he is currently doing making a pure thread-the-needle play.
 
I wasn't here in 2010, but I don't really see how midterm losses under a Democratic president at a time of high unemployment means that Republicans will get a midterm boost from altering Senate rules of all things. The people you're responding to are right. No one cares about stuff like that.

We'll see.

I think this feeds into the general narrative of Republicans getting things done that people want, & not being stopped by the evil opposition Democrats who practice their divisive identity politics & 'social welfare experiments'. I see it as being a narration point part of that larger narrative.

The Republican Party has been telling a variation of the same story for years now.
 

Barzul

Member
None of this is the point. He's going to be confirmed no matter what. Democrats need to filibuster him as a matter of principle over Garland's treatment and the suggestion by Republicans during the campaign that only they get to seat SCOTUS justices from now on.

Maybe you're right. I just want a judge right now that fully believes in the separation of powers. Hardiman seems to be the backup and i don't know his super friendliness to police makes me feel like he wouldn't challenge the executive in cases where there's clear overreach.
 

Blader

Member
My worry is that if Obamas crew is backing him, they don't understand how to fix the DNC.

It's not like Obama and Biden actively fucked up the DNC; it was fucked by neglect, not intent. And Schumer, Pelosi, and Reid are endorsing Ellison too (and the Clintons are telling their people to feel free to support Ellison), so if establishment support is supposed to be a scarlet letter here, I don't know why Ellison would be in the clear here on that front.
 

Totakeke

Member
If we're getting another round of "the primaries are unfair" if Perez wins, then there's nothing really going to convince the people that espouses that kind of bullshit. Either it is up to a vote or it isn't.
 

Mutant

Member
Just so I'm 100% clear are "purity tests" about weeding out Democrats who are aiding Republicans or about weeding out Democrats who are aiding "Big Business"?
 
There has to be some kind of quantum eraser phenomenon happening with Trump where as soon as he makes a statement it retroactively creates a contradictory tweet in the past.
 

jtb

Banned
Warner needs to get with the program. He's not a red state Democrat anymore and he's not up for re-election until 2020.
 

Vixdean

Member
There has to be some kind of quantum eraser phenomenon happening with Trump where his actions are retroactively creating contradictory tweets in the past.

The sad thing is he's no more hypocritical that your average GOPer. Look no further than how they opposed policies they had been on record supporting during Obama's presidency.
 
Just so I'm 100% clear are "purity tests" about Democrats who are aiding Republicans or about Democrats who are aiding "Big Business"?
Purity tests are when you take a fairly minor action or association and blow it up to the point where it becomes the sum total of your view on the individual. Hillary's speeches, for instance, were a purity test. As a private citizen she took some of Wall Street's money, therefore she's tarred for life. A vote in favor of an unqualified Russian stooge for SMS is a much bigger deal, especially if it represents a pattern of actual, as opposed to invented, behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom