Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
I didn't order pizza and stay up late last night for this fuckery.
 

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
18,630
These people all want a dictator who can commit any crime he wishes in office and face no reprisal for it.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,527
London
Rohrabacher did.

G Elliott Morris has 39 GOP seats flipping to the Democrats. We lost MN-8 and PA-14, so that's 36-37 pickup depending on how MN-1 sorts out.




Minnesota was a shutout too for the statewide races. Democrats came out swinging in the Midwest.


Yowza that's a heck of a pickup total
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Voting the president out of office is the only recourse that was ever realistically available.

The idea that we would be "saved" by this investigation was always a fool's hope.

Well, Trump doesn't really believe in elections. He's already committed a bunch of crimes to win one. What if he just cancels the next one?*

Voting is not an effective way of constraining an autocrat. That's why they call them autocrats!


* Yes, this is the most extreme version of the argument. Trump doesn't have to declare the election canceled to drastically swing it using the powers of his office, if he doesn't care that people know that's what he's doing.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,729
Holy shit. Judiciary being the check on executive power is a cornerstone of democracy.

Parliamentary supremacy like in the UK or Canada ain't that hot boys

It's a deeply-held Republican axiom that those pesky progressives are a thorn in their side by "legislating from the bench." It's a well-trod phrase on that end of the spectrum, with support for it from liberals during particular time periods, and one that roots itself in criticism of Marbury v Madison.

http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/

he term "legislating from the bench" is frequently used but rarely explained. In the 2008 presidential debates Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) promised he would not appoint judges who legislate from the bench. But as Bruce Peabody, author of Legislating from the Bench, a Definition and a Defense, told the HPR, "I don't think we can know what he means … it's hard to get much intellectual traction from the way politicians use the term." "Legislating from the bench" implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law.

This distinction, however, covers up the fact that vague language and political and societal change necessitate that law be created through legal interpretation. A.E. Dick Howard, professor of Constitutional law at the University of Virginia, told the HPR that ambiguous phrases found in the Constitution such as "due process of law, equal protection of law, and cruel and unusual punishment" require interpretation to be applied. The interpretations of these phrases must change as unforeseeable circumstances arise, making the courts an avenue for interpretation to substantially affect law. Accordingly, the phrase "legislating from the bench" is at best misleading, and analysis of its historical application reveals its necessity.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
This seems to be the general perspective -- it'll be fine because Roberts doesn't want to look bad.

This strikes me as a thin reed to hang the safety of the republic on. But okay. Let's see how it goes.
The guarantee of the Republic does rest on Roberts' perception of optics. He said so himself during one 5-4 Obamacare ruling.
 

jeelybeans

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,948
Let's get rid of Schumer! How does that happen? How likely is it that the Dem caucus votes to reolcrr him? Are there viable alternatives?
 

Alpheus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,697
Least Whitaker has a gigantic conflict of interest. Just have to hammer that point over and over and follow it with action and protest if it comes to it. Least toll the next Congress is sworn in to do something material.
 

DinosaurusRex

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,953
Disappointed we didn't go with my meta title if "People are suddenly screaming at each other about 80 year old Speaker of the House Nancy."
 

Paches

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,633
Nicole Wallace: "Jeff Sessions does the right things? HE IS PUTTING BABIES IN CAGES FOR CHRIST SAKE"

I am going to miss her bagging on Republicans once Trump is gone.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,864



Kaitlan Collins @kaitlancollins

Jeff Sessions wanted to stay until the end of the week but John Kelly told him no. He was firm it had to be today, @LauraAJarrett and I are told by sources.


Kaitlan Collins @kaitlancollins

Adding to the "Trump doesn't like to fire people" saga, he had John Kelly call Sessions to ask for the resignation before the press conference today, then ducked a question about his imminent departure during it. Why not just announce it then?
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
Now that Republicans have lost, the knives have started coming out. Fascinating article about how they fucked themselves in the House at every turn:
But the most stunning exit was Mr. Ryan's. After alienating senior colleagues with legislative arm-twisting and committing his conference to a hard-line agenda that left them gravely vulnerable, Mr. Ryan announced abruptly in April that he was retiring. While he promised to keep raising money for fellow Republicans, Mr. Ryan's contributions to the party would steadily decline; in the last fund-raising quarter of the campaign, his political committee transferred a paltry $1.4 million to the N.R.C.C., less than some first-time Democratic candidates raised for themselves.

Mr. Ryan's decision left the Republican conference in a baleful mood — and enraged senior White House aides and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader.

"He thought it was selfish," said Josh Holmes, Mr. McConnell's top political adviser, recalling the lawmaker's reaction to Mr. Ryan's announcement: "If he wanted to leave, he could leave after the election. He let all his guys hang out to dry."
 

devSin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,203
Well, Trump doesn't really believe in elections. He's already committed a bunch of crimes to win one. What if he just cancels the next one?*
That's a theoretical that doesn't have an answer.

We're in a better position today to prevent that than we were yesterday. There's nothing we can do if the court decides that the president is above any law or norm.

My own personal belief is that the government has already failed. There's no walking back from this or fixing things, because there's no way to reliably govern in the current climate. Change will need to come from the bottom, at the state and local levels, and it will take decades to put us back on a course where the federal government can function as intended. (Some people who were so upset last night seemed to be under the illusion that we would win everything in 2020 and simply undo the preceding 4 years on the first day, but I don't think there was any scenario where that sort of thing would ever be realistic.)

I don't favor our odds.
 

Dr. Benton Quest

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,377
I'll never forget Nancy Pelosi handing that comically huge phallic gavel to Boehner years and years ago.

It will be sooo good to see a gavel handed back to her.
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,973


This is wrong. Didn't repeal Obamacare. Getting through long-waiting Obama judges. Making approval-of-budget deals that clowned the House leadership. So even if that was the goal, it practically worked for two years in a one-party majority.

Still, Tester is projected to win. Rosen won. Sinema just might do it. Espy might do it. Nelson in a run-off has nothing to do with Schumer, it's all Nelson. Beto helped down-ballot candidates flat-out win, which is still important and people seem to not take local races in mind.

Some people on the twitterverse need someone to be angry at. Next week it will be Pelosi.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,695


BREAKING: Calling all FL hands!!! We have tens of thousands of rejected absentee ballots that we can get perfected before the deadline tomorrow at 5pm, but we need YOUR help. Please send an email to. [email protected]

Pretty insane that potentially thousands of votes could be tossed aside just because they're not counted by hand in the next 24 hours!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.