Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, October 12, 2018

With the November midterms approaching, Senate Democrats on Thursday night made a deal with their Republican colleagues to allow their endangered incumbents to get home and campaign, according to multiple reports. In exchange for the ability to go campaign, Democrats agreed to confirm 15 federal judges -- a lifetime appointment -- who had been nominated by President Donald Trump.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There's your 'Leadership': More interested in hooking up than leading.

#VoteForMyCareer

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-12 04:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#desparateDems

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-12 04:48 PM | Reply

McConnell has been playing Schumer, and Reid before him, so masterfully it is almost embarrassing.

The Dem leadership is pathetic, Shumer and Pelosi both need to step down from their leadership positions after this election.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-12 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The horrors of game theory pragmatism and compromise...

...

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-10-12 05:52 PM | Reply

First, there was literally nothing the Senate Democrats could have done to prevent the nominations of these fifteen judges. Senate Republicans have the votes lined up to confirm them all. There are no wavering GOP swing votes. None of these judges have scandals that can be trotted out. Under Senate rules, the Democrats would have been very limited in terms of how long they could drag this out. These judges were absolutely, positively, 100% going to be confirmed before the midterms.

So what would the Democrats have gained by dragging this out? Nothing.

Second, there are far more Senate Democrats running for reelection right now than Senate Republicans. So, yes, wrapping up the Senate session early does give the Democrats a notable advantage in terms of going home and campaigning. So when you look at the facts, this deal was completely one-sided in favor of the Democrats, who gained something tangible, while the Republicans gained nothing from it that they weren't going to get anyway.

We can check back on November 7th and reevaluate, but I'm surprised so many think that Schumer doesn't know what he's doing. I personally know that Joe Donnelly has a packed schedule from here to election day starting tomorrow. The extra in-state time may prove invaluable and I'm sure Heidi Heitkamp feels the same way.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-10-12 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Palmer Report"

*chuckles*

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-12 08:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Leave it to the Democrats. What a ridiculous trade. Pelosi and Schumer needs to be be fired, for the sake of the party. They are cowards with secret loyalties. They are completely out of touch with their constituency.

#7 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-12 08:54 PM | Reply

*chuckles*

It's analysis, not news, so why does it matter where it comes from? Certainly more intelligent than anything you've contributed since your last bowel movement.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-10-12 08:54 PM | Reply

-- so why does it matter where it comes from?

I've been saying that to Corky for years.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-12 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Come on Tony, anyone who follows politics knows that the Dems have more to lose in the Senate than gain, so the PR is just trying to put lipstick on the pig that Schumer just presented to the Dems.

TFF

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-12 09:35 PM | Reply

Schumer isn't retarded. If they held out, they have nothing to gain. If they cut a deal now, they can make gains. It's a completely reasonable deal. Only the fanatics will complain, and they always complain.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-10-12 09:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Dem leadership is pathetic, Shumer and Pelosi both need to step down from their leadership positions after this election.

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

NW

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-12 10:09 PM | Reply

If they held out, they have nothing to gain. If they cut a deal now, they can make gains. It's a completely reasonable deal. Only the fanatics will complain, and they always complain.

#11 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

In what way?

The only reason the Senate is valuable to the GOP is to confirm judges. Confirming judges ensures their screwed up ideology is pushed on the rest of us with little to no recourse.

This deal ensures that even if the best case scenario came to pass and the Dems retook the Senate, the GOP would still largely get their desired goal.

And if the Dems get the majority and, by some miracle, the WH the GOP can simply go back to stonewalling everything and they will continue to gain for years.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-12 10:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In what way?

The only reason the Senate is valuable to the GOP is to confirm judges. Confirming judges ensures their screwed up ideology is pushed on the rest of us with little to no recourse.

This deal ensures that even if the best case scenario came to pass and the Dems retook the Senate, the GOP would still largely get their desired goal.

And if the Dems get the majority and, by some miracle, the WH the GOP can simply go back to stonewalling everything and they will continue to gain for years.

#13 | POSTED BY JPW

You unwittingly indicted the left's perversion of the courts. Originalism and textualism tends to result in narrow-rulings that leave room for legislative fixes for the issues brought before the court.

Here's a crazy idea: Win elections. Prioritize issues. Go to the public and sell your solutions to said issues. Build political capital. Create legislation. Compromise and revise said legislation. Pass bills. Do a good enough job with everything up to this point that POTUS signs your bill into law.

It's hard. It's a LOT of work. It's messy. You almost never get 100% of what you want. It's also not only relatively permanent, but it has a legitimacy that court edicts will never have. For example, Roe is still heavily contentious 4 decades after the ruling was issued. The Civil Rights Act had some opposition initially but it's legitimacy has been cemented in a way that controversial court rulings (Roe, Miranda, Citizens United, Heller, Kelo, etc) never can.

Tilt power away from court and back toward congress. Once you do that, then it's just a matter of winning elections.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-12 11:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You unwittingly indicted the left's perversion of the courts.

Yawn.

Only a partisan refuses to see the convenient nature of the right's originalism.

And the rest is the typical partisan drivel I've come to expect from you. Dems need to compromise? LOL GTFO.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-12 11:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Tilt power away from court and back toward congress."

Why do you think the GOP Congress is stacking the Judaical branch with GOP judges, JeffJ?

It's so they can continue to do nothing and let the activist judges enact the parts of the GOP agenda they can't achieve via legislation, because they're so onerous.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 12:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"For example, Roe is still heavily contentious 4 decades after the ruling was issued."

It is?
I coulda swore I heard you say Roe is here to stay, because of stare decisis.
Or maybe that was the rest of the right-wingers including Senator Collins.

Maybe your position has evolved in the past 72 hours though. That's understandable.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 12:02 AM | Reply

Only a partisan refuses to see the convenient nature of the right's originalism.

And the rest is the typical partisan drivel I've come to expect from you. Dems need to compromise? LOL GTFO.

#15 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-10-12 11:46 PM

The left seeks to impose its agenda via permanent court edicts and unelected bureaucrats.

The opposite of that is legislating - making congress, the branch most accountable to the voters, have the most influence.

You suck at Civics101.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:12 AM | Reply

Roe is socially contentious, legally not so much.

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-13 12:12 AM | Reply

Recently the left has decried the Senate, a bicameral congress and the electoral college.

These institutions and structures have been in place for more than 2 centuries.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:14 AM | Reply

"Recently the left "

Like, all at once?
Did they all sign a giant Hallmark card and give it to Maxine Waters, only to have Guam flip over?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 12:15 AM | Reply

Roe is socially contentious, legally not so much.

#19 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

It's legally contentious too. At the end of the day originalism (which pays deference, although not absolute deference, to Stare Decisis) dictates that Roe stands.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:16 AM | Reply

You suck at Civics101.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ

You suck at assessing reality.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

These institutions and structures have been in place for more than 2 centuries.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ

And they've increasingly become a joke.

Mostly so over the past 2 years.

Seriously, are you blind? Or do you actually believe anyone would buy the ---- you peddle?

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"At the end of the day originalism (which pays deference, although not absolute deference, to Stare Decisis) dictates that Roe stands."

Maybe it will be like gay marriage.

You remember gay marriage, where an originalist reading of the Fourteenth Amendment revealed that gay marriage cannot be criminalized, because it violates the equal protection clause.

It only took about 150 years for the originalists to figure that one out.

So if abortion gets shot down by, I dunno, an activist right-wing judge appointed by the Russian mob, in about 150 years they'll see their mistake.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 12:24 AM | Reply

"for more than 2 centuries."

^
These racist statues have been up for 70 years, we can't take them down now!

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 12:25 AM | Reply

JPW - Do you have any kind of a substantive response?

Or are you just flinging ---- per usual?

So far, it's been the latter.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"JPW - Do you have any kind of a substantive response?"

His comments are at least as substantive as yours.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 12:27 AM | Reply

So, just in the last 2 years, we need to:

-Abolish the electoral college - because progressives don't like the recent results.

-Abolish the Senate because it's not "Democratic". Of course the Maryland vs Texas paradigm is NEVER cited.

-Impeach a SCOTUS justice for slightly shifting the ideological balance of the court.

-Impeach and remove a duly elected President because temper tantrum.

-Suspend all notions of preponderance of evidence, as long as it's applied to a conservative

-Stalk, harass and assault our political adversaries wherever they happen to be - family outing, restaurant, at home with kids, on the -------, etc. But, only if they are conservatives and/or Republicans.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--Dems need to compromise? LOL GTFO.

Ah....yes. That's the way it works when you don't control any branch of the federal government. Gain control of the house and you have some bargaining power. Are you new to politics? Better read Civics for Dummies.

#electionsHaveConsequences

#30 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 12:35 AM | Reply

JPW - Do you have any kind of a substantive response?

Oh please. Anybody who claims it's the Dems to need to stop packing courts and legislate through compromise is either an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

You choose.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:35 AM | Reply

Are you new to politics? Better read Civics for Dummies.

#electionsHaveConsequences

#30 | Posted by nullifidian

Looks like Jeff turned the turd emoji light and the Turd polishing squad assembled.

This ought to be good.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

So far, it's been the latter.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ

You guys have gotten so absurd you don't even realize how retarded you've become.

Seriously, after the 8 years of nonstop garbage Obama took you now have supposed pragmatists and "liberals" claiming the GOP is acting in the right and it's the Dems who are causing the problems.

And then after sharting that nonsense you bleat on as if your nonsense deserves respect? GFY.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Anybody who claims it's the Dems to need to stop packing courts and legislate through compromise is either an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

You choose.

#31 | POSTED BY JPW A

Do you even know what "court packing" is?

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:39 AM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY JPW

That was too incoherent to even be a straw man.

WTF are you talking about?

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:41 AM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY JPW

A lot of butthurt packed into that post.

#36 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-13 12:42 AM | Reply

JPW - Google Schoolhouse Rock.

Please educate yourself on the most rudimentary aspects of our civic processes.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:43 AM | Reply

--And they've increasingly become a joke.

Kinda proves the point. The left wants to rewrite the constitution. They don't like the idea of a federal republic with distributed power and checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 12:43 AM | Reply

That was too incoherent to even be a straw man.

WTF are you talking about?

#35 | Posted by JeffJ

Well I guess it's not clear why you support the GOP...

Let me explain it to you.

You accused me of flinging ----.

I went on to explain why that accusation is both absurd and utterly lacking in self awareness.

As an adult for more details if you need it.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Please educate yourself on the most rudimentary aspects of our civic processes.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL

GFY

That's the only response you're worth these days.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:46 AM | Reply

A lot of butthurt packed into that post.

#36 | Posted by SheepleSchism

TURD POLISHERS! HHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

--if your nonsense deserves respect? GFY.

You think the losing party should exercise power. Now that's some weapons-grade nonsense.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 12:48 AM | Reply

GFY

That's the only response you're worth these days.

#40 | POSTED BY JPW

That's because you are a whiny little bitch who can't address anything substantive.

Seriously. All you've done is hurl ad hominem. That is literally all you've done.

------- Dirk does that with more aplomb.

Is that all you are capable of these days?

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

JPW is in full meltdown.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:50 AM | Reply

Do you even know what "court packing" is?

#34 | Posted by JeffJ

Fine. It was a poor choice of words.

Stacking the courts. The GOP is stacking the courts with partisans intended to enforce an ideology that can't be instituted by legislation alone.

But what do you expect from a party that is only supported by about 18% of the populace largely dispersed in podunk fly over states?

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:50 AM | Reply

--GFY

That's the only response you're worth these days."

That's the only response you're capable of these days. Nothing but insults in lieu of argument, 24/7

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 12:53 AM | Reply

Is that all you are capable of these days?

#43 | Posted by JeffJ

That's all you deserve these days.

Seriously, you have the gall to show up and post this nonsense:

Here's a crazy idea: Win elections. Prioritize issues. Go to the public and sell your solutions to said issues. Build political capital. Create legislation. Compromise and revise said legislation. Pass bills. Do a good enough job with everything up to this point that POTUS signs your bill into law.

in defense of the GOP?!?!

And then you want to accuse others of lacking civic knowledge and being in "full melt down mode"?

LOL you're a joke, hack troll. Nothing more.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:53 AM | Reply

That's the only response you're capable of these days. Nothing but insults in lieu of argument, 24/7

#46 | Posted by nullifidian

The lowbrow garbage you post isn't worth an argument.

It's akin to anti-vaxx or climate denialist nonsense.

Seriously, it's beneath me to engage you with any sort of actual dialogue as that gives an air of legitimacy to the --------- you post.

Same goes for the rest of the Turd Patrol.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Stacking the courts. The GOP is stacking the courts with partisans intended to enforce an ideology that can't be instituted by legislation alone.

No. That is what Democrats are trying to do, and have successfully done under the toxic rubric of a "living and breathing Constitution - to a point where the original intent and the text itself is almost meanignless".

Stacking the courts.

A product of winning elections. Are you aware of what is being bandied about among left-wing circles these days? Packing the courts, specifically SCOTUS. Do you know what that means?

But what do you expect from a party that is only supported by about 18% of the populace largely dispersed in podunk fly over states?

Texas alone is comprised of 25 million people, which is a hell of a lot more than the northern east coast states the the Democratic Party dominates.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 12:56 AM | Reply

You think the losing party should exercise power. Now that's some weapons-grade nonsense.

#42 | Posted by nullifidian

What's weapons grade nonsense is the black and white nature of your "thoughts"

Nothing I've ever said remotely suggests the above to be true.

But tell me again how GFY is less than a response than you deserve. Please. I'm all ears.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--The lowbrow garbage you post isn't worth an argument.

You're as worthless a poster as IdiotJones. No argument. No facts. Go to bed.

#51 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 12:58 AM | Reply

Seriously, you have the gall to show up and post this nonsense:

Here's a crazy idea: Win elections. Prioritize issues. Go to the public and sell your solutions to said issues. Build political capital. Create legislation. Compromise and revise said legislation. Pass bills. Do a good enough job with everything up to this point that POTUS signs your bill into law.

in defense of the GOP?!?!

#47 | POSTED BY JPW

In defense of the GOP? Holy ----. I had no idea you are that fundamentally ignorant of our civic structure. What I put in bold has NOTHING to do with either political party. Please clarify your position because what you just posted belies a degree of not only ignorance but stupidity to a level that I never could have comprehended from you.

The quickest way to having a reasoned discussion is to quit being so fricking combative purely for the sake of being combative.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 01:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No. That is what Democrats are trying to do, and have successfully done under the toxic rubric of a "living and breathing Constitution - to a point where the original intent and the text itself is almost meanignless".

LOL

The Constitution requires interpretation whether you like it or not, Jeff. There's no possible way the exact text can be a guide for current society.

A product of winning elections. Are you aware of what is being bandied about among left-wing circles these days? Packing the courts, specifically SCOTUS. Do you know what that means?

I could give two ----- what's being "bandied about among left-wing circles". Use of the courts to force a political viewpoint is equally bad on both sides.

Yeah yeah I know you'll whine about Dems doing it too but at least the intent is to help people. The right is stripping rights and enforcing corporate will via the courts. Why would you support that?

Texas alone is comprised of 25 million people, which is a hell of a lot more than the northern east coast states the the Democratic Party dominates.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ

Do you really want to play numbers games? Because if the above is an indication you'll get your ass handed to you.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're as worthless a poster as IdiotJones. No argument. No facts. Go to bed.

#51 | Posted by nullifidian

Says the guy who bleats nothing but 1960's boogeymen.

You should have went to bed decades ago.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're as worthless a poster as IdiotJones. No argument. No facts. Go to bed.

#51 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

He's absolutely correct, JPW.

All you've done is attack on this thread. Set aside the vitriol and narrow the discussion. Or, continue to lash out. Your choice.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 01:04 AM | Reply

54 | Posted by jpw

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

Keep the liquor flowin'

Cause all I got is trollin'

Rawhide!

#56 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 01:05 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

The quickest way to having a reasoned discussion is to quit being so fricking combative purely for the sake of being combative.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ

Sorry. I'm combative because you've acted like that fence pole was physically fused with your colon for most of the last two years. Before that you were a faux pragmatist playing the "I don't know" card at best and the right wing lunacy card at worst.

Now you want to sit here and lecture about compromise and setting a legislative agenda based on winning elections via selling one's ideas? The Dems and OBAMA did, -------. And people like you dreamt up any ridiculous nonsense necessary to cut his legs out from underneath him. You supported a party who from day one took a position of absolute opposition no matter what the topic.

And now with the orange Golgothan in office you suddenly demand civility, compromise and legislation-based good faith governance? Pffft.

Seriously, you guys are the black knights of politics. You're legless, arm-less and apparently ball-less and you don't even know it.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:10 AM | Reply

#55 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:11 AM | Reply

The Constitution requires interpretation whether you like it or not, Jeff.

Up until FDR SCOTUS rulings were far more predictable than they are today. It's also why confirming judges was rarely a contentious process.

I could give two ----- what's being "bandied about among left-wing circles".

Well, you should. Again, do you know what "court-packing" is? You don't seem to based upon how you've addressed this question already.

Use of the courts to force a political viewpoint is equally bad on both sides.

I'm genuinely glad you see it that way. Until you contradicted yourself:

Yeah yeah I know you'll whine about Dems doing it too but at least the intent is to help people. The right is stripping rights and enforcing corporate will via the courts. Why would you support that?

So, as long as Dems are "helping people" - "Use of the courts to force a political viewpoint is...bad it's all just a nod and a wink?

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 01:12 AM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY JPW

I don't give a ---- about civility, ----------. I don't expect Democrats to be civil. I don't think they should be civil. They are the minority party and I expect them to act like an opposition party. Take your drunken straw men and shove them up your ass.

If you feel like a brief adult conversation before I hit the hay, I'm all for it. But if you are going to continue with your incoherent attacks utterly lacking in any substance other than how clever you think you can be with your ------- "insults" than, as you are so fond of saying GFY.

I'm trying to talk to you. As an adult.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 01:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Up until FDR SCOTUS rulings were far more predictable than they are today. It's also why confirming judges was rarely a contentious process.

Up until FDR the most common mode of communication was the radio, television didn't exist and cars were just becoming a standard household good.

Comparing that to today is absurd.

Well, you should. Again, do you know what "court-packing" is? You don't seem to based upon how you've addressed this question already.

Yes, I do. It's increasing the number of judgeships and filling them with a favored political slant, ie increasing the SCOTUS to 13 seats and appointing 4 of a particular slant.

In any case, this is little more than you avoiding the fact of the right slanting the court to solidify their gains. It's right out in the open and only a fool or a partisan would miss it.

So, as long as Dems are "helping people"

It's the preferable reality. I'm tired of government doing anything but help the people it supposedly represents and serves.

And the GOP is only taking it the opposite directly in more extreme ways, all while castigating those who want government to serve the citizens and pointing to their self-fulfilling prophecies as proof that their ideology is correct.

The GOP is nothing but professional conmen, masters bait and switch and 3 card monte.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:27 AM | Reply

They are the minority party and I expect them to act like an opposition party. Take your drunken straw men and shove them up your ass.

Then why did you seem to shocked when *gasp* they acted in opposition to Kavanaugh's candidacy?

You mean they want to delay the vote? Maybe until after...the...midterms? OH SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!

Please. You're not fooling anybody.

I'm trying to talk to you. As an adult.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ

Then show a modicum of understanding of the reality around you. Like an adult.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:29 AM | Reply

I don't give a ---- about civility, ----------.

Why you gotta be such a drunk ranter, bro?

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:30 AM | Reply

Up until FDR the most common mode of communication was the radio, television didn't exist and cars were just becoming a standard household good.

Comparing that to today is absurd.

No. From 1800 to 1933 this country also saw tremendous changes in technology and other areas. The Constitution is predominantly a set of principles. So, the concept of separation of powers, as clearly laid out in the Constitution somehow changed with the invention of the telephone? Nonsense.

It's increasing the number of judgeships and filling them with a favored political slant, ie increasing the SCOTUS to 13 seats and appointing 4 of a particular slant.

OK. At least you understand the concept. But then, this:

In any case, this is little more than you avoiding the fact of the right slanting the court to solidify their gains. It's right out in the open and only a fool or a partisan would miss it.

Which is no ------- different than when Obama was POTUS and had a majority in the Senate. In fact, the filibuster was nuked by Democrats so that Obama could stack the lower courts, unimpeded. The GOP didn't nuke the filibuster. That would be your beloved Democratic Party.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 01:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Then why did you seem to shocked when *gasp* they acted in opposition to Kavanaugh's candidacy?

Nothing about that surprised me.

You mean they want to delay the vote? Maybe until after...the...midterms? OH SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!

Of course they did. After Garland, I don't blame them.

So, pre-emptive response is:

Please. You're not fooling anybody.

....Sack up, bitch.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 01:43 AM | Reply

No. From 1800 to 1933 this country also saw tremendous changes in technology and other areas.

Never at the current pace or with the same global ramifications. At the time of FDR Freedom of Speech still largely meant spoken and printed, hard copy words.

The Constitution is predominantly a set of principles.

Which requires interpretation. The FFs weren't some homogeneous group of men who agreed on everything. Even pointing to a particular FF's or group of FFs' opinion is selective.

In fact, the filibuster was nuked by Democrats so that Obama could stack the lower courts, unimpeded. The GOP didn't nuke the filibuster.

I love it how you treat things as if they're in a vacuum.

The GOP was obstructing EVERYTHING. EVERY. SINGLE. THING.

They declared their absolute opposition to everything Obama the moment he took office. Am I pleased that the Dems nuked the filibuster? Hell no. But I put blame where it fully lies-on the GOP who showed even less respect for the will of the electorate (and still do, BTW...) than the Dems ever dreamed of showing.

You know, like an adult.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:52 AM | Reply

Nothing about that surprised me.

Really? You didn't whine that the Dems were playing the part of the opposition party? You didn't claim that Ford was just a DNC plant?

If not, then I truly apologize.

But I highly doubt that to be the case. You're too willing an excuse maker for the GOP.

....Sack up, bitch.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ

You drunk, bro?

(BTW right on)

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:54 AM | Reply

got a brawler like God-Emperor Trump in office. A few republicans are showing signs of growing a spine simply by proximity.

LOL It appears our new Bradford Winston has arrived?

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 01:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well before your time.
Don't worry about it, Lamb Chop.

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 02:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Never at the current pace or with the same global ramifications. At the time of FDR Freedom of Speech still largely meant spoken and printed, hard copy words.

Please forgive me for moving the goalposts but this notion struck at the heart of Citizens United. McCain/Feingold legalized censorship.

Which requires interpretation. The FFs weren't some homogeneous group of men who agreed on everything. Even pointing to a particular FF's or group of FFs' opinion is selective.

I know that. From a historical perspective SCOTUS was boring until it usurped powers that formerly belonged to congress. McConnell killing the Garland nomination never should have been necessary if SCOTUS was properly limited. Same applies for the Kavanaugh war, which tilted the court only slightly more to the right.

I love it how you treat things as if they're in a vacuum.

The GOP was obstructing EVERYTHING. EVERY. SINGLE. THING.

So? That's just like #TheResistance. It's what opposition parties do. I am applying a consistent standard. You, on the other hand, are not. The Democrats are in the minority. I expect them to act like the opposition party.

They declared their absolute opposition to everything Obama the moment he took office. Am I pleased that the Dems nuked the filibuster? Hell no. But I put blame where it fully lies-on the GOP who showed even less respect for the will of the electorate (and still do, BTW...) than the Dems ever dreamed of showing.

Republicans wanted to go nuclear for the same reason that Dems pulled the trigger. The GOP didn't do it. Certain people get pissed when certain others proclaim the 2 parties are exactly the same...Dems went nuclear after the GOP averted doing the same.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 02:07 AM | Reply

Really? You didn't whine that the Dems were playing the part of the opposition party?

Nope. Never. Please don't tell me you have Jefflexia like Laura does.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-13 02:08 AM | Reply

McConnell killing the Garland nomination never should have been necessary if SCOTUS was properly limited. Same applies for the Kavanaugh war, which tilted the court only slightly more to the right.

Equating the two is pure nonsense.

I am applying a consistent standard. You, on the other hand, are not.

No, I expect the opposition to act as a tempering influence on the majority, not act as a petulant child demanding to be heard.

On the flip side, I expect the majority to respect the minority.

I've always been one for compromise and middle of the road governance. I've always been one for good faith governance, that acts in the interests of all constituents and not just those who elected you.

As for resistance to Trump, it's more fact based than the resistance to Obama. Trump is brazenly acting in the interests of the donor class and against the interests of the majority of the populace. His base being too stupid to see that isn't a reason to forgo resisting his actions.

Republicans wanted to go nuclear for the same reason that Dems pulled the trigger.

Hmmmm do the numbers support your assertion?

According to Google searches, Bush had 324 nominated judges appointed and Obama 329. What those numbers represent as a fraction of total nominations I don't know.

Nor do I know how many of the Obama appointees were only appointed after the "nuclear option" changed the balance of GOP obstructionism.

Nope. Never. Please don't tell me you have Jefflexia like Laura does.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ

Satire of the right has become difficult to recognize because of how absurd they've become.

Without Hans' creepy way back machine I have trouble believing you were anything but faux impartial.

Sorry, dude. That's just the way it's gone.

#75 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 02:32 AM | Reply

Still not tired of winning.

Unless you're the 1% when did the winning start, exactly?

#76 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 02:33 AM | Reply

LOL if you still believe the drivel he espoused (too big a word?) in his election night or inaugural speeches you're beyond help.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 02:37 AM | Reply

Yawn. You even use the correct video of the day as BS right wing media does.

You're either an exceptional sock puppet or a particularly stoogey stooge.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 02:39 AM | Reply

but I have no interest in living under communist rule

Were you planning on moving? Because that had no chance of coming to the US any time soon.

Most people don't realize that the ship of state narrowly avoided crashing head-on into the iceberg of shrillary clinton

Yeah, and instead ran aground on the Great Orange Turdbar.

> I disagree with your personal political predilections, therefore you're a sock-puppet
Nah

#82 | POSTED BY HEINRICH

You strike me as a sock puppet because your posts are so absurd they strike me as satire.

#83 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 02:49 AM | Reply

I'm just looking forward to the mass seppuku committed by leftists on the first tuesday of November.

#84 | POSTED BY HEINRICH

Just like I'm looking forward to the flabbergasted looks on righty's faces when they realize they've been had.

Ahhhh who am I kidding. If you dumb ----- haven't figured it out yet you never will.

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 03:21 AM | Reply

JPW

The best case scenario is that Putin will drop Trump like a hot potato (if he hasn't already) when a Trump-without-power is no longer any use to him.

#86 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-10-13 05:30 AM | Reply

A professor in Britain, who works with statistics and wishes to remain anonymous found errprs in US polling data. Nate Silver and 538 has a 3.5% bias in favor of the Democrats. For RealClearPolitics the error is 1.7%.

A Doug Johnson model disagrees with 538 and since March the "Numbers Suggest Democrats Are Not Currently Set to Take Back the House of Representatives." Democratic chances of taking back the House continue to hover just under 50% with the most likely outcomes seeing a very small seat gap between whichever party wins control of the House and the runner-up. If things go somewhat badly for Democrats over the final three and a half weeks or if polling is over-projecting their outcome as badly as it did in 2006 (3.6% per the RCP Generic Congressional Ballot or GCB average on the gap), they could gain as few as ten or eleven seats. If things go somewhat badly for Republicans over the final three and a half weeks or if polling is over-projecting their outcome a bit worse than it did in 2010 (2.6% per RCP), Democrats could wind up gaining twenty-five to twenty-nine seats for a maximum 224-211 advantage.

www.counterpunch.org

#87 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-13 09:02 AM | Reply

Tilt power away from court and back toward congress. Once you do that, then it's just a matter of winning elections.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-10-12 11:33 PM | REPLY

Says the privileged white conservative heterosexual male who has no bloody clue what being denied rights feels like. You really have no clue Jeff you really don't.

#88 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-13 02:26 PM | Reply

"Are you aware of what is being bandied about among left-wing circles these days?"

Are you aware that's not an argument?

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 02:47 PM | Reply

"Most people don't realize that the ship of state narrowly avoided crashing head-on into the iceberg of shrillary clinton, who's now calling the DNC Sturmabteilung to violence.
#81 | POSTED BY HEINRICH"

Cutious about something.

Is Hillary the greatest threat America has ever faced?

If not Hillary, then who?

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 02:52 PM | Reply

Well, since nobody demolished JeffJ's weaponized ralking points, I'll do it:

"-Abolish the electoral college - because progressives don't like the recent results."

Recent results are undemocratic. Strange how you don't think "because the electoral college is undemocratic" is a valid reason in a democratic society. Oh, I get it. It's because you like the recent undemocratic results that got us Bush and Trump.

"-Abolish the Senate because it's not "Democratic". Of course the Maryland vs Texas paradigm is NEVER cited."

The Senate isn't democratic. That's just a fact. It's conservative by design. Nothing wrong with thunking undemocratic by design isn't the best choice for a democratic society.

"-Impeach a SCOTUS justice for slightly shifting the ideological balance of the court."

That's not why. Lying under oath is why.

"-Impeach and remove a duly elected President because temper tantrum."

That's not why. Violation of the emoluments clause and Federal election law is why. Closeness with Russian money laundrers is another legit reaon.

"-Suspend all notions of preponderance of evidence, as long as it's applied to a conservative"

There is no notion of preponderance of evidence durung a job interview. However, there is a notion of testifying openly, honestly, and truthfully under oath.

"-Stalk, harass and assault our political adversaries wherever they happen to be - family outing, restaurant, at home with kids, on the -------, etc. But, only if they are conservatives and/or Republicans."

Who was stalked? Who was assaulted? Who was harassed? Did they file charges? Why didn't they gule charges? The preponderance of the evidence dors not support your owm reckless assertion!!!

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-13 03:04 PM | Reply

In what way?

#13 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-10-12 10:12 PM | FLAG:

There's zero chance of halting those judges before the election. Zero.

Only a complete moron would "resist" just to resist, when the only way gains can be made is to go home and campaign.

The Basics Of Game Theory

#92 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-10-13 03:08 PM | Reply

Why didn't they gule charges? The preponderance of the evidence dors not support your owm reckless assertion!!!
#91 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Hahaha. drunk snooty is the best.

Does your mom buy your hard cider too?

Did you tell her that 'Mike' was just a guy who makes really good lemonade?

#93 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-13 11:49 PM | Reply

Sitz's point is entirely logical and valid.

#94 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-14 01:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort