philliesphhan wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

pacino wrote:perhaps for the ones that are pure politics, but the true believers will see it as a lifelong goal achieved.

I mean for the party as a whole, which to me is ultimately Big Money. They would lose a lot more votes (and power) than they'd gain

why? They can always run on keeping it illegal

All the pro lifers already vote with them. There are a ton of pro choicers who don’t vote Democrat or at all

traderdave wrote:Thank you for that very informative post, Wolfgang622!

He's freaking great and a treasure. I am truly pissed he didn't get the AFL-CIO endorsement.

pacino wrote:

traderdave wrote:Thank you for that very informative post, Wolfgang622!

He's freaking great and a treasure. I am truly pissed he didn't get the AFL-CIO endorsement.

*sniff* you guys...

This day was inevitable since November 8, 2016, so it's not as though there were any surprises or I was unprepared. It has been surprisingly tough and depressing just the same, but I think that is because of just how inevitable this day has felt since DJT was elected: it completely undermines one's sense of or belief in fair play or the principles of the judiciary when you see how telegraphed this was, how nakedly and without shame Alito all but actually personally lobbied for the opportunity to do this today.

I like to believe in the system and that judges can set aside politics and be fair. The Abood decision was in fact an attempt to compromise and not please one side or the other too much. I could have even seen a modification or two. But this was just one guy deciding what he wanted and methodically setting the stage to do it.

I would love to skip paying my federal taxes this year, since, by the logic of Janus, I am being compelled to support something which I don't agree.

CalvinBall wrote:With McCain missing Dems could just not show up and they wouldn't be able to vote on anything with only 50 members present

Manchin would probably show up

CalvinBall wrote:With McCain missing Dems could just not show up and they wouldn't be able to vote on anything with only 50 members present

This would be a fantastic way to make sure there are 54 or so GOP senators in 2019.

JUburton wrote:why do we call anthony kennedy a swing vote.

pacino wrote:i dont

CFP wrote:Kennedy retiring

slugsrbad wrote:FUCK.

CalvinBall wrote:The grand expirement is over. Good run, I guess.

BSG, June 27, 2018

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:With McCain missing Dems could just not show up and they wouldn't be able to vote on anything with only 50 members present

This would be a fantastic way to make sure there are 54 or so GOP senators in 2019.

While you were busy with the schadenfreude brought to you by the destruction of norms and racism I also pointed this out.

Like honestly you decry Trump, and I believe you do so earnestly, but you also will look back fondly on this time after the country bounces back due to the court packing.

Fucked up country when 'swing vote' means 'at least could be counted upon to uphold women's and gay rights'

lol fraud jersey strikes again

slugsrbad wrote:Like honestly you decry Trump, and I believe you do so earnestly, but you also will look back fondly on this time after the country bounces back due to the court packing.

I won't look back on the time fondly. And it's not court packing.

I think it is good that there will be a new, younger conservative on the court. I don't think the good of him/her and Gorsuch and the handful of other accomplishments comes close to outweighing the bad. And I am sure the conservative movement and Republican Party are still going to be huge long term losers on the Trump presidency regardless of the relative shift on the courts vs. Hillary.

But I also don't understand how some #NeverTrump types (the Jen Rubin crowd) are acting like the opportunity to replace Kennedy with a younger, more conservative justice is a bad thing. If you believed in a strict constructionist or originalist or whatever your preferred descriptor reading of the constitution prior to Trump becoming president, the fact that Trump is a moral cretin unfit for the office of the president shouldn't really change your mind on that. I don't really get that mindset.

A president under investigation for a laundry list of potential crimes gets to pick another SC judge

A president who fraudulently led a charity (stole money from said charity) gets to pick another SC judge

I mean, really. But Obama couldn’t pick a SC judge cause he was in his final year of the presidency. Laughable really.

I do admit that court packing was a loaded term I didn’t mean it in the FDR attempt way

I hope when the Democrats are back in charge they go ahead and add 6 seats to the Supreme Court and a bunch of federal judges.

Also, I hope liberals remember that the Warren court with its decisions supporting civil rights and civil liberties was historically an aberration, and really the SC gives us a lot more Plessys and Dred Scotts and Korematsus than Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board. (And that probably is exactly what Madison had in mind in the first place.)

You snowflakes

JH will you be happy when gay marriage is outlawed again? That's where we are headed. Those are the decisions you're excited for.

jerseyhoya wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Like honestly you decry Trump, and I believe you do so earnestly, but you also will look back fondly on this time after the country bounces back due to the court packing.

I won't look back on the time fondly. And it's not court packing.

I think it is good that there will be a new, younger conservative on the court. I don't think the good of him/her and Gorsuch and the handful of other accomplishments comes close to outweighing the bad. And I am sure the conservative movement and Republican Party are still going to be huge long term losers on the Trump presidency regardless of the relative shift on the courts vs. Hillary.

But I also don't understand how some #NeverTrump types (the Jen Rubin crowd) are acting like the opportunity to replace Kennedy with a younger, more conservative justice is a bad thing. If you believed in a strict constructionist or originalist or whatever your preferred descriptor reading of the constitution prior to Trump becoming president, the fact that Trump is a moral cretin unfit for the office of the president shouldn't really change your mind on that. I don't really get that mindset.

I wish I could think of an analogy but Trump is so singular in his weirdness it's hard to do. How would any of us libtards feel - if we are being completely honest with ourselves - if the "left's Trump" (but who would that be?) got elected and regularly behaved boorishly, said all sorts of godawful, wrong, or godawful AND wrong things, regularly embarrassed us - and on way more than just a "sleazy politician" level but on a deeper, basic human decency level - but the one thing he managed to do was appoint some really great progressives as SC justices and all of 5-4 rulings that went their way went ours instead? I mean I guess an analogy I could make is: am I allowed to like Woody Allen's movies even though I have to recognize Woody Allen is just a total degenerate who should be in jail? Or is admitting I like Blue Jasmine[/] or [i]Annie Hall as much as declaring myself a bad person?

I was hurt personally and professionally in a very direct way by today's ruling on Janus. In general these rulings from my perspective have been awful. But even now I feel that I'll happily take any Republican who has been consistently willing to be vocally against Trump, as jersey has been. It's easy to dump on Trump when it's not happening to a cause or set of principles that you care about. It's much harder to say a guy sucks when he nevertheless, at least in some areas, does stuff you believe in and have always believed in and that aren't necessarily the kinds of things that make Trump so particularly abhorrent to anyone with a conscience.

We need Republicans who are willing NOT to vote for Trump, the rest of their ideology aside. I don't think it's reasonable to expect life-long laissez faire limited government conservatives to suddenly not be that anymore because Trump blows. I don't expect them to suddenly be against those things - things they were in favor of before there was any such thing as Trump the politician.

I wish everybody was a Democrat, but a Republican who won't vote for Trump? I'll take it. I certainly don't see what consistently attacking the character of someone who's been pretty consistently clear that he is a conservative with conservative principles but that he won't vote for Trump accomplishes. And I have lots of reasons to be lashing out and angry today.

CalvinBall wrote:JH will you be happy when gay marriage is outlawed again? That's where we are headed. Those are the decisions you're excited for.

I would be very opposed though I wasn't 100% sure I wanted gay marriage to be legalized by the courts rather than trying to go about it through the more democratic branches of government. I was wrong about legalizing gay marriage through the courts being something that might handicap its chances for gaining legitimacy. Given the prominence of Roe in the discussions surrounding Kennedy's retirement, I don't know my concerns about the court short circuiting the democratic process was misplaced - there were a lot of states moving to legalize abortion prior to Roe and the court decision (plus subsequent scientific advances in letting us see babies in the womb and keep those born early alive) have really stuck public opinion on abortion in a way that hasn't happened with pretty much any other progressive social issue that has come along. Gay marriage has not suffered in public opinion from how it has been implemented, and that is fantastic for the country.

I would be blown away if the court ever grants cert on it. If they do, I will allow you to choose my avatar for a year.

JH still embraces the horrid enablers like Ryan and McConnell and the spineless Marco Rubio. Somehow those guys are good Republicans. I can't delineate between them and Trump. Ryan is unable to call out a member for promoting Nazism, but it's not Trump's party or something.