Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Neonivek]

Anyhow here is my bet... Flynn will get that immunity!

Because as I said... his whole spiel is a pretense to give his friends and confidants an excuse to give it to him.

[smjjames]

Anyhow here is my bet... Flynn will get that immunity!

Because as I said... his whole spiel is a pretense to give his friends and confidants an excuse to give it to him.

None of those friends seem to be in the FBI or Congress, they've said no to the immunity. Also, on the lawfare blog, they said that serious asks for immunity are usually done in private, not publicly.

[Neonivek]

Also, on the lawfare blog, they said that serious asks for immunity are usually done in private, not publicly.

Because as I said this is a pretense. There IS no reason this guy should get immunity, the whole public display is intentional.

Doing it privately would be against the point.

[Harry Baldman]

Apparently Bannon got dropped from the National Security Council!

Not as much rejoicing as I would have expected, truth be told.

[MrRoboto75]

Poor Gannon Bannon

[PTTG??]

So looking at the Gorsuch thing, Democrats can either roll over (like they are good at) and let the Republicans get their illegitimate justice without a fight. Or, the Democrats can fight, force the republicans to use the nuclear option and remove the filibuster, and still see the Republicans get their illegitimate justice.

So really, this is about keeping or throwing away the filibuster.

I think we should get rid of it. Long-term, the Republicans are going to lose. They will be the minority again. And they will use the filibuster to control the debate. Meanwhile, the democrats can't use it, because anything important enough for it to be worth filibustering, the Republicans will just drop a nuke on it and we'll be right in this same situation.

And least important, but most satisfying, we really need to send a message that we haven't forgotten the illegal and unjust blocking of Obama's appointee.

Ninja'd: Bannon is not going anywhere. He's still special advisor.

[Max™]

It's only filibustering nominees that is being nuked if it goes that far, both sides did the same with other things at various points in the past.

[EnigmaticHat]

The nuclear option would basically make supreme justice appointees more extreme and make the selection process more random.

Under the current system, an appointee needs to be at least tolerable to both parties.  If the nuclear option goes through, its just like.  The moment either side gets a majority, they get to put the youngest and most extreme judge they can find into the supreme court.  My current bet is that the democrats will hold both houses of congress from 2018-2022 at the least.  The Republican party has to be concerned about the fact that a conservative judge could die or retire in that time, and at that point what did they really accomplish?

[Sergarr]

Apparently Bannon got dropped from the National Security Council!

Not as much rejoicing as I would have expected, truth be told.

It wasn't clear what the hell he was even doing there, and, going by anecdotal accounts of "he never attended a single NSC meeting", he didn't actually do anything with the position that would warrant any real high-spirited reaction to him leaving it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's too late for that. By discarding Garland with naked ambition, the Republicans have given up all right to courtesy in the appointment process, and further the Democrats cannot afford to approve of their actions by confirming Gorsuch. They have proven they would never reciprocate, so the possibility of bipartisanship in this is already eliminated.

[Baffler]

The only major bipartisan decision I can personally remember being made was in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. It's been dead a lot longer than just the few months since Trump was elected.

[Frumple]

The Republican party has to be concerned about the fact that a conservative judge could die or retire in that time, and at that point what did they really accomplish?

You're assuming they particularly care about that far ahead, EH. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but long term thinking hasn't exactly been the GOP's forte.

Case in point, the speculation I've been seeing points to a gorsuch appointment being more about shoring up the trump presidency than anything else. Just about anyone conservative would have worked. Which is why they're willing to nuke it -- it's not about the SCOTUS seat, it's about getting a win for trump and the GOP, showing they can get something major through while they have the extent of control that they do.

E: Though if you're actually interested, baff, you can search one of the congress sites for bills that passed both house and senate, and check for ones that didn't have a vote. Every one of those had no opposition from either side, and there's not a particularly small amount of them, for all the impact is usually indeed not major.

E2: Ah, actually, it's this thing. Fiddle with the advanced options, filter for stuff that made it to the prez, and have a look around.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The only major bipartisan decision I can personally remember being made was in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. It's been dead a lot longer than just the few months since Trump was elected.

Bipartisanship in general is long dead, but it was only with the refusal to hold a hearing for Garland that the SCOTUS appointment system was broken down. In my opinion it's actually one of the worst things the GOP has ever done, openly putting partisan victories over the functionality of the government. They can't even say it was unfair of Obama to make them vote on some "activist judge" because Garland is judicially centrist and highly competent.

No, it was purely and openly to exploit an opening in the legal process (no time limit on SCOTUS seats going empty) to protect the conservatism of the Supreme Court, and advanced under a figleaf of "democracy" for a non-democratic body. If Clinton had pulled through they'd probably still be fucking whining and refusing to give Garland a hearing.

That I cannot abide. If the Dems won back the government in 2020 and immediately appointed 10 extra liberal justices, I'd call that fair play under what the Republicans chose to establish. The actual price the GOP pays will of course be less extreme, but they must be made to pay it all the same.

[Shazbot]

Remember that time when Harry "Broke my Orbital Bone With a Rubber Band" Reid said...

"All within the sound of my voice, including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with, should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority, and I will do that if necessary."

http://theweek.com/articles/465833/harry-reid-threatens-use-nuclear-option

Good times.