On the Supreme Court

"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin) 07/10/2018 at 08:55 • Filed to: None

9

55

Political Oppo.

1) On the impromptu protests: astroturf. 20 seconds after the name was announced dozens of professionally printed signs just happened to magically appear. Right.

2) On elections:

“ Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

It’s not a shock or surprise that there was going to be Supreme Court vacancies, that’s one reason why people were willing to vote party-line in 2016, no matter how unpalatable the candidate may be. At the end of the day, Republicans control all three branches, and have absolutely no obligation to nominate someone that doesn’t meet the preferred mold of constitutional originalist that doesn’t legeslate from the bench.

3) No matter who’s name was drawn from the hat, the #resist crowd would be out in full force. To quote the Chicago Tribune “The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ....The decision to block such an obviously qualified nominee — praised for his impeccable temperament, character and intellect by legal scholars on both the left and right — freed tradition-bound Republicans to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.” If Democrats were willing to go to the mat against Gorsuch, clearly they would also attempt to do so with anyone else. But again, see points one and two.... astroturf and consequences.

4) Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere. Anyone saying otherwise is simply inciting a call to arms, attempting to rally the base. Seriously though, it’s not going anywhere. But hey, “you never let a serious crisis go to waste”. Which leads me to point number 4.

4) Democrats lead in the generic ballot has been consistently declining. A year ago Democrats had a double digit lead in all polls looking at the midterms. Now, it’s within the margin of error almost across the board. Time to rally the base again. And donchaknow if you don’t GOTV the evil Republicans are going to force you into a million back-alley abortions a year.

5) On the future: Notorious RBG. At 85 years old, RBG made a strategical error not retiring under the Obama administration. She’s still a brilliant legal mind, and I hope her mind never fades, but I struggle to see her finishing out Trump’s term. IF Democrats retake the Senate this fall, I see RBG stepping down next summer knowing that a Democrat controlled Senate has the ability to force a barely-left-moderate nomination. If Democrats don’t retake the Senate, she’ll stick it out another few years.

6) On the present: Brett Kavanaugh. Yes, he has a partisan history before becoming a Circuit judge. So did Kagen and Sotomayor. Yes, he wrote some unpopular opinions: having authored over 300 opinions over 12 years on the DC Circuit there’s something for everyone to latch onto, both for or against. There are two consistencies that I see in his writings: a steadfast and broad deferral to the powers granted to both Congress and the Presidency in the Constitution, and a strict adherence to the Constitution and legislation. Kavanaugh has been consistently praised throughout his career for his writings, and more of his clerk’s have gone on to be hired to clerk on the Supreme Court than anyone else in history. His resume fits the bill to perfection.

7) Final thought: is Kavanaugh the perfect candidate? Of course not. There is no such thing. But Democrats need to ask themselves, if they successfully block Kavanaugh, who’s next on Trump’s list? Elections have consequences, and so far Trump’s nominations have a pretty solid history of judicial moderation. Kavanaugh has the resume and the bipartisan judicial praise to back up his nomination... are you really going to try to go to the mat again? Because you need to think about what comes next...

whoarder is tellurium > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:01

3

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:03

0

That’s sorta my take, as well. Kavanaugh is the best bad option out there; pick which battles to fight lest they all are lost. 

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:05

6

The Democrats’ third mistake was to filibuster Neil Gorsuch 

Disagree with you here, if the Dems learned one thing from the Obama administration was there is no honor in compromise, and your base probably loves obstructionism if you fall below a majority.

Hell, shut the government down if you have a crusade, it’ll get you at least second in the next presidential primary.

Tekamul > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:11

0

1) The correct course for Democrats is not to try to block or hold up Kavanaugh. Let him in prior to midterms, then stoke the fires to flip Senate control in November.

2) The biggest, most important push is for 2020, to reclaim the White House and maintain a Senate majority. Ultimately, the goal is to reclaim the House by 2022

3) Cast aside the moldering standard of nine justices and expand the court to 11 or 13 positions, allowing for a more diverse set of views, and a diminished amount of pressure for aging judges to hold he seat until death.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:13

9

If the right hadn’t refused to seat Merrick Garland then we wouldn’t be here. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Y’all are gonna have to live with the consequences of the bullshit that McConell pulled.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:15

3

I agree with...I mean, pretty much all of this. I really didn’t get the filibuster of Gorsuch, and I feel like its kind of a microcosm of how democrats are working right now: r epublicans do r epublican policy and the democrats act like its unprecedented when its boilerplate GOP stuff. Gorsuch wa s a regular ass republican nominee, not some far right Alex Jones lunatic, and they treated it like he was going to turn over Roe v Wade all by himself later that afternoon.

Pre-election, I legitimately thought we might never see another GOP President, n ow I’m thinking Trump is absolutely going to win a second term (if he runs, which I’m not convinced of because he could call it a win after 4 years and go out on top rather than risk a loss).

ttyymmnn > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:15

12

Elections have consequences

You mean like that time Obama was elected and the GOP refused to consider his choice for the SC after Scalia died? 

Stapleface > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:17

3

While I can agree with most of what you’re saying, I think that point 3 might be up for contention in regards to Gorsuch. Was he a qualified candidate? Yes. But I think that fili buster was more of a payback to draw out the process because of the flat out refusal to even consider a vote on Garland. And yes, the Democrats are still salty about it and would have probably not agreed to any candidate if they were picked by the current President.

And, as for Roe v Wade, it would return to individual state’s rights most likely. So, while it could change, I don’t think you’re going to see too many back alley abortions because I would imagine at least a fair portion of states would keep it legal.

Textured Soy Protein > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:19

1

You wrote many words there, but all I have to say on the matter is,

Fuck that guy.

He ’s a di ck.

I’m out.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:22

10

“ 4) Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere. Anyone saying otherwise is simply inciting a call to arms, attempting to rally the base. Seriously though, it’s not going anywhere.”

People also said we would never have a travel ban on Muslim countries when Trump campaigned with i t. And yet, here we are. The SC has upheld it. The tariffs are going to go through, national security issue or not. Nobody expected a trade war, and it’s almost a certainty now. The status quo has been upset. I wouldn’t count out a repeal of Roe vs. Wade- that doesn’t, however, mean abortion will be illegal, just lower access.

OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:25

8

I have my opinions but the only thing worth mentioning is this tweet that I found hysterical. The level of division and lack of rechecking is hysterical.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

BigBlock440 > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 07/10/2018 at 09:28

3

Do you really not understand the differences between a lame duck president and a mid-term? Also, that was based on the recommendation of Biden and Schumer.  But if you think there should never be a supreme court nomination since every year’s an election year, we’ll have to disagree.  

Mercedes Streeter > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:29

4

Both sides love obstructing each other. Republicans obstructed Obama, Democrats are obstructing Trump. Yet, neither side wants to admit that they do it when they’re the ones in power.

With that said, I don’t have much hope for the Democrats. We’re still too busy pointing fingers at each other for who caused Clinton’s loss that I am afraid that we still don’t have a 2020 gameplan. Nobody wants to admit that we weren’t perfect; that we got steamrolled thinking we could walk the election without trying.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > BigBlock440 07/10/2018 at 09:30

4

Y’all set the precedent, there’s new rules and we’re gonna play to win. If you didn’t want this then you should’ve thought of it then.

fintail > ttyymmnn 07/10/2018 at 09:30

6

But whatabout this one time when...

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:32

1

oh my fuck stop posting right wing politics on an obviously left wing site what do you expect to come from this

BigBlock440 > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 07/10/2018 at 09:33

1

Are you talking to Biden and Schumer there? Or Reid with his nuclear option?

But ok, if you truly believe there should never be another supreme court nominee, I don’t know what else to say.

Nibby > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:39

3

Milky > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:42

4

Did you know 4 states already have laws banning abortion IF roe v wade gets overturned? Thats a great use of lawmakers time.

Kavanaugh was already the swing the in an abortion case and pushed down the road to the point where it would have been illegal.

He is  Trump’s pick, not hard to figure out which way he will vote. 

Tapas > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 09:53

2

Politics aside, I really want to put this suspension on a box flared ‘99 2-door RAV4!

About the Supreme Court, y’all are doomed.

BigBlock440 > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 07/10/2018 at 10:00

11

Since when is oppo obviously left wing?  Just because some of the more vocal members are means the entire community is?

facw > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 10:05

3

astroturf 

We’ve know it has been down to three choices for a while. And rumors had it down to two as of a few days ago. It is not hard to be prepared. Who do you think is astroturfing here? Even if this is coming from the party establishment , are they not a valid political organization, with passionate members who are real people? There’s no secret special interest who is faking this.

“ Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” 

Yep. I mean after the bullshit that Mitch pulled, I don’t begrudge the Democrats blocking any pick they can, but frankly they lost, and ultimately won’t be able to do anything. There’s a lot of blame to go around for Hillary’s loss, but there’s no question it was a disaster for the left (and in my opinion, for the country).

On your third point, as noted, I don’t see it as a disaster, and I do see it as entirely predictable . This is going to be the new normal going forward, to the determent of the nation (and blame goes way back, Mitch not have ended the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees if the Dems hadn’t done the same on lower lever appointees, but the Dems wouldn’t have done that had the Republicans not taken to blocking huge numbers of highly-qualifies lower-level appointees)

Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere 

Here you are either naive or gaslighting. It’s possible that the court won’t directly overturn the ruling, but the Republican playbook has been to constrain abortion rights to the point where abortion is practically banned. If one of these cases comes to Supreme Court, after Kavanaugh is appointed, the result will be a defacto opportunity for states to ban abortion, even if it is technically legal in some circumstances. That is not satisfying to some on the far right, who are disappointed that Kavanaugh may be too cautious a jurist to completely overturn Roe, but no one doubts that he will be strongly anti-abortion.

4) Democrats lead in the generic ballot has been consistently declining.

If this is the approach they are taking, I don’t think it will work out well for them. Abortion is an issue people are passionate about, but most people (especially on the pro-choice side) have many issues they care about more. That may change if abortion is outlawed again, but it seems to me not to be the issue that is going to animate people against Trump and the Republicans, especially now that it is too late to do anything about this court appointment .

Notorious RBG

Yep, if she dies (I can’t imagine her retiring under Trump), that is where you will see a huge generational shift in the court. It would have been nice for her to retire under Obama (earlier under Obama I guess), but I’m sure she (like many people) thought it unlikely Trump would win. Can’t do anything about it now though, just have to hope that she’s in good health, and Trump is a one-term president.

On the present: Brett Kavanaugh.

I don’t like him, and I do think some of his rulings and statements have been quite bad, but there are certainly far worse people Trump could have picked. If as the right (both those in favor of him, and those who consider him not radical enough) is trying to argue, he’s another Roberts, I think that’s about the best the left can hope for.

But Democrats need to ask themselves, if they successfully block Kavanaugh, who’s next on Trump’s list? 

I don’t think they care, because I don’t think they really believe they have any chance to stop the nomination (nor should they). On the very off chance they can convince enough moderate Republicans to stand with them to block the nomination (I don’t think this will happen, because I’m not at all convinced they can even muster all the Democratic senators to stand against it), then presumably that same coalition would hold for a more radical candidate (maybe some super libertarian could split it?), but really I think they are just showing outrage because the base expects it. This fight was lost in 2016, and the Dems need to keep their eyes on the mid-terms, with the hope that if nothing else, they can block the next pick (especially if it is RBG, or another of the liberal justices).

Sovande > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 07/10/2018 at 10:11

4

Not everyone hopes for knee- jerk reactionary liberalism. Some people actually find it interesting to hear the other side of an argument before making a decision or forming an opinion. The Ginsburg argument, for instance, is a good one. The left would have been better served had she stepped down during the Obama tenure.

Sovande > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 07/10/2018 at 10:20

3

This is my favorite of all the Democratic responses: It was a terrible thing you did, but since you did it we will do it too. Nothing says “integrity” like stooping to the level of those you lambaste and abhor.

ESSSIX GmbH - Accountant/Wagon Thumper > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 10:24

1

To the first point, You print signs for every outcome, and only reveal the right one after the announcement, and then dispose of the others.

Thats how it’s handled in sports, so less astroturf, and more like planning in advance.

I generally agree with all the others. Except #3, was it a mistake, yes, big time with the super majority etc, but the base would have turned on the party had they done nothing and just bent over.

The optics remain that so far the GOP has gotten everything they wanted, and now, every bad thing that happens will be their responsibility alone, cause they got their idiot who can hold a pen.

Who IF, and I mean it, he wanted, he could have been the greatest president, but he clearly has a hole legion of personal demons that keep him busy.

Biggus Dickus (RevsBro) > ttyymmnn 07/10/2018 at 10:28

0

The Senate has the constitutional power to block it if they have the numbers. Dirty? Maybe. Legal? Definitely. 

Biggus Dickus (RevsBro) > Tekamul 07/10/2018 at 10:36

2

Court packing is a dangerous game to play. Careful what you wish for. 

fintail > OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars 07/10/2018 at 10:38

1

Unpresidented! :)

DipodomysDeserti > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 10:43

5

Great, what am I supposed to do with all these anti Justice Nugent posters now!

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > Sovande 07/10/2018 at 10:43

1

The problem with taking the high road here is that the right seems plenty happy not to. At some point you can’t continue to lose playing by a set of rules the other side is ignoring.

OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars > fintail 07/10/2018 at 10:48

2

The mentality of bash first, get the facts later is frustrating but makes for a good laugh. 

fintail > OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars 07/10/2018 at 10:50

3

Twitter is a disease. If one screeching side isn’t looking foolish with it, the worst president ever is embarrassing the nation with it.

And I am sure a mind like Pappas mocks  DOTUS-sourced errors, too :)

OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars > fintail 07/10/2018 at 10:51

0

I pretty much only use it for sports but politics bleeds in. The nice part is the politics that bleeds in usually has to be interesting to make it to me.

Sovande > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 07/10/2018 at 10:54

0

So, to paraphrase, they are breaking the rules, so we will break the rules too. Does that about sum it up? That’s a fine argument. Once you have decided that winning is more important than core values what’s the point in having integrity?

I just don’t get how stooping to the level of those whose politics you (as a group) decry does anything but devalue your argument.

And just so we are all in the same page, I am very very far from a Trump supporter. 

fintail > OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars 07/10/2018 at 10:59

1

The responses to that tweet also make me doubt evolution or the overall future of humani ty.

If there’s a source I’d follow for sports news, it wouldn’t be FOX :)

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > Sovande 07/10/2018 at 11:01

0

I’m aware, and I have no interest in taking the low road, but the problem with things like Supreme Court seats is that they’re lifetime appointments. If this was almost any other situation I’d respond differently, but we already had a one moderate’s seat stolen and we can’t afford this kind of gamesmanship to succeed again. If Garland had been seated then we wouldn’t be here, but he wasn’t,  so we are.

Future next gen S2000 owner > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 11:04

3

The one thing that I don’t like about the way the Supreme Court decides cases, is that they sometimes go along with what the legislature intended vs what is written. Their job is to interpret what was written. If congress botches something because they can’t stop arguing, it isn’t up to the Supreme Court  to fix it.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 07/10/2018 at 11:16

1

Also curious what these folks you’re arguing with would have to say about Reagan’s nomination (and subsequent senate confirmation) of none other than Anthony Kennedy himself…did that not count as a lame duck session? It’s such a finely crafted beautiful set of rules that apply to them that McConnell gets to pull out of his ass – and we have to accept it to the tee.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 11:26

2

Raegan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court in November 1987 – less than a year before the 1988 elections. He was confirmed by the senate in February 1988 – was that not a lame duck session? Please tell me the exact number of months, days, and hours that is agreeable to republicans and McConnell to pull rules out of their ass that apply to them and only them. An extension of that exact same argument to a logically comparable scenario (president nominates, senate has to confirm) and whoa whoa whoa, what are you guys crazy?! Obama was a lame duck (which apparently was fine when it came to Raegan), this is nothing like that!

You may say that Roe vs. Wade is law. However there have been multiple states during the Trump presidency pushing through intentionally restrictive laws restricting abortion access (and things like a “heart beat” clause) with the explicit hope that these laws will get challenged and taken all the way up to the supreme court – with the expectation/hope that Trump’s additions to the court will result in a vote in their favor. It is also no secret that at least some of his supreme court nominees have had far more restrictive views about Roe vs. Wade. So sure, it may be settled law in name – but there is still plenty of damage that could be done that restricts how the law is applied across the land. Additionally, as these instances clearly show there are plenty of people in positions of authority gunning at overthrowing Roe vs. Wade. We’ll stop “getting all worked up over nothing” when the other side stops writing ever-more restrictive local laws and pushing for it to get challenged in the higher courts.

My bird IS the word > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 11:27

1

On Roe: Abortion is actually in favor of republicans, because it dis proportionally targets the poor and minorities.

If you want to hate everything, look no further than politics.

RacingShark > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 11:29

2

I agree that RoeVWade probably won’t be overturned, but there are a lot of ways that it can and has been effectively negated. States will say that abortion is legal, but only in the first 30 days, if there’s an ultrasound, the father signs off on it, the grand parents are notified, and they wait 7 days. The battle isn’t over abortion, it’s about all the hoops and regulations around it.
   

haveacarortwoorthree2 > ttyymmnn 07/10/2018 at 11:50

1

I think Garland should have received a hearing and vote. That said, to me at least, there is a huge difference between waiting for the results of a presidential election where the incumbent is not running (and thus is a lame duck) and a mid-term election where the person making the nomination is going to be the same before and after the election. I certainly understand arguments for the contrary view (I’m a lawyer, pay me and I’ll argue whatever you want!), but I think the two different types of election really make the difference. 

Jayhawk Jake > Sovande 07/10/2018 at 11:51

0

He’s not saying it’s right or wrong, he’s just saying that it is. 

haveacarortwoorthree2 > Mercedes Streeter 07/10/2018 at 12:09

1

If the Dems could get their shit together on taxing and spending (I know, the Reps are almost as bad on spending) , they’d roll the Reps. But there’s a lot of fiscal conservatives who detest Trump and other socially backward Reps but still will vote for them because of taxes.

Sovande > Jayhawk Jake 07/10/2018 at 12:22

0

In another comment he says that it’s “taking the low road” though that is what, in his mind, the situation warrants based on the fact that the appointment is lifetime. Fair argument, I suppose.

“There’s new rules and we’re going to play to win” sounds as though a a judgement has been made as to right and wrong, but I don’t mean to put words in anyone’ s mouth.

boxrocket > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 12:55

3

Dems need to suck it up and approve Kavanaugh. SCotUS works best when there are C onstitution-minded members on it, because they’ll both approve things in that spirit, and deny them for the same reason. Therefore they keep the other two branches in check, and prevent more trivial matters from negatively impacting the whole country, or giving important matters the proper gravitas.

boxrocket > Mercedes Streeter 07/10/2018 at 13:03

2

DNC would be best served by breaking up. Too many divisive special interests. Too many agendas. Too many facets to try to adhere to. Maybe the RNC would follow suit and we could abolish bipartisanism once and for all. Less “us vs them”, more “us for all ”.

BobintheMtns > mkbruin, Atlas VP 07/10/2018 at 13:13

3

This pick was never about Roe v Wade... You think a trump, a guy who rawdogs porn stars, would have an issue with abortions??

All trump cares about is his own ass.

This pick was because Kavanaugh (*now) believes that sitting presidents should be immune from any subpoenas, as well as criminal prosecutions.

*N ow because he, for some reason, didn’t have that belief when he was working for Ken Starr while investigating Bill Clinton over whitewater.....

Jayhawk Jake > Sovande 07/10/2018 at 14:04

0

Playing by the ‘rules’ does not in and of itself say that rules are right or wrong. It just says you’re following them.

Sovande > Jayhawk Jake 07/10/2018 at 14:25

0

Okay. So when Bush illegally uses an u n secured email server it is bad. When Clinton does it, it is also bad, but her excuse was that Bush did it first, so that makes it okay . If the “ rules” are defined by copying the poor behavior of others and then justifying your actions because they are the same stupid things others have done before you, my point is that may want to adjust your standards.

Jayhawk Jake > Sovande 07/10/2018 at 16:11

2

Bruuuuuhhhhhhhhh come on. I’m not commenting on whether something is bad or isn’t bad. I’m simply pointing out that Bman was saying “the republicans did it, so now the democrats are doing it”. At no point, based on how I read his comments, did he say that either party was in the right here.

I don’t see what private email servers have to do with anything, but if you really want to go there maybe we should hold the President to a slightly different standard than, well, anyone else. Maybe we shouldn’t. Neither individual was punished, and I don’t think anyone was saying Hilary was right to do what she did, just that it probably wasn’t worth jail time.

Neither I nor Bman are justifying anything. He is making an observation of what is happening and speculating on why it’s happening, and I’m making an observation of his observation.

Sovande > Jayhawk Jake 07/10/2018 at 16:57

0

The email comparison was just the low hanging fruit. Bush and Powell did the exact same thing Clinton did with no consequences, even though it was stupid and illegal, that was my only point. To that, the only person who was saying it was right was Clinton.

I am just suggesting that maybe if you want to be viewed as having any integrity, your excuse for doing shit should be more concrete and well thought out than “the people we keep calling criminals and whose views we despise did it, so we did it too.” It all sounds very 3rd grade, which is a shame when considering what is at stake.

“ Y’all set the precedent, there’s new rules and we’re gonna play to win. If you didn’t want this then you should’ve thought of it then." That sure sounds like Bman was condoning the behavior to me. 

Jayhawk Jake > Sovande 07/10/2018 at 17:04

2

Yes, I agree. Politicians today lack integrity. They should be ‘better than’, but we both know they won’t be.

Potayto potahto I guess on the last sentiment. Bman seems to be saying “this is what is happening as a result of that”, not “this is what should   be happening”.

boxrocket > boxrocket 07/10/2018 at 17:50

0

^or prevents giving important matters the proper gravitas

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 07/11/2018 at 09:42

1

... republicans and McConnell to pull rules out of their ass that apply to them and only them.

I might have put it differently, but yeah. And Trump telling Angela Merkel that Germany is owned by Russia, or whatever. Donald Trump is adroit at spewing patently outrageous statements and in so doing, making himself the (liberal) media’s assignment editor.

There is no such thing in American politics as a double standard.