RBG has Cancer...Again

[JohnStOnge]

The Democrats are eventually going to assume complete control. The handwriting is on the wall. If it doesn't happen this year it is still going to happen relatively soon in historical context. And when they do they are not going to tolerate a "conservative" Supreme Court. They will do what's necessary to eliminate that. Have your fun while you can.

You sure hope so. Everyone is fawning over the legacy of RBG. She was a firm believer in the SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution.

I don't agree with the philosophy of Constitutional "interpretation" RBG represented. I think it should be interpreted strictly according to an honest effort in interpret the language along with an equally honest effort to proceed according to how that language was generally understood when it was ratified. I think the Court doing anything else is the Court making law. I have never agreed with the idea that it is "necessary" for the Court to effectively change the Constitution to evolve with the times. There is a mechanism in the Constitution to provide for changing it. That mechanism requires social consensus for change and I think that is the way it should be. I do not think the effect of the Constitution should be changed by a majority vote among 9 unelected, life term officials.

All that said: Whether I hope the Democrats come to dominate or not does not matter. As we've discussed many times, unless something changes fundamentally with voting among demographic groups, the shrinking proportion of the population of the population composed of non-hispanic whites means eventual doom for the Republican Party. It's always possible something could change. But exit polling back to 1976 shows no indication that such should be expected.

The current Republican Party is the Party of relatively uneducated, older White People. It's a dying brand even if its adherence don't realize that yet.

[GannonFan]

The beauty of politics is you can say one side is being hypocritical without facing the reality that the other side is just as hypocritical. In 2016 the GOP was saying they didn't want a nominee in an election year and of course now they are saying they're good with it - hypocritical. In 2016, the Dems were saying it was right and proper for the President to nominate someone to fill the opening, even in an election year, and now they are saying to do so would be to destroy democracy - hypocritical as well. IMO, the GOP did themselves no favor by not having a vote on Garland in 2016 - of course they weren't going to confirm him, but better to let it go to a vote and the let Obama nominate another and vote that one down and so on. That would've been the proper exercising of the advise and consent power.

On a different note, though, it's certainly sad to see RBG go - she was an excellent jurist and the type of person we need on the Court, no matter which way they lean. Like Scalia before her, the Court is better with top-notch justices. We still have some on the Court now, but we're certainly down one now.

You mean to tell me some politicians are acting hypocritical and unprincipled?

Is there a constitutional argument regarding how long they have to confirm? What if RBG has retired around the Garland time?

There's nothing constitutional about how long to confirm, that's strictly a political consideration.

[Winterborn]

I like what Thomas Sowell said about the whole nomination process. My paraphrase of it is that both sides are hypocritical and so is the media that panders to those feelings.

[Baldy]

You sure hope so. Everyone is fawning over the legacy of RBG. She was a firm believer in the SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution.

I don't agree with the philosophy of Constitutional "interpretation" RBG represented. I think it should be interpreted strictly according to an honest effort in interpret the language along with an equally honest effort to proceed according to how that language was generally understood when it was ratified. I think the Court doing anything else is the Court making law. I have never agreed with the idea that it is "necessary" for the Court to effectively change the Constitution to evolve with the times. There is a mechanism in the Constitution to provide for changing it. That mechanism requires social consensus for change and I think that is the way it should be. I do not think the effect of the Constitution should be changed by a majority vote among 9 unelected, life term officials.

All that said: Whether I hope the Democrats come to dominate or not does not matter. As we've discussed many times, unless something changes fundamentally with voting among demographic groups, the shrinking proportion of the population of the population composed of non-hispanic whites means eventual doom for the Republican Party. It's always possible something could change. But exit polling back to 1976 shows no indication that such should be expected.

The current Republican Party is the Party of relatively uneducated, older White People. It's a dying brand even if its adherence don't realize that yet.

What's dying is your brand of old Neo-Con RINO Republicanism. Most have grown, adapted, and embraced change. Others, like you, a vocal minority of the bitter and disgruntled. Stuck in your old ways trying to burn the house down while you're being pushed out the door. You're left licking the ball sack of grifters like Rick Wilson.

[kalm]

I don't agree with the philosophy of Constitutional "interpretation" RBG represented. I think it should be interpreted strictly according to an honest effort in interpret the language along with an equally honest effort to proceed according to how that language was generally understood when it was ratified. I think the Court doing anything else is the Court making law. I have never agreed with the idea that it is "necessary" for the Court to effectively change the Constitution to evolve with the times. There is a mechanism in the Constitution to provide for changing it. That mechanism requires social consensus for change and I think that is the way it should be. I do not think the effect of the Constitution should be changed by a majority vote among 9 unelected, life term officials.

All that said: Whether I hope the Democrats come to dominate or not does not matter. As we've discussed many times, unless something changes fundamentally with voting among demographic groups, the shrinking proportion of the population of the population composed of non-hispanic whites means eventual doom for the Republican Party. It's always possible something could change. But exit polling back to 1976 shows no indication that such should be expected.

The current Republican Party is the Party of relatively uneducated, older White People. It's a dying brand even if its adherence don't realize that yet.

What's dying is your brand of old Neo-Con RINO Republicanism. Most have grown, adapted, and embraced change. Others, like you, a vocal minority of the bitter and disgruntled. Stuck in your old ways trying to burn the house down while you're being pushed out the door. You're left licking the ball sack of grifters like Rick Wilson.

[BDKJMU]

Biden 2016:

I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman even a few months before a presidential election

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ion-years/

[SeattleGriz]

You can even read what Mcconnell had to say back in 2016. He was very clear. There is no hypocrisy here.

Elections have consequences.

[SeattleGriz]

Trump announces during Fayetteville, NC rally that he will be submitting a female nominee next week..

I’m calling it now: Amy Coney Barrett.

I'm reading Barbara Lagoa.

[UNI88]

You can even read what Mcconnell had to say back in 2016. He was very clear. There is no hypocrisy here.

Elections have consequences.

No, None, Zero, not even a smidgeon?

I guess it's okay as long as your being consistent - there is no hypocrisy, not by the Republicans and not by the Democrats. Even though the Democrats are quoting McConnell and the Republicans are quoting Obama.

And if the Republicans confirm someone and then lose the Presidency and the Senate, I won't be surprised or really upset when the Democrats expand the Court to 15 justices. There will be no honor in DC and those types of things will be acceptable. Republicans will rage but will have themselves to blame as much as anyone.

[SeattleGriz]

You can even read what Mcconnell had to say back in 2016. He was very clear. There is no hypocrisy here.

Elections have consequences.

No, None, Zero, not even a smidgeon?

I guess it's okay as long as your being consistent - there is no hypocrisy, not by the Republicans and not by the Democrats. Even though the Democrats are quoting McConnell and the Republicans are quoting Obama.

And if the Republicans confirm someone and then lose the Presidency and the Senate, I won't be surprised or really upset when the Democrats expand the Court to 15 justices. There will be no honor in DC and those types of things will be acceptable. Republicans will rage but will have themselves to blame as much as anyone.

Well, that's the beauty of the internet. I like to go back and read articles from the past to see how stances have changed.

Mcconnell clearly says that since 1880, no Senate has confirmed a nominee when the Senate was from a different party than the President. That was the precedent, and he followed it.

The Dems of course screamed that Mitch had to #doyourjob. Even had a hashtag about it.

We already saw how the Democrats acted over Kavanaugh. The honor of DC was trampled years ago.

[UNI88]

No, None, Zero, not even a smidgeon?

I guess it's okay as long as your being consistent - there is no hypocrisy, not by the Republicans and not by the Democrats. Even though the Democrats are quoting McConnell and the Republicans are quoting Obama.

And if the Republicans confirm someone and then lose the Presidency and the Senate, I won't be surprised or really upset when the Democrats expand the Court to 15 justices. There will be no honor in DC and those types of things will be acceptable. Republicans will rage but will have themselves to blame as much as anyone.

Well, that's the beauty of the internet. I like to go back and read articles from the past to see how stances have changed.

Mcconnell clearly says that since 1880, no Senate has confirmed a nominee when the Senate was from a different party than the President. That was the precedent, and he followed it.

The Dems of course screamed that Mitch had to #doyourjob. Even had a hashtag about it.

We already saw how the Democrats acted over Kavanaugh. The honor of DC was trampled years ago.

It's getting worse and acting like your side isn't contributing to it is naive or Jim Jones level kool-aid drinking.

Remember this if the Dem's expand the Court to 15 justices.

[SeattleGriz]

Well, that's the beauty of the internet. I like to go back and read articles from the past to see how stances have changed.

Mcconnell clearly says that since 1880, no Senate has confirmed a nominee when the Senate was from a different party than the President. That was the precedent, and he followed it.

The Dems of course screamed that Mitch had to #doyourjob. Even had a hashtag about it.

We already saw how the Democrats acted over Kavanaugh. The honor of DC was trampled years ago.

It's getting worse and acting like your side isn't contributing to it is naive or Jim Jones level kool-aid drinking.

Remember this if the Dem's expand the Court to 15 justices.

I don't have a side. I hate both sides. I lean Republican, but refer to both sides as the Uniparty. It's why I love Trump. The perfect asshole to deal with our other elected assholes.

Besides, what have the Republicans done on the level of Russia collision (false), Ukraine Impeachment (false) or the Kavanaugh hearings (false)?

Just so you understand I'm not trying to be a dick here. You always reply in a fair level headed manner, and I appreciate that.

[GannonFan]

You can even read what Mcconnell had to say back in 2016. He was very clear. There is no hypocrisy here.

Elections have consequences.

No, None, Zero, not even a smidgeon?

I guess it's okay as long as your being consistent - there is no hypocrisy, not by the Republicans and not by the Democrats. Even though the Democrats are quoting McConnell and the Republicans are quoting Obama.

And if the Republicans confirm someone and then lose the Presidency and the Senate, I won't be surprised or really upset when the Democrats expand the Court to 15 justices. There will be no honor in DC and those types of things will be acceptable. Republicans will rage but will have themselves to blame as much as anyone.

We've already lost honor in DC - that ship sailed a long time ago. Once we're okay with court packing, where does it stop? That's the first I heard of adding 6 new justices (it first started at 2, and I've heard 4, but sure, add 6, why not?). And all of this would be to supposedly correct the idea that the GOP got one (1, as in singular) justice they shouldn't have (either they thwarted the norms to wait to replace Scalia, or they thwart their own rules to replace Ginsburg - both replacements aren't in dispute, just one depending on your partisan leanings). So to correct the GOP getting one (1 again) justice, we're going to pack the court with 4 or 6 more justices? At some point the GOP would take back the Senate (despite JSO's incoherent ravings, there will always be at least a duopoly) why wouldn't they just add whatever they need to feel the balance tip back (say, add another 8 or 10). If we proceed down this road it's very possible the SCOTUS ends up approaching the Senate in terms of number of justices as there is literally no reason to cap the number once you think packing the court is an option.

[Baldy]

What's dying is your brand of old Neo-Con RINO Republicanism. Most have grown, adapted, and embraced change. Others, like you, a vocal minority of the bitter and disgruntled. Stuck in your old ways trying to burn the house down while you're being pushed out the door. You're left licking the ball sack of grifters like Rick Wilson.

[kalm]

The Rick Wilsons are the ones who will have to save the party.

[UNI88]

It's getting worse and acting like your side isn't contributing to it is naive or Jim Jones level kool-aid drinking.

Remember this if the Dem's expand the Court to 15 justices.

I don't have a side. I hate both sides. I lean Republican, but refer to both sides as the Uniparty. It's why I love Trump. The perfect asshole to deal with our other elected assholes.

Besides, what have the Republicans done on the level of Russia collision (false), Ukraine Impeachment (false) or the Kavanaugh hearings (false)?

Just so you understand I'm not trying to be a dick here. You always reply in a fair level headed manner, and I appreciate that.

The Uumpa Truumpas are a side so if you support and defend Trump you do have a side. Lil' Donny and Ice Cream Nancy have both been trampling all over what little remains of honor and integrity in DC with their actions. Trump is a disruptor not a leader.

[Baldy]

The Rick Wilsons are the ones who will have to save the party.

Absolutely.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't agree with the philosophy of Constitutional "interpretation" RBG represented. I think it should be interpreted strictly according to an honest effort in interpret the language along with an equally honest effort to proceed according to how that language was generally understood when it was ratified. I think the Court doing anything else is the Court making law. I have never agreed with the idea that it is "necessary" for the Court to effectively change the Constitution to evolve with the times. There is a mechanism in the Constitution to provide for changing it. That mechanism requires social consensus for change and I think that is the way it should be. I do not think the effect of the Constitution should be changed by a majority vote among 9 unelected, life term officials.

All that said: Whether I hope the Democrats come to dominate or not does not matter. As we've discussed many times, unless something changes fundamentally with voting among demographic groups, the shrinking proportion of the population of the population composed of non-hispanic whites means eventual doom for the Republican Party. It's always possible something could change. But exit polling back to 1976 shows no indication that such should be expected.

The current Republican Party is the Party of relatively uneducated, older White People. It's a dying brand even if its adherence don't realize that yet.

What's dying is your brand of old Neo-Con RINO Republicanism. Most have grown, adapted, and embraced change. Others, like you, a vocal minority of the bitter and disgruntled. Stuck in your old ways trying to burn the house down while you're being pushed out the door. You're left licking the ball sack of grifters like Rick Wilson.

I am not a RINO because I am not a Republican. When it comes to conservatism, I am more conservative in most respects than Trumpists are. But it doesn't matter. The Republican Party is in trouble for the long term and anybody who is really paying attention knows that. It is a party of old, relatively uneducated White people. That's what it is. Its base is declining as a proportion of the population. It is happening. That is reality. And there is no indication that the Party is going to do anything to avert what is, for it, the coming disaster.

[JohnStOnge]

Just as a reminder of where we are at this country: We are in a situation where a minority of the population is enjoying power disproportionate to its representation.

In the most recent Presidential election, the Democrat got 2.9 million more votes than the Republican got.

In the most recent set of House elections, Democrats got 9.7 million more votes than Republicans got.

In the most recent 3 Senate elections combined (that's how you have to do it with the Senate), Democrats got 24.9 million more votes than Republicans got.

For now, the structure of the system allows Republicans to remain relevant and even hold the advantage in the balance of power even though the "will of the People" clearly leans towards the Democrats. But a point will come when the critical mass will be exceeded.

[BDKJMU]

Just as a reminder of where we are at this country: We are in a situation where a minority of the population is enjoying power disproportionate to its representation.

In the most recent Presidential election, the Democrat got 2.9 million more votes than the Republican got.

In the most recent set of House elections, Democrats got 9.7 million more votes than Republicans got.

In the most recent 3 Senate elections combined (that's how you have to do it with the Senate), Democrats got 24.9 million more votes than Republicans got.

For now, the structure of the system allows Republicans to remain relevant and even hold the advantage in the balance of power even though the "will of the People" clearly leans towards the Democrats. But a point will come when the critical mass will be exceeded.

So, Clinton was about +6 million votes in Californistan and NY.
Trump was +3.1 million was in the other 48 states.

So, winning a bunch of lopsided Senate races doesn't get you bonus seats. In those last 3 Senate races, Conks have won 53, Donks have won 47.

[JohnStOnge]

Just as a reminder of where we are at this country: We are in a situation where a minority of the population is enjoying power disproportionate to its representation.

In the most recent Presidential election, the Democrat got 2.9 million more votes than the Republican got.

In the most recent set of House elections, Democrats got 9.7 million more votes than Republicans got.

In the most recent 3 Senate elections combined (that's how you have to do it with the Senate), Democrats got 24.9 million more votes than Republicans got.

For now, the structure of the system allows Republicans to remain relevant and even hold the advantage in the balance of power even though the "will of the People" clearly leans towards the Democrats. But a point will come when the critical mass will be exceeded.

So, Clinton was about +6 million votes in Californistan and NY.
Trump was +3.1 million was in the other 48 states.

So, winning a bunch of lopsided Senate races doesn't get you bonus seats. In those last 3 Senate races, Conks have won 53, Donks have won 47.

I could pick a handful of States in which Trump did well and do the same sort of comparison. People in California and New York are among The People just as people in States Trump won are. As I said: The system allows for Republicans to hold power disproportionate to their representation in the population. But if the majority of The People in the entire country could vote directly on which Party would be in power the Democrats would be in power.

The tipping point is going to come when Texas goes blue.

California went Republican in the 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988 Presidential elections. It used to do that. Now we all know there is no way California is going to go Republican in the foreseeable future. The same thing is going to happen with Texas and we are probably on the cusp of it in historical terms. I don't think it's going to happen this time but it's going to be pretty close.

In 2012 the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average of polls on election eve had it as the Republican by 16.7 and Romney won it by 15.8. In 2016 RCP had it on election eve as the Republican by 12.0 and Trump won it by 9.0. Right now for 2020 RCP has it as the Republican by 2.3. RCP has Texas as a "Toss Up" state right now. I have never seen that since RCP started doing its thing.

The handwriting is on the wall. One can be in denial about it. But it's going to happen UNLESS Republicans can significantly change the demographic voting patterns. Anything is theoretically possible but there's been no indication that Republicans are capable of doing that in over 40 years of exit polling with the single exception of G.W.Bush being able to come within 9 percentage points among Hispanics in 2004.

And, no, Trump did not do better than the historical average for Republicans among Hispanics and Blacks if you're wondering about that. The average Democrat margin among Hispanics in Presidential elections going back through 1976 is 35.9 percentage points. Trump lost to Clinton by 36 percentage points among Hispanics. Also he lost to Clinton by 80 percentage points among Blacks. The historical Democrat margin among Blacks is 78 percentage points. I think it IS amazing that he didn't do worse than that. But the idea that there was evidence that the underlying dynamics changed is false. The fact that the country is becoming less White is bad news for Republicans. And they didn't do anything to improve their long term prospects by making Trump their standard bearer.

[JoltinJoe]

the structure of the system allows Republicans to remain relevant

That's because our national government is a federation of the states. The system is designed to prevent larger population masses of certain states from imposing their will on the smaller populations in other states.

All of those aspects of the system which the Democrats want to cast aside -- they exist precisely so the Democrats cannot do the things they want to do.

[Baldy]

the structure of the system allows Republicans to remain relevant

That's because our national government is a federation of the states. The system is designed to prevent larger population masses of certain states from imposing their will on the smaller populations in other states.

All of those aspects of the system which the Democrats want to cast aside -- they exist precisely so the Democrats cannot do the things they want to do.

JSO needs a lesson in civics.

[Baldy]

[kalm]

the structure of the system allows Republicans to remain relevant

That's because our national government is a federation of the states. The system is designed to prevent larger population masses of certain states from imposing their will on the smaller populations in other states.

All of those aspects of the system which the Democrats want to cast aside -- they exist precisely so the Democrats cannot do the things they want to do.

So you’re agreeing with JSO then? Or was the constitution written specifically with a Democratic Party in mind?