• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Oct 26, 2017
17,364
Why does it matter if it's a bad look?
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.
 

ianpm31

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,529
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.
After all the lying and dirty shit Republicans have been doing for years it's time for the Democrats to play dirty too. I'd say let the gloves come off. These guys are outright lying and being the ultimate hypocrites to gain power. Republicans created this problem so I'd say who cares about precedent at this point.
 

Gigglepoo

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,313
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.

I really don't understand. Is there a statute of limitations on impeachable offenses? Why is it a bad look to stall a Supreme Court vote using any tactic? The Republicans straight-up stole a seat but Democrats will let it happen because it looks bad? I'm genuinely confused by this logic. What's the downside of looking bad? And how is any potential downside worse than having another Republican-appointed judge?

There's a recession and millions about to have their unemployment benefits end. Another Impeachment isn't a winning strategy. The dems have said as much when it was suggested they should impeach Barr.

What does a recession have to do with an impeachment? The Senate is sitting on bills that would help Americans survive this pandemic. The House has nothing to do with that.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,214
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.

Who cares, do you realize what is at stake here?
 

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.

Normal went out the window a long time ago.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
17,917
All Mitch has to do is say they aren't going to do it. Or he'll do it and not allow any witnesses and just immediately go to a vote.

Of course, they can refuse. It wouldn't be the first time. That's possible as well.

Term limits coupled with no re-election would be ideal. Judges can serve 10 years and that's it. I also want there to be term limits for senators and representatives. Serve your two or three terms and get out of there.

Term limits aren't good for a few reasons usually having to do with corruption.
 

KDR_11k

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
5,235
How about impeaching anyway? There are plenty of crimes to choose from.

Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.

We're talking about Trump here, no need to dig very far, the guy commits impeachable offenses almost daily. Or pick something from the books of Bolton and Woodward.
 

Soda

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,859
Dunedin, New Zealand
The only hope for not appointing a new SC that Trump has picked is if at least three Republican Senators declined to vote or vote against whoever is nominated. I'd say we've got very little chance of that happening.
 

tmarg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,691
Kalamazoo
Why would term limits lead to more corruption? Serious question.

If you know that your job is only going to last a few years, then you are naturally going to spend that time setting yourself up for whatever happens afterwards. Which lobbiests will gladly help with.

And not necessarily corruption per say, but if politics can't be a career, then only people who already have enough money to comfortably put their original careers on hold will be able to participate.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,209
Cause she doesn't. Article is making a lot of assumptions as to what she means by "arrows in our quiver".

This particular article is also missing a few key quotes from her. This CNN article has more: Pelosi says she will not leverage government shutdown to avoid Senate vote on court seat

She explicitly states that a government shutdown is not one of the options on the table:


And her advice to all of us on what we can do?


Which is really great advice for an appointment that could occur before the election.

So another classic example of people reacting to a title and not the content of the article.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,209
Forgive me if I don't subscribe to this apathetic nihilism. The public forgets, and therefore the point of hypocrisy needs to be hammered home all the more.

It isn't about changing Lindsey Graham's mind, it's about affecting the political ramifications of their decisions. Various Republican senators already have their seats hanging precariously by a thread.

Also, maybe actually watch the speech...? lol.

I know it's not about Graham and yeah this isn't nihilism. It's being realistic about a situation and the historical aspect of pointing out Republicans lying or being hypocrites. Liberals have been pointing this out for years and people just don't care.
 

Septimus Prime

EA
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
8,500
"Won't rule out." How many things have Dems said they "won't rule out" in the last couple days?

How about just fucking do it?
 
Oct 26, 2017
17,364
After all the lying and dirty shit Republicans have been doing for years it's time for the Democrats to play dirty too. I'd say let the gloves come off. These guys are outright lying and being the ultimate hypocrites to gain power. Republicans created this problem so I'd say who cares about precedent at this point.
I'd rather not see us proliferate the erosion of precedent and the importance of constitutional powers for short-term political gain that will eventually backfire and put us in an even worse position than we are in now. Where does it end, and where will we end up?

I really don't understand. Is there a statute of limitations on impeachable offenses? Why is it a bad look to stall a Supreme Court vote using any tactic? The Republicans straight-up stole a seat but Democrats will let it happen because it looks bad? I'm genuinely confused by this logic. What's the downside of looking bad? And how is any potential downside worse than having another Republican-appointed judge?

It's a bad look in the sense that it will signal impeachment as a viable tool to wage against any presidency in stalling them exercising their political power. And this is not even guaranteed to work, as well as interfere with many incumbent Democrats re-election campaigns in critical states. We have possibly the most important election of our lifetimes, and we cannot waste time on something so fickle.

If it is still a viable strategy after the election, it might be worth trying. I'm not convinced it's ultimately a smart move in even the short run at this point.
 

Ouroboros

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,979
United States
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.
GOP would do the same thing if they were in the same position. I say everything is on the table. Trump fucked this country up. Dems need to do whatever it takes to get it back on course.
 

tmarg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,691
Kalamazoo
Yeah, the idea that democrats should avoid a strategy because republicans might use it against us is laughable at this point. They will do absolutely anything they can get away with. The norms are already dead.
 

EloquentM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,631
The year of covid-19 & The battle for America's soul—who knew 2020 would be this cold.
 

Regulus Tera

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,458
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.
Democrats adhering to unwritten norms while Republicans just steamroll all over them is precisely why we got to this point. At some point either the Dems have to fight back or just let the GOP rout them out in all political battles. The time for caring about looks has long been gone.
 

SnakeXs

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,111
Democrats adhering to unwritten norms while Republicans just steamroll all over them is precisely why we got to this point. At some point either the Dems have to fight back or just let the GOP rout them out in all political battles. The time for caring about looks has long been gone.
But if Dems do this imagine what Republicans and Fox News will say!
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
Ok? So you vote to impeach in the house, on whatever grounds, and then the Senate votes within 2 weeks. I don't see how this does anything.
There's only so many sessions left till the election. The senators also need to go campaign, both D and R. Mitch can't hold them up indefinitely. Theres other business as well, like passing government funding.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,119
So, would they just need 51 senators to vote yes?



Term limits coupled with no re-election would be ideal. Judges can serve 10 years and that's it. I also want there to be term limits for senators and representatives. Serve your two or three terms and get out of there.

I believe they'd just need 51, yes (actually, 50, since the VP could tie-break).

I think 10 years would be far too short for a Justice. I'd say more like 18 and then actually cap it at 9. Have justices appointed in August of each odd-numbered year. But you'd need some sort of mechanism to ensure the Senate couldn't hold it hostage like they did in 2016.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
Why would term limits lead to more corruption? Serious question.
The longer you're in politics, the more you can rely on your own background for support.
Conversely, the newer you are to Congress, the more help you need from monied interests and media.
It ain't cheap to do even state wide campaigning with paying staffers, buying media ads (especially if you want good time slots), traveling, buying bill boards, funding research for constituent interest, and putting life on hold. There's also the what comes after bit.
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
the standing rules of the senate are not an obstacle to the majority, this wouldn't do anything. The rules also say it takes 3/5 of all senators to invoke cloture but the majority has just "re-interpreted it" to mean nothing
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
the standing rules of the senate are not an obstacle to the majority, this wouldn't do anything. The rules also say it takes 3/5 of all senators to invoke cloture but the majority has just "re-interpreted it" to mean nothing
Its like that first Demon's Souls boss where the game is designed in a way that the dungeon boss kills you regardless of what you do and no matter how many strikes you hit him.
 

Josh378

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,521
Because due to the context of its implementation in this case, Democrats are only evoking impeachment to stall the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. This is something we don't want to normalize. Digging up an impeachable offense from however long ago to use now instead of then is a bad look.


You mean Like Stopping Obama from getting his supreme court justice pick from Mitch the turtle-neck wonder. Sometimes you have to play dirty to make a point.
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,857
You mean Like Stopping Obama from getting his supreme court justice pick from Mitch the turtle-neck wonder. Sometimes you have to play dirty to make a point.

or using a terrorist attack that people were derelict on duty as a poor excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with it.

I swear people forget the scumbags we are dealing with.
 

Starmud

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,443
The chance of trying to speed run the nominee before the election is slim. It puts the senate R's into a huge unknown that's easily avoided by punting to after the election.

It's more advantageous to Trump and the R's to milk the fight for enthusiasm/fund raising while taking any potential hit during the lame duck session, where there's little accountability to be had.

It also leaves what time is left on the calendar clean for the CR to avoid a shutdown. Plus any potential for a covid bill would die. The idea some of these senators will park themselves in DC the weeks before voting isn't going to work.

the White House has already acknowledged that even with the fastest time frame it likely couldn't be done before the election. If attempted the vote would literally be within a stones throw of Election Day, which is an awful scenario politically.

The signaling from the white house to mitch is that he controls the time table. The plan is already in, regardless of what you'll probably hear from trump as he tries to use it for votes.