politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I get it, but I think this time even Chuck will be on board. He can even call it the "McConnell Rule" if he wants. Politicians always love blaming the other side.
The only way a Democratic Senate would approve a new Trump justice would be if Democrats went to him and said "I know you won't nominate a Liberal, here is a list of Conservatives we would back" and Trump picked one of them. Yes, even Fetterman would support that.
And before you start hating on Chuck over supporting any Conservative judge, remember that there are a pile of Conservative judges who are pissed off over this Administration also. Forcing Trump to appoint a centrist may make the difference between Trump being able to successfully ratfuck the next Presidential election, or not.
That's a roller coaster of a comment.
First you say that Chuck would probably be on board for the "McConnell rule", and then freely admit that he would also be on board for confirming a conservative judge that he "approved of".
Well, I don't think you're wrong about the second part. I also think Chuck would confirm a conservative justice, and for him the only requirement would be unconditional support for Israel, with some lip service to civil liberties, that's it.
Because all Chuck cares about is Israel and expanding corporate power, in that order.
No, my point is that not all Conservative judges are the same. And, if you take the Constitution seriously, the President has a right to pick someone, and the Senate has a right to advise him on who they find acceptable, and their consent is a requirement. So this the way it was supposed to have worked all along.
Remember that Anthony Kennedy is a conservative, and he was nominated to the Court by Reagan. Yet, once the Court started to lurch to the Right he ended up being the swing vote. Regardless, though, he retired while Republicans could fully control his replacement.
You could argue Kennedy was a compromise choice, because the Senate was in control of Democrats at the time, and they had already rejected Robert Bork for the job. If Chuck could force a similar outcome, wouldn't that be a good thing?