Potential SCOTUS Nomimee

[Nameless Range]

Though I don't think it has much legs this late in the game, I really like the spirit of what Bret Weinstein is trying to push with his Unity 2020 plan. Instead of pushing one party or the other, it constructs a contract between the two parties that would lend itself to them working together.

A Plan to Save Our Republic

#Unity2020 is a grassroots presidential campaign to restore patriotic, courageous & capable leadership to the United States.

articlesofunity.org

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Though I don't think it has much legs this late in the game, I really like the spirit of what Bret Weinstein is trying to push with his Unity 2020 plan. Instead of pushing one party or the other, it constructs a contract between the two parties that would lend itself to them working together.

A Plan to Save Our Republic

#Unity2020 is a grassroots presidential campaign to restore patriotic, courageous & capable leadership to the United States.

articlesofunity.org

Very interesting. It'd be nice to see something like this make an actual impact.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's currently on the ballot in Alaska

Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Maine uses it state wide.

General idea being you rank your choices.
Person 1.
1. Trump
2. Johnson
3. McMullin
4. Clinton

Person 2.
1. Clinton
2. Johnson
3. McMullin
4. Clinton

Winner - Johnson

Essentially the highly polarizing candidates get kicked out. It would force candidates to appeal to moderates not party fringes.

The major parties don't like it because it could dramatically open the door to third party candidates.

Two things - in practice I believe rank choice voting actually increases the likelihood of extremist victories, not moderates. And while modern America seems to see a 3rd or 4th party as moderate options, but if we look at multi-party systems around the world, the vast majority of party options are just further delineations on the extremes, not a big middle ground tent.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am a fan of trying anything new. But money drives everything, so changing the status quo is a monumental task. Term limits might be an easier place to start?

In my opinion, term limits in legislative bodies just further empower the lobbyists, staffers, pundits and agencies -- from my time lobbying I do not view this as a good thing - they have power enough as it is.

 

[Nameless Range]

Another idea I have heard that I like is that there should be a "none of the above" choice on all ballots, and if "none of the above" were to get more votes than any other option we should start over with new options. Yes, that could cause a hell of a lot of problems and be expensive, but it would force the parties to put candidates forward more likely to serve the electorate, as opposed to the parties.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I find it concerning that Barrett was elevated twice in 3 years by the same president. Contrast this with Justice Sotomayor who was nominated to the Southern District of NY by Bush and then Obama to the Supreme court.

I think this is a distinction without a difference. Sotomayor (who is very qualified and I am not questioning her appointment) is identified by several non-partisan studies as the most liberal justice - her path to the court did not moderate her at all (not that it's her job to be more moderate, just responding to your example).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think this is a distinction without a difference. Sotomayor (who is very qualified and I am not questioning her appointment) is identified by several non-partisan studies as the most liberal justice - her path to the court did not moderate her at all (not that it's her job to be more moderate, just responding to your example).

My thinking wasn’t so much about political leaning as being vetted by multiple administrations, and being confirmed with votes from both parties, I see that more as consensus on competence.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Buck stops here? , you either made chitty hiring choices which is your fault or you created a toxic work environment that good people couldn't stand... also your fault. Can you imagine taking a job at a company with those kinda numbers of glassdoor, 91% turnover with I don't 30%+ torching the place in the reviews.



Not in the slightest. Simply that I still hope for impartiality on the bench, historically President's nominees have been confirmed by massive margins. What happened to 90+ votes?

These are the outliers.
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Alito
Thomas
Bork

View attachment 155095

The Bork and Thomas hearings are what happened. Historically both parties in the Senate voted together for the candidate that had 61 votes (fillibuster days) as a signal to non-partisanship in the courts. After Bork and Thomas it has become a blood sport - with both sides pandering to demanding elements of their parties. Until very recently there were still GOP senators who still did this (see Sotomayer vote, the most ideological member of the court according to a few non-partisan assessments).

 

[VikingsGuy]

He wasn't removed from office, in the context of your comparison he was found guilty but given a suspend sentence... indeed just like Clinton.

No, it is impeach by house, convict by senate ("The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."

A parallel would be an indictment (grand jury/prosecutor) and a trial verdict (jury). There is no suspended sentence parallel.

 

[LWC55]

Lately I have resisted commenting on stuff, but your posts are more constructive so I will give it a whirl.

I believe that Biden would really prefer the more collegial Senate that he left in 2009. I don't know about Pelosi or Pence. But I can say that I think this is mostly an incorrect reading of McConnell. McConnell doesn't care about the perceived hypocrisy of the positions he takes. He doesn't care about collegiality. He is not an institutionalist. He cares about accumulating power and using it to achieve his goals, which are generally unpopular. He is a high stakes gambler, a position readily afforded to him due to the heavy Republican bias of the Senate. If McConnell favored more popular policies and a more moderate approach, Democrats would rarely control the chamber. Instead he takes more unpopular positions that lose him some Senate races in reddish-purple states in Dem leaning years, but in return he attempts to achieve more ambitious goals than he otherwise would be able to. McConnell appears to regard bipartisan compromise as an illogical endeavor of a bygone era. It also appears that a lot of Democrats, even moderates, in the Senate are figuring out this is how McConnell will always operate and are adjusting their strategy accordingly.

Here is a deep dive into McConnell that was published this spring by Jane Mayer (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief). It is a fascinating article, and I think the most memorable quote for me was when Mayer writes "For months, I searched for the larger principles or sense of purpose that animates McConnell. I travelled twice to Kentucky, observed him at a Trump rally in Lexington, and watched him preside over the impeachment trial in Washington. I interviewed dozens of people, some of whom love him and some of whom despise him. I read his autobiography, his speeches, and what others have written about him. Finally, someone who knows him very well told me, 'Give up. You can look and look for something more in him, but it isn’t there. I wish I could tell you that there is some secret thing that he really believes in, but he doesn’t.'"

Another relevant article is a recent piece written by Ezra Klein focused on the downstream effects of McConnell's approach (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...gress-democrats-2020-supreme-court-filibuster). Klein writes "Despite his theatrical embrace of sobriquets like “Darth Vader” and “the Grim Reaper,” McConnell isn’t an evil genius. He is a vessel for the currents and forces of his time. What sets him apart is his fulsome embrace of those forces, his willingness to cut through the cant and pretense of American politics, to stand athwart polarization yelling, "Faster!”

And here is a statistical analysis from Nate Silver at 538 showing the high rural bias of the Senate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/). Since politics is highly polarized right now along rural and urban lines, this is a source of strength for McConnell that allows him to pursue more aggressive strategies than when the Democrats control the Senate.

I do think it is accurate to say that McConnell is a disruptive force who will have forever changed how politics are conducted in this country long after he leaves the Senate. Whether what McConnell is accomplishing is good or bad is a value judgement in the eye of the beholder, and people will have to decide for themselves how they feel about this when they go to vote.

That is a very thoughtful and sourced post. Just curious as what you believe are McConnell's ultimate political goals. What would he do if he had ultimate, unchecked power?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I like the idea. Did you find the conversation useful? Were there diverse opinions?

Just so it is clear. "Defund" doesn't mean take away all the money and abolish. That is ridiculous. In fact, I have said that every one of those majors of those cities should call a special election on their jobs and make "defunding" the police the major point. Let the people decide. I guarantee what the result would be. For example Billings, MT just passed the first public safety levy in 16yrs (https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-new...t-public-safety-mill-levy-in-16-years-tuesday). This isn't the first time it went to a vote, but ALL the others failed. Maybe there is a positive side to "defund the police" movement. People don't want to get rid of the police, we want the police to apply laws without bias or prejudice. Its a tough, dangerous job, but we should always seek improvement. For you, I suggest trying to understand the perspective of others that have a different experience (and hence see things through a different lens) than you. It is harder than it seems, especially with the direction society is heading.

Just to be clear, for some "defund" does mean no armed police officers at all. This was clearly and unambiguously stated by a number of city council members in Minneapolis. And of course, as you say there are others who use it as a term to refer to shifting/balancing funds between traditional policing and more social services. I think in general it is at best an ambiguous term.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Pelosi is . . . doddering but she represents her constituents well,

She may be a lot of things, but doddering is not one of them - like her or not, she is a masterful politician.

 

[noharleyyet]

She may be a lot of things, but doddering is not one of them - like her or not, she is a masterful politician.

I thought I described her as masterful..an absolutely ruthless doddering masterful 'nasty' pol to the core. Surviving the Hillary beatdown proved her mettle, but if you think she ain't slipping you ain't listening...

 

[VikingsGuy]

I thought I described her as masterful..an absolutely ruthless doddering masterful 'nasty' pol to the core. Surviving the Hillary beatdown proved her mettle, but if you think she ain't slipping you ain't listening...

I saw that, I was specifically focusing on doddering. She is not doddering as Webster defines that term. Doddering would typically imply some type of mental infirmity - which she clearly does not have.

 

[noharleyyet]

If you say so, let the record reflect counsel's pedantry.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you say so, let the record reflect counsel's pedantry.

Or, let the record reflect counsel's weariness of endless pejoratives being used to subtly (or not so subtly) undercut those we disagree with.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Lately I have resisted commenting on stuff, but your posts are more constructive so I will give it a whirl.

I believe that Biden would really prefer the more collegial Senate that he left in 2009. I don't know about Pelosi or Pence. But I can say that I think this is mostly an incorrect reading of McConnell. McConnell doesn't care about the perceived hypocrisy of the positions he takes. He doesn't care about collegiality. He is not an institutionalist. He cares about accumulating power and using it to achieve his goals, which are generally unpopular. He is a high stakes gambler, a position readily afforded to him due to the heavy Republican bias of the Senate. If McConnell favored more popular policies and a more moderate approach, Democrats would rarely control the chamber. Instead he takes more unpopular positions that lose him some Senate races in reddish-purple states in Dem leaning years, but in return he attempts to achieve more ambitious goals than he otherwise would be able to. McConnell appears to regard bipartisan compromise as an illogical endeavor of a bygone era. It also appears that a lot of Democrats, even moderates, in the Senate are figuring out this is how McConnell will always operate and are adjusting their strategy accordingly.

Here is a deep dive into McConnell that was published this spring by Jane Mayer (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief). It is a fascinating article, and I think the most memorable quote for me was when Mayer writes "For months, I searched for the larger principles or sense of purpose that animates McConnell. I travelled twice to Kentucky, observed him at a Trump rally in Lexington, and watched him preside over the impeachment trial in Washington. I interviewed dozens of people, some of whom love him and some of whom despise him. I read his autobiography, his speeches, and what others have written about him. Finally, someone who knows him very well told me, 'Give up. You can look and look for something more in him, but it isn’t there. I wish I could tell you that there is some secret thing that he really believes in, but he doesn’t.'"

Another relevant article is a recent piece written by Ezra Klein focused on the downstream effects of McConnell's approach (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...gress-democrats-2020-supreme-court-filibuster). Klein writes "Despite his theatrical embrace of sobriquets like “Darth Vader” and “the Grim Reaper,” McConnell isn’t an evil genius. He is a vessel for the currents and forces of his time. What sets him apart is his fulsome embrace of those forces, his willingness to cut through the cant and pretense of American politics, to stand athwart polarization yelling, "Faster!”

And here is a statistical analysis from Nate Silver at 538 showing the high rural bias of the Senate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/). Since politics is highly polarized right now along rural and urban lines, this is a source of strength for McConnell that allows him to pursue more aggressive strategies than when the Democrats control the Senate.

I do think it is accurate to say that McConnell is a disruptive force who will have forever changed how politics are conducted in this country long after he leaves the Senate. Whether what McConnell is accomplishing is good or bad is a value judgement in the eye of the beholder, and people will have to decide for themselves how they feel about this when they go to vote.

My point was not meant to suggest any of the four would be led by their "better angels", just that they would be happier wielding all the same power with 50% of the rancor. Just look at the power wielded by past senate and house leaders (like LBJ)

I think McConnel and others enjoy their power (I believe power and ego are the primary drivers to seek high political office) - today that power is secured by fanning the flames of partisanship - but if power was secured by superficial collegiality they would be just as happy to accommodate. My point is that these leaders did not arise in a vacuum - they are mirroring the will of the voters. We need to stop blaming them and look in the mirror. We are why the system is broken, not them. They just take masterful advantage of it.

 

[noharleyyet]

Or, let the record reflect counsel's weariness of endless pejoratives being used to subtly (or not so subtly) undercut those we disagree with.

Oh I'm just gettin warmed up o weary one....

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I saw that, I was specifically focusing on doddering. She is not doddering as Webster defines that term. Doddering would typically imply some type of mental infirmity - which she clearly does not have.

View attachment 155305

I'm not trying to interfere in your discussion, but there are times that I can see this applying to her. But then there are times I think it is just an act she is portraying. She did not get where she is at by not being smart and crafty. Either way, she has reached a age and time in her career that it is time that she move on and get out of the way. That could be said about a few more as well I suppose... IMO

 

[VikingsGuy]

Oh I'm just gettin warmed up o weary one....

Just don't try to use, "sleepy" that is exclusive to the Donald