"Russia Collusion gathering steam" conspiracy pusher that contributed to division of the country with lies calls other people evil

10/10 comedy

This post was edited by HeLiCaL on May 11 2022 08:50am

Absolutely. Any of the prominent candidates from 2016 would've appointed the same conservatives to the court, and we would be in the same place, with a more serious and more conservative Republican party.

Obama didnt try to press Garland at all, they clearly angled to get a more liberal Hillary pick and dangle it to motivate the base. If they thought they could lose in 2016, they had all kinds of options. Ranging from vigils to protests to bargaining all the way up to the thermonuclear unilatreral constitutional interpretation that would stick it to scotus They instead silently buried garland and never said his name out loud for 6 months. Dont tell me they had no options- look to what liberals are doing now, look to what they've done since.

Trump and McConnell already had the nuclear precedent set by Harry Reid and had promised to finish the job he started. And look to how Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to retire under Obama when she had the chance. In all these cases, it was self-inflicted, the hurbis and miscalculation and stubbornness that handed supreme court picks to Trump on a platter. McConnell bluntly warned Reid when he went nuclear, it was predictable. I called it when Democrats threw a hissy fit over Gorsuch and tried to impotently filibuster him when Trump had a senate majority, an election tailwind, a party united around him and an uncontroversial candidate. They forced a nuclear showdown at the worst time, a token that could have made a difference for Kavanaugh or Barrett.

With a track record of misplays this bad, I half expect Ketanji Jackson to turn out to be a closet Clayton Bigsby. who hoodwinked Biden

When you're a lame duck President, and you've got the opposition Majority Leader already saying that he'll never call hearings, I don't know how much you can "press". At that point, Obama didn't have the political capital to break that impasse. And whether you blame RBG for not retiring under Obama or not, none of this changes the fact that Trump made three conservative nominations to SCOTUS, all of which were confirmed. It changed the balance of the court.

They had a range of options for leverage and legal maneuvers. The democrats have spent the last six years throwing vain tantrums over every issue they are lame ducks on, even if it means breaking the law to send mobs to terrorize justices. The example at the time being tossed around was Obama could declare the senate abdicated its advice and consent duty and confirm his pick without them, which would be immediately challenged and eventually work its way up to scotus and be struck down, but maybe get the justices tp force the senate's hand and get an up/down vote. Instead, Obama was conspicuously silent about Garland. Dropped so completely even senators literally forgot he existed when interviewed. This only happened because the democrats consicously chose to abort Garland before his nomination could be born.

Trump got these picks because democrats kept shooting themselves in the foot at every opportunity. It wasnt an inevitability

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 11 2022 12:19pm

Lol at the discussion of any GOPe candidates winning in 2016 or being actual conservatives

why does pollster’s little bastard brother icepeon even bother showing his grimey self here anymore

At the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that Trump made three SCOTUS nominations, which were all confirmed.

It's really quite ironic, isn't it? Trump's personality, conduct and values ran almost diametrically opposed to everything evangelicals purport to stand for. Objectively speaking, backing him was a "deal with the devil" for evangelicals - and it has payed off big time for them. Evangelicals are probably the faction within the GOP coalition which can be most happy with how the Trump years have played out; they arguably got more out of his presidency than even the OG maga-hats.






Winning the presidency in 2016 was absolutely crucial for the current conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court. If Hillary wins, Scalia's and RBG's seats get filled with staunch liberals and we have a 5-4 liberal court today. The question whether Trump should get credit for the current conservative majority basically hinges on whether any of the other 2016 candidates would have beaten Hillary.

Yes, she was a lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign, but it's not exactly like JEB! or Rubio or Cruz were stellar candidates either. Chances are that without Trump raising the salience of trade and immigration, the Midwest doesn't shift right as much as it did, and Democrats retain the edge in the electoral college that they enjoyed from 2004 through 2012.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 11 2022 02:42pm