Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Kavanaugh Conclusion: Trump voters own the GOP; he will be

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited October 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Kavanaugh Conclusion: Trump voters own the GOP; he will be nominated in 2020

Brett Kavanaugh will almost certainly be confirmed today as the newest member of the US Supreme Court. His behaviour in front of the Senate Committee – aggressive, threatening, overly emotional, highly partisan, evasive – would have been surprising for a nominee to an Executive branch position; as a candidate for the country’s highest court, where you might think that cool minds, sober judgement and lofty impartiality would be called for, it was extraordinary. You can see why Trump likes him though.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,760
    Four. More. Years.

    *Sob*
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,572

    Four. More. Years.

    *Sob*

    For more tears?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,975
    To me, that’s the behaviour of a group in fear. Even though the Republicans are only defending 9 of their 51 seats this time (and only six senators are personally defending them: three are retiring), there must be a calculation that it simply isn’t worth opposing him: the backlash from Republican voters will remain long enough to be a factor in future primaries.

    Yep. Remind you of the behaviour of a parliamentary party this side of the pond? Though in this case its 'activists' not 'voters'.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 869
    edited October 6
    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,956
    edited October 6

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    I was going to make a Brexit comparison but that just doesn't cover it, the intensity of feeling around abortion/supreme court/Roe vs Wade is probably closer to something like feeling in N. Ireland (although not to the extremes of that)

    Thinking specifically of the Republican voters for which it is a big issue (which probably goes beyond just the evangelicals although they are probably the main drivers) their actions make sense and are quite logical if you accept their ideas on abortion to begin with. Even if you accept and believe the worst accusations about Trump and Kavanaugh you can make an argument for the greater good based on their views on abortion.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130
    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I looked into the (Smaller) effect small.states have on the presidency in terms of bias - no real difference in ECV for Trump. The senate does on the surface seem more unfair, particularly if Beto wins TX. DC not having reps is odd too
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 869
    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,746
    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,225
    Can a Justice of SCOTUS resign?
  • GreenHeronGreenHeron Posts: 44
    There is a lot of logic in the arguments put forward here, but I would challenge a few assumptions here:

    1. Not all polls give the same data as Gallup. Rasmussen, which performed very well at the 2016 election and tracks approval on a daily basis, gives a different picture - 51% approval rating and on an upward trend, significantly ahead of Obama at the same time in his presidency.

    http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_oct05

    2. This article assumes that most voters think that the way these charges were brought by the Senate was fair and reasonable, and then that it was unreasonable for Kavanaugh to respond to these allegations in the manner that he did - defending himself rather than making an impartial judgement. Again, there is polling evidence to suggest that voters by some majority do not think along these lines. Furthermore, if one looks beyond the narrow NYT/WaPo view on this, there are nunerous suggestions, some credible, some less so, that Ford's testimony is flawed on numerous counts.

    3. That the Kavanaugh event will mobilise the democrat base more than the republican base. Again there is polling that suggests that the opposite is taking place, and in particular there is a dramatic increase in motivation from Republican women and a tailing off of motivation from Democrat women.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874/poll-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-democratic-enthusiasm-edge-evaporates?t=1538805575767

    4. Kavanaugh was a worker in the Bush administration and would have been a Romney pick before he was nominated by Trump. He is as mainstream DC Republican as it gets and it seems highly possible that this has brought a lot of never-Trumpers back into the fold.

    None of the above necessarily reflects my own views but my take from this is that I agree that this has helped cement Trump's position for 2020, but also believe that this will play well for the Reds in the midterms, and I have bet accordingly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,647
    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    Which was a reasonable compromise two hundred years ago.
    But having the least populated states decide everything in the Senate doesn’t seem to have been the plan, and is eroding democratic consent.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,746
    Another scare story. It would feck up the EU just as much
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 691
    edited October 6
    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,975
    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,975

    Another scare story. It would feck up the EU just as much
    And this stuff on “tough borders” will screw the Irish as much (or more) than it screws us, given their agriexports.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,301

    Can a Justice of SCOTUS resign?

    Yes, I think that Kennedy did that creating this vacancy. However an SC Justice can also be removed by impeachment.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,956

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,420
    A bigger issue is the Open Skies agreement with the US, where American and United are pressurising their government for a deal where they nab a bunch of Heathrow slots.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,420

    There is a lot of logic in the arguments put forward here, but I would challenge a few assumptions here:

    1. Not all polls give the same data as Gallup. Rasmussen, which performed very well at the 2016 election and tracks approval on a daily basis, gives a different picture - 51% approval rating and on an upward trend, significantly ahead of Obama at the same time in his presidency.

    http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_oct05

    2. This article assumes that most voters think that the way these charges were brought by the Senate was fair and reasonable, and then that it was unreasonable for Kavanaugh to respond to these allegations in the manner that he did - defending himself rather than making an impartial judgement. Again, there is polling evidence to suggest that voters by some majority do not think along these lines. Furthermore, if one looks beyond the narrow NYT/WaPo view on this, there are nunerous suggestions, some credible, some less so, that Ford's testimony is flawed on numerous counts.

    3. That the Kavanaugh event will mobilise the democrat base more than the republican base. Again there is polling that suggests that the opposite is taking place, and in particular there is a dramatic increase in motivation from Republican women and a tailing off of motivation from Democrat women.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874/poll-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-democratic-enthusiasm-edge-evaporates?t=1538805575767

    4. Kavanaugh was a worker in the Bush administration and would have been a Romney pick before he was nominated by Trump. He is as mainstream DC Republican as it gets and it seems highly possible that this has brought a lot of never-Trumpers back into the fold.

    None of the above necessarily reflects my own views but my take from this is that I agree that this has helped cement Trump's position for 2020, but also believe that this will play well for the Reds in the midterms, and I have bet accordingly.

    I agree with 3, and think approval polling this far out is next to useless. (Trump is ahead of Truman, Clinton and Reagan at this point, all of whom got reelected. But is behind Carter and Bush St, who both were defeated.) It's also worth noting that the US economy is humming right now.

    Nevertheless, Trump has two problems. Firstly, the parts of the US that are booming are either strongly Democrat (Washington State, Oregon and California), or equally Republican (Texas, the Dakotas). The Rust belt is still seeing the weakest growth numbers in the US. The polling from Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan should terrify him.

    Secondly, white women. He won them by nine points in 2016. And his favourables there are now awful. He needs to get them back on side by 2020.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,746
    edited October 6

    Another scare story. It would feck up the EU just as much
    And this stuff on “tough borders” will screw the Irish as much (or more) than it screws us, given their agriexports.
    I am amazed at how people jump at negativbe stories. There's going to be a deal of sorts, Life will go on post brexit, if the EU try to stiff us, revenge is a dish best served cold. I am a realistic Remainer but the stance the EU is talking is pathetic, its all about how its perceived at home.
    There will be no second vote, its over, we are leaving period.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,420

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,880
    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,420

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,311
    I think Trump's issue on approval ratings is that he has never been in positive territory, unlike past presidents. In other words his negatives are very solid, which suggests little upside for him.

    As Roger said, I think the Democrats will be the partisan winners of the Kavanaugh appointment and should see a boost particularly amongst women.

    On the EU contingency planning article in the FT, that's a case of the EU turning the screws on No Deal while minimising damage to them. The EU will always be forcing the UK to agreement. No Deal isn't a viable medium term state, let alone a long term one.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,880

    Can a Justice of SCOTUS resign?

    I thought that is exactly what caused the Kavanaugh debacle - a Justice resigned
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,256

    Another scare story. It would feck up the EU just as much
    Read the link. It is still a pretty disruptive situation which it would be much better to avoid.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,880
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,850
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
    And the individual states are sovereign bodies in everything not referred to in the constitution, irrelevant of their population.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,746

    Another scare story. It would feck up the EU just as much
    Read the link. It is still a pretty disruptive situation which it would be much better to avoid.
    I read it

    The EU can have as much disruption as it wants
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,935
    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Theyve just locked in a hard Conservative majority of activist judges who blithely ignore the constituion when deciding cases. They dont give a shit if they have a coue of bad elections, they have 30 years of supreme control.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    Good morning, my fellow F1 fans.

    Interesting qualifying. Will write it up now and probably give it a couple of hours for the markets to wake up. As an aside, Verstappen was 17 (19 with boost) to win yesterday. Imagine his odds will shorten a little (probably not hugely, but I'll see if it's layable).

    Glad to see Hamilton topped third practice as well.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,256

    Another scare story. It would feck up the EU just as much
    Read the link. It is still a pretty disruptive situation which it would be much better to avoid.
    I read it

    The EU can have as much disruption as it wants
    Well I don't want any disruption so I hope a sensible deal can be done. We can't leave without some kind of deal.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,004
    Yes - there will no doubt be more bumps to come but the traditional choreography of EU negotiating continues to play out - a little more Susannah than Darcey but the UK will leave the show.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,033
    edited October 6
    One thing I wonder with the approval ratings is how whether the low numbers we saw for Trump and Hillary were just down to them both being terrible candidates or whether it's a general trend of people disapproving of the other side's guy. In British politics it's quite usual to have leaders who are endemically net negative.

    Hillary and Trump were both fairly awful in their own ways, but if you look at Hillary's ratings, they're pretty good the run-up to the campaign, then it's downhill from there:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
    [Click "Max" on the graph.]
    She's around +20 in early 2013, then zero by the time she announces she's running in mid-2015, then -15 by the election.

    At least some of that may come down to her being exceedingly shit and annoying but she was pretty well-known beforehand, so it can't have come as a complete shock. So even if the Dems manage to pick a decent candidate this time, I wouldn't be surprised if they have pretty poor favourables by the time they get to the election.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,935

    One thing I wonder with the approval ratings is how whether the low numbers we saw for Trump and Hillary were just down to them both being terrible candidates or whether it's a general trend of people disapproving of the other side's guy. In British politics it's quite usual to have leaders who are endemically net negative.

    Hillary and Trump were both fairly awful in their own ways, but if you look at Hillary's ratings, they're pretty good the run-up to the campaign, then it's downhill from there:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
    [Click "Max" on the graph.]
    She's around +20 in early 2013, then zero by the time she announces she's running in mid-2015, then -15 by the election.

    At least some of that may come down to her being exceedingly shit and annoying but she was pretty well-known beforehand, so it can't have come as a complete shock. So even if the Dems manage to pick a decent candidate this time, I wouldn't be surprised if they have pretty poor favourables by the time they get to the election.

    Clinton's favourability was fairly closely connected to her being involved in government. When she left her role as Secretary of State her approval started dropping.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,746

    Another scare story. It would feck up the EU just as much
    Read the link. It is still a pretty disruptive situation which it would be much better to avoid.
    I read it

    The EU can have as much disruption as it wants
    Well I don't want any disruption so I hope a sensible deal can be done. We can't leave without some kind of deal.
    Oh I think some disruption would be good for the soul, it would concentrate politicians minds splendidly
  • Unusually, I disagree with much of the thrust of a DH posting.

    It's not Trump voters (a sub set of the Republican coalition)that senators fear. As David points out the whole Republican base wants Kavanaugh nomination approved and therefore Republican senators naturally reflect that.

    That is because, as Susan Collins said, the allegations made didn't hold water. Even Dr Ford's best friend repeatedly refused to corroborate them, including during the most recent FBI investigation.

    Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.

    Where I do agree with David Herdson is that the evangelicals are solidly behind Trump. Mike Pence buttresses that element of support and on an almost weekly basis the Trump administration espouses the pro-life position - just this week with regards to the rights of Downs Syndrome people.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,975
    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    F1: just seen a Twitter comment that McLaren have lost nearly a second from 2017 to 2018 around Suzuka.

    Astounding just how much the wheels have come off that team.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 1,728
    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    What ever it is it isn't one person one vote, aka democracy
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,760

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Will he be punching the air when NHS wards start closing down? Cuz these are the people that pay for those wards.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,260
    edited October 6

    Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.

    Not that I really care about this case, but the argument that his emotive response to the allegations makes him unsuitable to be on the Supreme Court is not a good one. Imagine if allegations - perhaps of a different nature - were made against a female nominee and she reacted emotionally. If anyone dared to argue that she was too emotional to be on the Supreme Court they'd be accused of sexism.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,647
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
    But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?

    The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent.
    What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?

    We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,647
    tlg86 said:

    Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.

    Not that I really care about this case, but the argument that his emotive response to the allegations makes him unsuitable to be on the Supreme Court is not a good one. Imagine if allegations - perhaps of a different nature - were made against a female nominee and she reacted emotionally. If anyone dared to argue that she was too emotional to be on the Supreme Court they'd be accused of sexism.
    The argument is that his emotional outburst revealed the political partisanship of which he has been long accused.

    The sex of the nominee is irrelevant to their role. What is disqualificatory in one would be equally disqualificatory in the other.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,754
    Why is there so little media coverage of the Interpol chief going missing?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    Mr. Booth, I was a little surprised it didn't get more coverage on the news last night.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,935
    tlg86 said:

    Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.

    Not that I really care about this case, but the argument that his emotive response to the allegations makes him unsuitable to be on the Supreme Court is not a good one. Imagine if allegations - perhaps of a different nature - were made against a female nominee and she reacted emotionally. If anyone dared to argue that she was too emotional to be on the Supreme Court they'd be accused of sexism.
    If a woman had given Kavanaugh's hysterical performance her nomination would already have been withdrawn.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,013
    Pretty convincing and well-argued piece as usual from David. Why he isn't a paid columnist on, say, the Spectator, is a mystery.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654
    edited October 6
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.

    Not that I really care about this case, but the argument that his emotive response to the allegations makes him unsuitable to be on the Supreme Court is not a good one. Imagine if allegations - perhaps of a different nature - were made against a female nominee and she reacted emotionally. If anyone dared to argue that she was too emotional to be on the Supreme Court they'd be accused of sexism.
    The argument is that his emotional outburst revealed the political partisanship of which he has been long accused.

    The sex of the nominee is irrelevant to their role. What is disqualificatory in one would be equally disqualificatory in the other.
    Yes, except people haven't just made the specific point you have about the emotional outburst showing his level of partisanship. On here and elsewhere people have made the points separately, or referred only to his lack of composure.

    I think he showed himself as unsuitable for the reason you point out, although frankly Americans seem to want naked partisans, but there have been plenty who criticised his emotional reaction as distinct from his partisanship. So while the argument you make is valid it is untrue that that is the argument all have been making.

    Where I disagree with the first post is that I think had a woman behaved that emotionally she would not be confirmed even if some called it sexism.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,746
    edited October 6

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Will he be punching the air when NHS wards start closing down? Cuz these are the people that pay for those wards.....
    I don't think anyone need worry about the ungainly sight of Mason punching the air......Corbyn has as much chance of becoming PM as Theresa May has of winning Strictly Come Dancing
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654
    Can you imagine if Trump gets to nominate yet more justices? What's the highest number appointed during one presidency?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654
    Roger said:

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Will he be punching the air when NHS wards start closing down? Cuz these are the people that pay for those wards.....
    I don't think anyone need worry about the ungainly sight of Mason punching the air......Corbyn has as much chance of becoming PM as Theresa May has of winning Strictly Come Dancing
    Better than 50%?
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,004

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Yup only the pure will remain - to endure the grinding poverty only the true Stalinists enjoy.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202
    The Republicans need to double down on voter suppression and extend efforts to cover women, too. If the Democrats do ever regain control of the levers of power, they have a green light to make a whole lot of big ticket changes - probably starting with impeachment of Kavanaugh.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,975
    edited October 6
    kle4 said:

    Can you imagine if Trump gets to nominate yet more justices? What's the highest number appointed during one presidency?

    In recent history Reagan (4), before that FDR (9) - Trump's 4 predecessors appointed 2 each:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments

    The most appointed was the original 11 by Washington
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,004
    OllyT said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    What ever it is it isn't one person one vote, aka democracy
    Technically you're wrong - there is one person, one vote. There is barely anywhere in the world with EED.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,746
    Fantastic ...and someone has a photo that out-Rockwell's Rockwell!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,935
    kle4 said:

    Can you imagine if Trump gets to nominate yet more justices? What's the highest number appointed during one presidency?

    Fun fact 4 of the 9 Justices have been nominated by a president who lost the popular vote.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130
    Roger said:

    Fantastic ...and someone has a photo that out-Rockwell's Rockwell!
    Now that... IS art :)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,677
    Roger said:

    Fantastic ...and someone has a photo that out-Rockwell's Rockwell!
    I do wonder whether the new owner has the most expensive cat litter ever!

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130

    Can a Justice of SCOTUS resign?

    I thought that is exactly what caused the Kavanaugh debacle - a Justice resigned
    Nader Ginsburg is the next planned resignation, when she is 90.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,975
    RIP Montserrat Caballé (85)

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,102
    Trump will almost certainly be re nominated by Republican primary voters even if Kasich say runs against him.

    However even if the House and Senate go Democrat in the midterms as is increasingly possible (with maybe Manchin holding the balance of power) as Bill Clinton showed when the Democrats were trounced in 1994 but he was re elected in 1996 that does not necessarily doom his re election bid
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,760
    felix said:

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Yup only the pure will remain - to endure the grinding poverty only the true Stalinists enjoy.
    1% pay 27% of all Income Tax.

    The NHS Budget in 2019 is around 20% of Govt. spending.

    Personally, I'd welcome another 100,000 of the Super-rich to the UK - and TRULY have the best free healthcare system in the world. But then, I'm not a spiteful lefty.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130
    The value of the strips of paper is probably higher than the artwork originally was now
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,489
    Off-topic:

    Scottish train troubles. The new Hitachi-built trains for Scotland, the Class 385s, are having some rather significant issues. The units are very late into service, partly because they were designed with windows that caused reflections that meant drivers saw multiple copies of signals.

    Only a handful are in service now, but they were all withdrawn the other day after some significant issues with the brakes. The latest issues haven't been revealed, but last month a set of seven coaches (one train of four coaches, another of three) failed when the computer on one of of the trains turned off that train's brakes.

    Ooops. Brake problems are not unusual on new trains (the Hitachi Class 800 is apparently having some issues as well), but failing with brakes off should never happen: brakes should fail on.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202
    felix said:

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Yup only the pure will remain - to endure the grinding poverty only the true Stalinists enjoy.

    Doesn’t Mason operate a Ltd company?

  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,492

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
    Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

    It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.

    If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,880

    Pretty convincing and well-argued piece as usual from David. Why he isn't a paid columnist on, say, the Spectator, is a mystery.

    Perhaps because he writes "Pretty convincing and well-argued piece(s)"
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,880
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    Brett Kavanaugh doesn't appear very likeable to me and his demeanour before the Senate committee jarred. However, in the current era where everyone seems to emote at a drop of the hat, perhaps that fits the spirit of the times too.

    Not that I really care about this case, but the argument that his emotive response to the allegations makes him unsuitable to be on the Supreme Court is not a good one. Imagine if allegations - perhaps of a different nature - were made against a female nominee and she reacted emotionally. If anyone dared to argue that she was too emotional to be on the Supreme Court they'd be accused of sexism.
    The argument is that his emotional outburst revealed the political partisanship of which he has been long accused.

    The sex of the nominee is irrelevant to their role. What is disqualificatory in one would be equally disqualificatory in the other.
    A woman displaying that sort of emotion would be branded "hysterical" and thus unsuitable for the SC
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,880

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
    Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

    It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.

    If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
    If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.

    I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,134
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    That’s because you have a cultural aversion to judge-made common law. ;)
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,256

    felix said:

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Yup only the pure will remain - to endure the grinding poverty only the true Stalinists enjoy.
    1% pay 27% of all Income Tax.

    The NHS Budget in 2019 is around 20% of Govt. spending.

    Personally, I'd welcome another 100,000 of the Super-rich to the UK - and TRULY have the best free healthcare system in the world. But then, I'm not a spiteful lefty.
    I'm not a spiteful lefty either - but the presence of 100,000 of the super-rich doesn't guarantee that they'll be net contributors of any scale. And if they were there is no guarantee that the proceeds would be allocated to healthcare as a priority. And they'd have other effects on the economy as well, and probably on politics.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    daodao said:

    Roger said:

    'Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour'.

    I have a feeling this was a good vote for the Democrats to lose. I can't see there being much joy in this victory for the Republicans when they think about it and having seen his petulant performance repeated and lampooned ad nauseam it may ironically prove a victory for the losers.

    Exactly. A supreme court judge should be beyond reproach, which Kavanaugh clearly isn't because of his loutish drunken behaviour as an adolescent. It would be better if he wasn't confirmed, to motivate the GOP base to come out and vote to ensure that they retain the Senate and HoR in November.
    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.
    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
    Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

    It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.

    If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
    Kavanaugh won't be overturning anything. It will be down to John Roberts, he is the new median.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,896
    Roger said:

    Fantastic ...and someone has a photo that out-Rockwell's Rockwell!
    Surely that is deliberate
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,464
    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
    But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?

    The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent.
    What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?

    We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
    Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.

    The Republicans treatment of Obama in refusing to consider his nomination of Garland is evidence that the Republicans were already acting in an extreme, nothing is too outrageous, way before Trump's election. This is a result of the Tea Party revolution.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,935
    They won't overturn Roe vs Wade, they will simply nod through the "not actually banning abortion just making it impossible for an abortion clinic to operate" laws that are passed at state level.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,952
    HYUFD said:

    Trump will almost certainly be re nominated by Republican primary voters even if Kasich say runs against him.

    However even if the House and Senate go Democrat in the midterms as is increasingly possible (with maybe Manchin holding the balance of power) as Bill Clinton showed when the Democrats were trounced in 1994 but he was re elected in 1996 that does not necessarily doom his re election bid

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,707


    What's interesting about this is that he is a Zoomer, and the SNP are terrified that a precedent be set of "having another vote if your first referendum turns out to be shit"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
    But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?

    The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent.
    What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?

    We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
    Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.

    The Republicans treatment of Obama in refusing to consider his nomination of Garland is evidence that the Republicans were already acting in an extreme, nothing is too outrageous, way before Trump's election. This is a result of the Tea Party revolution.
    Are you sure ? Thomas was 52-48. Alito was 58-42.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,464

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Had he been more candid about his behaviour as a teenager, and more circumspect in his testimonial rant attacking his critics, he might have been ok - I don’t think the folly of youth should be used to condemn the middle aged. However, if the middle aged cannot see that and indulge in partisan politics, then that should rule them out. What happened three and a half decades ago may remain unknowable - what happened in the last week is abundantly clear.

    +1

    And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
    You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?

    It's a view, I suppose ...
    I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
    Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
    Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.

    It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome.

    If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
    If RvW is overturned for any reason then women will die or go to jail just like they did before RvW was passed.

    I do not give a monkeys about the legal/political theory.
    In practice many states have restrictions that make it very difficult for some women to access abortions. If Democrats are serious about female reproductive rights they need to pass Federal law guaranteeing abortion rights and funding for clinics. I don't think they have the electoral support for that.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045

    Roger said:

    Fantastic ...and someone has a photo that out-Rockwell's Rockwell!
    Surely that is deliberate
    Self-publicising banality masquerading as art. If Banksy could now set up some devices that would whitewash all his tedious murals that would be most welcome.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,464
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
    But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?

    The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent.
    What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?

    We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
    Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.

    The Republicans treatment of Obama in refusing to consider his nomination of Garland is evidence that the Republicans were already acting in an extreme, nothing is too outrageous, way before Trump's election. This is a result of the Tea Party revolution.
    Are you sure ? Thomas was 52-48. Alito was 58-42.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch_Supreme_Court_nomination#Full_Senate

    I had the details wrong in my memory, but 41 votes used to be enough to prevent a nomination if the 41 felt strongly enough to filibuster.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,957

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
    But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?

    The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent.
    What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?

    We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
    Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.
    They didn't necessarily. I guess the change in the way partisanship has now infested all layers of the legislature is that Clarence Thomas was only narrowly confirmed, but the Democrats opted not to pursue a filibuster. I presume that Democrats then were prepared to take a stance that whilst they didn't like the appointment, it would be damaging to utilise all their power to prevent him.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045

    HYUFD said:

    Trump will almost certainly be re nominated by Republican primary voters even if Kasich say runs against him.

    However even if the House and Senate go Democrat in the midterms as is increasingly possible (with maybe Manchin holding the balance of power) as Bill Clinton showed when the Democrats were trounced in 1994 but he was re elected in 1996 that does not necessarily doom his re election bid

    Not someone I generally agree with, but he certainly hits the nail on the head with that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The US system is messed up, a majority of senators come from states that represent just 18% of the population. When you factor in turnout, you can elect a Senate majoi with less than 7% of the population

    Equal weight to the states in the senate, (somewhat) equal weight to the population in the representatives. At least that's how it is supposed to be. I think the senate decides these sort of things to ensure the most populace state doesn't decide everything.
    I get the idea, but the difference between the small states and the larger ones is now vastly more pronounced than in 1776. California has 24 times the population of Wyoming.

    Surrey it'd make sense for confirmation of judges to require a vote in the house rather than senate?

    The Senate represents a shrinking rural minority that doesn't look like mainstream America. It can't go on. It's almost rotton bourgh time.
    That's exactly the point of the senate to avoid one state overwhelming the rest.
    But is it the point of the Senate to impose the will of the minority on the majority ?

    The Supreme Court’s role depends upon consent. Appointing a naked partisan to ensure a majority on the court to entrench the interests of that minority endangers that consent.
    What will happen under a Democratic president who has a majority in both Houses ?

    We might find out in a couple of years’ time.
    Well, until Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments required a super-majority of 60. This helped to ensure a certain degree of reasonableness in appointments.

    The Republicans treatment of Obama in refusing to consider his nomination of Garland is evidence that the Republicans were already acting in an extreme, nothing is too outrageous, way before Trump's election. This is a result of the Tea Party revolution.
    Are you sure ? Thomas was 52-48. Alito was 58-42.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch_Supreme_Court_nomination#Full_Senate

    I had the details wrong in my memory, but 41 votes used to be enough to prevent a nomination if the 41 felt strongly enough to filibuster.
    But what had Gorsuch done that was so wrong, other than obviously having a right wing outlook on the US legal world ?

    The Democrats would have been better off saving their filibuster for Kavanaugh..
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,464

    HYUFD said:

    Trump will almost certainly be re nominated by Republican primary voters even if Kasich say runs against him.

    However even if the House and Senate go Democrat in the midterms as is increasingly possible (with maybe Manchin holding the balance of power) as Bill Clinton showed when the Democrats were trounced in 1994 but he was re elected in 1996 that does not necessarily doom his re election bid

    I think there's a case for arguing that a combination of voter suppression and gerrymandering is responsible for Trump's electoral college win and the current Republican control of the House. The Republicans feel no shame in this.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,707

    Not someone I generally agree with, but he certainly hits the nail on the head with that.

    Yup, campaign on populist rhetoric and get democratically elected.

    Like Hitler...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,013

    Pretty convincing and well-argued piece as usual from David. Why he isn't a paid columnist on, say, the Spectator, is a mystery.

    Perhaps because he writes "Pretty convincing and well-argued piece(s)"
    Lol, something in that, maybe. Magazines and newspapers now tend to seek provocative pieces and clickbait more than balanced ones. Perhaps archer would have a better shot at it.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,004

    felix said:

    I'm not sure Mr Mason has fully thought through the consequences of the 'super rich' leaving:

    Yup only the pure will remain - to endure the grinding poverty only the true Stalinists enjoy.

    Doesn’t Mason operate a Ltd company?

    Wwasn't there always something 'special' about the pigs compared to the other animals on th'Farm'?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,130

    Pretty convincing and well-argued piece as usual from David. Why he isn't a paid columnist on, say, the Spectator, is a mystery.

    Perhaps because he writes "Pretty convincing and well-argued piece(s)"
    Lol, something in that, maybe. Magazines and newspapers now tend to seek provocative pieces and clickbait more than balanced ones. Perhaps archer would have a better shot at it.
    The sad truth is.. there is far more monetisation in taking an outrageous/clickbaity viewpoint (ON ANYTHING) than any piece which tries to hold onto the quaint notion of 'balance'.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,004
    Scott_P said:

    Not someone I generally agree with, but he certainly hits the nail on the head with that.

    Yup, campaign on populist rhetoric and get democratically elected.

    Like Hitler...
    Yet he never actually did win an election.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,004

    Pretty convincing and well-argued piece as usual from David. Why he isn't a paid columnist on, say, the Spectator, is a mystery.

    Perhaps because he writes "Pretty convincing and well-argued piece(s)"
    Lol, something in that, maybe. Magazines and newspapers now tend to seek provocative pieces and clickbait more than balanced ones. Perhaps archer would have a better shot at it.
    :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654
    Scott_P said:

    Not someone I generally agree with, but he certainly hits the nail on the head with that.

    Yup, campaign on populist rhetoric and get democratically elected.

    Like Hitler...
    Do you not regard it as a possibility that someone could campaign on popular issues, get elected, and notbe like Hitler?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,952

    HYUFD said:

    Trump will almost certainly be re nominated by Republican primary voters even if Kasich say runs against him.

    However even if the House and Senate go Democrat in the midterms as is increasingly possible (with maybe Manchin holding the balance of power) as Bill Clinton showed when the Democrats were trounced in 1994 but he was re elected in 1996 that does not necessarily doom his re election bid

    I think there's a case for arguing that a combination of voter suppression and gerrymandering is responsible for Trump's electoral college win and the current Republican control of the House. The Republicans feel no shame in this.
    Dems may have to wait until the economy implodes before winning again.

    Trump's recklessness should guarantee that. But whether it will be before his re-election is anyone's guess.
This discussion has been closed.