Congress 2017-18

57Brave

57Brave

Well-known member
Abby D. Phillip Verified account

‏@abbydphillip

Paul Ryan's doomsday scenario if GOP loses the Senate: "A guy named Bernie Sanders" becomes Budget committee chair



daveweigel ‏@daveweigel 30m30 minutes ago

daveweigel Retweeted Abby D. Phillip

Wait until Wisconsin voters find this out about the landslide winner of their Democratic primary.
 
Beginning to think and it remains to be seen but once away from dog whistles (R) is just not very good at politics.
Like they don't think through what they are saying
 
Will the DNC working against sanders behind the scenes keep sanders supporters from voting for Hillary? I doubt it. Why should Ryan's comment hurt him then?
 
I don't think it will hurt Ryan. His district is fairly safe.
and he will never be POTUS

But what I think is, the statement in the tweet would give Sanders voters that might not have been inclined to vote a reason to vote. Not only in Wisconsin but nationally.
Helping (D) run for Senate majority

....

curious what deal Sanders made whether a legislative post like Chairman of Budget or if he goes into the Administration at the cabinet level

has to be more meat than planks in platform

curious what deal Warren made !
 
Politics aside, nominating Obama to the supreme court would be terrible for everyone. First, I highly doubt Obama would rather do that then living the incredible life of being an ex president. Second, it would hilariously undermine the court to appoint a known partisan politician. I know it's already partisan, but to be so open and brazen about it would not be a good look. Finally, the democratic party would be losing arguably their biggest weapon when it comes to future campaigns.
 
weso1 said:
Politics aside, nominating Obama to the supreme court would be terrible for everyone. First, I highly doubt Obama would rather do that then living the incredible life of being an ex president. Second, it would hilariously undermine the court to appoint a known partisan politician. I know it's already partisan, but to be so open and brazen about it would not be a good look. Finally, the democratic party would be losing arguably their biggest weapon when it comes to future campaigns.
Click to expand...

If you don't think the court has had more than its share of partisan politicians throughout history, you've been living on a different planet. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was a Republican political operative in Minnesota (and a dirty one at that) before going on the court. Former Chief Justice Earl Warren was once Governor of California. Scalia hung out with Cheney. Former Chief Justice Roger Taney was in Andrew Jackson's cabinet. William Rehnquist wrote speeches for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 Presidential campaign. William Howard Taft went on the Supreme Court in the early-1920s after being President a decade earlier. I'm not necessarily saying Obama should go on the court (although he has the legal chops to serve well) because he would be a polarizing figure at a time when institutions are already under fire. But if you think that justices get on the court solely on their legal theories and academic work, you're wrong.
 
It's already grossly partisan enough without putting another partisan on there. The court has been corrupted for a long time. And the bulk of it is over a decision that was made more than 40 years ago and still has not been overturned.
 
50PoundHead said:
If you don't think the court has had more than its share of partisan politicians throughout history, you've been living on a different planet. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was a Republican political operative in Minnesota (and a dirty one at that) before going on the court. Former Chief Justice Earl Warren was once Governor of California. Scalia hung out with Cheney. Former Chief Justice Roger Taney was in Andrew Jackson's cabinet. William Rehnquist wrote speeches for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 Presidential campaign. William Howard Taft went on the Supreme Court in the early-1920s after being President a decade earlier. I'm not necessarily saying Obama should go on the court (although he has the legal chops to serve well) because he would be a polarizing figure at a time when institutions are already under fire. But if you think that justices get on the court solely on their legal theories and academic work, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you need to remember my definition of "Activist Judge" from when I teach American Government. I always tell me students the best definition of an activist judge is "a judge who disagrees with me and what I think the Constitution says". ;)

As for the current president, I really don't want him in SCOTUS either, but when I think about how much it would piss off Mitch McConnell I say "go for it". That sorry tub of Diarrhea absolutely deserves that sort of (metaphorical) 2 x 4 up side of his head IMO. Rafael Cruz too. Shut the government down again bitches, just because you didn't get your way. Tell me again how "we need to let the American people speak" about the next Justice bitches. Oh and maybe you can tell us again how you believe the President should seek the counsel of Congress (ie his betters) if he was on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I know punishing the whole nation isn't a good thing just because you want to punish a handful of "right wing bought and paid for douche bags" but it's a pleasant thought. And how could he be more useless than Clarence Thomas?
 
50PoundHead said:
If you don't think the court has had more than its share of partisan politicians throughout history, you've been living on a different planet. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was a Republican political operative in Minnesota (and a dirty one at that) before going on the court. Former Chief Justice Earl Warren was once Governor of California. Scalia hung out with Cheney. Former Chief Justice Roger Taney was in Andrew Jackson's cabinet. William Rehnquist wrote speeches for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 Presidential campaign. William Howard Taft went on the Supreme Court in the early-1920s after being President a decade earlier. I'm not necessarily saying Obama should go on the court (although he has the legal chops to serve well) because he would be a polarizing figure at a time when institutions are already under fire. But if you think that justices get on the court solely on their legal theories and academic work, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I stated in the post you quoted that I know it's already partisan. My point was only that it would the most brazen partisan pick ever. Everyone knows Obama and knows his politics. It would be much less brazen to name Loretta Lynch for example. In fact I think you made the same argument I was trying to make in your next to last sentence.
 
Clinton nominating Obama might be the one thing that would make all these Republicans trying to flee Trump wish they had stuck with him. I don't like the idea, but I guess it would be hilarious. Don't really give a crap in the end.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Clinton nominating Obama might be the one thing that would make all these Republicans trying to flee Trump wish they had stuck with him. I don't like the idea, but I guess it would be hilarious. Don't really give a crap in the end.
Click to expand...

I would say the most hilarious part (in a really sick way) is that it really doesn't matter what we think, in the end. They (both sides) are bought and paid for and could care less what we think about anything, except in election years and when they're calling, trying to raise money. We truly have a good system of government that's FULL of really sorry (with an occasional exception here and there) POSs everywhere you look.
 
I would actually love it if Clinton nominated Obama. She's going to pick a leftist either way, so might as well get the best present day campaigner off the campaign trail for good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top