The 2020 Election Mega Thread

Bernie has probably talked about strengthening unions more than any other candidate.

 

The second one, I doubt that they would hold out for 4 years, but they may do 2 years.

I just see it as difficult to hold all Senators to a 4 year commitment, then again they can take it 2 years at a time, if they keep the majority in 2022 by blocking judges, then perhaps I will be wrong.

 

If he was smart he'd focus on organizing, what is up for grabs are the states.


PS: The only attempted Socialist revolution in the US was in OK.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...ahoma-crushed-green-corn-rebellion-180973073/

 

It depends on when Ginsberg and Breyer's spots become empty.. If it is done early in the term, I don't see how Republicans could justify holding the spots vacant for 2-4 years. They'll certain slow walk it and fight every nominee tooth and nail, but they won't be able to pull what they did with Garland. Anything less than 2 years tho.. Yeah. I can see it being dragged out until the re-election.

 

I'm just going to let this stand by itself.

 

I don't think you are looking at it from the correct perspective.
It is not "holding out," like in 2016 and Merrick Garland.
If the Republicans hold the Senate, they could simply deny every Supreme Court nominee.

By the way, they would do this for the Cabinet, as well.

If McConnell stays in charge of the Senate and there is a Democratic President, that President will not have a cabinet.

Since there is a requirement for "advise and consent" for nominees, he would simply block the nominees.
If they somehow managed to get to a vote, the vote would like fail, time and time again.

It will be paralysis unlike this county has ever seen.

We see it already.
McConnell blocks Senate votes that would pass the Senate.
He is blocking everything.

 

LOL. I would think at some point the Executive branch would go to the Judicial branch if the Legislative branch failed in its confirmation duties.

 

In case you haven't noticed, Senate confirmation is no longer required to fill positions that require confirmation. Any Democratic president will just appoint people into a position as interim and dare Republicans to call their bluff.

 

They would not be doing "justifying holding the spots vacant for 2-4 years"

The Republican Senate would be voting down every nominee, which is their right to do.

The President would nominate someone and, first, they would stall and "slow walk" it. It would then come up for a vote and they nominee would be voted down.

Hell, Gorsuch was 54-45.
Kavanaugh was 50-48.

Had the Democrats had the Senate in 2017 and 2018, no way either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would make it onto the bench (of course, Kennedy would not have suddenly "retired").

 

The Republicans would call their bluff. Immediately.

Also, it would not work for the Supreme Court.

If a Democratic President attempted to fill a Supreme Court seat with and unconfirmed nominee, it would be an actual Constitutional Crisis.

Democrats taking back control of the Senate in 2020 is as important as the Presidency.
Less likely, but as important.

 

I was responding to a post about cabinet positions.

 

Garland did not get a vote, sure they could try to do this and then in 2022 voters will decide if blocking judges like that should be rewarded, voters in the majority of states may say yes, just like they did in 2016.

But then it is the American people telling the Senate what to do.

For sure, lots of "acting" cabinet members, just like Trump and that clown has the votes in the Senate.

That would be fair, as long as they get votes, if Sanders/X-Democrat can not nominate people that get 51 votes, then they will not be confirmed, that is how this works (unfortunately).

Then it the voters decide who was right, the Senators or the President (by 2022 or 2024).

And Since Republicans seem to do better in more states, he will not be penalized for it, until Democrats can figure out a way to win election in 25+ states, this will continue to happen.

Again, they will try and it will be up to voters in 2022 to give their opinion on who is right.

 

Which is fine, again, just do what Trump is doing, post one person in a position as interim, then put another person up to be the nominee. If the Senate keeps rejecting the nominees, the position is still filled and the duties are still be performed.

 

1 of them may have, I assume this is if Trump won in 2016 but Democrats took back the Senate so they are pissed about Garland so they block Gorsuch.

But how long would they have kept that up? they would vote him down (after holding up the nomination for a while) but eventually they would have to allow votes and dare Trump nominate some one else.

 

1. That could work, but is no way to run a government.

2. I don't think that would work for Supreme Court nominees. The Republicans would be fine with the status quo of a 5-2 Conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Since there is no Constitutional mandate that there must be 9 justices, I suspect the Republicans would be fine with 7, considering the overwhelming majority.

...and keep voting down nominees.
No replacement for Scalia.
It would have preserved a 4-4 deadlock for the foreseeable future.
Roberts/Thomas/Alito/Kennedy
Ginsburg/Breyer/Kagan/Sotomayer

Essentially, Roberts and Kennedy would wield most of the power, as the "swing" votes on certain issues.

 

You do realize, I hope, that there are Democratic Senators from more than 25 states right now.

There are Democratic/non-Republican senators in 28 states:
(There are Republican senators in 31 states)

Alabama
Arizona
California (both)
Colorado
Connecticut (both)
Delaware (both)
Hawaii (both)
Illinois (both)
Maine (King is Ind. but caucuses with Democrats)
Maryland (both)
Mass. (both)
Michigan (both)
Minnesota (both)
Montana
Nevada (both)
New Hampshire (both)
New Jersey (both)
New Mexico (both)
New York (both)
Ohio
Oregon (both)
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island (both)
Vermont (both, if we count Bernie Sanders)
Virginia (both)
Washington (both)
Wisconsin
West Virginia

 

The fact that he hasn't passed any significant legislation also indicates an inability to compromise.

 

Latest polling from a b/C rated pollster has Sanders at +10 in National polling, Bloomberg all the way to 3rd.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/national/

 

Both in 25+ states. or a combination that gets to 51.

Arizona and Colorado should be possible.

But holding Alabama and eventually Montana and West Virginia will be very difficult.

North Carolina and perhaps Georgia are opportunities, but Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvanian may eventually go the way or Iowa or even Indiana.

So if Republicans do block Supreme court appointments, does that help Democrats take back the Senate or not?



My point is that it would, if Republicans block SC appointments, then I would suspect Dems having a good chance of taking back the Senate in 2022, but perhaps voters in some "swing" states would reward Republicans, if that happens, they yes the GOP will/would block for 4 years.



I still doubt it, but I could be wrong.

 

St. Bernard's appeal is that his views are virtually unchanged over decades. He's never moved and yet the party, to a large degree, has come to him.