Democracy's in dire danger

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
Contributor
You all know, or you should, that using a venue-shopped court and a carefully-selected leftist judge with a glaring recusal problem is a game that Trump-hating Democrats are playing.

It's not about SNAP. It's not about "hungry people".

Trump-hating Democrats are trying to shift the blame for SNAP funding onto a POTUS and the party who didn't end it.

It's all about optics going into the midterms.

They know that low-information voters won't question the Trump-hating Democrat narrative.

They know the media and the search engine providers will toe the line and prop up the illusion.

They want to take both Houses of Congress based on a lie.

If the Trump-hating Democrats win a supermajority, they'll impeach POTUS for real in 2027.

Then they'll tar VP Vance and every Republican running with the same brush in 2028.

If they hit the trifecta, it's over.

If their propaganda campaign works, they'll pack the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to whomever they want to.

There are lots of people dependent on Uncle Sam's handouts in Puerto Rico and Guam.

That will be the end of two-party politics for a long, long, time.
 

Early use of the filibuster​

edit
Originally, the Senate's rules did not provide for a procedure for the Senate to vote to end debate on a question so that it could be voted on,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#cite_note-:3-12"><span>[</span>12<span>]</span></a> which opened the door to filibusters. Indeed, a filibuster took place at the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the "design of the Virginians [...] was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#cite_note-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a>
 
It gives the minority a chance to air their FACTS why the bill is bad

Right to the people


You hate it when the people get to hear the other side in full


Because you hate democracy
 
Throughout American history, have any elected presidents faced as as much documented opposition in the press, broadcast media, or courts as the current incumbent?

No.

Donald Trump: Harvard Shorenstein Center study (2017) found 80% negative coverage in first 100 days across New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News.

Pew Research Center (2017) found 62% negative in first 60 days, compared to 20% for Obama, 28% for Bush and Clinton.

Media Research Center (2017-2025) found 89-95% negative on ABC, CBS, NBC evening news across both terms.

Faced over 220 lawsuits in first 100 days of second term.

No prior president faced equivalent documented volume in press negativity (80-95%) or lawsuits (over 300 in months) while in office.


@Grok
 
I’m not saying I would trust their answers, but every Trump-hating Democrat Senator/ and potential candidate needs to be asked whether they support (1) abolishing the filibuster and/or (2) packing the Supreme Court.

It’s the only way to educate the public on the stakes in 2026 and 2028.
 
evince said:
It gives the minority a chance to air their FACTS why the bill is bad

Right to the people


You hate it when the people get to hear the other side in full


Because you hate democracy
Click to expand...
So, let's hear your version of why a "clean" CR is so bad and why the Democrats won't sign onto one.

efa24cbea74316ad5899424283cde547.jpg
 
Diogenes said:
I’m not saying I would trust their answers, but every Trump-hating Democrat Senator/ and potential candidate needs to be asked whether they support (1) abolishing the filibuster and/or (2) packing the Supreme Court.

It’s the only way to educate the public on the stakes in 2026 and 2028.
Click to expand...



Diogenes said:
It’s you talking about trashing the filibuster buster
Click to expand...
T. A. Gardner said:
So, let's hear your version of why a "clean" CR is so bad and why the Democrats won't sign onto one.

efa24cbea74316ad5899424283cde547.jpg
Click to expand...
It’s such a shame that comedian died
 
However, I have a cunning plan.

Is there any legal or procedural reason why the GOP can't pack the Court after the Schumer shutdown ends?

No, there is no legal or procedural barrier preventing Republicans from expanding the Supreme Court (commonly called "court packing") once the ongoing government shutdown ends.

The number of Supreme Court justices is not fixed by the Constitution; Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in "one supreme Court" but leaves the details to Congress.

Congress has changed the Court's size seven times in history (from 6 to 7 in 1789, up to 10 in 1863, down to 7 in 1866, and up to 9 in 1869, where it has remained).

A simple statute passed by Congress and signed by the president (or overriding a veto) is all that's required. No constitutional amendment needed.

Right now, Republicans hold the presidency, a 53-47 Senate majority, and a narrow House majority (219-213).

After the Schumer shutdown ends, they could pass a court-expansion bill on a party-line vote.

"But, wait", I hear you say. "The Senate filibuster requires 60 votes"

Ha, say I.
  • The filibuster applies only to legislative matters; it was eliminated for Supreme Court nominations in 2017 via the "nuclear option" (a simple-majority rules change).
In short, unified GOP control means they face no insurmountable legal or procedural obstacles., as long as Republicans stick together.

Trump-hating Democrats don't have the votes to block it. It would mean that the GOP majority in the House would need to stick together, and in the Senate, at least 51 votes would be needed. The GOP has 53 in the Senate. And guess who can vote to break a tie?


jd-vance-vp-debate.gif


​
"But", I hear you wail, "If the GOP succeeds, couldn't Democrats do the same thing the next time they control Congress"?

Of course, I say. That's a given in any case. Haven't many Trump-hating Democrats already said they intend to pack the Court as soon as they get the chance?

Why, yes. Yes they have. I have the receipts. tt doesn't matter who strikes first. If the GOP packs the court now, while they can, they can quash a lot of the lawfare that's currently clogging the District Courts with obstructionism.

If the GOP hesitates, they may not get another chance for decades, because the Trump-hating Democrats will raise the bar to 13 or more Justices as soon as they can. How do I know? Lots of 'em have said so, and on this question I believe them.

If we don't try, a generation of Republicans could be shut out of governing.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I'll bet POTUS Trump can light a fire under the GOP's congressional leadership.

At least make the effort, and even if they fail, the howling from the Democrats can be used against them when they try to do the same thing they recently decried.

What say you, @Damocles?
 
And when the D's win the WH and both chambers they pack it more... pretty soon everyone will be on the Supreme Court...
 
Damocles said:
And when the D's win the WH and both chambers they pack it more... pretty soon everyone will be on the Supreme Court...
Click to expand...


That's a risk.

If we don't act now, though, the GOP may not win another election for a generation.

I consider that a worse risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top