- 11,997
- 3,286
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
After McConnell blocked Obama from filling that seat in 2016, the court packing was already underway. McConnell rushing to fill the open seat in 2020 was the bookend to this court packing.
Whether it’s 9 or 21, the court is obviously rigged and yet this current Democratic trifecta has no chance of undoing any of this. I doubt that McConnell adding judges would have motived enough centrists Democratic Senators to add yet more judges at a later date.
Look, it would have been better if Clinton beat Trump in 2016. My issue is with this discourse that the 2016 election is some profound hinge point in history. Before 2016, it was the case that the GOP was a minoritarian, norm breaking party and the Democratic Party is handicapped by too many members, who prize unilateral norm keeping, over social justice or even just stopping fascism.
Who knows, maybe a Hillary Clinton Presidency would change this decades’ long trajectory. But unless she could, her winning in 2016 changes very little in the long run.
Disingenuous argument is disingenuous.The idea that the Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe and women are going to be forced to give birth—no matter what—is what the kids call cap. It’s not happening.
The whole thread is good but some highlights (the final tweet below is especially good):
I really can't stand pro-lifers, at all.
2016 is very obviously a profound hinge point in history.
and it seems like many leftist don't want to admit it because
it makes the sore loser-dom post 2016 primary look wildly irresponsible and stupid in hindsight.
I can admit that Hilary had some serious flaws as a candidate and in hindsight, Bernie (probably/ maaaybe) would have won.
but I think leftist need to be able to say; **** post 2016 primary behavior was probably not helpful
and Hilary was right about the stakes of the election.
2016 was important, so was 2020. I’m just not buying this selective powerlessness narrative put forth by a large number of Democrats.
If someone could tell me how Hillary Clinton, in 2017, would have been able to overcome the awesome power of Joe Manchin and the Senate Parliamentarian, I’d love to here it.
Right now, what I’m hearing is that if Bernie had been nicer to Clinton in early summer 2016, the GOP’s project of minority rule would have been stopped.
I’m not saying that you or Rusty are making this argument but that’s the dominant argument right now. It’s fixating on how a Democrat lost in 2016 in order to avoid confronting the sad reality around the Democrat who did win in 2020.
I mentioned Jason Kander a few days ago. Matty stealing my work now too
Rusty's pal Matt Y had a good piece on this.
a democrat does 1.5 points better in 2016 and you probably win the senate.
you replace Scalia, and challenges to partisan gerrymandering are decided by a 5-4 liberal court.
2016 is the hinge point, by 2020 its 6-3 conservative court and all hope is lost.
I think you mean Pinochet-ish.was just coming in to post…
sounds about white
Rusty's pal Matt Y had a good piece on this.
a democrat does 1.5 points better in 2016 and you probably win the senate.
you replace Scalia, and challenges to partisan gerrymandering are decided by a 5-4 liberal court.
2016 is the hinge point, by 2020 its 6-3 conservative court and all hope is lost.
was just coming in to post…
sounds about white
I posted it because right now on leftist Twitter, Reddit, and other forums they are trying their best to blame liberals, and "the establishment" for the sad state of affairs in the court right now. Even saying they could have stopped it from happening in years past by "fighting harder"2016 is very obviously a profound hinge point in history.
and it seems like many leftist don't want to admit it because
it makes the sore loser-dom post 2016 primary look wildly irresponsible and stupid in hindsight.
I can admit that Hilary had some serious flaws as a candidate and in hindsight, Bernie (probably/ maaaybe) would have won.
but I think leftist need to be able to say; **** post 2016 primary behavior was probably not helpful
and Hilary was right about the stakes of the election.
And this is why I am so cold-blooded about clowns like Manchin and Sinema dropping the nonsense and helping the Dems fix things while they have the power to fix things2016 is why i've become much more cold blooded about the need to pander to conservative cultural views.
The situation is so bleak and dire for democrats,
they should be willing to say just about anything to win enough senate seats to end the filibuster,
end gerrymandering and add PR, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Greenland or wherever as states.
He meant white.
"aside from that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?"As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I’d imagine we would not get a Federalist Society appointee to fill Scalia’s seat. Beyond that, though, all bets would be off. The most likely outcome is that McConnell keeps that seat open. Capital would not allow a liberal Court to form.
"aside from that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?"
if a democratic president fills the seat, you 100% get challenges to gerrymandering, the voter suppression cases go differently ect.
that will more than delay GOP's minority rule status.
it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to handwave that.
the stakes of 2020 don't compare.