The would probably riot and make sure it never happened

I thought maybe that is what you meant, but that Bush handed the reigns to Bill Clinton, not Obama.

Thanks doc. I still lurk quite a bit, probably should post more in the strat threads.

I disagree.

Garland was a textbook compromise candidate. Impeccably qualified, politically only moderately liberal, and judicially centrist, probably would end up being a swing vote on polarizing issues. (Which I argue the Supreme Court needs more of, but that's a different thread.)

Republicans even floated his name as an alternative to Sotomayor and Kagan earlier in the Obama Presidency. He would have been snap confirmed a year earlier.

He almost certainly would have been confirmed if it came to a vote.

"Lame duck" is typically used to describe the period between the election (November) and inauguration (January).

Extending it back to February is only possible when you count the campaign.

Extending "lame duck" rules to cover a Presidential campaign ends up really eating into a President's term - Cruz announced his candidacy in early 2015.

The Senate "tradition" is going to sprawl way out of control if people don't stand up to it. Republican Senators should have been chastised to suggest they would have blocked Clinton's nominees indefinitely. Democratic Senators should be chastised for suggesting they will indefinitely filibuster Trump's nominees. All Senators should pretty much be chastised for filibustering anything short of "hang on for 24 hours because pending DNA results may indicate this nominee is actually a lizard-person."

If there needs to be a Senate "tradition" that is upheld, confine it to the actual lame duck period - Election Day to Inauguration Day.

This is the problem with national news: you think that's pretty bad.

Here's the truth: Riots in Berkeley aren't that special.

People are always rioting in Berkeley, and very few of them are students. Ever since race-blind admissions started, the campus has been filled with competitively advantaged conservative white males. Haha jk the campus is literally swarming with politically apathetic Asians. Protests on campus are notoriously driven by outsiders, and there's always a large halo of violent protestors who look for reasons to smash stuff up.

Along Telegraph and downtown, I'd estimate that windows are boarded up in anticipation of riots maybe once a month. This month it happened to be Milo Yannawhatever, next month there will be because the Berkeley City Council passed a law prohibiting bulk sale of Sudafed, the month after that it will be in remembrance of the 7 month "anni"versary of that tragic riot 7 months ago.

I think last night was worse than most. But walking down a sidewalk of glass shards from last night's riots is, as sad as it is, pretty mundane.

Smart move. Tuition will go up about $10k a year after they lose the $370 million a year in federal funding.

Yeah... lame duck periods don't start 3/4 of the way through the presidential term. To suggest they do is just absurd or disingenuous.

I think I need to be more expansive in my remarks. Regarding my "end result would have been the same" should be taken in the context of the looming election. As you have correctly noted, the Republicans, rightly or wrongly (but politcally expediently) used an upcoming Supreme Court nomination to motivate their voting base.

The comments below should be considered in my most amicable nit-for-nit reply.

The 'typical' use of the term is also restricted to outgoing Presidents that won't be be returning in January.

Agreed. I also think both parties would take advantage of any percieved weakness of an outgoing President, irrespective of timing.

I wasn't aware of any politically significant "rules" applicable to lame duck status, irrespective of its actual or functional duration.

The filibuster is certainly a very long held tradition. And it's a sword that cuts both ways. My opinion is that it should not be abandoned because it potentially provides a safeguard against the "tyranny of the majority."

I am indifferent to the lame duck definition and any time frame assigned to it. Fact is, either party will prey opportunistically on their opponent's weakness whenever it's perceived.

I have no idea what to do about the the rightous chastisement due both parties unless you're willing to accept my nomination to chair the "Senate Play Nice and Fair" oversight committee.

As my first act, I would even drop the "nice" part. People can be as mean and nasty as they want, as long as in the end everyone plays by a set of agreed upon rules.

So, if the Democrats decided to filibuster Gorsuch's nomination until 2018 in hopes of retaking the Senate, you would consider this fair play?

If another Supreme Court opening opens up in early 2018 (after midterm elections have started), are the Democrats allowed to filibuster for a few months?

If the Democrats retake the Senate in 2018, can they just declare a preemptive, indefinite postponement of all nominees until the 2020 Presidential election?

At what point does allowable political jostling turn into obstructionist shirking of duty?

4 years of this?

To be clear, I'm not wishing death on anyone. I was just pointing out that the question of whether she will be replaced during Trump's term is an important one, much more significant than replacing scalia with another conservative that keeps the 4-4-1 balance.

I'm actually pretty impartial personally about how the court is made up. I'm opposed to both major parties in some significant areas so for me it's a question of do I want to shoot myself in my hand or my foot. I also am very pessimistic about the United States government's ability as a whole to continue as a going concern for much longer. So that makes me even more impartial about the court.

But I'm not totally impartial to what people's reactions may be if there is a major shift in power.

To the extent that all of the above scenarios are allowable within the current rules of the Senate, I suppose I would consider it "fair play." Stupid, silly and obstructionist, but not outside the rules.

I think both parties can share blame in getting us close to that point now.

Regarding McConnell not bringing Garland to the senate floor in an election year, I agree it was kind of a dickish move and has largely caused this "dig in" mentality among the factions.

I was also surprised to learn about the so called "Biden rule."

My understanding is that Joe isn't fond of being asked questions about that now.

Have the last word, my friend. Then we'll quit boring the rest of the forum with this discussion.

No parting shots on my end.

I'm not parting, and I hope you aren't either. I hope Gorsuch gets quickly confirmed and I sincerely hope Trump does well and the country is better off in 4 years. I may not think that's gonna happen, but that's a discussion that will certainly come up in 2019-2020.

Not at all. I don't do that to my friends, and I certainly consider you my friend. My comment was intended to be a diplomatic way for us to cease discussion on what may getting tedious to the rest of our friends in SS.

Maybe 8

When they refuse to attend confirmation committee meetings and prepare written statements about how bad the nomination is before the nomination is even made. In other words, we're there.

Let's talk about something less controversial.

Go Patriots!

Currently sitting .50/1 on Intertops waiting for action. They gave me 5 bucks for my birthday and I've almost tripled it already. /brag

bring it.

How's about a politard containment thread?

I don't see any need for containment in a thread advertised as "no content". But if anyone really prefers to make political comments in a designated area, there is already a politics forum on 2+2.

Capital idea! I'll call Jesse in a bit.

I would consider my reputation besmirched if I was ever contained to a politard thread. So I'll just stfu about politics for now in the event your suggestion gains traction.

I think I asked him before, but I forget the answer. If it came down to a tug of war between his wallet and his heart, would he take a super profitable bet in favor of the Patriots?

A guy at the table wistfully estimated he'd lost $1000/mo gambling for 30 years. #LiveHumbleBrag

Along those lines, I've played a couple of sessions with a blowhard LAG who seems to always circle back to how rich he is. Always wonder about people's motivation to air that out in public

There was a character who I haven't seen in a while who used to brag about his Ferraris, his $10 million mansion in Austria and the State Dinners he'd been to w/ Vladimir Putin. What an ass-hat.

------------

doc: you just do w/e you want. w/e you want.