It definitely is a tricky situation for them. They want to remain credible as conservatives but at the same time oppose Trump. Think the best solution long term is to come up with a law or constitutional amendment that prevents Congress from considering a SC nominee if presidential primary voting has already started and to only consider the nominee put forward by the winner in the Nov. election.Somewhat unexpected, no? Since they're presumably actually very conservative and they went radio silent for a while. Wonder if they had a dark night of the soul trying to decide what to do
RBG passes away | Trump to nominate replacement soon
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How would this work exactly?
I think it’s a good reflection of them really, they will want a conservative judge in the form of Roberts or even Alito rather than a crack pot whacko like Kavanaugh.Somewhat unexpected, no? Since they're presumably actually very conservative and they went radio silent for a while. Wonder if they had a dark night of the soul trying to decide what to do
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's Her and Susan Collins at least
Nothing will come of this. They will cave in the end. We are doomed.
That's nearly a full year, though, a quarter of a presidential term.
And Cory Gardner. It may come down to Pence.
You're right next door, you're Canada's biggest trade partner (and everything partner really), you have enormous global influence (both directly and indirect by inspiring others), including on the views of Canadians (especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan), and you're turning into a total shitshow. It's fairly scary for anyone, let alone your neighbours.
I understand how electing a new US President would be of interest, but not a judge.
Ya it's debatable if it's a good idea or not, it may be necessary in the long run though to prevent these sorts of crises.
As been proven, a US president can do what ever they like when they have a willing SC. Elections to to all 3 of your federal branches are of interest to non-americans.
I've never known this to be the case until recently, in the social media era. Some people may care about about politics in their own countries, but a vast majority of people neither know nor care about the drama of a judge in a foreign country.
I think it’s more about the implications - this could potentially define an entire generation and swing the pendulum even further the wrong (in most normal peoples eyes) direction. It’s basically a generational fight and I think it’s good that people are paying attention.
I have great affection for America due to growing up with, well, all kinds of American entertainment and I am saddened and disgusted by the way the country has become more and more polarized, so I’m keeping a close eye on this one.
First, a lot of cases regarding elections and politicians have been coming to the SC lately. If the SC becomes more conservative, that will help Republicans stay in power, and hence have that influence on US politics, which even circles back to the president.
Second, people take an outsized interest in the US and get inspired by what happens there. The continuous abortion discussion, for example, has inspired and emboldened opponents in the Netherlands to stage similar protests and actions. A more conservative court will worsen that, and that will be felt outside the US as well.
So yeah, if you guys get a rightwing nutter in that bench next, that's felt elsewhere as well. Although it will also further promote the increasing alienation between the US on the one hand and Canada and much of Europe on the other.
The death of Ginsberg was front-page news in Norway, and the media has covered those things in the past as well. Maybe being American it's hard for you to understand, but the goings on in your country are very much of interest to many in other countries.
Murkowski actually keeps her word and is quite independent (mostly cause she does not need the party to win her seat, as she showed in 2010). Collins is spineless, she won’t vote before the election, but after that I guess she will (when she loses). Still, even if she stays as no, there need to be another two senators who won’t vote for the vote to not happen.
Last edited:
She will do feck all as usual. Her threats carry the same value as a Collins concern.
Has Gardner come out for sure now? Last I heard was him refusing to answer the question of whether he’d stand by his 2016 position.
Funny, you told me something along the same lines when I was commenting here during the 2016 election.
I thought this was a forum where we all could freely discuss this, do you have a problem with Canadians or do you think your opinion is of more value because you are American?
Thinking it’s odd for people in foreign countries pretending like they have skin in the game as if they were US citizens is likewise part of expressing an opinion. Is the opinion of a US citizen who lives and votes here more valuable to Americans than those of foreigners ? Undoubtedly yes, but that doesn’t mean you can’t say what’s on your mind. You just can’t expect to not be challenged on it.
Because a lot of people are living in a kind of political soap opera.
That was according to Mark Levin.
100%. People are constantly bombarded with carefully curated social media and tv news stories about US politics, so it makes sense that they are gripped by the Trump story.
Indeed. I think another important factor (which provides a platform for it) is that politics itself has become a kind of false God for a lot people.
They invest things in politics which aren't meant to be invested in it; from hopes and dreams to basic emotional energy, and are almost primed for perpetual disappointment as a result. With those of a strong left wing persuasion usually being the most susceptible to it.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If one country deems itself to be the God-appointed exceptional world police and meddles in pretty much every other countries affairs, it shoudn't be surprised if educated people from other countries take an interest in what is going on internally there. It is pretty arrogant to put this down to social media.
Good morning to you too, leader of the opposition.
When the Bush administration deregulated your financial markets, I eventually lost my job due to the worldwide financial crisis that unfolded in the wake of that decision. We all very much have a skin in the game when it comes to American politics, even if we don't live in one of the countries that you might invade every once in a while.
Honestly it won’t matter. They will vote after the election. If Gardner and Collins lose, they can still vote after the election.
Maybe not the same amount of skin, but we certainly do have skin. Foreign policy, finance and trade in particular, are areas of global impact. The appointment of a SC judge will likely have little effect on 3rd countries though and it's more of an American domestic issue.
It may have an effect if the court has to settle election issues.
You mean like when the Bush administration changed the law to stop any foreign organization that carried out abortion services from receiving any foreign aid, even if it was their own money they were using for the actual abortion stuff? Which lead to a huge rise in AIDs spread in Africa, and also to a large rise in abortions in second and third world countries? You think the people in Africa and elsewhere might have had some skin in that game when it came to the 2000 election?
I'd be willing to bet your average African his little to no interest in SCOTUS judges. Nor does the average American have any interest in ruminating about the ins and outs of local Chinese politics, nor would someone in Madagascar have much interest in the Vladivostock political scene. China and Russia are also global powers with nukes and in China's case it has an economy almost on par with the US, and yet people surprisingly less interested in them. The reason is clear - people are gripped by social media narratives they see on a daily basis, which would be a satisfying answer instead of having to pretend domestic US politics have a profound impact on their lives.
What does "the average" have to do with anything? Who says people taking interest are "the average"?
A single presidential election in the US likely cost millions of lives around the world when the full cost of two wars and the damage done to AID's mitigation efforts are taken into account. Remind me how many Madagascar lives were lost due to the Vladivostock political scene or American lives due to local Chinese politics? The result of that election was decided by the very SCOTUS that apparently we're not supposed to have any interest in, and there's a far from negligible possibility that yet again SCOTUS could have a deciding effect on the upcoming election too.
The old adage of 'When America sneezes the world catches a cold' is still relevant today. Your country has a vastly oversized impact on the rest of us, which you may not see but the many of us very clearly do.
Average = normal citizens. People who work, have family responsibilities and have little time to worry about politics in their own countries, much less in far away countries they can't in any way influence.
So do the Russians and Chinese. Russia for instance, has interfered in the elections of 27 countries since 2004 and China have been steadily spreading their sphere of influence in Africa. Both actions directly influence the lives of hundreds of millions of people in dozens of countries. A more believable explanation for the US interest is that most narratives are in English and are constantly reinforced on social media, where as the latter two aren't.
Holy shit, that's so embarrassing. I hope if trump wins he doesn't include her when he's setting up his patriot education for my kids.
- Status