The Supreme Court

[_EAllusion]

If you let one side destroy norms around political forbearance, and demand the other uphold them, what you are going to get is enduring authoritarian control by the former over the latter.

At this point the Democrats would be incredibly foolish if they didn’t plan on packing the courts if given the opening. They should have no fear of retaliation left.

Democrats should try to bring them to their knees to force a peace. The alternative literally is an incremental loss of liberal democracy at this point. We’re living through it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

Yeah, I have really mixed feelings on that. On the one hand, I see the appeal of giving them a taste of their own medicine. On the other hand, an eye for an eye and we're all blind. Every overreach by either side has been justified by some prior overreach. if we just tear down norm after norm after norm, where are we going to end up?

Amendments to the Constitution?

I guess my feeling is the GoP is so incredibly torpid with regard to our democracy they've allowed a walking conflict of interest to muck up our Presidency, deny a Supreme Court nomination its due, throw us into insane debt through inane wars, so on and so forth. It just doesn't end. The days any sort of notion we could be bipartisan are over.

- Doc

[_Hawkeye]

If you let one side destroy norms around political forbearance, and demand the other uphold them, what you are going to get is enduring authoritarian control by the former over the latter.

At this point the Democrats would be incredibly foolish if they didn’t plan on packing the courts if given the opening. They should have no fear of retaliation left.

Democrats should try to bring them to their knees to force a peace. The alternative literally is an incremental loss of liberal democracy at this point. We’re living through it.

Bingo. Norms have been destroyed already. They interpret anything else as "establishment" and "political correctness."

[_Dr. Shades]

Arguing partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon knots with ease whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.

Would you please break that down into two or three sentences for me? Because it looks like that last part is missing its object.

[_Chap]

Arguing partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon knots with ease whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.

Would you please break that down into two or three sentences for me? Because it looks like that last part is missing its object.

I think it's clear (I add some punctuation to make it evident how I read it):

'Arguing 'partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence' seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon [sc. 'Gordian'] knots with ease, whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.'

Since 'ease' can't make rulings, it is obvious that it is the 'authoritarian leaders' not the ease of cutting knots that is referred to by 'whose'

Could be more elegant, certainly. But did you really have any doubt what that sentence meant? What else could it have meant?

[_subgenius]

I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

The Democrats are not that politically savvy.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Would you please break that down into two or three sentences for me? Because it looks like that last part is missing its object.

I think it's clear (I add some punctuation to make it evident how I read it):

'Arguing 'partisanship is a sign of their lacking intelligence' seems like a bad way to refute my belief you want to see authoritarian leaders who cut Gordon [sc. 'Gordian'] knots with ease, whose rightness is recognized by how closely their rulings align with your assumed view of what is right and wrong.'

Since 'ease' can't make rulings, it is obvious that it is the 'authoritarian leaders' not the ease of cutting knots that is referred to by 'whose'

Could be more elegant, certainly. But did you really have any doubt what that sentence meant? What else could it have meant?

I'm with Dr. Shades on this one. It's a word salad.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

The Democrats are not that politically savvy.

Like many people who are ethically challenged, you confuse will to do something with savvy to do it. "You're just not smart enough to lie like me." No, subs, some people are just more ethical. The Democrats mostly need to be encouraged to be more politically shameless, not more savvy.

[_ajax18]

I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

Bernstein also noted that a Democratic-controlled Senate in 1960, in reaction to President Eisenhower's 1956 recess appointment of William J. Brennan Jr., passed a Senate resolution "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court's business.

The Democrats have done stuff like this in the past. How do you like Harry Reid's abolishment of the filibuster now?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think the Democrats should repay the GOP in kind for what they did with Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.

- Doc

Bernstein also noted that a Democratic-controlled Senate in 1960, in reaction to President Eisenhower's 1956 recess appointment of William J. Brennan Jr., passed a Senate resolution "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court's business.

The Democrats have done stuff like this in the past. How do you like Harry Reid's abolishment of the filibuster now?

Do you, uh, know what a Senate resolution is and can you explain to me how one passed in 1960 with regard to Eisenhower had any “F” ing thing to do with the Merrick Garland debacle?

- Doc