It is fascinating that Senator Orrin Hatch, in laying out his many fantastic reasons for the GOP to not consider any Obama nominee, invoked Garland as the type of moderate judge that the Supreme Court needed. Hatch, of course, has previously called Garland a "consensus nominee."
Orrin Hatch liked Garland guys, so the entire GOP should've gone the way of one senator from Utah.
This logic is ridiculous, and I'll be sure to use it whenever a blue dog like Joe Manchin supports something and mainstream democrats cry bullshit.
Furthermore, the idea that Garland was a consensus nominee and should've been rubber stamped given his stated position on the Heller decision and overall interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is laughable. Yeah. A majority republican senate is going to confirm the swing vote to change how this country views individual gun ownership.
I notice you failed to leave that part of the equation likely because it's extremely damaging to your argument.
The problem with the parties in power operating from their position, as you so eloquently put it, is that when their position only exists in opposition to the other political party, they have clear incentives to increase their own influence and power by being antagonistic instead of solving problems. That destructive impulse, while it consolidates their rhetoric power within their base, leads to less faith in politicians from the majority of citizens, which leads to further divisive party politics, which leads to elections won by the most divisive and inflammatory candidates.
Clearly you're operating from the premise that Obama was some unifying force, and wasn't divisive. K.
If parties operating from their position meant a good-faith effort to improve the opportunities given to all citizens, despite contrasting ideas of how those improvements would manifest, there would be no problem. But when parties operating from their position means doing whatever you can to strengthen the echo-chamber of your base and out-rhetoric your opponents, that is a massive problem.
Both Democrats and Republicans do this, of course. But the difference is that Republicans in power tend to play towards their rhetorical base, whereas Obama tripped over himself (and lost the enthusiastic support of many potential left-wing voters for his entire party) trying to play the role of a left-leaning, pro-free-market, across-the-aisle centrist.
Obama is a centrist only to those who want to move the goalposts of what centrism mean. As for the rest of this dreck, the idea that Democrats in power don't play to the worst parts of their base with inflammatory rhetoric is laughable. "NEVERTHELESS SHE PERSISTED!" "STOLEN SEAT" and the entire Russian narrative being prime examples. Nevermind the rigid insistence on playing identity politics which is the leading cause as to why this nation is as fractured as it is socially.
Again, I'm happy to say that I am ideologically significantly left of the Democratic party.
Remember what I said about Obama being a centrist only to those who want to move the goalposts as to what that means?
Furthermore, your rephrasing of Barbara Underwood's double jeopardy statement/the NY AG's general position regarding double jeopardy as it applies to presidential pardons is exactly the type of word-twisting and deciding to not see the nuance that enables the brazen partisanship that we see in politics. She very clearly didn't call the entire concept of double jeopardy a loophole, but was, in a manner consistent with the position of the NY AG office, expressing a desire to eliminate a specific circumstance which has previously been considered to be part of double jeopardy in NY.
Here is her statement: President Trump’s latest pardon makes crystal clear his willingness to use his pardon power to thwart the cause of justice, rather than advance it. By pardoning Dinesh D’Souza, President Trump is undermining the rule of law by pardoning a political supporter who is an unapologetic convicted felon.
First it was Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Then it was Scooter Libby.
Now it’s Dinesh D’Souza.
We can’t afford to wait to see who will be next. Lawmakers must act now to close New York’s double jeopardy loophole and ensure that anyone who evades federal justice by virtue of a politically expedient pardon can be held accountable if they violate New York law.
Schneiderman wrote, of course "New York’s statutory protections could result in the unintended and unjust consequence of insulating someone pardoned for serious federal crimes from subsequent prosecution for state crimes—even if that person was never tried or convicted in federal court, and never served a single day in federal prison." This isn't an indictment of double jeopardy conceptually, nor did it call the entirety of double jeopardy a loophole, but that there are specific unintended consequences to the current laws that include states losing power to the executive branch of the federal government via the executive pardon.
But of course, the NY AG office is getting rid of all of double jeopardy, according to some pundit you decided to listen to.
No actually, I formulated my opinion after seeing the initial statement, and Schneiderman's statement does nothing to dispel the idea that this is an attack both on the 5th amendment and the Presidents plenary power to pardon. This idea that people who were given a federal pardon should be charged for the same crime in State Court RUNS COMPLETELY COUNTER TO THE CONCEPT OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. You can mince words all you want, but the idea that you would say it isn't an indictment of double jeopardy when in the latter statement Schneiderman literally states that they're seeking to retry people in State Court for the same crime they were given a federal pardon for as I said, is a direct encroachment on both the concept of double jeopardy, and the Presidents plenary power in this regard. If you want someone else with pardon power, WIN AN ELECTION. To repeat the quote some clown once uttered, "elections have consequences."
Also, bolded for hilarity that someone "left of the democratic party" now wants to make an argument along federalistic principles. Sure though, I'm the one being hypocritical here.
Furthermore, tying the concept of double jeopardy to a "liberal" cause is yet another example of the rhetoric you used being exactly the same rhetoric so easily manipulated by politicians in power.
How is this not a liberal initiative? Or are Eric Schneiderman and his successor bastions of conservatism? When a conservative AG spews something this freaking dumb, let me know, i'll be there to criticize it.
I criticize you for being overtly partisan not because I don't see the partisanship of posters like Alio, but because your specific brand of toxic partisanship combined with this seemingly deep rooted desire to appear well-informed and nuanced (I can't wait to see which 'alternative/intellectual' centrist-ish political blogger you cite on a barely related tangent next) is just so deeply hypocritical and discouraging to read.
Pot, meet kettle. I criticize you for being blatantly hypocritical not because I don't see the same type of rhetoric elsewhere, but because your specific brand of hypocrisy combined with this seemingly deep rooted desire to appear as some sort of objective observer (I can't wait to see you let go the next fifteen posts on this board about how anyone right of John McCain is an idiotic, easily manipulated racist while you bitch that its MY RHETORIC thats toxic and divisive) is just so deeply hypocritical and discouraging to read.
