International News Black Lives Matter

[arthurturner]

Well he obviously didn't mean it in a positive sense! It was clumsy and a poor choice of phrase but from the question, it very much sounded like he thought it would be a *bad* idea to go back to the 'good old days' of segregation.

He should have thought before he spoke, but I don't think he meant it in the way its being taken. It would be interesting (well. maybe a bit!) to see a longer clip so there was more context.

I watched the whole of his opening remarks to this hearing. He speaks in a measured way and every word was intentionally chosen. If he'd meant " the BAD old days" that's what he would have said. He's a pompous; self satisfied bigot who exudes an air of privilege and entitlement overseeing a Trump led initiate to get a conservative extremist judge on to the US Supreme Court in unprecedented speed before the US election.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Yep he sure is a funny guy. Last Friday said that young black people and immigrants can “go anywhere” in South Carolina and then added, “you just need to be conservative, not liberal". Don't you just love him.

No, looking at his record I think he is an idiot on many levels. But I don't think *in this particular case* it was anything more than a poor way of expressing himself.

 

[tonyw]

I watched the whole of his opening remarks to this hearing. He speaks in a measured way and every word was intentionally chosen. If he'd meant " the BAD old days" that's what he would have said. He's a pompous; self satisfied bigot who exudes an air of privilege and entitlement overseeing a Trump led initiate to get a conservative extremist judge on to the US Supreme Court in unprecedented speed before the US election.

Lyndsay Graham in 2016: "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

Lyndsay Graham in 2018: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election."

Lyndsay Graham in 2020: “I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same.”


The guy is an utter hypocrite who is interested in one thing, and one thing alone - Power. He's a man entirely without principle.

And to be fair, some of his electorate are realizing this. It's almost impossible in the present day for a Republican to lose in South Carolina, but the polls there are pretty tight. If we end up with a 'Blue Wave' election, he'll probably get turfed out, and there's no US politician anywhere that will deserve it more.

 

[ttg17]

Lyndsay Graham in 2016: "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

Lyndsay Graham in 2018: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election."

Lyndsay Graham in 2020: “I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same.”


The guy is an utter hypocrite who is interested in one thing, and one thing alone - Power. He's a man entirely without principle.

And to be fair, some of his electorate are realizing this. It's almost impossible in the present day for a Republican to lose in South Carolina, but the polls there are pretty tight. If we end up with a 'Blue Wave' election, he'll probably get turfed out, and there's no US politician anywhere that will deserve it more.

The thing is, as horrible as it is, he's won. The tricks he's pulled between the last year of Obama's premiership and today have all ultimately succeeded. ACB is going to get through and the court will have a Republican supermajority for years if not decades. That is HUGE. While presidential races are exciting and engaging, the winners' terms last for years - judges, who realistically hold more soft power, are in place for decades. No Democrat legislation that is even remotely controversial (ACA, for one) is going to get past the Supreme Court, and any regressive Republican laws, when we next have a Republican president, will get ushered through. The Republicans are in for a bad few election cycles politically I think - demographic changes are really threatening them in some historically red states, like Texas - but it ultimately won't really matter now they have the court.

Graham may be a man without principle, but he's basically secured an America built on his (or, more accurately, I imagine, his funders') principles for decades.

 

[Marked Ox]

The thing is, as horrible as it is, he's won. The tricks he's pulled between the last year of Obama's premiership and today have all ultimately succeeded. ACB is going to get through and the court will have a Republican supermajority for years if not decades. That is HUGE. While presidential races are exciting and engaging, the winners' terms last for years - judges, who realistically hold more soft power, are in place for decades. No Democrat legislation that is even remotely controversial (ACA, for one) is going to get past the Supreme Court, and any regressive Republican laws, when we next have a Republican president, will get ushered through. The Republicans are in for a bad few election cycles politically I think - demographic changes are really threatening them in some historically red states, like Texas - but it ultimately won't really matter now they have the court.

Graham may be a man without principle, but he's basically secured an America built on his (or, more accurately, I imagine, his funders') principles for decades.

That is assuming that Democrats don't expand the number of Supreme Court judges. I don't think they will but in theory it has been mooted in the past and the Democrats are clearly seething at what the Republicans have pulled here.

 

[bashamwonderland]

That is assuming that Democrats don't expand the number of Supreme Court judges. I don't think they will but in theory it has been mooted in the past and the Democrats are clearly seething at what the Republicans have pulled here.

Not sure if they've pulled anything here or just got lucky with some deaths.

 

[Marked Ox]

Not sure if they've pulled anything here or just got lucky with some deaths.

They pulled something here by rushing through this latest nomination when Obama didn't at the end of his term after complaints by Republicans that it was for the next President to nominate. It is pretty much identical circumstances so utterly hypocritical of the Republicans.

 

[ttg17]

That is assuming that Democrats don't expand the number of Supreme Court judges. I don't think they will but in theory it has been mooted in the past and the Democrats are clearly seething at what the Republicans have pulled here.

Do you think they'll do that? I'm not really sure if they want to open that Pandora's Box. Even a government underpinned by a codified constitution has to operate under some degree of unwritten convention and genuine good faith between the governing party and its other parties for the whole thing not to descend into utter anarchy. The Republicans have basically thrown all that to the wind in the past 5 years, and it is tempting to seek retribution, but one side has to be the adult in the room.

Not sure if they've pulled anything here or just got lucky with some deaths.

They definitely pulled something with the Scalia replacement. Not allowing the Dems to replace him for essentially a year was an unprecedented act of political bad faith. Kavanaugh was sworn in because an elder Republican judge retired (like RBG should have done...) and RBG was clinging to life by a thread by the end, unfortunately. I'm not even sure I'd call that getting lucky, it was more an astonishing lack of foresight by the Obama administration in his second term.

 

[Marked Ox]

Do you think they'll do that? I'm not really sure if they want to open that Pandora's Box. Even a government underpinned by a codified constitution has to operate under some degree of unwritten convention and genuine good faith between the governing party and its other parties for the whole thing not to descend into utter anarchy. The Republicans have basically thrown all that to the wind in the past 5 years, and it is tempting to seek retribution, but one side has to be the adult in the room.

I don't think so but because of what has preceded it, I wouldn't rule it out. Also, what the actual decisions made by the Supreme Court are may have an impact.

 

[bashamwonderland]

They pulled something here by rushing through this latest nomination when Obama didn't at the end of his term after complaints by Republicans that it was for the next President to nominate. It is pretty much identical circumstances so utterly hypocritical of the Republicans.

But also hypocritical of the Democrats who were making exactly the same noises at the time. Obama and Biden pushed really hard to get the SCJ in at the time and it was only because the Republicans blocked it that it didn't happen. It wasn't an act of grace on Obama's part and he didn't step back just because Republicans complained about it - he would have pushed it through if he could.

Why would they not shoot at this completely open goal??

 

[Marked Ox]

But also hypocritical of the Democrats who were making exactly the same noises at the time. Obama and Biden pushed really hard to get the SCJ in at the time and it was only because the Republicans blocked it that it didn't happen. It wasn't an act of grace on Obama's part and he didn't step back just because Republicans complained about it - he would have pushed it through if he could.

Why would they not shoot at this completely open goal??

The reasoning given for blocking and now nominating is hypocritical. McConnell's reasoning for a difference when challenged was spectacular for it.

 

[bashamwonderland]

The reasoning given for blocking and now nominating is hypocritical. McConnell's reasoning for a difference when challenged was spectacular for it.

Yes I completely agree - but the reasoning given for attempting to push through and now block the Republican nomination was equally hypocritical.

 

[YellowTaxi]

What nonsense you spout.

 

[bashamwonderland]

What nonsense you spout.

Enlighten us then?

...

I thought not.

 

[Essexyellows]

What nonsense you spout.

Welcome back...... where have you been?

 

[tonyw]

Do you think they'll do that? I'm not really sure if they want to open that Pandora's Box. Even a government underpinned by a codified constitution has to operate under some degree of unwritten convention and genuine good faith between the governing party and its other parties for the whole thing not to descend into utter anarchy. The Republicans have basically thrown all that to the wind in the past 5 years, and it is tempting to seek retribution, but one side has to be the adult in the room.

They definitely pulled something with the Scalia replacement. Not allowing the Dems to replace him for essentially a year was an unprecedented act of political bad faith. Kavanaugh was sworn in because an elder Republican judge retired (like RBG should have done...) and RBG was clinging to life by a thread by the end, unfortunately. I'm not even sure I'd call that getting lucky, it was more an astonishing lack of foresight by the Obama administration in his second term.

Have to say, I kind of agree with Basham on this one.
When all cross-party political discourse has died, and politics descends into a war rather than a negotiation - and that is 100% where we are right now - then all that matters is power, and the rules that are in place (that you can't change). If you hold the presidency and the Senate then you can push through any judicial nomination you want, but if you hold the Senate, you can block the other guys' judicial nominations completely.
The Republicans go lucky in that three Supreme Court seats have come up in the last four years whilst they've held both.

And whilst ideologically, I am more on the side of the Democrats - to think that they are politically going to behave any more reasonably than the Republicans have is a pipe dream. They are the ones that kicked this off after all, back in 2013, when they did away with the filibuster for judicial nominations. Prior to that, you needed 60 votes in the Senate to confirm a judge - meaning that the US ended up with a lot of compromise candidates, or at least appointments that the other side could stomach. But the Democrats did away with that in favor of a simple majority and it has backfired on them in the worst way.

If they do have a blue wave election (and it's still a big 'If' today) and win the Presidency, House & Senate, then they are going to do everything they can think of - bad faith or not - to cement their power over the following two years. That's the cycle we're in......power grabs and retribution from both sides. By 2050, there will probably be 100 supreme court justices and both sides indulge in rampant court packing.

I can only see one good way that this can all end - and that's if the American people tire of all of this, and nominate and elect someone to the Presidency who is a genuine independent and moderate; someone who doesn't belong to either tribe - but also is not a Trump-style narcissistic A*****e. There's a lot of bad ways it can go........

 

[Essexyellows]

Worth a watch..............

 

[Junior_1]

Guess who wasn’t arrested....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319679217899130882

 

[SteMerritt]

'our statues' FFS. Get a grip.

This bloke wasn't arrested either...

A Manchester United fan climbs a statue as thousands gather at Albert...

A Manchester United fan climbs a statue as thousands gather at Albert Square outside the town hall in Manchester, northwest England, on May 13, 2013 as they wait for the team to arrive during a...

www.gettyimages.co.uk

I suppose that's different isn't it.

 

[Junior_1]

Was C-19 around when that pic was taken?