politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wait, Garland is Federalist Society? That explains so much!
He is not. If he were, why would the republicans have stonewalled his nomination for Supreme Court Justice? It doesn't make sense.
He has participated in some events, like debates, with the federalist society, but he is not a member.
Do all the research in the world and you will not find any connection there.
They stonewalled him because they were determined to block anyone Obama nominated. He put up a milquetoast right leaning centrist as an act of conciliation. They didn't give a shit. They would have blocked anyone Obama nominated.
The GOP have stonewalled bills THEY WROTE once they realized Democrats wanted to pass it. They obstructed a border bill beyond their wildest dreams because it was under Biden. That question isn't really a mystery.
This isn't a bill and this wasn't 2024. Mitch McConnell was responsible for stonewalling Garland's appointment to the supreme court. Trump was responsible for killing the bill. Trump is an idiot, McConnell is just evil. They don't play the same way at all. They almost certainly would have passed that legislation if Trump hadn't interfered.
It was a lifetime appointment to the most powerful position in the country, assuming you have a like-minded majority. If he were a federalist, it would have been a gift to them on a silver platter.
We're dealing with counterfactuals here, but attributing their increasingly irrational behavior today to all their actions in the past is a terrible way to interpret history.
Thanks. I guess is was being a little credulous when I read that.
No you weren't, their argument is specious at best.
Republicans blocked their own bills, and bills they dropped over because the Democrats supported it.
Republicans have no morals, ethics or values outside of power, so assuming they wouldn't vote against the exact shit they want out of spite just means you're not paying attention enough.
E: the federalist part is correct tho, he's not one of them afaik.
You’re applying the behavior of Republicans under Trump in 2024 to their behavior in 2016 under Mitch McConnell, which is not a fair way to interpret history.
The Republicans’ primary goal has always been to consolidate power, a strategy evident even before Trump’s influence. This was evident in 2016 when McConnell blocked Merrick Garland’s appointment. It wasn’t just about denying Obama a win; it was about maintaining control over the Supreme Court. By holding the position open, they ensured a conservative majority with Gorsuch’s appointment in 2017.
While their actions under Trump have often seemed erratic and without principle, the decision to block Garland was a calculated, strategic move rooted in the same pursuit of power. Viewing their behavior solely through the lens of recent events, like the border bill, ignores the broader, consistent strategy they have employed over the years.
The move to block Garland was a clear demonstration of their long-term strategy to secure judicial power, not an isolated act of obstructionism. This context is crucial for understanding the continuity in their approach to power, rather than seeing it as a sudden shift in behavior.
They behaved in very similar ways back then too, remember when McConnell himself filibustered his own bill once Democrats supported it back on 2015?
It's a decade+ long pattern of behavior, they've only gotten worse about it and stopped trying to hide the shit they've been doing already.
Except that it’s not true
Thanks. I guess is was being a little credulous when I read that.