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
McConnell's entire legacy can be summed up in one cowardly act: After Donald Trump whipped up a mob to attack our Capitol, threatening to kill the Speaker of the House and the Vice President, in an attempt to overturn a presidential election, he condemned Trump.
“Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” McConnell said. “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”
But McConnell voted to acquit him of insurrection, allowing him to run for president again.
That and denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. He's totally OK violating the Constitution.
"he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for"
Although given how Garland turned out at DOJ, we may have dodged a bullet there.
Garland was a compromise pick by obama. He was the most centrist republican that obama could find to try and get him appointed. He just wasn't a federalist society whack job.
Right. He put up a candidate the Republicans couldn't possibly object to . . . and yet they did anyway. This is what you get for trying to play Republicans at their own game.
They didn't even have a chance to object to him, McConnell blocked him from having a hearing.
That's the point. If they were being reasonable and honest they would have held a hearing for him, because he's a candidate they could agree with. They were forced to make a choice to admit playing a cheap game or elect him and give up their possible future of absolute control of the SCOTUS. Sadly making them admit this seemed to not actually sway many peoples opinions, and they only went further if anything.
He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.
scotus should be a 5-4 majority the other way right now.
If you count the elections where it should have gone the other way based on the popular vote, more like 6-3 liberal majority, and arguably even 8-1 with Thomas being the sole holdout.
Trump's 2016 "win" gave them three justices. Bush didn't get any nominations his first term (which he only won via the electoral college), and then went on to get two his second term (where he did get the popular vote). So it depends on if you expect Republicans to win the popular vote in 2004 or not if they didn't already have the office.
this is also true. but thomas shouldn't even be there, either.