Election 2020 > Blue State Secession?

They worded it stupidly in 2016, but what they did then and now is both perfectly Constitutional... Also, what they worded stupidly in 2016 was just a copying of JOE BIDEN'S "Biden Rule" from back in 1992... Yes, Biden has been involved in politics for that long and has accomplished NOTHING noteworthy in that half a century's worth of time...

Obama had every right to nominate Garland, and he did. The Senate had every right to reject Garland, and they did.

Trump has every right to nominate Barrett, and he did. The Senate has every right to accept Barrett, and it seems as if they will accept Barrett.

They are following the Constitution, to the letter, as written. YOU are just whiny because it is getting in the way of what you want...

 

This isn't a "red state/blue state" deal... It is an "urban vs suburban/rural" deal...

Also, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are hardly "blue States"... They are all vastly red States (outside of a couple of big cities within each State)

As I said, it is a city vs rural issue WITHIN EACH STATE, not a Red State vs Blue State

 

They didn't steal anything... Obama had the ability to nominate Garland, which he did, and the Senate had the ability to reject Garland, which they did. They are not forced to accept any particular nominee, you know...

 

It was Democrats then and it's Democrats that are talking about it again.

 

Whole states aren't going to secede, and certainly not all the ones mentioned in Lanny Davis' idiotic tweet. Here, take a good luck at this map:




The secessionists would be lucky to get even some of the blue portions. That is all.

 

Oh I agree. That's a point that I've made before; that our divide is more rural/urban than blue state/red state. Which makes the secession matter ridiculous to me since if successful, it will solve none of the problems it's supposed to.

So you'll have to ask Clinton confidante Lanny Davis why he tweeted as he did.

 

True. The Senate does have the Constitutional power not to "consent" to a choice, but McConnell and others didn't just say, we aren't going to consent because we aren't forced to, they used as an excuse that Presidents shouldn't nominate a replacement in an election year. With Barrett, Trump is literally nominating her as voting is happening. It is complete hypocrisy.

Garland was a relatively moderate choice by Obama and completely qualified for the seat. If the Senate starts to refuse qualified nominees just because the Constitution gives them the power not to consent, the only time judicial vacancies will be filled is when the President and the majority of the Senate are of the same political party and that would be very bad for the judiciary. It is bad enough that McConnell and the Republicans prevented about 130 lower judges to be replaced. What is worse is that Trump has repeatedly made jokes about it (most recently at the first debate).

The founders gave the Senate the power to "advise and consent" because the Senate was supposed to be composed of learned and worldly men who would ensure only imminently qualified men would ascend to the federal benches. Recently, Bush tried to get a completely unqualified nominee (Harriet Myers) on the Court, and Trump has nominated horrifically unqualified nominees who during their confirmation hearings couldn't even answer basic legal questions just because those nominees shared Trump's and the Federalist Society's legal philosophy.

 

California has 11.9% of the population and creates 14.6% of the GDP.

You haven't noticed Democrats control the House even though Republicans have gerrymandered them out of 20+ seats?

 

Republicans have long realized they can either change their policies to appeal to a majority of the country or they could lie, cheat, and steal their way to political advantage.

So, they have gerrymandered the hell out of the states, purged voter rolls, suppressed the vote, refused to consider qualified judicial nominees, and more to maintain their hold on political power.

The funny part is they consider themselves the "silent majority" although they are neither.

 

It was SOUTHERN white racists THEN and it is southern white racists NOW!

 

According to Lanny Davis it's California and some other liberal states that are going to secede. Do you consider California to be full of "southern white racists"?

 

Lanny Davis is entitled to his OPINION.

However that does NOT alter the UNDENIABLE FACT that it was southern white racists THEN and it is STILL southern white racists NOW!

 

What was? The Democrats that started the first Civil War? Are you saying the Democrats that want to start the second Civil War are also southern white racists?

 

Southern white RACISTS started the FIRST Civil War and it sure looks like they want a do-over since they had their butts kicked so hard they have NEVER gotten over it.

If the Southern white racists START a SECOND Civil War they will receive ANOTHER butt kicking because HISTORY teaches us that racism always ENDS BADLY for the RACISTS.

 

When the dam breaks, they'll be swept away. Younger people in particular don't want to carry around the baggage associated with racism, homophobia, and sexism. They want to cut poverty and tackle climate change.

 

And? whatever you are getting at, non sequitur re "you'd be a lot poorer." I'll stick with my opinion as posted.

And? More half-claims. Not going to deal with the vast sea of Complex Public Union PR "gerrymandering" lies. Anyone interested in seeing the propaganda for what it is can simply start with Voting Rights Act of 1965, its impact on redistricting, and go from there to the present day to see who or what is really gerrymandering. Curiously, such a fundamental consideration in how modern districts work is almost always ABSENT from LW claptrap.

My prior claims are based simply on California's 55 electoral votes and 38 Democrat House seats. No need to go further in concluding that a U.S. without CA would look very different in policy terms, and in a very short period of time.

For a vast majority of the U.S., California's only "contribution" is overpopulated metropolitan hellholes of civic graft, decadence and other corruption that foists more public union thug, Soprano level politics on the rest of the country.

 

This is all that matters, no matter what political chatter one surrounds it with.

Correct, which was a boneheaded move imho, since his words are now being used against him...

Actually, McConnell just copied what JOE BIDEN (of all people) parroted way back in 1992... Thank Joe for that doozy of a statement that has been parroted around in recent years...

Precisely. That's why McConnell shouldn't've said that **** (even though Joe came up with it in 1992) and should've just quoted the Constitution. However, politicians must play political games to pander to the general populace, you see... That's why McConnell said what he did (to appeal to the voters in the upcoming election)... In the end, none of that political banter matters; all that matters is that he had the Constitutional authority to do what he did. Nothing was "stolen".

Debatable, but in the end, the Senate decided to reject him.

This has been done since the founding of our country...

Obama's nominees for SCOTUS were appointed in a bipartisan manner. So was Roberts under Bush... Especially so were Ginsburg and Breyer under Clinton... Actually, they've all for the most part been accepted on a rather bipartisan basis except for these last two under Trump, due to TDS and now wanting to be tyrannical communists instead of abiding by the US Constitution...

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

So?

So?

The founders also set things up to where the Senators were representatives of the States' interests, not of the general populace, and not simply House members under a different name.

Idk about Myers (I was too young), but Trump's nominees are perfectly qualified for the position.

 

Your opinion was proven incorrect. Stick with it if you like.

"Public union lies? What on earth are you going on about? There is a lot of gerrymandering.

California isn't leaving, so your point is moot.

Anyway, your second point was proven wrong.

 

The bolded was my civil war point. That's the issue that a state would have to navigate if it left. But if such issues were avoided (such as a negotiated break), there's no legal reason to stop a state. Had Ft Sumpter or equivalent not happened to give the North a reason to declare it an armed insurrection, the South would have left and not a shot would have been fired. How long that peace would last? Who knows but the civil war wouldn't have happened.

And that's not just a quirk of history, succession CAN'T be illegal as it being legal is the legal basis of the US not being a British Dominion. If southern succession was illegal, the US would by that same logic be renegade British territory. The South starting a shooting war is how the North was able to act and right of conquest is how they were able to keep the South without creating awkward legal questions.

 

There's no defined "secession process" in our federal government. A state could create one ... if it could convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to help it. What's California going to offer 37 other states to get our support?

 

An outrageous, nonsensical claim, especially the stuff about communists.

BTW, I agreed with what you said about going ahead with the nomination, but I'm concerned we've politicized SCOTUS on both sides by looking for activist Justices. The Judiciary is the weakest branch of government and the other two branches are turning it into a political football.

We changed that by switching to the popular election of Senators.

"Perfectly qualified?" Kavanaugh? I think there are much better minds Trump could have chosen.

 

There's no defined succession process so your numbers are bunk. A state can simply say it's leaving and then leave like the southern states did. So long as the process doesn't get violent, their's no legal barriers. And it's extremely unlikely only a single state would leave. If the break happened, it'd be like the North-South split before the civil war or the Soviet collapse so no individual state would have to come up with anything.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but anyways, let's roll with it for a minute. What's going to happen when the Central Valley decides it's leaving California and rejoining the USA?

 

As I said, the trick is avoiding civil war. If it was easy, it'd have happened more than the 1 time.

 

Except that there hasn't been any election or justice nominations by the administration. You want to secede based on your incorrect view of reality. We won't miss you.