Not sure which US politician I hate more at this point in time, Donald Trump or Mitch McConnell. 
1 Like
I just feel it’s so inevitable that Trump wins again
2 Likes
I think he may have been watching Lukashenko and taking notes.
McConnell is an interesting one. He clearly has no honour, but everything he does is by the book. It grates no end that he ignores historic convention to his advantage but he’s not doing anything “wrong”.
He’s done absolutely nothing by the book.
In 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the death of Scalia. As sitting president, he had every right to do so. The despicable McConnell then entirely invented the idea that a president shouldn’t get to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court in an election year and blocked a hearing.
Having set that precedent - Supreme Court nomination in an election year is a no-no - we now find ourselves in 2020, in an election year, and the hypocritical McConnell is ignoring his past precedent and inventing another entirely new concept that it’s actually OK when the president and the Senate are of the same party.
Nothing about this is by the book. These are all McConnell inventions. He’s not concerned about doing things properly, he’s only concerned about manipulating things so he wins.
tl;dr, if McConnell was doing things ‘by the book’, he would’ve followed the precedent set in 2016 and said the Senate would wait until after the election before allowing the process of picking a replacement for RBG.
1 Like
I think that’s the point. There are no specific laws being broken. He does what he has the power to do, precedent be damned.
As I said, he has no honour. But he does have a 6-3 majority on SCOTUS.
What does doing things properly mean? The way he operates is maddening but ultimately he operates within the letter of the law. He’s definitely only concerned with winning. And in terms of the court at least, he may well have “won” for the next 30-40 years.
2 Likes
His actions are all within the confines of the US constitution though. And the ‘precedent’ from 2016 is not binding.
1 Like
He is working outside of the spirit of the law, even if he’s managing to work within the letter. There’s nothing in the constitition to say that the Senate should refuse to give a hearing, and I have little doubt that if Bill and Ted were to pick up the founding fathers and show them the present day, they’d go back and fix that loophole.
The point about precedents is that if you’re trying to be right and fair and justify what you’ve done one time, you should consistently act that way. To say that one time it was right to do what ended up being best for you, and that another time it’s wrong to do the same thing (because the opposite is best for you) is inconsistent and reflects badly on anyone acting in such a way.
The whole point of applying law is that it should be applied fairly. That’s why in any case where you applying law, precedents matter, and following them in the future matters too.
tl;dr, Mitch McConnell is a terrible human being.
1 Like
I don’t think McConnel, Trump or the GOP in general care about being right or fair. The issue is whether the Democrats also begin to use the same tactics or stick to their guns and keep fighting with one arm tied behind their back.
As for the law being applied “fairly”; the contentiousness of ACB’s nomination makes it pretty clear that there is plenty of wiggle room in how laws are interpreted. Looks like SCOTUS is on track to rip up quite a few longstanding precedents.
The democrats need to take the gloves off. Although to do that they will really need control of the senate as well as the presidency, which is looking very tight.
If they get all three (house / senate / presidency) they can go to ham. Increase the courst to 15, elect six new judges.
They do care about winning, by fair means or foul, it seems to me.
Possibly the only positive result he will earn in 2020 
4 Likes
He’ll doubtless have it more positively than anyone else.
2 Likes
Between his age and obesity, he must be at high risk.
Also, there has to be some concern that Trump may have infected Biden at the debate 
“China” virus strikes back.
Especially as there is a medical centre (center 
) in the White House. Although it may be that they don’t want to contaminate it.
Like bleach? 
Again - he’s in the at-risk age group, and he’s in the at-risk obesity group. Boris Johnson wasn’t as old or as fat and still ended up in ICU before beating it. And on the face of it, Trump’s odds are worse than Johnson’s. There is a non-zero chance of this ending badly.
So I can only echo @michaelw90:
A proper hospital is the best place for him if things start heading south. Likely they’re looking to minimise (if not eliminate) any delay to any and all treatments he may need as his illness progresses.
1 Like
We absolutely are aware about the factors that increase risk, so it absolutely is fair to say that - statistically speaking - Trump is at high risk.
It doesn’t help when your candidate is actively contesting the validity of the democratic process.
But I guess when you’re a minority that’s hanging on to power every vote counts.
1 Like