President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I don't know much about doctorquant, but I do know that a year or two ago, I took more than one lighthearted, yet offensive jabs at him about his higher education "war stories". He could have escalated it, like I would have probably done. But he didn't. He's been so even keel over the years that he is now being held to a higher standard than most of us other schlubs.

 

One Democrat said something = all Democrats say or believe this. No wonder you like that Tweet. It follows one of your favorite dishonest tactics.

 

That has been Limbaugh's disclaimer for years, and how he thinks he's different than the Evil Media. "Look, I'm just an entertainer." I think a lot of these people genuinely do not believe most of what they say and/or post.

 

we've moved past "...and some, I assume, are good people."

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-goes-on-anti-immigrant-rant-theyre-changing-the-culture-of-europe/

 

I know the feeling.

 

?? It was a funny line. Truly. That’s it.

 

I have no issue with that. It's only been recently that both parties have moved to a fairly specific profile for nominees (Harvard or Yale law degree, noncontroversial legal career in big law, with maybe a splash of government experience, a few years on a federal court of appeals - preferably the D.C. Circuit - and no outlier opinions to their credit). This is almost directly a result of the Bork and Thomas nominations and how polarized and politicized the Senate's role has become.

We've ended up with a court that has little diversity in experience, and I believe that is to the detriment of the institution. We have in the past had justices who had never been judges before, who had been politicians, who served on state supreme courts, as trial judges, as prosecutors and defense attorneys.

It's really fascinating how in a short period of time we have tremendously narrowed the pool of potential justices almost entirely because getting anyone else through the Senate would be virtually impossible. But then we had the Garland nomination and I believe the Senate's failure to act there is going to be as equally damaging to the court as the Bork and Thomas hearings have been.

 

I feel dirty doing this but I think Yank honestly was saying he thought it was a funny line. But maybe I am getting soft (or Yank is getting soft).

 

Just once, attempt taking a post by YF at face value.

 

Why is it you think that's to the detriment of the institution? Has it made it more ideological? Less?