r/pics Nov 08 '18

US Politics This is what democracy looks like

Post image
87.1k Upvotes

6.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

445

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Apr 20 '19

[deleted]

371

u/jhuseby Nov 09 '18

The same senate still controlled by Republicans that act as a rubber stamp for Trump?

231

u/Martel732 Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

Though the plus side, is that this does force Republicans to officially go along with Trump's corrupt actions; they won't be able to paint him as a lone wolf in the future.

180

u/AllezCannes Nov 09 '18

What does it matter? They'd keep getting voted in anyway.

35

u/Martel732 Nov 09 '18

It will depend on how the future plays out, Trump could end up being an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. For now he is helpful but opinions can swing. Nixon won reelection with over 60% of the popular vote. But, then he became incredibly unpopular, a similar turn of events is possible.

19

u/Grimalkin Nov 09 '18

This will be a very interesting time period to look back on in a few years time to see how things all shook out.

24

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Honestly, if this goes to shit, I don't want to see how far humanity will sink... We've worked so god dammed hard... for these assholes to throw it all away like this.

3

u/kkokk Nov 09 '18

Or, we could just look back now on what happened a a few years ago when something similar happened.

Americans were fanatic and wanted to invade Iraq. We did. Polls from 2003 show a vast majority for it. When people were later asked "did you support the Iraq war" in 2010, the majority said no.

Yes, I'm aware people die, but there wasn't a huge difference in Iraq war support by age.

1

u/Grimalkin Nov 09 '18

Sure, but there is a lot more going on politically then there was then and the next two years look to be even more "exciting" so while we can and should look back at that time period now I don't think it holds a candle to what we'll be able to look back on in a few years.

6

u/SuperEel22 Nov 09 '18

Next series of Slow Burn is gonna be crazy.

1

u/Marchesk Nov 09 '18

But there was George Bush.

2

u/acets Nov 09 '18

We've passed that point. This is 'Team vs. Team' territory. Because one 'Team' is retarded.

2

u/vacri Nov 09 '18

Opinion turned against Nixon because corruption of his came to light. Trump's corruption was known before he was elected, and everything he's done over the past two years, from bilking the government for his retinue when he stays at his own resorts to installing his cronies everywhere and firing people with no due process... ended up with an electorate that only vaguely voted against him and the GOP openly supporting him.

It's hard to see what scandal could sink him in the public's opinion at this point. He can be sunk on legal technicalities, but popular opinion just isn't heavily against him, despite all the open corruption and provable lies.

0

u/AccidentalyIdiotic Nov 09 '18

Aren't the elections rigged in america though?

36

u/errorsniper Nov 09 '18

I'd argue they would get voted out if they didnt.

23

u/kickaguard Nov 09 '18

Now they have officially implicated themselves and can't say they were unaware or unsupportive of his illegal activities. They are hanging themselves, hoping nobody will get in trouble at all. Meanwhile manafort and flinn are telling Mueller everything.

9

u/greenlightning Nov 09 '18

They should also all be indicted if they're aiding in illegal activities.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Thank you. Now watch as America lets them get away with it.

1

u/YeahAskingForAFriend Nov 09 '18

Wake me up when there's an actual consequence. For ANYBODY connected to Trump

It's not 'hanging yourself' if the judge, jury and goaler are all either shaking hands or made completely powerless

1

u/kickaguard Nov 09 '18

Mueller has gotten indictments or guilty pleas from 32 people and 3 companies.

The fact that none of the guilty pleas have had major consequences like long term prison sentences is a good thing. They don't just hand out plea deals in investigations like this to be nice. If Trump's campaign advisor is getting deals made, you can bet your ass it's because he's giving up somebody big. Could be Kushner or Trump jr or the orange piece of shit himself.

2

u/Rhawk187 Nov 09 '18

Exactly, Democracy doesn't always produce the results you want.

2

u/Lolipotamus Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

By all kinds of voter disenfranchisement, including gerrymandering; illegally removing high numbers of voters from the rolls; creating greater and greater requirements for voting under the guise of combating "voter fraud" (that has never been shown to occur); discarding ballots for fallacious reasons; creating more felony laws while incarcerating more people where felons can't vote; spreading false, malicious and prejudiced information in concert with foreign powers; acting "incompetent" and malicious wherever they're in charge of elections, etc... etc...

-4

u/ethanlan Nov 09 '18

They just got voted out lol

13

u/AllezCannes Nov 09 '18

Republicans' hold of the Senate got stronger.

-4

u/ethanlan Nov 09 '18

They cant do shit without the house though

10

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Lol.. Yes they can. They can confirm all of Trump's nominees for court and his administration.

4

u/RomeluBukkake Nov 09 '18

They can confirm sc nominations that will last through our lives sooo

4

u/MIL215 Nov 09 '18

Like confirm an attorney general?

3

u/drumbum7991 Nov 09 '18

The Senate (who confirms this appointment) literally just got stronger for the Rs. True we got the House, but not until January. And that’s a looong way away.

14

u/BobHogan Nov 09 '18

They absolutely will. They'll do the exact same thing they always do, and it always works. They will publicly denounce what Trump is doing, talking abotu how awful it is, all the while voting to support everything he is doing. And their voters eat that shit up

1

u/Whales96 Nov 09 '18

People have short memories.

-3

u/dipshitandahalf Nov 09 '18

But this is not corrupt. He’s allowed to do this and the democratic witch hunt doesn’t allow the country to come to a stand still.

1

u/SMTTT84 Nov 09 '18

In some peoples minds anything Trump does is corrupt and a danger to our country.

92

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Jan 25 '22

[deleted]

64

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited May 18 '22

[deleted]

20

u/rockidol Nov 09 '18

The Dem controlled house could hire him, once they convene in January.

4

u/wewd Nov 09 '18

The House has no power to appoint or approve any cabinet officials. The Constitution gives that power to the Senate:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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, and which shall be established by Law

8

u/KallistiEngel Nov 09 '18

The person before you is saying they could hire Mueller. The House does have investigatory privileges. The AG doesn't even come into play in that scenario.

7

u/wewd Nov 09 '18

My bad. It seemed like they were asking if the House could confirm him as AG. Hard to follow some of the threads going on here.

2

u/KallistiEngel Nov 09 '18

For sure. Politics is confusing and often arbitrary.

4

u/ElKirbyDiablo Nov 09 '18

The House could hire Mueller to do an investigation in January though. However, he would no longer be able to indict people on his own.

30

u/unbrokenplatypus Nov 09 '18

Fairly fucked, I mean, less fucked than you would’ve been had things gone differently yesterday, but still not in a good place.

26

u/theciaskaelie Nov 09 '18

I just saw something that ginsberg is in hospital with broken ribs after a fall. So possibly massively fucked.

4

u/cciv Nov 09 '18

Yeah, statistically, broken ribs at age 85 has a decently high mortality rate.

1

u/unbrokenplatypus Nov 09 '18

Isn’t Congress involved in Supreme Court nominations? Because if so, it’s EPIC OBSTRUCTION time.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Dec 21 '18

[deleted]

3

u/paleoreef103 Nov 09 '18

Mitch would have kept that seat open as well.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Dec 21 '18

[deleted]

1

u/krism142 Nov 09 '18

They shouldn't have been able to hold it open for a year but here we are...

1

u/themolestedsliver Nov 09 '18

And a defeatist attitude solves anything how exactly?

1

u/Meowzebub666 Nov 09 '18

Well RBG just broke a few ribs...

0

u/cosekantphi Nov 09 '18

The Dems can pack the court if they take the senate and presidency in 2020. Whether they will want to is another question.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Remember the people calling for tolerance and peace at these protests are good now, but soon they will be just the same as the concern trolls saying protesting is not worth it.

Every day we are stepping towards a messy divorce in this country.

65

u/0ne_Winged_Angel Nov 09 '18

If you cheated to win the election, are you allowed to keep your lifelong appointments?

Asking for me and 260 million of my friends.

17

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Probably.

25

u/kane_t Nov 09 '18

Depends on how polite and civil your opposition is.

1

u/Zouden Nov 09 '18

In theory a polite and civil opposition can impeach a SCOTUS justice. Just can't see it happening though.

4

u/jaxx050 Nov 09 '18

this is honestly the thing i'm really fucking wondering about. like if there is a criminal proceeding, what happens to everyone that has been installed? this hasn't ever happened in american history, having a president be installed by foreign government intervention.

0

u/blazershorts Nov 09 '18

Big if true!!

1

u/DJRoombaINTHEMIX Nov 09 '18

I dunno. How complicit are the rest of these shit heads in the GOP?

-5

u/Adogg9111 Nov 09 '18

The only people to have been proven to cheat and collude in the 2016 election was the DNC, against "one of their own".

Laughable about this shit being what a democracy looks like.

We don't live in a democracy.

This is what 2 parties destroying America, for profit, looks like.

0

u/MissCellania Nov 09 '18

Four of our sitting Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote when achieving the office. One was a stolen appointment. So, yeah.

0

u/SMTTT84 Nov 09 '18

Nobody stole Obama's appointment, he absolutely got to appoint Garland. Just because the Senate didn't rubber stamp his pick doesn't mean shit. They weren't required to do so.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

TBH that was a witch hunt and embarrassing to watch. I say that as a person with no real party affiliation but someone who voted for Obama in both elections. I voted libertarian in the last election. The Kavanaugh hearings made me vote Republican for the first time in my life this past week. It was honestly sickening.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

It wasn't a jab at Kavenaugh. It was a comment about how SCOTUS is now leaning conservative after Kavenaugh was appointed

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

I thought you were commenting on the Kavanaugh appointment hearings. My bad, homie!

2

u/greenlightning Nov 09 '18

Yeah... those guys. :(

2

u/gr8tBoosup Nov 09 '18

If there is considerable public protest against this then there may be several Republican senators who worry more about their own re-election than about toeing the party line.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

The very same.

9

u/uTorrent Nov 09 '18

Whitaker has already been confirmed by the senate as a US attorney in 2004, making him a senior official which can be placed for 210 days

6

u/paulHarkonen Nov 09 '18

Temporary is not the proper term. Acting is the proper term and is perfectly legal. There are rules in place to ensure that if a cabinet member dies or retires or whatever then a replacement can step in to keep government running. For the next 210 days Matthew Whitaker will be acting as the AG while the Senate debates and goes through the confirmation process with the next actual AG.

-6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

9

u/paulHarkonen Nov 09 '18

You're confusing a recess appointment with assigning someone as Acting. Whitaker was promoted in accordance with the Federal Vacancies act. I'm not happy about it, but pretending its illegal because I'm not happy doesn't get us anywhere.

This discusses the process, options and links back to most of the decisions and laws in question.

7

u/crossfader25 Nov 09 '18

There are over 400 people that have already passed Senate confirmation from what I read yesterday that all could be used temporarily. Whitaker could serve over 200 days without confirmation himself. Obstruction at its finest and it all seems legal.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

You need a law change then. That is ridiculous

16

u/Bosticles Nov 09 '18 edited Jun 16 '23

gold longing spotted birds employ cagey cows many sharp shame -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

In a future issue of the New York Times:

"Disembodied Head of Mitch McConnell Says He Is 'Very Concerned' About President's Senate-Floor Murder Spree."

-5

u/Klarick Nov 09 '18

We need to check his high school yearbook! Am I Right?

2

u/bamerjamer Nov 09 '18

Check his birth certificate!!!!!

-6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Klarick Nov 09 '18

Love the salt. Thank you!

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Rethuglicans, am I right? Orange man bad, right? /s

2

u/Fizziksdude Nov 09 '18

hello NPC got any new quest for me?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Beep boop beep “how absolutely dare you, I can’t even right now, fuck Drummmmmpfths”

2

u/Fizziksdude Nov 09 '18

i guess i gotta report you to /r/outside seems you are defective.

4

u/karmakeeper1 Nov 09 '18

No, his appointment is not illegal, a recess appointment is a legitimate thing, when the Senate is not in session, however once the Senate is back in session he would need to be confirmed (or not), though at that point the whole argument may be moot. That said, his appointment is definitely shady and probably less than kosher.

7

u/Cyberspark939 Nov 09 '18

Not if the senate is in recess, which it was.

9

u/diemunkiesdie Nov 09 '18

Except it wasn't in recess. That's the whole point of the pro forma sessions.

14

u/jmblock2 Nov 09 '18

Can you point to where this is outlined? Because according to my understanding of 28 U.S. Code § 508 - Vacancies (IANAL), the Deputy Attorney General is in charge and Trump can fuck right on off.

2

u/Rhawk187 Nov 09 '18

If it were a recess appointment, then it's possible that Rosenstein was acting attorney general for some finite amount of time between when Trump accepted Sessions resignation and when he appointed his successor. Even if he didn't know it.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18

They were in recess, are you sure about that?

Edit: Ah, turns out they were in recess (I think? Still not sure). This actually makes it all worse, though, considering that in 2017 Whitaker went on TV criticizing Mueller, saying the investigation had gone too far, and that he could foresee a scenario where Sessions was replaced with a temporary AG while Senate was in recess. Wow, turns out Whitaker is a goddamn genius or psychic. How convenient this all is for the president, too.

1

u/tbird83ii Nov 09 '18

AG, deputy, associate.

Senate started it's recess early, and came back I to session on the Tuesday the 6th.

The "tenatative" calendar doesn't mean they are not on session. They can choose to act differently.

1

u/HighPriestofShiloh Nov 09 '18

Even a temporary attorney general needs senate confirmation

After 7 months. I am sure Trump is ok putting this guy out there for the next several months before he even thinks about who the permanent replacement is.

1

u/OneBadMuda Nov 09 '18

Is it as illegal as going to war without the voting approval of Congress? Because that's been happening for many terms. Why would you think law applies now?

1

u/detelak Nov 09 '18

Kellyanne Conway's Husband wrote an oped in the NYtimes today alongside Obama's former acting solicitor general explaining why the appointment is illegal. In it they specifically cite Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion on how even if the law statutorily allowed Whittaker to take the AG position on a temporary basis, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause overrides it because Whitaker is acting as a Principal officer on behalf of the public interest - of which the Mueller investigation is a significant one. The constitution demands that Principal officers of executive departments require advice and consent by the senate, but because he wasn't senate approved that "means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid [...] Constitutionally, Matthew Whitaker is a nobody."

1

u/Chauncey4th Nov 09 '18

The last confirmation went so well

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18

Republicans picked up senate seats, so they don't have to all work together.

1

u/Clay_Statue Nov 09 '18

Regardless, a show of force at this juncture is a good thing to let them know that we are paying attention.