It's not hyperbole at all. The coup began when senate republicans refuse to hold confirmation hearings from Merrick Garland. They usurped the powers of the Executive, because he was not a part of their party. The three branches of our government are supposed to act as checks on the other branches. What we have is a legislature refusing to hold the executive accountable for obvious crimes (violations of the emoluments clause), and actively working to subvert the Mueller investigation. Now, they're rushing to confirm a blatantly partisan judge, without releasing his full records for formal review. It's a consolidation of power that removes checks and balances and firmly ensconces the country under minority party rule. No objective party can argue the contrary.
Originally Posted by El-mo
Wrong. I'm a reasonably objective party and I can readily argue the contrary!
First, let's consider Merrick Garland. I would have castigated the Republicans if they blocked him for no apparent reason. But then I learned they were merely following the advice of their colleagues on the other side! This is the third time in this thread I have brought up the Biden/Schumer/Reid Rule. You won't address it. You want dems to be allowed to make their own bed, then refuse to sleep in it! And btw, McConnell didn't "usurp" any powers of the Executive by blocking Garland. Under the Constitution, the POTUS nominates and the Senates exercises its right to advise and consent. What part of that simple division of responsibilities don't you understand?
Second, you're upset about alleged violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. You call them "obvious crimes". Not potential ethics violations that might also be politically embarrassing, but obvious crimes. If the crimes are so obvious, convince me. Make the case. Cite the history of the emoluments clause. Cite the statutes or laws that have been so obviously violated.
Third, you claim the legislature is trying to subvert the Mueller investigation. I just want to know how the whole thing started. I find it nothing short of outrageous that the incumbent party in 2016 would actually spy on the opposing party's campaign! If there is/was a legitimate justification for that, I am still waiting to hear it. What I find even more outrageous is the fact that the dems keep pretending it ISN'T outrageous to enlist the machinery of the federal government to spy on an opponent's political campaign. The more we learn, the more the Mueller investigation discredits itself. I don't want the dems to regain control of Congress for one reason - I know if that happens they will keep us from ever learning the full truth.
Fourth, you call Kavanaugh a "blatantly partisan" judge. Why? Because he tried to defend himself against uncorroborated, nasty and vile, personal last-minute smears hurled at him by dimotards? Or because his opinions on the bench (he has written 307 of them for the DC District Court alone) are partisan? If the latter, please cite for me examples of those "blatantly partisan" opinions. Most judicial cases have nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. It seems to me the dems jumped into the sewer and turned to desperate personal attacks because they can't challenge or find fault in the substance of his numerous written legal opinions.
Fifth, your claim that Kav's full record wasn't released for review is just another lame dimotard talking point and a transparent excuse to delay his confirmation vote until after the midterms. Grassley's committee released more documents than were released for the last 5 SCOTUS nominees combined. Most of the rest were withheld by the G.W. Bush Presidential Library, not the Senate Judiciary Committee. The dems asked to see literally everything they could think of, relevant or not, because they knew such an unreasonable request would slow down the confirmation process and give people like you a handy but lame talking point.
Lastly, I can't resist taking a swipe at your silly comment about "minority party rule". I assume that's a reference to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite receiving more popular votes than Trump. If you don't like the Electoral College, feel free to pursue any or all of the mechanisms identified in the Constitution for amending it. Our Constitution has already been amended 27 times in our history. Good luck. And how do you define "minority party" anyway? According to recent polls, only 31% of voting age Americans identify as Democrats. That sounds like a minority to me.
To sum up, I'm a reasonably objective person - and I just argued to the contrary against every single point you made in your post.
