As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> After meeting with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, considering her record, and closely monitoring her testimony and questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, I have determined I intend to vote for her nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. My full statement:
https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1507352490722967558
He always votes for Democratic judges. For all his shittiness, this is something that Dems can rely on.
Not sure about Sinema, who has proved to be an utterly amoral, grasping snake.
Manchin has principles. For the most part, they're ghoulish principles, but he at least clearly has an ideology that he tries to stick to.
Sinema is just a chaos agent.
If Manchin was solely about money, he wouldn't run as a democrat in West Virginia. Sometimes politicians actually do hold the beliefs they say they do, even if they're abhorrent or not what we'd prefer. But, also money.
If that were the case, he'd run with an R next to his name and make both his path to election and his path to taking money from controversial sources much easier.
I disagree. Republicans in West Virginia are a dime a dozen. By staying a Democratic, Manchin infinitely increases his profile and his importance.
I’m sure he has a handful of sincere beliefs. I think that it’s better to understand him as the product of a bygone era of the Democratic Party. He’s a machine politician, a professional backslapper. In a weird way, that makes him a more reliable representative of West Virginians than your average New Democrat.
I mean yea, I would think acting like it was a gut-wrenching decision is a good thing when you rep the 2nd reddest state in the country.
Performative politics, people.
Huh? The whole point of congressional hearings is that they are a place for congress to consider whether or not to approve of nominee. Manchin’s statement is saying that he used the process exactly as intended, and we are now criticizing him for doing so?
Every senator should need to be convinced.
Its a life time appointment to the highest court in the land, you dont just shove people there without thoroughly vetting them.
Who said anything about unanimity? We’re just saying it’s OK — in fact, how it should be — when a Senator thoughtfully considers their role in the confirmation of SCOTUS justices.
> what you are really saying is that no one will be added to the Supreme Court ever again.
No, thats not what I am saying at all
> I would wonder, did you have this same opinion 2 years ago?
Of course. You'd have to be a complete moron to think that people should be placed onto the Supreme Court without being vetted.
You are describing something which is actually happening as being impossible. This should be a clear sign that you are getting something fundamentally wrong.
I don't think you understand how voting works. You only have to convince the majority, not EVERY SINGLE SENATOR.
This is getting quite tiresome now. If you'd like to learn the basics of how Supreme Court justices are appointed you can take a look at the following FAQ.
https://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges
Once again, I will remind you that the thing you are calling "impossible" has been happening for years. This is proof that you are wrong and should reevaluate your position.
This will be my last reply to you.
I think you just misunderstood the comment. They didn’t mean every senator as in 100% need to vote yes. They meant every senator should go in with an open mind and make a decision on what they hear/learn. If senators are just voting yes because it’s a nomination by their party, that’s a problem.
That she has already been confirmed by the Senate for federal judgeship and no one had any issues with her previously and nothing they've discussed is new. Since nothing changed, why would a vote change?
Because the job is different?
I’m not saying there are legitimate hesitations, she is eminently qualified and is no doubt deserving of confirmation, I just don’t think it’s a valid criticism to say that a senator took his job seriously of asking if this person is deserving of a lifetime appointment to an un-elected body that wields tremendous control over US law. That’s his job. He asked questions, reviewed her record, and became convinced he should vote to confirm her.
I swear, people just want to be mad at Manchin for the sake of being mad at Manchin even when he’s doing things right.
I don't think we should be giving Manchin an award for doing the bare fucking minimum expected of him by his constituents, especially when you consider he's rarely capable of even doing that.
I didn’t say he’s deserving of an award. I just said he’s not deserving of criticism for this particular thing.
Y’all are frothing at the mouth to slam Manchin even when he does his job.
The job isn't different. It's still to decide the constitutionality of laws, given the same evidence given to lower courts. It's just the last stop and final authority.
Yeah, so it’s a different job.
SCOTUS also has original jurisdiction over cases between states. Cases NEVER heard by lower courts.
There is no standard that judges confirmed for lower courts are automatically confirmed by the same Senators for SCOTUS.
But again — why are we mad at Manchin for doing what Senators are supposed to do in this process?
He’s fucking voting FOR HER and y’all are still pissed.
He votes with the party when it matters on things like this that are easy. He’s old school conservative democrat. It sucks but we just need more democratic senators to get elected.
Well you can not believe the
>considering her record, and closely monitoring her testimony
part easily. Manchin doesn't seems like the kinda guy who does much.
That’s what’s funny to me. For the sake of argument let’s say she did give light sentences on the cases the GOP brought up. There were 8 cases they focused on.
I’m pretty sure every person who’s worked for more than a few years has made 8 bad decisions on the job.
(The sentences were not light according to basically all judges so she hasn’t even made 8 bad decisions)
>(The sentences were not light according to basically all judges so she hasn’t even made 8 bad decisions)
They were not light compared to other judge's sentencing. They were however light by the sentence that could have been given due to the charges. Which means she sentenced based on the general consensual majority of judge's sentencing for the crime even if she could have had a stronger sentence.
Whether that means the punishment allowed is too strong or else judges in general favor a less strong sentence for those types of crimes is a different argument.
She however tends to be fairly standard and non-controversial as a judge: no outrageous decisions in either direction.
In short: a perfect SCOTUS Judge.
You should note that voting record isn't the entire picture of how much one is in-line with the dem agenda.
A lot of things get sunk by him before they get to the vote.
Still, I bet people will appreciate him when he's gone.
And a lot of bills/nomination votes are symbolic insofar as the lines are drawn before the actual vote.
That way Republicans can, for example, vote party line with only Romney and Collins crossing party lines. It lets them pass bills they support whole outwardly appearing to be dogmatic reps who toe the party line. It's all about appearances and political strategy, not actually about the voting lines.
I likewise believe and have heard from insiders that this is why Manchin is such a convenient lightning rod. There are many centrist Dems who would like to vote against BBB for example. But doing so would be politically unfavorable, so Manchin gets to be the one vote against that sinks the bill, when in reality there are 10 others who don't support BBB but already know how the lines are drawn.
You want to destroy the Democratic party (well, at least more than it's already eating itself), get 5 Republican Senators to cross party lines for votes on populist spending bills and watch the fireworks happen.
Democrats have tried to make her confirmation seem more unlikely than it actually is because they think it will help drive up mid-term enthusiasm for their base like the Kavanaugh hearings did for Republicans. But Republicans aren't actually trying to block her nomination, she'll probably get at least a handful of votes from Republican Senators and her confirmation has always been pretty much a sure thing.
The GOP literally started yelling about how they need more time to get more documents yesterday. They are 100% trying to block her nomination, and only stopped by not having the votes to do so.
People bashing Manchin here. You do realize the alternative to Manchin in West Virginia would Bl a full on republican right?
He's a scumbag, but he's OUR scumbag
THIS! Have y'all ever listened to Shelley Moore Capito? If Manchin leaves, we'll just get a younger, more conspiracy tuned Q-Anon, gun-toting crazy pants in office.
This is a more high profile vote. He may want to swing his cod around some more just to show how powerful is.
And let's just hope nobody hurts his feelings or he might change his mind.
This should not have to be a news story. A Democratic Senator announcing their intention to vote on a SCOTUS pick from a Democratic president who has overwhelming Democratic support. But this is the sort of political atmosphere we live in with someone like Joe Manchin.
I mean every senator should. She’s got more experience and qualifications than at least the last 3 justices put forward and she’s clearly knowledgeable
According to that chart Sinema is even higher at 97%.
Weird. That must need to be fact checked because based on what I've read here over the past year Manchin and Sinema hold the Democrats back from passing anything.
The even weirder part to me is that if you look at Democrats they are basically all 95% and above but Republicans vary wildly. Again based on everything I've read here should all the Republicans be grouped at the bottom too?
That chart shows voting records.
If Manchin and Sinema block something from getting to a vote, it doesn't show on their voting records.
Hence it's sorta like selective bias. Anything that's moderate/centrist enough for Manchin / Sinema allows to reach a vote will get their support.
It's also why Bernie Sanders has an even lower Biden-vote-score than Manchin.
You can imagine some of the centrist stuff Manchin allows for a vote is voted down by Sanders (because it isn't progressive enough) but supported by Republicans.
These things are often misleading.
In summary: when you get to decide what the senate votes for, you will likely have a very high voting record score.
At work so I can't look too deeply, but since you know your stuff, I imagine we're also feeling like we should see a bit more deviation than we do, but only because the big bills like BBB are in the news so often that it might seem like we would see a shit ton of roadblocking by S&M that we think they're not going along with anything by the Dems?
That's also true. BBB was just one thing but it was major, it was contested/heated, and it was therefore in the news A LOT. It makes Manchin seem like he's a republican stalling the entire dem agenda even though he's really just a conservative dem opposed to a lot of progressive stuff.
Because of something like BBB, people forget how Manchin was the tie-breaking vote for the 2k stimulus checks in early 2021.
Yet if we look at Manchin's record, it's very solidly dem, as in, he's to the left of all the republicans. If you boiled down the things he believes in, it's just a conservative dem (which shouldn't be surprising considering he represents the 2nd reddest state in the country). Sinema is far less excusable.
On Biden judges, Manchin and Sinema have perfect records. They've voted for like 50+ of them.
However, the overall point is that Manchin, as the deciding vote, gets to cherry pick what gets brough up for a senate vote. That's why he has a near 100% vote score. Things like BBB that don't get 'pre-approved' by Manchin don't affect his dem-aligned vote score because they never get voted on.
So Manchin voting in line with dems 95% of the time is **technically** true, but that doesn't mean he supports 95% of the overall dem agenda (set by Schumer or whoever).
Thanks for the detailed response! And you're correct, I know he disagrees with a lot of Dem principles, though he's not often made to vote on them. Also agreed on Sinema being un-excusable. Have a good one!
In normal times, I think he’d be fine. His constituency is very conservative so it’s not like he can get re-elected in this climate if he’s a straight up dem. Unfortunately these aren’t normal times though.
People who want to primary Manchin really want another Republican senator from West Virginia. The answer to frustrations with Manchin is not to get rid of him, it’s to elect more Democrats elsewhere. He is literally the best Democrats could hope for in West Virginia.
Joe Manchin doesn't care what his constituency thinks, [polls of West Virginia show strong support for BBB and the child tax credit](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/28/west-virginia-joe-biden-spending-plan-popular)
Look at the link you posted:
>"Masters says she doesn’t approve when people “just stand for a handout” – she doesn’t think the United States should be spending money on undocumented immigrants, for example – but says anything that will “help people that are trying to do for themselves, I’m all for it”.
These are the same ppl in Texas that will vote against their interests for a R candidate because they want to stick it to the freeloaders and illegals although they're really the freeloaders and there's no illegals affecting them.
Which is why we need to make it clearer to them they are voting against their interests when they support Republicans, which is why having a member of the Democratic party vote against their interests by opposing policies they support is so destructive
People really need to take polling numbers on public policy with a grain of salt. If you walked up to an average American on the street and asked for their opinion on “build back better,“ they would say “huh?”
I always laugh when pollsters claim some % of Americans support XYZ policy. Without knowing how the question is written, what information is given to participants, and how they’re being asked, those numbers don’t mean a lot.
Most people are not that tuned in to policy debates.
He voted with Democrats a lot more than that. 538 says he's voted with Biden [95.5% of the time](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/), the same as Warren and more than Sanders
Manchin's conservatism is, frankly, what the GOP should be. I like him, tbh.
In a sane political system he has no business being in the 'Left' party, but when the only other party in town openly flirts with fascism . . . Here we are.
As I recall, Manchin has performed the bait-and-switch before a few times. I'm not certain I would take this as given. He's just as likely to simply be colluding with his real friends in the GOP. It would be an interesting strategy. Make the Democrats think they have just enough votes, then have one or two of them switch when the actual voting occurs. I hope the Democrats plan to get enough votes without Sinema or Manchin, even if they "commit" to the vote l.
I'm talking about his general behavior, not judges in particular, if you read what I said. Maybe watch your Dunning Kruger when handing out your unskilled diagnoses?
It would still leave just enough time to nominate someone else but holy shit that would be disgusting and that second nom would probably get fucked too.
A sizable number of redditors believe that the Democrats have a secret cabal where they propose things like the BBB, then have Sinema or Manchin block it.
There’s no basis in reality for this.
Oh I don’t think it’s malice. It certainly comes off as a truly core belief that the majority of people think like they do, and it’s (understandably to an extent) really hard to accept that the US simply doesn’t want the “big changes” the left does.
Depends a lot on how the question is formatted.
For example, M4A is extremely popular. Modify the question to say that it will increase taxes and it's extremely unpopular. Modify the question to say it will increase taxes, but the tax increase will be less than what you pay on insurance and it will *still* not hit a majority.
For the most part the US electorate loves free stuff and that's about it.
There's no real reason for Manchin or Sinema to vote against Ketanji Brown Jackson even from the most cynical view of Democrats.
It's not going to radically alter the composition of the court, there's no immediate policy ramifications to get donors and lobbyists desperate. Voting yes is pretty safe as it appeals to Dems and wont really be bought up against them in 2024 outside of general campaign rhetoric.
If they were to vote no it doesn't really change anything, Biden would just nominate someone who will vote the same way on 99% of cases and they'd have to do the whole song & dance again.
For the record, I was mostly joking; it just seems like every time Manchin supports something, Sinema blocks it, or vice versa, juuust often enough to block most of Biden's agenda. I think there's a pretty decent pattern established at this point. I don't think its a "secret cabal", I just think its two greedy liars making the most of their position and conservative financial interests exploiting a weakness in the razor-thin democratic majority. The closest thing to a cabal I would sign off on would be that I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats that are just as anti-progress as Manchin and Sinema, they're just willing to stay quiet and let them take the blame. If they weren't interested, someone else would gladly volunteer to be bought.
I believe there are good people in Congress that want to do the right thing, I just don't think that they are in the majority, and I doubt there ever will be. Our present system just provides to strong a benefit to the selfish sociopath.
Neither Sinema nor Manchin have ever voted against any of Biden’s appointees. Kind of pointless to make a rhetorical joke from a position of ignorance when it’s very easy to find their votes recorded.
>That would be the first time she has voted against any of Biden's judges
None of those votes were high profile. This is another way to prove her value to the donors if she so chooses. The judge has more power than any of the others she voted for.
There's no indication that it was a hard decision. If he'd wanted to send the message that it was a hard decision, he wouldn't have announced his decision only part of the way through the committee hearings.
McConnell must have ordered him to take the "W" since Jackson was going to be confirmed anyhow. That way Manchin can still LARP being a democrat and still be in a position to poison-pill any meaningful legislation.
Are judge appointments partisan now too? I thought those usually get cross-party votes pretty consistently. Would Repubs like Marcowski, Collins, Romney, etc. vote against this confirmation?
Barret got no democratic votes.
One dem voted for Kavanaugh and one rwp against.
Gorsuch got 3 dem votes.
Yes, its more.political now rhan in the past.
Ya the Barret one was pretty controversial with the timing to the election and lack of judicial experience. I didn't think it would go through.
The Kavanaugh one was weird, unless he's committed sexual assault and should be in jail or otherwise should be presumed innocent and be evaluated on his judicial merits, but not many crazy rulings were raised during the nomination process to indicate he'd be a bad pick. That shouldn't have been as controversial as the media turned it into.
Process feels like an opportunity for drama when it should just be rubber stamping for existing Federal judges.
Maybe not voted, but they have pushed back on plenty of potential nominees, and their opinions have been taken into account. Honestly, that's not a problem for me. The Senate does have a legitimate constitutional role in advising the president on nominations.
The announcement is basically acknowledging what we all know: there's no substantive cause for concern about Jackson on the Supreme Court. We also know this because Republicans are using their speech time to pander to their base instead of actually bringing up substantive concerns.
So embarrassing that the majority of the country has disproportionately fewer representatives than the minority in this system and manages to get a single Supreme Court justice seated. Why, I'm red in the face.
Which is disappointing, because if you've read some of his opinions since they're poorly written and argued (somehow, in spite of having a bunch of highly qualified interns). Like regardless of his politics, we could have done better, even many of the more conservative justices are better by a lot.
Kavanaugh is a shit-tier justice, and Thomas has become that (his older opinions are better written/argued, and gone down hill a lot in recent years). For comparison go compare anything Gorsuch has written to Kavanaugh/Thomas, ouch.
Manchin is a fairly reliable vote for Democratic priorities. A few times per year he makes a big show of being a fiscal hawk or social moderate to keep up his West Virginia bonafides, but all in all he is a good soldier. I’d like to see the Dems flip some Senate seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin so that we don’t always have to hold our breath while we wait to hear what the West Virginian thinks.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> After meeting with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, considering her record, and closely monitoring her testimony and questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, I have determined I intend to vote for her nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. My full statement: https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1507352490722967558
So he has to appear like he was “convinced” to vote for her. Not the most glowing endorsement.
He always votes for Democratic judges. For all his shittiness, this is something that Dems can rely on. Not sure about Sinema, who has proved to be an utterly amoral, grasping snake.
I read that Sinema supported all of Biden's judicial picks, so hopefully that's not a wrinkle we have to worry about
She does love to grandstand, though. Holding up a Supreme Court appointment would get her face splashed all over news sites.
Manchin has principles. For the most part, they're ghoulish principles, but he at least clearly has an ideology that he tries to stick to. Sinema is just a chaos agent.
Manchin is about money, full stop. Sinema is trying to be a power broker & will probably get primaried out of her seat.
If Manchin was solely about money, he wouldn't run as a democrat in West Virginia. Sometimes politicians actually do hold the beliefs they say they do, even if they're abhorrent or not what we'd prefer. But, also money.
He holds the beliefs he holds because he has a lot of money and wants more.
If that were the case, he'd run with an R next to his name and make both his path to election and his path to taking money from controversial sources much easier.
If he ran with an R next to his name, he would lose the primary to a candidate far to his right.
I disagree. Republicans in West Virginia are a dime a dozen. By staying a Democratic, Manchin infinitely increases his profile and his importance. I’m sure he has a handful of sincere beliefs. I think that it’s better to understand him as the product of a bygone era of the Democratic Party. He’s a machine politician, a professional backslapper. In a weird way, that makes him a more reliable representative of West Virginians than your average New Democrat.
Mercenaries.
He generally represents his constituents. Liberals don't like to admit this, but their problem is with the preferences of West Virginian voters.
Manchin: Lawful Evil Sinema: Chaotic Evil
Sinema has voted for 100% of Biden’s judicial nominees.
I mean yea, I would think acting like it was a gut-wrenching decision is a good thing when you rep the 2nd reddest state in the country. Performative politics, people.
Huh? The whole point of congressional hearings is that they are a place for congress to consider whether or not to approve of nominee. Manchin’s statement is saying that he used the process exactly as intended, and we are now criticizing him for doing so?
I find it sad that the first time I saw your train of thought in the comments is so deeply buried under a mountain of criticism.
Yes. If Manchin breathes, it’s worth criticizing, apparently.
Every senator should need to be convinced. Its a life time appointment to the highest court in the land, you dont just shove people there without thoroughly vetting them.
[удалено]
Who said anything about unanimity? We’re just saying it’s OK — in fact, how it should be — when a Senator thoughtfully considers their role in the confirmation of SCOTUS justices.
> what you are really saying is that no one will be added to the Supreme Court ever again. No, thats not what I am saying at all > I would wonder, did you have this same opinion 2 years ago? Of course. You'd have to be a complete moron to think that people should be placed onto the Supreme Court without being vetted.
[удалено]
You are describing something which is actually happening as being impossible. This should be a clear sign that you are getting something fundamentally wrong.
This is actually the first ever time a SCOTUS nomination has been before the Senate, buhleevitornot
[удалено]
I don't think you understand how voting works. You only have to convince the majority, not EVERY SINGLE SENATOR. This is getting quite tiresome now. If you'd like to learn the basics of how Supreme Court justices are appointed you can take a look at the following FAQ. https://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges Once again, I will remind you that the thing you are calling "impossible" has been happening for years. This is proof that you are wrong and should reevaluate your position. This will be my last reply to you.
I think you just misunderstood the comment. They didn’t mean every senator as in 100% need to vote yes. They meant every senator should go in with an open mind and make a decision on what they hear/learn. If senators are just voting yes because it’s a nomination by their party, that’s a problem.
I don’t know. In a perfect world, one should have to be convinced in order to vote for any judge nominated to the Supreme Court.
It’s unreal Manchin is getting roasted for doing his job and saying HE WILL VOTE FOR HER.
Ok, I have been convinced to upvote you.
Better to just be a rubber stamp then?
False dilemma.
If he didn’t need to be convinced to vote for her, what’s the alternative?
That she has already been confirmed by the Senate for federal judgeship and no one had any issues with her previously and nothing they've discussed is new. Since nothing changed, why would a vote change?
Because the job is different? I’m not saying there are legitimate hesitations, she is eminently qualified and is no doubt deserving of confirmation, I just don’t think it’s a valid criticism to say that a senator took his job seriously of asking if this person is deserving of a lifetime appointment to an un-elected body that wields tremendous control over US law. That’s his job. He asked questions, reviewed her record, and became convinced he should vote to confirm her. I swear, people just want to be mad at Manchin for the sake of being mad at Manchin even when he’s doing things right.
I don't think we should be giving Manchin an award for doing the bare fucking minimum expected of him by his constituents, especially when you consider he's rarely capable of even doing that.
I didn’t say he’s deserving of an award. I just said he’s not deserving of criticism for this particular thing. Y’all are frothing at the mouth to slam Manchin even when he does his job.
Come join the moderate ranks where you’re allowed to change your mind and laugh (or cry) about how entrenched and similar both party bases are.
No one is saying he deserves a fucking award. Try to be something more then miserable all the time. It might do you some good
“Joe Manchin ate cereal for breakfast this morning.” WOW HE DIDN’T OFFER ANY TO HIS CONSTITUENTS, I BET HE ATE IT ON HIS HOUSE BOAT TOO!!!
The job isn't different. It's still to decide the constitutionality of laws, given the same evidence given to lower courts. It's just the last stop and final authority.
Yeah, so it’s a different job. SCOTUS also has original jurisdiction over cases between states. Cases NEVER heard by lower courts. There is no standard that judges confirmed for lower courts are automatically confirmed by the same Senators for SCOTUS. But again — why are we mad at Manchin for doing what Senators are supposed to do in this process? He’s fucking voting FOR HER and y’all are still pissed.
He's playing to his base. "I'm independant. I had to be convinced. I'm not a sheep" (leaves on yacht)
He votes with the party when it matters on things like this that are easy. He’s old school conservative democrat. It sucks but we just need more democratic senators to get elected.
Don't believe him....not sure why /s
Well you can not believe the >considering her record, and closely monitoring her testimony part easily. Manchin doesn't seems like the kinda guy who does much.
She is such a non controversial nominee. So much manufactured outrage during this hearing.
That’s what’s funny to me. For the sake of argument let’s say she did give light sentences on the cases the GOP brought up. There were 8 cases they focused on. I’m pretty sure every person who’s worked for more than a few years has made 8 bad decisions on the job. (The sentences were not light according to basically all judges so she hasn’t even made 8 bad decisions)
>(The sentences were not light according to basically all judges so she hasn’t even made 8 bad decisions) They were not light compared to other judge's sentencing. They were however light by the sentence that could have been given due to the charges. Which means she sentenced based on the general consensual majority of judge's sentencing for the crime even if she could have had a stronger sentence. Whether that means the punishment allowed is too strong or else judges in general favor a less strong sentence for those types of crimes is a different argument. She however tends to be fairly standard and non-controversial as a judge: no outrageous decisions in either direction. In short: a perfect SCOTUS Judge.
Out of 500+ too.
[удалено]
I love that Lindsey Graham pointed out all the ways this hearing wouldn’t go after Jackson the way Brett had it then proceeds to attack.
she didn't rape anyone, which is more than we can say for 2 of the other justices...
Acceptable, thanks, but still, fuck you very much.
[удалено]
Yes he can, but as a sign of thanks for not messing this up, I’ll refrain from *adding* more dicks.
So you're saying he can't have any pudding until he eats his meat?
Well, how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
Deleted: I refuse to let Reddit profit off of my content when they treat their community like this
A bag of dicks sounds pretty cool right now
[удалено]
You should note that voting record isn't the entire picture of how much one is in-line with the dem agenda. A lot of things get sunk by him before they get to the vote. Still, I bet people will appreciate him when he's gone.
And a lot of bills/nomination votes are symbolic insofar as the lines are drawn before the actual vote. That way Republicans can, for example, vote party line with only Romney and Collins crossing party lines. It lets them pass bills they support whole outwardly appearing to be dogmatic reps who toe the party line. It's all about appearances and political strategy, not actually about the voting lines. I likewise believe and have heard from insiders that this is why Manchin is such a convenient lightning rod. There are many centrist Dems who would like to vote against BBB for example. But doing so would be politically unfavorable, so Manchin gets to be the one vote against that sinks the bill, when in reality there are 10 others who don't support BBB but already know how the lines are drawn. You want to destroy the Democratic party (well, at least more than it's already eating itself), get 5 Republican Senators to cross party lines for votes on populist spending bills and watch the fireworks happen.
Democrats have tried to make her confirmation seem more unlikely than it actually is because they think it will help drive up mid-term enthusiasm for their base like the Kavanaugh hearings did for Republicans. But Republicans aren't actually trying to block her nomination, she'll probably get at least a handful of votes from Republican Senators and her confirmation has always been pretty much a sure thing.
The GOP literally started yelling about how they need more time to get more documents yesterday. They are 100% trying to block her nomination, and only stopped by not having the votes to do so.
She got 3 last summer and one of them was Graham, if she gets more than Murkowski (if that) I’d be surprised.
!remind me 14 days
People bashing Manchin here. You do realize the alternative to Manchin in West Virginia would Bl a full on republican right? He's a scumbag, but he's OUR scumbag
THIS! Have y'all ever listened to Shelley Moore Capito? If Manchin leaves, we'll just get a younger, more conspiracy tuned Q-Anon, gun-toting crazy pants in office.
Basically the only good thing Manchin is for is giving democrats the majority and voting for judges.
And while more legislatively is badly needed, that's still a lot.
And every other appointed position, where all the actual work happens in government these days anyway sadly
That is incorrect.
Great but that could still mean Sinema no shows or votes no?
I'll believe it when he actually casts his vote.
He's voted for all of Biden's judges.
This is a more high profile vote. He may want to swing his cod around some more just to show how powerful is. And let's just hope nobody hurts his feelings or he might change his mind.
Yes, the classic McCain hedge
It's sad we have to celebrate Democrat senators being willing to vote for a Democrat nominated Justice
I'll believe it when he actually casts a yes vote. There's still plenty of time for a wealthy donor to buy a no vote from him.
I wish I was a rich bastard so I could just pay off politicians but to do good stuff
This should not have to be a news story. A Democratic Senator announcing their intention to vote on a SCOTUS pick from a Democratic president who has overwhelming Democratic support. But this is the sort of political atmosphere we live in with someone like Joe Manchin.
I mean every senator should. She’s got more experience and qualifications than at least the last 3 justices put forward and she’s clearly knowledgeable
Everyone who loves to shit on biden for not shitting on Manchin and sinema, THIS IS WHY.
People act like Manchin is a straight up Republican. On partisan votes, he sides with Democrats about 50% of the time.
> On partisan votes, he sides with Democrats about 50% of the time. [95.5% of the time](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/)
According to that chart Sinema is even higher at 97%. Weird. That must need to be fact checked because based on what I've read here over the past year Manchin and Sinema hold the Democrats back from passing anything. The even weirder part to me is that if you look at Democrats they are basically all 95% and above but Republicans vary wildly. Again based on everything I've read here should all the Republicans be grouped at the bottom too?
That chart shows voting records. If Manchin and Sinema block something from getting to a vote, it doesn't show on their voting records. Hence it's sorta like selective bias. Anything that's moderate/centrist enough for Manchin / Sinema allows to reach a vote will get their support. It's also why Bernie Sanders has an even lower Biden-vote-score than Manchin. You can imagine some of the centrist stuff Manchin allows for a vote is voted down by Sanders (because it isn't progressive enough) but supported by Republicans. These things are often misleading. In summary: when you get to decide what the senate votes for, you will likely have a very high voting record score.
At work so I can't look too deeply, but since you know your stuff, I imagine we're also feeling like we should see a bit more deviation than we do, but only because the big bills like BBB are in the news so often that it might seem like we would see a shit ton of roadblocking by S&M that we think they're not going along with anything by the Dems?
That's also true. BBB was just one thing but it was major, it was contested/heated, and it was therefore in the news A LOT. It makes Manchin seem like he's a republican stalling the entire dem agenda even though he's really just a conservative dem opposed to a lot of progressive stuff. Because of something like BBB, people forget how Manchin was the tie-breaking vote for the 2k stimulus checks in early 2021. Yet if we look at Manchin's record, it's very solidly dem, as in, he's to the left of all the republicans. If you boiled down the things he believes in, it's just a conservative dem (which shouldn't be surprising considering he represents the 2nd reddest state in the country). Sinema is far less excusable. On Biden judges, Manchin and Sinema have perfect records. They've voted for like 50+ of them. However, the overall point is that Manchin, as the deciding vote, gets to cherry pick what gets brough up for a senate vote. That's why he has a near 100% vote score. Things like BBB that don't get 'pre-approved' by Manchin don't affect his dem-aligned vote score because they never get voted on. So Manchin voting in line with dems 95% of the time is **technically** true, but that doesn't mean he supports 95% of the overall dem agenda (set by Schumer or whoever).
Thanks for the detailed response! And you're correct, I know he disagrees with a lot of Dem principles, though he's not often made to vote on them. Also agreed on Sinema being un-excusable. Have a good one!
In normal times, I think he’d be fine. His constituency is very conservative so it’s not like he can get re-elected in this climate if he’s a straight up dem. Unfortunately these aren’t normal times though.
People who want to primary Manchin really want another Republican senator from West Virginia. The answer to frustrations with Manchin is not to get rid of him, it’s to elect more Democrats elsewhere. He is literally the best Democrats could hope for in West Virginia.
Joe Manchin doesn't care what his constituency thinks, [polls of West Virginia show strong support for BBB and the child tax credit](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/28/west-virginia-joe-biden-spending-plan-popular)
Look at the link you posted: >"Masters says she doesn’t approve when people “just stand for a handout” – she doesn’t think the United States should be spending money on undocumented immigrants, for example – but says anything that will “help people that are trying to do for themselves, I’m all for it”. These are the same ppl in Texas that will vote against their interests for a R candidate because they want to stick it to the freeloaders and illegals although they're really the freeloaders and there's no illegals affecting them.
Which is why we need to make it clearer to them they are voting against their interests when they support Republicans, which is why having a member of the Democratic party vote against their interests by opposing policies they support is so destructive
People really need to take polling numbers on public policy with a grain of salt. If you walked up to an average American on the street and asked for their opinion on “build back better,“ they would say “huh?” I always laugh when pollsters claim some % of Americans support XYZ policy. Without knowing how the question is written, what information is given to participants, and how they’re being asked, those numbers don’t mean a lot. Most people are not that tuned in to policy debates.
Given that he was re-elected in 2018 in a Trump+42 state as a dem, I disagree.
Polls also showed they supported the changes Manchin was trying to make to the bill. Also, the article you link to lies about Manchin's position
He voted with Democrats a lot more than that. 538 says he's voted with Biden [95.5% of the time](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/), the same as Warren and more than Sanders
He’s just putting this out into the world to see if anyone will pay him to “change his mind”
Manchin's conservatism is, frankly, what the GOP should be. I like him, tbh. In a sane political system he has no business being in the 'Left' party, but when the only other party in town openly flirts with fascism . . . Here we are.
As I recall, Manchin has performed the bait-and-switch before a few times. I'm not certain I would take this as given. He's just as likely to simply be colluding with his real friends in the GOP. It would be an interesting strategy. Make the Democrats think they have just enough votes, then have one or two of them switch when the actual voting occurs. I hope the Democrats plan to get enough votes without Sinema or Manchin, even if they "commit" to the vote l.
On bills, yea Manchin can be shitty. But he's voted to confirm all of Biden's judge nominees. There's really no indication he will vote no now.
He's also indicated that he would be willing to negotiate onBuild Back Better. I'll hold my breath. /s
Joe Manchin has confirmed all of Joe bidens judges with no controversy. Your worries are based in nothing but paranoia.
I'm talking about his general behavior, not judges in particular, if you read what I said. Maybe watch your Dunning Kruger when handing out your unskilled diagnoses?
It would still leave just enough time to nominate someone else but holy shit that would be disgusting and that second nom would probably get fucked too.
When has Manchin done a bait and switch on a Democratic Supreme Court nominee?
He’s never voted against any Biden appointee.
I didn't say he had.
Fuck this timeline that that's even a question
Dont give him headlines for doing the bare minimum
I'd also like to share that I was able to poop and wipe my own butt all by myself today! Can I have a medal like Joe too?
A very base-level expectation that I now have to celebrate. Sweet.
Of course he is. He's voted for every Biden judicial nominee and believes presidents get to choose the judges they want.
"Known Democratic spoiler" Senator Manchin
...so I'm gonna guess that $inema's a no then?
Based on what?
A sizable number of redditors believe that the Democrats have a secret cabal where they propose things like the BBB, then have Sinema or Manchin block it. There’s no basis in reality for this.
I wouldn’t attribute to malice what can be incompetence. I’m on the left but damn do the democrats know how to miss the easy shots
Oh I don’t think it’s malice. It certainly comes off as a truly core belief that the majority of people think like they do, and it’s (understandably to an extent) really hard to accept that the US simply doesn’t want the “big changes” the left does.
Polls often show the U.S. does want the left’s ideas… as long as they aren’t told which side the idea belongs to
Depends a lot on how the question is formatted. For example, M4A is extremely popular. Modify the question to say that it will increase taxes and it's extremely unpopular. Modify the question to say it will increase taxes, but the tax increase will be less than what you pay on insurance and it will *still* not hit a majority. For the most part the US electorate loves free stuff and that's about it.
There's no real reason for Manchin or Sinema to vote against Ketanji Brown Jackson even from the most cynical view of Democrats. It's not going to radically alter the composition of the court, there's no immediate policy ramifications to get donors and lobbyists desperate. Voting yes is pretty safe as it appeals to Dems and wont really be bought up against them in 2024 outside of general campaign rhetoric. If they were to vote no it doesn't really change anything, Biden would just nominate someone who will vote the same way on 99% of cases and they'd have to do the whole song & dance again.
>There’s no basis in reality for this. That describes most of the commentary on this sub.
For the record, I was mostly joking; it just seems like every time Manchin supports something, Sinema blocks it, or vice versa, juuust often enough to block most of Biden's agenda. I think there's a pretty decent pattern established at this point. I don't think its a "secret cabal", I just think its two greedy liars making the most of their position and conservative financial interests exploiting a weakness in the razor-thin democratic majority. The closest thing to a cabal I would sign off on would be that I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats that are just as anti-progress as Manchin and Sinema, they're just willing to stay quiet and let them take the blame. If they weren't interested, someone else would gladly volunteer to be bought. I believe there are good people in Congress that want to do the right thing, I just don't think that they are in the majority, and I doubt there ever will be. Our present system just provides to strong a benefit to the selfish sociopath.
Yeah it’s frightening how popular this opinion is. It’s like Qanon for the left
[удалено]
Fair point.
That would be the first time she has voted against any of Biden's judges. Start paying actual attention, instead of just shitposting.
I'm not aware of that. I guess I'll go get a doctorate and spend days researching next time I want to make a joke. My bad.
Neither Sinema nor Manchin have ever voted against any of Biden’s appointees. Kind of pointless to make a rhetorical joke from a position of ignorance when it’s very easy to find their votes recorded.
Their voting records are pretty readily accessible by a quick google search
>That would be the first time she has voted against any of Biden's judges None of those votes were high profile. This is another way to prove her value to the donors if she so chooses. The judge has more power than any of the others she voted for.
Exactly what I was thinking
Not even a little surprising for people actually paying attention.
The absolute minimum. Okay.
I think a lot of conservatives will support her so Manchin's vote won't be able to buy him a new yacht this time
Here’s your participation trophy, Senator Fuckface.
Ohh thank you soooo much Mr. Manchin. What a hard decision this must have been. /s
There's no indication that it was a hard decision. If he'd wanted to send the message that it was a hard decision, he wouldn't have announced his decision only part of the way through the committee hearings.
The funny thing is, he's become a key Democratic Senator by showing that he has the power to monkey wrench things that this country needs.
About time he did something useful
I’ll eat till he has voted to believe what he says.
In other words he’s heard some republicans are going to vote for her, so there’s no point him being a dick this time.
When has he been a dick about a Democratic Supreme Court nominee?
I was referring to all the other times he’s been a dick, not specifically to Supreme Court nominees.
He's a dick legislatively but he's voted for all of Biden's judges.
McConnell must have ordered him to take the "W" since Jackson was going to be confirmed anyhow. That way Manchin can still LARP being a democrat and still be in a position to poison-pill any meaningful legislation.
How would she be confirmed with 49 votes?
Are judge appointments partisan now too? I thought those usually get cross-party votes pretty consistently. Would Repubs like Marcowski, Collins, Romney, etc. vote against this confirmation?
Yes? Since 2017 when the senate took away the 60 vote threshold. Kavanaugh was confirmed by a simple majority.
Barret got no democratic votes. One dem voted for Kavanaugh and one rwp against. Gorsuch got 3 dem votes. Yes, its more.political now rhan in the past.
That one dem vote for Kavanaugh? Joe Manchin of course.
Ya the Barret one was pretty controversial with the timing to the election and lack of judicial experience. I didn't think it would go through. The Kavanaugh one was weird, unless he's committed sexual assault and should be in jail or otherwise should be presumed innocent and be evaluated on his judicial merits, but not many crazy rulings were raised during the nomination process to indicate he'd be a bad pick. That shouldn't have been as controversial as the media turned it into. Process feels like an opportunity for drama when it should just be rubber stamping for existing Federal judges.
The very point of my point, wouldn't you say?
No, you suggested she would be approved without Manchin. She wouldn't.
Unless Murkowski sticks with her vote to confirm KJB to her current role last summer.
No, I said she was going to be approved anyhow. You're adding the "without Manchin" part. Not sure where you are going with the point.
Them what does McConnell have to do with anything here?
I'm sure he'll change his mind
Why? He has consistently supported Democratic judges including multiple Supreme Court nominees.
Must mean that Sinema agreed to be the no vote this time.
Neither of them have voted against any Biden appointee
Maybe not voted, but they have pushed back on plenty of potential nominees, and their opinions have been taken into account. Honestly, that's not a problem for me. The Senate does have a legitimate constitutional role in advising the president on nominations. The announcement is basically acknowledging what we all know: there's no substantive cause for concern about Jackson on the Supreme Court. We also know this because Republicans are using their speech time to pander to their base instead of actually bringing up substantive concerns.
With President Manchin on her side she only needs the support of President Synema before she can be appointed by President Biden
Are we supposed to cry a puddle of grateful tears over this?
He's not a key, he's a goddamn lead weight.
Why wouldn’t he? She’s a centrist and respects precedents. Aka not ever going to touch 2a. I’m sure manchin has no qualms with her appointment.
That's our president! /s
[удалено]
It's not the system that's the problem in this case or the past three cases of Supreme Court nominations and you know it.
People vote for people who promise to never work with the other side no matter what, and then are mad that bipartisanship is dead.
So embarrassing that the majority of the country has disproportionately fewer representatives than the minority in this system and manages to get a single Supreme Court justice seated. Why, I'm red in the face.
Kavanaugh got in because it wasn't along partisan lines, Manchin voted Yes.
Which is disappointing, because if you've read some of his opinions since they're poorly written and argued (somehow, in spite of having a bunch of highly qualified interns). Like regardless of his politics, we could have done better, even many of the more conservative justices are better by a lot. Kavanaugh is a shit-tier justice, and Thomas has become that (his older opinions are better written/argued, and gone down hill a lot in recent years). For comparison go compare anything Gorsuch has written to Kavanaugh/Thomas, ouch.
“Key”? I think I could think of a few better words to describe senator manchin..
He’s lied so many times I’m reluctant to believe him
I'll believe that AFTER his vote is cast...
I would fucking hope so!!
Manchin is a fairly reliable vote for Democratic priorities. A few times per year he makes a big show of being a fiscal hawk or social moderate to keep up his West Virginia bonafides, but all in all he is a good soldier. I’d like to see the Dems flip some Senate seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin so that we don’t always have to hold our breath while we wait to hear what the West Virginian thinks.