• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Starbuck1975 said:
Let’s also not fool ourselves into thinking that the Democrats would behave any different if they had the White House, Congress and an opportunity to set the course for SCOTUS. Doubt there would be any consideration or concern given to maintaining “balance”.
Click to expand...

But they literally have behaved differently.
 
kage69 said:
Funny, that's exactly what Obama did with Merrick Garland. Giving those buckets hell tonight starbuck, look at you go.
Click to expand...
Not really. Scalia was the anchor of the conservative wing of the court. He considered Easterbrook his successor. Obama went with Garland. McConnell went nuclear.
 
Republicans cheated in 2000. Bush's picks shouldn't even be on there! And they cheated yet again in 2016. After Thomas leaves, all conservatives justices will stem from presidents that didn't win the popular vote and were illegitimate! It's time for Democrats to use the nuke of all nukes.
 
Maxima1 said:
Republicans cheated in 2000. Bush's picks shouldn't even be on there! And they cheated yet again in 2016. After Thomas leaves, all conservatives justices will stem from presidents that didn't win the popular vote and were illegitimate! It's time for Democrats to use the nuke of all nukes.
Click to expand...

Desperate diversion..
 
Jhhnn said:
Where in the world did you come up with that idea?

I thought you were being facetious. If you're serious it's worse than I thought.
Click to expand...

Not really. Both Dubya & Trump didn't win the popular vote. Bush did do so in 2004, but he benefited from incumbency, 9/11, and the Iraq war. The SC at the time in 2000 made a highly partisan decision to tilt the balance to Dubya that was nonsensical, especially according to their own judicial viewpoint they say they have. Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russians and now GOP is obstructing, so they can consolidate power. It's time to end the stupid lifetime appointments of clearly partisan judges. The Constitution gives this ability, as 9 isn't a magical number.
 
Maxima1 said:
Not really. Both Dubya & Trump didn't win the popular vote. Bush did do so in 2004, but he benefited from incumbency, 9/11, and the Iraq war. The SC at the time in 2000 made a highly partisan decision to tilt the balance to Dubya that was nonsensical, especially according to their own judicial viewpoint they say they have. Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russians and now GOP is obstructing, so they can consolidate power. It's time to end the stupid lifetime appointments of clearly partisan judges. The Constitution gives this ability, as 9 isn't a magical number.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm not sure why he objects to the idea.
 
Maxima1 said:
Not really. Both Dubya & Trump didn't win the popular vote. Bush did do so in 2004, but he benefited from incumbency, 9/11, and the Iraq war. The SC at the time in 2000 made a highly partisan decision to tilt the balance to Dubya that was nonsensical, especially according to their own judicial viewpoint they say they have. Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russians and now GOP is obstructing, so they can consolidate power. It's time to end the stupid lifetime appointments of clearly partisan judges. The Constitution gives this ability, as 9 isn't a magical number.
Click to expand...

Dubya's appointees are not at issue other than as a diversion on your part.
 
Jhhnn said:
Bork couldn't pass the 60 vote hurdle, plain & simple. He was too extreme for some of his fellow Republicans at the time.

With McConnell making up new rules none of that matters anymore.
Click to expand...
I suppose if I ignored history and reality, I would come to that conclusion
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Not really. Scalia was the anchor of the conservative wing of the court. He considered Easterbrook his successor. Obama went with Garland. McConnell went nuclear.
Click to expand...

Yes really. The preference of a retiring justice doesn't outweigh a president's right to choose in any way, shape or form. Garland was fine with republicans before McConnell started his crusade against the negro. He's a moderate, not some ultra-liberal trans activist lawyer from San Francisco. You can ignore Obama's intent all you want, doesn't change Merrick was chosen with republican feels considered. BothSides fails again, sorry.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
I suppose if I ignored history and reality, I would come to that conclusion
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia-

On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-CT) voting against him
Click to expand...

He did get a vote from a Dem Senate unlike Garland who just got screwed by McConnell.
 
Maxima1 said:
Republicans cheated in 2000. Bush's picks shouldn't even be on there! And they cheated yet again in 2016. After Thomas leaves, all conservatives justices will stem from presidents that didn't win the popular vote and were illegitimate! It's time for Democrats to use the nuke of all nukes.
Click to expand...
Yes every win by a Republican is a cheat. That's why they have control of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, a majority of Governors, a majority of State houses and a majority of state senates. It's because no one ever votes for them and they have no support and that voters aren't sick and tired of asshole Democrats, leftists and their supporters.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Yes every win by a Republican is a cheat. That's why they have control of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, a majority of Governors, a majority of State houses and a majority of state senates. It's because no one ever votes for them and they have no support and that voters aren't sick and tired of asshole Democrats, leftists and their supporters.
Click to expand...

Its not like facts matter to you so you'll do what you normally do when faced with an uncomfortable truth, ignore it, but just so you know. Republicans represent less people but hold a disproportionate amount of seats in Congress. Republicans also refused to have a hearing for a supreme court nomination, the first in history since nominations were required to have a hearing before being confirmed (which was also a Republican change that broke precedent). Its also been Republicans that have lost the popular vote while winning the electoral vote for presidency (including trump). Its also Republicans that have a history passing voting laws who's admitted attempt is to disenfranchise voters.

So while it's true that Republicans do get votes (a claim no one has ever said otherwise), its also true that they've rigged elections in their favor.

You may be cool with that but that's because you are a traitor and anti American democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top