pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,632
- 4,685
- 136
Well then either Scalia’s seat was stolen or RBG’s seat will be stolen. Can’t have it both ways.
Stolen from who?
Well then either Scalia’s seat was stolen or RBG’s seat will be stolen. Can’t have it both ways.
No it's not, he's passed legislation, it just isn't the legislation the far left and extremists want. Nope, but have fun tossing those strawmen out there.Any legislation is unpassable in the Senate because Mitch in in charge.
By unreasonable do you mean voting rights legislation to fix Republicans gutting the 65 Act with the Shelby case?
God forbid minorities have equal access to the polls.
You seem to be forgetting the previous 30 year history.Mitch decided to burn everything down when he stole Obama's pick in 2016. That's when the war was started.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
You didnt. You implied Dems dont do the same thing.
How about when Democrats used the filibuster to attempt blocking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Well OK, we're all saying that, but what the Democrats said uncountable times in 2016 is exactly what Senate Majority Leader McConnell is doing now. Filling an open seat. What you are angry about is he didn't do it when you wanted him to do it and now he's doing it when you don't want him to do it.
Elections have consequences.
Yes, shitty policies and unreasonable and extreme legislation that is unpassable with this Senate and this President, but by golly they have them.
I send soccer bails sailing over the crossbar every weekend and lament every time that no one awards me 3 points. Both parties know how the gane works. The Democrats solidified their coalitions in population centers, the GOP played the whole field. Those coalitions are shifting once again.
They did within the parameters of how our system of government works
You seem to be forgetting the previous 30 year history.
or the high-tech lynching of Judge Thomas.![]()
Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
![]()
Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The states picked the republican senate and president. Any attempt to claim the people did is dishonest. Not that this will stop you, Republicans love to claim they have a mandate from the people whole receiving a minority of the votes.They did within the parameters of how our system of government works
Gosh i'm sorry Starbuck, you don't seem to understand that Republicans are always evil and wicked and Democrats are always pure and sweet and perfect. That even though Ted Kennedy /Joe Biden and other Democrats went far beyond the established norms to attack nominee Judge Bork that somehow and someway it's the Republicans fault for it. And when Reid exercised the nuke option for judicial nominees it was also the evil and wicked Republicans fault because Democrats are always honest and truthful and only want what's good for everyone and as "we" all know the Republicans are nasty and evil.
The same for the "high-tech lynching" of Judge Thomas by the Democrats and the smears and lies about Judge Kavanaugh by the Democrats. The Democrats have been swimming in the judicial cesspool of their own making for decades, but they want to blame it on Republicans.
So you think Bork was a good nominee then? That explains a lot about you.You seem to be forgetting the previous 30 year history.
or the high-tech lynching of Judge Thomas.![]()
Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
![]()
Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Far-left extremists" defined as all Democrats, of course.No it's not, he's passed legislation, it just isn't the legislation the far left and extremists want. Nope, but have fun tossing those strawmen out there.
Great, then I don’t want to hear any complaints from you if the Democrats expand the court or add states. Both of those things are every bit as much by the rules as what Republicans are doing now.Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.
Also, Bork’s nomination failed because he was unable to get 51 votes, not because of any procedural nonsense. He was a bad nominee and he lost, in no small part because he attempted to enable Nixon’s corruption.So you think Bork was a good nominee then? That explains a lot about you.
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.
This, exactly. Democracies are fundamentally built on mutual cooperation even within a system of competition for votes. There are lots of things leaders CAN do that they choose not to because of the effects on that system.The argument is that it was totally different because Republicans held the Senate in 2016 and Democrats do not in 2020. It’s obviously not a good faith argument, but it just boils down to “We did it because we could, and you can’t, so you won’t.”
So, I don’t want to hear one damn argument that Democrats shouldn’t rebalance the courts. They can do it if they can. That’s the precedent now.
As Lindsay Graham made painfully clear, the precedent that they were pretending to be following said nothing about who controlled the senate and everything about an election year.
Now, we all knew this was not a good faith argument, and the fact that they immediately reneged on this bad faith precedent confirms those suspicions.
At least Trump didn’t pretend that this is more than it is. He said they are doing it because they can. That’s the most honest thing he’s ever said.
And, if that’s the precedent, I don’t want to hear any complaints when Democrats rebalance the court next year if they can. Because "they can"
Say your playing monopoly with your “friend” at his house, and after landing on go he reaches to collect $400. When you complain he says “Its a house rule. If you land on go you collect $400 instead of $200. My house my rules”.
You Grumble but the game goes on. A few turns later you land on go, and when you try to collect he says “No that rule only applies to me, not to you. Besides, I thought you didn’t like that rule.”
Is there any point in continuing the game?
Yep ... Nutty as a fruitcake. She is a member of a cult within the Catholic Church called The People of Praise. Margaret Atwood said she based The Hadmaid’s Tale on this cult. Every person in the cult is assigned a head, if they’re male, or a handmaid, if they’re female. They control whom the members marry, and how they raise their children. They also believe that men have total control over their wives.
![]()
Amy Coney Barrett's Connection to People of Praise Explained
Amy Coney Barrett and her husband both belong to the People of Praise group, which teaches that men have authority over their wives.www.newsweek.com
neither
The first case was underhanded bullshit. The senate should have simply voted against Obamas appointment rather than play foolish games. Regardless, it was legal. This time there isn't anything the least bit shady going on. A justice passed away, Trump gets to appoint a new one, the senate votes yes or no. End of story. Pretending that there is something nefarious going on is absurd. Pretending that RBG has some right to determine who or when her replacement is seated is even more absurd.
The people took away Obama’s control of the legislature and denied Hillary the White House despite what Mitch did to Garland. That narrative is simply a matter of perspective.
Also, Bork’s nomination failed because he was unable to get 51 votes, not because of any procedural nonsense. He was a bad nominee and he lost, in no small part because he attempted to enable Nixon’s corruption.
