Author Topic: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed  (Read 17316 times)

mmmmm and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #150 on: September 21, 2020, 08:43:32 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4572
  • Tommy Points: 230
the hypocrisy coming from both Republicans and Democrats on this is interesting

Well... I've heard a number of asinine comments from the Left (including floating the idea of expanding the court in order to give a new Dem POTUS the opportunity to equalize the divide) -- but I'd disagree that the Dem hypocrisy is anything close to the Republican hypocrisy.  It's pretty easy I think to be able to argue WITHOUT hypocrisy that nominating a Supreme Court Justice with 5 weeks till an election (and with millions of votes already cast) is different from nominating a Justice with 10 months till an election.  IMO there really is no hypocrisy there at all.  On the other hand, Republicans who argued and obstructed for 10 months -- arguing "Let the People decide", arguing it wouldn't matter whether it was an R or a D in the White House, consciously "cementing" a new precedent for withholding nominees in an election year... and R's of course making this argument with a 10 month vacancy in store - while now with only 45 days till the People Decide they're ready to break their own "precedent".   For those (some of them) bible-thumping moral leaders of our US Senate it's suddenly the POTUS' prerogative and duty to select, and Senate's obligation to confirm a new Justice.  No haste -- let's do it.   This may be the most blatantly hypocritical political turnaround in American history.  Good for you Republicans -- you got the Dems coming and going -- on both ends of Trump's America-shattering term.  And they are doing it without hesitation (like they've been given a gift), doing it with no moral compass -- but  certainly within their constitutional right to do so.

I hope the Dems will take on the chin and move to unite rather than further divide this country after the election (actually I think Biden will continue to seek unifying though I'm not sure he'll be able to keep his party in line).  We are sure in a very dangerous and unstable moment in our history.

I suppose you are right in that the hypocrisy of democrats definitely isn't the same as the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue.  The democrats position is now basically, "Well, despite what we said we believed previously we just want you to be consistent, even if it goes against what we said we previously believed".  It leaves one to easily believe if the democrats had the opportunity to do what the republicans are about to try they would do the same.  But that isn't nearly the same as actually doing it.  You can't deny they is no trust in either direction here, however.

But obviously we're in a time now where political parties will do whatever the law allows them to even if previously there were handshake agreements not to do certain things.  'Use whatever leverage you can' is the new modus operandi.

Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Agreed all of the above.

We are really in a precarious moment in history. We need some heroic leadership from both parties to emerge.  Biden has to have conservative/republican voice in his cabinet if he wins, but the divide is getting so much deeper by the minute that I think Dems will eviscerate him if he does.

That's what being a leader is about:  being willing to be eviscerated.  I don't think Biden has it in him -- he's had 40 years to lead, and hasn't -- but if he's elected president, the buck stops with him.  If his party throws a tantrum, wants to defund police, wants to open the border to more illegal immigrants, wants to pack the court, etc., etc. he can easily put an end to it.  "He resisted".  It's called a veto.

But, nobody actually thinks that's what's going to happen.

Biden can barely form a sentence, what makes people believe that he's some last best hope of unification when his actions helped cause our problems that Americans still face today?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #151 on: September 21, 2020, 09:07:57 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16859
  • Tommy Points: 1859
the hypocrisy coming from both Republicans and Democrats on this is interesting

Well... I've heard a number of asinine comments from the Left (including floating the idea of expanding the court in order to give a new Dem POTUS the opportunity to equalize the divide) -- but I'd disagree that the Dem hypocrisy is anything close to the Republican hypocrisy.  It's pretty easy I think to be able to argue WITHOUT hypocrisy that nominating a Supreme Court Justice with 5 weeks till an election (and with millions of votes already cast) is different from nominating a Justice with 10 months till an election.  IMO there really is no hypocrisy there at all.  On the other hand, Republicans who argued and obstructed for 10 months -- arguing "Let the People decide", arguing it wouldn't matter whether it was an R or a D in the White House, consciously "cementing" a new precedent for withholding nominees in an election year... and R's of course making this argument with a 10 month vacancy in store - while now with only 45 days till the People Decide they're ready to break their own "precedent".   For those (some of them) bible-thumping moral leaders of our US Senate it's suddenly the POTUS' prerogative and duty to select, and Senate's obligation to confirm a new Justice.  No haste -- let's do it.   This may be the most blatantly hypocritical political turnaround in American history.  Good for you Republicans -- you got the Dems coming and going -- on both ends of Trump's America-shattering term.  And they are doing it without hesitation (like they've been given a gift), doing it with no moral compass -- but  certainly within their constitutional right to do so.

I hope the Dems will take on the chin and move to unite rather than further divide this country after the election (actually I think Biden will continue to seek unifying though I'm not sure he'll be able to keep his party in line).  We are sure in a very dangerous and unstable moment in our history.

I suppose you are right in that the hypocrisy of democrats definitely isn't the same as the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue.  The democrats position is now basically, "Well, despite what we said we believed previously we just want you to be consistent, even if it goes against what we said we previously believed".  It leaves one to easily believe if the democrats had the opportunity to do what the republicans are about to try they would do the same.  But that isn't nearly the same as actually doing it.  You can't deny they is no trust in either direction here, however.

But obviously we're in a time now where political parties will do whatever the law allows them to even if previously there were handshake agreements not to do certain things.  'Use whatever leverage you can' is the new modus operandi.

Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Agreed all of the above.

We are really in a precarious moment in history. We need some heroic leadership from both parties to emerge.  Biden has to have conservative/republican voice in his cabinet if he wins, but the divide is getting so much deeper by the minute that I think Dems will eviscerate him if he does.

That's what being a leader is about:  being willing to be eviscerated.  I don't think Biden has it in him -- he's had 40 years to lead, and hasn't -- but if he's elected president, the buck stops with him.  If his party throws a tantrum, wants to defund police, wants to open the border to more illegal immigrants, wants to pack the court, etc., etc. he can easily put an end to it.  "He resisted".  It's called a veto.

But, nobody actually thinks that's what's going to happen.

Biden can barely form a sentence, what makes people believe that he's some last best hope of unification when his actions helped cause our problems that Americans still face today?

I realize you are speaking to others as well, but the response seems to be to my post so I'll respond.  I didn't actually say I believe he's a last best hope.  I said I think he'll try because I think he will (if you read what said, you'd see that it was actually somewhat the opposite of your statement -- I said I wasn't sure he could do it).  And I disagree with you about his ability to form a sentence. He did quite well, and without teleprompter, at the Town Hall the other day. Not only formed sentences, but showed a pretty impressive breadth of knowledge.  I will say that in comparison with Trump, he is the current best hope in this election for any sort of post-election unification.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #152 on: September 21, 2020, 09:11:37 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16859
  • Tommy Points: 1859
the hypocrisy coming from both Republicans and Democrats on this is interesting

Well... I've heard a number of asinine comments from the Left (including floating the idea of expanding the court in order to give a new Dem POTUS the opportunity to equalize the divide) -- but I'd disagree that the Dem hypocrisy is anything close to the Republican hypocrisy.  It's pretty easy I think to be able to argue WITHOUT hypocrisy that nominating a Supreme Court Justice with 5 weeks till an election (and with millions of votes already cast) is different from nominating a Justice with 10 months till an election.  IMO there really is no hypocrisy there at all.  On the other hand, Republicans who argued and obstructed for 10 months -- arguing "Let the People decide", arguing it wouldn't matter whether it was an R or a D in the White House, consciously "cementing" a new precedent for withholding nominees in an election year... and R's of course making this argument with a 10 month vacancy in store - while now with only 45 days till the People Decide they're ready to break their own "precedent".   For those (some of them) bible-thumping moral leaders of our US Senate it's suddenly the POTUS' prerogative and duty to select, and Senate's obligation to confirm a new Justice.  No haste -- let's do it.   This may be the most blatantly hypocritical political turnaround in American history.  Good for you Republicans -- you got the Dems coming and going -- on both ends of Trump's America-shattering term.  And they are doing it without hesitation (like they've been given a gift), doing it with no moral compass -- but  certainly within their constitutional right to do so.

I hope the Dems will take on the chin and move to unite rather than further divide this country after the election (actually I think Biden will continue to seek unifying though I'm not sure he'll be able to keep his party in line).  We are sure in a very dangerous and unstable moment in our history.

I suppose you are right in that the hypocrisy of democrats definitely isn't the same as the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue.  The democrats position is now basically, "Well, despite what we said we believed previously we just want you to be consistent, even if it goes against what we said we previously believed".  It leaves one to easily believe if the democrats had the opportunity to do what the republicans are about to try they would do the same.  But that isn't nearly the same as actually doing it.  You can't deny they is no trust in either direction here, however.

But obviously we're in a time now where political parties will do whatever the law allows them to even if previously there were handshake agreements not to do certain things.  'Use whatever leverage you can' is the new modus operandi.

Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Agreed all of the above.

We are really in a precarious moment in history. We need some heroic leadership from both parties to emerge.  Biden has to have conservative/republican voice in his cabinet if he wins, but the divide is getting so much deeper by the minute that I think Dems will eviscerate him if he does.

That's what being a leader is about:  being willing to be eviscerated.  I don't think Biden has it in him -- he's had 40 years to lead, and hasn't -- but if he's elected president, the buck stops with him.  If his party throws a tantrum, wants to defund police, wants to open the border to more illegal immigrants, wants to pack the court, etc., etc. he can easily put an end to it.  "He resisted".  It's called a veto.

But, nobody actually thinks that's what's going to happen.

I think he very well may stand up to the far left.  By saying he'll be eviscerated I wasn't suggesting that I know how he'll respond to it.   And I think it will be relatively easy to stand up to defunding police and opening border to undocumented immigrants because neither of those are actually real policy positions.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #153 on: September 21, 2020, 09:23:24 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12614
  • Tommy Points: 1532
the hypocrisy coming from both Republicans and Democrats on this is interesting

Well... I've heard a number of asinine comments from the Left (including floating the idea of expanding the court in order to give a new Dem POTUS the opportunity to equalize the divide) -- but I'd disagree that the Dem hypocrisy is anything close to the Republican hypocrisy.  It's pretty easy I think to be able to argue WITHOUT hypocrisy that nominating a Supreme Court Justice with 5 weeks till an election (and with millions of votes already cast) is different from nominating a Justice with 10 months till an election.  IMO there really is no hypocrisy there at all.  On the other hand, Republicans who argued and obstructed for 10 months -- arguing "Let the People decide", arguing it wouldn't matter whether it was an R or a D in the White House, consciously "cementing" a new precedent for withholding nominees in an election year... and R's of course making this argument with a 10 month vacancy in store - while now with only 45 days till the People Decide they're ready to break their own "precedent".   For those (some of them) bible-thumping moral leaders of our US Senate it's suddenly the POTUS' prerogative and duty to select, and Senate's obligation to confirm a new Justice.  No haste -- let's do it.   This may be the most blatantly hypocritical political turnaround in American history.  Good for you Republicans -- you got the Dems coming and going -- on both ends of Trump's America-shattering term.  And they are doing it without hesitation (like they've been given a gift), doing it with no moral compass -- but  certainly within their constitutional right to do so.

I hope the Dems will take on the chin and move to unite rather than further divide this country after the election (actually I think Biden will continue to seek unifying though I'm not sure he'll be able to keep his party in line).  We are sure in a very dangerous and unstable moment in our history.

I suppose you are right in that the hypocrisy of democrats definitely isn't the same as the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue.  The democrats position is now basically, "Well, despite what we said we believed previously we just want you to be consistent, even if it goes against what we said we previously believed".  It leaves one to easily believe if the democrats had the opportunity to do what the republicans are about to try they would do the same.  But that isn't nearly the same as actually doing it.  You can't deny they is no trust in either direction here, however.

But obviously we're in a time now where political parties will do whatever the law allows them to even if previously there were handshake agreements not to do certain things.  'Use whatever leverage you can' is the new modus operandi.

Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Agreed all of the above.

We are really in a precarious moment in history. We need some heroic leadership from both parties to emerge.  Biden has to have conservative/republican voice in his cabinet if he wins, but the divide is getting so much deeper by the minute that I think Dems will eviscerate him if he does.

That's what being a leader is about:  being willing to be eviscerated.  I don't think Biden has it in him -- he's had 40 years to lead, and hasn't -- but if he's elected president, the buck stops with him.  If his party throws a tantrum, wants to defund police, wants to open the border to more illegal immigrants, wants to pack the court, etc., etc. he can easily put an end to it.  "He resisted".  It's called a veto.

But, nobody actually thinks that's what's going to happen.

Biden can barely form a sentence, what makes people believe that he's some last best hope of unification when his actions helped cause our problems that Americans still face today?

I realize you are speaking to others as well, but the response seems to be to my post so I'll respond.  I didn't actually say I believe he's a last best hope.  I said I think he'll try because I think he will (if you read what said, you'd see that it was actually somewhat the opposite of your statement -- I said I wasn't sure he could do it).  And I disagree with you about his ability to form a sentence. He did quite well, and without teleprompter, at the Town Hall the other day. Not only formed sentences, but showed a pretty impressive breadth of knowledge.  I will say that in comparison with Trump, he is the current best hope in this election for any sort of post-election unification.

I wanted to vote for Biden but I just don't believe he will stand up to his party.  He is going to do whatever they tell him and what that party currently is pushing is primarily not anything I can ever get on board with.  He may think of himself as a unifier but he's far more of a puppet than I think even he realizes.

I loathe Trump and the republican party platform is every bit as gross to me as anything the dems are pushing.  So, here I am once again just disgusted with it all.  I'm 100% confident the only way any divide could ever be bridged is if the presidency was held by someone who can clearly be distinguished as neither conservative/republican nor progressive/democrat.  My ideal would be a democratic senate, republican house, and a libertarian president.  Split the power and make them work together.  I do realize this isn't going to happen, though.  I'm just not playing this bull crap game of pick a side when both sides suck.

That's mostly off-topic though.  As for the topic, you can bet the reps in the senate are pushing this through.  I cannot fathom them letting this opportunity pass.  We'll see how bad the fallout from that is.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #154 on: September 21, 2020, 09:35:27 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Tommy Points: 200
  • The voice of reason
NG, you seem like a reasonable person. I don’t generally tell people how they should vote, but I’m fairly certain that you’re being taken for a ride if you think that Biden has any clue about what’s going on. His handlers don’t let him speak unscripted. Ever. This entire thing is a charade. His brain is mush.

If Biden wins you’ll be kicking yourself. I actually can’t believe that there is any centrist on the planet still not on the Trump train after all we’ve seen over the last 12 years. I went in to vote intending on voting for Hillary because I viewed a Trump as a moron, but changed my mind last second. Best election decision I’ve ever made.

He’s not perfect and I still think that he’s pretty much a moron, but at least I know for 100% certainty that there won’t be any leftist nonsense... and that’s a big relief for me.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #155 on: September 21, 2020, 09:50:42 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42664
  • Tommy Points: -27082
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
“Democrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #156 on: September 21, 2020, 09:53:06 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4572
  • Tommy Points: 230
the hypocrisy coming from both Republicans and Democrats on this is interesting

Well... I've heard a number of asinine comments from the Left (including floating the idea of expanding the court in order to give a new Dem POTUS the opportunity to equalize the divide) -- but I'd disagree that the Dem hypocrisy is anything close to the Republican hypocrisy.  It's pretty easy I think to be able to argue WITHOUT hypocrisy that nominating a Supreme Court Justice with 5 weeks till an election (and with millions of votes already cast) is different from nominating a Justice with 10 months till an election.  IMO there really is no hypocrisy there at all.  On the other hand, Republicans who argued and obstructed for 10 months -- arguing "Let the People decide", arguing it wouldn't matter whether it was an R or a D in the White House, consciously "cementing" a new precedent for withholding nominees in an election year... and R's of course making this argument with a 10 month vacancy in store - while now with only 45 days till the People Decide they're ready to break their own "precedent".   For those (some of them) bible-thumping moral leaders of our US Senate it's suddenly the POTUS' prerogative and duty to select, and Senate's obligation to confirm a new Justice.  No haste -- let's do it.   This may be the most blatantly hypocritical political turnaround in American history.  Good for you Republicans -- you got the Dems coming and going -- on both ends of Trump's America-shattering term.  And they are doing it without hesitation (like they've been given a gift), doing it with no moral compass -- but  certainly within their constitutional right to do so.

I hope the Dems will take on the chin and move to unite rather than further divide this country after the election (actually I think Biden will continue to seek unifying though I'm not sure he'll be able to keep his party in line).  We are sure in a very dangerous and unstable moment in our history.

I suppose you are right in that the hypocrisy of democrats definitely isn't the same as the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue.  The democrats position is now basically, "Well, despite what we said we believed previously we just want you to be consistent, even if it goes against what we said we previously believed".  It leaves one to easily believe if the democrats had the opportunity to do what the republicans are about to try they would do the same.  But that isn't nearly the same as actually doing it.  You can't deny they is no trust in either direction here, however.

But obviously we're in a time now where political parties will do whatever the law allows them to even if previously there were handshake agreements not to do certain things.  'Use whatever leverage you can' is the new modus operandi.

Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Agreed all of the above.

We are really in a precarious moment in history. We need some heroic leadership from both parties to emerge.  Biden has to have conservative/republican voice in his cabinet if he wins, but the divide is getting so much deeper by the minute that I think Dems will eviscerate him if he does.

That's what being a leader is about:  being willing to be eviscerated.  I don't think Biden has it in him -- he's had 40 years to lead, and hasn't -- but if he's elected president, the buck stops with him.  If his party throws a tantrum, wants to defund police, wants to open the border to more illegal immigrants, wants to pack the court, etc., etc. he can easily put an end to it.  "He resisted".  It's called a veto.

But, nobody actually thinks that's what's going to happen.

Biden can barely form a sentence, what makes people believe that he's some last best hope of unification when his actions helped cause our problems that Americans still face today?

I realize you are speaking to others as well, but the response seems to be to my post so I'll respond.  I didn't actually say I believe he's a last best hope.  I said I think he'll try because I think he will (if you read what said, you'd see that it was actually somewhat the opposite of your statement -- I said I wasn't sure he could do it).  And I disagree with you about his ability to form a sentence. He did quite well, and without teleprompter, at the Town Hall the other day. Not only formed sentences, but showed a pretty impressive breadth of knowledge.  I will say that in comparison with Trump, he is the current best hope in this election for any sort of post-election unification.

So he did fine out of of all the times he "gaffed" and looked like he's about to keel over. The only people Biden will unify are the neocons and the neoliberals.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #157 on: September 21, 2020, 09:53:24 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15125
  • Tommy Points: 2752
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
“Democrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

My only thing with this is -

Lindsey and the 'Publicans can do what they want. They DO have the numbers and such, at face value.

But when will it stop? The back and forth?

There WILL be repercussions....we all know this.
Augustus Freeman IV - the Superman of the South. Read Milestone Comics.

Good Trouble.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #158 on: September 21, 2020, 10:16:55 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10560
  • Tommy Points: 1338
  • Entitled waves will wash us all away
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
“Democrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

No amount of trying to justify this will ever make it okay. The Rs got their way in 2016 and they got their way with Kavanaugh. Of course the right will eat it up - obviously you have - but GF is correct, there will be consequences.

I honestly (and foolishly) thought that people would see this hypocrisy for what it is. You really need to do a lot of mental gymnastics to think that this sounds right and this sounds fair.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #159 on: September 21, 2020, 10:31:47 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42664
  • Tommy Points: -27082
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
“Democrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

No amount of trying to justify this will ever make it okay. The Rs got their way in 2016 and they got their way with Kavanaugh. Of course the right will eat it up - obviously you have - but GF is correct, there will be consequences.

I honestly (and foolishly) thought that people would see this hypocrisy for what it is. You really need to do a lot of mental gymnastics to think that this sounds right and this sounds fair.

It sounds Constitutional, which is all that really matters.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #160 on: September 21, 2020, 10:45:31 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15125
  • Tommy Points: 2752
McConnell claims that in 2016 Pres. Obama COULD not insert Merrick Garland because of lack of votes.

Is this true?

So there was NO WAY for Pres. Obama to get Garland in? Force the issue?
Augustus Freeman IV - the Superman of the South. Read Milestone Comics.

Good Trouble.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #161 on: September 21, 2020, 10:56:27 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42664
  • Tommy Points: -27082
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
McConnell claims that in 2016 Pres. Obama COULD not insert Merrick Garland because of lack of votes.

Is this true?

So there was NO WAY for Pres. Obama to get Garland in? Force the issue?

Republicans held the Senate and they could have voted against his nomination, correct.  The President can’t ram through a nominee without 50+ Senate votes.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #162 on: September 21, 2020, 10:59:36 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7868
  • Tommy Points: 1318
the hypocrisy coming from both Republicans and Democrats on this is interesting

Well... I've heard a number of asinine comments from the Left (including floating the idea of expanding the court in order to give a new Dem POTUS the opportunity to equalize the divide) -- but I'd disagree that the Dem hypocrisy is anything close to the Republican hypocrisy.  It's pretty easy I think to be able to argue WITHOUT hypocrisy that nominating a Supreme Court Justice with 5 weeks till an election (and with millions of votes already cast) is different from nominating a Justice with 10 months till an election.  IMO there really is no hypocrisy there at all.  On the other hand, Republicans who argued and obstructed for 10 months -- arguing "Let the People decide", arguing it wouldn't matter whether it was an R or a D in the White House, consciously "cementing" a new precedent for withholding nominees in an election year... and R's of course making this argument with a 10 month vacancy in store - while now with only 45 days till the People Decide they're ready to break their own "precedent".   For those (some of them) bible-thumping moral leaders of our US Senate it's suddenly the POTUS' prerogative and duty to select, and Senate's obligation to confirm a new Justice.  No haste -- let's do it.   This may be the most blatantly hypocritical political turnaround in American history.  Good for you Republicans -- you got the Dems coming and going -- on both ends of Trump's America-shattering term.  And they are doing it without hesitation (like they've been given a gift), doing it with no moral compass -- but  certainly within their constitutional right to do so.

I hope the Dems will take on the chin and move to unite rather than further divide this country after the election (actually I think Biden will continue to seek unifying though I'm not sure he'll be able to keep his party in line).  We are sure in a very dangerous and unstable moment in our history.

I suppose you are right in that the hypocrisy of democrats definitely isn't the same as the hypocrisy of republicans on this issue.  The democrats position is now basically, "Well, despite what we said we believed previously we just want you to be consistent, even if it goes against what we said we previously believed".  It leaves one to easily believe if the democrats had the opportunity to do what the republicans are about to try they would do the same.  But that isn't nearly the same as actually doing it.  You can't deny they is no trust in either direction here, however.

But obviously we're in a time now where political parties will do whatever the law allows them to even if previously there were handshake agreements not to do certain things.  'Use whatever leverage you can' is the new modus operandi.

Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Agreed all of the above.

We are really in a precarious moment in history. We need some heroic leadership from both parties to emerge.  Biden has to have conservative/republican voice in his cabinet if he wins, but the divide is getting so much deeper by the minute that I think Dems will eviscerate him if he does.

That's what being a leader is about:  being willing to be eviscerated.  I don't think Biden has it in him -- he's had 40 years to lead, and hasn't -- but if he's elected president, the buck stops with him.  If his party throws a tantrum, wants to defund police, wants to open the border to more illegal immigrants, wants to pack the court, etc., etc. he can easily put an end to it.  "He resisted".  It's called a veto.

But, nobody actually thinks that's what's going to happen.

Biden can barely form a sentence, what makes people believe that he's some last best hope of unification when his actions helped cause our problems that Americans still face today?

I realize you are speaking to others as well, but the response seems to be to my post so I'll respond.  I didn't actually say I believe he's a last best hope.  I said I think he'll try because I think he will (if you read what said, you'd see that it was actually somewhat the opposite of your statement -- I said I wasn't sure he could do it).  And I disagree with you about his ability to form a sentence. He did quite well, and without teleprompter, at the Town Hall the other day. Not only formed sentences, but showed a pretty impressive breadth of knowledge.  I will say that in comparison with Trump, he is the current best hope in this election for any sort of post-election unification.

I wanted to vote for Biden but I just don't believe he will stand up to his party.  He is going to do whatever they tell him and what that party currently is pushing is primarily not anything I can ever get on board with.  He may think of himself as a unifier but he's far more of a puppet than I think even he realizes.

I loathe Trump and the republican party platform is every bit as gross to me as anything the dems are pushing.  So, here I am once again just disgusted with it all.  I'm 100% confident the only way any divide could ever be bridged is if the presidency was held by someone who can clearly be distinguished as neither conservative/republican nor progressive/democrat.  My ideal would be a democratic senate, republican house, and a libertarian president.  Split the power and make them work together.  I do realize this isn't going to happen, though.  I'm just not playing this bull crap game of pick a side when both sides suck.

That's mostly off-topic though.  As for the topic, you can bet the reps in the senate are pushing this through.  I cannot fathom them letting this opportunity pass.  We'll see how bad the fallout from that is.

Why not - flip Senate and House, and I'm all for it.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2020, 11:20:54 PM by tarheelsxxiii »
You don't need a pack of wild horses to learn how to make a sandwich.

-Dr. Phil

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #163 on: September 21, 2020, 11:07:14 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15125
  • Tommy Points: 2752
McConnell claims that in 2016 Pres. Obama COULD not insert Merrick Garland because of lack of votes.

Is this true?

So there was NO WAY for Pres. Obama to get Garland in? Force the issue?

Republicans held the Senate and they could have voted against his nomination, correct.  The President can’t ram through a nominee without 50+ Senate votes.

Thanks....thought so. so McConnell was correct for a change.

All this does is reinforce to me that Dems have GOT to keep the base energized - not ONLY with General elections but with EVERY one.

Republicans have been plotting to do stuff like what is happening now for MANY years...I give them more credit than Dems for grassroots efforts like this.

Find a way to keep their 40 or so % base happy...split the Black vote and other minorities...split women votes...etc....etc....they are truly surgical, if nothing else.

They did this in 2016 with quite the precision....and I wondered in horror how The Democratic Party got to the point where we had none other than CORNEL WEST voting for Jill Stein (and probably pulling MORE Black votes away from Hillary).

Politics is drama at its best, sadly.

Will the current furor FINALLY get "ALL" Dems to the polls? Not only in November but in EVERY election? Stay tuned.
Augustus Freeman IV - the Superman of the South. Read Milestone Comics.

Good Trouble.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #164 on: September 21, 2020, 11:55:51 PM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3180
  • Tommy Points: 495
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
“Democrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

No amount of trying to justify this will ever make it okay. The Rs got their way in 2016 and they got their way with Kavanaugh. Of course the right will eat it up - obviously you have - but GF is correct, there will be consequences.

I honestly (and foolishly) thought that people would see this hypocrisy for what it is. You really need to do a lot of mental gymnastics to think that this sounds right and this sounds fair.

It sounds Constitutional, which is all that really matters.
on the bright side: it’s constitutional to add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states as well as adding more S.C. Justices
I trust Danny Ainge