If. Big if. The Democrats shot themselves in the foot on this one in 2013. Now that the majority of senate decides who gets nominated by the law they passed when they were able to do so and had senate majority the Republicans can choose who they want without having to talk and compromise on who they want to fill the seats. Now they're talking about using their House majority to create more positions to fill the court up with more judges they approve of-without considering that they might not take the senate, and the republicans could take back the house. Leading to an even higher stack of conservative judges instead of them evening the scales.The Democrtic party is amazingly obtuse at times.
I havent hears of this. Youre saying that the if the democrats lose the SC majority, they are considering expanding the SC to something more than 9 in hopes of regaining the SC majority?
I havent hears of this. Youre saying that the if the democrats lose the SC majority, they are considering expanding the SC to something more than 9 in hopes of regaining the SC majority?
Except it’s RBG who died and she was an amazing woman. She fought for women in the workplace, for abortion, the right to divorce, and many other women’s issues (not that that was her only thing). It also means there’s only 1 female judge now in the Supreme Court. Ya’know a thing of 9 people (normally) that’s supposed to provide an even an fair upholding of the constitution? You’d think that should have a fairly even mix of men and women. And don’t say there’s not enough females in Law because we make up half the students
A female judge part of a group that "The Handmaid's Tale" took partial inspiration from -_-..... who has openly stated twice in the past few days she makes her decisions based off her religion rather than the law.
Well I mean any amount of consistency on behalf of republicans would be the reason.
When Obama had an open seat and wanted to appoint someone TEN months before the election, Republicans argued that doing so SO CLOSE to the election was unfair and the people deserved the right to chose. For that reason the Senate refused to HOLD A VOTE on it (please note that that is NOT the same thing as holding a vote and refusing to confirm the appointment, which would've fallen well within the Senate's authority).
By refusing to HOLD A VOTE (presumably to not have to go on record voting against a moderate and highly qualified judge) they established the precedent that a SCOTUS seat shouldn't be filled during the last year of the presidency, as that strips the people from the possibility to chose.
And now, TWO months before the election, republicans are out here pretending none of that ever happened, and once again proving that they live by the moto 'rules for thee, but not for me.'.
It goes both ways too though. All of the most of the Democratic voices who were insisting that A Justice should be installed in an election year are now saying that it's wrong. The hypocrisy is everywhere and it really comes down to power.
I love this argument because if you reach the conclusion 'both sides are hypocrites' it really showcases how little you've pushed the reflection. Have you asked yourself WHY were all the Democratic voices arguing that a Justice SHOULD be installed back then ?
Well because back then the precedent WAS to have a vote in this scenario. So democrats were arguing for consistency with the established precedent.
Republicans didn't want to follow precedent (presumably because it benefited Democrats), so they came up with the excuse that you shouldn't do that in an election year. Democrats said it was bullshit, but Republicans, once again ignoring existing rules and precedent, set up this new precedent that a Justice shouldn't be appointed in an election year.
[part1]
[part 2]
So now, when Democrats argue that RBG should not be replaced until after the election, they aren't "flip flopping" or "being hypocrites", they are arguing for Republicans to be held to the same standard they were so happy to set back when it benefitted them.
And btw, you have republicans on record back in 2016 saying "if the situation were reversed and it was a Republican president I would absolutely support waiting for the election". But of course, a Republican's word carries very little value.
.
.
You can't play Uno, and when I play 'draw 2' against you say "house rules : I can counter a +2 with my own +2, which carries the total of +4 to the next player", then when 3 turns later you play +2 against me, be upset that I want to counter it with my own +2 because "you disagreed with the house rule when I explained it, you're being a hypocrite".
Whether I complained or not, if you enforced it as a valid rule back then, it's now a rule.
And that is what PRECEDENT is.
The Republicans were referencing Joe Biden’s 1992 speech, not making up the rules. Agreed, you have republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, on record saying they would wait, given the same circumstances. After seeing the way Democrats treated the confirmation hearings of Kavanaugh, those same people are changing their tune.
The Republicans were referencing Joe Biden’s 1992 speech, not making up the rules. Agreed, you have republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, on record saying they would wait, given the same circumstances. After seeing the way Democrats treated the confirmation hearings of Kavanaugh, those same people are changing their tune.
Furthermore, McDonnell explicitly stated in 2016 that when referring to the “Biden rule”, it was when the Senate majority is of the opposing party. 8 times during an election year, a Supreme Court nomination has been made when the Senate and Presidency were aligned, and 7 times, the justices were confirmed, the exception being a nominee that was forced to resign due to ethics problems.
Yes, I'm well aware republicans are changing their tunes. And not confirming a Justice is not the same as not holding a vote to confirm (or not) that Justice.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for stating it's insane how people are acting over this. Turning the emotional dial up to 11 on a 1 to 10 scale does little to help anyone and all the folks saying they're going to burn everything down because her position will likely be filled by a conservative or Republican are hypocritical and it's not biased of me to say that. If it was a Republican justice being replaced by a Democrat no one would say anything, probably wouldnt even be on the news. I'm not saying this as a person who is exactly in love with either side of the aisle, just calling it how I see it.
It's hard to believe your "I'm not partisan" spiel when your main argument is "if the situation was reversed noone would care", but the situation WAS reversed 4 years ago, it WAS on the news BECAUSE republicans refused to follow precedent and proceed to a vote, and now refuse to follow the 'new' precedent they themselves established and THAT is the reason why it's now such a big deal.
So you call it how you see it, through R(ose) tinted glasses.
And if you think a Justice replacement that could literally change the conservation/progressive balance of the SCOTUS, during a time where the US is as divided as it is now would ever NOT make the news, you are quite out of touch with reality.
Your point was no-one would talk about it if the situations were reversed, but PLENTY of people talked about it when the situations were reversed.
It's not even a hypothetical, it's something that literally happened.
For someone who calls themselves interesting, you're not very interesting. It's pretty fucking basic from you viewpoint. Before I go into my rant, I give you credit on this: you're right about Harry Reid, but that doesn't justify it.
I seriously don't understand how you don't get it. You see conservatives in the rural parts of this country grinding tooth and nail over the tyranny of the majority; spouting that tis the reason for the electoral college, yet at the same time, when they have the majority they have no qualms over doing the exact same thing they profuse against, but also claiming they aren't hypocrites at the same time there is video and audio evidence of them being hypocrites. By the way, I'll do you one better; this whole "fake news" crap... guess where it started? Newt Gingrich. This ass-clown started videotaping speeches he made to empty audiences (besides his aides) with the camera specifically centered on him, just to give the illusion that people agreed with his
deranged thoughts. How do you fight the stupidity of people that can be tricked like that?
Edit: That's an honest question... because I haven't thought of one yet.
Edit 2: fuck these ads; if no ads means no notifications, alright.
You guys are resorting to personally attacking? Calling me 'not very interesting'? Alright then. My point was it doesnt do anyone any good when you folks turn the emotional dial up as high as you are, makes it difficult to have any real conversation when you're emotionally fueled 'viewpoint' turns into, as you called it, a rant. Cheers though, you do you. Whatever makes you guys happy.
Did you even read what I actually said? Yeah, a bit emotional, but I backed it all up with verifiable facts to justify said anger. The "personal attack" I just thought was funny. You did literally nothing to disprove anything I said.
Yeah I wasnt really looking to argue with you or poppin, and if I was I wouldnt begin it from a place of raw emotion and name calling bud, and I dont think you were trying to be funny I think you were just angry, sad, emotional and lashing out. Again it's cool you do you and vent however you need to. Not going to try and participate though because it's not a conversation at that point, you're looking for someone to get mad at. But again that's what a lot of folks are doing right now so sort of par for the course.
When Obama had an open seat and wanted to appoint someone TEN months before the election, Republicans argued that doing so SO CLOSE to the election was unfair and the people deserved the right to chose. For that reason the Senate refused to HOLD A VOTE on it (please note that that is NOT the same thing as holding a vote and refusing to confirm the appointment, which would've fallen well within the Senate's authority).
By refusing to HOLD A VOTE (presumably to not have to go on record voting against a moderate and highly qualified judge) they established the precedent that a SCOTUS seat shouldn't be filled during the last year of the presidency, as that strips the people from the possibility to chose.
And now, TWO months before the election, republicans are out here pretending none of that ever happened, and once again proving that they live by the moto 'rules for thee, but not for me.'.
Well because back then the precedent WAS to have a vote in this scenario. So democrats were arguing for consistency with the established precedent.
Republicans didn't want to follow precedent (presumably because it benefited Democrats), so they came up with the excuse that you shouldn't do that in an election year. Democrats said it was bullshit, but Republicans, once again ignoring existing rules and precedent, set up this new precedent that a Justice shouldn't be appointed in an election year.
[part1]
So now, when Democrats argue that RBG should not be replaced until after the election, they aren't "flip flopping" or "being hypocrites", they are arguing for Republicans to be held to the same standard they were so happy to set back when it benefitted them.
And btw, you have republicans on record back in 2016 saying "if the situation were reversed and it was a Republican president I would absolutely support waiting for the election". But of course, a Republican's word carries very little value.
.
.
You can't play Uno, and when I play 'draw 2' against you say "house rules : I can counter a +2 with my own +2, which carries the total of +4 to the next player", then when 3 turns later you play +2 against me, be upset that I want to counter it with my own +2 because "you disagreed with the house rule when I explained it, you're being a hypocrite".
Whether I complained or not, if you enforced it as a valid rule back then, it's now a rule.
And that is what PRECEDENT is.
So you call it how you see it, through R(ose) tinted glasses.
And if you think a Justice replacement that could literally change the conservation/progressive balance of the SCOTUS, during a time where the US is as divided as it is now would ever NOT make the news, you are quite out of touch with reality.
It's not even a hypothetical, it's something that literally happened.
I seriously don't understand how you don't get it. You see conservatives in the rural parts of this country grinding tooth and nail over the tyranny of the majority; spouting that tis the reason for the electoral college, yet at the same time, when they have the majority they have no qualms over doing the exact same thing they profuse against, but also claiming they aren't hypocrites at the same time there is video and audio evidence of them being hypocrites. By the way, I'll do you one better; this whole "fake news" crap... guess where it started? Newt Gingrich. This ass-clown started videotaping speeches he made to empty audiences (besides his aides) with the camera specifically centered on him, just to give the illusion that people agreed with his
Edit: That's an honest question... because I haven't thought of one yet.
Edit 2: fuck these ads; if no ads means no notifications, alright.