hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Sept 19, 2020 22:13:15 GMT -5
Hypocrite scumbag McConnell has already said that Trump's nominee will get a vote by the Senate when he denied Judge Merrick Garland even a hearing because it was an electoon year. Republicans are pure scum. First of all, I don't believe the republicans can garner enough republican votes to confirm a nominee before January; and, there will surely be no Dems to support such a move. However, the Democrats created this situation. Prior to Robert Bork, for the most part a president was afforded the privilege of placing his nominee on the bench but, with Bork, the Democrats started treating it as blood sport. They destroyed Bork, almost did the same to Clarence Thomas (50-48), and attempted to do likewise to Neil Gorsuch (54-45) and Brett Kavanagh (50-48). Even Samuel Alito garnered but four Democrat votes. Only John Roberts enjoyed more than a few Dem votes. All the while the Republicans, for the most part, played nice. Ginsberg was approved 96-3, Sotomayor 68-31. Then, to top it off the Dems changed the rules to allow judges to be confirmed by majority vote. They made their bed, now they are crying they might have to sleep in it. Boo hoo. All you who are saying it's the right thing to do to wait until after the new president is installed, have no moral ground on which to stand. I hope Trump submits a qualified candidate, preferably female, and McConnell rams it through. Then the Court will have 13 members next year. No whining when it happens.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,252
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 20, 2020 4:37:04 GMT -5
Hyopcrites - Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey and their fellow Trump cultists. thehill.com/homenews/media/517219-toobin-mcconnell-engaging-in-greatest-act-of-hypocrisy-in-american-politicalwww.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/mcconnell-hypocrisy-supreme-court-confirmation-ruth-bader-ginsburg/www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914715510/vermont-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-challenge-of-replacing-justice-ginsburg www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-graham-ginsburg-senate/2020/09/19/4712b310-fa88-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” 2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” 2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.” 2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” 2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” 2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” 2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.” 2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” 2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.” 2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” -- Mitch McConnell, March 2016
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,252
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 20, 2020 8:25:58 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 20, 2020 8:37:01 GMT -5
First of all, I don't believe the republicans can garner enough republican votes to confirm a nominee before January; and, there will surely be no Dems to support such a move. However, the Democrats created this situation. Prior to Robert Bork, for the most part a president was afforded the privilege of placing his nominee on the bench but, with Bork, the Democrats started treating it as blood sport. They destroyed Bork, almost did the same to Clarence Thomas (50-48), and attempted to do likewise to Neil Gorsuch (54-45) and Brett Kavanagh (50-48). Even Samuel Alito garnered but four Democrat votes. Only John Roberts enjoyed more than a few Dem votes. All the while the Republicans, for the most part, played nice. Ginsberg was approved 96-3, Sotomayor 68-31. Then, to top it off the Dems changed the rules to allow judges to be confirmed by majority vote. They made their bed, now they are crying they might have to sleep in it. Boo hoo. All you who are saying it's the right thing to do to wait until after the new president is installed, have no moral ground on which to stand. I hope Trump submits a qualified candidate, preferably female, and McConnell rams it through. Then the Court will have 13 members next year. No whining when it happens. 4 more Trump picks? Wow
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Sept 20, 2020 9:00:26 GMT -5
Hyopcrites - Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey and their fellow Trump cultists. thehill.com/homenews/media/517219-toobin-mcconnell-engaging-in-greatest-act-of-hypocrisy-in-american-politicalwww.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/mcconnell-hypocrisy-supreme-court-confirmation-ruth-bader-ginsburg/www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914715510/vermont-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-challenge-of-replacing-justice-ginsburg www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-graham-ginsburg-senate/2020/09/19/4712b310-fa88-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” 2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” 2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.” 2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” 2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” 2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” 2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.” 2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” 2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.” 2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” -- Mitch McConnell, March 2016 It is the case that during the Merrick Garland fight, a bunch of Republicans said we shouldn’t confirm a new Supreme Court justice before an election — and now say something else. It’s also the case that a bunch of Democrats at that time said we should confirm a new Supreme Court justice before an election — and now say something else. Why is only one of these developments considered hypocrisy? Either we can have a confirmation vote before an election, or we can’t — in which case, “Garland’s seat” was not “stolen,” as Democrats insist. You cannot have it both ways. It would be easier if we stopped pretending that this fight is about something other than straightforward power politics. Hypocrisy Hypocrisy
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 20, 2020 9:10:59 GMT -5
Interesting view but fundamental fairness requires the distinction be drawn between February 2016 and mid September 2020.
Hypocrisy abounds in DC. On this current battle of entrenched hypocrites the Democrats get a 5 while Republicans get a perfect 10 .
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,252
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 20, 2020 9:38:53 GMT -5
Yes, hypocrisy in DC is rampant.
But Garland was nominated March 16, 2016 and Turtleman declared that Garland would never even get a hearing much less a vote in the Senate.
We are now 6 weeks from an election and Turtleman has declared whoever the sociopath nominates will get a vote in the Senate.
IMO it's false equivalence to equate the Dems position that Garland's nomination should have proceeded as hypocritical because they now say that no nomination should go forward six weeks from the election. The circumstances are not analogous.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 20, 2020 9:40:08 GMT -5
Garland was nominated March 16, 2016 and Turtleman declared that Garland would never even get a hearing much less a vote in the Senate. We are now 6 weeks from an election and Turtleman has declared whoever the sociopath nominates will get a vote in the Senate. IMO it's false equivalence to equate the Dems position that Garland's nomination should have proceeded as hypocritical because they now say that no nomination should go forward six weeks from the election. The circumstances are not analogous. They are analogous. They are not identical. And the Republicans are wrong here, very wrong.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,252
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 20, 2020 9:50:24 GMT -5
Hypocrisy:
Trump announced Saturday night that his nominee to succeed Ginsburg on the Supreme Court will be “a very talented, very brilliant woman.”
But last month, Trump criticized Biden for saying that he would choose a woman as his running mate, telling Fox News Radio, “Some people would say that men are insulted by that."
Asked by host Clay Travis in last month’s interview to weigh in on Biden’s vice-presidential selection process, Trump responded that he personally “would be inclined to go a different route” because Biden “roped himself into, you know, a certain group of people.”
“He said he had to pick a woman,” Travis replied.
“He said that,” Trump said. “And, you know, some people would say that men are insulted by that. And some people would say it’s fine. I don’t know." -- The Washington Post, 9/20/20
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,336
|
Post by hoyajinx on Sept 20, 2020 9:59:47 GMT -5
Interesting view but fundamental fairness requires the distinction be drawn between February 2016 and mid September 2020. Hypocrisy abounds in DC. On this current battle of entrenched hypocrites the Democrats get a 5 while Republicans get a perfect 10 . Agree with this 100%. In all the years leading up to Trump, I thought Senate and House Democrats‘ hypocrisy was unmatched. Then Trump came along and the Republicans have managed to lap the Democrats tenfold.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,479
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 20, 2020 10:23:20 GMT -5
Drain the swamp!!
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Sept 20, 2020 10:25:40 GMT -5
I hope that no nomination is made and no one is considered before the election. It is only the right and fair thing to do. Having said that, should Trump win in November (long shot at best) I will have no interest in any argument that he need temper his appointment to fill the seat held by RBG in order to preserve someone’s idea of balance. As Mr Obama so brilliantly said, elections have consequences. We don't have elections anymore. Trump might maintain power, but when the incumbent says up front that he's going to declare victory on election night and sue to not count any results and leverage all the judges he's installed including a Supreme he's going to try to install less than 60 days before with the understanding that this will come before them and his candidate will need to rule in his favor, that's not an election :
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 20, 2020 10:45:29 GMT -5
First of all, I don't believe the republicans can garner enough republican votes to confirm a nominee before January; and, there will surely be no Dems to support such a move. However, the Democrats created this situation. Prior to Robert Bork, for the most part a president was afforded the privilege of placing his nominee on the bench but, with Bork, the Democrats started treating it as blood sport. They destroyed Bork, almost did the same to Clarence Thomas (50-48), and attempted to do likewise to Neil Gorsuch (54-45) and Brett Kavanagh (50-48). Even Samuel Alito garnered but four Democrat votes. Only John Roberts enjoyed more than a few Dem votes. All the while the Republicans, for the most part, played nice. Ginsberg was approved 96-3, Sotomayor 68-31. Then, to top it off the Dems changed the rules to allow judges to be confirmed by majority vote. They made their bed, now they are crying they might have to sleep in it. Boo hoo. All you who are saying it's the right thing to do to wait until after the new president is installed, have no moral ground on which to stand. I hope Trump submits a qualified candidate, preferably female, and McConnell rams it through. If one's default position is that everything is the fault of the Democrats in every situation every time, and the Republicans are completely blameless no matter what happens, well then sure. I can see your points above. But let's take a little bit closer look at the facts. Bork. Why did the Dems resist him so firmly? Have you forgotten the role he played in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre? Nixon wanted to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox... for getting too close to Nixon's culpability in Watergate. Back when the Republicans had principled men and women, Attorny General Elliot Richardson refused to fire Cox, so Nixon fired the AG. Next, Acting AG William Ruckekshaus also refused, Nixon fired him too. What happened next? Where would Nixon find a Republican lackey willing to do his dirty work? Up stepped Robert Bork, thereby forever besmirching his name and reputation and making him morally ineligible for a LIFETIME seat on the United States Supreme Court. Now people can argue about this all they want, but a person appointed to SCOTUS should be beyond reproach. There were plenty of other, highly qualified candidates who could have been appointed. And guess what, Reagan's next nominee -- Anthony Kennedy, was approved 97-0, just as the previous nominee - ultra hard right Antonin Scalia, was approved 98-0. And after Kennedy, the next Republcan nominee, David Souter, was also approved by a wide margin, 90-9 So was the Bork situation some unprecedented and wholly unjustified anti-Republican attack by the Dems? Or was it a more-than-justified refusal to confirm to the US Supreme Court, someone who had undertaken such a morally questionable (at the very least) step earlier in his career? And subsequent to that, when you claim the Republicans "played nice", and the Dems did not, what actually happened? See voting totals below. By the way, Ed, it wasn't the Dems who eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices, it was Moscow Mitch. Let's look at your final point: MORAL GROUNDS.
You wrote: All you who are saying it's the right thing to do to wait until after the new president is installed, have no moral ground on which to stand.
Are you saying that McConnell also had no moral grounds to keep the 9th seat on the court open for more than a year by refusing to even meet with, let alone consider, totally qualified Merrick Garland who had been approved by a Senate vote of 76-23 to his spot on the US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia? So why did Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have such close votes? Was it really because the "Democrats wouldn't play nice?" Or was it because McConnell and the rest of his party took a totally unprecedented and morally and ethically unjustifiable stand by refusing not just a vote, not just a committe hearing, but would not even meet with Garland -- whom they had previously easily approved to the District Court position? McConnell was refusing to fulfill his advise and consent responsibility -- something which had never before happened in the United States Senate. Nominee Nominated Vote Result & Date President Trump, Donald
Kavanaugh, Brett Jul 10, 2018 50-48 C Oct 6, 2018 Gorsuch, Neil M. Feb 1, 2017 54-45 C Apr 7, 2017 President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B. Mar 16, 2016 No vote Kagan, Elena May 10, 2010 63-37 C Aug 5, 2010 Sotomayor, Sonia Jun 1, 2009 68-31 C Aug 6, 2009 President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. Nov 10, 2005 58-42 C Jan 31, 2006 Miers, Harriet O'Connor Oct 7, 2005 W Oct 28, 2005 (W = withdrawn) Roberts, John G., Jr. Sep 6, 2005 78-22 C Sep 29, 2005 President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G. May 17, 1994 87-9 C Jul 29, 1994 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Jun 22, 1993 96-3 C Aug 3, 1993 President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence Jul 8, 1991 52-48 C Oct 15, 1991 Souter, David H. Jul 25, 1990 90-9 C Oct 2, 1990 President Reagan, Ronald
Kennedy, Anthony M. Nov 30, 1987 97-0 C Feb 3, 1988 Bork, Robert H. Jul 7, 1987 42-58 R Oct 23, 1987 Scalia, Antonin Jun 24, 1986 98-0 C Sep 17, 1986 Rehnquist, William H. Jun 20, 1986 65-33 C Sep 17, 1986 O'Connor, Sandra Day Aug 19, 1981 99-0 C Sep 21, 1981
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,336
|
Post by hoyajinx on Sept 20, 2020 10:59:31 GMT -5
First of all, I don't believe the republicans can garner enough republican votes to confirm a nominee before January; and, there will surely be no Dems to support such a move. However, the Democrats created this situation. Prior to Robert Bork, for the most part a president was afforded the privilege of placing his nominee on the bench but, with Bork, the Democrats started treating it as blood sport. They destroyed Bork, almost did the same to Clarence Thomas (50-48), and attempted to do likewise to Neil Gorsuch (54-45) and Brett Kavanagh (50-48). Even Samuel Alito garnered but four Democrat votes. Only John Roberts enjoyed more than a few Dem votes. All the while the Republicans, for the most part, played nice. Ginsberg was approved 96-3, Sotomayor 68-31. Then, to top it off the Dems changed the rules to allow judges to be confirmed by majority vote. They made their bed, now they are crying they might have to sleep in it. Boo hoo. All you who are saying it's the right thing to do to wait until after the new president is installed, have no moral ground on which to stand. I hope Trump submits a qualified candidate, preferably female, and McConnell rams it through. If one's default position is that everything is the fault of the Democrats in every situation every time, and the Republicans are completely blameless no matter what happens, well then sure. I can see your points above. But let's take a little bit closer look at the facts. Bork. Why did the Dems resist him so firmly? Have you forgotten the role he played in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre? Nixon wanted to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox... for getting too close to Nixon's culpability in Watergate. Back when the Republicans had principled men and women, Attorny General Elliot Richardson refused to fire Cox, so Nixon fired him. Next, Acting AG William Ruckekshaus also refused, Nixon fired him too. What happened next? Where would Nixon find a Republican lackey willing to do his dirty work? Up stepped Robert Bork, thereby forever besmirching his name and reputation and making him morally ineligible for a LIFETIME seat on the United States Supreme Court. Now people can argue about this all they want, but a person appointed to SCOTUS should be beyond reproach. There were plenty of other, highly qualified candidates who could have been appointed. And guess what, Reagan's next nominee -- Anthony Kennedy, was approved 97-0, just as the previous nominee - ultra hard right Antonin Scalia, was approved 98-0. And after Kennedy, the next Republcan nominee, David Souter, was also approved by a wide margin, 90-9 So was the Bork situation some unprecedented and wholly unjustified anti-Republican attack by the Dems? Or was it a more-than-justified refusal to confirm to the US Supreme Court, someone who had undertaken such a morally questionable (at the very least) step earlier in his career? And subsequent to that, when you claim the Republicans "played nice", and the Dems did not, what actually happened? See voting totals below. By the way, Ed, it wasn't the Dems who eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices, it was Moscow Mitch. Let's look at your final point: MORAL GROUNDS.
You wrote: All you who are saying it's the right thing to do to wait until after the new president is installed, have no moral ground on which to stand.
Are you saying that McConnell also had no moral grounds to keep the 9th seat on the court open for more than a year by refusing to even meet with, let alone consider, totally qualified Merrick Garland who had been approved by a Senate vote of 76-23 to his spot on the US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia? So whey did Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have such close votes? Was it really because the "Democrats wouldn't play nice?" Or was it because McConnell and the rest of his party took a totally unprecedented and morally and ethically unjustifiable stand by refusing not just a vote, not just a committe hearing, but would not even meet with Garland -- whom they had previously easily approved to the District Court position? McConnell was refusing to fulfill his advice and consent responsibility -- something which had never before happened in the United States Senate. Nominee Nominated Vote Result & Date President Trump, Donald
Kavanaugh, Brett Jul 10, 2018 50-48 C Oct 6, 2018 Gorsuch, Neil M. Feb 1, 2017 54-45 C Apr 7, 2017 President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B. Mar 16, 2016 No vote Kagan, Elena May 10, 2010 63-37 C Aug 5, 2010 Sotomayor, Sonia Jun 1, 2009 68-31 C Aug 6, 2009 President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. Nov 10, 2005 58-42 C Jan 31, 2006 Miers, Harriet O'Connor Oct 7, 2005 W Oct 28, 2005 (W = withdrawn) Roberts, John G., Jr. Sep 6, 2005 78-22 C Sep 29, 2005 President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G. May 17, 1994 87-9 C Jul 29, 1994 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Jun 22, 1993 96-3 C Aug 3, 1993 President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence Jul 8, 1991 52-48 C Oct 15, 1991 Souter, David H. Jul 25, 1990 90-9 C Oct 2, 1990 President Reagan, Ronald
Kennedy, Anthony M. Nov 30, 1987 97-0 C Feb 3, 1988 Bork, Robert H. Jul 7, 1987 42-58 R Oct 23, 1987 Scalia, Antonin Jun 24, 1986 98-0 C Sep 17, 1986 Rehnquist, William H. Jun 20, 1986 65-33 C Sep 17, 1986 O'Connor, Sandra Day Aug 19, 1981 99-0 C Sep 21, 1981 Oof. You decimated Ed with that. I don’t even acknowledge him anymore because of the utter ridiculousness of his posts, but nicely done. I have to laugh when a Trump supporter wants to lecture anyone on the morality of anything. I’d be more willing to get a morality lecture fromTed Bundy.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,252
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 20, 2020 11:20:36 GMT -5
Back in 2016 and early 2017, Fox News was the self-satisfied home to a great deal of principled thinking about the importance of the American people’s will. Here, for example, was Laura Ingraham, voicing her approval of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s machinations to bypass Obama nominee Merrick Garland and get conservative justice Neil M. Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court bench after Trump’s election: “The last 70 years, a Supreme Court justice was not confirmed in the final year of a president’s term,” preached the future Fox host, then a frequent guest on “Hannity.” She fretted that it “doesn’t matter” to left-leaning partisans. This was lofty-sounding but wrong: To pick just one of many examples to the contrary, the Democratic-controlled Senate unanimously confirmed President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy in early 1988, an election year. www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/ginsburg-conservative-media-react/2020/09/19/b7a725a2-fa7e-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 11:39:09 GMT -5
Hyopcrites - Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey and their fellow Trump cultists. thehill.com/homenews/media/517219-toobin-mcconnell-engaging-in-greatest-act-of-hypocrisy-in-american-politicalwww.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/mcconnell-hypocrisy-supreme-court-confirmation-ruth-bader-ginsburg/www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914715510/vermont-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-challenge-of-replacing-justice-ginsburg www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-graham-ginsburg-senate/2020/09/19/4712b310-fa88-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” 2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” 2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.” 2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” 2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” 2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” 2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” 2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.” 2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” 2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.” 2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” -- Mitch McConnell, March 2016 It is the case that during the Merrick Garland fight, a bunch of Republicans said we shouldn’t confirm a new Supreme Court justice before an election — and now say something else. It’s also the case that a bunch of Democrats at that time said we should confirm a new Supreme Court justice before an election — and now say something else. Why is only one of these developments considered hypocrisy? Either we can have a confirmation vote before an election, or we can’t — in which case, “Garland’s seat” was not “stolen,” as Democrats insist. You cannot have it both ways. It would be easier if we stopped pretending that this fight is about something other than straightforward power politics. Hypocrisy HypocrisyBecause Republicans changed the rules in 2016 and now they want to change them back. Democrats just want them to play by the rules and precedent they've established. That's what they wanted in 2016. That's what they want now. They changed the rules to steal Garland's seat, and now they want to change them back to seat their nominee now. That's clearly where the hypocrisy lies.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Sept 20, 2020 12:14:36 GMT -5
It is the case that during the Merrick Garland fight, a bunch of Republicans said we shouldn’t confirm a new Supreme Court justice before an election — and now say something else. It’s also the case that a bunch of Democrats at that time said we should confirm a new Supreme Court justice before an election — and now say something else. Why is only one of these developments considered hypocrisy? Either we can have a confirmation vote before an election, or we can’t — in which case, “Garland’s seat” was not “stolen,” as Democrats insist. You cannot have it both ways. It would be easier if we stopped pretending that this fight is about something other than straightforward power politics. Hypocrisy HypocrisyBecause Republicans changed the rules in 2016 and now they want to change them back. Democrats just want them to play by the rules and precedent they've established. That's what they wanted in 2016. That's what they want now. They changed the rules to steal Garland's seat, and now they want to change them back to seat their nominee now. That's clearly where the hypocrisy lies. And Democrats wanted the pre-2016 rules to apply in 2016 and now they don’t. They’re all hypocrites. I would add that I think this is all BS because there will be multiple Repubican senators who won’t vote to approve anyone before the election, and not after the election either if Biden is elected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 12:34:04 GMT -5
Because Republicans changed the rules in 2016 and now they want to change them back. Democrats just want them to play by the rules and precedent they've established. That's what they wanted in 2016. That's what they want now. They changed the rules to steal Garland's seat, and now they want to change them back to seat their nominee now. That's clearly where the hypocrisy lies. And Democrats wanted the pre-2016 rules to apply in 2016 and now they don’t. They’re all hypocrites. I would add that I think this is all BS because there will be multiple Repubican senators who won’t vote to approve anyone before the election, and not after the election either if Biden is elected. Because Republicans changed the rules. Again, they want them to play by the rules, whatever they are. That's consistency, not hypocrisy. Unless it's enough to block the nomination I don't see the relevance of your last comment.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 20, 2020 13:01:58 GMT -5
I don’t understand how the group that has absolutely no control and are being forced to abide by two completely opposite sets of rules to govern the exact same situation are the hypocrites here.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Sept 20, 2020 19:53:21 GMT -5
Because Republicans changed the rules in 2016 and now they want to change them back. Democrats just want them to play by the rules and precedent they've established. That's what they wanted in 2016. That's what they want now. They changed the rules to steal Garland's seat, and now they want to change them back to seat their nominee now. That's clearly where the hypocrisy lies. I would add that I think this is all BS because there will be multiple Repubican senators who won’t vote to approve anyone before the election, and not after the election either if Biden is elected. This would require integrity and I doubt there are four Republicans let alone Republican Senators that have enough to make this happen.
|
|