Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 125

Thread: RBG dead at 87

  1. #51
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
    If a president cannot pick at 10 months he certainly shouldn’t do so at 6 weeks before election. You can’t have it both ways.
    A president can pick whenever he wants, the question is does the Senate have a duty to confirm or even consider that choice. I think history has shown that the answer to that depends upon who's controlling the Senate at the time, and they obviously can have it both ways since they're under no constitutional mandate.

    What's telling is that virtually everyone changes their mind on what should be done based upon who's doing it. It's not just Republicans who believed one way in 2016 and now possibly think differently in 2020, it's also the Democrats. How can you assign hypocrisy to just one team?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  2. #52
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    The other thing that is apparent is that republicans are very concerned that they are going to lose in 6 weeks. If they had confidence that trump was going to win they wouldn’t be making such a rush job of this.
    I think that's correct up to a point. It's not lack of confidence that Trump will win as much as the fear that the Senate may change hands. Trump can only nominate someone but it takes the Senate to confirm and close the deal.
    Personally, I don't care which team nominates even though I know that whoever the nominee is you'll hate them if Trump does it (as you've already disparaged whoever that may be) and love them if Biden does.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    It's hypothetical only because the Dems did not hold the Senate in 2016. But their desires at the time were well documented including on these very pages where many of you told us again how much Republicans suck for standing in your way. Now it's funny how Republicans still suck for threatening to do what Democrats wanted in 2016.

    I think it's dishonest to deny that both parties are filled with opportunists willing to do about turns on any issue at a moment's notice.
    I think you are right that both parties talk from both sides of their mouths on procedural quarrels like appointments and the filibuster, depending on the prevailing situation. Last year’s abomination becomes this year’s sacred “norm”. Last month’s brilliant tactic becomes this month’s “threat to our democracy”. I’m reading the Democrats are currently considering bringing back FDR style court-packing. If they succeed, and their opponents later try the same tactic, expect similar indignation.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    390
    I could grin and bear it if Republicans nominated smart, well-respected, strict constructionists. But they're putting up nominees who often don't meet basic requirements, according to the ABA, who has rated at least four "unqualified,' more than in any recent administration in the same time frame.

  5. #55
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,802
    All the bothesiderists apparently don’t see a difference between someone being selected for a Supreme Court sweat 9 months before the election versus one 6 weeks before the election where early voting has actually already started in multiple states.

    But whatever. Now that the Republican Party has officially killed the concept of political norms it’s time for the Dems to follow suit. If we’re going to have to endure ‘both sides do it’ regardless we may as well at least give them an actual reason to say it.

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    2,777
    “ I think it's dishonest to deny that both parties are filled with opportunists”

    Bingo

  7. #57
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Jane v2.0 View Post
    I could grin and bear it if Republicans nominated smart, well-respected, strict constructionists. But they're putting up nominees who often don't meet basic requirements, according to the ABA, who has rated at least four "unqualified,' more than in any recent administration in the same time frame.
    Of course you're talking about nominees for federal judge slots rather than Supreme Court slots. It's interesting that the ABA is known to have a liberal bias, probably best represented in their "not qualified" rating for two Reagan nominees while giving "well qualified" ratings to two Clinton nominees while the resume's of all four were virtually the same. Even more interesting was a study from a dozen or more years ago which showed that liberal nominees ranked higher in ABA reviews than conservative nominees, even though their experience and backgrounds were similar. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/us/31bar.html

    To their credit though, both of Trumps Supreme Court nominees have been rated "well qualified" by the ABA.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    390
    I'm surprised that Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh scored so highly. I hope he's stopped mauling women and can attend to his appointment without distraction.

  9. #59
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Jane v2.0 View Post
    I'm surprised that Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh scored so highly. I hope he's stopped mauling women and can attend to his appointment without distraction.
    I'm sure the opposition will do a better job of destroying whoever's nominated this time. With so little time before the election I'd be surprised if the witnesses/victims haven't been identified and prepped and accusations formulated to cover any contingency that may arise. Now they just need to identify the abuser/nominee and let the show begin.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I'm sure the opposition will do a better job of destroying whoever's nominated this time. With so little time before the election I'd be surprised if the witnesses/victims haven't been identified and prepped and accusations formulated to cover any contingency that may arise. Now they just need to identify the abuser/nominee and let the show begin.
    I'm sure if it there to find, they will.... as they should!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •