RBG Has Died

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

I think the point is that the people chose not to populate the Senate with more Dems than Reps, so in that way the people chose that outcome.

---

The point is the Rep senate decided not to do their job when a Dem President made a nomination. The Senate shouldnt get to shirk there responsibilities bc the other party has the White House. If they had held hearings and voted Garland unfit they could have said they were representing the people. They didn’t


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

OK. So if the people choose a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate the people chose the outcome if they expand the court.

It's the same logic.

---

It’s not bc they didn’t vote Garland unfit. They just didn’t do there job


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

It not bc they didn’t vote Garland unfit. They just didn’t do there job

---

We agree, it was a total abdication of their responsibilities. And the only reason they did it is because they could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

We agree, it was a total abdication of their responsibilities. And the only reason they did it is because they could.

---

But don’t you see? They matured and came to learn how wrong they were, so they decided this year to make amends by doing the right think.

So, I guess maybe even Republicans can learn, am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

The point is the Rep senate decided not to do their job when a Dem President made a nomination. The Senate shouldnt get to shirk there responsibilities bc the other party has the White House. If they had held hearings and voted Garland unfit they could have said they were representing the people. They didn’t

---

It's all games. If the Dems had the Senate then or now it's a non issue. The issue is that it's all a game and we want the game to be played the way we want it to go not the way "they" want it to go. This is consistent. Dems started the filibuster against presidential nominations, Dems got rid of the filibuster when the GOP started doing it too, Dems got rid of the super majority, the GOP taking advantage when it was their turn. This can't be a surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

It's all games. If the Dems had the Senate then or now it's a non issue. The issue is that it's all a game and we want the game to be played the way we want it to go not the way "they" want it to go. This is consistent. Dems started the filibuster against presidential nominations, Dems got rid of the filibuster when the GOP started doing it too, Dems got rid of the super majority, the GOP taking advantage when it was their turn. This can't be a surprise.

---

And neither will expanding the Supreme Court be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

And neither will expanding the Supreme Court be.

---

True, but this idea that only the GOP are hypocrites is silly. And the result of packing the court (against RBG's wishes by the way since so many seem to think her wishes are critical) then there will be repercussions the other way again. This is the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

True, but this idea that only the GOP are hypocrites is silly. And the result of packing the court (against RBG's wishes by the way since so many seem to think her wishes are critical) then there will be repercussions the other way again. This is the game.

---

I know: both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I know: both sides.

---

That you don't think one side is hypocritical is odd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

It's all games. If the Dems had the Senate then or now it's a non issue. The issue is that it's all a game and we want the game to be played the way we want it to go not the way "they" want it to go. This is consistent. Dems started the filibuster against presidential nominations, Dems got rid of the filibuster when the GOP started doing it too, Dems got rid of the super majority, the GOP taking advantage when it was their turn. This can't be a surprise.

---

It’s not games. What about is a game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

That you don't think one side is hypocritical is odd.

---

Oh, I think both sides are hypocritical. But there you go again assuming that because both sides are hypocritical they must be hypocritical in equal measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

That assumes everything SCOTUS has done with the current balance is bad for the country and everything SCOTUS would do if the balance shifted would be good for the country.......when all it's doing is further politicizing every damn decision made, making a clean sweep of government branches following tribalism more than good of the country.

---

It doesn’t assume everything they have done, it could just mean some of it.

Every decision is already being politicized essentially anyways.

Again the goal isn’t to fix everything necessarily just with this it would be that the ends justify the means and allow some change that may not currently be possible, in part due to the politicization that’s already occurred around the courts. I am open to other ideas as I said this route is not necessarily my choice but what would you suggest? If it includes letting what has happened continue or relying on the main causes of issues to drastically change for little reason I think the above argument grows stronger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Oh, I think both sides are hypocritical. But there you go again assuming that because both sides are hypocritical they must be hypocritical in equal measure.

---

Classic Scooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

It doesn’t assume everything they have done, it could just mean some of it.

Every decision is already being politicized essentially anyways.

Again the goal isn’t to fix everything necessarily just with this it would be that the ends justify the means and allow some change that may not currently be possible, in part due to the politicization that’s already occurred around the courts. I am open to other ideas as I said this route is not necessarily my choice but what would you suggest? If it includes letting what has happened continue or relying on the main causes of issues to drastically change for little reason I think the above argument grows stronger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

16 year terms where 1 term expires every election year and an odd number of justices. Each inaugaration the new/re-elected president appoints someone to fill the newly vacated space. Start the process by changing the oldest current justice's term to 4 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

It’s not games. What about is a game

---

Politicians play one side against the other and play on people fears to get them to comply or support one side or the other on one subject after another.

If people are angry or afraid they are easier to control and use.

"If they do this it is unjust and wrong! You should be angry and vote for me!"
"If they do that it is unjust and wrong! You should be afraid and vote for me!"