Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 56 of 58 FirstFirst ... 6465455565758 LastLast
Results 826 to 840 of 867

Thread: RBG Has Died

  1. #826
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,371
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Sure but the reasoning she isn't a hypocrite then is because of the team game she apparently is playing and that is even worse if she is going to be on the court IMO. People can rightly view her as part of the problem moving forward if she has an obvious agenda not to let that power shift in team game fashion.

    She isn't a hypocrite she is just very focused on the team game and making sure her side stays in power.
    I didn't say she wasn't a hypocrite. I said that quote doesn't make her one. I actually said in the post you quoted that she almost certainly is a hypocrite.

    And yes, the games are crap.

  2. #827
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,371
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    And you may well be impartial and logical with your beliefs, but not for this one.

    EDIT: to clarify why. Something can affect the balance of power even if the balance of power is already unbalanced.

    If you have a group of 10 guys fighting 20 guys, there is a power imbalance (assuming all guys are roughly equal in fighting capability). If it changes to those 10 guys fighting 100 guys, that is a huge shift in the balance of power in that it went from fairly one sided to extremely one sided.

    The same is true here. a 5-4 conservative majority where one of the conservatives splits their vote between conservative and liberal majorities is slightly skewed towards conservatives. A 6-3 conservative majority is an extremely one sided majority.

    This will definitely cause a shift in the balance of power.
    I already said this but I guess you missed it. A "shift in balance" to me is not the same as a "flip in balance". And again, I didn't say she was right or wrong, just that that statement doesn't make her a hypocrite.

  3. #828
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter_White View Post
    OMFG.

    Her statement in 2016 was BS. It doesn't matter how the balance of the court would have shifted. Her acceptance of the nomination in 2020 in the exact same circumstances is rank hypocrisy. Amazing how that peabrain of yours complicates the simplest stuff.
    I didn't say she was right or wrong in 2016, just that the differences between 2016 and 2020 make her not a hypocrite for that statement.

    And that you think it's "the exact same circumstances" tells me you haven't been paying attention or understanding what I've been saying.

  4. #829
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I didn't say she wasn't a hypocrite. I said that quote doesn't make her one. I actually said in the post you quoted that she almost certainly is a hypocrite.

    And yes, the games are crap.
    What? I am pointing out the reason you are giving that she isn't a hypocrite for this actually makes her look worse. She might not be a hypocrite on this topic, if her main point all along is the court needs to be stacked for her team then all of this fits that agenda. We agree on that could have been her point all along and if she is playing the games like this too that another major issue with SCOTUS.

    This is why as I noted in the past SCOTUS has become a game to win and the judges already on it are playing into that in some ways with their decisions and outside actions/comments. This would seemingly be another massive red flag especially if she is as partisan as you make her out to be here focused on balancing the courts to favor conservatives in team game form.

  5. #830
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    35,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I already said this but I guess you missed it. A "shift in balance" to me is not the same as a "flip in balance". And again, I didn't say she was right or wrong, just that that statement doesn't make her a hypocrite.
    A flip in the balance of power because they were replacing Scalia, and staunch conservative, with a possible liberal:

    "We're talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the court," Barrett continued. "It's not a lateral move."


    Replacing the most liberal Justice with a staunch conservative is the same thing.

    Pro tip: when you have to adopt Special levels of technicalities to defend your position it is because your position is poor.

  6. #831
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    49,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter_White View Post
    OMFG.

    Her statement in 2016 was BS. It doesn't matter how the balance of the court would have shifted. Her acceptance of the nomination in 2020 in the exact same circumstances is rank hypocrisy. Amazing how that peabrain of yours complicates the simplest stuff.
    Excellent post


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  7. #832
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,371
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    What? I am pointing out the reason you are giving that she isn't a hypocrite for this actually makes her look worse. She might not be a hypocrite on this topic, if her main point all along is the court needs to be stacked for her team then all of this fits that agenda. We agree on that could have been her point all along and if she is playing the games like this too that another major issue with SCOTUS.

    This is why as I noted in the past SCOTUS has become a game to win and the judges already on it are playing into that in some ways with their decisions and outside actions/comments. This would seemingly be another massive red flag especially if she is as partisan as you make her out to be here focused on balancing the courts to favor conservatives in team game form.
    In response to the "what?" ... I think there probably is something she's said in the past that proves her a hypocrite, I just don't know of any specifics. I think pretty much everyone in political positions are hypocrites about something or other.

    And yes, I agree her prioritizing the political aspect of anything is not a good look for someone on the court.

  8. #833
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,371
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    A flip in the balance of power because they were replacing Scalia, and staunch conservative, with a possible liberal:

    "We're talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the court," Barrett continued. "It's not a lateral move."


    Replacing the most liberal Justice with a staunch conservative is the same thing.

    Pro tip: when you have to adopt Special levels of technicalities to defend your position it is because your position is poor.
    It's not the same thing. My position was that a conservative court becoming liberal is not the same as a conservative court staying conservative. That makes that one statement not hypocritical.

    I was not saying she was right or wrong or that she is good or bad for the court. Those are a different discussion.

  9. #834
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    In response to the "what?" ... I think there probably is something she's said in the past that proves her a hypocrite, I just don't know of any specifics. I think pretty much everyone in political positions are hypocrites about something or other.

    And yes, I agree her prioritizing the political aspect of anything is not a good look for someone on the court.
    Oh, I guess we agree on that then I was only talking about hypocrisy around this statement but sure in general I guess everyone is at some point in their life.

    Sounds like we agree then that no matter what these comments/her approach are an issue. At this point I think the SCOTUS has quite clearly fallen into the same game/issues as politics in general have and we have a clear team game to win.

  10. #835
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    35,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    It's not the same thing. My position was that a conservative court becoming liberal is not the same as a conservative court staying conservative. That makes that one statement not hypocritical.

    I was not saying she was right or wrong or that she is good or bad for the court. Those are a different discussion.
    If you honestly believe that her point was "I don't think a conservative justice should be replaced by a liberal justice (or vice versa) only if it changes the majority of the court, but I'd be fine with a conservative justice being replaced by a liberal justice if liberals were already the majority"

    then I have to agree with WalterWhite and Ewing. That is a peabrain opinion.

  11. #836
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    4,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I didn't say she was right or wrong in 2016, just that the differences between 2016 and 2020 make her not a hypocrite for that statement.

    And that you think it's "the exact same circumstances" tells me you haven't been paying attention or understanding what I've been saying.
    I've understood what you're saying perfectly -- you're just wrong. It's you who seem to be lost. We are now going from 4 hard right judges on the 9-seat SC to 5. You apparently don't think that's a huge shift in power balance. That's insanely stupid and I gotta believe you know that. ACB accepting this nomination is about as textbook example of hypocrisy as you'll ever find.
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

    -JFK


  12. #837
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,371
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    If you honestly believe that her point was "I don't think a conservative justice should be replaced by a liberal justice (or vice versa) only if it changes the majority of the court, but I'd be fine with a conservative justice being replaced by a liberal justice if liberals were already the majority"

    then I have to agree with WalterWhite and Ewing. That is a peabrain opinion.
    Seems more logical to me. I think your issue with it is that it doesn't fit what you want it to be.

  13. #838
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter_White View Post
    I've understood what you're saying perfectly -- you're just wrong. It's you who seem to be lost. We are now going from 4 hard right judges on the 9-seat SC to 5. You apparently don't think that's a huge shift in power balance. That's insanely stupid and I gotta believe you know that. ACB accepting this nomination is about as textbook example of hypocrisy as you'll ever find.
    I've said this several times ... I didn't say it wasn't a shift in balance at all. I said it's not a flip.

    Her accepting it may well be hypocritical, but not because of this quote.

  14. #839
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    4,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I've said this several times ... I didn't say it wasn't a shift in balance at all. I said it's not a flip.

    Her accepting it may well be hypocritical, but not because of this quote.
    Potayto Potahto
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

    -JFK


  15. #840
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    35,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Seems more logical to me. I think your issue with it is that it doesn't fit what you want it to be.
    So you think she would have been fine with Democrats replacing conservative Scalia with a Liberal Justice if the Liberals were already the majority of the court?

Posting Permissions

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