Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 51 of 58 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 867

Thread: RBG Has Died

  1. #751
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    54,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    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 didnít


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




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

  2. #752
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    54,267

    RBG Has Died

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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.
    Itís not bc they didnít vote Garland unfit. They just didnít do there job


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 09-25-2020 at 02:15 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




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

  3. #753
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,130
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    It not bc they didnít vote Garland unfit. They just didnít do there job
    We agree, it was a total abdication of their responsibilities. And the only reason they did it is because they could.

  4. #754
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,724
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    We agree, it was a total abdication of their responsibilities. And the only reason they did it is because they could.

    But donít 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?

  5. #755
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,006
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    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 didnít
    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.

  6. #756
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    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.

  7. #757
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,006
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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.

  8. #758
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    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.

  9. #759
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,006
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I know: both sides.
    That you don't think one side is hypocritical is odd.

  10. #760
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    54,267

    RBG Has Died

    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    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.
    Itís not games. What about is a game


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




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

  11. #761
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    38,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    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.

  12. #762
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11,245
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    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 doesnít assume everything they have done, it could just mean some of it.

    Every decision is already being politicized essentially anyways.

    Again the goal isnít 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 thatís 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

  13. #763
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    56,854
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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.

  14. #764
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,974
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    It doesnít assume everything they have done, it could just mean some of it.

    Every decision is already being politicized essentially anyways.

    Again the goal isnít 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 thatís 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
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  15. #765
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,006
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Itís 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!"

Page 51 of 58 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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