Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 55 of 58 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 825 of 867

Thread: RBG Has Died

  1. #811
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Do you acknowledge that in 2016 the court was balanced or slightly conservative?

    Do you acknowledge that replacing a conservative judge with a liberal judge would result in the court going from balanced or slightly conservative to more liberal.

    If no to either of those please explain?
    She called it not a lateral move because it was a conservative being replaced with a more moderate/liberal appointee. Now it is a liberal being replaced by a non liberal/conservative appointee in similar fashion. It's the same type of flip just in favor of what appears to be "her side" if she is changing standards now around this idea.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 09-27-2020 at 12:11 PM.

  2. #812
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,539
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    She called it not a lateral move because it was a conservative being replaced with a more moderate/liberal appointee. Now it is a liberal being replaced by a non liberal/conservative appointee in similar fashion. It's the same type of flip just in favor of what appears to be "her side" if she is changing standards now around this idea.
    Yes, no question the nomination in both cases flips the parties of the two justices, but I don't think it's at all evident that that is what she meant. I don't think the phrase "balance of power" is about just that one seat but the court as a whole. Then it would have changed the balance of power from conservative to liberal, this time it doesn't change the balance of power in the court at all.

  3. #813
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Yes, no question the nomination in both cases flips the parties of the two justices, but I don't think it's at all evident that that is what she meant. I don't think the phrase "balance of power" is about just that one seat but the court as a whole. Then it would have changed the balance of power from conservative to liberal, this time it doesn't change the balance of power in the court at all.
    If the balance of power in a seat changes it will change the balance in the court as well from what it was...

    You are talking about it in like team game terms it seems, you can shift balance without it only being a sides shift from one having more control than the other in full. Glad you are on board with the idea the game of the court is keeping balance in team game form though, progress. She seems to have the same issues around this as others too so she should fit right in.

  4. #814
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,539
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    If the balance of power in a seat changes it will change the balance in the court as well from what it was...

    You are talking about it in like team game terms it seems, you can shift balance without it only being a sides shift from one having more control than the other in full. Glad you are on board with the idea the game of the court is keeping balance in team game form though, progress. She seems to have the same issues around this as others too so she should fit right in.
    To me "shifting balance" is not at all the same as "flipping balance" ... one is movement the other is a polar change.

    And this conversation wasn't about what I believe but about what she said. Was she a hypocrite for saying she wasn't for one move that flips the balance but not being against this move which does not flip the balance. To me this doesn't make HER a hypocrite on this single quote.

    I absolutely agree the GOP is full of hypocrites based on the team game.

    I don't know what you mean by "Glad you are on board with the idea the game of the court is keeping balance in team game form though, progress."

  5. #815
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    To me "shifting balance" is not at all the same as "flipping balance" ... one is movement the other is a polar change.

    And this conversation wasn't about what I believe but about what she said. Was she a hypocrite for saying she wasn't for one move that flips the balance but not being against this move which does not flip the balance. To me this doesn't make HER a hypocrite on this single quote.

    I absolutely agree the GOP is full of hypocrites based on the team game.

    I don't know what you mean by "Glad you are on board with the idea the game of the court is keeping balance in team game form though, progress."
    One has a team game focus on trying to stack the court a certain way, the other is based on individual change. We agree there is a difference.

    She was either a hypocrite or she is focused on the team game aspect of the court is the point here. I agree it could be what you say but that isn't actually any better.

    In previous discussions you had noted how we shouldn't view this as a team games or these judges as on a side. You are now defending her by saying that is what she meant, the team in charge wouldn't shift with this individual change. You can clearly see how it is a team game now despite denying that was happening and are using it to say that's what she meant so she isn't a hypocrite. Either way it is yet another major issue around the SCOTUS incoming and many people (including this potential judge apparently) are also viewing it that way too.

  6. #816
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Do you acknowledge that in 2016 the court was balanced or slightly conservative?

    Do you acknowledge that replacing a conservative judge with a liberal judge would result in the court going from balanced or slightly conservative to more liberal.

    If no to either of those please explain?
    Were talking about 2020!!!!!!!!!
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

    -JFK


  7. #817
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    59,062

  8. #818
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9,285
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    Its junior high school crap.

  9. #819
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,539
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    One has a team game focus on trying to stack the court a certain way, the other is based on individual change. We agree there is a difference.

    She was either a hypocrite or she is focused on the team game aspect of the court is the point here. I agree it could be what you say but that isn't actually any better.

    In previous discussions you had noted how we shouldn't view this as a team games or these judges as on a side. You are now defending her by saying that is what she meant, the team in charge wouldn't shift with this individual change. You can clearly see how it is a team game now despite denying that was happening and are using it to say that's what she meant so she isn't a hypocrite. Either way it is yet another major issue around the SCOTUS incoming and many people (including this potential judge apparently) are also viewing it that way too.
    Okay, yes I agree it's a team game. I've been saying they are playing games.

    Yes these games are stupid and certainly not the spirit of the system.

    My only point was that that comment doesn't make her a hypocrite, though she almost certainly is for some other quote ... just not that one.

  10. #820
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Yes, no question the nomination in both cases flips the parties of the two justices, but I don't think it's at all evident that that is what she meant. I don't think the phrase "balance of power" is about just that one seat but the court as a whole. Then it would have changed the balance of power from conservative to liberal, this time it doesn't change the balance of power in the court at all.
    You have had some doozy's in terms of your logic lately.

    So you think her argument is not hypocritical because she's strengthening a conservative majority rather than flipping the balance of power?

  11. #821
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter_White View Post
    Were talking about 2020!!!!!!!!!
    So that quote of her talking about Obama nominations was in 2020?

    We're talking about 2016 vs 2020 and what Republicans and Democrats said then vs what they are saying now.

  12. #822
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,539
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You have had some doozy's in terms of your logic lately.

    So you think her argument is not hypocritical because she's strengthening a conservative majority rather than flipping the balance of power?
    Yes. She may well be a hypocrite, but not for that statement.

  13. #823
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Okay, yes I agree it's a team game. I've been saying they are playing games.

    Yes these games are stupid and certainly not the spirit of the system.

    My only point was that that comment doesn't make her a hypocrite, though she almost certainly is for some other quote ... just not that one.
    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.

  14. #824
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Yes. She may well be a hypocrite, but not for that statement.
    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.
    Last edited by valade16; 09-27-2020 at 06:04 PM.

  15. #825
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    So that quote of her talking about Obama nominations was in 2020?

    We're talking about 2016 vs 2020 and what Republicans and Democrats said then vs what they are saying now.
    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.
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

    -JFK


Page 55 of 58 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... 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
  •