Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 11 of 50 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 747
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,786
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It is only a big difference because it changes what either side can do. Which goes back to my point: all these differences are only a matter of what each side can and cannot do.

    If you're only selling point is "it's different because of what they can do" then if you complain about the other side doing something simply because they can, you're hypocritical (whether the other side is also hypocritical for doing something similar. Figured I'd pre-empt the both sides).
    No. I'm saying that when the President and Senate are in the same party the process of confirming nominations is very different than when they are not the same party. That is true regardless of the party. That you seem to dismiss that as significant is strange.

    Yes both parties do what they can get away with, and yes both parties are hypocritical.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    15,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    No. I'm saying that when the President and Senate are in the same party the process of confirming nominations is very different than when they are not the same party. That is true regardless of the party. That you seem to dismiss that as significant is strange.

    Yes both parties do what they can get away with, and yes both parties are hypocritical.
    ....and yes, the Democrats would be doing precisely what the Republicans are doing if given the chance.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,786
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    No, it's never been an issue until 2020. Its always been normal to let the acting president nominate. Until the Trump administration was on its way in.

    This isn't an it goes both ways situation

    However, now the dems are obligated to do whatever they can to block the current nomination due to what happened in 2016.
    You are mistaken. When different parties hold the WH and the Senate all confirmations are more contentious than when they are the same. Look at the history when they are not the same, there are a lot of nominees who get denied because they can, and both parties have done it dozens of times.

    Yes in 2016, because the Dems had used the filibuster to fight nominations, then later killed the super-majority and filibuster because the GOP used the Dem tactics on nominations, the Senate stalled Garland ... but the key element there is that Garland was a Dem nom and the Senate was Republican. That is NOT true now. If now the Senate was Democrat run there is no way this nomination goes through.

    The game is the same, the situation is different.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    35,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    Again you fail to realize that the Dems played the shady game back in Ď13 which many republicans back then said wait until the tables are turned etc


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Damn, this **** goes way deeper than I realized.

    At the end of the day, if you dont want them to control the judge nominees, then go win Senate seats. The dems lost in 2016 and haven't done a single thing to address the reason they did. That's why they're not getting voted in. Even when going up against the pathetic right.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    94,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Except 2016 was different. This is a Republican Prez and Senate, and it's the Prez' 1st term. That was a last term Democratic Prez and Republican Senate.

    I tend to agree Garland should have had hearings at least, but the reality is that the outcome then didn't change for lack of them.
    The reality is that the outcome absolutely changed. Obama got about 60 something votes for his two nominees who were far more controversial in Kagan and Sotomayor. While it's not 100% certain that Garland would have been confirmed, I would have been willing to bet strong money that he would have gotten 60-70 votes given his moderate record. McConnell knew this and took the opportunity to prevent any movement.
    Prior to 11/1/19: if you were on my ignore list, I was sticking to ignoring you thanks to great advise.
    From 11/1/19 on: I will no longer be responding to comments back to people on my ignore list.
    _____

    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,286
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The reality is that the outcome absolutely changed. Obama got about 60 something votes for his two nominees who were far more controversial in Kagan and Sotomayor. While it's not 100% certain that Garland would have been confirmed, I would have been willing to bet strong money that he would have gotten 60-70 votes given his moderate record. McConnell knew this and took the opportunity to prevent any movement.
    Again the game changed in Ď13 when Reid changed the rules and then laughed about it. Blame him for all this stuff happening


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    Again the game changed in Ď13 when Reid changed the rules and then laughed about it. Blame him for all this stuff happening


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    No, blame the people taking actions that are dumb.

    Reid was dumb.

    McConnell is a spineless turd.

    And youíll do anything in your very, very limited and undereducated power to #backtheblue because #alllivesmatterwhenitispoliticallyconvenient

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,189
    I'd say there is a 99% chance they get her in. Romney and another GOP senator would have to pull a McCain-like last second no vote to stop it, which would probably ruin their career as a Republican. That won't happen.
    We all know what kind of liars and hypocrites the Republicans are for doing this, they look so bad they can't defend themselves. The majority of the country isn't in favor of them filling this seat, but they don't care. They will risk anything for this seat, but sadly the Democrats won't risk everything to stop it.

    If the Democrats really wanted to stop a vote they could have, but they've honestly decided not to. The Senate Democrats can't do anything because they don't have the votes, but the House could have gone to extreme measures to stop it from happening. They could have refused to pass a budget or raise the debt ceiling until the Senate stops trying to fill the seat, literally threaten to shut the government down right before the election. Pelosi didn't want to do that and has already agreed to fund the government until mid-December. They could have impeached Trump several more times, for crimes he has actually committed, and force the Senate to take up the issue (they would be constitutionally bound to do so) to buy time until the after the election. They aren't doing that either. They aren't willing to go nuclear, but McConnell is willing to risk the White House and his Senate majority to get this seat. It honestly looks like the Democrats would rather give the Republicans the seat and maybe have increased odds at winning the White House and Senate in November rather than go to extreme lengths to stop them from filling the seat.

    If the Democrats hold the White House and both Houses of Congress they will be able to pass anything they want assuming they get rid of the filibusterer (which they would). I think that's a pretty big gamble because there is a real chance they don't take both the White House and Senate in November. Even if they do, it's not worth a 6-3 conservative majority on the S.C., especially if they aren't willing to pass major legislation such as Green New Deal and Medicare for All if they do take control in November. I have serious doubts that a government run by Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer would ever push for M4A or GND. They'll spend two years and all they would accomplish would be a public option added to the Affordable Care Act, $15/hour min. wage, expand rights for abortion, pass a modest tax increase on millionaires and billionaires, and pass a very watered-down climate deal (not the Green New Deal). They do have a favorable Senate map in 2022 (12 Democratic seats up to 22 Republican seats), but Republicans could easily take back the Senate in 2024 (23 Democratic seats up to 10 Republican seats).

    So the Democrats are basically trading RBG's S.C. seat for increasing the possibility of controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives for 4 years. That's not worth it. As I said earlier, McConnell is willing to lose the White House and his Senate majority over this seat because she'll sit on the bench for 35 years. There's not even a guarantee the Democrats will win in November anyway. This is why establishment Democrats are losers and need to be primaried and voted out of office. They're not willing to actually stop this pick from happening because it MAY hurt their chances in November. Republicans sat on Obama's pick for 10 months and didn't even meet with Merrick Garland, but these Democrats aren't willing to go to war over this seat for 3 months. It's insane.
    Last edited by TylerSL; 09-27-2020 at 07:19 AM.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,786
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The reality is that the outcome absolutely changed. Obama got about 60 something votes for his two nominees who were far more controversial in Kagan and Sotomayor. While it's not 100% certain that Garland would have been confirmed, I would have been willing to bet strong money that he would have gotten 60-70 votes given his moderate record. McConnell knew this and took the opportunity to prevent any movement.
    Maybe. I guess we'll never know.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Damn, this **** goes way deeper than I realized.

    At the end of the day, if you dont want them to control the judge nominees, then go win Senate seats. The dems lost in 2016 and haven't done a single thing to address the reason they did. That's why they're not getting voted in. Even when going up against the pathetic right.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    I'm sorry, haven't the Dems picked up 40 House seats and 8 governorships since 2018? Or did I dream that up?
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.Ē

    -JFK


  11. #161
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    Again the game changed in Ď13 when Reid changed the rules and then laughed about it. Blame him for all this stuff happening


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I realize I'm wasting keystrokes on you, but you realize that McConnell would have nuked the filibuster for federal judges if Reid hadn't right? If you think he wouldn't have you're delusional to the point of madness. The only way he would not have would be if he didn't need to due to having enough spineless Dems voting for his judges. Hell, McConnell nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS judges. Reid did what he had to do at the time to get Obama's judges through since Republicans would have kept filibustering them.

    I support eliminating all filibusters, they are insanely undemocratic and prevents anything from getting passed.
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.Ē

    -JFK


  12. #162
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    50,727
    Gotta be honest, been reading about Trumps pick and obviously itís going to be a long standing conservative skewing the court for a while, BUT we knew the pick wouldnít be moderate....so among the conservatives that were in the running and rumored, sheís the best and most qualified among them.

    Would of course want a moderate like Garland (or liberal for balance), but in the world of conservative justices itís a good pick.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Gotta be honest, been reading about Trumps pick and obviously itís going to be a long standing conservative skewing the court for a while, BUT we knew the pick wouldnít be moderate....so among the conservatives that were in the running and rumored, sheís the best and most qualified among them.

    Would of course want a moderate like Garland (or liberal for balance), but in the world of conservative justices itís a good pick.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I guess compared to someone like Jeanine Pirro she's great, but she's still a nightmare.
    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.Ē

    -JFK


  14. #164
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    28,080
    how is Amy Coney Barrett dangerous?

    I'm sure they don't like her opinions and things that she wants, but it's dangerous to simply call her dangerous.



    Į\_(ツ)_/Į

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  15. #165
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    28,080
    some will attack Amy Coney Barrett on anything.

    did John Brougher really say this.



    Į\_(ツ)_/Į

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


Page 11 of 50 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •