Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #32351
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- ********11
Republicans:
"You must not confirm a Supreme Court Justice during an election year! We refuse to even listen to arguments!"Also Republicans:
"Today we're proud to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, just eight days before an election."EIGHT. DAYS.
Shame on all Republicans. Shame on all the right-wing cowards in the media and at home for not voicing any objection to this epic hypocrisy.
- GOP deserves to lose the presidency, the house and the senate over this. Let's see next Tuesday.********
- i watched her testimony. all her answers were flawlessGnash
- Absolute power corrupts absolutely.ideaist
- My mum is a practicing catholic even she thinks what Barrett is into is nuts. But her view of American politics/religion is pretty low anyway.PhanLo
- Heyooooo it's not really about Barrett or any particular judge. It's about an entire political party made up of snakes.********
- And the people who vote for Republicans after this kind of bullshit deserve no respect. Have you no principles at all?!********
- Like you say nb it's not so much about her bizarre religious beliefs, more about who paid to get her in the position. She voted 75% in favour of corporate...PhanLo
- ...interests in cases in the past, so even they must laugh about her speaking in tongues, but as long as she keeps the lawsuits away, it's all good.PhanLo
- If the dem had the house, they would have done the exact same thing. No question at all.Gnash
- It sucks, but it’s trueGnash
- Oh pls. They would not. This is unconscionable.********
- The dems did try to do this w/Obama's last year but they didn't control the Senate... what Gnash stated is not only plausible but actually occurred.PonyBoy
- In regards to picking Garland to replace Scolia... Ruth Bader Ginsburg even went so far as to say the following: "“Nothing in the Constitution prevents a...PonyBoy
- ...president from nominating to fill a court seat. That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president...PonyBoy
- ...in his last year."
https://www.snopes.c…PonyBoy - PonyBoy you are stretching the truth big time********
- What the dems did is in NO WAY the same as this********
- That happened during Obama's last year of presidency... RBG had his back (of all people).PonyBoy
- And before you compare 9 months to 1 month keep in mind the Presidential campaigns are in full swing w/9 months left. There is no diff between 1 and 9 months.PonyBoy
- I didn't remotely stretch the truth, nb... I understand you're emotional over this and find it outrageous (I agree it's pretty lame)... but facts are facts. :/PonyBoy
- Ya, pony, that’s exactly what I meant. If the dems had the house, 100% they would have pushed through their pick. No questionGnash
- Yes if they had the house they would have pushed their pick. THATS NOT THE ISSUE********
- The issue is the gop refusing to even hear, 9 months out. Also I’d like to just point out that you said there’s no difference between 1 and 9********
- I’m not emotional over it. The dems didn’t block a judge under the made up guise of “shouldn’t in an election year”. Election season doesn’t end.********
- I thought your issue was one of process? The dems ‘process’ would have been identical had they the same opportunity.Gnash
- Zero chance that the dems would not have filled that same seat, the same wayGnash
- Are you saying that if the Dems controlled the Senate that they'd just let hearings occur for Barrett, nb? I'll even spot you 9 months w/that question. :)PonyBoy
- At this point I agree Dems would do the same but this is after the GOP has steadily tossed out all of the standards that existed for confirming justices.yuekit
- For instance there was a very basic expectation that when a vacancy comes up while a president is in office, they get to appoint the replacement.yuekit
- But GOP threw out this rule for Obama. They also blocked all kinds of judicial appointments he tried to do at lower levels and were just assholes generally :)yuekit
- There was also a rule that said if a Supreme Court nominee was too extreme or unacceptable they could be filibustered by the other side. GOP also scrapped thisyuekit
- when they confirmed Neil Gorsuch. So there's been a race to the bottom, none of it illegal but definitely a departure from how things were done before inyuekit
- order to get this right-wing supermajority.yuekit
- The way you guys are framing as if each side is just going to ruthlessly pursue whatever options they have, maybe that's the case now. And maybe when Demsyuekit
- win control of the entire government they will add justices to the SC, which is also totally legal BTW. But this is a new thing, it's not how it was done in theyuekit
- past. There was far more balance and respect for agreed rules and practices back then and it's gone completely off the rails now.yuekit
- yes, as shamefull as it gets...neverscared
- I KNOW they would have filled the seat. That's their job! That's fine! THE PROBLEM is that the Republicans refused to even entertain the notion of a candidate.********
- A good example of how different things used to be...when George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court, it was an election year and Dems controlledyuekit
- the Senate. He was a controversial nominee with pretty extreme views. But nonetheless Dems didn't shut it down, they held hearings because they thought they hadyuekit
- an obligation to, and he was confirmed. About 10 Dems even voted for him.yuekit
- tweak the story all you want, but they are both the sameGnash
- I mean they're obviously not if Dems allowed Clarence Thomas, the most conservative justice, to be confirmed.yuekit
- Ya, it’s not like the dems ever borked a potential judge. Oh wait...Gnash
- Are you saying you think that guy should have been appointed to the Supreme Court?yuekit
- He was a terrible choice, helped Nixon cover up Watergate. Democrats opposed him, but so did some Republicans.yuekit
- And after his nomination was withdrawn, Dems voted for Reagan's second choice Anthony Kennedy. So this actually proves the opposite of what you guys wereyuekit
- trying to claim above. In this case they voted based on peoples' qualifications rather than just automatically blocking everything the other party did.yuekit
- Gop voted for dem judges too. They are no differentGnash
- That's what I was trying to explain above, it used to be a much more bipartisan process until the GOP decided to blow things up and start rewriting the rulesyuekit
- during Obama's presidency. This line they are pushing now that this is how it has always worked is not accurate.yuekit
- There was no ‘rewriting’ of any rules. The GOP just did exactly what the Dems would have done. Good try, thoughGnash
- Then why did Dems hold a vote on Kennedy and Thomas when they controlled the Senate?yuekit
- That's two seats on the Supreme Court they could have blocked but didn't. There's no example you can point to of Democrats doing same thing as GOP.yuekit
- No rules were rewritten or broken. Gop voted for dems when they could have blocked too.Gnash
- Because you think the dems dance with the angels doesn’t make it soGnash
- I didn't say Dems are perfect, but this is just the reality of what happened. For the past century...I think it may even go back to Abraham Lincoln...yuekit
- presidents were always given a vote on their nominee by the opposing party, and nearly all of the time the person was approved.yuekit
- Then suddenly under Obama the GOP decided they didn't want to do this anymore. And the reason they gave was that you can't hold the vote too closeyuekit
- to an election, which a rule they pretty much made up out of thin air. Everyone at the time recognized it was unprecedented.yuekit
- Then under Trump of course they approved his nominee literally two weeks before the election. And on top of that they changed the rules so that Supreme Courtyuekit
- appointments required 50 votes rather than 60.yuekit
- Check what party changed the rules about number of votes... Hint, it wasn’t the GOP. In fact, the GOP argued against lowering the required votesGnash
- The dems, in a swirl of hubris, thought they’re win more seats In the future. Oops!Gnash
- So, again, you’re wrong. The Dems are just devious. They just lost the last few rounds of chicken they played with the gop.Gnash
- Keep trying, thoughGnash
- *just as deviousGnash
- Haha no they didn'tyuekit
- https://www.usatoday…yuekit
- Wait aren't you in Canada anyway? Why you care so much about our judicial nomination process? :)yuekit
- Trying to imagine myself sitting through a Canadian judicial hearing or having any kind of opinion about it at all...yuekit
- Don’t think you’d have the attention span, But I’m sure you can imagine something with that big American brain.Gnash
- Um, you read that article? LolGnash
- “ The Democrat-controlled Senate voted 52-48 in favor of the change, which was dubbed the "nuclear option."Gnash
- This is a getting a little silly. I think we can both see that was a different vote than the one I was talking about above.yuekit
- You kept saying there was no rules change, when in reality GOP did change the rules on Supreme Court in 2017.yuekit
- https://www.politico…yuekit
- That's not my main complaint against them BTW, I think what was worse was obstructing everything Obama tried to do in a way that wasn't done to other presidentsyuekit
- GOP deserves to lose the presidency, the house and the senate over this. Let's see next Tuesday.