Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by Nemo, Nov 13, 2019.
The Communist Party, USA is lauding praise on RBG.
"On Friday, the Supreme Court and the country lost a brilliant thinker who, in her decisions and dissents, often advocated for the working class, people of color, and others suffering the brutalities of capitalism."
She was right.
In 2016, republican senators violated the law (and violated their oath of office, if not committed outright treason) by ignoring their constitutional duty to debate and vote on (up or down) President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland.
Obama had one more year (well, about 50 weeks) left to serve as President at the time Justice Scalia died suddenly.
But because a bunch of lying evil manipulative slimy GOP politicians who put Party loyalty ahead of the rule of constitutional law, and made a bunch of statements about how judicial nominations can be put off indefinitely until there's an intervening election ...
well, now the Democrats can quote us
and throw those words back in our faces.
Karma's a bitch.
In prior threads here, about filling Scalia's seat in the Court,
a number of GApacking members supported the idea
of playing politics and putting the nomination process off until the next election's over.
Gunstar, Wegahe, Jsaund22
OWM, Rmodel65, RedDawnTheMusical,
bKite, Craftsman, Mrs.Esterhaus,
BSClibertarian, & Diamondback.
I guess I'm missing your point.
I don't recall one way or the other but, you could have had the courtesy to link those threads since you were apparently looking at them. You being a Lawyer I'm a little surprised you did not present the proof with the accusation. In any event let me now state that by all means Trump should name his nominee next week and the Senate should act on it the next week. If I felt otherwise on the same topic with a pass administration then that was what suited my political agenda at the time and I make no amends for that. Respectively OWM
And I support a fast filling now. In a war, I would rather my side have the ammo and the other side be weaponless to the greatest extent possible.
Glad this meant enough to you for you to do some homework. I am curious as to what your goal was to call us out by name as you did. It would be even more believable and would showcase your extensive intellectual prowess and moral superiority if you'd give some direct quotes and such.
I still don't understand the point he was trying to make .....
Nor do I. I do know my main takeaway from his post. It is not at all pleasant so I will refrain.
a whiff of trolling, don't take the bait
Easy for me to understand. GS is noting that in the last vacancy a number here were supporting not going forward with the nomination and vote on Garland. The noted ones were in support of the delay on filling the open seat. Now they seem to be taking the opposite view.
Seems they support the idea of same party prez and senate go forward and different parties they go post election. Very reasonable, as history shows.
But on Fox News at 1207 today, Ted Cruz noted when a vacancy occurs in an election year . . . and the parties are the same (19 times of 29) the senate has confirmed those nominees 17 times. When the parties are different (10 times) the senate has confirmed the nominees only twice.
Does'nt seem to be unusual to go forward to me.
Well I completely agree with them then if that is the only point. It's called "politics" ! If you have control and don't want to move forward, then don't. If you have control and want to move forward, then move forward. I guess maybe he thinks that because those people supported not putting Garland in during the Obama years makes that some kind of law....but it doesn't.
I guess I can justify it best by quoting the most racist president we have had since the civil war, Barack Hussein Obama, "elections have consequences" !
Put me on the list of those who opposed Garland's approval but now I totally support filling the position before the next election. Then shortly after Trump is elected, I think Thomas and Alito should both retire so a good young conservative base can be established to carry the SCOTUS through the next 30 to 40 years.
Gonna do some reading up on these ladies....
Britt Grant Georgia Supreme Court justice currently
Dayum, I thought I was on the ignore list. Guess I am going to have to work on that.
i'm just saying don't be hypocrites. If you were OK with the Republicans' use of political maneuvering to achieve their goal
back in 2016, don't complain about the propriety or legality of the Democrats doing the exact same thing now.
You cansay that you hope it does not succeed, but you can't (with a straight face) say that it's immoral or illegal to do what they are going to do now.
Well yes its out of context with history. Republican prez and repub senate. Dem house irrelevant.
Go back to #92 for details on the history part.
I missed the part in the Constitution says, "and the Senate has a duty to debate and vote on (up or down) ...." The president makes appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. It is purely up to the Senate to decide how and when to give advice and consent. They certainly have no obligation to debate or even to give up or down votes, and even if they did, there's no deadline.
The treason accusation is, well,