Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[wdefromtx 3,159]

26 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

After watching what the Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh, I would not even be opposed to going straight to a vote without any hearings. Although I think having Americans watch the Democrats go after a woman with great credentials would be beneficial in the upcoming election for the Republicans overall. 

Lindsey Graham said and this is a paraphrase, "all bets were off after the way the Dems treated Kavanaugh."

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

There is hypocrisy on both sides.
 

Obama made a nomination his last year and the Democrats pushed for a vote. 

The party that has the power at the time is going to use it. 

Wrong.  Something like this had never been done before.  We broke new ground in 2016 by refusing to vote for a nominee simply because an election was coming later in the year.  The Democrats weren't wrong to object.

Now, the same thing occurs but the ones who put forth the rationale in 2016 that "voters should have a say" are now reneging on that.  Apparently, the voters should NOT have a say.  The Democrats are right to point out that the Republicans aren't even abiding by their OWN precedent and rationale.

Look, we get that the party in power is legally allowed to use it.  But if that was the real reasoning in 2016, then that's what they should have said then instead of the other bull**** excuse about the voters.  Then they wouldn't be charged with hypocrisy today by ramming this one through.  They could just say "the party in power gets to use it" and be done.

[SocialCircle 570]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Wrong.  Something like this had never been done before.  We broke new ground in 2016 by refusing to vote for a nominee simply because an election was coming later in the year.  The Democrats weren't wrong to object.

Now, the same thing is occurs but the ones who put forth the rationale in 2016 that "voters should have a say" are now reneging on that.  Apparently, the voters should NOT have a say.  The Democrats are right to point out that the Republicans aren't even abiding by their OWN precedent and rationale.

Look, we get that the party in power is legally allowed to use it.  But if that was the real reasoning in 2016, then that's what they should have said then instead of the other bull**** excuse about the voters.  Then they wouldn't be charged with hypocrisy today by ramming this one through.  They could just say "the party in power gets to use it" and be done.

Spin it any way you like, but both parties are being hypocritical here.  The Democrats in 2016 said the nominee should be voted on in the Senate during the last year of a president's term.  The Democrats in 2020 now say the nominee shouldn't be voted on in the Senate during the last year of a president's term. And you are ignoring completely that Harry Reid provided the opening for the Republicans on this one by changing the rules while the Democrats were in power.  Are you going to call Reid out for abusing his power?  Or are you only going to call the Republicans out when you think they are doing so?  

Whine and complain all you want, but I believe this is going to happen whether you like it or not......just like Obamacare getting rammed down our throats happened whether I liked it or not. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, SocialCircle said:

Spin it any way you like, but both parties are being hypocritical here.

It's not spin.  The Republicans set the precedent on this.  They are the ones being hypocritical about it.  The Dems have simply reacted to the creating of new precedents and the subsequent hypocrisy.

 

 

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

20 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Lindsey Graham said and this is a paraphrase, "all bets were off after the way the Dems treated Kavanaugh."

So what you’re saying is, that Lindsey Graham is giving up on letting the American people have a say, because in an unrelated situation, he believes the Dems treated Squee unfairly? So LG uses his principles as a tool to punish the Democrats?

[SocialCircle 570]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not spin.  The Republicans set the precedent on this.  They are the ones being hypocritical about it.  The Dems have simply reacted to the creating of new precedents and the subsequent hypocrisy.

 

 

So you are going to continue to not call out Harry Reid for abusing power when he was in control of the Senate?  That is very hypocritical of you as it is Reid who provided this opening for the Republicans. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

So what you’re saying is, that Lindsey Graham is giving up on letting the American people have a say, because in an unrelated situation, he believes the Dems treated Squee unfairly? So LG uses his principles as a tool to punish the Democrats?

I guess it is easier than owning up to the fact that they should have said in 2016 that they are using their power and the rules to their benefit. The way I see it, just be open with your tactics we all see it anyways. 

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

11 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Spin it any way you like, but both parties are being hypocritical here.  The Democrats in 2016 said the nominee should be voted on in the Senate during the last year of a president's term.  The Democrats in 2020 now say the nominee shouldn't be voted on in the Senate during the last year of a president's term. And you are ignoring completely that Harry Reid provided the opening for the Republicans on this one by changing the rules while the Democrats were in power.  Are you going to call Reid out for abusing his power?  Or are you only going to call the Republicans out when you think they are doing so?  

Whine and complain all you want, but I believe this is going to happen whether you like it or not......just like Obamacare getting rammed down our throats happened whether I liked it or not. 

Correct! The Dems did think that the President had the right to name a justice in the last year of a term. Just like every other Senator before. BUT the Republicans set a new precedence when they denied Obama that right. And here we are, only 4 years later and those same Republicans are already going back on that precedence, because it suits their agenda. 
 

The Dems didn’t refuse to have a vote on a Republican healthcare plan 4 years before pushing a vote on Obamacare. Why can’t you see the difference?!
 
You keep spinning this, but the facts are clear. Lindsey Graham said it himself. “Use my words against me”. Well here we are. They can’t just flip flop the procedures of the country back and forth to suit their needs. There is no order in that. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

So you are going to continue to not call out Harry Reid for abusing power when he was in control of the Senate?  That is very hypocritical of you as it is Reid who provided this opening for the Republicans. 

Because Harry Reid is not the excuse the GOP gave.  Try to stay on topic.

First of all, neither Reid's move nor McConnell's move in 2016 or now are unconstitutional or illegal.  Both are within their legal and constitutional rights to dispense with filibusters, hold up SCOTUS confirmations, or ram them through.

What we are discussing is offering one rationale for why you're doing it, then turning around two years later and throwing that rationale in the trash and coming up with a brand new one.  THAT is what makes this hypocritical.  Like I said, if the GOP had simply been honest and said, "The President is within his constitutional powers to nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate is within theirs to decide whether or not to confirm.  Those in power are within their rights to use it," we wouldn't be having this discussion.  They could simply say exactly what they said in 2016 again this year.  But that's not what's happening.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Because Harry Reid is not the excuse the GOP gave.  Try to stay on topic.

First of all, neither Reid's move nor McConnell's move in 2016 or now are unconstitutional or illegal.  Both are within their legal and constitutional rights to dispense with filibusters, hold up SCOTUS confirmations, or ram them through.

What we are discussing is offering one rationale for why you're doing it, then turning around two years later and throwing that rationale in the trash and coming up with a brand new one.  THAT is what makes this hypocritical.  Like I said, if the GOP had simply been honest and said, "The President is within his constitutional powers to nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate is within theirs to decide whether or not to confirm.  Those in power are within their rights to use it," we wouldn't be having this discussion.  They could simply say exactly what they said in 2016 again this year.  But that's not what's happening.

They invoked the Biden rule in 2016 when the Presidency and the Senate were governed by different parties. No such rule applies to 2020 because both the Presidency and the Senate are governed by the same party.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Curious if this plays into Trumps favor. We all know he’s lost some of his middle of the road support in the last year. I know some supported Trump in 2016 because we all knew that there would most likely be some SC openings very soon and that was a major reason to vote Republican no matter what. Does this help push does people back in his favor? Either way it seems as a net positive for Trump if they go ahead and get someone or if they wait. If they wait , I wonder if there’s a chance people decide to stomach him for four more years for that seat? 

[SocialCircle 570]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Because Harry Reid is not the excuse the GOP gave.  Try to stay on topic.

First of all, neither Reid's move nor McConnell's move in 2016 or now are unconstitutional or illegal.  Both are within their legal and constitutional rights to dispense with filibusters, hold up SCOTUS confirmations, or ram them through.

What we are discussing is offering one rationale for why you're doing it, then turning around two years later and throwing that rationale in the trash and coming up with a brand new one.  THAT is what makes this hypocritical.  Like I said, if the GOP had simply been honest and said, "The President is within his constitutional powers to nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate is within theirs to decide whether or not to confirm.  Those in power are within their rights to use it," we wouldn't be having this discussion.  They could simply say exactly what they said in 2016 again this year.  But that's not what's happening.

You try to stay on topic. Trump nominating a justice now and the Senate voting on it soon isn't unconstitutional or illegal either.....but you are calling them out doing just that. And yet you continue to refuse to call out Reid for his abuse of power. Anyway you spin it....both parties are being hypocritical on this issue. The difference is I am intellectually honest enough to admit the Republicans are and yet you continue to be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest as you try to spin out of the Democrats hypocrisy. Also, I will never forget what the Democrats tried to do to Kavanaugh and I would also get this done ASAP if I were a Republican senator at this moment in history.  You might remember the Republicans actually had a net gain in the Senate in the last mid terms after Kavanaugh was confirmed.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Here's what McConnell said in 2016. A speech he gave 10 days after Scalia's death:

FILLING THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the signs of the season are all around 
us. Volunteers are knocking on doors,

[[Page S926]]

caucusers are caucusing, voters are voting, and countless ballots have 
been cast already in places as diverse as Council Bluffs, Nashua, and 
Myrtle Beach. Thousands more Nevadans are making their voices heard 
today, and Americans in over a dozen more States will have an 
opportunity to do the same next week.
  It is campaign season. We are right in the middle of it, and one of 
the most important issues now is this: Who will Americans trust to 
nominate the next Supreme Court justice? The Presidential candidates 
are already debating the issue on stage. Americans are already 
discussing the issue among themselves, and voters are already casting 
ballots--in the case of the Democratic leader's constituents on this 
very day--with this issue very much in mind.
  One might say this is an almost unprecedented moment in the history 
of our country. It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court 
vacancy arose and was filled in a Presidential election year, and that 
was when the Senate majority and the President were from the same 
political party. It has been 80 years.
  Since we have divided government today, it means we have to look back 
almost 130 years to the last time a nominee was confirmed in similar 
circumstances. That was back when politicians such as mugwumps were 
debating policy like free silver and a guy named Grover ran the 
country. Think about that.
  As Senators, it leaves us with a choice. Will we allow the people to 
continue deciding who will nominate the next Justice or will we empower 
a lameduck President to make that decision on his way out the door 
instead?
  The question of who decides has been contemplated by many, including 
our friends on the other side of the aisle. We already know the 
incoming Democratic leader's view. The senior Senator from New York 
didn't even wait until the final year of President George W. Bush's 
term to declare that the Senate ``should reverse the presumption of 
confirmation'' and ``not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in 
extraordinary circumstances.''
  We also know how the current Democratic leader feels about judicial 
nominees from a President of the other party. This is what he said:

       ``The Senate is not a rubberstamp for the executive 
     branch,'' he said. ``Nowhere in [the Constitution] does it 
     say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a 
     vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying 
     every nominee receives a vote.''

  What about the views of the top officer of this body, the President 
of the Senate? Joe Biden was a Senator for many decades. He was a loyal 
Democrat. He developed enduring friendships in both parties, and before 
becoming Vice President, he served here as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. Let's consider what he said in circumstances similar to 
where we find ourselves today. It was an election year with campaigns 
already underway, a President and a Senate majority from different 
political parties, just as we have today. This is what appeared on page 
A25 of the Washington Post:

       Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the 
     Judiciary Committee, has urged President Bush not to fill any 
     vacancy that might open up on the Supreme Court until after 
     the November election. Warning that any election-year nominee 
     ``would become a victim'' of a ``power struggle'' over 
     control of the Supreme Court, Biden said he would also urge 
     the Senate not to hold hearings on a nomination if Bush 
     decided to name someone.

  The article continued, quoting then-Senator Biden:

       ``If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the 
     president not name someone, not send a name up,'' Biden said. 
     ``If he [Bush] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to 
     seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee.''

  And then, this:

       ``Can you imagine dropping a nominee, after the three or 
     four or five decisions that are about to [be] made by the 
     Supreme Court, into that fight, into that cauldron in the 
     middle of a presidential year?'' Biden went on. ``I believe 
     there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored 
     by either side. . . . The environment within which such a 
     hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone 
     to be able to be distorted.''
       ``Whomever the nominee was, good, bad or indifferent,'' he 
     added, ``would become a victim.''

  As the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, 
pointed out yesterday, Biden went even further on the Senate floor. He 
said that ``[it does not] matter how good a person is nominated by the 
President'' because it was the principle of the matter, not the person, 
that truly mattered.
  Biden cautioned that ``Some of our nation's most bitter and heated 
confirmation fights have come in presidential election years'' but also 
reminded colleagues of several instances when Presidents exercised 
restraint and withheld from making a nomination until after the 
election.
  One of them was Abraham Lincoln. It offers an example others may 
choose to consider.
  President Obama, like Lincoln, once served in the Illinois 
legislature. It is a place he returned to just the other day to talk 
about healing the divide in our country. He said:

       It's been noted often by pundits that the tone of our 
     politics hasn't gotten better since I was inaugurated. In 
     fact it's gotten worse. . . . One of my few regrets is my 
     inability to reduce the polarization and meanness in our 
     politics.

  Well, this is his moment. He has every right to nominate someone, 
even if doing so will inevitably plunge our Nation into another bitter 
and unavoidable struggle. That certainly is his right. Even if he never 
expects that nominee to be actually confirmed but rather to wield as an 
election cudgel, he certainly has the right to do that. But he also has 
the right to make a different choice. He could let the people decide 
and make this an actual legacy-building moment, rather than just 
another campaign road show.
  Whatever he decides, his own Vice President and others remind us of 
an essential point. Presidents have a right to nominate just as the 
Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent. In 
this case, the Senate will withhold it. The Senate will appropriately 
revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November 
the decision they have already started making today.
  For now, I would ask colleagues to consider once more the words of 
Vice President Biden. He said:

       Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing 
     more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the 
     hopes that a . . . [member of my party] will be permitted to 
     fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, 
     if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not 
     consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, 
     it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political 
     season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court 
     nomination must be put off until after the election campaign 
     is over.

  That is Vice President Biden when he was chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee in a Presidential election year. Fair to the nominee, 
essential to the process, a pragmatic conclusion--the words of 
President Obama's own No. 2. What else needs to be said?

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/02/23/senate-section/article/S925-7

[Leftfield 2,593]

21 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

You try to stay on topic. Trump nominating a justice now and the Senate voting on it soon isn't unconstitutional or illegal either.....but you are calling them out doing just that. 

Did you even read what he posted? He said the literal opposite of what you just stated. He admitted it wasn't unconstitutional or illegal.

I don't understand why you keep missing the point. We are calling out the hypocrisy of what the Republicans are doing, particularly McConnell.  Every justification McConnell, and many others, gave for why a nominee shouldn't have been put forward in 2016 applies now. Nobody is saying they don't have the right, we're saying they are not holding themselves to the same standards they hold others, which is not a good thing for leaders of a country to be doing.

You point out that the Republicans gained seats in the last mid-term, which is true, but are you not allowing for the fact that things have changed? That Democrats may even regain control of the Senate in the next election? Wasn't it you that said just a couple of weeks ago that a lot can change before the election (and then crowed about it when Ginsburg passed away), yet you won't allow for things to have changed after two years?

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

You try to stay on topic.

You're the one veering off into rationales and excuses that no one but you is offering up.  

 

Quote

Trump nominating a justice now and the Senate voting on it soon isn't unconstitutional or illegal either.....but you are calling them out doing just that.

I literally just said that.  And no, I'm not calling them out because what they're doing is illegal or unconstitutional.  I'm calling them out because they claimed four years ago that when a SCOTUS judge is nominated in an election year, the voters should have a say and it should wait until the election.  Now, they are saying the opposite and ramming one through with even less time until Election Day.  

Damn son, can you read?

 

Quote

And yet you continue to refuse to call out Reid for his abuse of power.

Because it's a red herring.  It has no bearing on the discussion everyone but you seems to be having.

 

Quote

Anyway you spin it....both parties are being hypocritical on this issue.

No, they are not.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 

Quote

The difference is I am intellectually honest enough to admit the Republicans are and yet you continue to be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest as you try to spin out of the Democrats hypocrisy. 

This is such a load of intellectually dishonest horse***t it should be your last post in this forum.  You are serially incapable of having a rational discussion without careening off into non sequiturs, red herrings and whatabouts.  

Final time I'm going through this:

Harry Reid didn't make the Republicans offer up a bull**** excuse for not confirming (or even voting on) Merrick Garland.  The reason was obvious bull**** that the Democrats were not wrong to point out.  They could have been brutally honest and simply said, "we have the votes to kill it and we will."  They chose not to.

Based on the bull**** excuse they gave, if they were honest people they would abide by the same rationale they offered in 2016 - that the voters in an election year should have a say in who gets nominated/confirmed.  They reneged on that and are pushing the confirmation through anyway.  The Democrats are not being hypocritical in pointing out that the GOP isn't abiding by their OWN rationale from 2016.

You don't get to have one side changing the way things are done, offering up asinine reasons, then turning around and hypocritically going against every reason they gave before just because it benefits them, then claim "both sides."  One side is making s*** up and being hypocrites and the other is just reacting to the crazy.

Say Harry Reid one more time and you'll be at the kiddy table for a while.  I'm tired of wasting time trying to talk to someone that cannot comprehend basic logic.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Lindsey Graham said and this is a paraphrase, "all bets were off after the way the Dems treated Kavanaugh."

Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second.  He's looking for any kind of cover because he's on video saying he would do the exact opposite of what he's about to do.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

They invoked the Biden rule in 2016 when the Presidency and the Senate were governed by different parties. No such rule applies to 2020 because both the Presidency and the Senate are governed by the same party.

That was NOT Lindsey's Graham's position in 2016 nor was it McConnell's at the outset.  Mcconnell shifted to that rationale later.  His first comment on the matter though made no mention of this.  It was merely that the people should have a voice.

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Did you even read what he posted? He said the literal opposite of what you just stated. He admitted it wasn't unconstitutional or illegal.

I don't understand why you keep missing the point. We are calling out the hypocrisy of what the Republicans are doing, particularly McConnell.  Every justification McConnell, and many others, gave for why a nominee shouldn't have been put forward in 2016 applies now. Nobody is saying they don't have the right, we're saying they are not holding themselves to the same standards they hold others, which is not a good thing for leaders of a country to be doing.

You point out that the Republicans gained seats in the last mid-term, which is true, but are you not allowing for the fact that things have changed? That Democrats may even regain control of the Senate in the next election? Wasn't it you that said just a couple of weeks ago that a lot can change before the election (and then crowed about it when Ginsburg passed away), yet you won't allow for things to have changed after two years?

 

You must have missed where I agree the Republicans are being hypocritical on this issue. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

If you are the underdog, then what do you have to lose?  And there is a chance this could change the dynamics of the election. 

Arguably the Senate for the next generation.  Let's say the Dems win the Senate this year but don't retaliate by packing the court.  Instead they choose to admit Puerto Rico and D.C as states.  Show me a path to a Republican Senate majority anytime soon if that happens.

And keep in mind that traditional red states like Arizona are turning blue, North Carolina is purple, and Georgia + Texas are trending towards purple.

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

You're the one veering off into rationales and excuses that no one but you is offering up.  

 

I literally just said that.  And no, I'm not calling them out because what they're doing is illegal or unconstitutional.  I'm calling them out because they claimed four years ago that when a SCOTUS judge is nominated in an election year, the voters should have a say and it should wait until the election.  Now, they are saying the opposite and ramming one through with even less time until Election Day.  

Damn son, can you read?

 

Because it's a red herring.  It has no bearing on the discussion everyone but you seems to be having.

 

No, they are not.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 

This is such a load of intellectually dishonest horse***t it should be your last post in this forum.  You are serially incapable of having a rational discussion without careening off into non sequiturs, red herrings and whatabouts.  

Final time I'm going through this:

Harry Reid didn't make the Republicans offer up a bull**** excuse for not confirming (or even voting on) Merrick Garland.  The reason was obvious bull**** that the Democrats were not wrong to point out.  They could have been brutally honest and simply said, "we have the votes to kill it and we will."  They chose not to.

Based on the bull**** excuse they gave, if they were honest people they would abide by the same rationale they offered in 2016 - that the voters in an election year should have a say in who gets nominated/confirmed.  They reneged on that and are pushing the confirmation through anyway.  The Democrats are not being hypocritical in pointing out that the GOP isn't abiding by their OWN rationale from 2016.

You don't get to have one side changing the way things are done, offering up asinine reasons, then turning around and hypocritically going against every reason they gave before just because it benefits them, then claim "both sides."  One side is making s*** up and being hypocrites and the other is just reacting to the crazy.

Say Harry Reid one more time and you'll be at the kiddy table for a while.  I'm tired of wasting time trying to talk to someone that cannot comprehend basic logic.

I’ll defer to what AUFAN78 posted here and continue to laugh my a$$ off at the hypocrisy on clear display for all to see. 

 

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

 

[Leftfield 2,593]

8 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

You must have missed where I agree the Republicans are being hypocritical on this issue. 

Apparently I did. In my defense, I didn't want to swim deep enough to see it through all the water you're carrying for them.

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

Checkmate!!! Thanks for sharing. I feel like Auburn just beat the updykes in the Iron Bowl again, but this time the score was 48-0. 

[SocialCircle 570]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Arguably the Senate for the next generation.  Let's say the Dems win the Senate this year but don't retaliate by packing the court.  Instead they choose to admit Puerto Rico and D.C as states.  Show me a path to a Republican Senate majority anytime soon if that happens.

And keep in mind that traditional red states like Arizona are turning blue, North Carolina is purple, and Georgia + Texas are trending towards purple.

If I am the Republicans I take my chances. If the Dems have the power I expect them to try this and more no matter what happens with this justice nomination. 

[SocialCircle 570]

13 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Apparently I did. In my defense, I didn't want to swim deep enough to see it through all the water you're carrying for them.

Oh I think it is very hypocritical by the Rs for the very reasons everyone is pointing out. Our disagreement is all about the hypocrisy on full display by the Ds on this same issue for those who are being intellectually honest.  I also think the stance both parties have taken on this issue is completely predictable.