Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[jj3jordan 2,039]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They did so because that's how it had been handled before.  There was no argument made prior to McConnell's move in 2016 that you don't vote on SCOTUS nominees in an election year.  They were simply reacting to this new tactic the Republicans were employing.

Once the Republicans established that rationale, it's completely reasonable for them to say, "Ok, well since you said no nominations in an election year, why are you discarding that rationale simply because you like the nominees that will come this time around?"  The entire discussion is predicated on a precedent the GOP set four years ago.

 

 

2016 was different Titan.  Obama wasn't coming back. A new president was going to be elected. Not the situation here. Trump may win a second term, or Biden may be elected. If we had confirmed Garland and Hillary had been elected, do you HONESTLY believe that Hillary would have been happy to abdicate what could have been HER pick?  I doubt that seriously. I am willing to bet that she would have wanted her own pick to begin to establish her legacy. It was not fair to her to confirm Obamas pick.   I can't be the only person to see this analysis of the possible outcomes, but it seems pretty clear to me that in that situation the senate did the proper thing. 

For this situation, whomever is in power, has the power.

[Leftfield 2,583]

7 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

2016 was different Titan.  Obama wasn't coming back. A new president was going to be elected. Not the situation here. Trump may win a second term, or Biden may be elected. If we had confirmed Garland and Hillary had been elected, do you HONESTLY believe that Hillary would have been happy to abdicate what could have been HER pick?  I doubt that seriously. I am willing to bet that she would have wanted her own pick to begin to establish her legacy. It was not fair to her to confirm Obamas pick.   I can't be the only person to see this analysis of the possible outcomes, but it seems pretty clear to me that in that situation the senate did the proper thing. 

You go through all this exposition (I won't go into how it makes no sense that Hillary should have been able to establish her legacy but for some reason Biden shouldn't), and then you nullify it with this:

7 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

For this situation, whomever is in power, has the power.

The first part is what McConnell did. The second is what he should have been honest about.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

8 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

2016 was different Titan.  Obama wasn't coming back. A new president was going to be elected. Not the situation here.

That wasn't the reason given back then either.  It's the reason being offered now to polish that turd of a rationale they gave.

 

8 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

For this situation, whomever is in power, has the power.

Then like I've said a few times now, that is what the Republicans should have said.  Instead of bull**** about "let the voters have a say" (then) or "Obama was a lame duck" (now), just be honest and say, "The Senate has the right to confirm or not confirm SCOTUS nominees and the Republicans have the majority.  Those in power have the power."  

It's ballsy, brutally political, but truthful. Then this entire discussion isn't happening.

[SocialCircle 570]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They did so because that's how it had been handled before.  There was no argument made prior to McConnell's move in 2016 that you don't vote on SCOTUS nominees in an election year.  They were simply reacting to this new tactic the Republicans were employing.

Once the Republicans established that rationale, it's completely reasonable for them to say, "Ok, well since you said no nominations in an election year, why are you discarding that rationale simply because you like the nominees that will come this time around?"  The entire discussion is predicated on a precedent the GOP set four years ago.

 

 

The precedent is not even exactly the same. The last time we have a divided government and this time the president and the Senate are controlled by the same party. 

Those people above didn't put qualifiers on their quotes.  Why did their rationale change now???  For the same darn reason the Republicans rationale changed now.  They are all hypocrites as it relates to this issue and whoever has the political power at the time is going to get their way.  

[TitanTiger 20,468]

1 minute ago, SocialCircle said:

The precedent is not even exactly the same. The last time we have a divided government and this time the president and the Senate are controlled by the same party. 

And that is a newly invented rationale McConnell put forth this year to try and explain the issue away.  It is not the rationale offered at the time.

 

1 minute ago, SocialCircle said:

Those people above didn't put qualifiers on their quotes.  Why did their rationale change now???  For the same darn reason the Republicans rationale changed now.  They are all hypocrites as it relates to this issue and whoever has the political power at the time is going to get their way.  

How is it even possible for you to be this bad at following basic logic?  You don't get to accuse someone of hypocrisy when they react to you changing the norms of how something is done, and then when you renege on the new norm you set, they react to this obvious flip-flop and point that out.

[jj3jordan 2,039]

59 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You go through all this exposition (I won't go into how it makes no sense that Hillary should have been able to establish her legacy but for some reason Biden shouldn't), and then you nullify it with this:

The first part is what McConnell did. The second is what he should have been honest about.

Sorry you can't figure out the difference in the two situations regarding Hillary.  Biden MIGHT be there. Trump or Hillary WERE going to be there.  It was offered merely to give a small idea lending some credence to the decision to wait until after the election. Sorry it didn't work out for you this time. I'm sure it will next time.

[jj3jordan 2,039]

50 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That wasn't the reason given back then either.  It's the reason being offered now to polish that turd of a rationale they gave.

 

Then like I've said a few times now, that is what the Republicans should have said.  Instead of bull**** about "let the voters have a say" (then) or "Obama was a lame duck" (now), just be honest and say, "The Senate has the right to confirm or not confirm SCOTUS nominees and the Republicans have the majority.  Those in power have the power."  

It's ballsy, brutally political, but truthful. Then this entire discussion isn't happening.

So your complaint is not with the decision just the explanation of the decision?  I'm amused at your demand that republicans be honest.  

Also, this discussion doesn't happen if Ruth retired and let Obama replace her. She rolled the dice for her personal benefit, no one else, and she lost.  

[Leftfield 2,583]

16 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Sorry you can't figure out the difference in the two situations regarding Hillary.  Biden MIGHT be there. Trump or Hillary WERE going to be there.  It was offered merely to give a small idea lending some credence to the decision to wait until after the election. Sorry it didn't work out for you this time. I'm sure it will next time.

I love the way you pat yourself on the back as if you've won the argument, while completely failing at logic.

The very fact that either Trump OR Hillary were going to be elected by definition meant it MIGHT be Hillary. 

 

12 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Also, this discussion doesn't happen if Ruth retired and let Obama replace her. She rolled the dice for her personal benefit, no one else, and she lost.  

You've made this point in several posts. It's great that you think a person staying in a job they love is selfish. Would be nice if you didn't project your values onto someone else.  I'm sure one day you'll be perfectly willing to step aside so someone younger and healthier can fill your position.

Lack of logic, empathy, and decency. Yep - all big boxes checked for the perfect Trump supporter.

[alexava 6,973]

I was pissed in “16 about Garland and the way McConnell grand stranded the approval. I remember very well what he said was the justification for it. It was bullsheyt. Why he didn’t just simply tell the truth ( which was the gop controlled the senate and had the power to do it). What he did was legal. And it sucked. I don’t understand the stress people are putting themselves through being mad about what is happening now. What McConnell is doing now is legal. When did people start expecting these two despicable parties to start playing nice with each other?

[TitanTiger 20,468]

24 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

So your complaint is not with the decision just the explanation of the decision?  I'm amused at your demand that republicans be honest.  

My complaint is that they are being hypocrites. Yes, I expect party I have supported almost exclusively my entire political life to be better than the opposition they demonize so much.  I expect character and integrity.  Why that's amusing, I'm not sure.

 

24 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Also, this discussion doesn't happen if Ruth retired and let Obama replace her. She rolled the dice for her personal benefit, no one else, and she lost.  

That's a different discussion that has nothing to do with underhanded political moves and lying.

[alexava 6,973]

And I am convinced Trump is choosing a woman solely so democrats cannot find a rape victim to pair him too. 

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

My complaint is that they are being hypocrites. Yes, I expect party I have supported almost exclusively my entire political life to be better than the opposition they demonize so much.  I expect character and integrity.  Why that's amusing, I'm not sure.

 

That's a different discussion that has nothing to do with underhanded political moves and lying.

Really? You still expect character and integrity?? That’s shocking. I have lost any hope of these virtues. Very few still have any integrity. Mitt Romney, Doug Jones maybe a few more. The ones with integrity don’t have any power. Never will. 

[TitanTiger 20,468]

2 minutes ago, alexava said:

Really? You still expect character and integrity?? That’s shocking.

I not only expect it, I all but demand it.  I may not always (or usually) get it, but I do expect it.  I especially think it's a reasonable thing to expect when the party I've supported has made it such a cornerstone of their pitch as compared to the Democrats - family values, honor, standing up for morality, and so on.

 

 

[homersapien 11,352]

8 minutes ago, alexava said:

I was pissed in “16 about Garland and the way McConnell grand stranded the approval. I remember very well what he said was the justification for it. It was bullsheyt. Why he didn’t just simply tell the truth ( which was the gop controlled the senate and had the power to do it). What he did was legal. And it sucked. I don’t understand the stress people are putting themselves through being mad about what is happening now. What McConnell is doing now is legal. When did people start expecting these two despicable parties to start playing nice with each other?

It may be legal - but thanks to the rationale proffered over refusing Garland a hearing - it's also political, which is why something like 62% of the American people disagree with it, and why the Democrats are trying to use it.

[homersapien 11,352]

I think integrity and character in political contests was diminished with the "Citizens United" ruling.  It was an inflection point, in which or politics veered from contests of ideas and integrity to contests of money and pure power. 

If we could remove most of the money from politics and force candidates to compete on more or less equal terms financially, you'd see more honest debate on issues and less brute force propaganda

[jj3jordan 2,039]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

My complaint is that they are being hypocrites. Yes, I expect party I have supported almost exclusively my entire political life to be better than the opposition they demonize so much.  I expect character and integrity.  Why that's amusing, I'm not sure.

 

That's a different discussion that has nothing to do with underhanded political moves and lying.

Just that we don't ever get honesty and integrity from democrats.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

Just that we don't ever get honesty and integrity from democrats.

That's ridiculous.  There are Democrats with integrity and honesty just like there are Republicans with both.  I may agree more often politically with the latter, but just because someone had different views on certain issues than I do doesn't mean they do so in bad faith - that they lack honesty, integrity, and decency.  One can be wrong (in my view) about some things and not be evil.

[aubiefifty 16,682]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Just that we don't ever get honesty and integrity from democrats.

i can say they same for you. and that is fact in my mind and not a flame.

[jj3jordan 2,039]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

i can say they same for you. and that is fact in my mind and not a flame.

Sorry Fidy.  I have not been dishonest with you.  Or acted in any disingenuous way.  I'm talking national democrats leadership. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

Sorry Fidy.  I have not been dishonest with you.  Or acted in any disingenuous way.  I'm talking national democrats leadership. 

Being dishonest describes about 98% of all politicians no matter what side if we are going to be honest about things. 

[homersapien 11,352]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's ridiculous.  There are Democrats with integrity and honesty just like there are Republicans with both.  I may agree more often politically with the latter, but just because someone had different views on certain issues than I do doesn't mean they do so in bad faith - that they lack honesty, integrity, and decency.  One can be wrong (in my view) about some things and not be evil.

Thanks for responding to jordan's idiocy Titan. 

It's a dirty job - not to mention a waste of good time - but someone needs to do it.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

That wasn't the reason given back then either.  It's the reason being offered now to polish that turd of a rationale they gave.

If you're talking about Lindsey Graham and other Republicans then yes they've changed their argument since 2016. But Mitch McConnell has been consistent, much more than everyone else on both sides. I posted the speech he gave 10 days after Scalia's death and he absolutely invoked the Biden rule. 

McConnell has been consistent since February 23, 2016.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

14 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

If you're talking about Lindsey Graham and other Republicans then yes they've changed their argument since 2016. But Mitch McConnell has been consistent, much more than everyone else on both sides. I posted the speech he gave 10 days after Scalia's death and he absolutely invoked the Biden rule. 

McConnell has been consistent since February 23, 2016.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. McConnell's office said he gave Garland that message in a phone call with the nominee Wednesday.

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

 

Sunday, March 20, 2016

On "Meet the Press":   "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/16/gop-senators-vow-not-consider-garland-fill-supreme-court-vacancy/81856428/

 

He may have added additional reasons after his initial 'the people should have a say' rationale, but he continued to push this as a reason to wait on the confirmation until after the election, for at least 3-4 weeks beyond your Feb 23rd date.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

24 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. McConnell's office said he gave Garland that message in a phone call with the nominee Wednesday.

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

 

Sunday, March 20, 2016

On "Meet the Press":   "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/16/gop-senators-vow-not-consider-garland-fill-supreme-court-vacancy/81856428/

 

He may have added additional reasons after his initial 'the people should have a say' rationale, but he continued to push this as a reason to wait on the confirmation until after the election, for at least 3-4 weeks beyond your Feb 23rd date.

He also gave another speech March 16, 2016 reiterating the Biden rule.

https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=50492600-6758-4FC2-928D-302FAB54BEA8&ContentType_id=C19BC7A5-2BB9-4A73-B2AB-3C1B5191A72B&Group_id=b9ad8a82-099c-461d-99e1-b8565e492a8c

 

 

Edit: You only quoted a piece of McConnell's speech on March 16. His main point was the Biden rule.

[TitanTiger 20,468]

2 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

He also gave another speech March 16, 2016 reiterating the Biden rule.

https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=50492600-6758-4FC2-928D-302FAB54BEA8&ContentType_id=C19BC7A5-2BB9-4A73-B2AB-3C1B5191A72B&Group_id=b9ad8a82-099c-461d-99e1-b8565e492a8c

 

 

What I'm saying is, he has not "been consistent" as you claim.   He continued to use this "voters should decide" rationale afterward.