Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

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. 

Welp, that's foolish and short-sighted, but I expect nothing less.  Win the battle now but lose the war.  Seems like a dumb strategy to me. 

And the Dems won't have to try it with regards to adding states.  If they win the Senate, they have the ability to do it without opposition.  It only takes an act of Congress to admit a new state if that territory is not part of a current state.  Puerto Rico and D.C. fit that bill.

One other thing.  Y'all act like some of the conservative justices are young.  They aren't.  Alito is 70 and Thomas is 72.  Very, very likely, based on current polling and the 2022 Senate map, that a Democratic Senate will be in place when those two seats open, no matter who is in the White House.  Short term glory can and will bite you in the ass if you don't play it right.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

31 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-graham-ginsburg-senate/2020/09/19/4712b310-fa88-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html%3foutputType=amp
 

“Graham also pointed on social media to recent comments in which he said he was prepared to move ahead with a Supreme Court nominee this year. “After Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I’m concerned,” he told reporters in August, according to NBC News, citing the contentious battle over Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

[SocialCircle 570]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Welp, that's foolish and short-sighted, but I expect nothing less.  Win the battle now but lose the war.  Seems like a dumb strategy to me. 

And the Dems won't have to try it with regards to adding states.  If they win the Senate, they have the ability to do it without opposition.  It only takes an act of Congress to admit a new state if that territory is not part of a current state.  Puerto Rico and D.C. fit that bill.

One other thing.  Y'all act like some of the conservative justices are young.  They aren't.  Alito is 70 and Thomas is 72.  Very, very likely, based on current polling and the 2022 Senate map, that a Democratic Senate will be in place when those two seats open, no matter who is in the White House.  Short term glory can and will bite you in the ass if you don't play it right.

 

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Welp, that's foolish and short-sighted, but I expect nothing less.  Win the battle now but lose the war.  Seems like a dumb strategy to me. 

And the Dems won't have to try it with regards to adding states.  If they win the Senate, they have the ability to do it without opposition.  It only takes an act of Congress to admit a new state if that territory is not part of a current state.  Puerto Rico and D.C. fit that bill.

One other thing.  Y'all act like some of the conservative justices are young.  They aren't.  Alito is 70 and Thomas is 72.  Very, very likely, based on current polling and the 2022 Senate map, that a Democratic Senate will be in place when those two seats open, no matter who is in the White House.  Short term glory can and will bite you in the ass if you don't play it right.

After watching how Obamacare was rammed down our throats and watching how the Ds tried to destroy Kavanaugh I am all for damn the torpedoes.....full speed ahead. Even if the Rs didn’t press this, what would prevent the Ds from doing what you mention anyway once they have the political power to do so? Let me answer this for you.....nothing. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

6 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-graham-ginsburg-senate/2020/09/19/4712b310-fa88-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html%3foutputType=amp
 

“Graham also pointed on social media to recent comments in which he said he was prepared to move ahead with a Supreme Court nominee this year. “After Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I’m concerned,” he told reporters in August, according to NBC News, citing the contentious battle over Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

Correct. Kavanaugh confirmation changed many minds.

Also, remember the dems that led that farce. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-graham-ginsburg-senate/2020/09/19/4712b310-fa88-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html%3foutputType=amp
 

“Graham also pointed on social media to recent comments in which he said he was prepared to move ahead with a Supreme Court nominee this year. “After Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I’m concerned,” he told reporters in August, according to NBC News, citing the contentious battle over Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

You missed what I was saying.  My contention is this is a crock of ****.  He needed something to use as an excuse to change his stance because he's quite literally on tape in 2016 saying "hold me to my words".

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

 

After watching how Obamacare was rammed down our throats and watching how the Ds tried to destroy Kavanaugh I am all for damn the torpedoes.....full speed ahead. Even if the Rs didn’t press this, what would prevent the Ds from doing what you mention anyway once they have the political power to do so? Let me answer this for you.....nothing. 

Obamacare literally took over a year to pass and that was with the Democrats holding the House, Senate, and Presidency immediately after an election, not before one.  It wasn't "rammed down our throats".  Try again.

[SocialCircle 570]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Obamacare literally took over a year to pass and that was with the Democrats holding the House, Senate, and Presidency immediately after an election, not before one.  It wasn't "rammed down our throats".  Try again.

Very disingenuous as you can just look at what happened after Brown was elected in MA to the seat formerly held by Kennedy largely based on this issue. You may also remember Pelosi’s comments that in essence said the Dems would do anything necessary to get it done. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You missed what I was saying.  My contention is this is a crock of ****.  He needed something to use as an excuse to change his stance because he's quite literally on tape in 2016 saying "hold me to my words".

I’m not defending him, I was just stating what he said. I know it’s as cover for changing his mind. 
 

Basically the way I see it they should have just been upfront in 2016. So that way nobody could call them out now. Everyone knew why they did it in 2016 and everyone knows why they are doing it now. They want the SC slanted to the right. Just come out and say it. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

50 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

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.

"later". You mean days later. His first comments immediately following Scalia's death were about voters having a voice but he immediately shifted to Biden's 1992 stance. He's had the Biden stance since 10 days after Sclaia's death. 

Honestly I'm okay if in the future Democrats want to holdup a Republican president nominee in an election year. But that's obviously not good enough for the left. They want to re-do the entire system  and implement all the items on their wish list they've been selling to their base for the last year with SC packing, making D.C. and Puerto Rico states, abolishing the filibuster, and likely doing away with the Electoral College as well. 

But despite Democrats openly floating this stuff over the past year, we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't be pushing through a SC nomination if they were in the same position as Republicans right now. They literally pushed for Garland in 2016 and would have succeeded in pushing it through in 2016 had they been the majority in the Senate. Both sides are hypocrites. The end......

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

"later". You mean days later. His first comments immediately following Scalia's death were about voters having a voice but he immediately shifted to Biden's 1992 stance. He's had the Biden stance since 10 days after Sclaia's death. 

Honestly I'm okay if in the future Democrats want to holdup a Republican president nominee in an election year. But that's obviously not good enough for the left. They want to re-do the entire system  and implement all the items on their wish list they've been selling to their base for the last year with SC packing, making D.C. and Puerto Rico states, abolishing the filibuster, and likely doing away with the Electoral College as well. 

But despite Democrats openly floating this stuff over the past year, we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't be pushing through a SC nomination if they were in the same position as Republicans right now. They literally pushed for Garland in 2016 and would have succeeded in pushing it through in 2016 had they been the majority in the Senate. Both sides are hypocrites. The end......

So yes, McConnell did change his stance after realizing his initial one didn't hold water.  Thanks for confirming.

Of the things you mentioned, only making DC/PR states and potentially packing the court could happen.  Abolishing the EC takes ratification of a Constitutional amendment, which isn't happening.  I fully expect at least PR to become a state.  Again I say, Republicans are playing a dangerously short sighted game right now.  The country is skewing more and more left.  Marginalizing a young generation isn't a smart move.

[creed 1,640]

All this back and forth on who said what and what's the right thing to do is simplified if everyone would agree that the party in power can do what they want up until their power no longer exists. Let politics be politics.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So yes, McConnell did change his stance after realizing his initial one didn't hold water.  Thanks for confirming.

Of the things you mentioned, only making DC/PR states and potentially packing the court could happen.  Abolishing the EC takes ratification of a Constitutional amendment, which isn't happening.  I fully expect at least PR to become a state.  Again I say, Republicans are playing a dangerously short sighted game right now.  The country is skewing more and more left.  Marginalizing a young generation isn't a smart move.

I notice you didn't address my point which is that Democrats absolutely would have pushed Garland through in 2016 had they been the majority and would be doing what Republicans are doing in 2020 as well. 

Republicans maintained the Senate after the 2016 and 2018 elections despite holding up Garland. The voters had a voice and they kept Republicans a majority in the Senate. The argument that Republicans risk losing the Senate if they push through another SC nomination doesn't hold water. Lindsey Graham will lose his seat if he doesn't push hard to confirm a SC nominee.

It was Democrats who had seats flipped for opposing Kavanaugh in 2018.

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/07/kavanaugh-effect-midterm-elections/1915457002/

I think Democrats risk losing swing voters if they're already threatening to overhaul the system. Biden is supposed to be a return to 'normalcy' but now Biden won't answer if he opposes packing the court..

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/21/biden-supreme-court-packing-419826

That is troubling and a sign that Biden is more than willing to work with far left members in carrying out their demands. That plays right into Trump's hands that Biden is just a trojan horse for progressives.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I notice you didn't address my point which is that Democrats absolutely would have pushed Garland through in 2016 had they been the majority and would be doing what Republicans are doing in 2020 as well. 

Republicans maintained the Senate after the 2016 and 2018 elections despite holding up Garland. The voters had a voice and they kept Republicans a majority in the Senate. The argument that Republicans risk losing the Senate if they push through another SC nomination doesn't hold water. Lindsey Graham will lose his seat if he doesn't push hard to confirm a SC nominee.

It was Democrats who had seats flipped for opposing Kavanaugh in 2018.

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/07/kavanaugh-effect-midterm-elections/1915457002/

I think Democrats risk losing swing voters if they're already threatening to overhaul the system. Biden is supposed to be a return to 'normalcy' but now Biden won't answer if he opposes packing the court..

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/21/biden-supreme-court-packing-419826

That is troubling and a sign that Biden is more than willing to work with far left members in carrying out their demands. That plays right into Trump's hands that Biden is just a trojan horse for progressives.

You haven't been paying attention to current polling if you think Kavanaugh has any effect on this year.  Two things should also be noted about 2018:

1) The Senate map was extremely unfavorable to Democrats and wasn't a representation of the full national mood with only 1/3 of the seats up for vote.  Democrats lost seats in deep red North Dakota and Indiana, trending more red Missouri, and Florida (where a Democrat hasn't won a major statewide election since 2012).  The Dems also flipped seats in states that are turning red to blue (Arizona and Nevada).  Your point that Kavanaugh was the cause doesn't really hold water.  Demographic and voting trends were the cause.

2) The House flipped in a huge way, with voters nationally saying the Kavanaugh appointment very much played a role in their decision.  Sorry, but the House election is a much better representation of the national mood, not the Senate.

As for whether Dems would have passed through Garland in 2016, we'll never know.  You're playing a hypothetical.  I'm using what we do know for certain.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

3 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

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. 

Don't kid yourself.  They aren't taking their chances.  They see the writing on the wall, believe that the jig is up come November so they're gonna cram in everything they can before Drumpf and a handful of GOP senators get pink slips in November.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

But despite Democrats openly floating this stuff over the past year, we're supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't be pushing through a SC nomination if they were in the same position as Republicans right now. They literally pushed for Garland in 2016 and would have succeeded in pushing it through in 2016 had they been the majority in the Senate. Both sides are hypocrites. The end......

I misunderstood your earlier comment about this then.  Of course the Democrats would have voted on Garland in 2016 if they'd been the majority.  What we *don't* know is if they would have blocked a duly elected Republican's nominee from coming to the floor for a vote eight months out from an election.

[SocialCircle 570]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Don't kid yourself.  They aren't taking their chances.  They see the writing on the wall, believe that the jig is up come November so they're gonna cram in everything they can before Drumpf and a handful of GOP senators get pink slips in November.

I say in this case take the Dems advice from 2016 and run with it. 
 

Whichever RNC staffer did this deserves a promotion

 

 

 

 

Whichever RNC staffer did this deserves a promotion

[alexava 6,973]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Don't kid yourself.  They aren't taking their chances.  They see the writing on the wall, believe that the jig is up come November so they're gonna cram in everything they can before Drumpf and a handful of GOP senators get pink slips in November.

Wasn’t court appointments your main priority due to abortion? How are you not whistling Dixie on this? I mean I prefer a progressive or actually a moderate justice. I’m not sweating this either way because I see exactly what is happening. It’s legal and it cannot be stopped. I’m also extremely shocked that anyone is using hypocrisy to describe either party. Pots and kettles and s***. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

6 minutes ago, alexava said:

Wasn’t court appointments your main priority due to abortion? How are you not whistling Dixie on this? I mean I prefer a progressive or actually a moderate justice. I’m not sweating this either way because I see exactly what is happening. It’s legal and it cannot be stopped. I’m also extremely shocked that anyone is using hypocrisy to describe either party. Pots and kettles and s***. 

I mentioned this earlier - I do want to replace liberal justices with more conservative ones.  But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be honest about what's happening in terms of how Republicans are handling themselves on this.  I'm just calling it what it is.  

Like I also said a few posts back, if McConnell would have left off all the nonsense about letting voters have a say and simply said, "The President has the right to nominate any justice he wants, the Senate likewise has the same right to confirm or not confirm any of the ones he nominates.  We are exercising that right in not confirming Garland.  Those in power have the right to use it," then this isn't even a discussion.  They'd be acting consistently.

On a slightly lesser note, I also thought it was tacky to even comment on how they'd handle a nominee before the woman's body was even cold.  Give it a few days before jumping right into the politics.  I know the press will ask, you just respond that you'll get into that in a few days but for now our focus is on Justice Ginsberg's family during this time of loss.

But that would take class and lmao we should know better, right?

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 hours ago, alexava said:

Wasn’t court appointments your main priority due to abortion? How are you not whistling Dixie on this? I mean I prefer a progressive or actually a moderate justice. I’m not sweating this either way because I see exactly what is happening. It’s legal and it cannot be stopped. I’m also extremely shocked that anyone is using hypocrisy to describe either party. Pots and kettles and s***. 

Graham literally said to use his words against him. 

As for the whataboutism, sure, go for it. But the fact is the GOP were the perps in 2016 and they're the perps now. It's just like trump being the jackass stinking up the Oval Office the last four years. That's why they are the ones being discussed in political forums. Because they're the ones doing the damage right now. 

[homersapien 11,385]

18 hours 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.

And in both cases they were trying to rationalize a simple power play because it was politically unpopular.

[SocialCircle 570]

18 hours 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.

The Dems are indeed being hypocritical as here are examples of some of the rationale they used in 2016 related to trying to get the Senate to take a vote on the President's nominee. The following rationale is as hypocritical as the Republicans. I am asking you only to be intellectually honest on the fact that there is hypocrisy on both sides. Here are a couple of quotes and I'll let you guess as to who said each one, but I'll give you a hint. They are both prominent Democrats.  I have many more similar quotes to provide should it become necessary. 

"Every day that goes by without a 9th justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done."

"The blockade on filling a natural occurring vacancy in my view is harmful to the independence of the Article 3 branch."

Case closed. 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

4 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

The Dems are indeed being hypocritical as here are examples of some of the rationale they used in 2016 related to trying to get the Senate to take a vote on the President's nominee.

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.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,498]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And in both cases they were trying to rationalize a simple power play because it was politically unpopular.

And the power play is fine.  It's legal.  It's constitutional.  Just own it instead of making up false rationales that you then abandon later for political reasons.

[homersapien 11,385]

8 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

The Dems are indeed being hypocritical as here are examples of some of the rationale they used in 2016 related to trying to get the Senate to take a vote on the President's nominee. The following rationale is as hypocritical as the Republicans. I am asking you only to be intellectually honest on the fact that there is hypocrisy on both sides. Here are a couple of quotes and I'll let you guess as to who said each one, but I'll give you a hint. They are both prominent Democrats.  I have many more similar quotes to provide should it become necessary. 

"Every day that goes by without a 9th justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done."

"The blockade on filling a natural occurring vacancy in my view is harmful to the independence of the Article 3 branch."

Case closed. 

"Case closed" using quotes totally irrelevant to the argument?  

[Leftfield 2,607]

It's very simple. Four years ago the Republicans cut in line. The Democrats want their place back.  Then everyone can go back to being in a normally-functioning line. That is not hypocrisy.