|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here.
Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote.
It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not.
I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was.
|
On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here.
Except the Republicans didn't do their job because they never held a hearing or a vote.
No one said that the Republicans should have rubber stamped Garland. Heck they never got a chance to because before Scalia's body was cold the Republicans had come out and said that they would ignore anyone put forward.
Are you really so blind you cannot see the different between rejecting a candidate with the argument that you want a similar replacement and pre-emptively stating that you will deny anyone and everyone?
|
Hey, appointing Gorsuch at least appoints someone who probably also thinks the Republicans did something unconstitutional or at least utterly reprehensible to Garland.
Much better than confirming e.g. Devos who is utterly devoid of qualifications (and who is 1 GOP vote away from failing to be confirmed, which is either indicative of 1) the GOP letting people break with them in key states but knowing they have 50 anyway for Pence to break a tie or 2) other folks probably breaking with them).
|
On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was.
I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge.
That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo.
|
On February 02 2017 07:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Hey, appointing Gorsuch at least appoints someone who probably also thinks the Republicans did something unconstitutional or at least utterly reprehensible to Garland.
Much better than confirming Devos who is utterly devoid of qualifications.
I look forward to the questions about what the Republicans did during his hearing. Some Democrat surely has to bring it up.
|
On February 02 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was. I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge. That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo.
You what mate?
The Democrats turned it into a campaign issue?
Do I really need to look up how many minutes after news of Scalia's death was announced the Republicans said that Obama would not appoint a new judge and that it should be up to the next President?
Trump has more believable lies then this shit.
Edit:
Quick search gives this at 17:05 as article on his death.
http://nypost.com/2016/02/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-79/
18:24 - Not Obama
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/senate-unlikely-confirm-obama-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/
an hour and a half.
Democrats making it political my ass.
|
On February 02 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was. I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge. That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo.
So what do you think the democrats should have done to not make it a partisan issue exactly? Where did they deviate from what the constitution says and how were they not loyal to it.
You can be loyal to the constitution and replace a justice at the same time. You aren't a partisan hack just because a conservative justice dies while a liberal holds the oval office.
|
On February 02 2017 06:59 biology]major wrote:
So then let me throw out a hypothetical, Kennedy retires and Trump gets another pick. Then in the 8th year of his hypothetical 2 term presidency something bad happens to ginsberg/she retires. How many of you would own up to your hypocrisy and admit that you would want the dems to auto block that nomination, and wait for the election? Or would you be fine with Trump getting in 3 picks because "he was an elected official".
I wouldn't want the dems to autoblock the nomination in the circumstance described, it was trump's pick they should vote on it. all nominees should get an up or down vote. we have many existing problems in government and the judiciary because of vacant positions due to not processing nominees adequately.
I'd favor a constitutional amendment to mandate a vote on all nominees (the only question I haven't found a satisfactory answer on is what to do if there is no vote on a nominee despite an explicit constitutional mandate to do so, plus some questions on accounting for timing)
so your claim that we would be hypocrites fails, and feels like you projecting your own issues onto us. (I'm assuming people know what is meant here by projecting, if not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)
|
On February 02 2017 07:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was. I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge. That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo. So what do you think the democrats should have done to not make it a partisan issue exactly? Where did they deviate from what the constitution says and how were they not loyal to it.
1. Don't say "if you don't elect Hillary your judge will be evil" on the campaign trail.
2. Don't say "if I win I'll take a more progressive justice" like Sanders.
The Republicans are far from free of partisanship here but it clearly wasn't with a warm regard for the constitution that the Democrats wanted the nominee to be chosen by Obama.
|
On February 02 2017 07:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was. I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge. That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo. So what do you think the democrats should have done to not make it a partisan issue exactly? Where did they deviate from what the constitution says and how were they not loyal to it.
I'd argue that they should have been more adamant about pointing out how basically their votes don't matter and this is entirely about how Republicans could vote and then point to lesser rank-and-file senators and try to explain how basically the voters in say Iowa are having *their own* votes denied by the Republican leadership.
|
On February 02 2017 07:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 02 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was. I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge. That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo. So what do you think the democrats should have done to not make it a partisan issue exactly? Where did they deviate from what the constitution says and how were they not loyal to it. 1. Don't say "if you don't elect Hillary your judge will be evil" on the campaign trail. 2. Don't say "if I win I'll take a more progressive justice" like Sanders. The Republicans are far from free of partisanship here but it clearly wasn't with a warm regard for the constitution that the Democrats wanted the nominee to be chosen by Obama.
regardless of the issues of partisanship, one side broke the constitutional rules.
everyone's (mostly) partisan, we all know that, but breaking the constitutional rules is far worse.
the concern is basically where you said
"Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here."
it made it seem like the two cases were equivalent, when they are clearly not equivalent. one is worse than the other. it feels to the people complaining at you now that you made a false equivalence between the two.
the complaint may have partisan motives, but still be right according to the constitution, which matters far more.
being guilty of partisanship doesn't mean much, everyone's guilty of it anyways.
breaking the constitution because of your partisanship IS a big deal, and only one side did that in this case.
|
On February 02 2017 07:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 02 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was. I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge. That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo. So what do you think the democrats should have done to not make it a partisan issue exactly? Where did they deviate from what the constitution says and how were they not loyal to it. 1. Don't say "if you don't elect Hillary your judge will be evil" on the campaign trail. 2. Don't say "if I win I'll take a more progressive justice" like Sanders. The Republicans are far from free of partisanship here but it clearly wasn't with a warm regard for the constitution that the Democrats wanted the nominee to be chosen by Obama.
It took 1.5 hours for the Republicans to politicise the issue by stating that Obama would not appoint a replacement.
|
Let me put it another way:
1. Is the problem that the new nominee is of questionable qualifications? I find few people willing to say so.
2. Is the problem that the political views of the current nominee are somewhat troubling? Tough shit, there isn't some god-given right for the party in power to choose the nominee that will rubber stamp their policies.
3. Is the problem that they denied Obama a constitutional right to nominate a new justice and undermined the function of the SCOTUS to do so? That is a valid complaint and the Republicans were wrong here.
The complaint of (3) is perfectly valid but too many people complain in a way that makes it seem that (2) was really their concern.
|
On February 02 2017 07:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 07:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 02 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2017 07:21 Logo wrote:On February 02 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:
Regardless of how we frame it, what happened was that a key conservative justice died and unexpectedly left a seat open. The Democrats saw it as an opportunity to move the court in their favor (Sanders, for example, said Garland wasn't progressive enough for his tastes) and the Republicans made up a reason to refuse that. Now Trump won so they replace Scalia with someone just as conservative as Scalia.
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. Fair enough, but the key thing I want to highlight is essentially Republican leadership holding the rest of their Senate hostage effectively by not giving them the chance to vote. At least that's how I interpreted the non-vote. It's not that they were denying Democrats the chance to confirm Garland, the Dem senators didn't have that power, they were denying Republicans to choose if the choice was acceptable or not. I really think framing the entire thing as Dems vs Republicans does a disservice to how gross the situation is/was. I agree that it shouldn't have turned partisan. But the reality is that in contentious cases (like, big laws) the court tends to rule along party lines. The Democrats saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a judge they liked on the court and made it a campaign issue. That's not loyalty to the constitution, that's just wanting a favorable judge. That said, I think the Republicans were wrong to deny a vote here. But very few Republicans actually wanted to confirm so hard that they intended to break rank. Most of them were just concerned about reelection. It turned partisan and ultimately the Republicans just won a return to the status quo. So what do you think the democrats should have done to not make it a partisan issue exactly? Where did they deviate from what the constitution says and how were they not loyal to it. 1. Don't say "if you don't elect Hillary your judge will be evil" on the campaign trail. 2. Don't say "if I win I'll take a more progressive justice" like Sanders. The Republicans are far from free of partisanship here but it clearly wasn't with a warm regard for the constitution that the Democrats wanted the nominee to be chosen by Obama.
So Obama followed the Constitution by nominating a justice, but democrats don't actually believe what it says because they're partisan hacks who only follow it when it lines up with their views? You can't seriously believe that.
|
I don't remember democrats fighting that much about the garland nomination. It was bearly a point of "hey we want to nominate this person" and republicans were like "I don't want to nominate him and heres a weak reason to not do it" and dems decided "hey hillary will win this doesn't matter lets just meh it off".
I mean did you see any fight out of obama for it or is this just me?
|
On February 02 2017 07:42 Sermokala wrote:
I don't remember democrats fighting that much about the garland nomination. It was bearly a point of "hey we want to nominate this person" and republicans were like "I don't want to nominate him and heres a weak reason to not do it" and dems decided "hey hillary will win this doesn't matter lets just meh it off".
I mean did you see any fight out of obama for it or is this just me?
Nah, it kinda just became a campaign talking point and that's it.
|
On February 02 2017 07:40 LegalLord wrote:
Let me put it another way:
1. Is the problem that the new nominee is of questionable qualifications? I find few people willing to say so.
2. Is the problem that the political views of the current nominee are somewhat troubling? Tough shit, there isn't some god-given right for the party in power to choose the nominee that will rubber stamp their policies.
3. Is the problem that they denied Obama a constitutional right to elect a new justice and undermined the function of the SCOTUS to do so? That is a valid complaint and the Republicans were wrong here.
The complaint of (3) is perfectly valid but too many people complain in a way that makes it seem that (2) was really their concern.
Except for the part where multiple people have said they support obstructionism because of number 3.
But alternative facts and all that.
|
On February 02 2017 07:42 Sermokala wrote:
I don't remember democrats fighting that much about the garland nomination. It was bearly a point of "hey we want to nominate this person" and republicans were like "I don't want to nominate him and heres a weak reason to not do it" and dems decided "hey hillary will win this doesn't matter lets just meh it off".
I mean did you see any fight out of obama for it or is this just me?
There was some, but it's true that it was minor. I don't think anyone is absolving the Dems of their apathy here, but it doesn't mean there shouldn't be some attempt to pull things back to a working order.
|
On February 02 2017 07:42 Sermokala wrote:
I don't remember democrats fighting that much about the garland nomination. It was bearly a point of "hey we want to nominate this person" and republicans were like "I don't want to nominate him and heres a weak reason to not do it" and dems decided "hey hillary will win this doesn't matter lets just meh it off".
I mean did you see any fight out of obama for it or is this just me?
Nothing Obama can do if the Republicans don't bring it up to a vote.
He has 0 power over it and unlike the Republicans he won't bring the country to a burning halt when something doesn't go his way.
|
On February 02 2017 07:40 LegalLord wrote:
Let me put it another way:
1. Is the problem that the new nominee is of questionable qualifications? I find few people willing to say so.
2. Is the problem that the political views of the current nominee are somewhat troubling? Tough shit, there isn't some god-given right for the party in power to choose the nominee that will rubber stamp their policies.
3. Is the problem that they denied Obama a constitutional right to nominate a new justice and undermined the function of the SCOTUS to do so? That is a valid complaint and the Republicans were wrong here.
The complaint of (3) is perfectly valid but too many people complain in a way that makes it seem that (2) was really their concern.
it may be the case that too many talk in ways that sound akin to point 2, but it was not the case here.
the discussion here in this thread was clearly about point 3, so if you want to bring point 2 in you need to make it very clear it's not about this thread discussion, and bring up this listing of points sooner so as to be clearer on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
