|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
For the people living in your enclaves and bubbles (that's most of you in this thread). You may want to do some self-reflection and perhaps give this a read, unless you like to continue to badly lose elections while crying profusely (or name calling....whatever).
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/572581/?__twitter_impression=true
There is the highest of ironies here too - the richer you are the more you tend to self-hate. It's interesting really. Then again, most socialist movements are movements of the rich elite, not the poor sap working 9-5 and worrying about their kids future.
|
On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing.
I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful.
|
Yet you complain when people who disagree with you talk about taking the court down a couple pegs.
|
On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful.
When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt.
SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions...
|
On October 11 2018 10:38 Plansix wrote:
Yet you complain when people who disagree with you talk about taking the court down a couple pegs.
No, you talk about impeaching a SCOTUS member, not rescinding the power of the court. Your motives are entirely partisan (and to be sure to change once power is back in your camp). Don't be coy.
|
On October 11 2018 10:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:38 Plansix wrote:
Yet you complain when people who disagree with you talk about taking the court down a couple pegs. No, you talk about impeaching a SCOTUS member, not rescinding the power of the court. Your motives are entirely partisan (and to be sure to change once power is back in your camp). Don't be coy.
How else is congress supposed to rescinding power from the court? You seem to misunderstand the foundation of political power does not reside in legal decision or written rules, but agreement by elected representatives to obey the rules.
And impeachment is not removal. And I was discussing the possibility, history of impeaching justices for ruling in a political nature and the results.
|
On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions...
It's quite annoying, however, what happened to the budget hawks and fiscal responsibility party? God, it makes me laugh so much how out of touch what is said and what is done. Once the Democrats are back in power you'll hear the GOP rail on and on about the deficit and socialism and XYZ and when in power they're even WORSE. Can you imagine?! To the observer I'd reckon the only diagnosis is insanity. Can you guys leave me out of it, and just let the Potomac be a footnote in history?
Also for my entertainment and to see you guys get crushed - please nominate someone like Bernie on a platform of free shit to all and "woke" non-sense. You guys didn't get the message loud enough with Hillary, I need to see it happen twice. Gives me some little amount of joy in the world of insanity.
|
On October 11 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:39 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 10:38 Plansix wrote:
Yet you complain when people who disagree with you talk about taking the court down a couple pegs. No, you talk about impeaching a SCOTUS member, not rescinding the power of the court. Your motives are entirely partisan (and to be sure to change once power is back in your camp). Don't be coy. How else is congress supposed to rescinding power from the court? You seem to misunderstand the foundation of political power does not reside in legal decision or written rules, but agreement to obey the rules.
You seem to be unaware of your own blinding biases and attempt to proffer them as enlightened gibberish. If Hillary had won and some liberal appointed to the court, you wouldn't have said jack shit. You know it, I know it, but you just won't self-admit it. Instead you evoke impartiality and harkening to Jefferson...the gall.
Just like how inconvenient the Senate rules were so the Democrats got rid of them...now they're complaining about the logical results of that. Like you guys thought you were going to rule in toto. How funny and myopic.
|
On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions...
For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie.
|
On October 11 2018 10:48 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 10:38 Plansix wrote:
Yet you complain when people who disagree with you talk about taking the court down a couple pegs. No, you talk about impeaching a SCOTUS member, not rescinding the power of the court. Your motives are entirely partisan (and to be sure to change once power is back in your camp). Don't be coy. How else is congress supposed to rescinding power from the court? You seem to misunderstand the foundation of political power does not reside in legal decision or written rules, but agreement to obey the rules. You seem to be unaware of your own blinding biases and attempt to proffer them as enlightened gibberish. If Hillary had won and some liberal appointed to the court, you wouldn't have said jack shit. You know it, I know it, but you just won't self-admit it. Instead you evoke impartiality and harkening to Jefferson...the gall. Just like how inconvenient the Senate rules were so the Democrats got rid of them...now they're complaining about the logical results of that. Like you guys thought you were going to rule in toto. How funny and myopic.
Its mostly that I passed a bunch of civics and government classes to teach American history, so I don’t treat the founding fathers as sacrosanct figures, but real humans. And I’m old enough to remember when the Republicans changed all the rules when they got control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Government reflects the citizens and what they value. This government reflects what the nation values at this time, which is beating the other political party. It will change when we change.
|
There is the highest of ironies here too - the richer you are the more you tend to self-hate. It's interesting really. Then again, most socialist movements are movements of the rich elite, not the poor sap working 9-5 and worrying about their kids future.
How do you use "socialism" here? Are you thinking of communist revolutions or the social democrat movments which shaped Europe throughout the 1900s?
I only know Norway intimately, but there was always an extremely strong bond between the Labour party and the biggest workers union. You will have a very hard time arguing that movement is of "the rich elite" and I am quite sure you will get into similar problems in most other countries.
That every Chinese leader has a billionaire family behind them is a completely different issue.
|
On October 11 2018 10:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... It's quite annoying, however, what happened to the budget hawks and fiscal responsibility party? God, it makes me laugh so much how out of touch what is said and what is done. Once the Democrats are back in power you'll hear the GOP rail on and on about the deficit and socialism and XYZ and when in power they're even WORSE. Can you imagine?! To the observer I'd reckon the only diagnosis is insanity. Can you guys leave me out of it, and just let the Potomac be a footnote in history? Also for my entertainment and to see you guys get crushed - please nominate someone like Bernie on a platform of free shit to all and "woke" non-sense. You guys didn't get the message loud enough with Hillary, I need to see it happen twice. Gives me some little amount of joy in the world of insanity.
I wish they'd fight over spending more but since we are in culture war mode at the moment no one cares. Of every news story wasn't about Trump it would help as well.
|
On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie.
Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is.
|
On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie. Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is.
Just like the Republicans did to Obama when Scalia died. Like literally a couple after he died, McConnell said they wouldn’t approve any nominee Obama picked. Just like they promised to do if Clinton won. You reap what you sow.
|
On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie. Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is. Just like the Republicans did to Obama when Scalia died. Like literally a couple after he died, McConnell said they wouldn’t approve any nominee Obama picked. Just like they promised to do if Clinton won. You reap what you sow.
Nobody accused him of attempted rape or called into question his qualifications. The GOP didnt embark on a campaign of personal destruction. which is one reason why Garland comparisons are absurd. So your post didnt adress what I said at all.
|
On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie. Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is. Just like the Republicans did to Obama when Scalia died. Like literally a couple after he died, McConnell said they wouldn’t approve any nominee Obama picked. Just like they promised to do if Clinton won. You reap what you sow. Nobody accused him of attempted rape or called into question his qualifications. The GOP didnt embark on a campaign of personal destruction. which is one reason why Garland comparisons are absurd. So your post didnt adress what I said at all.
They never had to, they just never held a hearing. Why bother with a smear campaign if you can just ignore the nominee? It’s like your point doesn’t matter because it was never necessary for them to attack Garland.
|
On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie. Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is. Just like the Republicans did to Obama when Scalia died. Like literally a couple after he died, McConnell said they wouldn’t approve any nominee Obama picked. Just like they promised to do if Clinton won. You reap what you sow. Nobody accused him of attempted rape or called into question his qualifications. The GOP didnt embark on a campaign of personal destruction. which is one reason why Garland comparisons are absurd. So your post didnt adress what I said at all.
It is far better to just sabotage the whole process to the point it does not even get voted on. The comparison makes 100% sense, and is a consequence of the Dems taking of the gloves against an opponent who have refused to play by the rules for years. Ford also notified the White house long in advance, there was no ambush, just a woman doing what she thought was right.
3 democrats voted for Gorsuch. It is not like every GOP nominee gets the treatment Garland got...
|
Also keep in mind that Gorsuch didnt have the same issues Kavanaugh had, despite being the direct replacement for Garland. If Kavanuagh wasnt such an shit candidate it would hardly have been the issue it is. Hes biased, mentally uneven enough to not even be good at hiding it, and someone of substandard moral character based on that hearing.
I know this has been said like 40 times in this thread but I think it bears repeating over and over. Its. The. Supreme. Fucking. Court.
I feel like Gordon Ramsey needs to shout at us about having standards to have that fact sink in.
|
On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie. Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is. Just like the Republicans did to Obama when Scalia died. Like literally a couple after he died, McConnell said they wouldn’t approve any nominee Obama picked. Just like they promised to do if Clinton won. You reap what you sow. Nobody accused him of attempted rape or called into question his qualifications. The GOP didnt embark on a campaign of personal destruction. which is one reason why Garland comparisons are absurd. So your post didnt adress what I said at all. They never had to, they just never held a hearing. Why bother with a smear campaign if you can just ignore the nominee? It’s like your point doesn’t matter because it was never necessary for them to attack Garland.
This is switching topics, but if you'd like I can link the article talking about what happens to SCOTUS nominations historically when the presidency and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties in a presidential election year. I've already posted it like 4 times.
Here's a hint: they are almost never confirmed.
|
On October 11 2018 11:31 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 10:39 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 10:32 Wegandi wrote:On October 11 2018 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2018 09:03 Sermokala wrote:
Removing kavanaugh now on the basis of partisanship would damage the legitimacy of the court in the nation far more completely than just letting him stay unless something new comes up. The court is long overdue for losing its legitimacy. It isn't functioning as it was intended and has been replacing actual legislating for a very long time. The supreme court should not be what decides issues like abortion, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage and basically every single other major thing. I wonder why we didn't hear that same sentiment when they were ruling in what one would assume to be a favorable view for you (or more generally those who support the rulings they've previously given in these cases). I happen to agree for the record, that the SCOTUS has been out of control....not just because the court is now conservative and you don't like it. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has been too powerful. When the left finally loses institutions those institutions lose their legitimacy. The Senate confirmed a mainstream well qualified nominee, but now it's broken. Story as old as dirt. SCOTUS now, and people are bitching about the Senate again. For years the electoral college was going to give the Democrats everlasting victory, but now that they traded in their coalitions... For main stream qualified nominee, he sure was hand picked by the federalist society, was wildly disapproved of and was confirmed by the slimmest margins in mordern history. It’s almost like this entire post is a lie. Democrats vowed to oppose whoever Trump picked before he even made the selection. A few moderate dems then used the uncorroborated assuslt claims as an excuse to vote no. Look at his resume, do a search for his name from before he was added to Trump's list. Dude's been on the short list for every Republican for years. He had a stirling reputation from all sides of the legal profession. It's almost like you are evaluating what I said based on criteria I did not apply, like it's some sort of popularity contest. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is. Just like the Republicans did to Obama when Scalia died. Like literally a couple after he died, McConnell said they wouldn’t approve any nominee Obama picked. Just like they promised to do if Clinton won. You reap what you sow. Nobody accused him of attempted rape or called into question his qualifications. The GOP didnt embark on a campaign of personal destruction. which is one reason why Garland comparisons are absurd. So your post didnt adress what I said at all. It is far better to just sabotage the whole process to the point it does not even get voted on. The comparison makes 100% sense, and is a consequence of the Dems taking of the gloves against an opponent who have refused to play by the rules for years. Ford also notified the White house long in advance, there was no ambush, just a woman doing what she thought was right. 3 democrats voted for Gorsuch. It is not like every GOP nominee gets the treatment Garland got...
If you mean "taking the gloves off" to be "doing what the Senate historically does in that situation", then sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3962
3476
161
EPT
