|
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 |
On October 11 2018 11:33 Zambrah wrote:
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.
People forget, bu that's not true. Democrats even tried to filibuster him. By the way, if they hadnt done that, Kavanaugh would have been sunk.
But Gorsuch was a replacement to a conservative justice, he didnt change the balance. Plus Trump had just won. there are multiple reasons why this degree of assault didnt happen then.
|
On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote: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.
Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know.
|
On October 11 2018 11:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:31 Slydie wrote: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.
The GOP set a new standard with Garland that has no root in the history of nominations. Do you really believe the Dems should just sit back and watch while BK changed the SCOTUS in their disfavour?
|
|
|
On October 11 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know.
I never said opposing him was not justified. Try again.
|
On October 11 2018 11:44 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:36 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:31 Slydie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The GOP set a new standard with Garland that has no root in the history of nominations. Do you really believe the Dems should just sit back and watch while BK changed the SCOTUS in their disfavour?
This is factually incorrect. as I said to Plansix, refusing to confirm a nominee from a president of the opposing party is totally a thing in presidential election years.
|
On October 11 2018 11:44 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:36 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:31 Slydie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The GOP set a new standard with Garland that has no root in the history of nominations. Do you really believe the Dems should just sit back and watch while BK changed the SCOTUS in their disfavour?
Ah, the truth finally emerges. The pretense of impartiality and non-partisanship is a nice facade, but its just that. At least have some decency for honesty with this circus show. That wasn't that difficult was it? You lost, they won. You're unhappy. Don't worry, like any good them vs us show there's always a turn-a-bout. When Democrats win again, I sincerely doubt there'll be any discussion of an impartial SCOTUS, or the delusions of people like P6 who sincerely believes that the SCOTUS was ever looked at like some impartial Judge Dredd wanna-be.
|
On October 11 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know. I never said opposing him was not justified. Try again.
So what is your complaint then? Democrats didn’t create the women and classmates that came forward.
Edit: there is historical precedent for denying a nominee of the opposition party, but none in recent political history. Historically precedent doesn’t justify the actions to the current senate opposition who have confirmed nominees of the opposing party in the past.
|
On October 11 2018 11:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know. I never said opposing him was not justified. Try again. So what is your complaint then? Democrats didn’t create the women and classmates that came forward.
If you recall, I was originally responding to your post about Kavanaugh, not the process. You did what seems to be something like a reflex for Democrats. Attack him and work in Garland. I have no desire to rehash all the ways the Democrats beclowned themselves.
edit: to yout edit. that's only true because there hasn't been a vacancy arising in a presidential election year with those circumstances in a long time. But the precedent itself is almost as old as the republic.
|
On October 11 2018 11:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:50 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know. I never said opposing him was not justified. Try again. So what is your complaint then? Democrats didn’t create the women and classmates that came forward. If you recall, I was originally responding to your post about Kavanaugh, not the process. You did what seems to be something like a reflex for Democrats. Attack him and work in Garland. I have no desire to rehash all the ways the Democrats beclowned themselves.
Garland being denied a hearing is the reason for the opposition. Again, historically precedent does t justify actions to the CURRENT senate who have approved nominations from both parties in the recent past. It is a political power play by McConnel and the Republican leadership, which got them what they wanted. Just like when the Democrats slammed through the ACA using reconciliation. Just like Haster and Gingrich changing the rules for the House once they had the majority. Break the trust of the opposition, pay the price going forward.
|
On October 11 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:57 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:50 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:09 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know. I never said opposing him was not justified. Try again. So what is your complaint then? Democrats didn’t create the women and classmates that came forward. If you recall, I was originally responding to your post about Kavanaugh, not the process. You did what seems to be something like a reflex for Democrats. Attack him and work in Garland. I have no desire to rehash all the ways the Democrats beclowned themselves. Garland being denied a hearing is the reason for the opposition. Again, historically precedent does t justify actions to the CURRENT senate who have approved nominations from both parties in the recent past. It is a political power play by McConnel and the Republican leadership, which got them what they wanted. Just like when the Democrats slammed through the ACA using reconciliation. Just like Haster and Gingrich changing the rules for the House once they had the majority. Break the trust of the opposition, pay the price going forward.
That's all true, and also independent from your original criticism.
also the Scalia situation has NOT occurred in the recent past.
|
|
|
On October 11 2018 12:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:57 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:50 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know. I never said opposing him was not justified. Try again. So what is your complaint then? Democrats didn’t create the women and classmates that came forward. If you recall, I was originally responding to your post about Kavanaugh, not the process. You did what seems to be something like a reflex for Democrats. Attack him and work in Garland. I have no desire to rehash all the ways the Democrats beclowned themselves. Garland being denied a hearing is the reason for the opposition. Again, historically precedent does t justify actions to the CURRENT senate who have approved nominations from both parties in the recent past. It is a political power play by McConnel and the Republican leadership, which got them what they wanted. Just like when the Democrats slammed through the ACA using reconciliation. Just like Haster and Gingrich changing the rules for the House once they had the majority. Break the trust of the opposition, pay the price going forward. That's all true, and also independent from your original criticism. also the Scalia situation has NOT occurred in the recent past.
Not really. Historically justification means little to me in these political contexts. It is easy to find historical context for any action in the senate or house, in long impeaching a Supreme Court judge. I have shown as much. Being the opportunity has not presented itself to the Republicans or Democrats recently is no justification either.
Conservatives valued a conservative majority on the Supreme Court more than a working relationship with the opposing party. More than bipartisanship. They made that calculations and spent that political capital. They burned through that trust and good faith to fill the third branch of government with conservative judges.
And now the the tactic is to act like all this is normal at the sun rises. That the Democrats, who’s trust was not valued, are being unreasonable and angry about what is “standard”. To act agreived that people are so angry. That protesters are so aggressive(but never brought loaded weapons to town halls, like the tea party did in 2010). But it won’t be that effective because the trust is gone. And it’s not like conservatives are that interested in earning it back.
|
On October 11 2018 13:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 12:16 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:57 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:50 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:34 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:27 Plansix wrote:On October 11 2018 11:19 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok, so what you are saying is opposition to the opposing party is justified? So if the democrats do the same thing, it’s totally acceptable. Good to know. I never said opposing him was not justified. Try again. So what is your complaint then? Democrats didn’t create the women and classmates that came forward. If you recall, I was originally responding to your post about Kavanaugh, not the process. You did what seems to be something like a reflex for Democrats. Attack him and work in Garland. I have no desire to rehash all the ways the Democrats beclowned themselves. Garland being denied a hearing is the reason for the opposition. Again, historically precedent does t justify actions to the CURRENT senate who have approved nominations from both parties in the recent past. It is a political power play by McConnel and the Republican leadership, which got them what they wanted. Just like when the Democrats slammed through the ACA using reconciliation. Just like Haster and Gingrich changing the rules for the House once they had the majority. Break the trust of the opposition, pay the price going forward. That's all true, and also independent from your original criticism. also the Scalia situation has NOT occurred in the recent past. Not really. Historically justification means little to me in these political contexts. It is easy to find historical context for any action in the senate or house, in long impeaching a Supreme Court judge. I have shown as much. Being the opportunity has not presented itself to the Republicans or Democrats recently is no justification either. Conservatives valued a conservative majority on the Supreme Court more than a working relationship with the opposing party. More than bipartisanship. They made that calculations and spent that political capital. They burned through that trust and good faith to fill the third branch of government with conservative judges. And now the the tactic is to act like all this is normal at the sun rises. That the Democrats, who’s trust was not valued, are being unreasonable and angry about what is “standard”. To act agreived that people are so angry. That protesters are so aggressive(but never brought loaded weapons to town halls, like the tea party did in 2010). But it won’t be that effective because the trust is gone. And it’s not like conservatives are that interested in earning it back.
that connection is so weak.
I do like the tea party protests comparison though. those people who cleaned up their trash and DIDNT go pounding on the doors of the Supreme court, interrupt government proceedings, or scream at the top of their lungs. in all the years of those protests pretty much the only real "incident" was a Democrat congressman claiming someone shouted the N word at him.
edit: and of course im not counting when left-wing agitators showed up and everyone was spoiling for a fight, that happened a few times.
|
On October 11 2018 11:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:33 Zambrah wrote:
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 shirt 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. forking. Court.
I feel like Gordon Ramsey needs to shout at us about having standards to have that fact sink in. People forget, bu that's not true. Democrats even tried to filibuster him. By the way, if they hadnt done that, Kavanaugh would have been sunk.
This just has absolutely no basis in reality. You have to believe that Mitch McConnell has such deference to common practice that he would have failed to seat a SC justice. We have evidence of exactly the opposite with Garland.
|
On October 11 2018 15:10 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 11:38 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2018 11:33 Zambrah wrote:
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 shirt 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. forking. Court.
I feel like Gordon Ramsey needs to shout at us about having standards to have that fact sink in. People forget, bu that's not true. Democrats even tried to filibuster him. By the way, if they hadnt done that, Kavanaugh would have been sunk. This just has absolutely no basis in reality. You have to believe that Mitch McConnell has such deference to common practice that he would have failed to seat a SC justice. We have evidence of exactly the opposite with Garland.
There is no way McConnell would have had 51 votes to break the filibuster for Kavanaugh, especially after the accusations. Even before that is tenuous, because the Democrats could have let Gorsuch through the cloture vote as a sign of good faith and respect for "process." it would have made their objections to Kavanaugh more powerful and *appear* principled. "We let Gorsuch through, but this new guy is too much!"
Mitch can't nuke it by himself, he needs votes. No way Collins/Flake/Murkowski/McCain go nuclear in that scenario. instead, they filibustered the nominee of a brand new president fresh off an election where part of what the GOP ran on was Scalia's seat. they got 1:1 Gorsuch for Scalia. But when the moderate Kennedy left, the democrats had no way to stop his replacement besides smear jobs.
the democrats are really good at tactical self owns, and that was one. There was only ONE scenario where filibustering Gorsuch made sense. One where they could hold the seat open until the midterms, maybe even the presidential election, and win the Senate at that time. Those were long shots.
|
No amount of weird "but Democrats could have something something Gorsuch" counter-factuals will wash away KAVANAUGH's obvious lies under oath, nor the credible accusations that he assaulted Dr Ford. The accusations against KAV have only begun, which is why I continue to posit that KAV is first plausibly impeachable supreme court justice. No previous justice has lied as much and as brazenly before the senate and he will be an anchor around the neck of Republicans for as long as he on the bench.
In the real world, Bush2 convinced Collins to vote for KAV, and then Manchin and Murkowski traded votes. That gets you 51 (or at least 50) votes for KAV. Republicans put KAV on the bench in the face of his fake crying lies. No, the Democrats did not put KAV on the bench and nitpicking Dem tactical plays does not excuse Republicans for their own votes for blackoutbrett.
|
Wulfey: nor the credible accusations that he assaulted Dr Ford
I've still yet to see any credible accusations, proof, corroboration or any semblance that this was anything other then a last ditch sickening political hit job.
Show me actual evidence, and I'll throw the first stone, but don't pretend like there is anything even reasonably credible out there when you know(at this point) there is not.
EDIT: On the same topic but a slightly different way, I was wondering if anyone here lefty or righty has figured out who "leaked" the accusation? . By all accounts ford seem's to have not wanted it, Finstein says she did not, and the Washington Post ( who was contacted anonymously by ford have all said they didn't leak it. I may have missed it . Just something that's kinda sticking in my craw about the whole thing.
|
Testimony under oath is evidence. Always has been. Ford is presumed innocent of being a fraud in the same way Kavanaugh is presumed innocent of being an attempted rapist.
|
On October 11 2018 18:22 Taelshin wrote:Wulfey: I've still yet to see any credible accusations, proof, corroboration or any semblance that this was anything other then a last ditch sickening political hit job. Show me actual evidence, and I'll throw the first stone, but don't pretend like there is anything even reasonably credible out there when you know(at this point) there is not. EDIT: On the same topic but a slightly different way, I was wondering if anyone here lefty or righty has figured out who "leaked" the accusation? . By all accounts ford seem's to have not wanted it, Finstein says she did not, and the Washington Post ( who was contacted anonymously by ford have all said they didn't leak it. I may have missed it . Just something that's kinda sticking in my craw about the whole thing.
The stinky part is that the WH knew a long time in advance, but spun that they were "ambushed" and the victims of an evil plot.
Watch the testemony of Ford, look me in the eyes and tell me how this was a hitjob. You need some very special glasses to come to that conclusion!
That the assault is near impossible to prove and happened too long ago is a different matter. The most important attacks on BK nowdays are his handeling of the accusations rather than the accusations themselves anyway, but GOP has done a great job of spinning that it is all about "guilty until proven otherwise."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
