Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

#2,751
#2,751
1972 Grad said:
I remember a Body Snatcher movie with Donald Sutherland. I also saw the original Blob movie the other night. Steve McQueen was in it (I had forgotten that), and his girlfriend was ??? who played Helen Crump on Andy Griffith.
Click to expand...

That's the newer one from the 70s - haven't seen that one
 
#2,752
#2,752
Weezer said:
But you're perfectly willing to excuse and justify the flagrant hypocrisy of the left. That's my problem with all of this. Both sides believe it's okay when their side does it, yet it becomes the ultimate evil when done by the other side. It makes for inconsistent argument. Wrong doesn't suddenly become right because it's the side you support doing it.
Click to expand...
If you want to play another game of "what-about-ism" again... at least give an example of what you are talking about?
 
#2,753
#2,753
zeppelin128 said:
Trump will get his third SCOTUS Justice. The election is irrelevant to that. Mitch has never floated a possibility unless he was sure of it, especially concerning judges. He has the votes. It will happen, even if Biden wins big and the Senate flips.
Click to expand...
I agree... but if Biden wins big (with more than 330 electoral college votes) and the Senate also flips, then packing the Supreme Court becomes a viable response.
 
#2,754
#2,754
BowlBrother85 said:
I agree... but if Biden wins big (with more than 330 electoral college votes) and the Senate also flips, then packing the Supreme Court becomes a viable response.
Click to expand...
And when R’s keep the senate then they’ll have the justification to pack the court, given to them by Democrats. Don’t you people see how this works?
 
#2,755
#2,755
Weezer said:
So you would have been okay with them rejecting Garland just as long as there was a vote? Something tells me, if they had voted him down, you'd still have a problem with it. Either way, the results would be the same. Was it wrong? Yes. I agree he should have got a vote. But does it really matter in the end if you get the same result?
Click to expand...
Yes. If the Senate Republicans had just followed the normal Senate confirmation process, and held hearings and then brought the Garland nomination to a vote and voted him down? Then Democrats would have nothing to complain about. As it stands now, the Republican hypocrisy makes it impossible to ignore. They should have given Garland hearings and then a vote.
 
#2,756
#2,756
volinbham said:
the headless motorcycle rider episode of the TV series was my favorite.

the two movies were great too. (Night Stalker and Night Strangler IIRC)

one of the streaming services had the TV show.
Click to expand...
I liked the Spanish Moss Murders, The Zombie and The Ripper.
 
#2,760
#2,760
volinbham said:
1) you've added qualifiers such as "staggering" - that is clearly an opinion as there is not measure of hypocrisy - it is not a fact.

2) Scalia's replacement didn't have to wait until April - could have happened sooner. Likewise, there is no guarantee when Ginsburg's will happen. Until we know the actual time it is speculation; not a fact.

3) Yes, it is an opinion/speculation as I said.

So your "nothing but the facts" is in reality your selection of some facts spun into your narrative, sprinkled with speculation to make a point. Plus, it's the same damn thing you've been saying over and over
Click to expand...
1) That is called an adjective... and I didn't actually use the word "staggering". I did use "breathtaking". It's a description of the hypocrisy which is proven.

2) What are you talking about? Scalia's replacement did have to wait that long because Republicans wouldn't take up a vote on anyone that Obama nominated. Scalia died in February. There is no chance that RBG's seat will be vacant that long. That is not speculation. That is common sense.
 
#2,764
#2,764
Soon

EieVnw6U0AA7LuL

EieEM9QXkAADrB8
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR, AM64 and Carl Pickens
#2,766
#2,766
BowlBrother85 said:
1) That is called an adjective... and I didn't actually use the word "staggering". I did use "breathtaking". It's a description of the hypocrisy which is proven.

2) What are you talking about? Scalia's replacement did have to wait that long because Republicans wouldn't take up a vote on anyone that Obama nominated. Scalia died in February. There is no chance that RBG's seat will be vacant that long. That is not speculation. That is common sense.
Click to expand...

on 2) it could have happened by Feb. (Scalia) and yes it is speculation to say something will happen that hasn't happened yet. "Common sense" isn't facts (you seem to not know what that word means).

on 1) even the determination of hypocrisy is a value judgement - adding qualifiers that it is "breathtaking" doesn't make it any more of a fact - it is your assessment of a situation. Again, the definition of facts seems to be elusive to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: golfballs
#2,773
#2,773
volinbham said:
on 2) it could have happened by Feb. (Scalia) and yes it is speculation to say something will happen that hasn't happened yet. "Common sense" isn't facts (you seem to not know what that word means).

on 1) even the determination of hypocrisy is a value judgement - adding qualifiers that it is "breathtaking" doesn't make it any more of a fact - it is your assessment of a situation. Again, the definition of facts seems to be elusive to you.
Click to expand...
You are just wanting to argue for the sheer hell of it and acting really stupid.

1) Scalia's seat was vacant for over a damn year! It is obvious that RBG's seat will be filled by the end of December (that is 3 months from now!). Trump will make his choice and his nominee will be confirmed before the December recess. That is NOT speculation. That is applying sound logic and reasoning to the situation.

Determining "hypocrisy" only requires an understanding of the definition of the word. Here you go!:

HYPOCRISY: noun .... The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

McConnell and Cruz have displayed "hypocrisy" by claiming that it was standard to (in their own words) not fill a Supreme Court seat during an election year. They insisted that the winner of the 2016 Presidential election should be the person to fill Scalia's seat. We are even closer now to a Presidential election than we were in 2016 when Scalia died. However, both McConnell and Cruz now insist that because the same party as the President is in control of the Senate - that this makes for an exception. They made no such allowances in 2016. This is hypocrisy... and you are being quite partisan, on top of being ignorant.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top