Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

#676
#676
lawgator1 said:
Two things are certain:

1) McConnell and the Republicans were full of crap with Garland's nomination, and

2) They will be full of crap on this one.
Click to expand...

I'll give you two more certainties.

1) If the Dems had control of the Senate when Obama nominated Garland, he'd be a Justice right now.

2) If the Dems had control of the Senate right now, they'd do the exact same thing the GOP did to Obama, stall the nomination until after the election.

People piss and moan, and scream it's unfair, but it's only unfair because they're not getting their way. If the tables were turned, the Dems would act in the exact same way and it would be Republicans wailing about how wrong it is. Both parties use the same tactics, but somehow, people only find it wrong when it's the other side doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 1972 Grad, 0nelilreb and 7 others
#677
#677
EiPkZf3WoAEAeG7.pngtenor (34).gif
 
#681
#681
1600491675621.png
Donate bail money hmmmm....sounds like someone is encouraging violence.
  • Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNVOLNAVY
#686
#686
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Probably been covered in here many times since I went to bed earlier but the difference is the Democrats did not have the Senate when Garland was nominated and therefore could not force a vote. Pres. Obama taught us that "elections have consequences." That includes 2016, 2018, and whatever happens this year. I understand, liberals want Garland to be a precedent and conservatives will distinguish based on who has the majority in the Senate. End of the day, it is going to be about the exercise of raw political power. Republicans will have the power to do as they will until January 3 no matter what happens in November. I don't know what will happen. Maybe McConnell doesn't get the votes. A lot will depend on who the nominee is. Right now, we have 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and a right-leaning swing voter. If a liberal is replaced by a conservative, a lot of aspects of the liberal agenda that rely on constitutional interpretation will be dead for a generation. Everyone understands the stakes.
Click to expand...
If Senate Republicans didn't want Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court in 2016, then all they had to do was take up a vote and reject him. They didn't want to do that, because they could see that he was a qualified and reasonable choice. There is plenty of precedent for rejecting a nominee, a nominee withdrawing from consideration or the President pulling the nomination. There is not much precedent for not taking any action at all on a Supreme Court nomination. I can only find 3 other nominations in history that didn't get a Senate vote without being either declined or withdrawn: William C. Micou in 1852; Edward A. Bradford in 1853; and John M. Read in 1845.

Allowing a Supreme Court seat to remain vacant for over a year without ever taking a vote on a nomination, was a radical step by Republicans in 2016. There will be an incredible amount of lingering bitterness over this if Biden wins, the Democrats take back control of the Senate and Trump still fills the Supreme Court seat with a conservative after the election. Under such a scenario, I could see Democrats packing the hell out of the Supreme Court. This isn't great for the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#688
#688
Weezer said:
I'll give you two more certainties.

1) If the Dems had control of the Senate when Obama nominated Garland, he'd be a Justice right now.

2) If the Dems had control of the Senate right now, they'd do the exact same thing the GOP did to Obama, stall the nomination until after the election.

People piss and moan, and scream it's unfair, but it's only unfair because they're not getting their way. If the tables were turned, the Dems would act in the exact same way and it would be Republicans wailing about how wrong it is. Both parties use the same tactics, but somehow, people only find it wrong when it's the other side doing it.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with your argument: You are speculating as to what Democrats might do. We don't have to do that with the Merrick Garland nomination. Garland is one of only 4 Supreme Court nominations in history, to not receive a Senate vote when they didn't withdraw their nomination (like Harriet Miers) or the nomination wasn't pulled or the nominee didn't die prior to the vote. No action was taken on a nomination for over a year. That was unprecedented.
 
Last edited:
#689
#689
***RoadVol*** said:
If you want to burn this country to the ground then push through a justice after denying the last president that opportunity. You haven't seen riots like you will see. If you live in Kentucky you had better get the hell out now.
Click to expand...
Is it marryinโ€™ time in KY or what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#691
#691
Given that McConnell blocked Obama's nominee in MARCH of 2016 since it was an election year, the precedent was established then. Given that we're in SEPTEMBER of an election year, precedent - established by McConnell himself - is for the Senate to not hold confirmation hearings so close to an election.

McConnell MARCH, 2016:

"It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election," McConnell said.

"I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president," McConnell said.

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be," McConnell said.

# # #

If Trump and McConnell try to ramrod a SCOTUS appointment, they're setting our country up for riots of historic magnitude.
 
#693
#693
MontyPython said:
Given that McConnell blocked Obama's nominee in MARCH of 2016 since it was an election year, the precedent was established then. Given that we're in SEPTEMBER of an election year, precedent - established by McConnell himself - is for the Senate to not hold confirmation hearings so close to an election.

McConnell MARCH, 2016:

"It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election," McConnell said.

"I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president," McConnell said.

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be," McConnell said.

# # #

If Trump and McConnell try to ramrod a SCOTUS appointment, they're setting our country up for riots of historic magnitude.
Click to expand...

Elections have consequences. Get on the back of the bus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#694
#694
ggYKiOUz.jpeg
Now I'm sure Twitter will take these clear threats of violence right down.
 
#695
#695
Carl Pickens said:
Someone will come forward today saying Trump fondled them back in 1975....... or that he was boning them on the side..... there will be some type of smear dropped.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it's all good. Trump has the United States Attorney General acting as his personal defense counsel now.
 
#699
#699
BowlBrother85 said:
Senate Republicans didn't make any such qualifications for not taking up a vote on Garland. They simply said that a lame duck president shouldn't be nominating Supreme Court Justices.
Click to expand...
iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 0nelilreb, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top