- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised eyebrows during today's press briefing by suggesting that Democrats would be “justified” to take revenge on the GOP blockade against Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland by blocking a possible GOP president’s nomination for the president's full term.
Something I learned before Kindergarten ... two wrongs don't make a right
It would be nice if grown ass people would remember this
The founding fathers wanted it that way to keep one ideology from overwhelming the other.
Suppose Obama wanted to pack the court with Muslims who demand Sirrah law, does he have that right? He has the right to try.
Except this is for petty political reasons, not an actual legitimate reason. They are rejecting the justices solely because they can.
[h=1]Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says[/h]
So, childish partisanship could keep any new judges from being seated for the next four years as well?
And, should another couple of them retire, resign, or die, how far might the court dwindle before Congress actually does its job?
I think he's likely illustratively extrapolating the absurdity of a party not doing the work of the people, waiting for a more politically expedient time.[h=1]Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says[/h]
So, childish partisanship could keep any new judges from being seated for the next four years as well?
And, should another couple of them retire, resign, or die, how far might the court dwindle before Congress actually does its job?
[h=1]Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says[/h]
So, childish partisanship could keep any new judges from being seated for the next four years as well?
And, should another couple of them retire, resign, or die, how far might the court dwindle before Congress actually does its job?
You need to ask the current GOP leadership about that as it is them who are causing this problem.
Both parties are at fault, there is enough blame to go around. Term limits for Congress is long overdue!!
[h=1]Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says[/h]
So, childish partisanship could keep any new judges from being seated for the next four years as well?
And, should another couple of them retire, resign, or die, how far might the court dwindle before Congress actually does its job?
Ah--- both sides are waiting for all the remaining justices to die so they can stack the court. The problem is that's the other side's plan too
The Social Democrats are working with the New Conservatives to find a way to end the thirty four year standoff and get the court up and running once again. Meanwhile, there is no way to test the constitutionality of any legislation. Since no laws have actually been passed in that time due to irreconcilable differences between the two parties, the court has had little to do anyway.
Headline, circa 2050:
Sonia Sotomayor, the last living Supreme Court Justice, passed away today at the age of 95.
Except this is for petty political reasons, not an actual legitimate reason. They are rejecting the justices solely because they can.
Many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that the USFG represents a united country, where compromise over political decisions is possible. Rather, it's a government where, occasionally, one side seizes complete power (dems in 2009-2011), and imposes their ideology on the other 49%. So, the rational decision during the times of divided government is to oppose at every step. The POTUS has been doing it with the veto pen and executive order, so it only follows that congress do it where and when they can. There is no compromise possible in binary decisions. This is the new norm, with roots traceable as far back as the 80's but has been accelerating the last three administrations.
Personally, I am delighted by this prospect. Few checks and balances are as effective as gridlock, which is eminently desirable as the less the USFG does, the fewer freedoms it can curtail, whether personal, property, or economic.
Exactly. And the Democrats are talking tit for tat. Meanwhile, who is doing the business of government?
Joking aside, where exactly is the point where this partisan nonsense goes to far?
As cynical as we are of our government, do we have standards?
No, but with a four trillion dollar budget and several million workers, the USFG has FAR more resources than even the wealthiest of individuals or largest of corporations. Thus, by sheer size alone, it poses the biggest threat if it is unified and cooperative within its several parts.I suppose you subscribe to the notion that only a government can threaten someone's rights?
Since Republicans hold the House and the Senate, it's clearly not them.
[h=1]Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says[/h]
So, childish partisanship could keep any new judges from being seated for the next four years as well?
And, should another couple of them retire, resign, or die, how far might the court dwindle before Congress actually does its job?
Of course they'll do it. They've already done it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?