• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ginsburg: Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year!

BrotherFease said:
There is no defense of what the GOP is doing. It's complete hypocrisy. Would the Dems have done the same thing, if the shoe was on the other foot, the answer is most likely. But the GOP cannot hold the high ground here.
Click to expand...
I think you're absolutely correct. Each would regardless of past statements and actions. There is no high ground here, just political expedience. I can, there forth I will. That, "I can, there forth I will," I would say is the motto for both major parties. Whether it's the SCOTUS nominee or the nuclear option, whatever.

What we need to do is throw both major parties on the trash heap of history and start anew. Although, that may be slowly happening as both major parties continue to shrink. But will it happen fast enough to save the good old USA. I highly doubt it as they have more power with around 55% of the electorate today than they had back when both major parties made up 80%. What I think will happen we'll see a blue wave one election, a red wave the next and so on into the future.
 
Moderate Right said:
It did. That's why we are where we are and why Gorsuch is there instead of Garland. The Constitution was followed.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Had procedure been followed, Garland would have been put up for a vote. What's interesting is the GOP could have just stuck together and prevented his selection, but at least then it would have been through the process. This winner-take-all mentality is eventually going to continue eroding the ability for government to govern.
 
Perotista said:
I think you're absolutely correct. Each would regardless of past statements and actions. There is no high ground here, just political expedience. I can, there forth I will. That, "I can, there forth I will," I would say is the motto for both major parties. Whether it's the SCOTUS nominee or the nuclear option, whatever.

What we need to do is throw both major parties on the trash heap of history and start anew. Although, that may be slowly happening as both major parties continue to shrink. But will it happen fast enough to save the good old USA. I highly doubt it as they have more power with around 55% of the electorate today than they had back when both major parties made up 80%. What I think will happen we'll see a blue wave one election, a red wave the next and so on into the future.
Click to expand...
If we continue down this path we wont have round and round of this, it will explode before too long, seems that is what many on each side are shooting for.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
 
Thazgor said:
But but but...

TRUMP IS WRONG!!
Click to expand...
Who the hell are you to tell us anything?

How are those Muslims you fools brought in for no reason working for you? I read that Sweden is number one or number two in the world on the rape rate list.
 
poweRob said:
So should be follow 2016 republican rules or 2020 republican rules?
Click to expand...
Or the Democrat rules?

The Repubs follow the same exact rules the Dems did in 2016. Their problem then was that the Senate was Republican.

The Dems' problem today is the same as it was in 2016: the Senate is Republican. The rules haven't changed.
 
Novichok said:
Or the Democrat rules?

The Repubs follow the same exact rules the Dems did in 2016. Their problem then was that the Senate was Republican.

The Dems' problem today is the same as it was in 2016: the Senate is Republican. The rules haven't changed.
Click to expand...

Except the rules are the exact opposite. Shoe will be on the other foot after this election though so... save up your tears when you all get done unto as you've done unto others.
 
poweRob said:
Except the rules are the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
Who changed them and when?

Why all the dumb **** always comes from the "progressives".

This is exhausting.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Democrats do the same thing.

But of course that doesn't have any affect on your hypocrisy! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I sure hope the Dems do. It's time you cons get a huge ladel full of your own medicine.
 
Moderate Right said:
It did. That's why we are where we are and why Gorsuch is there instead of Garland. The Constitution was followed.
Click to expand...
The only reason we have Gorsuch instead of Garland is because weak assed democrats like Schumer play softball with Republicans who came in and played hard ball. The days of softball are over and you all will be out of power in a couple months. Be prepared to drink your own medicine. It will be epic.
 
Novichok said:
What did they do and when? What specific rules did they change?
Click to expand...

Removed filibuster for Supreme Court Justices for one. Then then changed their entire acceptance on appointing justices in an election year.

What's your next "play it dumb" move?
 
poweRob said:
The only reason we have Gorsuch instead of Garland is because weak assed democrats like Schumer play softball with Republicans who came in and played hard ball. The days of softball are over and you all will be out of power in a couple months. Be prepared to drink your own medicine. It will be epic.
Click to expand...
Honestly, what could Schumer and the Democrats have done in 2016? The Constitution was followed.
 
poweRob said:
Removed filibuster for Supreme Court Justices for one. Then changed their entire acceptance on appointing justices in an election year.
What's your next "play it dumb" move?
Click to expand...
You are lying in a specially dangerous way: by omission. Cute but effective because few will bother to fact-check.

Quoting:

Senate Democrats in 2013 first changed the rules of the Senate to block Republican filibusters of presidential nominees to lower courts and to government positions. But they left the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees untouched, an acknowledgment of the court’s exalted status. On Thursday, that last pillar was swept away on a party-line vote, with all 52 Republicans choosing to overrule Senate precedent and all 48 Democrats and liberal-leaning independents pushing to keep it.

Boohoo!
 
Perotista said:
I think you're absolutely correct. Each would regardless of past statements and actions. There is no high ground here, just political expedience. I can, there forth I will. That, "I can, there forth I will," I would say is the motto for both major parties. Whether it's the SCOTUS nominee or the nuclear option, whatever.

What we need to do is throw both major parties on the trash heap of history and start anew. Although, that may be slowly happening as both major parties continue to shrink. But will it happen fast enough to save the good old USA. I highly doubt it as they have more power with around 55% of the electorate today than they had back when both major parties made up 80%. What I think will happen we'll see a blue wave one election, a red wave the next and so on into the future.
Click to expand...
I'd have to say though that rules are set forth regarding Supreme Court vacancies, impeachments, and many other things. Both parties technically follow the rules and if the rules go against them, they cry foul. The biggest things I don't like is when Harry Reid went nuclear and then McConnell did with SC procedures. This is not what our founders wanted, the parties changing the rules to benefit themselves.
 
Novichok said:
You are lying in a specially dangerous way: by omission. Cute but effective because few will bother to fact-check.

Quoting:

Senate Democrats in 2013 first changed the rules of the Senate to block Republican filibusters of presidential nominees to lower courts and to government positions. But they left the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees untouched, an acknowledgment of the court’s exalted status. On Thursday, that last pillar was swept away on a party-line vote, with all 52 Republicans choosing to overrule Senate precedent and all 48 Democrats and liberal-leaning independents pushing to keep it.

Boohoo!
Click to expand...

I told the truth and your quote proved it. You are lying. Dems removed the filibuster for court appointments EXCEPT THE SCOTUS. Repubs removed it for the SCOTUS. Heads up...

giphy.gif
 
Novichok said:
You are lying in a specially dangerous way: by omission. Cute but effective because few will bother to fact-check.

Quoting:

Senate Democrats in 2013 first changed the rules of the Senate to block Republican filibusters of presidential nominees to lower courts and to government positions. But they left the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees untouched, an acknowledgment of the court’s exalted status. On Thursday, that last pillar was swept away on a party-line vote, with all 52 Republicans choosing to overrule Senate precedent and all 48 Democrats and liberal-leaning independents pushing to keep it.

Boohoo!
Click to expand...


Why did the Democrats change the filibuster rules for lower court nominees?


"...The turning point in the decades-long debate over Senate filibuster rules was Republicans' decision to block all three of Obama's latest nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the nation's second-most-powerful court with vast jurisdiction over federal agencies and regulations...."​
 
Casper said:
If we continue down this path we wont have round and round of this, it will explode before too long, seems that is what many on each side are shooting for.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. When the R and or the D becomes more important than the Big A, America, we have a problem.
 
Perotista said:
Exactly. When the R and or the D becomes more important than the Big A, America, we have a problem.
Click to expand...
Yes! That is why when pressured I only claim One Party, the USA, Nothing comes before the welfare and best interests of the Nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom