• 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!

Ginsburg's last wish was to 'not be replaced until a new president is installed': report

We didn't create any of these rules. Republicans pulled them out of their ass to HOARD court seats for themselves, so they could bring an imbalance to the court system, and rig it so it would have high number of partisans that would rule in their favor, and shred judicial precedent they didn't agree with.

No matter. Republicans have thrown their gloves off and are looking for a culture war, and they're going to get just that for what they're about to do.

Democrats have options if they win the majority.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no need to run deficits in good economic times with no war. And ultimately, excessive public debt hurts the people.
Click to expand...
That includes the Trump windfall tax cuts.
 

Democrats have started the war, Republicans have simply returned fire.

Democrats brought in the 51% "nuclear option" to approve Obama's federal judge appointees. Republicans responded by allowing it for SC justices too.

Democrats are now claiming new constitutional rules - like "dying wish" - there's no such provision for this in the Constitution.

Otherwise, I can claim Scalia appeared to me in a dream, telling me his fondest wish was a conservative appointment.
 
TurtleDude said:
good catch there, Excon.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
I caught the wording, but contributed it to being part and parcel of general political hackery of the message.
Being that It could be an indication it came from someone else, or that RBG was indeed a political hack that had been sitting on the Supreme Court.

But the credit for the focus of that one word as it relates to an alternative meaning, goes to Sundance at The Last Refuge.
 
McConnell was the one that broached the nuclear option in 2005, only to back down when he understood he would soon be in the minority. Then, as soon as he was in the minority, he filibustered every court vacancy possible so Republicans could hoard them for a Republican president later, and it's clear he planned to betray us the minute he has the majority and go nuclear himself. Turning the courts into an arm of the RNC is too big of a wet dream for him to put his word over that holy grail.

If one party can hoard seats, another can simply add them, and that will put an end to the Republican dream.
 
"Hoard" in this post is just partisan spin on business as usual by both parties over the years.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. I opposed them.
Click to expand...
We’re still a 40-40 nation. We’ll see where the 20% goes. I see the two sevens in 47-47 to be soft, though we are more set in our votes this time.
Democrats have two years to speed through their agenda. I like expanding the Senate as well as the SCOTUS. Oppose this GOP Apartheid with everything we have.
 

You are distorting what Senators have said they would and what they have actually done. McConnell said and did one thing but now seemingly when it works in his favour, he plays partisan politics and does the complete opposite.

So you deny that Mitch McConnell set a precedent in 2016, on the grounds of 2016 been an election year? And you deny that 2020 is an election year?

What happened in 1888 is irreverent to what McConnell did in 2016 and the views and actions presented of which do not reflect his views and actions in 2020. Why? because he is more interested in partisan politics. Your desperate ploy to bring Biden and Schumer into this proves nothing, other than that they 'said' something. McConnell has 'said' something, actually 'did' something and now has backflipped on all of that. Its lies, deception and all a political game.

Its not bait and switch it is simply holding Mitch accountable for what he has said and done. A valid and rational ask.
 
So why didn't Obama decline to nominate someone in his final year? Why do you think Trump should be the first President EVER to not put forth a nominee?
 
You are the one distorting things. Obama made a nomination. McConnell felt the best move was to wait, since Obama was guaranteed to be out. Obama was from the opposing party, and nominated someone that was not to McConnell's liking.

Trump is running for reelection, and will nominated someone that McConnell approves of. No reason to delay a vote in that situation. See how it is not nearly the same? Well, maybe you don't want to see that it is a very different situation.
 
goldkam said:
So you deny that Mitch McConnell set a precedent in 2016, on the grounds of 2016 been an election year? And you deny that 2020 is an election year?
Click to expand...

The precedent was already set. And it was a wrong precedent to set and to carry out.


It's only irrelevant because it proves that for over a century what you wanted to happen did not happen. It wasn't just Biden and Schumer. A lot of politicians have made the same statements. You can back to Strom Thurmond, a Republican, who had the same rule. The Senate has been unwilling to confirm a Supreme Court nominee from an opposing president in an election year for over a century. Schumer specifically made his statements 18 months before an election...
 
MovingPictures said:
We didn't create any of these rules.
Click to expand...

The "rule" goes back a long time. It was carried on by both parties. Do you honestly believe Democrats would have allowed Bush to fill a Supreme Court justice seat in his final year of his second term? You'd have to be on drugs to think that. They said as much.
 

You are actually joking right?

Obama made a nomination, yes that is correct. Why did McConnell feel it was best to wait? Surely that would not be a politically driven decision intended to benefit the Republican Party......To be clear there is no guarantee someone is out until after the election, that argument is flawed and poor attempt to distort the reality. That is the reality that Mitch McConnell applies one principle for the Republicans in 2016 and another principle for the Republicans in 2020. Inconsistent and partisan politics this old man plays.

Do you not agree that different principles are being applied. One for 2016 and one for 2020?

No it is not different. That is simply untrue and a lie. Its election year and a Supreme Court justices position is vacant. The same principle should be applied.

Trump is going to win the election right.....so why can't he select a person after he wins the election and is once again mandated by the American people.

The crux of what I am saying is this.....the Supreme Court justices that are selected should represent the Presidency that was mandated by the people. This is about representing the people and the values they hold. If the people mandate a more progressive agenda from Biden the nominee should embody that. If the people mandate a more conservative agenda from Trump the nominee should embody that.
 
cabse5 said:
Politics is the 'science' of how things appear to be not the science of how things are.
Click to expand...

As practiced by frauds like Fauci and Dr.Birx and a thoroughly corrupted
WHO { World Health Organization } and of course the less than honorable
United Nations.Where these supposed " experts " are really snakes in the grass
waiting for their payday.Like what Joe Biden pulled.Enriching himself his son
Hunter and his younger brother,James.One could also include the likes of
our Military as in General Mattis.
 

No so." No Democratic nominee has been savaged like those those four federal
judges." Those being Clement Haynsworth in 1970.Robert Bork in 1987,Clarence Thomas
in 1991 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
For added relied as to time needed to confirm Gerald Ford's pick of John Paul Stevens
went thru in 19 days.RBG took 42 days.
 

Keeping in mind how Mitch McConnel warned Senate Majority leader
Harry Reid about the ramifications over blowing up the Filibuster rule
over appointing Federal Judges
Harry went ahead and did it.Which may be why you won't hear a peep
out of him.Given former speaker John Boehner just made his opinion vocal.
 
If that were truth Dems wouldn't be trying to cheat with mail-in ballots.
 
What makes you think Democrats give a darn about Ginsburg, or what she would want? They haven't shown any inclination to do anything other than use her death as a political talking point.
 
Metric Mouse said:
What makes you think Democrats give a darn about Ginsburg, or what she would want? They haven't shown any inclination to do anything other than use her death as a political talking point.
Click to expand...
You answered your own question ... to "use her death as a political talking point"
 

I agree Obama made the nomination. I agree Obama was from the opposing side. I agree they were not to McConnell's liking.

I am not in denial about the facts. I pointing out to you that the principle/precedent that McConnell set in 2016 is now been abandoned in favor of partisan politics. What if Biden gets in, in November. How is a Republican endorsed and selected judge representative of the mandate made by the American people for a more progressive agenda? If Trump is so confident and if his supporters are so confident he will be elected again, why can he not select the nominee once he has been mandated by the American people again?
 
Aunt Antifa said:
That’s based on science. The Bible is not.
Click to expand...
Climate change catastrophe exclusively caused by man is not based on science. It's based on bad models and speculation.
 
Which are those precedents set by the Republicans?
 
Show where in The Constitution that rule instituted by the dems in the 1990s exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…