• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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

What are they saying that is the complete opposite?
 
cabse5 said:
So it's settled, then? Is that how science works? (The answer is no.)
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s how we know the Earth isn’t flat or how gravity works.
Settled science.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Yes. It’s how we know the Earth isn’t flat or how gravity works.
Settled science.
Click to expand...
AGW climate change is not an established science. Especially when that science morphs into trying to prevent natural selection, for example.
 
cabse5 said:
AGW climate change is not an established science. Especially when that science morphs into trying to prevent natural selection, for example.
Click to expand...
Majority of the scientists disagree with you. I believe them.
 
Casper said:
Come on now Really?

Go back and re-read my posts, read slower this time.
Click to expand...
I want to you to tell me what is hypocritical about a Senate that withholds the SCOTUS nomination from a president of the other political party.
If that isn't the issue, then tell me what the issue is.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Majority of the scientists disagree with you. I believe them.
Click to expand...
Science is all about disproving established science. AGW climate change isn't established science and is relatively new.
 
cabse5 said:
I want to you to tell me what is hypocritical about a Senate that withholds the SCOTUS nomination from a president of the other political party.
If that isn't the issue, then tell me what the issue is.
Click to expand...
The Hypocrisy is why they stated they did it then when the shoes were reversed they did the opposite, if you don't see the issue or wont acknowledge it you are doing so intentionally. Enough said, good day....
 
Casper said:
The Hypocrisy is why they stated they did it then when the shoes were reversed they did the opposite, if you don't see the issue or wont acknowledge it you are doing so intentionally. Enough said, good day....
Click to expand...
The difference is that Trump is nominating a SCOTUS prospective and Trump is of the same party as the majority party of the Senate. You get that, right?
 
cabse5 said:
The difference is that the president nominating the SCOTUS prospective is of the same party as the majority party of the Senate. You get that, right?
Click to expand...
Just stop digging.
 
Casper said:
Good we are in agreement, I dismiss your argument and you dismiss mine. Leave it at that.
Click to expand...
My argument has precedent since the 1890s, That the majority party of the Senate that is different than the president's party withholds SCOTUS nominees.
 
cabse5 said:
My argument has precedent since the 1890s, That the majority party of the Senate that is different than the president's party withholds SCOTUS nominees.
Click to expand...
My Argument is based on the words of Your Party leaders 4 years ago and their actions Today, which you chose to totally ignore. End of discussion.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Yes. It’s how we know the Earth isn’t flat or how gravity works.
Settled science.
Click to expand...
You know exactly how gravity works!? You should write a paper! Many scientists would love to have more insight on gravity!
 
Metric Mouse said:
You know exactly how gravity works!? You should write a paper! Many scientists would love to have more insight on gravity!
Click to expand...
Lucky for them there are extensive notes on the subject. It’s called “science”.
 
X Factor said:
If Dems had the Senate, they’d do just as Mitch did 4 years ago, you know it and you would support it, just as you’d support Dems filling the seat now if everything were reversed.
Click to expand...
That doesn't abode well with my sense of fair play.
 
cabse5 said:
What's your obvious point? That you wish to rag on Trump and the Republicans?...A precedent of SCOTUS judge confirmation by the Senate be damned.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how many times I have to make this point.

The issue I have, which you seemingly are avoiding, is the inconsistency (in principle) of what Mitch McConnell said and did in 2016 and what Mitch McConnell has said and is going to do in 2020. You cannot deny he has changed how he is handling the issue.

Not rag on Trump and the Republicans, just call out inconsistencies and lies when I see one. Its holding people accountable for what they say, something that seemingly doesn't happen enough.
 
Anthony60 said:
It was a poor choice, there was no need to go any further. It only made sense to wait and see if Trump won, then they would get a better nominee.
Click to expand...

You have just proven the double standard at play. To turn your exact words around and ask you a plausible question 'It would only make sense to wait and see if Biden wins, then they would get a better nominee'

I have not seen higher levels of hypocrisy in my life.

It's a different situation now, isn't it?
Click to expand...

There are some differences in the situations, I don't disagree with that. However, its inconsistencies in principle as the basis for McConnell's decision was that it was an election year. That was the primary reason underpinning his decision.

Is 2020 not an election year?

No, it's quite different. Tell me why that Trump should be the first President ever to not make a nomination in this situation.
Click to expand...

He won't be. If you and he are so confident that he will be elected and endorsed by the people why can't he select a justice after 3rd November. This has never happened before, so close to the election and under such unusual circumstances. The average time it takes to select a justice and finalize their position is around 2.5 months. So based on historical appointments, the justice wouldn't actually be appointed until after the election. The selection of a judge should represent the mandate of the people, either for a progressive or conservative agenda. The judge should reflect this.

No reason at all to wait. As Ginsburg said, he's elected for four years, not three.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. If he is so confident that he will win, why can't the justice be selected after the election?

Then why didn't Obama wait? The people voted for Trump, he's the person that was elected to be President. It's literally his job to nominate someone.
Click to expand...

To be clear 8 months is much more time than just over 1.5 months. My point is Obama's nomination would have been selected and the position would have been filled well before the election. That is in the process of selecting the judge at no point would the mandate of the people have changed. With Trumps process of selecting the judge, the mandate of the people could change, as it likely won't be fulfilled and processed until after the election. There is a difference

This article will insight you into the issues here: https://apnews.com/bb9932748b199f793cb2ccbefa713a5f
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Lucky for them there are extensive notes on the subject. It’s called “science”.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as settled science. Especially when catastrophic AGW climate change is so young as a discipline and there isn't a 100% agreement among scientists on catastrophic AGW climate change. You don't know how science works.
 
Democrats allowed Reagan to fill a court vacancy 13 months (just shy of a year) before the end of lame duck term, so don't give me bullshit about Democrats have ever made the kind of power grabs Republicans have.
 
McConnell wanted to go nuclear in 2005, but backed down because he knew he'd soon be in the majority. When the shoe was on the other foot he began filibustering every vacancy he could, and was warned by Reid not to filibuster everything, or he would McConnell to the threat he had made to Democrats himself in 2005. McConnell agreed, but then reneged and turned the Senate into Benghazi central, and it became obvious the POS was hoarding seats for the GOP, which he planned to fill the second an R was in the WH.

Anybody thinking McConnell would have allowed Dems to filibuster like he did, even if Reid hadn't gone nuclear is just not worth a conversation. McConnell is proving he operates by no rules, and will do whatever is necessary to grab power, and achieve the Holy Grail of turning the SC into an arm of his party.

Republicans have been put on notice that if they do this Democrats might overturn the law that limits the number of justices to 9.
 
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…