• 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!

Here's what Republicans should do about Ginsburg's seat

Shows how awful you are at debating, or at least having a coherent point. Seeing as he EC is a function that all parties have used in the past and something that elections have been decided on, for just as long.

It all comes down to far more than just policy. Something that any seasoned politician can tell you.

Trump wanted to get rid of the EC in 2012 when he thought Obama won it but lost the PV. What's changed now?;)
 
Trump wanted to get rid of the EC in 2012 when he thought Obama won it but lost the PV. What's changed now?;)
Don't know at this point and I honestly don't care. That was in 2012 and people are allowed to change their minds, or even their entire stance on a subject.
The democrats have severely contested every election that they've ever lost, that wasn't a complete landslide. So it's still up in the air as to why they keep doing as such.

When I see this sort of thing happening. I'm usually quick to recall the last time that the other side did it as well. But then that just makes it a rather normal occurrence in such a political landscape.

Let them argue and bicker. The wheels will turn regardless of their actions sooner, or later.
 
My point is that the powerful position to have is shifting to the senate, because they become the gatekeeper and it doesnt matter who is prez or who is nominated. The gatekeeper decides. But the actual words in the constitution dont suggest that is supposed to be the case. I think the constitution says the senate advises or something along those lines. I will have to look it up later.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
People who profess to value 'critical thinking' do not frame arguments with ad hominems, weasel words, loaded phrases, and strawman arguments.

When the shoe was on the other foot, there was a 60 vote rule, noting that Reid could have nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments, but he didn't and the reason he didn't was that democrats believe that the all important position of SCOTUS shouldn't be partisan. So, your argument 'the left would be doing the exactly the same thing' well, when the shoe was on the other foot, the EVIDENCE doesn't support that sentiment.

Moreover, McConnell, Lindsay, et al, during 2016, didn't put forth in their rationale if there occurred a republican president and a senate of the same party, the rule they established for their rationale to deny Obama of a SCOTUS appointment would no longer apply. They mentioned nothing about, and given how ruthless McConnell is, surely he would have.

If you were keen on 'critical thinking', you would therefore understand that McConnell's rationale is inconsistent with the rationale they offered during 2016. The only thing that has changed that is relevant is that instead of 10 months out, instead of there being no nominee nominated during 2016, now there is a nominee and it's only 40 days out instead of 10 months.

Yawn..... Reid nuked the filibuster in regards to the confirmation process in general. Now it's coming back to haunt the democrat party. And you can cry partisan crocodile tears over the Republican Senate's intention to confirm a justice in an election year until the cows come home. I don't care. There have been 29 times in this nations history that a SCOTUS vacancy has occurred in an election year. All 29 times, the president nominated a justice to fill that vacancy and the majority of them were approved. There is nothing in the US Constitution stating that a president cannot nominate a justice to the Court in an election year or that the Senate cannot confirm him or her. Your side lost the White House in 2016 and the republicans still control congress get over it. If the roles were reversed and it was a democrat president and a democrat Senate, you would not be complaining.
 
Then, again, why didn't McConnell explain this bullshit in 2016 about same party vs different party? Why didn't he provide these bullshit footnote conditions in 2016? Where was this secret decoder ring horseshit in 2016?

Your shit is weak. No facts. No game. No intellect.

Come back without childish ad hominems and I'll respond.
 
Agreed. I favor it as well.

Will hurt the GOP badly in the long run, as I stated.
And I said- feel free to enjoy your harmless delusions.
 
Yawn..... Reid nuked the filibuster in regards to the confirmation process in general. Now it's coming back to haunt the democrat party. And you can cry partisan crocodile tears over the Republican Senate's intention to confirm a justice in an election year until the cows come home. I don't care. There have been 29 times in this nations history that a SCOTUS vacancy has occurred in an election year. All 29 times, the president nominated a justice to fill that vacancy and the majority of them were approved. There is nothing in the US Constitution stating that a president cannot nominate a justice to the Court in an election year or that the Senate cannot confirm him or her. Your side lost the White House in 2016 and the republicans still control congress get over it. If the roles were reversed and it was a democrat president and a democrat Senate, you would not be complaining.

All 29 times, the president nominated a justice to fill that vacancy and the majority of them were approved.

28.

Except when Obama was president on the 29th time.

Democrats WON THE ELECTION IN 2012, AND WAS PRESIDENT FOR GARLAND'S APPOINTMENT. WHY DIDN'T MCCONNEL HOLD A HEARING AND A VOTE?

There IS one reason, because Garland wasn't going to forward a right wing agenda. He sure as hell was qualified and you don't goddamn will that is true.

Reid could have nuked the filibuster for Scotus, but he didn't. So your argument is BULLSHIT

McConnell was blocking ALL of Obama's bench appointments. The judges were being overworked, the courts were jammed, there was a pressing need for more judges, and McConnell was preventing Obama from appointing them.

The only solution at that time was for Reid to nuke the filibuster so that judges could be appointed.

Reid could have nuked it for Scotus, but there was no compelling need as there was for bench appointments.

McConnell use that as an EXCUSE to forward a right wing agenda to stack the courts, whose agenda is to reverse Roe v Wade and to kill the ACA. and send America backwards in time to the days when women were being maimed and killed via back alley abortions, and millions suffered because they did not have affordable access to health care.

Yeah, you don't care, you don't care that Trump is trying to take away health care for millions of people, and will effectively remove preexisting conditions.

You don't give a damn if millions of people suffer and die. You could care less.

THe EO is bullshit, all that will do is force insurers, without the ACA, to raise rates on policies WHERE IT WILL BE UNAFFORDABLE where the insured has a preexisting condition. Estimates are that over 100,000,000 people have preexisting conditions.

And he is doing it during a pandemic.

So if you are yawning, WAKE THE **** UP.
 
Last edited:
All 29 times, the president nominated a justice to fill that vacancy and the majority of them were approved.

28.

Except when Obama was president on the 29th time.

Democrats WON THE ELECTION IN 2012, AND WAS PRESIDENT FOR GARLAND'S APPOINTMENT. WHY DIDN'T MCCONNEL HOLD A HEARING AND A VOTE?

There IS one reason, because Garland wasn't going to forward a right wing agenda. He sure as hell was qualified and you don't goddamn will that is true.

Reid could have nuked the filibuster for Scotus, but he didn't. So your argument is BULLSHIT

McConnell was blocking ALL of Obama's bench appointments. The judges were being overworked, the courts were jammed, there was a pressing need for more judges, and McConnell was preventing Obama from appointing them.

The only solution at that time was for Reid to nuke the filibuster so that judges could be appointed.

Reid could have nuked it for Scotus, but there was no compelling need as there was for bench appointments.

McConnell use that as an EXCUSE to forward a right wing agenda to stack the courts, whose agenda is to reverse Roe v Wade and to kill the ACA. and send America backwards in time to the days when women were being maimed and killed via back alley abortions, and millions suffered because they did not have affordable access to health care.

Yeah, you don't care, you don't care that Trump is trying to take away health care for millions of people, and will effectively remove preexisting conditions.

You don't give a damn if millions of people suffer and die. You could care less.

THe EO is bullshit, all that will do is force insurers, without the ACA, to raise rates on policies WHERE IT WILL BE UNAFFORDABLE where the insured has a preexisting condition. Estimates are that over 100,000,000 people have preexisting conditions.

And he is doing it during a pandemic.

So if you are yawning, WAKE THE **** UP.

Such intellectual dishonesty on your part. You are telling a flat out lie in regards to healthcare. Trump is absolutely not attempting to take healthcare away from anyone, much less millions. Uou need to cease pushing that silly narrative that suggests that without the ACA there is no healthcare. To listen to you libruls, one would think healthcare did not exist until Obamacare. You are also flat out lying when you claim that Trump is out to eliminate pre-existing conditions coverage. Trump has made clear that any changes made to healthcare policy will keep pre-existing conditions coverage. And you suggestion that Trump's EOs will drive up the rates on policies is hilarious. What do you think has been happening under Obamacare? The so-called affordable healthcare Act has driven up rates as much as 300%. For many of us in the middle class health insurance became un-affordable in 2013 when the individual mandate went into effect. I am speaking from personal experience. My existing policy was canceled due to not meeting the new ACA requirements. The policy I was supposed to shift over to brought a 300% increase in cost of premiums and a 500% rise in the deductible. And I would have had to spend $6000.00 out of pocket each year before insurance even kicked in. How affordable is that? I would have paid a higher amount per month for health insurance then my house mortgage payments. And that was in 2013. I fled the health insurance market and signed up for VA Healthcare. As for the SCOTUS, you will just have to get over it. Amy Barrett will be the next Justice seated on the court, and in all likelyhood, before the election.
 
Such intellectual dishonesty on your part. You are telling a flat out lie in regards to healthcare. Trump is absolutely not attempting to take healthcare away from anyone, much less millions. Uou need to cease pushing that silly narrative that suggests that without the ACA there is no healthcare. To listen to you libruls, one would think healthcare did not exist until Obamacare. You are also flat out lying when you claim that Trump is out to eliminate pre-existing conditions coverage. Trump has made clear that any changes made to healthcare policy will keep pre-existing conditions coverage. And you suggestion that Trump's EOs will drive up the rates on policies is hilarious. What do you think has been happening under Obamacare? The so-called affordable healthcare Act has driven up rates as much as 300%. For many of us in the middle class health insurance became un-affordable in 2013 when the individual mandate went into effect. I am speaking from personal experience. My existing policy was canceled due to not meeting the new ACA requirements. The policy I was supposed to shift over to brought a 300% increase in cost of premiums and a 500% rise in the deductible. And I would have had to spend $6000.00 out of pocket each year before insurance even kicked in. How affordable is that? I would have paid a higher amount per month for health insurance then my house mortgage payments. And that was in 2013. I fled the health insurance market and signed up for VA Healthcare. As for the SCOTUS, you will just have to get over it. Amy Barrett will be the next Justice seated on the court, and in all likelyhood, before the election.

Not lying. If he succeeds in getting the court to repeal the ACA, it's dead.

Guess what, THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT BILL. Whatever he has, IT'S NOT A BILL.

Moreover, his EO has NO EFFECT in the market place, he cannot make law by EO.

Even if he could, pre-existing conditions, without an infrastructure behind it, will drive up the costs sky high.

So, choose the plan that allows for the pre-existing condition, but freak out time when you get the bill.

Before the ACA, my sister had a catastrophic preexisting condition, there was only ONE insurer that would take her.

They wouldn't cover her expenses for the first six months, after that,they would.

She had $75,000 life savings, and the entire savings was depleted in that six months because she shouldered the cost for that time.

That's what will happen when individuals, sans subsidies from something like the ACA, will cost you for 'preexisting conditions".

Just because because Trump says he forcing insurers to accept preexisting conditions, NOTE the Trump mentioned NOTHING about what
insurers would charge. IF it is that expensive, it's as good as not being avaible. so the argument is a ruse, it's a SHAM.

AS for your situation, republicans have sabotaged the ACA, and REFUSE to improve it.

So, whatever your complaint is about the ACA the problem are republicans, not the ACA, for not wanting to make it better for everyone.

My premium, under ACA originally, switching to Medicare Advantage when I turned 66, has remained at $132 per month. It hasn't risen
since I signed on. My deductible is $500. It has only kicked in once when I got an operation.

The ACA was specifically designed for my demographic. Yours needed fixing

But, republicans won't work with dems to fix it.

See, republicans can't stand the fact that Obama will have a legacy, bringing affordable health care to millions, they want to sabotage it
so that people like you will say it doesn't work . That is the game they are playing, and YOU are playing::

You don't want it to work, republicans HATE obama.

This is all about Obama hate, it is NOT about health care. it's not about affordable health care at all, for if that was all it was about,
republicans would have worked with dems to improve it.

It's a circular argument, but you don't see it, do you?

I didn't think so.
 
Why would you assume that would guarantee a loss?
You are presuming their base doesn't want them to do it.

The conservative base is rather small, and is shrinking more every day. That's much of the reason conservatives are eager to seat another justice. They know their power is waning and the Republican party as it currently exists is on its last coffin nail.

Republicans cannot win elections on policy, they have no ideas, and they only exist to ruin government from within.
 
Don't know at this point and I honestly don't care. That was in 2012 and people are allowed to change their minds, or even their entire stance on a subject.
The democrats have severely contested every election that they've ever lost, that wasn't a complete landslide. So it's still up in the air as to why they keep doing as such.

When I see this sort of thing happening. I'm usually quick to recall the last time that the other side did it as well. But then that just makes it a rather normal occurrence in such a political landscape.

Let them argue and bicker. The wheels will turn regardless of their actions sooner, or later.

There should be a laughing emoji for posts like this.
 
The conservative base is rather small, and is shrinking more every day. That's much of the reason conservatives are eager to seat another justice. They know their power is waning and the Republican party as it currently exists is on its last coffin nail.

Republicans cannot win elections on policy, they have no ideas, and they only exist to ruin government from within.

Yep.

They are desperate to shove their federalist society right wing hack judge down the nation's throat as fast as they can...just in case their worthless asses are thrown out of power in November.
 
I hope they do it actually.

basically guarantees they’ll lose the election and be out of power on a national level for a significant amount of time. By then...the Dems would have already expanded the SC, thus rendering Trump’s pick irrelevant.

Plus, Clarence Thomas will be dead before the end of 2021, he's circling the drain right now.
And President Biden will nominate and get his pick to replace him, and it will not be an extremist like Barrett.
 
If Trump were a decent person, that's what he would do. Supreme Court confirmations do not happen in 45 days.

Either way, it's not a done deal. Collins and Murkowski already stated that they are not going to support this power grab. And McConnell will deeply regret it if Trump loses and Democrats gain control of the Senate. Get ready for 11 seats on the Supreme Court.

Do not count on Collins, ever...ever...EVER...for ANYTHING.
 
They should do exactly what the Democrats would do if the roles were reversed.
And that is confirm a judge before the they leave office.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is being dishonest.

Yes they should but they absolutely must address court packing, right here, right now.
 
He and McConnel may do something similar, pretending to fight the Dems on this - letting it ride into after the elections. There's a lot of good political reasons to do so.
Republicans have the legal authority and it looks like the number of votes to seat a nominee on the Supreme Court. Trump's term last until Jan 20 and one of the duties is to nominate someone for the court. The Senate has the advise and consent power and right now the Republicans control the Senate. Anyone unhappy with the facts is just going to be unhappy. No laws are getting broken and the Republicans would be doing the voters who elected Trump to serve as President a disservice if they don't seize the moment and put a strong conservative court in place. The liberal democrats are unhappy but they would do the very same thing given the opportunity. How do we know this? Democrats have threaten to pack the court with liberals by upping the number on judges who sit on the court. RBG said she felt that was wrong. I mention that since the democrats say the Republicans should honor her last wish, that a nominee not be named until a new President was elected. RBG was a liberal. I feel must safer about the future stability of the nation and the direction of the country with conservative judges who will rule according to the Constitution as written and not by liberal judge trying to direct the country by their view of how they wish the country might be.
 
My point is that the powerful position to have is shifting to the senate, because they become the gatekeeper and it doesnt matter who is prez or who is nominated. The gatekeeper decides. But the actual words in the constitution dont suggest that is supposed to be the case. I think the constitution says the senate advises or something along those lines. I will have to look it up later.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
"Advise and Consent". Meaning they approve nominees.
 
Republicans have the legal authority and it looks like the number of votes to seat a nominee on the Supreme Court. Trump's term last until Jan 20 and one of the duties is to nominate someone for the court. The Senate has the advise and consent power and right now the Republicans control the Senate. Anyone unhappy with the facts is just going to be unhappy. No laws are getting broken and the Republicans would be doing the voters who elected Trump to serve as President a disservice if they don't seize the moment and put a strong conservative court in place. The liberal democrats are unhappy but they would do the very same thing given the opportunity. How do we know this? Democrats have threaten to pack the court with liberals by upping the number on judges who sit on the court. RBG said she felt that was wrong. I mention that since the democrats say the Republicans should honor her last wish, that a nominee not be named until a new President was elected. RBG was a liberal. I feel must safer about the future stability of the nation and the direction of the country with conservative judges who will rule according to the Constitution as written and not by liberal judge trying to direct the country by their view of how they wish the country might be.
While I appreciate the reply, none of this has anything to do with political tack I'm suggesting they take.
 
Sounds like you need a tissue and a safe space.

The Republicans have been playing dirty politics for years. Hell, that's how they win despite being a minority party managing to stay relevant on a national level.

The GOP is a hypocritical, fraudulent, and ridiculously corrupt party...and it's about the time the Dems stop bending over backwards and letting them urinate all over them...while they continue to lose. Of course you want this SC pick...because YOU want the courts stacked with right wing hack judges that will further your garbage agenda at the expense of everyone else. You're no better than what you claim the left to be.
The true totalitarians are on theleft and always have been.
You reap what you sow. Millions of Americans aren't going to stand back and let you clowns shove your right wing fascist agenda down the nation's throat. Just not happening.

I want judges making judgments not making law. You want a rubber stamp extra legislative body so that anything and everything the left dreams up can be rammed through. I have no agenda other than being left alone, something the left never, ever does. Had Hillary managed to win, she'd be the one who made two appointments and possibly a third. Winning elections has consequences as Obama said. Dems are already threatening all sorts of draconian measures should they manage to somehow get elected. The totalitarians are on the left, as always.
 
Back
Top Bottom