It's really ridiculous to make a reasoned argument for why Trump should fill the seat or not.

[dex4974]

You're all compromised. What you believe depends on what will be best for your side. It's not actually a reasoned and unbiased position you have. You're just trying to create reason for things to happen the way you want them to.

 

[Craig234]

You're all compromised. What you believe depends on what will be best for your side. It's not actually a reasoned and unbiased position you have. You're just trying to create reason for things to happen the way you want them to.

You're wrong, and projecting.

 

[Napoleon]

You're wrong, and projecting.

Doesn’t seem that way. Both Republicans and Democrats are being big fat hypocrites on this issue. What is reasoned or unbiased about that?

 

[dex4974]

You're wrong, and projecting.

Do you know many Democrats that think it would be fair for Trump to seat the next justice? Do you know many Republicans that don't think Trump should do it? A lot of people are just brainless partisans that will fight for their side's interest no matter what the situation is.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Doesn’t seem that way. Both Republicans and Democrats are being big fat hypocrites on this issue. What is reasoned or unbiased about that?

How exactly are Democrats being hypocrites? In 2016, they argued that things should proceed as they had for the entirety of our countries existence. The Republicans said that wasn't good enough and changed the rules. So NOW, the Democrats are saying we should follow the NEW rules that the Republicans put in place.

In every situation, its the Democrats who are saying we should play by the existing rules.

 

[Novichok]

You're all compromised. What you believe depends on what will be best for your side. It's not actually a reasoned and unbiased position you have. You're just trying to create reason for things to happen the way you want them to.

You can't reason with terrorists and the leftists.

Oops, sorry, my apologies to the terrorists.

The only thing you owe the system is acting by the current rules with zero explanation of why. Don't like the outcome? Change the rules.

BTW, the lake is over there ....

 

[Novichok]

How exactly are Democrats being hypocrites? In 2016, they argued that things should proceed as they had for the entirety of our countries existence. The Republicans said that wasn't good enough and changed the rules. So NOW, the Democrats are saying we should follow the NEW rules that the Republicans put in place.

In every situation, it's the Democrats who are saying we should play by the existing rules.

What rules did the RINO's change?

 

[Napoleon]

How exactly are Democrats being hypocrites? In 2016, they argued that things should proceed as they had for the entirety of our countries existence. The Republicans said that wasn't good enough and changed the rules. So NOW, the Democrats are saying we should follow the NEW rules that the Republicans put in place.

In every situation, its the Democrats who are saying we should play by the existing rules.

There are no “rules” per say. In 2016 Democrats said that proximity to an election didn’t matter. They’ve now changed their position.

 

[Craig234]

Do you know many Democrats that think it would be fair for Trump to seat the next justice? Do you know many Republicans that don't think Trump should do it? A lot of people are just brainless partisans that will fight for their side's interest no matter what the situation is.

Just because a position happens to match the partisan one, doesn't mean that's the reason. I'm against Biden being assassinated, but that doesn't mean the reason is partisan.

 

[dex4974]

Just because a position happens to match the partisan one, doesn't mean that's the reason. I'm against Biden being assassinated, but that doesn't mean the reason is partisan.

The reason is partisan for most people in this case.

 

[Craig234]

You can't reason with terrorists and the leftists.

Oops, sorry, my apologies to the terrorists.

The only thing you owe the system is acting by the current rules with zero explanation of why. Don't like the outcome? Change the rules.

BTW, the lake is over there ....

And there's the partisan view lacking any integrity.

As if 'reason' mattered to you, its enemy. You don't have a word to say about the 'reason' involved with all the Republicans saying the 'reason' for their position on Garland, that they're now doing the opposite of, for partisan reasons, being dishonest hypocrites. You don't have a leg to stand on and shouldn't even use the word reason.

 

[Lutherf]

I'm thinking that you don't know me from Adam and are talking, primarily, from your rectal orifice.

Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Making judicial nominations is part of that obligation.

The Senate has an obligation to consider the nominations and, should they approve, consent to appoint the nominee to the pertinent position. It's all a two part process. It's not "Trump decides and it's done".

The reason Garland didn't get his appointment is because the Senate did their part, as required by the Constitution.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

There are no “rules” per say. In 2016 Democrats said that proximity to an election didn’t matter. They’ve now changed their position.

Thats is because proximity had never mattered before. It was the Republicans who made that claim.

Fast forward 4 years and now its the Republicans making the claim that proximity DOESN'T matter.

The Dems have had the same position the whole time, that being that whatever the established methods are, they should be followed.

They may not be rules, per se, but they were the established methods for how this process had gone on since the creation of the court.

 

[Craig234]

The reason is partisan for most people in this case.

'most people' is less wrong than your OP, but is simple an opinion without evidence. I'd agree that it's the case for many, presumably including you, but not all.

 

[dex4974]

I'm thinking that you don't know me from Adam and are talking, primarily, from your rectal orifice.

Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Making judicial nominations is part of that obligation.

The Senate has an obligation to consider the nominations and, should they approve, consent to appoint the nominee to the pertinent position. It's all a two part process. It's not "Trump decides and it's done".

The reason Garland didn't get his appointment is because the Senate did their part, as required by the Constitution.

My bad. Just a coincidence after all.

 

[Napoleon]

Thats is because proximity had never mattered before. It was the Republicans who made that claim.

Fast forward 4 years and now its the Republicans making the claim that proximity DOESN'T matter.

The Dems have had the same position the whole time, that being that whatever the established methods are, they should be followed.

They may not be rules, per se, but they were the established methods for how this process had gone on since the creation of the court.

The Democrats swapped their position with the Republican position which makes them both hypocrites.

 

[dex4974]

'most people' is less wrong than your OP, but is simple an opinion without evidence. I'd agree that it's the case for many, presumably including you, but not all.

I exaggerated a little. In hindsight I would change my wording.

 

[Craig234]

The reason Garland didn't get his appointment is because the Senate did their part, as required by the Constitution.

The Senate did NOT do their part. They acted in a corrupt an dishonest way to steal a Supreme Court seat.

 

[trixare4kids]

You're all compromised. What you believe depends on what will be best for your side. It's not actually a reasoned and unbiased position you have. You're just trying to create reason for things to happen the way you want them to.

I'm a conservative and I believe Democrat Barack Obama has offered the best argument for filling the seat.
"When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text." ~Barack Obama

 

[Craig234]

I exaggerated a little. In hindsight I would change my wording.

Fair enough, but deserving of an award by the typical standard of people on the right.

 

[dex4974]

Fair enough, but deserving of an award by the typical standard of people on the right.

I'm not right wing.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You're all compromised. What you believe depends on what will be best for your side. It's not actually a reasoned and unbiased position you have. You're just trying to create reason for things to happen the way you want them to.

Ole Mitch changed his tune today...

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court"

 

[bullseyelqcs]

The Democrats swapped their position with the Republican position which makes them both hypocrites.

No, they didn't, and I'll prove it.

If we go to Vegas to play a game of Texas Hold Em', and the game starts out as Texas Hold Em', but then its proposed that we switch to 7 Card Stud and I say we should keep playing Hold Em, but you change it to Stud anyway, I'm not a hypocrite for then saying we should keep playing Stud since that what we swithced to when you say we should go back to playing Hold Em.

I would have been consistently saying we should play the game currently being played, regardless of what game it was. You, on the other hand, would be changing the game on whatever whim you want.

Only on hypocrite in that situation.

 

[dex4974]

Ole Mitch changed his tune today...

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court"

Oh wow.

I am actually speechless.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not right wing.

That helps explain why you acted better than they typically do.