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

[Craig234]

Ole Mitch changed his tune today...

What are you talking about? Link.

 

[Lutherf]

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

Out of curiosity, can you point out to me where it's a requirement for the Senate to approve the president's nominations?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Oh wow.

I am actually speechless.

that's actually from 2016.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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 disagree.

The bottom line is that the SENATE has the Constitutional power to approve all Presidential appointments to his Cabinet, ambassadorships, and most importantly the SCOTUS to name the main ones.

The Republican controlled Senate did not have to justify refusing to approve or even disapprove Merrick Garland, nor any other appointee. They offered some silly reasons, but ultimately all they had to do was what they did...simply refuse to approve that appointment.

Now, the Republican controlled Senate STILL has the power to approve or disapprove of a SCOTUS appointee. They don't have to have hearings, if they choose not to. They can have abbreviated hearings (much like the Democrat controlled house when it came to anything dealing with Trump), or they can go whole hog and have lengthy hearings until time runs out and the next President puts forward an appointee.

So all this caterwauling about "unfair," and "look what they said in 2015" is meaningless.

Remember, back in the day it was the DEMOCRAT's who got rid of the 60 vote majority requirement...when THEY wanted to push through their picks.

They were warned then it would come back to bite them in the rear.

 

[dex4974]

that's actually from 2016.

Damnit. I knew you were bamboozling me.

 

[Napoleon]

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.

No, what it means that your position was never based on principle to begin with. We’ve spent 3 years listening to gripes from Democrats about how Trump “stole” a nomination and how wrong it was. They insisted on playing Texas Hold ‘Em for 3 years and now they want to play 7 Card Stud for no reason other than their desire to manipulate the ideological makeup of the Court. The reverse also applies to Republicans. Both hypocrites.

 

[Craig234]

Out of curiosity, can you point out to me where it's a requirement for the Senate to approve the president's nominations?

They didn't give him *hearings*. They could have had hearings and voted him down. They did not. Because that would be politically inconvenient as the country saw them vote down a good nominee - in fact, one the REPUBLICANS had suggested saying he'd be approved no problem. The process is to appoint justices, not necessarily every nominee, not to hold seats for a year to get a different president to get to appoint them, for reasons of lies.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Damnit. I knew you were bamboozling me.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

No, what it means that your position was never based on principle to begin with.

What are you talking about? We went in playing Hold Em. You then unilaterally proclaim we are going to play Stud. Even though I am now obligated to play Stud doesn't mean I don't still think we should be playing Hold Em as originally agreed to.

We’ve spent 3 years listening to gripes from Democrats about how Trump “stole” a nomination and how wrong it was. They insisted on playing Texas Hold ‘Em for 3 years and now they want to play 7 Card Stud for no reason other than their desire to manipulate the ideological makeup of the Court.

Not exactly. They spent the last 3 years saying that we should have been playing Hold Em the whole time, all while recognizing that the game had been changed to Stud. They only want to play Stud now because its the game the Republicans were more than happy to play right up until they decided the wanted to go back to playing Hold Em because of the very desire you brought up.

But again, only one side has been advocating changing the game at any point.

The reverse also applies to Republicans. Both hypocrites.

Bull.

The Republicans changed the game being played, against the wishes of the Democrats.

Now they want to change back to the other rules, once again against the wishes of the Democrats.

Only one party has consistently said we should play by the "rules" currently in play, whatever those rules may be. You can't be a hypocrite when you have been saying the same thing the whole time.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

This is absolutely correct and it applies to both Parties.

Neither Party cares about cares about nonsense justifications or hypocrisy. They just care about getting what they want. And their followers...well, they just follow along.

 

[dex4974]

This is absolutely correct and it applies to both Parties.

Neither Party cares about cares about nonsense justifications or hypocrisy. They just care about getting what they want. And their followers...well, they just follow along.

Props for existing in reality with me.

 

[Rawley]

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.

No rules were changed in 2016

 

[Mycroft]

Props for existing in reality with me.

Thank you.

I am always in reality...whether with you or not.

 

[SCrider]

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.

How so, they refused to even hold a hearing?

 

[Lutherf]

How so, they refused to even hold a hearing?

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says the Senate has to give their consent. It merely says that the president requires their consent for one of his nominations to become an appointment.

 

[Rawley]

The Republicans changed the game being played, against the wishes of the Democrats.
Now they want to change back to the other rules, once again against the wishes of the Democrats.
Only one party has consistently said we should play by the "rules" currently in play, whatever those rules may be. You can't be a hypocrite when you have been saying the same thing the whole time.

I'll say it again, no rules were changed in 2016 or now.

 

[SCrider]

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says the Senate has to give their consent. It merely says that the president requires their consent for one of his nominations to become an appointment.

Ha ha you can spin yourself into anything.

 

[noonereal]

You're wrong, and projecting.

he is complete correct, you are the poster that is wrong

 

[Aunt Antifa]

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.

No, we can provide reason and evidence. It’s not all just both sides. Sometimes someone is right.

WHat we need to do is stop insisting that a difference of opinion is automatically disqualifying. There isn’t both sides to covid, for example. There is mainstream scientific backed belief that the vast majority of AMericans agree with, and then there’s a niche radical anti-science element in the country that wants to actively spread the plague. I ain’t taking an ‘L” cause I disagree with their plan to murder millions with disease.

 

[Craig234]

WHat we need to do is stop insisting that a difference of opinion is automatically disqualifying. There isn’t both sides to covid, for example.

If by two sides you mean rational, reasonable sides, you're right; but if you mean groups of people with opposing views, there are two sides. There is a group of people who support false positions.

 

[dex4974]

No, we can provide reason and evidence. It’s not all just both sides. Sometimes someone is right.

WHat we need to do is stop insisting that a difference of opinion is automatically disqualifying. There isn’t both sides to covid, for example. There is mainstream scientific backed belief that the vast majority of AMericans agree with, and then there’s a niche radical anti-science element in the country that wants to actively spread the plague. I ain’t taking an ‘L” cause I disagree with their plan to murder millions with disease.

Yeah, sometimes people are right, and maybe somebody is right here, but I still think positions are largely motivated by political bias.

 

[Craig234]

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says the Senate has to give their consent. It merely says that the president requires their consent for one of his nominations to become an appointment.

The purpose of the process is to put people on the court in good faith, not to game the system by not doing their jobs to prevent seats being filled. Because McConnell so completely gamed the system, trump has put the second most judges on courts - stacking them - of any president by this time in his presidency. In less than one term, he has appointed 30% of the appeals court judges. You are defending corruption.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

Stir stir stir the pot, gently with your ass.
Merrily merrily, merril. . . .





PSA: if the GOP had voted on Obama's nomination, nobody would be speaking. The only reason the GOP is criticized is that they're lying about their prior fake rationale to justify breaking it. And all the Trumpist scum can do is play it for but we say the Dems would do the same thing even though they did not do the same thing so alternate-Dems MADE US DO IT!.

Think about what it says of a party that their only justification ever seems to be "look at what you made me do!"

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, sometimes people are right, and maybe somebody is right here, but I still think positions are largely motivated by political bias.

While there is some truth to that, I still think you are projecting. Not a word about people not 'motivated by political bias', or what that even means. If I want people to have healthcare for moral reasons, you might call that 'political bias', wrongly.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yeah, sometimes people are right, and maybe somebody is right here, but I still think positions are largely motivated by political bias.

Even that can be proven to be a righteous value vs a cynical one. Depends on the politics.