• 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!

Justice Ginsburg to retire in January 2019?

Renae said:
Nyet, Obama was denied a SCOTUS judge, and thank goodness for that.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying Trump should also be denied a SCOTUS judge if Ginsberg retires close to a Presidential election. That was your reasoning for denying Obama his pick despite historical precedent contradicting that stance.
 
Aristaeus said:
It would be wrong for Trump to nominate a Supreme Court judge so close to a Presidential election. There should be no nominations until after the 2020 election, I'm sure republican posters would agree, after all, this is what they were insisting on a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Jan 2019 makes it almost 2 years until the election. And “after all” that is not what Republicans were insisting upon.

If you got different standard, OK. But those standards are not the same to those your are trying to equate them to.
 
Aristaeus said:
And I'm saying Trump should also be denied a SCOTUS judge if Ginsberg retires close to a Presidential election. That was your reasoning for denying Obama his pick despite historical precedent contradicting that stance.
Click to expand...

Obama was not denied his pick. He got to pick. His pick was rejected.
 
Aberration said:
Obama was not denied his pick. He got to pick. His pick was rejected.
Click to expand...

The GOP refused to have a confirmation hearing as they claimed it was too close to an election, despite plenty of historical precedence for Presidents getting a SCOTUS close to an election year.
 
Aristaeus said:
And I'm saying Trump should also be denied a SCOTUS judge if Ginsberg retires close to a Presidential election. That was your reasoning for denying Obama his pick despite historical precedent contradicting that stance.
Click to expand...
No, Obama was outgoing, couldn't be re-elected, Trump is able to be thus he could replace her. Also, we have the votes to push whomever he nomites through...
 
Aristaeus said:
The GOP refused to have a confirmation hearing as they claimed it was too close to an election, despite plenty of historical precedence for Presidents getting a SCOTUS close to an election year.
Click to expand...

Yes, but, the GOP had the votes to reject him, and did so. Which is something they are more than constitutional able to do.
 
Aristaeus said:
And I'm saying Trump should also be denied a SCOTUS judge if Ginsberg retires close to a Presidential election. That was your reasoning for denying Obama his pick despite historical precedent contradicting that stance.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with Trump nominating a right leaning "moderate" judge like Garland was a left leaning "moderate" judge. How about that compromise?
 
Aristaeus said:
The GOP refused to have a confirmation hearing as they claimed it was too close to an election, despite plenty of historical precedence for Presidents getting a SCOTUS close to an election year.
Click to expand...

Obama could have named a judge in Scalia's mold and they would have been confirmed. It was up to Obama to name someone the Senate would confirm. He didn't do that. And, it is up to Trump to nominate someone the Senate would confirm.
 
Renae said:
No, Obama was outgoing, couldn't be re-elected, Trump is able to be thus he could replace her. Also, we have the votes to push whomever he nomites through...
Click to expand...

Do as I say, not as I do?

You're ignoring the GOPs reasoning for refusing a confirmation hearing because you know it is both logically, legally, and historically inaccurate.
 
Moderate Right said:
Obama could have named a judge in Scalia's mold and they would have been confirmed. It was up to Obama to name someone the Senate would confirm. He didn't do that. And, it is up to Trump to nominate someone the Senate would confirm.
Click to expand...

The GOP-controlled senate said they would refuse to consider anyone because it was Obama's lame duck year, ignoring historical precedent. It was bull**** partisanship.
 
Aristaeus said:
The GOP-controlled senate said they would refuse to consider anyone because it was Obama's lame duck year, ignoring historical precedent. It was bull**** partisanship.
Click to expand...

Following historical precedent according to Uncle Joe

 
Aristaeus said:
Do as I say, not as I do?

You're ignoring the GOPs reasoning for refusing a confirmation hearing because you know it is both logically, legally, and historically inaccurate.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything, the GOP had the votes, and again Trump is able to be re-elected, Obama wasn't. So if RBG steps down, he can replace her with a more Constitutionally minded legal mind and reinforce the balance on the court in favor of the US Constitution. I'm fine with that.
 
Crovax said:
Following historical precedent according to Uncle Joe

Click to expand...


Wrong. Biden's comments weren't talking about Garland's scenario, and McConnell took his words out of context. Biden's main gripe was that Bush nominated Thomas without consulting his committee.
 
Renae said:
I'm not ignoring anything, the GOP had the votes, and again Trump is able to be re-elected, Obama wasn't. So if RBG steps down, he can replace her with a more Constitutionally minded legal mind and reinforce the balance on the court in favor of the US Constitution. I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if Obama wasn't able to get re-elected. That has no relevance to whether he is entitled to have a SCOTUS pick considered for confirmation. The Senate has the right to vote no, but is a dereliction of duty to refuse to consider it.

Presidents in the past have nominated SCOTUS judges in their last year and had them confirmed by the senate.
 
Aristaeus said:
The GOP-controlled senate said they would refuse to consider anyone because it was Obama's lame duck year, ignoring historical precedent. It was bull**** partisanship.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you know darn well if Obama had nominated Gorsuch or Kavanaugh the senate would have confirmed.
 
JoanDavis said:
I don't think the Democrats would force a sick person to continue working just to save the country from this nightmare. However I am sure all you trump supporters are delighted with the news that she might be dying. It means trump can nominate another far right white supremacist misogynist a-hole to the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Well count me as one who is happy, cancer sucks, sure, but this woman has been an enemy to the US Constitution since she took her appointment. I don't care what brings her down, she needs to go, and not soon enough.


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom