• 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!

nominating a SC post-election defeat

Would it be right for Trump to get his SC pick post election defeat?

  • I'm right leaning and yes it would be right

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • I'm right-leaning and it would be wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm centrist and it would be right

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • I'm centrist and it would be wrong

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • I'm left leaning and it would be right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm left leaning and it would be wrong

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Oh, are you backtracking off that 80% number now? There are nuances in the numbers. If you digested the article you would see that. That’s why I say I don’t trust polls. Americans are fickle. One day they vote one way and then the next another. Me, I’ll just wait until the fat lady sings.

Why would I backtack off of something you linked to that proved me correct? Nuances in polling is not the same as being inaccurate, that is *your* extrapolation based on your own bias against numbers you don’t like. It’s an emotional reaction to data.

You were just wrong, and it’s okay. You learned something about your own country today. You’re welcome.
 
Why would I backtack off of something you linked to that proved me correct? Nuances in polling is not the same as being inaccurate, that is *your* extrapolation based on your own bias against numbers you don’t like. It’s an emotional reaction to data.

You were just wrong, and it’s okay. You learned something about your own country today. You’re welcome.
You use the 80% number because it sounds better and you want to accuse me of being biased? The actual number was 77% but what’s that when accuracy isn’t really important. Now what are the odds that if I dig a little deeper that I could find a poll that differs with the one I cited? Sampling size, demographics, and questions asked influence results. Explain to me how the pollsters got it wrong in 2016.
 
You use the 80% number because it sounds better and you want to accuse me of being biased? The actual number was 77% but what’s that when accuracy isn’t really important. Now what are the odds that if I dig a little deeper that I could find a poll that differs with the one I cited? Sampling size, demographics, and questions asked influence results. Explain to me how the pollsters got it wrong in 2016.

It is to some of us.

ACFA8C96-2395-4A4B-9471-C07DD200F5EF.jpeg
 
That not how it works. It works however the Senate decides it works. There is no requirement to vote.

You can't have one rule for presidents of one party and one rule for presidents of the other party, at least not ethically-I think Chuck Grassley said as much. There needs to be some consistency. Turning this into a fully partisan event, while I admit is within the purview of the Senate, is only going to deepen the divide. If the jackass wins, he gets to nominate who he pleases, and the Senate votes on it. If Biden wins he can nominate who he wants whenever he wants to do it.
If a nominee is put forth for a vote before a new president is elected is a mistake. It will not serve to bring this country together, something we sorely need.
 
Lean doesn't matter...the Constitution matters...and the answer, according to the Constitution, is "Yes".

It's true, they have the right to do it, even though it's not 'playing fair'. In that case however, Obama had the right to his pick in 2015 as well.

Frankly since the parties are using SCOTUS as a tool of power - and the GOP has a bigger voice than it's entitled to given its electoral base, the Dems should respond by packing the courts when they get the chance and expanding SCOTUS. I also think - though this is going to be very hard - that congress should play a role in picking judges as impartially as possible, so that there are not as many rulings straight down party lines.
 
Last edited:
Or nearly 78% or nearly 75%. Again you chose a number that sounded better.
View attachment 67295979
Tell me what should we do with this number.
View attachment 67295987
Round it up to 70%?

[/QUOTE]

I would use that number to further underline how I was correct earlier when I stated that keeping Roe legal is supported by a large majority.

You apparently are still angry that you blew the exchange because you played semantics with English and as it turned out I still phrased it correctly, so now you’re using other stats I did not refer to and pretending that it’s an issue of rounding numbers up or down.

This is what it looks like when a male is wrong online. This.
 
Tell me what should we do with this number.
View attachment 67295987
Round it up to 70%?


I would use that number to further underline how I was correct earlier when I stated that keeping Roe legal is supported by a large majority.

You apparently are still angry that you blew the exchange because you played semantics with English and as it turned out I still phrased it correctly, so now you’re using other stats I did not refer to and pretending that it’s an issue of rounding numbers up or down.

This is what it looks like when a male is wrong online. This.
[/QUOTE]
Angry? Stop projecting. It looks bad on you. I stated my position on polls in general. They can manipulated to make a point. You used a number you pulled out of the air. I cited the actual number from one that comes close to it. Then I cited a different poll with a different result. My point stands. You lose. ;)

Formatting is starting to get messed up. Crap!
 
It's true, they have the right to do it, even though it's not 'playing fair'.

And this is the correct answer to the OP's question.

In that case however, Obama had the right to his pick in 2015 as well.

Frankly since the parties are using SCOTUS as a tool of power - and the GOP has a bigger voice than it's entitled to given its electoral base, the Dems should respond by packing the courts when they get the chance and expanding SCOTUS. I also think - though this is going to be very hard - that congress should play a role in picking judges as impartially as possible, so that there are not as many rulings straight down party lines.

And this is irrelevant to the OP's question.

In case you've forgotten, this is the OP's question: " If the senate don't or can't affirm a SC pick prior to the election and Trump loses, should he still get to choose, and the senate confirm, a new SC justice in his lame-duck period despite Biden being President elect? "
 
i did see that. i could predict how that will play out, but i'll wait and see at this point.
 
And this is the correct answer to the OP's question.



And this is irrelevant to the OP's question.

In case you've forgotten, this is the OP's question: " If the senate don't or can't affirm a SC pick prior to the election and Trump loses, should he still get to choose, and the senate confirm, a new SC justice in his lame-duck period despite Biden being President elect? "

Answered in the first part, yes. They could choose not to, in the interests of fairness, but they'd still have the right. I'm merely taking the next logical step, what happens after the new admin takes office?
 
Sorry, but the hypocritical nature of the Senate Republicans does NOT excuse the hypocritical nature of the Democrats.
I've literally just explained why the Dems aren't being hypocritical.
 
You can't have one rule for presidents of one party and one rule for presidents of the other party, at least not ethically-I think Chuck Grassley said as much. There needs to be some consistency. Turning this into a fully partisan event, while I admit is within the purview of the Senate, is only going to deepen the divide. If the jackass wins, he gets to nominate who he pleases, and the Senate votes on it. If Biden wins he can nominate who he wants whenever he wants to do it.
If a nominee is put forth for a vote before a new president is elected is a mistake. It will not serve to bring this country together, something we sorely need.

Supreme Court nominees are the least of our divise problems. But fine, then lets pick a rule now and put it in the constitution so it cant change. Because so long as we have parties, the rules are going to keeping changing to benefit whoever is the majority. If you want it to change, stop electing democrats and republicans.
 
Lean doesn't matter...the Constitution matters...and the answer, according to the Constitution, is "Yes".
That same constitution that y'all love using also gave obama the right to nominate a choice, McConnell made sure that choice would never get a vote.
That's ok with the trump supporters who just love the constitution.
 
That same constitution that y'all love using also gave obama the right to nominate a choice, McConnell made sure that choice would never get a vote.
That's ok with the trump supporters who just love the constitution.
Obama's actions were according to the Constitution. The Senate's actions were according to the Constitution. Trump's actions will be according to the Constitution. The Senate's actions will be according to the Constitution.

What, exactly, do you think is not according to the Constitution?

(Or...do you just not like the actions?)
 
If the senate don't or can't affirm a SC pick prior to the election and Trump loses, should he still get to choose, and the senate confirm, a new SC justice in his lame-duck period despite Biden being President elect?

A lame-duck President is still the President until the new President is inaugurated.

It would be constitutional & proper for President Trump to nominate & for the Senate to confirm a Justice to fill the vacancy.
 
Obama's actions were according to the Constitution. The Senate's actions were according to the Constitution. Trump's actions will be according to the Constitution. The Senate's actions will be according to the Constitution.

What, exactly, do you think is not according to the Constitution?

(Or...do you just not like the actions?)
Almost everything the gop does is underhanded. You may be correct, however, the intent is clear. McConnell never gave obama's pick a vote, too close to the election, let the people have a voice. Fast forward to now, McConnell, we'll push this through as soon as possible and screw the people's voices. All done with the intention of blocking the dems while giving the R's an unfair advantage, once again.

In the long run the R's are screwing themselves. White america is dwindling and younger generations will not put up with the R's telling them how their lives can be run. It would not surprise me one bit to see trump lose and with him the senate for this bone headed maneuver. This is an out and out power grab to control the supreme court for decades.
 
Almost everything the gop does is underhanded. You may be correct, however, the intent is clear. McConnell never gave obama's pick a vote, too close to the election, let the people have a voice. Fast forward to now, McConnell, we'll push this through as soon as possible and screw the people's voices. All done with the intention of blocking the dems while giving the R's an unfair advantage, once again.

In the long run the R's are screwing themselves. White america is dwindling and younger generations will not put up with the R's telling them how their lives can be run. It would not surprise me one bit to see trump lose and with him the senate for this bone headed maneuver. This is an out and out power grab to control the supreme court for decades.
And if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would do exactly the same. That's just the way the game works.

Don't cry. Move on.
 
Obama's actions were according to the Constitution. The Senate's actions were according to the Constitution. Trump's actions will be according to the Constitution. The Senate's actions will be according to the Constitution.

Wait does the constitution say the senate can refuse to even consider a pick? They couldn't have voted against him, but are they really allowed to just say as a body, we're not doing this?
 
Wait does the constitution say the senate can refuse to even consider a pick? They couldn't have voted against him, but are they really allowed to just say as a body, we're not doing this?
Read it and tell me the answer to your question.
 
Read it and tell me the answer to your question.

LOL, thought so. Part of the problem might me the age and malleability of the document; perhaps the sleaziness of senator McConnell. But I'm guessing "The Constitution TM" is to modern conservatives whatever they want it to be in the moment.
 
Wait does the constitution say the senate can refuse to even consider a pick? They couldn't have voted against him, but are they really allowed to just say as a body, we're not doing this?
"Nowhere in that document (the Constitution) does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote."

-- Harry Reid

He just keeps coming back to bite Democrats in the ass.
 
"Nowhere in that document (the Constitution) does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote."

-- Harry Reid

He just keeps coming back to bite Democrats in the ass.

Clearly he's as cynical as McConnell when it suits him.
 
Back
Top Bottom