- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Messages
- 27,199
- Reaction score
- 14,222
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
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.
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.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.
That not how it works. It works however the Senate decides it works. There is no requirement to vote.
Lean doesn't matter...the Constitution matters...and the answer, according to the Constitution, is "Yes".
Or nearly 78% or nearly 75%. Again you chose a number that sounded better.
Tell me what should we do with this number.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%?
Majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, CBS News poll finds
Republicans say abortion should be restricted, but they're divided on overturning Roe v. Wadewww.cbsnews.com
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.
well most of them anyway...a few have come out saying no way...Republicans are completely hypocritical on this issue.
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? "
I've literally just explained why the Dems aren't being hypocritical.Sorry, but the hypocritical nature of the Senate Republicans does NOT excuse the hypocritical nature of the Democrats.
And I rejected your explanation.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.
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.Lean doesn't matter...the Constitution matters...and the answer, according to the Constitution, is "Yes".
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.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.
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?
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.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?)
And if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would do exactly the same. That's just the way the game works.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.
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.
Read it and tell me the answer to your question.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.
"Nowhere in that document (the Constitution) does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote."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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?