• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Pence: "In a more respectful time..."

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,398
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I really great reply to vice president Pence's tweet

Screenshot_20180909-223057.webp

My sentiments, exactly.
 
Yep. That says it all.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So....two wrongs makes a Right in Mr. Schiffs world? Got it. Hope he gets voted out asap.
Click to expand...

So it’s just one wrong only with you, correct? As long as it’s Republicans doing it! Got it. Why do you feel Republicans should get to continue to throw the first and last punch 🥊 in every situation?
 
I've always taken issue with this sort of thing, Pence is cherry-picking data to support a hypocritical position then calling the whole thing the absence of respect. Ultimately it speaks to his credibility.

Neil Gorsuch (Trump) was 54-45, Elena Kagan (Obama) was 63-37, Sonia Sotomayor (Obama) was 68-31, Samuel Alito (Bush 43) was 58-42, Clarence Thomas (Bush 41) was 52-48, and we have seen plenty of rejections or withdraws for whatever reason.

The politicization of the nomination process and conformation process has been full-tilt long enough to suggest Pence is intentionally being misleading.

It is as if Trump, Pence, and others are unilaterally deciding on the high road but it is all based on ****.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I've always taken issue with this sort of thing, Pence is cherry-picking data to support a hypocritical position then calling the whole thing the absence of respect. Ultimately it speaks to his credibility.

Neil Gorsuch (Trump) was 54-45, Elena Kagan (Obama) was 63-37, Sonia Sotomayor (Obama) was 68-31, Samuel Alito (Bush 43) was 58-42, Clarence Thomas (Bush 41) was 52-48, and we have seen plenty of rejections or withdraws for whatever reason.

The politicization of the nomination process and conformation process has been full-tilt long enough to suggest Pence is intentionally being misleading.

It is as if Trump, Pence, and others are unilaterally deciding on the high road but it is all based on ****.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS became totally politicized with Robert Bork in my opinion. Even before Bork there was as you state were rejections and withdrawals. Politics has always played a part in the confirmation process. It just wasn't as mean, there wasn't as much animosity or zeal to despoil and destroy since Bork. I think most of attempts for the party out of power to destroy and stop any nomination of the party in power has had abortion at the forefront.

Both parties have learned that the SCOTUS can either promote one's party agenda or stop one's party agenda cold through their rulings. Hence the importance of ideological supportive judges on the SCOTUS. Ideology in my opinion shouldn't matter if the judges on the SCOTUS went by original intent and what is written in black and white in plain English in the Constitution. But each try to find loop holes and an obscure sentence here or there that will allow them to rule according to their own ideology.

My two cents anyway.
 
The entire process is a political ****storm. It’s all about who has the majority of votes. Winning elections at any and all costs is all that matters. Want to have a nominee get put on the court,have the votes. Want to keep a nomination from getting a vote, hold the majority. Want to change the rules based on a whim, win the election...
 
Blue Dog said:
The entire process is a political ****storm. It’s all about who has the majority of votes. Winning elections at any and all costs is all that matters. Want to have a nominee get put on the court,have the votes. Want to keep a nomination from getting a vote, hold the majority. Want to change the rules based on a whim, win the election...
Click to expand...

A time, however, came, in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure.
-- John Stuart Mill, "Tyranny of the Majority"
 
Kal'Stang said:
So....two wrongs makes a Right in Mr. Schiffs world? Got it. Hope he gets voted out asap.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs might not make a right...but the first wrong makes a precedent. :shrug:
 
Perotista said:
SCOTUS became totally politicized with Robert Bork in my opinion. Even before Bork there was as you state were rejections and withdrawals. Politics has always played a part in the confirmation process. It just wasn't as mean, there wasn't as much animosity or zeal to despoil and destroy since Bork. I think most of attempts for the party out of power to destroy and stop any nomination of the party in power has had abortion at the forefront.

Both parties have learned that the SCOTUS can either promote one's party agenda or stop one's party agenda cold through their rulings. Hence the importance of ideological supportive judges on the SCOTUS. Ideology in my opinion shouldn't matter if the judges on the SCOTUS went by original intent and what is written in black and white in plain English in the Constitution. But each try to find loop holes and an obscure sentence here or there that will allow them to rule according to their own ideology.

My two cents anyway.
Click to expand...

The PPACA SCOTUS decisions were extremely bad (political?), IMHO. Stretching the 16A, the power to tax income from all sources, to assert that such taxation can be based on how one did not later elect to spend a portion of their income is way past the 'living document' stage. Other than CJ Roberts, the rest of the SCOTUS considered PPACA to be a commerce power affair. The SCOTUS should not have given itself the power to alter a law (give themselves a line item veto power?) - it should be a straight up or down affair like a presidential signature or veto is.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So....two wrongs makes a Right in Mr. Schiffs world? Got it. Hope he gets voted out asap.
Click to expand...

Well, what respectful time do you suppose Pence was referring to, kalstang? When Republicans blocked Obama's nominee and even in fact promised to block all of Clinton's nominees if she won? Or do you suppose he was referring to before that?
 
OlNate said:
Two wrongs might not make a right...but the first wrong makes a precedent. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Especially when the first wrong has been coming from Republicans for 50 years, when Nixon committed treason during the 1968 election, sabotaging the Paris Peace talks, costing us 22,000 more lives, and so much more with that one.

Republicans, especially those who deny their brand but post and vote like one, expect to get the first and last punch 🥊, every single time. All Republican politicians stand with trumpism.
 
Lutherf said:
To paraphrase, “we didn’t get our way in the general election so we continue to throw a fit over that and everything related to that election”
Click to expand...

Garland was blocked before that election. Republicans' promise to block all of Clinton's nominees if she won also happened before the election.
 
Xelor said:
A time, however, came, in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure.
-- John Stuart Mill, "Tyranny of the Majority"
Click to expand...

The " tyranny of the majority"?

As opposed to what, the tyranny of the minority?

One must pick one, I suspect the majority is for the greater good,
hence the word 'majority'.
 
Linc said:
Especially when the first wrong has been coming from Republicans for 50 years, when Nixon committed treason during the 1968 election, sabotaging the Paris Peace talks, costing us 22,000 more lives, and so much more with that one.

Republicans, especially those who deny their brand but post and vote like one, expect to get the first and last punch ��, every single time. All Republican politicians stand with trumpism.
Click to expand...

Meh...I don't think that's true...thankfully! :) I know lots of Republicans who are aghast. I couldn't tell you the percentages, or anything, but it's important to remember that the generalization isn't accurate... These are the people who you hope will help vote Trump out, doesn't matter of they are Dem or Rep.
 
Xelor said:
A time, however, came, in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure.
-- John Stuart Mill, "Tyranny of the Majority"
Click to expand...

OscarLevant said:
The " tyranny of the majority"?

As opposed to what, the tyranny of the minority?

One must pick one, I suspect the majority is for the greater good,
hence the word 'majority'.
Click to expand...

Sigh... I guess we have to have this conversation again too.

"Tyranny of the majority" is not only about who the majority are, but what they use the power of governance to do in marginalizing the minority. It is about the idea of how far governance can go so that the majority did not weaponize governance, even though in our case this has already happened.

The reason we are talking about this is the further we go the more we see how the majority in power operates... until they are not majority.

This behavior is bipartisan... and we all know it.
 
OlNate said:
Meh...I don't think that's true...thankfully! :) I know lots of Republicans who are aghast. I couldn't tell you the percentages, or anything, but it's important to remember that the generalization isn't accurate... These are the people who you hope will help vote Trump out, doesn't matter of they are Dem or Rep.
Click to expand...

The generalization is very accurate, unfortunately. Not "all" republicans support him but the VAST majority do. Every poll I've seen indicates Trump has very high support - 80% or more, often approaching 90% - of those claiming to be Republicans.

E.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

He's at 85% with Republicans in that poll, and was at 90% approval as recently as July 2018. We saw it in our governor's race primary a few weeks ago, with every candidate running as a "Trump" Republican. Pretty depressing from where I sit.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, what respectful time do you suppose Pence was referring to, kalstang? When Republicans blocked Obama's nominee and even in fact promised to block all of Clinton's nominees if she won? Or do you suppose he was referring to before that?
Click to expand...

He mentioned what happened with Garland. So that's what he was talking about.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Precedent doesn't mean it has to be followed.
Click to expand...

But it gives plenty of excuse to do so...not to mention robs the folks involved with the precedent of complaining.

Just saying, bud... :) Back to "fix your own house"...

(Bear in mind, none of what I'm saying should suggest that I'm in favor of any of it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom