• 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!

So will we be seeing that McConnell and Co. really are the hypocrites they have been accused of being?

Metric Mouse said:
Joe Biden, September, 2016:

Joe Biden, September 2020: "Don't vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances. "

Hypocrisy clearly on both sides. Neither side cares.
Click to expand...

Is it really hypocrisy to expect that the Republicans play by the new set of rules they put in place? See, sgain, bacl in 2016, Biden was on the go ahead and have the hearings bandwagon. Under no circumstances does that mean they had the obligation to consent to the nominee, only that they would allow the president to at least make the nomination as the Constitution allows. The Republicans vociferously went the extra step of arguing that they not only shouldnt do that, but that he shouldnt even get to make the nomination at all.

Expecting them to play by those rules now isnt a flip flop, seeing as to how he was in favor of leaving the rules the way they had always been to begin with.....something about the old saying about being careful what you wish for.
 
justabubba said:
they have one that will make reich-wing heads explode
when biden expands the supreme court by adding three justices:
Garland
Obama
and hillary
Click to expand...
FIRST...Biden has to win. That's looking more and more like it's never going to happen. Even among the Dems.

SECOND...if they do that, they will be blowing themselves up.

No, that's not a grenade. That's suicide.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
So, here we sit, with the passing of RBG, at a political crossroads.

4 years ago, we were told that 9 months was too close to an election for the sitting President to nominate a replacement for a deceased Supreme Court Justice. We were told that the incoming President and the will of the people should be respected and we had to wait to make that appointment.

Fast forward 4 years, and now within 2 months of the election you have the passing of a justice, and we will now get to see if all that talk was something that was actually believed or nothing more than the political stunt we all knew it was at the time.

Those that would be in support of Trump naming a replacement and the Senate hurriedly confirming that replacement, whatever your justification for this shit would be, please don't let that justification be something stupid like, "this is different". Its not. Its actually worse, since there is even less time between the passing and the election.
Click to expand...


But it is different. Different because back when Scalia passed Obama and the Dems did not have a majority of Senators at that time so the White House and the Senate did not agree. The system is designed for that "check and balance". Therefore just as Obama had said years before, "elections have consequences". And as a consequence of the will of the people to have a majority of Republican congress people during Obama's last months in power, that meant NOT injecting Obama's choice over the standing "will of the people" -- and waiting for the voters to decide. That is the big difference.

Currently the White House and the Senate are in what we expect to be agreement on most judicial nominees. It is the current standing will of the people.

It would be a different matter however if Biden were to defeat Trump in November and also the dems take control of the senate, and then Trump during his remaining "lame duck" time in office attempted to get a nominee into the seat---- I think there would be room to complain about that. But that would never happen anyway. If they are worried now whether there are enough Republican senators to confirm a possible nominee before the election, after the election and a loss, there would be even fewer Republican senators wanting to confirm a lame duck nominee.

Right now Trump is NOT a lame duck president, and the current Republican controlled senate is not a lame duck senate. They are the will of the voters, and should be choosing then next Supreme court justice. That was NOT the case with Obama.
 
Mycroft said:
The hypocrisy resides on both sides...and it is a natural result of the fact that this is all political.

What the Reps said four years ago has been flipped and what the Dems said four years ago has been flipped.

Sorry, but that's just the nature of the political beast.
Click to expand...
This is the correct answer^
 
I had this discussion with my wife last night.....

I believe the GOP should sit on this....i really do

If Trump is reelected, then yes, of course he can submit his names. If not, then Biden can submit his.

With two months to go before the election, now is not the time to try and jam a SCOTUS nominee through

I may be in the minority on this one from my party....but i think this is the way to go.
 
gdgyva said:
I had this discussion with my wife last night.....

I believe the GOP should sit on this....i really do

If Trump is reelected, then yes, of course he can submit his names. If not, then Biden can submit his.

With two months to go before the election, now is not the time to try and jam a SCOTUS nominee through

I may be in the minority on this one from my party....but i think this is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Sounds very reasonable. Neither the President nor the Turtleman are reasonable people though, so expect seeing them try to force a nomination through (it's also useful for campaigning to talk about how they're nominating the most Conservative judge of all the times, which Trump will for sure tout about).
 
Court Jester said:
But it is different. Different because back when Scalia passed Obama and the Dems did not have a majority of Senators at that time so the White House and the Senate did not agree. The system is designed for that "check and balance". Therefore just as Obama had said years before, "elections have consequences". And as a consequence of the will of the people to have a majority of Republican congress people during Obama's last months in power, that meant NOT injecting Obama's choice over the standing "will of the people" -- and waiting for the voters to decide. That is the big difference.

Currently the White House and the Senate are in what we expect to be agreement on most judicial nominees. It is the current standing will of the people.

It would be a different matter however if Biden were to defeat Trump in November and also the dems take control of the senate, and then Trump during his remaining "lame duck" time in office attempted to get a nominee into the seat---- I think there would be room to complain about that. But that would never happen anyway. If they are worried now whether there are enough Republican senators to confirm a possible nominee before the election, after the election and a loss, there would be even fewer Republican senators wanting to confirm a lame duck nominee.

Right now Trump is NOT a lame duck president, and the current Republican controlled senate is not a lame duck senate. They are the will of the voters, and should be choosing then next Supreme court justice. That was NOT the case with Obama.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in regards to the idea of them ramming a choice through after an electoral loss, I disagree with you about the situation not being the same otherwise.

As I stated before, none of this would be an issue if THEY THEMSELVES hadnt stood before the American people and proclaimed that 9 months before a presidential election was too close to that election to let the current occupant make a choice and have the Senate at least do thier damned job. Obama WAS the will of the people and was entitled to all the "perks" of the job for the full length of his term, not his term minus 9 months. Im not even suggesting that an opposing Senate would rubber stamp the nominee, just that they give the nomination the treatment it justly deserved by reason of the Constitution. They chose not to do that and gave some pretty damning reasons why.....but I guess expecting them to take the medicine from the same bottle they doled it out from 4 years ago would be a bridge too far, eh?
 
Mycroft said:
The hypocrisy resides on both sides...and it is a natural result of the fact that this is all political.

What the Reps said four years ago has been flipped and what the Dems said four years ago has been flipped.

Sorry, but that's just the nature of the political beast.
Click to expand...

Moronic and dishonest both-sides deflection.
 
justabubba said:
what hypocrites are your referring to?[ part 1 of 2 parts there are so many]:
Click to expand...
Now do the Democrats. Or are you going to pretend that Democrats don't do that type of thing.?(gagg)
 
Mr Person said:
Moronic and dishonest both-sides deflection.
Click to expand...
You mean 100 % accurate.
But I wouldn't expect a hyperpartisan hack to acknowledge that.
 
4 years of payback coming for Stretch Pelosi. I hope they break it off deep with no grease. #FillTheSeat
 
Come on. McConnell is just as corrupt as Trump.

History won't be good to that dude (once the kids take over and everything that this era of Trump/McConnell Republicans did is kicked to the curb.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
So, here we sit, with the passing of RBG, at a political crossroads.

4 years ago, we were told that 9 months was too close to an election for the sitting President to nominate a replacement for a deceased Supreme Court Justice. We were told that the incoming President and the will of the people should be respected and we had to wait to make that appointment.

Fast forward 4 years, and now within 2 months of the election you have the passing of a justice, and we will now get to see if all that talk was something that was actually believed or nothing more than the political stunt we all knew it was at the time.

Those that would be in support of Trump naming a replacement and the Senate hurriedly confirming that replacement, whatever your justification for this shit would be, please don't let that justification be something stupid like, "this is different". Its not. Its actually worse, since there is even less time between the passing and the election.
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy is what the GOP excels in. See their move to defund the NYPD as an example of Bernd
 
VySky said:
4 years of payback coming for Stretch Pelosi. I hope they break it off deep with no grease. #FillTheSeat
Click to expand...
One party rule, must mean you want to live in a white version of Zimbabwe.
 
calamity said:
One party rule, must mean you want to live in a white version of Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...
Its was a one party rule from 2008-2016. The Republicans might be finding a pair
 
VySky said:
Russia
Mueller
Impeachment
Kavanaugh
Ukraine


Now POTUS has his say...... Nice.....:cool:
Click to expand...

you're still a massive hypocrite.

is that how you taught your kids to be?
 
Mycroft said:
The hypocrisy resides on both sides...and it is a natural result of the fact that this is all political.

What the Reps said four years ago has been flipped and what the Dems said four years ago has been flipped.

Sorry, but that's just the nature of the political beast.
Click to expand...

Even going further back, with the Biden rule, and how that compared to Garland. Both sides are hypocritical. The difference is, the left has the media to cover for them.
 
independentusa said:
This is all about controlling the SCOTUS so that if the vote the first night shows Trump ahead, then the GOP can go to the court and have the count stopped and have the court declare trump the winner. You say it can't be done, well there is a precedent for the court doing just that and with 6 conservatives on the court, it can and might happen. It happened in 2000 and it can and may happen in 2020. Why do you think Cruz talked about having to have a full court before the election. With Roberts, the court might split 4-4 unless they get the deciding vote on the court.
Click to expand...


Bush v. Gore did not set precedent for stopping the counting of votes. It stopped recounting of votes. Cruz's argument is complete BS... We had 8 justices in 2016...
 
haymarket said:
A perfect description of a Trumpkin!
Click to expand...
iLOL Says you; Someone suffering from a lack of an unbiased and realistic viewpoint.

Trumpkin? iLOL Better than being a hypocrite liberal who has idiotic opinions like you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom