• 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!

Watch how the Democrats, the minority of the Senate attempted to block Judge Amy Barrett from the vote of the Senate

OpportunityCost said:
There is a rule that debate starts with the Majority Leader. I know you have no idea what I am asking because you haven't got a clue about what the Senate rules are you are just throwing a tantrum because you are being told to do so without knowing why.

If you have to quantify the rule you want stated with 4 or 5 conditions you aren't actually wanting to see a rule, you are making sure there won't be one that satisfies the stupid conditions.
Click to expand...
A rule that says debate starts with the Majority is not a rule specific to the nomination process. It essentially leaves it to the whim of the majority leader which I’ve already stated now 3 times. Jesus H Christ do people not read?

My ENTIRE point is that it’s left to the whim of the majority leader and he hasn’t followed any uniform process and is just exercising political power. Got it now? If you want to continue the discussion read what I actually wrote. I’m not going to waste my and everyone else’s time writing the same thing over and over for the benefit of people who won’t or can’t read.

And I didn’t understand your question because it was both vague and pointless to the discuss. What in heaven’s name does the number of Senate rules have to do with anything?
 
Gaius46 said:
A rule that says debate starts with the Majority is not a rule specific to the nomination process. It essentially leaves it to the whim of the majority leader which I’ve already stated now 3 times. Jesus H Christ do people not read?

My ENTIRE point is that it’s left to the whim of the majority leader and he hasn’t followed any uniform process and is just exercising political power. Got it now? If you want to continue the discussion read what I actually wrote. I’m not going to waste my and everyone else’s time writing the same thing over and over for the benefit of people who won’t or can’t read.

And I didn’t understand your question because it was both vague and pointless to the discuss. What in heaven’s name does the number of Senate rules have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

LOL, ALL DEBATE. Its not specific to the nomination process, its every bit of business the Senate does. Your entire point is crying bullshit. It would prove you bothered to know what they were by looking it up or by knowing it, you proved you ignorant of the rules of Senate that you were crying about.
 
dcsports said:
Those on the left want the court to make rulings that favor their views, and their 'side', where those on the right want the court to rule on the basis of the law, and to leave those laws in the hands of the legislature.

Noise about healthcare, "reproductive rights", the environment, etc. are just that - noise. (And in many cases, the talking points aren't true).
Click to expand...

Not even close to true, but keep drinking the kool aid!
 
CanadaJohn said:
You comments are essentially accurate, however, I'd characterize the difference as Republicans wanting to nominate justices who are faithful to the constitution and faithful to their role as arbiters of legal disputes and not a quasi legislative branch, while Democrats want justices who will interpret, sometimes fancifully, the constitution in their modern, ideological view of what society should be.

It seems, lately at least, that Democrats don't want "originalist" justices because they don't like the constitution, as written. They favour justices who take the written text and interpret it in their own progressive speak. It's why Republicans are often disappointed in the performance of their nominees, latest example being the Chief Justice, because their nominees frequently side with the Democrat nominees in creative interpretation. I can't think of a single Democrat nominee who has disappointed liberals in their performance - they are robotically faithful to liberal ideology, regardless of the content of the constitution.
Click to expand...

You think Republicans don't want judges to rule with their ideology? I know you're in Canada, but it's nit like it's a different planet.

Republicans want the same thing as Democrats from judges - rule based on politics.
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL, ALL DEBATE. Its not specific to the nomination process, its every bit of business the Senate does. Your entire point is crying bullshit. It would prove you bothered to know what they were by looking it up or by knowing it, you proved you ignorant of the rules of Senate that you were crying about.
Click to expand...

No shit. That IS my point. The only rule is that the majority leader decides and just doing whatever he pleases.

So you would know that I read the Senate because I took the time to count them while reading them? That’s an awfully strange metric to use but whatever.
 
Gaius46 said:
No shit. That IS my point. The only rule is that the majority leader decides and just doing whatever he pleases.

So you would know that I read the Senate because I took the time to count them while reading them? That’s an awfully strange metric to use but whatever.
Click to expand...

That isn't the only rule. Since there are 43 others. Most listings state how many there are.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That isn't the only rule. Since there are 43 others. Most listings state how many there are.
Click to expand...
The only rule germane to deciding whether or not to proceed with the confirmation process for a nominee. That is left completely to the Speaker. There is no rule governing it.
 
Gaius46 said:
The only rule germane to deciding whether or not to proceed with the confirmation process for a nominee. That is left completely to the Speaker. There is no rule governing it.
Click to expand...
Who starts debate in the Senate?
 
Gaius46 said:
What point are you trying to make here. We both know the answer to that. I’ve stated it twice already to you. This is pointless.
Click to expand...
That you cannot be consistent and keep saying both there is and isn't a rule.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That you cannot be consistent and keep saying both there is and isn't a rule.
Click to expand...
I am being consistent.

1 There is no specific rule about nominations.
2 There is a general that says the speaker decides when to begin debates.
3 There is an informal practice for the las 59 years regarding nominations in the last year of a President’s term (the Thurmond Rule).

I’ve consistently said all three and all three are consistent with each other.
 
Exquisitor said:
They should try any way they can, but really if they had waited for their turn before they changed the rules this wouldn't be happening.

They loose fair and square, you can't ask the Republicans to slit their own wrists.
Click to expand...
Who changed the rules?
 
Robertinfremont said:
What was different, and how is it you do not know? Garland was selected when we had a Republican Senate and the Democrat president. This is special. Democrat presidents can be blocked by the Senate. Why don't you know that?

Democrats are not fighting back, they are pissing their pants and are angry.
Click to expand...
Right. The R's blocked Garland because they are political historians. Hey, I've got a bridge you'd probably be interested in as well.
 
iguanaman said:
The SC exists to protect our rights under the Constitution. The right to control your own body is the most basic of rights. If the founders wished uniquely limit them when it comes to abortion they would have said so. It is the pro-illegal abortionists that want laws made from the bench.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is accurate framing. Generally abortion laws were made by legislatures, and RvW established that the Supreme Court would strike those laws down when they infringed on freedom to abort.
 
rocket88 said:
You think Republicans don't want judges to rule with their ideology? I know you're in Canada, but it's nit like it's a different planet.

Republicans want the same thing as Democrats from judges - rule based on politics.
Click to expand...
Disagree
 
Gaius46 said:
I am being consistent.

1 There is no specific rule about nominations.
2 There is a general that says the speaker decides when to begin debates.
3 There is an informal practice for the las 59 years regarding nominations in the last year of a President’s term (the Thurmond Rule).

I’ve consistently said all three and all three are consistent with each other.
Click to expand...

Is there....I dunno, debate on nominations?

You realize Democrats changed the rule themselves, right?
 
Exquisitor said:
www.usatoday.com

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.
www.usatoday.com

Harry Reid and the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2016 and they did away with the filibuster of SCOTUS appointments to Mitch McConnell's disapproval.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not scotus nominees. Your own link does not say what you think it says. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3573369001
Quite frankly i wish Reid did get rid of the filibuster, this idiocy of being ruled by an iron fisted minority is stupid.
 
skeptic llc said:
I don't think this is accurate framing. Generally abortion laws were made by legislatures, and RvW established that the Supreme Court would strike those laws down when they infringed on freedom to abort.
Click to expand...
The reverse can also be true. The SC could strike down laws legalizing abortion just as easy.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Is there....I dunno, debate on nominations?

You realize Democrats changed the rule themselves, right?
Click to expand...
Y
OpportunityCost said:
Is there....I dunno, debate on nominations?

You realize Democrats changed the rule themselves, right?
Click to expand...
Yep there is. So what. And rules changes are fine. And no bringing up the Democrats doesn’t help you since they’re assholes too.

The point here is as I’ve said ad nausem is McConnell is simply playing power games. Which he can do though as I’ve said it makes him a complete dickhead as well as not being good for the country.
 
Gaius46 said:
Y

Yep there is. So what. And rules changes are fine. And no bringing up the Democrats doesn’t help you since they’re assholes too.

The point here is as I’ve said ad nausem is McConnell is simply playing power games. Which he can do though as I’ve said it makes him a complete dickhead as well as not being good for the country.
Click to expand...

Maybe Democrats shouldn't have become so dependent upon the judiciary to carry out agendas they couldn't pass via legislation.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Maybe Democrats shouldn't have become so dependent upon the judiciary to carry out agendas they couldn't pass via legislation.
Click to expand...
you won’t get an argument from me on that though republicans have messed with the court just as much.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Is there....I dunno, debate on nominations?

You realize Democrats changed the rule themselves, right?
Click to expand...


I realize that McConnell's smirking hypocrisy is the only justification required to pack the court.
 
I wonder if Robert had problems with the GOP filibustering nominees under Obama constantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom