Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

#2,101
#2,101
RBG in 2016: "Cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later. The President is elected for 4 years not 3 years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four, & maybe some members of the Senate will wake up & appreciate that that's how it should be."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, 0nelilreb, AM64 and 3 others
#2,102
#2,102
Franklin Pierce said:
Alexander: McConnell doing what Dems 'would do if the shoe were on the other foot' with SCOTUS nomination

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., doesn't think Democrats would be complaining about the president getting to nominate another Supreme Court justice during an election year if they were the ones in control of the White House and Senate

“No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican President’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year,” said Alexander, who is retiring this year. “The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it.”

“Going back to George Washington, the Senate has confirmed many nominees to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It has refused to confirm several when the President and Senate majority were of different parties,” Alexander added.“Senator McConnell is only doing what Democrat leaders hav e said they would do if the shoe were on the other foot.”

AP20253513665929.jpg


Alexander argued that the Senate has in the past voted on justices in a presidential election year while refusing to confirm others when the president and senate majority were of different parties.

He added: “I have voted to confirm Justices Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh based upon their intelligence, character and temperament. I will apply the same standard when I consider President Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ginsburg.”

Alexander: McConnell doing what Dems 'would do if the shoe were on the other foot' with SCOTUS nomination
Click to expand...
Another thing about what Alexander said here:

"Going back to George Washington, the Senate has confirmed many nominees to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It has refused several when the President and Senate majority were of different parties." - Sen. Lamar Alexander

While this quote is accurate, the only Supreme Court nominee who didn't even get a vote was Merrick Garland in 2016 and Sen. Lamar Alexander knows this. If Republicans had taken a vote and rejected Garland following a hearing and the normal Senate confirmation process, then there wouldn't be any room for Democrats to complain. It really is the fact that Garland didn't even get a vote, that is the problem here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bnhunt
#2,103
#2,103
luthervol said:
Are you saying that the repubs who say Trump is a douche are saying that he is corrupt and horrendous?
Click to expand...
Yes. Most politicians are. Hillary certainly was, but I've yet to find a self-identified Democrat ready to admit it. There's even one crazy that claims it was a vast right-wing propaganda conspiracy. Can you believe that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsAgainstTheWorld15 and AM64
#2,104
#2,104
37L1 said:
He can just say his list is with Trump's tax returns.
Click to expand...

I'm going to want to see Biden's tax returns showing how he made millions on a very modest congressional salary. The extracurricular activities will have to be truly amazing - and legal - otherwise the taxpayers were being cheated as in fraud by an elected official.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, NEO and 1972 Grad
#2,105
#2,105
Weezer said:
I think it does matter that they all do it, but I see no legitimate reason behind criticizing only when it's the other side doing it. Wrong doesn't depend on which side is doing it. Some seem to believe that it does.

I won't bother to mention names.
Click to expand...
I know how you view my positions.
but.........
The fact that they all do it makes it absolutely critical that you differentiate by degrees.
This is the point some refuse to acknowledge (naming no names), and that refusal negates all that follows.
 
#2,106
#2,106
luthervol said:
I know how you view my positions.
but.........
The fact that they all do it makes it absolutely critical that you differentiate by degrees.
This is the point some refuse to acknowledge (naming no names), and that refusal negates all that follows.
Click to expand...
Some people allow their degrees to be determined by politics, not morality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsAgainstTheWorld15
#2,110
#2,110
Orange_Crush said:
I was pretty sure of the answer.

It would seem that after 3 1/2 years of hard ball politics against Trump, the desperation hail Mary is to poor mouth about playing nice by not playing politics, trying to guilt the other team, and then having Nancy threaten the stick of more dirty politics.
Click to expand...

Nancy as a member of the house is blabbing about somehow derailing a senate process. Anybody know how that happens? Of course, if she knocks off the president and VP, she becomes president, but somebody's bound to notice.
 
#2,112
#2,112
landscapingvol said:
I am trying to understand your position. You are upset that the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, is going to vote on a nomination for a SC vacancy by a Republican President? The nomination process Garland was much different in that Republicans controlled the Senate at the time and chose to block the nomination just as they had the ability to do so at the time. If Democrats controlled the Senate right now, they wouldn’t be voting for Trump’s nomination and they would have every right not to. This temper tantrum being thrown by the Left is going to drive out a lot of other voters who were going to sit this Presidential election out like myself. Packing the court, adding additional states like Puerto Rico is sheer lunacy it is a debt ridden disaster, and abolishing other Senate rules, etc. isn’t just going to energize a group of voters that was already going to vote against Trump.
Click to expand...
It's the fact that Merrick Garland didn't get a vote that was abnormal in 2016. The reasoning that Republican Senators gave for that in 2016 was simple: Barack Obama was a "lame duck" President (even though, he really wasn't in the strictest sense of that term), and therefore, Antonin Scalia's seat should be filled by the winner of the upcoming election. No allowances were made by Republican Senators at that time for the Senate confirming a nominee made from within their own party during an election year. It is only now, that it's suddenly mentioned as being acceptable. As I said earlier, if Republican Senators had held a hearing for Garland and then rejected him with a vote... that would have been following through with the normal process for refusing a nominee. They didn't do that, however. That is probably because they could see that Garland was a well-qualified and moderate choice. They didn't want to have to defend their reasoning for rejecting him with a vote.

There has only been one Supreme Court nominee since the Civil War who didn't get a vote without either withdrawing their own nomination, having their nomination pulled by the President or dying before the Senate confirmation vote... that nominee was Merrick Garland. He should have gotten a vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#2,113
#2,113
AM64 said:
True, but Hiliary was your queen, character was a non issue, and none of the sixteen could win. It would be nice to say the GOP came to their senses and dumped the Romney types, but Trump basically just took the nomination. However, back to the character issues - show us a conservative riot - where conservatives collectively had a temper tantrum and burned stuff down.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe that Hillary would have beaten any of the other Republican candidates in 2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and AM64
#2,114
#2,114
AM64 said:
Nancy as a member of the house is blabbing about somehow derailing a senate process. Anybody know how that happens? Of course, if she knocks off the president and VP, she becomes president, but somebody's bound to notice.
Click to expand...
All I can figure is another impeachment hearing to try to clog Trump's administration bandwidth.
 
#2,115
#2,115
Orange_Crush said:
That's not an answer.

And it's operating on a wrong definition of intelligence. As posted, intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. As such, intelligence wouldn't be the measurement of what a person already knows, but a measurement of their ability to find it out and correctly interpret/use it.

The closer to correct would be the opposite: An educated person may already know, but an intelligent person would more than likely be better at finding out and properly utilizing the information.

That diversion is kind of embarrassing for you, in context of the argument you're trying to make.

The fact of the matter is that education could only be used as an indicator of intelligence for those who had been educated, but would be unable to speak to the abilities of those who had not been educated. And that's giving you the operational definition of "education" that I'm sure you were trying to use.
Click to expand...

I'd also tend to think that intelligence is the ability to determine which educational paths are actually useful and to make use of that career choice - university degree or not. The humanities like some airlines and cruise lines have exploded with several paths to nowhere; seems like only a fool would spend tens of thousands of dollars and years on something of no value; but, hey, according to luther, it's a degree on the continuum.
 
#2,116
#2,116
Weezer said:
Do you view hypocrisy as acceptable across the board, or does it depend on whether you like what they're saying?
Click to expand...
Less is better.
More is worse.
Everyone will understandably have an easier time overlooking hypocrisy from their "side".

I've used this analogy before.
A football coach will yell and scream at the refs attempting to point out that the opponent's offensive line is constantly holding. When he notices his offensive line holding, he keeps his mouth shut and then discusses it quietly on the sideline directly with his team and other coaches.
 
Last edited:
#2,119
#2,119
GAVol said:
I see the criticism is having a big effect on Lindsey...
Click to expand...


I'm really beginning to believe that thing about truth setting you free. Libs have told us for so long how racist, ignorant, hypocritical, shameful, etc we are that we can just be ourselves now and let it all hang out.
 
#2,121
#2,121
VolunteerHillbilly said:
if she cared that much, she would've resigned when her party was in control of nominations and confirmations. she gambled that she could live into next year and that the election will produce different balance of power.
Click to expand...
She probably believed in a higher ideal and time when these appointments actually weren't political in nature, but that died a while ago.
 
#2,122
#2,122
AM64 said:
I'm really beginning to believe that thing about truth setting you free. Libs have told us for so long how racist, ignorant, hypocritical, shameful, etc we are that we can just be ourselves now and let it all hang out.
Click to expand...
What's the truth? Please tell us oh enlightened one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top