Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I'll bet we'll see those Republican numbers change quickly.

Yup. Those are the numbers before the GOP media machine convinces people that is morally right to do a 180 turn on a position they took just 4 years ago. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Yes, only happens on one side of the aisle.

:whoosh:

Let me quote it you since you can’t be bothered to watch it.

LINDSEY GRAHAM on March 10, 2016:

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choose 

1) Trump nominates, senate confirms new justice, Trump loses election, senate goes blue

2) Trump nominates, senate doesn't have the votes, Trump wins election, senate goes blue

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 8:36 PM, NightStalkers said:

No i don't on the inevitable part.  The Cancel culture of the left will kill the Democratic party if it isn't doesn't stop soon.  Look JK Rowlings.  She a democrat and a liberal and the left is trying to cancel her because of Transgender views.

That's a true statement because the inherent nature of cancel cultures is that they derive their energy from purging and inevitably, they always eat their own. Looking back on history, that is the case time and again as the movement runs out of steam as the candidates to be purified dwindle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 9:02 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

Also, if Trump is smart (insert joke here) he will pick somebody who has already been vetted recently, like Barrett.

That won't make a bit of difference.  Brian Darling actually outlined the case yesterday for that exact scenario or one like it. (just for Background if somebody doesn't know who he is, he has been on the confirmation committees of appointing many judges, although never a SC justice. He did an educational outline of how the process works since it is in the interest of a lot of people right now and he said he expects this particular process to be so bogged down that it wouldn't make any difference at all if they are already known and vetted at a lower level or not.  If interested, you can read his take also on several strategies he thinks either party may employ to push or delay the process.  It was interesting to hear from a person who has been there, done that several times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lagoa just so happens to be hearing the Jason Miller defamation case, and is considered to have been receptive to his claims.

- For those who don't know one of the sideline scandals in the Trump administration surrounds prominent campaign spokesman and former White House communications director Jason Miller. Seems he was involved with well known Trump surrogate and strategist AJ Delgado, who used to appear regularly on Fox. Seems Miller was also having a relationship with another woman, and all sorts of ugliness followed. Cut to the chase, Delgado turned Never Trumper after being railroaded by the campaign and Fox and she decided to start spilling. It's possible Trump heard about Lagoa through this quarter of the campaign.

Lagoa was also involved in a case which upheld a Florida law requiring voters pay court debts in order to vote, basically a poll tax provision.

- Aside from Lagoa naturally appealing to Floridians, and especially Cuban voters there, it's possible that Trump absolutely loves the voter suppression ruling as something and a take that will be helpful when he plans to litigate a possible forthcoming electoral loss.

- Lagoa has had a really rapid rise too. She is young, spent less than a year on the Florida Supreme Court and then less than 2 years on the 11th Circuit.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, krista4 said:

Others I know who were on Law Review have weighed in [on Barbara Lagoa], as I mentioned, unfavorably.

I understand that you won't want to get into detail on this message board.

The word "unfavorably" here could mean anything from "She was stand-offish in law school and never went to any of the parties" to "If she gets on the Supreme Court, Hell itself will open it's gaping maw and subsume the entire United States of America!!!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shutout said:

That won't make a bit of difference.  Brian Darling actually outlined the case yesterday for that exact scenario or one like it. (just for Background if somebody doesn't know who he is, he has been on the confirmation committees of appointing many judges, although never a SC justice. He did an educational outline of how the process works since it is in the interest of a lot of people right now and he said he expects this particular process to be so bogged down that it wouldn't make any difference at all if they are already known and vetted at a lower level or not.  If interested, you can read his take also on several strategies he thinks either party may employ to push or delay the process.  It was interesting to hear from a person who has been there, done that several times. 


Do you have a link to that article? What can the Dems do to slow it down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, whoknew said:


Do you have a link to that article? What can the Dems do to slow it down?

My son was reading the highlights to me but I ended up listening in the car on a podcast (Daily Caller with Derek Hunter I think).

on your question, aside from the obvious "fight and stall" tactics, the ones he mentioned that I thought "wow, interesting" were 

a) the senate can basically just not show up and force the sergeant at arms to retrieve them and compel them to come to work. He exemplified a Montana issue similar years back.

b) with the end of the Fiscal year looming, he said the democrats could simply put us into a government shutdown on purpose and stand on the ground of not resolving the issue until it was resolved.  

 

Just stuff like that.  Of course, these strategies all take lives of their own regarding the potential fallout of the decisions but like I said, just interesting to hear real thoughts that could be on the table. 

Edited by Shutout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I'll bet we'll see those Republican numbers change quickly.

Agreed....that poll was out well before the talking points were disseminated.  It''d be different even today if they did it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, krista4 said:

:lmao: 

Geez, the early 90s were not kind to our hairstyles.  One huge detriment to this for me is that I was forced to see my yearbook photo, too.

Heard back from my BFF, without much info.  Barbara must have been a bit of a cipher.  "I do remember her but only in the most vague way. I can’t remember a single interaction, which is weird because I did know pretty well most people on Law Review even if we weren’t besties."  At least she didn't have anything negative to say!

My law school roommate clerked for RBG (while on DC Circuit) and was on Law Review (obviously).  I need to track down her thoughts on Barbara.

 

Whole lotta frizz going on there. :lmao: 

I do find it strange that her classmates don't remember her a whole lot. Law school classes aren't huge (at my graduation there were less than 5 or so classmates of mine where I didn't recognize them and they were likely from the part-time program we had designed for students working full-time). . 

Edited by Zow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Choose 

1) Trump nominates, senate confirms new justice, Trump loses election, senate goes blue

2) Trump nominates, senate doesn't have the votes, Trump wins election, senate goes blue

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zow said:

Whole lotta frizz going on there. :lmao: 

I do find it strange that her classmates don't remember her a whole lot. Law school classes aren't huge (at my graduation there were less than 5 or so classmates of mine where I didn't recognize them and they were likely from the part-time program we had designed for students working full-time). . 

Columbia Law has over 1000 graduates a year I think.

Hamline had like what? 17? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Columbia Law has over 1000 graduates a year I think.

Hamline had like what? 17? :)

 

No kidding?? Damn. Didn't realize it was one of the biggest. 

I think we had ~250. Not sure what the average is. Is it Yale that's the relatively small class size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zow said:

No kidding?? Damn. Didn't realize it was one of the biggest. 

I think we had ~250. Not sure what the average is. Is it Yale that's the relatively small class size?

Chicago was around 180 I think back in the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobbyLayne said:

:whoosh:

Let me quote it you since you can’t be bothered to watch it.

 

I never said it wasn't said. It absolutely was said.  Just about everyone that said there should be a vote with McFarland is now saying they should wait.  Just about everyone that said they would not have a vote on McFarland until after the election is now saying it should be voted on now. However,  if you think only the Dems are correct and the GOP is wrong then I guess we just disagree. They are being hypocritical on both sides, welcome to politics.  They reverse there positions on everything every day to fit their narrative. :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

I never said it wasn't said. It absolutely was said.  Just about everyone that said there should be a vote with McFarland is now saying they should wait.  Just about everyone that said they would not have a vote on McFarland until after the election is now saying it should be voted on now. However,  if you think only the Dems are correct and the GOP is wrong then I guess we just disagree. They are being hypocritical on both sides, welcome to politics.  They reverse there positions on everything every day to fit their narrative.

I favor bringing Trump's nomination to a vote.

But this is not a "both sides" situation for the most part. Four years ago, Republicans said "Justices shouldn't be confirmed in an election year." Today, Republicans are saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." That's pure hypocrisy.

Four years ago, Democrats were saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." Today, Democrats are saying, "What the heck, Republicans? Pick a rule and stick to it. The rule you devised just four years ago is of your own making. Live with it."

Those are pretty different positions.

  • Like 15
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

I never said it wasn't said. It absolutely was said.  Just about everyone that said there should be a vote with McFarland is now saying they should wait.  Just about everyone that said they would not have a vote on McFarland until after the election is now saying it should be voted on now. However,  if you think only the Dems are correct and the GOP is wrong then I guess we just disagree. They are being hypocritical on both sides, welcome to politics.  They reverse there positions on everything every day to fit their narrative. :shrug:

Merrick

Garland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garland.

But yes, you are correct that democrats who were calling for a vote, are now asking for the senate to hold off.

I hope you can see the difference in changing how you view things once the rules were changed. If Garland had come up for a vote, then democrats would not have any argument. Since he did not, they are just rolling with the new rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

No need to move on to that because it's already a fact.  While one can certainly respect her life and service, her opinion on her replacement is totally meaningless

Meaningless? I disagree with that.  Not a deciding factor, certainly, but there were a host of arguments and articles regarding what Scalia would have wanted done when he died.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Meaningless? I disagree with that.  Not a deciding factor, certainly, but there were a host of arguments and articles regarding what Scalia would have wanted done when he died.

Maybe I'm just getting old, or smoking too much pot, but I followed the battle over Garland pretty closely and I don't remember hearing a single argument or reading a single article about what Scalia would have wanted.

But even if my memory is faulty, I would have had the same reaction to Scalia as I have now to RBG. If you care so damn much about who replaces you then retire when your party is power.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Meaningless? I disagree with that.  Not a deciding factor, certainly, but there were a host of arguments and articles regarding what Scalia would have wanted done when he died.

His was meaningless too.  The President selects.  The senate confirms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

His was meaningless too.  The President selects.  The senate confirms

Yes, I'm familiar with the procedure, thank you.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
1 hour ago, Phil Elliott said:

I never said it wasn't said. It absolutely was said.  Just about everyone that said there should be a vote with McFarland is now saying they should wait.  Just about everyone that said they would not have a vote on McFarland until after the election is now saying it should be voted on now. However,  if you think only the Dems are correct and the GOP is wrong then I guess we just disagree. They are being hypocritical on both sides, welcome to politics.  They reverse there positions on everything every day to fit their narrative.

I favor bringing Trump's nomination to a vote.

But this is not a "both sides" situation for the most part. Four years ago, Republicans said "Justices shouldn't be confirmed in an election year." Today, Republicans are saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." That's pure hypocrisy.

Four years ago, Democrats were saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." Today, Democrats are saying, "What the heck, Republicans? Pick a rule and stick to it. The rule you devised just four years ago is of your own making. Live with it."

Those are pretty different positions.

:goodposting: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I favor bringing Trump's nomination to a vote.

But this is not a "both sides" situation for the most part. Four years ago, Republicans said "Justices shouldn't be confirmed in an election year." Today, Republicans are saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." That's pure hypocrisy.

Four years ago, Democrats were saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." Today, Democrats are saying, "What the heck, Republicans? Pick a rule and stick to it. The rule you devised just four years ago is of your own making. Live with it."

Those are pretty different positions.

Well we probably disagree on the positions each side has taken over the years.  Maybe your version is more accurate than mine  :shrug:.  Both sides have politicized it and I don't think either side is more innocent/guilty than the other.   There really is only two rules to consider and that is 1. The POTUS shall nominate and 2. The Senate will consider and vote up/down. 

Edited by Phil Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Well we probably disagree on the positions each side has taken over the years.  Maybe your version is more accurate than mine  :shrug:.  Both sides have politicized it and I don't think either side is more innocent/guilty than the other.   There really is only two rules to consider and that is 1. The POTUS shall nominate and 2. The Senate will consider and vote up/down. 

Well, the Senate didn't consider and vote up/down on Garland.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue...Congress/the senate ran away from another stimulus due to covid...while people thought more checks and help may be coming.  Now they are going to rush back not for the people, not to help people hurting and businesses hurting...but to play partisan games over the SC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I favor bringing Trump's nomination to a vote.

But this is not a "both sides" situation for the most part. Four years ago, Republicans said "Justices shouldn't be confirmed in an election year." Today, Republicans are saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." That's pure hypocrisy.

Four years ago, Democrats were saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." Today, Democrats are saying, "What the heck, Republicans? Pick a rule and stick to it. The rule you devised just four years ago is of your own making. Live with it."

Those are pretty different positions.

i favored giving Garland a vote.  However Biden himself as the Judiciary Chairman told Bush Sr.  Not to bother sending any nominations as he would recommend that the committee not consider any candidate due to a different philosophy of the parties, ergo Dem Senate and Rep President.  That was 1992.  In 2016 McConnell read into the Congressional record  Biden's own words and said he would apply the same policy of not taking a vote of a justice from the opposing party in an election year.  And he did this before Obama had nominated anyone.  The difference now is the Senate and Presidency are the same party.  There is no constitutional law saying they can't do this and 29 candidates have been approved in the last year.  Some justices have taken fewer than the days left until the election including Ginsberg and one was done in 1 day.  Those are historical facts.

In 1980 Pres. Carter added a judge to the Court of Appeals after he had conceded the election and the senate approved him on Dec 9 1980.  His name is Stephen Breyer and he now sits on the Supreme Court.  So there is even precedent for having the vote finish after the election.

Both sides are hypocritical.  Neither side is correct or right.

If you listen to a lot of the interviews of Supreme Court justices  there is something that is normally said be all.  The collegiality and non hostility.  They understand they are the only Adults left in the playground.....

During the FDR years 1937-42 FDR put in 7 judges.  It makes sense he was in office for 4 terms.  One of the reasons the Supreme Court is like it is  is the fact that Republicans have picked 11/15 judges.  Why is this?  From 1968-2008  7 out of the 10 presidential terms were Republican.

The ideas that are being thrown about by the Dems are dangerous.  Adding States?  Adding justices?  Impeachment to stop a vote on a nominee?  Republicans will counter.  Soon you will have more states and even more justices.  Impeachment will happen for almost anything.  Just win the election and do the job.  The Supreme Court is a check to the Legislature and the Executive branches.  The Court will change over time  For a long time the Supreme Court was  much more lopsided than 6-3 as the FDR years show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

His was meaningless too.  The President selects.  The senate confirms

Except when they don't even bring it to a vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Well, the Senate didn't consider and vote up/down on Garland.

You are right.  My point is there is hypocrisy on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

The ideas that are being thrown about by the Dems are dangerous.  Adding States?  Adding justices?  Impeachment to stop a vote on a nominee?  Republicans will counter.  Soon you will have more states and even more justices.  Impeachment will happen for almost anything.  Just win the election and do the job.  The Supreme Court is a check to the Legislature and the Executive branches.  The Court will change over time  For a long time the Supreme Court was  much more lopsided than 6-3 as the FDR years show.

How is adding states dangerous? The republican platform has advocated for Puerto Rico statehood

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

i favored giving Garland a vote.  However Biden himself as the Judiciary Chairman told Bush Sr.  Not to bother sending any nominations as he would recommend that the committee not consider any candidate due to a different philosophy of the parties, ergo Dem Senate and Rep President.  That was 1992.  In 2016 McConnell read into the Congressional record  Biden's own words and said he would apply the same policy of not taking a vote of a justice from the opposing party in an election year.  And he did this before Obama had nominated anyone.  The difference now is the Senate and Presidency are the same party.  There is no constitutional law saying they can't do this and 29 candidates have been approved in the last year.  Some justices have taken fewer than the days left until the election including Ginsberg and one was done in 1 day.  Those are historical facts.

In 1980 Pres. Carter added a judge to the Court of Appeals after he had conceded the election and the senate approved him on Dec 9 1980.  His name is Stephen Breyer and he now sits on the Supreme Court.  So there is even precedent for having the vote finish after the election.

Both sides are hypocritical.  Neither side is correct or right.

If you listen to a lot of the interviews of Supreme Court justices  there is something that is normally said be all.  The collegiality and non hostility.  They understand they are the only Adults left in the playground.....

During the FDR years 1937-42 FDR put in 7 judges.  It makes sense he was in office for 4 terms.  One of the reasons the Supreme Court is like it is  is the fact that Republicans have picked 11/15 judges.  Why is this?  From 1968-2008  7 out of the 10 presidential terms were Republican.

The ideas that are being thrown about by the Dems are dangerous.  Adding States?  Adding justices?  Impeachment to stop a vote on a nominee?  Republicans will counter.  Soon you will have more states and even more justices.  Impeachment will happen for almost anything.  Just win the election and do the job.  The Supreme Court is a check to the Legislature and the Executive branches.  The Court will change over time  For a long time the Supreme Court was  much more lopsided than 6-3 as the FDR years show.

Although if the final wish of RBG is true, she is making it SCOTUS political also. She was also very outspoken against Trump as POTUS, usually not done by  SCOTUS.  With that, I think RBG was a tremendous person and I admire what she accomplished and the headwinds she had to face. 

Edited by Phil Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

i favored giving Garland a vote.  However Biden himself as the Judiciary Chairman told Bush Sr.  Not to bother sending any nominations as he would recommend that the committee not consider any candidate due to a different philosophy of the parties, ergo Dem Senate and Rep President.  That was 1992.  In 2016 McConnell read into the Congressional record  Biden's own words and said he would apply the same policy of not taking a vote of a justice from the opposing party in an election year.  And he did this before Obama had nominated anyone.  The difference now is the Senate and Presidency are the same party.  There is no constitutional law saying they can't do this and 29 candidates have been approved in the last year.  Some justices have taken fewer than the days left until the election including Ginsberg and one was done in 1 day.  Those are historical facts.

In 1980 Pres. Carter added a judge to the Court of Appeals after he had conceded the election and the senate approved him on Dec 9 1980.  His name is Stephen Breyer and he now sits on the Supreme Court.  So there is even precedent for having the vote finish after the election.

Both sides are hypocritical.  Neither side is correct or right.

If you listen to a lot of the interviews of Supreme Court justices  there is something that is normally said be all.  The collegiality and non hostility.  They understand they are the only Adults left in the playground.....

During the FDR years 1937-42 FDR put in 7 judges.  It makes sense he was in office for 4 terms.  One of the reasons the Supreme Court is like it is  is the fact that Republicans have picked 11/15 judges.  Why is this?  From 1968-2008  7 out of the 10 presidential terms were Republican.

The ideas that are being thrown about by the Dems are dangerous.  Adding States?  Adding justices?  Impeachment to stop a vote on a nominee?  Republicans will counter.  Soon you will have more states and even more justices.  Impeachment will happen for almost anything.  Just win the election and do the job.  The Supreme Court is a check to the Legislature and the Executive branches.  The Court will change over time  For a long time the Supreme Court was  much more lopsided than 6-3 as the FDR years show.

Except...what Biden said is great and all...but there wasn't actually a vacancy...none of it actually played out.  To then call it a Biden rule as McConnel did over 4 years ago (a rule he now intends to not follow as it suits him) is pretty ridiculous as some sort of defense for the behavior in 2016 and just points out even more hypocrisy of the GOP in 2020.

Comparing to the Court of Appeals is not  great comp either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

How is adding states dangerous? The republican platform has advocated for Puerto Rico statehood

The fact that is being done for the one reason to make the Senate a Dem Majority. The land that DC stands on came from MD.  The dividing line between MD and VA is the Potomac and DC does not go below the Potomac as far as i know.  If people want to merge back into MD fine.  Look at MD 30 percent of the state is Rep.  yet 7 out of 8 of the congressional districts are Democrat.  Including one that just got changed (Western MD) from a plus 27 Republican to a +25 Democrat district or the Eastern Shore of MD which is the only red district now.  You don't think the Republicans won't hear and maybe approve these areas as independent states? Do we add places like Midway Island? The Mariana's?  Where does it end?

Edited by NightStalkers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

 Look at MD 30 percent of the state is Rep.  yet 7 out of 8 of the congressional districts are Democrat.  Including one that just got changed (Western MD) from a plus 27 Republican to a +25 Democrat district or the Eastern Shore of MD which is the only red district now.

Not sure you want to play the gerrymandering game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Except...what Biden said is great and all...but there wasn't actually a vacancy...none of it actually played out.  To then call it a Biden rule as McConnel did over 4 years ago (a rule he now intends to not follow as it suits him) is pretty ridiculous as some sort of defense for the behavior in 2016 and just points out even more hypocrisy of the GOP in 2020.

Comparing to the Court of Appeals is not  great comp either.

 

Biden did this to warn Bush not to try to potentially get a few to retire while he was still president.  A lot of Democrats pushed RBG to retire during the Obama yrs while they had the Senate.  She didn't and she said who else would you want in this chair then me if you are a Democrat?

And to me compairing the two courts is the same.  If i remember right they are lifetime appts.  The are both approved by majority votes in the senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Except...what Biden said is great and all...but there wasn't actually a vacancy...none of it actually played out.  To then call it a Biden rule as McConnel did over 4 years ago (a rule he now intends to not follow as it suits him) is pretty ridiculous as some sort of defense for the behavior in 2016 and just points out even more hypocrisy of the GOP in 2020.

Comparing to the Court of Appeals is not  great comp either.

 

There's also a degree of hypocrisy from Democratic leadership to criticize Republicans for doing it in 2016 and then try to do it in 2020. 

The GOP is doing what's best for their side when it's best for their side.  Dems are doing the same.  

Edited by jm192

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jm192 said:

There's also a degree of hypocrisy from Democratic leadership to criticize Republicans for doing it in 2016 and then try to do it in 2020. 

The GOP is doing what's best for their side when it's best for their side.  Dems are doing the same.  

It would be better if they were transparent about this instead of making up B.S. reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Not sure you want to play the gerrymandering game

That is the point.  MD Gerrymandered and so has Republicans.  But the SC just said it is up to the states to control the districting.  In the decision that just came down the that I am talking about MD was one of the 2 states that this decision was based on. In fact the facts of the case was the Western MD district the case discussed.  Remember Trump won 30 states controlling 60 Senate seats and 244 house seats.  What if they go even further with gerrymandering in Red states?

None of these "Nuclear options" is a good idea from Either party.  No one is clean hands...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jm192 said:

There's also a degree of hypocrisy from Democratic leadership to criticize Republicans for doing it in 2016 and then try to do it in 2020. 

The GOP is doing what's best for their side when it's best for their side.  Dems are doing the same.  

I dont believe there is as much hypocrisy give the timing of a March nomination (a month after Scalia’s death) and what would be a rushed appointment, vetting, and vote on the nomination.

The GOP played gales then because they could...and will likely do the same now...and I hope it bites them in the ### more than it does the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

It would be better if they were transparent about this instead of making up B.S. reasons.

I agree.  Did what happen to Kavanaugh show transparency?  Feinstein had Ford's allegations for a month and sat on it.  Add to this fact that Ford's own witnesses denied her claims one of which was her friend.  Every time a 4-4 court has come up for a replacement (Twice) the nominee has been accused of a rape.  And i don't put it past either Biden or Trump to have committed sexual assualt.  And Ford has the choice to get kavanaugh investigation to be done.  Montgomery County MD would investigate it like every other assault claim and would treat it just like any other case.  But she hasn't and as soon as Kavanaugh was confirmed  she said she wouldn't persue the case.  It would likely be declined to prosecute due to lack of evidence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

I dont believe there is as much hypocrisy give the timing of a March nomination (a month after Scalia’s death) and what would be a rushed appointment, vetting, and vote on the nomination.

The GOP played gales then because they could...and will likely do the same now...and I hope it bites them in the ### more than it does the American people.

Either it's hypocritical or it's not.  

If there were 45 days left in Obama's Presidency, then the Dem leadership wouldn't be saying "we should wait until after the election." 

Both sides choose the stance that suits them best in the moment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
3 hours ago, Phil Elliott said:

I never said it wasn't said. It absolutely was said.  Just about everyone that said there should be a vote with McFarland is now saying they should wait.  Just about everyone that said they would not have a vote on McFarland until after the election is now saying it should be voted on now. However,  if you think only the Dems are correct and the GOP is wrong then I guess we just disagree. They are being hypocritical on both sides, welcome to politics.  They reverse there positions on everything every day to fit their narrative.

I favor bringing Trump's nomination to a vote.

But this is not a "both sides" situation for the most part. Four years ago, Republicans said "Justices shouldn't be confirmed in an election year." Today, Republicans are saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." That's pure hypocrisy.

Four years ago, Democrats were saying "Justices should be confirmed in an election year." Today, Democrats are saying, "What the heck, Republicans? Pick a rule and stick to it. The rule you devised just four years ago is of your own making. Live with it."

Those are pretty different positions.

The timing makes this even more hypocritical. The Garland nomination was in what.....February? March?. THIS IS MID SEPTEMBER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Elliott said:

Well we probably disagree on the positions each side has taken over the years.  Maybe your version is more accurate than mine  :shrug:.  Both sides have politicized it and I don't think either side is more innocent/guilty than the other.   There really is only two rules to consider and that is 1. The POTUS shall nominate and 2. The Senate will consider and vote up/down. 

It's the right that twisting this one, but I'm gonna blame the FOX media machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

I couldn’t have said it better than Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, Bernie, Schumer, Kaine, Warren and Kamala in 2016.
 

https://twitter.com/itguy1959/status/1307877608487628802?s=21

Yeah.  It's comical to me that people are hemming and hawing about how the Republicans are hypocrites for changing positions.  

The Dems are somehow just trying to go by the new rules the Republcians set forth in 2016--even thought they've criticized the position for the last 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, renesauz said:

It's the right that twisting this one, but I'm gonna blame the FOX media machine

It's funny how people blame FOX.  The recent voting patter for the country suggests a fairly even split.  Look at MSNBC and CNN now.  Most of the other regular media is much closer to MSNBC and CNN.  So it's ok for say 45 percent of the country to get their news from Fox and the other 45 percent get their news from all of the rest.  What does that tell you?  The Media is biased.  It has been since Bush JR.  There have been polls that show even some Democrats think the media is biased.  The reason FOX is powerful is because it is the only right leaning media outlet on TV.  Hence why it a lot of the time it's rating are as high as CNN and MSNBC combined. I don't consider FOX fair and balanced.  But they do have some Democrats on reguarly including Juan Williams daily.  But if you think CNN and MSNBC are balanced either then i can't imagine how.  How many times does a CNN correspondent have to do his report in front of burning building and say it was peaceful protests?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.