What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Delivering the Articles vs approving a SC nominee (1 Viewer)

B

Bayhawks

Footballguy
So, in 2016, the Republicans in the Senate exploited a loophole in the Constitution to avoid approving/denying Obama’s SC nominee, purely for partisan reasons.  What they did didn’t violate the Constitution, but it did go against the intent of the Constitution.  

Now, the Democrats in the House are exploiting a loophole in the Constitution to try to force a “fairer” impeachment trial in the Senate, for purely partisan reasons.  What they are doing does not violate the Constitution, but it does go against the intent.  

In both cases, the Constitution doesn’t specify a “time limit” in which a SC nominee must be voted on by the Senate, or a “time limit” in which the House must deliver Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  Why are Liberals who were so upset when the Senate delayed in 2016 OK with the House delaying now?  Why are Conservatives who were OK with the 2016 delay so up in arms now?

Is it just partisan politics, or is there a legitimate Constitutional argument for one situation over the other?

 
Both cases strike me as parliamentary loopholes that should have been immediately struck down and then a compulsory writ issued by a judge  -- or a judge who was ordering a public official to issue a writ -- for processing said papers, articles, etc.

And it is partisan, and is in a long line of partisan procedures that started around Robert Bork's confirmation hearings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot said:
Fairer is a word.  Would you agree that a full Senate trial is fairer than the trial McConnell wants?
Click to expand...
I don’t see any way a Senate trial will be fair, or impartial.  Trump could testify, under oath, in the Senate that he did withhold the money from Ukraine for the specific intent of helping his re-election & (IMO), the GOP Senators would still vote not guilty.

 
rockaction said:
Both cases strike me as parliamentary loopholes that should have been immediately struck down and then a compulsory writ issued by a judge  -- or a judge who was ordering a public official to issue a writ -- for processing said papers, articles, etc.

And it is partisan, and is in a long line of partisan procedures that started around Robert Bork's confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...
Right; so does the GOP have any right to be so outraged now, when they were fine with it in 2016?  Is there any way to argue for what happened then & against what’s happening now, and not be a total hypocrite?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bayhawks said:
I don’t see any way a Senate trial will be fair, or impartial.  Trump could testify, under oath, in the Senate that he did withhold the money from Ukraine for the specific intent of helping his re-election & (IMO), the GOP Senators would still vote not guilty.
Click to expand...
Then we have a broken system possibly beyond repair.

Merry Christmas!

 
Bayhawks said:
Right; so does the GOP have any right to be so outraged now, when they were fine with it in 2016?  Is there any way to argue for what happened then & against what’s happening now, and not be a total hypocrite?
Click to expand...
I suppose there are distinctions to be made, but I'm not following the road of the articles of impeachment here, so I'll defer to the crowd about that. I'd imagine it's very, very hard to point to abuse of intent or custom when they've done similar, no. If she has the loophole to hold, hold until your advantage or until true democracy is threatened by their non-filing, a situation I'd find very hard to believe outside of a Congressional declaration of war somewhere. 

 
Also, it would have seemed like prudential customs and procedures of the Senate were ironclad until "The Least Dangerous Branch" decided to start writing willy-nilly about penumbras emanating and giving standing to trees and the like, usurping state and federal legislative power to the nth degree. No doubt that gains ill-gotten would have been defended with a totalitarian chipping away at majoritarianism in the land.

 
Bayhawks said:
I don’t see any way a Senate trial will be fair, or impartial.  Trump could testify, under oath, in the Senate that he did withhold the money from Ukraine for the specific intent of helping his re-election & (IMO), the GOP Senators would still vote not guilty.
Click to expand...
Sure.  And Republicans don’t feel the house proceedings were fair.

Zelensky could say he didn’t feel there was quid pro quo and the Dem House would still vote to impeach.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bayhawks said:
I don’t see any way a Senate trial will be fair, or impartial.  Trump could testify, under oath, in the Senate that he did withhold the money from Ukraine for the specific intent of helping his re-election & (IMO), the GOP Senators would still vote not guilty.
Click to expand...
That is because the bar for conviction is high.  You really expect anything which is not even supported by half the people to somehow get 67 percent of the votes in the Senate?  Right now it is just a partisan split.  Until there is clear bipartisan support, it is futile and there is nothing unfair about it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure how the SC thing was a loophole. It’s says their job was to advise. They advised to wait. Sure the Dems didn’t like it but whatever. 

 
Did the Republicans stall for a couple weeks while attempting to negotiate a deal with Democrats before ultimately agreeing to vote on Merrick Garland?

 
Bayhawks said:
So, in 2016, the Republicans in the Senate exploited a loophole in the Constitution to avoid approving/denying Obama’s SC nominee, purely for partisan reasons.  What they did didn’t violate the Constitution, but it did go against the intent of the Constitution.  

Now, the Democrats in the House are exploiting a loophole in the Constitution to try to force a “fairer” impeachment trial in the Senate, for purely partisan reasons.  What they are doing does not violate the Constitution, but it does go against the intent.  

In both cases, the Constitution doesn’t specify a “time limit” in which a SC nominee must be voted on by the Senate, or a “time limit” in which the House must deliver Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  Why are Liberals who were so upset when the Senate delayed in 2016 OK with the House delaying now?  Why are Conservatives who were OK with the 2016 delay so up in arms now?

Is it just partisan politics, or is there a legitimate Constitutional argument for one situation over the other?
Click to expand...
the current situation is different because if the Senate (read GOP since they control) does not agree to a fair trial, they will be violating the oath the constitution requires they take, thereby violating the letter of the constitution and not just the intent. hth. 

 
Joe Summer said:
Did the Republicans stall for a couple weeks while attempting to negotiate a deal with Democrats before ultimately agreeing to vote on Merrick Garland?
Click to expand...
Agreeing to vote nay on Garland wouldn't have really changed anything. They should have given him hearings and a vote, but there's not much practical difference between not voting and voting nay.

The problem is that the Republican Senators, had they voted, were going to vote nay on whomever Obama nominated without regard to the nominee's qualifications. But Obama didn't have a lot of standing to complain about that given his similar stance on Bush's nominees back when Obama was a Senator.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m sure once they are delivered there will be another part of the process that someone doesn’t like. 
 

“They delivered the articles in comic sans font!” or something like that. 

 
Bayhawks said:
I don’t see any way a Senate trial will be fair, or impartial.  Trump could testify, under oath, in the Senate that he did withhold the money from Ukraine for the specific intent of helping his re-election & (IMO), the GOP Senators would still vote not guilty.
Click to expand...
The same thing happened in the House of Representatives except with Democrats.  I'm not sure why anyone expects the Senate to behave any differently.  Impeachment is a partisan process.

 
Max Power said:
I don't either.  I think the narrative works better for the Rs the longer she holds it. 
Click to expand...
If she holds them much pass January 7th you could be right. Right now everyone in the House and Senate are gone until then. So right now this is a big to do over nothing.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Agreeing to vote nay on Garland wouldn't have really changed anything. They should have given him hearings and a vote, but there's not much practical difference between not voting and voting nay.

The problem is that the Republican Senators, had they voted, were going to vote nay on whomever Obama nominated without regard to the nominee's qualifications. But Obama didn't have a lot of standing to complain about that given his similar stance on Bush's nominees back when Obama was a Senator.
Click to expand...
Yes to the end if your post. Obama voting against Roberts really disappointed me. 

 
BladeRunner said:
The same thing happened in the House of Representatives except with Democrats.  I'm not sure why anyone expects the Senate to behave any differently.  Impeachment is a partisan process.
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t be though. Parties need to be put behind the country.  

 
BladeRunner said:
I agree, but when do we start? one side can't be wholly partisan and then act all indignant when the other side acts all partisan.

At what point do we say enough is enough?
Click to expand...
Now, yesterday, tomorrow, 10 yrs ago.  At some point it has to happen and the score keeping needs to stop.  It will never be a perfect time where each “team” has equally screwed the other and truce can called.  

 
BladeRunner said:
Yeah, wasn't that the "Biden Rule"?
Click to expand...
There is no “Biden rule;” Biden mentioned this as a possibility, (and it has been manipulated out of context).  It was never applied, until Mitch applied it.  This is Mitch’s manipulation of the Constitution, no one else’s.

When Grant tried to run for POTUS a 3rd time, he didn’t cause the 22nd Amendment to be enacted.  Nor did Teddy Roosevelt’s attempt at a 3rd run.  It was FDR’s 3rd (than 4th) that led to the 22nd Amendment.  Just because those two men spoke about, and even attempted, to run a 3rd time, doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t until someone actually did what they talked about that a change was needed.  

Biden discussed the possibility of not having a POTUS nominate a SC justice during an election year.  McConnell DID it.  The manipulation of the Constitution was his, no one else’s.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bayhawks said:
There is no “Biden rule;” Biden mentioned this as a possibility, (and it has been manipulated out of context).  It was never applied, until Mitch applied it.  This is Mitch’s manipulation of the Constitution, no one else’s.

When Grant tried to run for POTUS a 3rd time, he didn’t cause the 22nd Amendment to be enacted.  Nor did Teddy Roosevelt’s attempt at a 3rd run.  It was FDR’s 3rd (than 4th) that led to the 22nd Amendment.  Just because those two men spoke about, and even attempted, to run a 3rd time, doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t until someone actually did what they talked about that a change was needed.  

Biden discussed the possibility of not having a POTUS nominate a SC justice during an election year.  McConnell DID it.  The manipulation of the Constitution was his, no one else’s.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, what you're saying then is that regardless of whether Biden discussed, brought it up and it was his idea - the fact that somebody else implemented it based on that should not be a reason to assign it to Biden?

 
If Ginsburg would have passed anytime during Bush's last year, there is zero percent chance the Democrats would have confirmed anyone Bush would have nominated.  That is just a fact.  Democrats would have committed murder before allowing such a shift in power in the supreme court.

Now if Scalia would have resigned during Bush's last year, they would have reluctantly confirmed a moderately conservative pick.

How the GOP handled the Garland nomination is really no different than what the dems would have done in a similar situation where the balance of the court woukd have fundamentally shifted.  The Dems might have just gone ahead and voted the nominee down if they were 100 percent certain they had the votes, but the end result of the nominee not getting confirmed would be the same.  You can argue, but you would be wrong. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
If Ginsburg would have passed anytime during Bush's last year, there is zero percent chance the Democrats would have confirmed anyone Bush would have nominated.  That is just a fact.  Democrats would have committed murder before allowing such a shift in power in the supreme court.

Now if Scalia would have resigned during Bush's last year, they would have reluctantly confirmed a moderately conservative pick.

How the GOP handled the Garland nomination is really no different than what the dems would have done in a similar situation where the balance of the court woukd have fundamentally shifted.  The Dems might have just gone ahead and voted the nominee down if they were 100 percent certain they had the votes, but the end result of the nominee not getting confirmed would be the same.  You can argue, but you would be wrong. 
Click to expand...
I think I see the problem, you have no idea what the word fact means.  That is actually conjecture.  This is probably where so many people go wrong in discussing things with you.  You just have no clue what a fact actually is.

 
toshiba said:
I think I see the problem, you have no idea what the word fact means.  That is actually conjecture.  This is probably where so many people go wrong in discussing things with you.  You just have no clue what a fact actually is.
Click to expand...
Yeah claiming a “fact” for a hypothetical situation is an interesting position.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Yeah claiming a “fact” for a hypothetical situation is an interesting position.  
Click to expand...
I  have heard Democrats express this too often.  When it comes to flipping a seat and altering the balance there is a nuclear level of effort they would go to to prevent it and it goes way beyond anything the GOP did with Garland.  I am 100 percent confident in that.  The politically-motivated rape allegation in the Kavanaugh confirmation was in my opinion the lowest point ever in the supreme court confirmation process and that was just to prevent a slight shift to the right. 

 
jon_mx said:
I  have heard Democrats express this too often.  When it comes to flipping a seat and altering the balance there is a nuclear level of effort they would go to to prevent it and it goes way beyond anything the GOP did with Garland.  I am 100 percent confident in that.  The politically-motivated rape allegation in the Kavanaugh confirmation was in my opinion the lowest point ever in the supreme court confirmation process and that was just to prevent a slight shift to the right. 
Click to expand...
Still not a fact.

 
I agree with jon’s conjecture. It’s not a fact. But I think he’s probably right. 

That being said, this thread is getting ahead of things. The articles would never have been delivered before the week after next; everybody left. All Pelosi has done up to this point is talk about the possibility of delay. She has yet to delay anything. If the Articles are not delivered by Monday the 6th then and only then will we have a delay. 

 
jon_mx said:
I  have heard Democrats express this too often.  When it comes to flipping a seat and altering the balance there is a nuclear level of effort they would go to to prevent it and it goes way beyond anything the GOP did with Garland.  I am 100 percent confident in that.  The politically-motivated rape allegation in the Kavanaugh confirmation was in my opinion the lowest point ever in the supreme court confirmation process and that was just to prevent a slight shift to the right. 
Click to expand...
You certainly have the right to an opinion on it, but regardless of how strongly you have said opinion it doesn’t make it a “fact”.  (For the record I’m not agreeing with or disagreeing with your point.  Just pointing out it’s certainly not a fact).  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IC FBGCav said:
Still not a fact.
Click to expand...
Not a literal fact. but still undoubtably true.  Democrats will go much further than anything we have seen to protect abortion. And I believe that includes seriously considering increasing the size of the court if Roe v Wade is ever in question. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Not a literal fact. but still undoubtably true.  Democrats will go much further than anything we have seen to protect abortion. And I believe that includes seriously considering increasing the size of the court if Roe v Wade is ever in question. 
Click to expand...
Hmmm...

 
jon_mx said:
I  have heard Democrats express this too often.  When it comes to flipping a seat and altering the balance there is a nuclear level of effort they would go to to prevent it and it goes way beyond anything the GOP did with Garland.  I am 100 percent confident in that.  The politically-motivated rape allegation in the Kavanaugh confirmation was in my opinion the lowest point ever in the supreme court confirmation process and that was just to prevent a slight shift to the right. 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
jon_mx said:
Sure, but it is based on actions of the past.  About as predictable as gravity. 
Click to expand...
Really Jon? As predictable as a fundamental law of science?  

Not a hill I’d die on but hey to each is own.  

Either way Merry Christmas to ya.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
  The politically-motivated rape allegation in the Kavanaugh confirmation was in my opinion the lowest point ever in the supreme court confirmation process and that was just to prevent a slight shift to the right. 
Click to expand...
OK I missed this part before. I agreed with your first point but this is wrong. Again you keep on making the same mistake over and over which is assigning wrong motivations to situations in which you know nothing about. And in this case not even to a partisan Democrat, but to somebody who has served in the Senate with great honor for 3 decades and is highly respected on all sides, namely Diane Feinstein. You really should know better before you accuse her of such a thing. Really, shame on you jon. 

The reason Christine Blasey Ford was called to testify is because Democrats believed that Kavanaugh was guilty of attempted rape. I happened to agree with that belief and still do. You can disagree with our assessment, you can decide for yourself whether or not she’s credible, but stop telling us what our reasons are for saying we believe her. You’re calling us liars and frankly it’s offensive. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
OK I missed this part before. I agreed with your first point but this is wrong. Again you keep on making the same mistake over and over which is assigning wrong motivations to situations in which you know nothing about. And in this case not even to a partisan Democrat, but to somebody who has served in the Senate with great honor for 3 decades and is highly respected on all sides, namely Diane Feinstein. You really should know better before you accuse her of such a thing. Really, shame on you jon. 

The reason Christine Blasey Ford was called to testify is because Democrats believed that Kavanaugh was guilty of attempted rape. I happened to agree with that belief and still do. You can disagree with our assessment, you can decide for yourself whether or not she’s credible, but stop telling us what our reasons are for saying we believe her. You’re calling us liars and frankly it’s offensive. 
Click to expand...
If ANYONE believed he was guilty of rape...why is the day he's nominated for the Supreme Court the day it needs to come to light?

You've let this monster run free for decades.  He may have raped countless women.  How many shattered lives could you have saved?

But by God, he won't be on the Supreme Court.  

I don't know your motivations.  But please stop trying to connect yourself with the Democrats that pushed this.  Me calling them liars does not equate to calling you a liar.  I don't believe you have the same access they do.  I absolutely believe they were dishonest in this.  I absolutely believe they've been dishonest in other issues.

 
timschochet said:
OK I missed this part before. I agreed with your first point but this is wrong. Again you keep on making the same mistake over and over which is assigning wrong motivations to situations in which you know nothing about. And in this case not even to a partisan Democrat, but to somebody who has served in the Senate with great honor for 3 decades and is highly respected on all sides, namely Diane Feinstein. You really should know better before you accuse her of such a thing. Really, shame on you jon. 

The reason Christine Blasey Ford was called to testify is because Democrats believed that Kavanaugh was guilty of attempted rape. I happened to agree with that belief and still do. You can disagree with our assessment, you can decide for yourself whether or not she’s credible, but stop telling us what our reasons are for saying we believe her. You’re calling us liars and frankly it’s offensive. 
Click to expand...
Ford's lawyer admitted Ford was at least partially motivated by protecting abortion rights, so I do know something about it beyond just all the politically maneuvering Ford and the Democrats pulled.  

Also, i did not call Democrats liars.  But I do think political bias played a large role in Democrats fullheartily buying into the story.   Besides it being over 30 years old with zero collaborating evidence, her story changed in numerous ways from the number of people there to her description of the layout of the house to the year it occurred to the general location of the house.  Not one person she named recalled any such party.  Not one person can put these two together ever.  We know no address, no specific date. No nothing.  It is impossible to come up with a flimsier allegation.  No, this did not constitute a credible allegation.  But Democrats bought it and attacked people who dared to doubted it.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST)
2 3
Replies
128
Views
3K
quick-hands
quick-hands
GordonGekko
Schumer's Radical Abortion Gamble Of "Up To The Moment Of Birth" Will Backfire (5/11/22 00:52 PST)
Replies
19
Views
700
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
232
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top