This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yeah I'm aware McConnell is the only one that did it. because, the republicans are in power. I am 100% certain the democrats would too. No question in my mind.
I generally resist the "both sides" mantra -- and I generally don't like Michael Barone -- but SCOTUS fights are one of the areas where I absolutely agree with his famous axiom that "All process arguments are insincere, including this one". It's almost quaint how we maintain this fiction that we care about anything other than getting our guys on the Court and keeping the other guys off of it.
To try and sell the notion that the democrats are some clean party and wouldn't do whatever is in their power to try and get one that supports their agenda on the bench is just silly. And in my opinion anyone that says so is so biased that their opinions have to be taken with that grain of salt.
"Both sides" is the last response I was expecting to my post but I often forget how important a concept that is to many of my fellow FBGs.
Why should they? All they have to do is hope there is a GOP president at some point in the next 10-15 years so Thomas can retire and be replaced by a conservative. Beyond that (or an unexpected death) they have the majority locked up for the next couple decades at least. They have zero incentive to change anything about the current system.
Yes, that is a viable concern. OTOH, an overly conservative SC that continually frustrates an increasingly progressive electorate poses problems for future GOP presidential candidates. If the court is at odds with the public on some high profile issues, why would that same public give the Pubbies a chance at the White House and the opportunity to keep thwarting their will? I'm not saying either scenario, yours or mine, is more likely to occur. I just think having a really conservative SC may not be the panacea that conservatives think it will be.
Hypocrisy defined all depends on whose team you're on. Brazen hypocrisy only happens to "the other side" because in politics, the only thing that really matters is power. And power is the Holy Grail needed to render the opposition toothless. This has been played out by both sides over and over again.
Because they are the ones who actually did this...rather than claims of what the Democrats would have done.
Bingo. Trump cares way more about being reelected than the makeup of the supreme court. That will be his hammer over his base. Elect me or you're screwed.
Escalating needs to stop. The largest escalation by far was McConnell's obstruction. It was historically nuclear and everyone knew it at the time and accepted it as such regardless if one supported the decision or not. That action eliminated any realistic lean towards compromise probably for decades. It happened and will certainly poison future actions. Any justification based on projection that the other party would have done the same is noisy conjecture.
Bork and Thomas is where this all really started. It is hallarious thar Dems can't fess up to their faults. The Dems were actually winning the game. Despite the GOP having appointed more judges in the past 50 years, the Dems have been able to force the Republicans to put up stealth candidates whom several turned out to be very moderate and even liberal. Meanwhile every Democrat president got to appoint openly liberal judges every time. If Republican presidents had the same leeway that Democrats had, the court would have been solidly conservative for the last few decades. The Trump years are the first time the GOP struck back and liberals are besides themselves..
Absolutely. Pretty sure you're protected by the Geneva Convention here, but I'm no war-time lawyer. Going with the classic face punch was the right move. All-time tried and true winner. Throat chop, leg sweep with a back hand, too fancy dancy. Just man up, fists high, bam!
I'm no Dem. I'm certainly not a liberal. I see McConnell's obstruction as a huge escalation that makes Bork and Thomas inconsequential. BTW, Bork and Thomas were stupid political dickery. I won't argue that for a second.
The Supreme Court should not base their rulings on public opinion. They are supposed to interpret the laws of the land and the Constitution.
Actually Warren Rudman in cahoots with Democrats knowingly pushed his good friend Souter, whom he knew was a far-left pro-abortion liberal, onto Bush and mislead Bush into believing he was a solid stealth conservative. Meanwhile Rudman told his pro-abortion Drmocrat buddies the truth. It was a huge backstabbing move.
If so, it’s kind of weird that the Bush Administration would just take the word of a pro-choice Senator that Souter was pro-life
Republican presidents wanted to avoid confirmation fights and media attacks and threats of filibusters. Kind of spineless, but a reality. They went out of their way to find candidates very little signs of being a strong conservative. Bush choose Rudman to lead up his Supreme Court selection because he had many liberal friends in the Senate and thought that would smooth the process and make it easier to get a conservative judge through. Bush was too trusting and did not believe an advisor would backstab him like that. But Rudman did.
Was it just Rudman who did this or was it a coordinated effort amongst the Liberal elites? I bet Soros was the mastermind behind this?jon_mx said:
Has a Democrat-led Senate ever refused to have a hearing?jon_mx said:
Mores change and perspectives on application of the constitution change because life changes. A constitution out of touch with modern reality and a Supreme Court that stubbornly persists in interpreting it with little regard for public sentiment will not be doing its ultimate duty.Snotbubbles said:
Agree, things change. I think where we depart is that I believe it's duty of the legislature to create laws that are applicable to the changes in society. The Courts job is to interpret those laws and to determine that they don't violate the Constitution.
