A SCOTUS Opening

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 07:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: BS.  Neither had anything to do with McConnell's actions in 2016. Or his hypocrisy in 2020.

Whatch you talkin' bout' Willis????????  

Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.  Reid was trying to get 3 Obama appointees through I believe.  McConnell said bad idea and that it was a bad precedent to set.  Reid did it anyway.  McConnell just returned the favor by making SCOTUS simple majority to get Trumps SCOTUS nominations through.


RBG had multiple cancer battles and was in her 80's and Obama was in his last term when Dems urged her to retire so they could get a like minded judge appointed.  


Nope, RBG was too selfish and now she is gone while Trump is in the White House and the Senate is controlled by Reps.  Oh well.


And stop with all this hypocrisy BS, please.  They are ALL hypocrites, they ALL play dirty politics and if this were reversed the Dems would be doing the EXACT same thing.  And it would be ok because it is legal and constitutional.


Gotta love the tweets about burning it all down because they didn't get there way politically.  Such weakness.  Participation trophy crowd.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 09:12 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Whatch you talkin' bout' Willis????????  

Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.  McConnell said bad idea and that it was a bad precedent to set.  Reid did it anyway.  McConnell just returned the favor by making SCOTUS simple majority to get Trumps SCOTUS nominations through.

Reid's actions don't have anything to do with SCOTUS nominations.

Quote:RBG had multiple cancer battles and was in her 80's and Obama was in his last term when Dems urged her to retire so they could get a like minded judge appointed.  


Nope, RBG was too selfish and now she is gone while Trump is in and the Senate is controlled by Reps.  Oh well.

So your point is RBG should have done a better job scheduling her death?  Of all the shitty hot takes I've read, this is among the shittiest.  Congratulations.

Only conservative Republicans are hypocritical enough to brag about how hard they work then criticize someone else for working until the day they died.

“Oh, she died on the job? How selfish.”

WTF

Quote:And stop with all this hypocrisy BS, please.  They are ALL hypocrites, they ALL play dirty politics and if this were reversed the Dems would be doing the EXACT same thing.  And it would be ok because it is legal and constitutional.

Except for the FACT you've admitted that didn't happen when given the chance.

Quote:Gotta love the tweets about burning it all down because they didn't get there way politically.  Such weakness.  Participation trophy crowd.

War memorials for traitorous Confederate soldiers who lost the Civil War are the ultimate participation trophy and conservatives and Republicans can't bust out their tiki torches fast enough to protect them.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 09:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Reid's actions don't have anything to do with SCOTUS nominations.



So your point is RBG should have done a better job scheduling her death?  Of all the shitty hot takes I've read, this is among the shittiest.  Congratulations.

Only conservative Republicans are hypocritical enough to brag about how hard they work then criticize someone else for working until the day they died.

“Oh, she died on the job? How selfish.”

WTF


Except for the FACT you've admitted that didn't happen when given the chance.


War memorials for traitorous Confederate soldiers who lost the Civil War are the ultimate participation trophy and conservatives and Republicans can't bust out their tiki torches fast enough to protect them.

Yes Reids actions did.  McConnell even warned him, bad idea and bad precedent.  Politics are dirty.

Well i'm not the only one as Dems were urging RBG to retire so this didn't happen.  She was elderly, in poor health and had already had 2 cancer battles.  So ya, selfish towards her party and then regretted it on her death bed.  Sad.  Twist my words all you want.  I know what I meant and my conscious is clear.

If you are trying to convince me that Dems would not do the exact same thing right now in this same situation safe your breath.

Right, because not liking vandalism is a bad thing.  Burn it all down = wah wah wah we are not getting our way.  That statue hurts my feelers, wah.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 10:02 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Yes Reids actions did.  McConnell even warned him, bad idea and bad precedent.  Politics are dirty.

Explain what it had to do with the Supreme Court.

Quote:Well i'm not the only one as Dems were urging RBG to retire so this didn't happen.  She was elderly, in poor health and had already had 2 cancer battles.  So ya, selfish towards her party and then regretted it on her death bed.  Sad.  Twist my words all you want.  I know what I meant and my conscious is clear.

Again, only conservatives would call someone selfish for dying.

Quote:If you are trying to convince me that Dems would not do the exact same thing right now in this same situation safe your breath.

Except you’ve already admitted the fact that they haven’t done it when they had the chance on multiple occasions.

Quote:Right, because not liking vandalism is a bad thing.  Burn it all down = wah wah wah we are not getting our way.  That statue hurts my feelers, wah.

Participation trophies for second place do hurt your feelings. You’ve already admitted it.

[Dill]

(09-21-2020, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell I thought we should have heeded them in 2016 and I think we should heed them now.


How about you?

If they had been heeded in 2016, I'd be fine with them now.

But because they weren't heeded, the court will be out of balance.

If the new court is faced with deciding the election, then it will be a quid pro quo--trump picks them, they pick Trump.

So now would be a good time to think about how to secure the court's credibility. 

McConnell should follow his own precedent.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 11:15 PM)Dill Wrote: If they had been heeded in 2016, I'd be fine with them now.

But because they weren't heeded, the court will be out of balance.

If the new court is faced with deciding the election, then it will be a quid pro quo--trump picks them, they pick Trump.

So now would be a could time to think about how to secure the court's credibility. 

McConnell should follow his own precedent.

Then you're a hypocrite.  If it was wrong then, then it's wrong now.  Having integrity isn't always easy, if it was more people would do it.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 11:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Explain what it had to do with the Supreme Court.


Again, only conservatives would call someone selfish for dying.


Except you’ve already admitted the fact that they haven’t done it when they had the chance on multiple occasions.


Participation trophies for second place do hurt your feelings. You’ve already admitted it.

You know why, you don't need me to explain.

Nope, not for dying, for not retiring.

I did?  They did?  So Dems have controlled the White House, the Senate and have had a SCOTUS seat open and they didn't fill it?

Interesting.  I did not know my feelers had been hurt.  They don't feel hurt.  Care to elaborate?  I can assure you 2nd place does not hurt my feelers.  lmao!  In fact, if Biden wins I will hope the best for him and hope he makes the best decisions for the USA.  Rooting against him as Prez would be rooting against the Country.  That would be very silly.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 11:15 PM)Dill Wrote: If they had been heeded in 2016, I'd be fine with them now.

But because they weren't heeded, the court will be out of balance.

If the new court is faced with deciding the election, then it will be a quid pro quo--trump picks them, they pick Trump.

So now would be a could time to think about how to secure the court's credibility. 

McConnell should follow his own precedent.

I personally think it is far better to have a court of constitutional conservatives vs liberal activists.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2020, 11:15 PM)Dill Wrote: If they had been heeded in 2016, I'd be fine with them now.

But because they weren't heeded, the court will be out of balance.

If the new court is faced with deciding the election, then it will be a quid pro quo--trump picks them, they pick Trump.

So now would be a could time to think about how to secure the court's credibility. 

McConnell should follow his own precedent.

So is this you saying RGB's words shouldn't be heeded now? 

I side with RGB on this one. A POTUS is elected for a 4 year term.

What McConnell and the GOP did in 2016 was wrong; I stated it then and I state it now. 

Any attempts to stop this setting POTUS from selecting a SCOTUS justice will be wrong. I'll state it now and again in 2024 if required. 

[Dill]

(09-21-2020, 09:12 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: And stop with all this hypocrisy BS, please.  They are ALL hypocrites, they ALL play dirty politics and if this were reversed the Dems would be doing the EXACT same thing.  And it would be ok because it is legal and constitutional.

Can't agree with you on this, Mickey.  Even Republicans weren't like this before.

Nothing will ever get better if people keep saying "both sides do it." And sorry, but I do not see Reid or any Democrat doing what McConnell did in 2016. That was breathtaking and a taste of the four years to come--Trump's legacy of flouting civic norms and scoffing at precedent and rule of law.

We are in this position because McConnell held up judicial appointments for years, Garland's being the icing on the cake, and made up a spurious "principle" justify it--easily violated four years later.

He has done this because a minority cannot get Congress to repeal Roe vs Wade and Obamacare, or defend voter suppression at the state level. 

By blocking Obama's appt. and giving it to Trump, he'll have set the country up for a decade of division and unrest if Trump places another Federalist Society judge on the bench. His hope is that SCOTUS decisions will now fall the minority's way.

The only way to avoid that will be if the new judge does what some other "conservative" appointees have done and Trump has not--recognize the gravity of the office, put law and institution above party.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 11:25 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: You know why, you don't need me to explain.

No, seriously, I need you to explain what it had to do with the Supreme Court instead of deflecting.

Quote:Nope, not for dying, for not retiring.

So selfish for being a dedicated employee? I always knew conservative Republicans didn’t give a shit about workers.

Quote:I did?  They did?  So Dems have controlled the White House, the Senate and have had a SCOTUS seat open and they didn't fill it?

You admitted the Democrats haven’t done the same thing McConnell did in 2016.

Quote:Interesting.  I did not know my feelers had been hurt.  They don't feel hurt.  Care to elaborate?  I can assure you 2nd place does not hurt my feelers.  lmao!  In fact, if Biden wins I will hope the best for him and hope he makes the best decisions for the USA.  Rooting against him as Prez would be rooting against the Country.  That would be very silly.

Who was the one complaining about participation trophies? You.

[Dill]

(09-21-2020, 11:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you're a hypocrite.  If it was wrong then, then it's wrong now.  Having integrity isn't always easy, if it was more people would do it.

Always with the name calling.  


So if McConnell was wrong back in 2016, creating his own precedent to deny an Obama appointee on the Supreme Court,

then he's "right" now to break that precedent to get a third Trump appointee on the Supreme Court? 

And if he is "right" now, would you say that McConnell has salvaged his integrity by breaking his own precedent?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2020, 12:21 AM)Dill Wrote: Always with the name calling.

  

Pointing out a hypocritical position is not name calling.

Quote:So if McConnell was wrong back in 2016, creating his own precedent to deny an Obama appointee on the Supreme Court,

then he's "right" now to break that precedent to get a third Trump appointee on the Supreme Court? 

Absolutely not.  McConnel is an absolute hypocrite.  If you disagreed with him in 2016 and agree with that position in 2020 then you are also a hypocrite.  This isn't even up for debate.

Quote:And if he is "right" now, would you say that McConnell has salvaged his integrity by breaking his own precedent?

What integrity?  Cocaine Mitch is a savvy and cunning politician, but integrity is not a word I'd ever associate with him.  So, either join Mitch in his hypocrisy or stay true to your position.  Although you've already made your intentions in this regard clear.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2020, 12:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   

Pointing out a hypocritical position is not name calling.



Absolutely not.  McConnel is an absolute hypocrite.  If you disagreed with him in 2016 and agree with that position in 2020 then you are also a hypocrite.  This isn't even up for debate.



What integrity?  Cocaine Mitch is a savvy and cunning politician, but integrity is not a word I'd ever associate with him.  So, either join Mitch in his hypocrisy or stay true to your position.  Although you've already made your intentions in this regard clear.

It's exactly what I said in this very forum on the night Trump won the election.

Folks will spend the next 4 years being what they've hated for the last 8.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2020, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's exactly what I said in this very forum on the night Trump won the election.

Folks will spend the next 4 years being what they've hated for the last 8.

Sadly, there's some truth to this.  As I said earlier, having integrity is not easy.  Sometimes it means eating shit when you could easily not do so if you abandoned it.  Sometimes it means the other guy winning because you decided to stick to your principles.  If your principles are important to you than that is a price you will willingly pay.  If you choose to abandon those principles, fine.  Just know that's what you're doing and don't try and sugar coat it.  If winning means so much to you that you're willing to become what you purport to despise then just own it.  It's the mealy-mouthed excuse making that grates.

[Benton]

(09-22-2020, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's exactly what I said in this very forum on the night Trump won the election.

Folks will spend the next 4 years being what they've hated for the last 8.

Racist?



Sorry I couldn't help it.

[Dill]

(09-22-2020, 12:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pointing out a hypocritical position is not name calling.

Absolutely not.  McConnel is an absolute hypocrite.  If you disagreed with him in 2016 and agree with that position in 2020 then you are also a hypocrite.  This isn't even up for debate.

What integrity?  Cocaine Mitch is a savvy and cunning politician, but integrity is not a word I'd ever associate with him.  So, either join Mitch in his hypocrisy or stay true to your position.  Although you've already made your intentions in this regard clear.

You didn't trouble yourself to demonstrate you even understood my "position" and then explain what was hypocritical about it. 

 Just name-calling isn't "pointing out" anything. It is just name-calling.

Authoritarian pronouncements about what is or is not "up for debate" don't "point out" anything either. Especially from the guy who alternates between moral absolutism and "nuance" when it suits him.

This time it is moral absolutism--If wrong then, then wrong now!

But two wrongs wouldn't automatically make one hypocritical, just wrong twice. 

Wrong then and right now is only wrong once, and not necessarily hypocritical. 

Same for right then and wrong now. And one could be hypocritically right in both cases.

That's because hypocrisy generally isn't assessed separately from intentions and claimed ethical standards from which those intentions determinably diverge. You can't get anything like that from my post.

[Dill]

(09-22-2020, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's exactly what I said in this very forum on the night Trump won the election.

Folks will spend the next 4 years being what they've hated for the last 8.

???  I remember when you said that. I wondered "what, specifically, does he think people 'hate'?"

People who didn't like political conspiracy theories haven't become purveyors of conspiracy, have they?


I don't think your prediction came true. Or can you think of anyone who "became what he hated"?  

[Dill]

(09-21-2020, 11:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So is this you saying RGB's words shouldn't be heeded now? 

I side with RGB on this one. A POTUS is elected for a 4 year term.

What McConnell and the GOP did in 2016 was wrong; I stated it then and I state it now. 

Any attempts to stop this setting POTUS from selecting a SCOTUS justice will be wrong. I'll state it now and again in 2024 if required. 

That was me saying McConnell should consider sticking to his own precedent.

McConnell assured Trump stole a pick from Obama. Now he'll make sure Trump gets a third, for a 6-3 court.

He's fine with what you state now. Maybe in 2024 too. He hopes everyone will Bfine with his actions.

[Dill]

(09-21-2020, 11:28 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I personally think it is far better to have a court of constitutional conservatives vs liberal activists.

Does it matter to you how they get on the court?