A SCOTUS Opening

[*PhilHos*]

(09-22-2020, 01:13 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If decency, integrity and civility are dead in Washington, the least the Democrats can do is follow suit. The only question remaining is if the Democrats have the spine to actually answer the Republicans' blatant partisanship with equally blatant partisanship. Thus far, they have refused. I really really hope they stop this "we can reason with the unreasonable" nonsense soon. 

The Republicans are not here to work with you, Democrats. They are here to push their agenda (that which often directly contradicts your own) at any cost. It would be nice if you would at least recognize that...

Do you honestly believe that the Democrats have been decent, civil and full of integrity? That it's only the Republicans who are pushing an agenda?

Not saying you're wrong about the Republicans but to think that about the Democrats, I mean, I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the Kavanaugh hearings or at the Trump Impeachment (just to name 2 situations) and think the Democrats were decent, civil, full of integrity and not pushing an agenda. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2020, 01:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Do you honestly believe that the Democrats have been decent, civil and full of integrity? That it's only the Republicans who are pushing an agenda?

Not saying you're wrong about the Republicans but to think that about the Democrats, I mean, I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the Kavanaugh hearings or at the Trump Impeachment (just to name 2 situations) and think the Democrats were decent, civil, full of integrity and not pushing an agenda. 

Well, the agenda thing wasn't something he mentioned. That's all politics is, anyway. I'm curious, though, about what you feel was uncivil or not "full of integrity" with the impeachment. Genuinely, because it was an interesting point in time and the perspectives on it can be interesting.

[CJD]

(09-22-2020, 01:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Do you honestly believe that the Democrats have been decent, civil and full of integrity? That it's only the Republicans who are pushing an agenda?

Not saying you're wrong about the Republicans but to think that about the Democrats, I mean, I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the Kavanaugh hearings or at the Trump Impeachment (just to name 2 situations) and think the Democrats were decent, civil, full of integrity and not pushing an agenda. 

The Trump impeachment was politically motivated and definitely agenda driven (basically everything in Washington is) but I don't think it was particularly absent of integrity. Many of the witnesses who alleged wrong doing were either appointed by Trump personally or worked under both Democrats and Republicans and were, purportedly, not biased. 

In fact, the only lack of integrity during the impeachment that I witnessed was on the Republicans side, where they refused to even entertain the idea during the Senate hearings, having already decided before even calling a single witness. 

Many Republican Senators even acknowledged the wrongdoing, but just didn't think it warranted removal. Susan Collins famously said she thinks Trump "Learned his lesson" because of it. What lesson that was is still to be determined (but I think the lesson he learned is he doesn't have to worry about being impeached no matter how flagrantly corrupt he behaves, because the Republican Senate will endorse literally anything he does. Which, basically, has proven to be correct even in COVID times). There were (and still are) legitimate concerns there and I know we'll disagree on that. 

The Kavanaugh hearings were vicious, no doubt. They were not civil or decent in some respects, but I don't think they sacrificed their integrity during the hearings. They just hated the pick and did not think you should put someone who has an alleged rape on their record (I know, innocent until proven guilty etc. It's still an allegation. Why not have higher standards for SCOTUS judges? Like...no rape allegations).

You may not believe Blasey Ford, but her claim was credible enough to at least investigate, even if the investigation was just for show, since Republicans had the majority anyway.

I am not a Democrat. I personally hate a lot of them. They are corporatist, neoliberal shills who sell out the American people almost as much as the Republicans do. So I have no interest in defending them.

I'm just saying they are the "heroes" by default, begrudgingly, because the Republicans just happen to be orders of magnitude worse in nearly every regard.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-22-2020, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the agenda thing wasn't something he mentioned. 

You may want to re-read the second to last sentence of his post.

(09-22-2020, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's all politics is, anyway. 

That's the thing isn't it? Somehow the word 'agenda' has negative connotations. There's nothing wrong with having an agenda. In fact, NOT having an agenda would be akin to planning on doing nothing, wouldn't you agree?

Now, his thoughts on how the Republicans push their agenda aren't that fair off from the truth, but I'd say the same is true for the Democrats. I'm pretty much disillusioned by BOTH parties in Washington and would love to do away with both of them. Just start electing the people you agree with and not just because they belong to "your" party.

(09-22-2020, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  I'm curious, though, about what you feel was uncivil or not "full of integrity" with the impeachment. Genuinely, because it was an interesting point in time and the perspectives on it can be interesting.

Generally, just the fact that we had one to being with. The fact that there was impeachment talk since the day the results of the election were announced. That's just off the top of my head. I remember there being a lot of partisan bickering back and forth but I can't remember any specifics and I'm too lazy to go look it up and remind myself.

[CJD]

(09-22-2020, 01:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You may want to re-read the second to last sentence of his post.


That's the thing isn't it? Somehow the word 'agenda' has negative connotations. There's nothing wrong with having an agenda. In fact, NOT having an agenda would be akin to planning on doing nothing, wouldn't you agree?

Now, his thoughts on how the Republicans push their agenda aren't that fair off from the truth, but I'd say the same is true for the Democrats. I'm pretty much disillusioned by BOTH parties in Washington and would love to do away with both of them. Just start electing the people you agree with and not just because they belong to "your" party.


Generally, just the fact that we had one to being with. The fact that there was impeachment talk since the day the results of the election were announced. That's just off the top of my head. I remember there being a lot of partisan bickering back and forth but I can't remember any specifics and I'm too lazy to go look it up and remind myself.

For the record, my comment on the agenda literally implied, if not outright stated, that the Democrats also have an agenda. That's the part in the parentheses.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-22-2020, 01:45 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The Kavanaugh hearings were vicious, no doubt. They were not civil or decent in some respects, but I don't think they sacrificed their integrity during the hearings. They just hated the pick and did not think you should put someone who has an alleged rape on their record (I know, innocent until proven guilty etc. It's still an allegation. Why not have higher standards for SCOTUS judges? Like...no rape allegations).

No offense, but that's a horrible standard. I get not wanting someone with a rape CONVICTION, but an allegation? C'mon man. You go with that standard then NO ONE is getting on the court because the other side will just have someone allege that so-and-so raped them. 

Not to mention the timing. What's-her-face had Ford's letter for months, if I recall, before bringing out at the last minute. Does that scream "integrity" to you?

(09-22-2020, 01:45 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm just saying they are the "heroes" by default, begrudgingly, because the Republicans just happen to be orders of magnitude worse in nearly every regard.

Fair enough, but I don't think the argument should be who is worse. The argument should be about STOPPING all the bad things. Not excusing one side's bad things because the other side is worse.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2020, 01:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You may want to re-read the second to last sentence of his post.

Yeah, I missed that. That's what running on an hour of sleep gets you.

(09-22-2020, 01:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's the thing isn't it? Somehow the word 'agenda' has negative connotations. There's nothing wrong with having an agenda. In fact, NOT having an agenda would be akin to planning on doing nothing, wouldn't you agree?

Now, his thoughts on how the Republicans push their agenda aren't that fair off from the truth, but I'd say the same is true for the Democrats. I'm pretty much disillusioned by BOTH parties in Washington and would love to do away with both of them. Just start electing the people you agree with and not just because they belong to "your" party.

Yeah, I won't even get into my rant about this topic. I'm a progressive person which means I generally agree with Democrats more, but I despise the party. I'm too tired and lazy right now to go any further, though.

(09-22-2020, 01:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Generally, just the fact that we had one to being with. The fact that there was impeachment talk since the day the results of the election were announced. That's just off the top of my head. I remember there being a lot of partisan bickering back and forth but I can't remember any specifics and I'm too lazy to go look it up and remind myself.

I think the impeachment talks early on tainted things a bit, but the impeachment that actually did get through was a pretty legitimate process.

[CJD]

(09-22-2020, 01:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No offense, but that's a horrible standard. I get not wanting someone with a rape CONVICTION, but an allegation? C'mon man. You go with that standard then NO ONE is getting on the court because the other side will just have someone allege that so-and-so raped them. 

Not to mention the timing. What's-her-face had Ford's letter for months, if I recall, before bringing out at the last minute. Does that scream "integrity" to you?



Fair enough, but I don't think the argument should be who is worse. The argument should be about STOPPING all the bad things. Not excusing one side's bad things because the other side is worse.

Allow me to rephrase it as "credible allegation." But point taken. I'm just saying the Democrats knew the Republicans were going to get that nominee. They had the majority. It was in the middle of the term, so they knew they weren't going to delay it until 2021. So what was their goal? I can't think of a reason to press as hard as they did except for if they actually believed Blasey Ford.

I may be wrong in that thinking. Maybe they just wanted to harrass Kavanaugh for a few weeks. But I think it's worth noting Blasey Ford gained absolutely nothing by accusing Kavanaugh if she didn't actually believe it happened. She had to go into hiding afterwards due to death threats, for God's sake. It's one of the many reasons I believe SOMETHING happened that night. Maybe it wasn't rape. Maybe it was just Kav's friend...but something definitely happened to that woman. And as for the timing, I believe she wrote to...was it Maxine Waters?...when his name was in the pool for contention. The Democrats just sat on it like assholes for months. Why, I don't know.

It was just they wanted anyone but Kavs on the court. There was literally a list of judges with roughly the same values as him that would have been confirmed if not him. So there was no upside other than "we think this guy specifically is bad." I just don't think this was an integrity issue. 

[*PhilHos*]

(09-22-2020, 01:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the impeachment talks early on tainted things a bit, but the impeachment that actually did get through was a pretty legitimate process.

Oh, I'm sure they followed the processes properly, but that doesn't mean that it was handled with civility or integrity. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2020, 02:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Oh, I'm sure they followed the processes properly, but that doesn't mean that it was handled with civility or integrity. 

From my position, I think it was. They tried very hard so that their impeachment could be unimpeachable (heh) and would make Republicans look as bad as possible voting against it. Now, spin machines are what they are and people got different messages surrounding this stuff, but my C-Span watching ass saw things going pretty well and the Democrats doing a good job of not taking GOP bait when it was thrown to them.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-22-2020, 02:00 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Allow me to rephrase it as "credible allegation." 

How was it credible, though? It was brought up last minute in the hearings. Her own witnesses denied Kavanuagh was there. There were so many inconsistencies. I don't see how anyone thought it was credible other than she was a sympathetic individual.

(09-22-2020, 02:00 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I may be wrong in that thinking. Maybe they just wanted to harrass Kavanaugh for a few weeks. But I think it's worth noting Blasey Ford gained absolutely nothing by accusing Kavanaugh if she didn't actually believe it happened. She had to go into hiding afterwards due to death threats, for God's sake. It's one of the many reasons I believe SOMETHING happened that night. Maybe it wasn't rape. Maybe it was just Kav's friend...but something definitely happened to that woman. And as for the timing, I believe she wrote to...was it Maxine Waters?...when his name was in the pool for contention. The Democrats just sat on it like assholes for months. Why, I don't know.

It was just they wanted anyone but Kavs on the court. There was literally a list of judges with roughly the same values as him that would have been confirmed if not him. So there was no upside other than "we think this guy specifically is bad." I just don't think this was an integrity issue. 

I think no matter who Trump nominated, there would have been SOME issue. It may not have been a rape allegation, but there would've been SOMEthing the Democrats would have done to try to prevent Trump's nominee from getting approved.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-22-2020, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: From my position, I think it was. They tried very hard so that their impeachment could be unimpeachable (heh) and would make Republicans look as bad as possible voting against it. Now, spin machines are what they are and people got different messages surrounding this stuff, but my C-Span watching ass saw things going pretty well and the Democrats doing a good job of not taking GOP bait when it was thrown to them.

Didn't Pelosi, after stating things needed to be done quickly because this was sooooooooo important, delay giving the articles of impeachment to the Senate? Things like that are part of what I'm talking about.

[Belsnickel]

(09-22-2020, 02:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Didn't Pelosi, after stating things needed to be done quickly because this was sooooooooo important, delay giving the articles of impeachment to the Senate? Things like that are part of what I'm talking about.

Delayed in trying to discuss the procedure in the Senate was my understanding.

[CJD]

(09-22-2020, 02:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How was it credible, though? It was brought up last minute in the hearings. Her own witnesses denied Kavanuagh was there. There were so many inconsistencies. I don't see how anyone thought it was credible other than she was a sympathetic individual.


I think no matter who Trump nominated, there would have been SOME issue. It may not have been a rape allegation, but there would've been SOMEthing the Democrats would have done to try to prevent Trump's nominee from getting approved.

 
Like I said, Blasey Ford really screwed up her life by making that allegation. She wouldn't have made the allegation if it were completely fabricated. I don't remember the specifics of the whole thing because I didn't really care if Kavs made it onto the court or not. But I do recall there were things that lined up, like the date on his calendar lining up with who she said was at the party. I don't think it's unreasonable for s rape victim to have inconsistencies in her allegation years afterwards. She probably spent the last decade or 2 trying to forget it. There were also experts saying it's common for rape victims to forget exact details for this reason. I would have found it more suspicious if she remembered everything perfectly. 

With all that said, there obviously wasn't nearly enough there to convict him of anything. But the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as the burden to reach credible allegation status. 

Let's say they successfully get enough Republicans to not confirm Kavs. Trump would go back to his list and nominates someone else. 

Do you really think a new allegation would come out against that candidate? 

Just for argument's sake, let's say there was an allegation there and the same thing happens. 

Trump goes back to his pool and nominates a third option.

If there was a new allegation then, then any Republicans who voted against the first two would certainly not vote against this one, as this is getting absurd. 

So Trump was getting a nominee on no matter what. The Democrats couldn't possibly stall for 2 and a half years when the Republicans hold the majority. 

So what was their motivation? I just don't see one other than they just believed Blasey Ford's allegation.

[Dill]

(09-22-2020, 01:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Fair enough, but I don't think the argument should be who is worse. The argument should be about STOPPING all the bad things. Not excusing one side's bad things because the other side is worse.

I agree with you on this.  

But I think stopping "bad things" is what the impeachment was about. 

Trump has been a bad president ESPECIALLY because of his willingness to abuse presidential power.

His abuses were certainly comparable to Nixon's, but the Republican party lined up to defend Trump as it did not Nixon. Back then they believed in stopping the bad things. Now they believe in doing what keeps minority power.

So they refused to consider witnesses and material documents which would answer remaining questions about the nature and degree of Trump's "bad things". And invented ad hoc, Nixon-like legal theories that whatever the president did was in the national interest--even if he was using US policy to work partisan political advantage. Just as Barr had previously argued. vis-a-vis the Mueller Report, that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for crimes when Trump was on the doc--reversing his position from the Clinton era.

And as C-Dawg pointed out, this was three years after they claimed as a precedent that "the voters" should decide who gets the Supreme Court nominee in an election year to deny Obama an appointment; and now they have adopted a new precedent now, ad hoc, to get Trump a 3rd appt. 

We can't stop "bad things" if we can't agree what they are, that they have occurred, that someone did them. And preventing agreement on that seems to have become a tactic.

Someone who wants to stop bad things will just be told s/he is a hypocrite and his/her side is "just as bad" by people who don't really want to stop bad things when their side is in power.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2020, 01:13 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It is fine if you believe there is a temporal boundary after which it is no longer appropriate for the current president to get to nominate a supreme court justice.

You may think it is 6 months. You may think it is a year. You may think it's 2 years. Whatever your boundary is, you aren't, by necessity, a hypocrite if you believe McConnell was wrong in 2016 and still wrong in 2020. If your boundary was 6 months prior to the election you would, by definition, not be a hypocrite.

The question at hand is how do you define that boundary and what happens when you defy your own definition of that boundary when it is personally beneficial to you or your party?

This discussion has nothing to do with what Democrats think. It has everything to do with what Republicans think. Why does McConnell say that the current President should not be able to appoint the next SCOTUS judge with 9 months until the next election (and 11 months until the end of the term), but the current president should be able to appoint the next SCOTUS judge with less than 2 months until the next election (and 4 months until the end of the term?

His justification is that no SCOTUS judge has been confirmed by the opposite party majority Senate in an election year since 1880, or whatever, but that's a lie. Anthony Kennedy was confirmed on February 3, 1988 by a majority Democratic Senate when the President was Ronald Reagan 9 months prior to the next election where Reagan could not run because he had already served two terms.

Oh, what's that? He meant to say that no SCOTUS judge has been NOMINATED AND confirmed by the opposite party majority Senate in an election year since whenever? Oh okay. So because Anthony Kennedy was nominated on November 11, 1987, his confirmation in an election year is in the clear? Even though his nomination was still within the last year (12 month period) before an election? Huh, interesting. I guess he put up just enough qualifiers for Kennedy to not technically qualify for his boundaries that he is arbitrarily setting and moving (he did not mention this whole opposite party thing in 2016, to my knowledge. He just said it flatly had to do with the election year).

They go on to say that the people of America "re-elected and expanded" that the Senate should be Republican in 2018, even though the House, much more representative of the will of the people (since it is proportional to population and fully up for re-election every midterm and presidential year, whereas the Senate is not) obviously shows that to be false. Plus, with the way Senate seats go up for election every 6 years, there was basically no opportunity for the Democrats to take the Senate in 2018, even though they had the will of the people behind them. There just simply weren't enough Republican seats up for election in swing areas. In 2020, it happens to be the case that the Senate could potentially flip to the Democrats' control, although it is far from guaranteed. The point is, this idea that 2018 proved that the people still wished the Republicans to be in control is iffy at best and downright dishonest at worst.

This opposite party addition is purely to make an excuse for their own hypocrisy and any attempt to "both sides" this is just going to make the person making that argument look foolish. This is a naked power grab by the Republicans who seem to think the ends justifies the means.

All I can say is, if the Republicans really want to go down the road of "anything goes when you have the majority" I hope they enjoy the new 13 member Supreme Court the next time the Democrats hold the majorities in both wings of Congress and the Presidency, incidentally something that has a relatively decent probability to happen in this coming election, based on polling.

If decency, integrity and civility are dead in Washington, the least the Democrats can do is follow suit. The only question remaining is if the Democrats have the spine to actually answer the Republicans' blatant partisanship with equally blatant partisanship. Thus far, they have refused. I really really hope they stop this "we can reason with the unreasonable" nonsense soon. 

The Republicans are not here to work with you, Democrats. They are here to push their agenda (that which often directly contradicts your own) at any cost. It would be nice if you would at least recognize that...

Why is that fine? Each will modify that time frame to fit their agenda. I choose to go by the words of the lady herself

Quote: "The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be,"

You further point to the bad GOP of "going down the road of: anything goes when you have the majority" Do you know who Harry Reid is?

Your stance seems a little biased here with more of the bad GOP, good Dems.

Hopefully we'll see some more of those good Dems during the next confirmation hearing.

[CJD]

(09-22-2020, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why is that fine? Each will modify that time frame to fit their agenda. I choose to go by the words of the lady herself

You further point to the bad GOP of "going down the road of: anything goes when you have the majority" Do you know who Harry Reid is?

Your stance seems a little biased here with more of the bad GOP, good Dems.

I know who Harry Reid is. **** Harry Reid. 

What he did is exactly what the Republicans are about to do.

Honestly, he may be the best argument there is for why the Republicans should NOT fill this seat.

Also, as a reminder:

I'm
Not
A
Democrat

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2020, 03:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I know who Harry Reid is. **** Harry Reid. 

What he did is exactly what the Republicans are about to do.

Honestly, he may be the best argument there is for why the Republicans should NOT fill this seat.

Also, as a reminder:

I'm
Not
A
Democrat

Where did I say you were a democrat? You just seemed to give them quite a bit more of The benefit of the doubt. But it could just be me.

So the GOP is "going down a road' paved by Dems

[Belsnickel]

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-22-2020, 03:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

Except that won't prevent anything, but sure.  Lot's of cope on display on Twitter right now.  Seriously, the most cancerous place on Earth.