Voters don't deserve an answer

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 04:35 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Nope.

So we're still fulfilling the "will of the people". I thought I read where you said we weren't doing that.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 08:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: The issue being this time is that the GOP was/is in charge both times and still changed the rules.

Meanwhile the Democrats have said they want them simply do what they did last time even thought the Democrats opposed it.

The GOP is just doing what the Dems wanted last time. Seems like the party in charge is reaching across the aisle. 

[CJD]

(10-13-2020, 08:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we're still fulfilling the "will of the people". I thought I read where you said we weren't doing that.  

Nope

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 08:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Nope

So you didn't say we weren't fulfilling the will of the people?

You're quite the puzzle. 

[hollodero]

I for one would totally understand if the Democrats would just extend the seats to 11 and put two of their judges in there.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2020, 08:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The GOP is just doing what the Dems wanted last time. Seems like the party in charge is reaching across the aisle. 

Seems to like you're full of shaving cream but who knows?  Maybe the GOP had a change of heart and decided they were wrong in 2016 and want to make things right by forcing through a nominee three weeks before the election vs just putting their/your party over the good of the country.

I guess we'll never know. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2020, 09:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I for one would totally understand if the Democrats would just extend the seats to 11 and put two of their judges in there.

It's a completely constitutional act. It's also not really new for battles over the court like this to take place: https://theconversation.com/packing-the-court-amid-national-crises-lincoln-and-his-republicans-remade-the-supreme-court-to-fit-their-agenda-147139

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 09:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Seems to like you're full of shaving cream but who knows?  Maybe the GOP had a change of heart and decided they were wrong in 2016 and want to make things right by forcing through a nominee three weeks before the election vs just putting their/your party over the good of the country.

I guess we'll never know. 

How are they putting party over the good of the country? Seems just sorta like an opinion.

The current POTUS and Senate was elected by the people and their term has not expired.

I take the same stance in 2016 that I take now; how about you

[hollodero]

(10-13-2020, 09:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's a completely constitutional act. It's also not really new for battles over the court like this to take place: https://theconversation.com/packing-the-court-amid-national-crises-lincoln-and-his-republicans-remade-the-supreme-court-to-fit-their-agenda-147139

Seemed like a good idea back then. But that precedent happened a long time ago in quite different circumstances. In current times, I would consider extending the court to 11 a breaking of norms.

Which is why I figured you'd be opposed to such a move. It's not exactly super clean.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2020, 09:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I for one would totally understand if the Democrats would just extend the seats to 11 and put two of their judges in there.

It’s just more “dirty pool” so to speak that perpetuates the problem rather than solving it.

This is why you can’t leave out candy on Halloween with a “take one” sign relying on the honor system.

[Mickeypoo]

When Pelosi, appearing on CNN, is called out by Blitzer you know there is a problem. And she had no logical answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXT0lTTSJlQ

[hollodero]

(10-13-2020, 10:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It’s just more “dirty pool” so to speak that perpetuates the problem rather than solving it.

This is why you can’t leave out candy on Halloween with a “take one” sign relying on the honor system.

It solves the problem of the unbalanced court.

Also, it's not a good form of deescalation to just not hit back. These kids never get the candy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2020, 11:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: It solves the problem of the unbalanced court.

Also, it's not a good form of deescalation to just not hit back. These kids never get the candy.

Not really if they keep an odd number of justices to avoid a deadlock it will always be unbalanced one way or the other. It would continue to fuel the cycle of political gamesmanship to horde appointments instead of just filling them as they become available.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2020, 10:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Seemed like a good idea back then. But that precedent happened a long time ago in quite different circumstances. In current times, I would consider extending the court to 11 a breaking of norms.

Which is why I figured you'd be opposed to such a move. It's not exactly super clean.

I am against the action. I think there should be a constitutional limit set to the SCOTUS. I have just been in a "burn it all down" mentality, lately.

[Vas Deferens]

Voters certainly don’t deserve the truth.

[CJD]

(10-13-2020, 09:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you didn't say we weren't fulfilling the will of the people?

You're quite the puzzle. 

Nope.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2020, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How are they putting party over the good of the country? Seems just sorta like an opinion.

The current POTUS and Senate was elected by the people and their term has not expired.

I take the same stance in 2016 that I take now; how about you

Yep I said they should have done this in 2016.  Never said they shouldn't now.  I said the GOP, McConnell and people who won't recognize what the GOP did and is doing are fools and hypocrites.  Whoever wants to see themselves in that group is welcome to do that.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-13-2020, 09:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I for one would totally understand if the Democrats would just extend the seats to 11 and put two of their judges in there.

And if the position was swapped around you would be completely against it, yet no one can seem to fathom when Republicans told Garland to **** off and approved 2 Republican nominees.

Democrats would do the exact same thing and I wouldn’t like it either, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 09:54 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: And if the position was swapped around you would be completely against it, yet no one can seem to fathom when Republicans told Garland to **** off and approved 2 Republican nominees.

Will be three.
Also, yeah I think this Garland denial was a step too far. Democrats would probably do the same thing now, but I am not so sure they would have done the same thing back then. For one, the centrist Garland already was an olive branch of sorts. While the GOP just nominates the most conservative judges they can find.

This has nothing to do with party affiliation. I am a foreigner, not a "liberal". But what republicans did to be 6-3 in the SC now was gangster and no retaliation just emboldens the bully to be gangster again and call you a loser. Imho.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 11:20 AM)hollodero Wrote: Will be three.
Also, yeah I think this Garland denial was a step too far. Democrats would probably do the same thing now, but I am not so sure they would have done the same thing back then. For one, the centrist Garland already was an olive branch of sorts. While the GOP just nominates the most conservative judges they can find.

This has nothing to do with party affiliation. I am a foreigner, not a "liberal". But what republicans did to be 6-3 in the SC now was gangster and no retaliation just emboldens the bully to be gangster again and call you a loser. Imho.

If Ted Cruz's numbers are right (and I'm going off memory right now, FYI) there have been 29 times where a vacancy on the SCOTUS occurred during a presidential election year. Of those 29, 22 times happened when the the same party held the senate and presidency. And all 22 nominees were confirmed. The remaining times, different parties held the senate and presidency. And only twice has a nominee been confirmed. 

So, in the entire history of the United States of America, during a presidential election where the current president is a different party than the majority in the Senate, only 2 judicial Supreme Court justices have been confirmed.

Yes, any Republican in the Senate in 2016 that argued that a nominee should wait until after the election who is now voting to confirm is a hypocrite. That said, ACB's nomination and confirmation hearing is not unheard of nor is it unprecedented and it is especially NOT unconstitutional.