Justice Ginsburg dies

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2020, 04:13 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It shows precedent.

Yes, 4-4.  My bad.

I couldn't care less about what anybody said or how hypocritical they are.  It's normal practice on both sides.  What matters is whether it is legal and constitutional. That answer is yes.

Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2014.  The people then voted to expand Republican control of the Senate in 2018. 

If roles were reversed, I might not like it, but it would be perfectly understandable, legal and constitutional and I wouldn't say anything about it.

Bottom line is nothing is legally or constitutionally wrong with Trump nominating and the Senate confirming a SCOTUS pick right now.  I would say the same if it were the Dems in control, cause that's just life.

(09-21-2020, 06:15 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It is precedent that no SCOTUS has been confirmed when one party holds the White House and the other party holds the Senate.  In that respect Garland was "normal practice".  

What does the time frame matter?  Is it legal and constitutional or not?

Out of this whole SCOTUS thing, what is illegal and/or unconstitutional?  That's all that matters.  Doesn't matter who says what, who agrees or disagrees, who thinks the other side is a big, orange, meanie, poopy pants.  Non of that is relevant.  

There is literally nothing to see here other than politicians being their normal douche bag selves on both sides.

So, any discussion of following precedent and the GOP is laughable at best. Precedent and norms have been utterly demolished during these past four years by the Republican party. The GOP has no legs to stand on when discussing precedent. In addition, the precedent used in 2016 was that no Justice was confirmed in an election year. It had nothing to do with parties, had nothing to do with any of that. What they hung their collective hats on was it was election year, and Graham doubled down on that in 2018.

All of that being said, I agree that there is nothing wrong legally with the GOP replacing RBG. I agree that they should try. But I also agree that the Democrats should make it an election issue, run as many ads as possible to highlight the lies from the GOP and make them eat their words, and do what they can to stop it because public opinion is behind them. What the GOP did to Garland was without precedent and should not have happened and the Democrats should, and will, retaliate for that.

Also, that bolded part is a bit ironic considering I literally said something was irrelevant that fell into the category you call irrelevant in that line and you disagreed.