09-22-2020, 01:13 PM
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...
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...
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
