GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What's more damaging? The hypocrisy of the Republicans or the Democrats accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a gang rapist and an alcoholic?
Democrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme Court
Senate Democrats are tamping down talk of expanding the Supreme Court if Republicans fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Progressive activists and some lawmakers have raised …thehill.com
SCOTUS Expansion and removing the filibuster from legislation isn't on the menu kids.
IMO, McConnell sees Trump as a means to an end. Trump gets McConnell the judges he wants with McConnell believing that he can control Trump if he needs to. It's like a horror movie where someone summons a demon that they think they can control and then the demon realizes it no longer needs the help of the person that summoned them so it kills that person and takes over completely.You're right that in the end, it's likely ultimately a political question. And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately. The irony is that if you look at the writings associated with the creation of the Constitution (e.g. The Federalist), there is ample discussion of why the advice and consent role is vested with the Senate, as the more wise body - less subject to political motives and shenanigans. Well, it took 220 years but that's no longer the case.
I just find your notion that the Constitution is aiding the birth of a dictatorship to be misplaced. I think you could take a more persuasive argument that it is the repeated failure of the Congress to check against (or even willingly facilitate) the consolidation of power by the executive branch that eroded the Constitution's interbranch orientation of power to the point where it could be fully exploited by a purely-political, wholly self-interested demagogue who carries no genuine commitment to the service of the American people.
I think the tools are all there, we're just not using them - and we are at a place were nearly all of the key players are committed to their party above all else. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution.
I just want to say I appreciate you @superchuck500 . I appreciate reading these kinds of dialogues on here. @SaulGoodmanEsq you're going to be added to that list too if you keep this up.You're right that in the end, it's likely ultimately a political question. And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately. The irony is that if you look at the writings associated with the creation of the Constitution (e.g. The Federalist), there is ample discussion of why the advice and consent role is vested with the Senate, as the more wise body - less subject to political motives and shenanigans. Well, it took 220 years but that's no longer the case.
I just find your notion that the Constitution is aiding the birth of a dictatorship to be misplaced. I think you could take a more persuasive argument that it is the repeated failure of the Congress to check against (or even willingly facilitate) the consolidation of power by the executive branch that eroded the Constitution's interbranch orientation of power to the point where it could be fully exploited by a purely-political, wholly self-interested demagogue who carries no genuine commitment to the service of the American people.
I think the tools are all there, we're just not using them - and we are at a place were nearly all of the key players are committed to their party above all else. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution.
What's more damaging? The hypocrisy of the Republicans or the Democrats accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a gang rapist and an alcoholic?
You're right that in the end, it's likely ultimately a political question. And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately. The irony is that if you look at the writings associated with the creation of the Constitution (e.g. The Federalist), there is ample discussion of why the advice and consent role is vested with the Senate, as the more wise body - less subject to political motives and shenanigans. Well, it took 220 years but that's no longer the case.
I just find your notion that the Constitution is aiding the birth of a dictatorship to be misplaced. I think you could take a more persuasive argument that it is the repeated failure of the Congress to check against (or even willingly facilitate) the consolidation of power by the executive branch that eroded the Constitution's interbranch orientation of power to the point where it could be fully exploited by a purely-political, wholly self-interested demagogue who carries no genuine commitment to the service of the American people.
I think the tools are all there, we're just not using them - and we are at a place were nearly all of the key players are committed to their party above all else. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution.
Playing this out to its natural course, it can be concluded that moving forward, democrat presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a democrat senate majority and republican presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a republican senate majority. We could end up with supreme court seats vacant for 8 years.And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately.
Playing this out to its natural course, it can be concluded that moving forward, democrat presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a democrat senate majority and republican presidents will only have their supreme court nominees confirmed with a republican senate majority. We could end up with supreme court seats vacant for 8 years.
The point of emphasis of the article is not that there are only eight justices. The point of the article is why Trump is saying they need to seat a judge quickly.There were only eight justices for almost a year when Scalia died -- including during the 2016 election. Best not to even read articles about this stuff because it's smoke and mirrors.
So now Trump and McConnell are saying that they need Bader's replacement in place to settle any disputes involving the election. So I take back my earlier hope of being wrong. McConnell is fully on board with Trump in trying to steal this election and turn this country into a dictatorship.
I meant the GOP justifications are smoke and mirrors. And that there is little point in reading articles about those justifications because they are meaningless. My point in highlighting the fact that there were only eight justices in 2016 was to underscore the hollow justifications. Trump and McConnell could say: "The reason we want to go forward is banana-rama shama-lama ding-dong!" and it would make just as much sense.The point of emphasis of the article is not that there are only eight justices. The point of the article is why Trump is saying they need to seat a judge quickly.
What exactly about the article is "smoke and mirrors?" Everything in the article is true and sourced. "Smoke and mirrors" means that someone is trying to distract attention away from the important thing that people should be focused on.
What exactly is it that this article is seen as distracting people's attention away from?
I understand and appreciate the clarification. For me, I think it's important to be aware of what people are saying to justify what they are doing. I wouldn't recommend people not read articles about it, in fact just the opposite. I think it's important to stay informed and to be critical of all information that is received.I meant the GOP justifications are smoke and mirrors. And that there is little point in reading articles about those justifications because they are meaningless. My point in highlighting the fact that there were only eight justices in 2016 was to underscore the hollow justifications. Trump and McConnell could say: "The reason we want to go forward is banana-rama shama-lama ding-dong!" and it would make just as much sense.
I've never seen anyone complain as much as you do about the sources of what people post. Despite your constant complaining, you have never once pointed out anything she has said that's inaccurate.
She didn't include what you wanted and therefore she's a partisan. She has an axe to grind or she's partisan is something you say just about every time.
It's quite obvious that you consider anyone who doesn't fall in line with the media group think as partisan. Everyone knows that the national media has a liberal bias outside of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal Opinion page.