Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[FullMonte]

Not really. How exactly is it corrupt to do what you have the right to do as the party in power? Don't tell me the Democrats wouldn't do just exactly this if they were in power?

Are you making the argument that it's ok to be blatantly hypocritical, and potentially confirm a Supreme Court nominee to a lifetime appointment without an indepth interview and hearing....because the other side would do it if they had the chance?

Is that where we are as a republic?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Not really.

Yes really. A blatant, hypocritical and twisted application of "the rules" so that a minority of people can maintain a majority of control over the government to deny personal freedoms and liberties that the minority does not agree with is the epitome of both corruption and tyranny.

You don't have to break the law or the rules to act corruptly.

1a : dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)

Definition of CORRUPTION

dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery); a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Cries of "both sides" doesn't change the fact that it's corruption when anyone does it. Crying "both sides" is saying I'm okay with bad "this" bad behavior because of "that" bad behavior.

What's really sad to me is when people cry "both sides" followed by an argument that even though one side has done the same thing, "they would have if they had the chance."

 

[DaveXA]

Are you making the argument that it's ok to be blatantly hypocritical, and potentially confirm a Supreme Court nominee to a lifetime appointment without an indepth interview and hearing....because the other side would do it if they had the chance?

Is that where we are as a republic?

I didn't say that. I said both side can do it. And it won't be without an in depth interview and hearing. That will still happen. What's hypocritical about doing that? Now I see the hypocrisy of the Republicans because of their refusal to allow a hearing for Gorsuch. That bothered me more than what they're doing now tbh. I wanted Gorsuch to be given consideration. But what they're doing now is hardly surprising and there's nothing preventing them from doing it.

Personally, I'd rather Congress make a hard and fast rule that a justice can't be seated within 6 months of an election and that the winner of the election gets to pick when takes office. But is it is now, that not how it works as far as I know.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes really. A blatant, hypocritical and twisted application of "the rules" so that a minority of people can maintain a majority of control over the government to deny personal freedoms and liberties that the minority does not agree with is the epitome of both corruption and tyranny.

You don't have to break the law or the rules to act corruptly.

Definition of CORRUPTION

dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery); a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Cries of "both sides" doesn't change the fact that it's corruption when anyone does it. Crying "both sides" is saying I'm okay with bad "this" bad behavior because of "that" bad behavior.

What's really sad to me is when people cry "both sides" followed by an argument that even though one side has done the same thing, "they would have if they had the chance."

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but the majority party is the one running the Senate, and the majority party runs the House. It's not corrupt to nominate a justice in an election year and it's not corrupt to advise and consent for the same scenario. So I'm not seeing the corruption. Hypocrisy, sure. But hypocrisy and corruption aren't the same thing.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It's not corrupt to nominate a justice in an election year and it's not corrupt to advise and consent for the same scenario. So I'm not seeing the corruption. Hypocrisy, sure. But hypocrisy and corruption aren't the same thing.

Hypocrisy is inherently dishonest. To be a hypocrite one has to lie about their standards, motivations, values, reasons and/or goals.

Dishonest use of power is corrupt.

Republicans have hypocritically used their power.

That means Republicans have dishonestly used their power.

That means that Republicans have corruptly used their power.

It's pretty obvious and hard not to see.

 

[DaveXA]

Hypocrisy is inherently dishonest. To be a hypocrite one has to lie about their standards, motivations, values, reasons and/or goals.

Dishonest use of power is corrupt.

Republicans have hypocritically used their power.

That means Republicans have dishonestly used their power.

That means that Republicans have corruptly used their power.

It's pretty obvious and hard not to see.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not connecting the dots between them being dishonest and them using their power. They have the power to do it and in of itself is not dishonest. It's something they have the authority to do. If they didn't, then yeah. But they do. I just don't think them doing what they're supposed to is problematic. I have an issue with some of the process, sure, but they can do it as far as I can tell.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I see what you're saying, but I'm not connecting the dots between them being dishonest and them using their power. They have the power to do it and in of itself is not dishonest. It's something they have the authority to do. If they didn't, then yeah. But they do. I just don't think them doing what they're supposed to is problematic. I have an issue with some of the process, sure, but they can do it as far as I can tell.

There's no dots to connect. It's just a single point.

They were completely dishonest about why they used their power the way that they did. Even you admit that. That's the corruption.

You're saying they were dishonest when they used their power, but since they had the authority to use that power, they didn't use it dishonestly even though they were being dishonest when they used it.

You're hung up on illegal versus dishonest.

You mistakenly think it can only be corruption if it's an illegal use of power. That is not correct. A dishonest use of power is also corrupt. A dishonest use of power includes being dishonest about why someone is using their power, that they legally have, in the way that they are using it.

Let's use a close, but imperfect, analogy. A cop has the legal right to "stop and frisk" anyone they want. If they stop a frisk someone just because of the color of their skin, they are being racist. It doesn't matter that they have the authority to stop and frisk.

With the power and authority granted to Senators comes the obligation and responsibility to be honest when using that authority and power. If they lie about why they are doing what they are doing, they are failing their obligations and responsibilities. Which means they are acting corruptly.

By the tortured logic you're using, Trump is not corrupt. Do you think Trump is corrupt? I mean he's only used the authority and power that he has a legal right to use, so you must not think Trump is corrupt.

That's where the logic you are using leads us. It justifies Edwin Edwards defense of "I did things that are unethical, but nothing that was illegal."

A government official that acts unethically, may not be acting illegally, but they are most certainly acting corrupt. If corruption only involved illegal actions, we would not have the phrase "morally corrupt."

 

[DaveXA]

There's no dots to connect. It's just a single point.

They were completely dishonest about why they used their power the way that they did. Even you admit that. That's the corruption.

You're saying they were dishonest when they used their power, but since they had the authority to use that power, they didn't use it dishonestly even though they were being dishonest when they used it.

You're hung up on illegal versus dishonest.

You mistakenly think it can only be corruption if it's an illegal use of power. That is not correct. A dishonest use of power is also corrupt. A dishonest use of power includes being dishonest about why someone is using their power, that they legally have, in the way that they are using it.

Let's use a close, but imperfect, analogy. A cop has the legal right to "stop and frisk" anyone they want. If they stop a frisk someone just because of the color of their skin, they are being racist. It doesn't matter that they have the authority to stop and frisk.

With the power and authority granted to Senators comes the obligation and responsibility to be honest when using that authority and power. If they lie about why they are doing what they are doing, they are failing their obligations and responsibilities. Which means they are acting corruptly.

By the tortured logic you're using, Trump is not corrupt. Do you think Trump is corrupt? I mean he's only used the authority and power that he has a legal right to use, so you must not think Trump is corrupt.

That's where the logic you are using leads us. It justifies Edwin Edwards defense of "I did things that are unethical, but nothing that was illegal."

A government official that acts unethically, may not be acting illegally, but they are most certainly acting corrupt. If corruption only involved illegal actions, we would not have the phrase "morally corrupt."

So, you're saying they're inherently corrupt and there's nothing right they can do because they're already dishonest. It seems like you're saying that you have a a problem with them more than what they're actually doing. I'm more focused on the process. You're more focused on them. We're talking past each other, I think.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So, you're saying they're inherently corrupt and there's nothing right they can do because they're already dishonest.

No, I have not in any way said, nor do I think, any of that.

I've only been talking about their specific actions and behaviors during the process of them using their power to confirm Supreme Court justices and federal judges, from the point of denying Obama's nominees to the present attempt to rush through the confirmations of Barret and lots of federal judges.

It seems like you're saying that you have a a problem with them more than what they're actually doing.

I've made it very clear that I specifically have a problem with them doing what they are doing, because they are doing it dishonestly because they are not being honest about why they are doing it.

I don't know how to make that any more clear, but I'll try again.

I have problem with all of the lying they are doing to manipulate the system out of bad faith. Lying and bad faith is unethical and corrupt. The results of lying and bad faith are unethical and corrupt. That makes the process of confirming judges unethical and corrupt.

I'm more focused on the process. You're more focused on them.

This is not true at all. I'm focused equally on the process and the actions of the people in charge of the process, because they can't be separated.

It's naive to think that the integrity of processes and institutions can magically transcend the integrity of the people in control of them. This is the idealistic mistake that so many people make. How well did that magical thinking work out with Trump? How well did that magical thinking work out with McCarthyism?

There are no processes or institutions without people and every process and institution is a reflection of the people controlling them. The Senate judicial confirmation process and the Supreme Court are not exceptions. To put it in data and programming terms, "garbage in : garbage out." I'm not being literal or calling anyone garbage.

Any process controlled by people who are being dishonest in their control of the process is a dishonest process. A dishonest process is a corrupt process, as are the people who are dishonest in their control of it. They go hand in hand.

It's a human tendency to not see a potential threat to others from something they don't see as a threat to themselves or their rights. I don't fault anyone for having that initial reaction. I do fault people who refuse to acknowledge a potential threat to others and their rights after a potential threat has been pointed out and substantiated. At that point, a person choose to replace their previous ignorance with apathy.

I'm going to reframe something most of us have heard before, maybe even quoted to others at times. While most people seem to agree with it's wisdom, very few people seem to take the wisdom to heart and put it into action in their daily lives.

"First they denied the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers
And I did not speak out
Because I did not want those rights

Then they denied the right of same sex marriages
And I did not speak out
Because I did not want that right

Then they came for the right to abortion
And I did not speak out
Because I did not want that right

Then they denied a right I wanted
And there was no one left
Who had the right to speak out for the right I wanted"

 

[wardorican]

I didn't say that. I said both side can do it. And it won't be without an in depth interview and hearing. That will still happen. What's hypocritical about doing that? Now I see the hypocrisy of the Republicans because of their refusal to allow a hearing for Gorsuch. That bothered me more than what they're doing now tbh. I wanted Gorsuch to be given consideration. But what they're doing now is hardly surprising and there's nothing preventing them from doing it.

Personally, I'd rather Congress make a hard and fast rule that a justice can't be seated within 6 months of an election and that the winner of the election gets to pick when takes office. But is it is now, that not how it works as far as I know.

Garland. Merrick Garland.

 

[DaveXA]

Garland. Merrick Garland.

Correct, I had the wrong name in my head last night.

 

[brandon]

Not really. How exactly is it corrupt to do what you have the right to do as the party in power? Don't tell me the Democrats wouldn't do just exactly this if they were in power?

Well, of course they would. Because that was the way it was always done. BUT THE REPUBLICANS CHANGED THE RULES.

The better question is how many times have the Democrats refused a hearing on a Republican appointee because "it's an election year," immediately following that with reversing course and going back to the original rule when they were in power?

The answer is zero. You can't say the Democrats would do it if they were in power when they've been in power before and didn't do anything remotely similar.

 

[MT15]

I like her outlook. They know they shouldn’t fill this seat in the middle of an election. No SC seat has ever been filled this close to Election Day in the history of our nation. They know it’s wrong.

 

[DaveXA]

I like her outlook. They know they shouldn’t fill this seat in the middle of an election. No SC seat has ever been filled this close to Election Day in the history of our nation. They know it’s wrong.

I don't understand the lack of votes in the lame duck. I'm not seeing who would change their vote, whether before or after. There is some risk during the lame duck, but right now, if nothing changes, it's the same before or after.

As for the SC vacancy. Have we ever had one this close to the election? What happened then as opposed to now?

 

[MT15]

I think Abraham Lincoln had one close to the election, but maybe not this close. He decided to wait until after the election. He said it was a point of honor.

I saw a chart one time with several vacancies in the summer before an election, IIRC, and none were filled.

Republicans have confused what is possible to do with what is the right thing to do for the sake of the country.

 

[DaveXA]

...
Republicans have confused what is possible to do with what is the right thing to do for the sake of the country.

I definitely agree with this.

 

[brandon]

Everyone is making this way more complicated than it has to be.

The President has a 4-year term. During that term, he gets to appoint any Supreme Court position that comes open. The legislation can offer advice and consent, and that means that barring any blatantly disqualifying traits, that person should be approved and appointed. This was the policy, these were the rules.

The Republicans decided that this was not the correct course of action in Obama's last term because it was too close to an election and an appointment by Obama would not represent the will of the people. Over Democratic objections, they chose not to hear Merrick Garland. The Republicans decided the current rules were not adequate to represent the will of the people and must be changed.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans want the rules back to the way they were before.

It's hypocrisy. It's wrong. Either play by the old rules, or play by the new rules. Either way, you have to play by the rules. The end.

 

[DaveXA]

Everyone is making this way more complicated than it has to be.

The President has a 4-year term. During that term, he gets to appoint any Supreme Court position that comes open. The legislation can offer advice and consent, and that means that barring any blatantly disqualifying traits, that person should be approved and appointed. This was the policy, these were the rules.

The Republicans decided that this was not the correct course of action in Obama's last term because it was too close to an election and an appointment by Obama would not represent the will of the people. Over Democratic objections, they chose not to hear Merrick Garland. The Republicans decided the current rules were not adequate to represent the will of the people and must be changed.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans want the rules back to the way they were before.

It's hypocrisy. It's wrong. Either play by the old rules, or play by the new rules. Either way, you have to play by the rules. The end.

Well said. Better than anything I said on the subject.