Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did Robert Bork deserve what he got back in 1988? What the democrats did to him has become a verb. To Bork someone means "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."
As opposed to "swiftboating", which means to tell the truth about a candidate, backed up by testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses, usually with the aim of preventing his election to public office.
Democrats had done enough to anger their constituents, that those constituents voted them out of the majority in the Senate. So they no longer had the votes in the committees they needed.
Yet we keep hearing, in regard to confirmation hearings for Garland, that the Republicans should have given them "what is rightfully theirs" and held hearings.
"What is rightfully theirs" is what the voters decided they should have. You got a problem with that?
Basically, the Democrats blew it.
Elections have consequences. One of them is that, if you lose, you can't dictate what the Senate does any more.
Repubs enacted the biden rule and so were not bound by any requirement.
McC could have just held the hearing and have a no vote along party lines. Same diff.
Did Robert Bork deserve what he got back in 1988? What the democrats did to him has become a verb. To Bork someone means "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."
Robert Bork was Nixons hatchet man. In exchange for firing the special counsel after 2 others had resigned rather then do such a thing to hide Nixons criminal acts, Nixon promised him the next supreme court justice seat. That he was even up for a vote is the height of corruption, and that someone would attempt to use his name in this argument shows a distinct unfamiliarity with history.
Repubs enacted the biden rule and so were not bound by any requirement.
McC could have just held the hearing and have a no vote along party lines. Same diff.
What nonsense. The reason they didn't have a vote is that the judge would have probably passed. And they made up a rule, it wasn't "they enacted". And they used a portion of a speech that Biden gave, that Biden has repeatedly said was taken out of context. More importantly....no such rule was considered at the time. It was so much hot air. The Republicans are using this a a excuse for not performing their duties that they swore they would do under the constitution.
You're desperately trying to justify actions taken against the constitution. They had a duty to hold that vote. They choose their party over the constitution. Just like those who defend this nonsense are.
What nonsense. The reason they didn't have a vote is that the judge would have probably passed. And they made up a rule, it wasn't "they enacted". And they used a portion of a speech that Biden gave, that Biden has repeatedly said was taken out of context. More importantly....no such rule was considered at the time. It was so much hot air. The Republicans are using this a a excuse for not performing their duties that they swore they would do under the constitution.
You're desperately trying to justify actions taken against the constitution. They had a duty to hold that vote. They choose their party over the constitution. Just like those who defend this nonsense are.
OMG, something a politician said was taken out of context and used against them? First time for everything I guess.
As opposed to "swiftboating", which means to tell the truth about a candidate, backed up by testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses, usually with the aim of preventing his election to public office.
That wasn't truth, that was Karl Rove putting together a slime campaign and getting book published overnight. Hundreds of eyewitnesses many who didn't even serve in his unit or weren't even in Vietnam when he was there for only 4 months. LOL
Democrats had done enough to anger their constituents, that those constituents voted them out of the majority in the Senate. So they no longer had the votes in the committees they needed.
Yet we keep hearing, in regard to confirmation hearings for Garland, that the Republicans should have given them "what is rightfully theirs" and held hearings.
"What is rightfully theirs" is what the voters decided they should have. You got a problem with that?
Basically, the Democrats blew it.
Elections have consequences. One of them is that, if you lose, you can't dictate what the Senate does any more.
Did Democrat Senators "deserve" a hearing on Merritt Garland?
I think the American people deserved a hearing on Garland. Who by all accounts is a well-respected jurist.
You mean like the hearing we did last week?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
