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.
People are weird. Lets take the example of Garland. Yeah Democrats were pretty upset that Republicans shirked their duty to the constitution and just refused to give a judge a up or down vote. But you know what? It was for Scalias seat. The guy just like RBG was a legend for the GOP side. Smart as heck, and able to really argue a point well. So....having him replaced with another person from the right...just did not seem as bad.
Id argue however that it was how you break a democracy. By doing things like that. LITERALLY refusing to do your job. To gain power.
But again. People are weird. It was Scalias seat. Seemed...like the right thing to do. And lets be honest, Gorsuch does remind me of Scalia in his legal seasonings sometimes.
Then...Kavenaugh. He showed a serious lack of character. Those tears? Crying? Then the "I like beer" nonsense? Really? You made that guy a supreme court justice?
And RBG dies. She is the lefts version of Scalia. And now....your side is literally saying that "well yeah our excuse for not doing out job back then? And some of us saying to use their words against them if they did this? Yeah we're going to be 100% showing you that we are just people with no honor. None."
And you are going to do it....to the lefts version of Scalia.
Yeah they're going to be pretty upset. And they're going to vote like crazy. I'm hoping the Right has the good sense to nominate someone better then a guy who lied to congress in the most childish manner, engaged in childish debates like I like beer, and who has the fortitude to not cry. Someone with a better control of their emotions, and who can be truthful.
I can 100% respect the sentiment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to be replaced by a Conservative and this p-sses off everyone on the Left. It is as you've already pointed out: The Democrats tried to do exactly the same thing in 2016. The only reason they failed was because the Republicans controlled the Senate, which means that the Republicans had the power to stop them.
At present, the Republicans hold all the cards. They can replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with whatever well qualified justice they choose. They will need about the same number of days to do it that it took to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg. (She was confirmed in 42 days.)
This is nothing new. Obama replaced two Conservative leaning justices with two strongly Left justices. There is no sacred placeholder for maintaining half of each political viewpoint in the Supreme Court. The Republicans didn't throw a tantrum over it when Obama and the Democrats did it to them.
I can 100% respect the sentiment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to be replaced by a Conservative and this p-sses off everyone on the Left. It is as you've already pointed out: The Democrats tried to do exactly the same thing in 2016. The only reason they failed was because the Republicans controlled the Senate, which means that the Republicans had the power to stop them.
Think about what you are saying. In 2016 the Democrats put someone up for vote....and then unlike any time in the past for a supreme court justice.......The Senate refused to even have a up down vote. The Democrats weren't "trying" anything. The Republicans REFUSED to do their job. And made up a justification of it being too close to the election. Which was...just mind boggling nonsense. But they got it.
How do you get to blaming the Democrats for that? Thats just...nonsense.
Absolutely. A vote so close that the vice president has to settle it is actually more divisive then a margin of 1. That the Republicans are even willing to be this hypocritical sort of surprises even me. But im more of a my word is true sort of guy. But the Republicans cant even attempt to pretend this is anything but a clear power grab after saying in the past that their behavior is wrong.
For it to be sooo close...it will be worse I think. A bigger outrage that when it would have taken only 1 out of 50 to show some guts to pick keeping to what they said....just one...and out of 50 not a single one of them? Yeah.
But when its "well even if any one of them would have came out it wouldnt have mattered"....is less outrageous.
According to the Constitution of the United States, there are two entities that place a Judge as a Supreme Court Justice. And both entities need to agree on that pick. The President, and the Senate. This is the way it has been for the entirety of our Republic. In 2016, the President and the Senate did not agree on the pick. So, Merrick Garland was not seated. Period
We need a balanced court not a liberal or conservative one. The Supreme Court should represent our entire country not just one side.
Nope. There's no need for "balance" between quality judges and activist judges, the court is better off with only quality judges.
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.
