Oh boy....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it was YOUR example. You said a
minimum of 50 days, when obama
used a lot less. how was that my example?

are you saying republicans need to spend 50 days, but democrats can spend less time? if so, just say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not talking about the act of naming a nominee .. but the process of vetting said nominee.. remind me did Garland even get a senate vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Not talking about the act of naming a nominee .. but the process of vetting said nominee.. remind me did Garland even get a senate vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ginsburgs entire process took 40-something days. you can’t win this one.

no he didn’t get a senate vote, because america freely chose to give senate control to republicans. and elections have consequences, at least that’s what we’re told when democrats win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

To cram through a Ginsburg replacement, GOP needs the vote before election. The lame duck project - a defeated Senate majority pushing through a nomination by a repudiated President - sounds ruthless now. It will look nakedly illegitimate after 11/3- and legitimacy matters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

In 2016 Merrick Garland fight, McConnell did not say, “I’ve got the votes, so No.” He felt the need to devise *justifications.* He cannot have cared himself, but he felt he needed them, to create at least a veneer of legitimacy. Post-election 2020, he won’t have that. So if McConnell cannot confirm immediately, he soon bumps into serious trouble. Not enough trouble maybe to deter him personally. But other senators could flinch- and so by the way could the nominee, who may not wish to enter judicial history in this disturbing mode.
Now my bet is that
My bet is that Moscow Mitch is gonna try to rush this process, & slam a new justice into SCOTUS before the election. So they can pull a Bush v. Gore, stop vote counts, and rat#^&#^&#^&#^& the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In 2016 Merrick Garland fight, McConnell did not say, “I’ve got the votes, so No.” He felt the need to devise *justifications.* He cannot have cared himself, but he felt he needed them, to create at least a veneer of legitimacy. Post-election 2020, he won’t have that. So if McConnell cannot confirm immediately, he soon bumps into serious trouble. Not enough trouble maybe to deter him personally. But other senators could flinch- and so by the way could the nominee, who may not wish to enter judicial history in this disturbing mode.
Now my bet is that
My bet is that Moscow Mitch is gonna try to rush this process, & slam a new justice into SCOTUS before the election. So they can pull a Bush v. Gore, stop vote counts, and rat#^&#^&#^&#^& the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are 100% correct. 100%. McConnell should have said "America put the GOP in charge, and we say no". That's all he had to say. Why he chose to say that 8 months from an election is too close, I don't know. And as I've said 100 times, I think he should have had a vote, which ended in a rejection.

THi sis different. Obama had no chance of re-election, and it was differing parties. It's not the same thing.

And Pete, When Bush 41 was president, Biden said (it became known as the Biden rule), that there should be no SCOTUS appointments in an election year, said it famously. Then in 2016, he changed his tune, and I'll bet you a shiny new nickel that you didn't call him out for hypocrisy.

Then the dems torpedoed Bork, the Reid changed the standard for filibuster and the nuclear option. The Dems did all that. And I haven't mentioned what they did to Kavanaugh.

If you want both sides to go back to playing fair with SCOTUS, I would vote for that. But if your side is going to fight dirty, don't ask the other side not to.

Ginsburg got 94 votes. 94. It used to be a civilized process. The democrats changed that for their short term gain. If you're unhappy that it now may come back to bite them in the azz in gargantuan fashion, cry to Joe Biden and Harry Reid. They changed the rules, they did this.

If he has the 50 votes (I don't think it's certain), he will tilt the court waaaay to the right. Shortly after, the people will voice their opinion on that.

You did a good job of highlighting the GOP flip flopping. Shockingly, you forgot to mention everything that preceded it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In My bet is that Moscow Mitch is gonna try to rush this process, & slam a new justice into SCOTUS before the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He'd be stupid not to. If he has the votes. Why in Gods name wouldn't he do it before the election, if he has the votes?

And even I would not support doing it after the election, if Trump loses or if the Democrats take the senate.

There's a great chance Trump loses and the dems take the senate, so why wouldn't Trump/McConnell do this before the election? From the political view, the chance to replace Ginsberg with Amr Barrett is a gift from God, it's literally having a winning powerball ticket. Why wouldn't he cash it in?

McConnell has said very clearly that he wants a vote before the election, so you're not really sticking you neck out with that prediction.

Has Romney said anything?

[Jim in CT]

And for the third time, why is it so horrifying to have a majority of SCOTUS justices who will be guided by what the constitution says, not by what they wish it said? WHat could be more scary than having someone with a lifetime appointment, who feels entitled to force their own personal moral compass on 320 million people? That's what's totalitarian. Always being guided by the constitution? Why is that so scary?

This isn't a power grab, it's the opposite of that. It's a desire for smaller federal government dominance, and more local authority. Again, I don't see why that's scary, unless you like the idea of legislating from the bench. Which is an idea that liberals like, since their agenda fails so often in the court of public opinion. Easier to ask 5 judges who aren't answerable to anybody, to ram your agenda through.

[Pete F.]

Not only does it show that the Turtle thinks they'll lose, but that conservatives have lost faith in their own ideas - which is why they're obsessed with the courts. They've given up on the power of ideas and will settle for the power of courts.
I’m old enough to remember when “legislating through the courts” was supposedly a liberal vice, and Bad. Now it’s a conservative virtue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not only does it show that the Turtle thinks they'll lose, but that conservatives have lost faith in their own ideas - which is why they're obsessed with the courts. They've given up on the power of ideas and will settle for the power of courts.
I’m old enough to remember when “legislating through the courts” was supposedly a liberal vice, and Bad. Now it’s a conservative virtue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Not only does it show that the Turtle thinks they'll lose"

Big whoop. Even if Trump was ahead in the polls, and even if the polls showed the GOP would keep the senate, you still don't pass up this chance. He has a chance to drastically re-shape (fix in my opinion) the court. You don't take chances with that. It would be insane to risk losing the opportunity.

"conservatives have lost faith in their own ideas - which is why they're obsessed with the courts"

That is idiotic. The democrats aren't obsessed with the court? You didn't see what they did to Clarence Thomas, Bork, or Kavanaugh?

Republicans have had a huge, huge majority in DC and across the states, since 2010. They've crushed democrats in the last decade, absolutely crushed them. But the pendulum swings both ways, that's the nature of things. It doesn't mean the end of the GOP, any more than 2016 marked the end of the Democrats. It's just pendulum swinging.

"I’m old enough to remember when “legislating through the courts” was supposedly a liberal vice, and Bad. Now it’s a conservative virtue.'

But the GOP won't legislate through a conservative court. Obviously you don't know what a conservative court means. By definition, we want judges who aren't activists. If Trump gets his nominee in, it won't be a switch from leftwing judicial activism to rightwing judicial activism. It will be a halt to judicial activism.

A conservative court won't make abortion illegal. It will (as the constitution clearly enumerates that it should) refer the question to the states. The states can do whatever they want.

Do you understand the difference? While I'm opposed to abortion, conservatives don't want a SCOTUS to outlaw abortion, that would be judicial overreach. We want a SCOTUS to say "this isn't a federal issue, it's a state issue". We do not want, nor will we ask for, right-wing activism from the bench. We want a neutral bench. We want to make decisions based on the constitution, regardless of party, regardless of who is asking for what.

You just don't get it. Or you get it, and you're lying.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ginsburgs entire process took 40-something days. you can’t win this one.

no he didn’t get a senate vote, because america freely chose to give senate control to republicans. and elections have consequences, at least that’s what we’re told when democrats win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you keep saying this bs Americans didnt vote to give Republicans the senate to block one presidential nominee and fast track another's nominee .. or are you again suggesting like Trump we have 2 Americas 1 blue and 1 red.. so the reason the held of garlad was a manufactured lie.. from turtle boy..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Use My Words Against Me': Lindsey Graham's Shifting Position On Court Vacancies

Jim maybe you should go review some Tapes of Cruz Rubio and other republicans on filling a seat during an election year. But your historical blindness won't allow you to see the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Are they liars? We will soon see

This is the list of Republican Senators who promised the American people they wouldn't confirm a SCOTUS Justice in an election year:

Blunt, Burr, Cornyn, Cruz, Ernst, Gardner, Graham, Grassley, Hoeven, Inhofe, Johnson, Perdue, Portman, Rubio, Scott, Tillis, and Toomey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

so the reason the held of garlad was a manufactured lie.. from turtle boy..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"so the reason the held of garlad was a manufactured lie"

Sort of. I can't explain why McConnell didn't just say "Obama can nominate who he wants, and the senate can do what we want with that nomination". It was idiotic to say that the proximity to the election had anything to do with it.

I'll ask you what I keep asking Pete, which he keeps dodging. Are democrats not guilty of the same exact hypocrisy? Biden said when Bush 41 was POTUS, that no nominations should be made in an election year, they even called that the Biden rule. Then Biden obviously flip flopped in 2016.

So if McConnell lied, Biden told the same exact lie, and for the same exact reason. And you're voting for Biden. So if you're OK with democrats flip-flopping to get what they want on any given day, how can you complain when republicans do the same thing?

Have fun with that...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are they liars? We will soon see

This is the list of Republican Senators who promised the American people they wouldn't confirm a SCOTUS Justice in an election year:

Blunt, Burr, Cornyn, Cruz, Ernst, Gardner, Graham, Grassley, Hoeven, Inhofe, Johnson, Perdue, Portman, Rubio, Scott, Tillis, and Toomey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Joe Biden said very famously when George HW Bush was POTUS, that supreme court nominations shouldn't be made in an election year. Then in 2016, he violated the rule named after him.

Pete, why is it only worrisome to you, when Republicans do it?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Use My Words Against Me': Lindsey Graham's Shifting Position On Court Vacancies

Jim maybe you should go review some Tapes of Cruz Rubio and other republicans on filling a seat during an election year. But your historical blindness won't allow you to see the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Graham addressed that. Graham voted for both of Obama's nominees, he voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. How did the democrats thank him? By trying to destroy Kavanaugh's life. Graham was the best friend the democrats had in the GOP, but they turned on him as soon as it suited them. So he is now their political enemy.

Pete, you can't fight with brass knuckles and ask your opponent to wear velvet gloves. It doesn't work that way.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim maybe you should go review some Tapes of Cruz Rubio and other republicans on filling a seat during an election year. But your historical blindness won't allow you to see the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I freely concede the republican flip-flopping. I'd be a lunatic to deny it.

Can you concede that "the Biden Rule", named after Joe Biden, was the rule that no nominations would be made in an election year? And that Biden gleefully violated his own rule in 2016 when it benefitted his side?

WDMSO, I can admit the sleaziness on my side. Can you do the same? Nope.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Graham was the best friend the democrats had in the GOP, but they turned on him as soon as it suited them. So he is now their political enemy.

Because he was an institutionalist before he sold his soul to Trump. Looks like he might even get beat in November.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Because he was an institutionalist before he sold his soul to Trump. Looks like he might even get beat in November.

trump had nothing to do with it. graham realized, 20
years too late, that the democrats have no principles except winning.

ginsburg got 94 votes. those days are gone thanks to the democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Joe Biden can present himself as the pro-RBG, pro-Supreme Court, and pro-Roe v. Wade candidate. And in each of those cases, he will be sitting smack-dab in the center of the majority opinion. Which is most likely a winning place to be.
Because after paying tribute to RBG, presenting himself as someone who respects the Court, and pledging to defend Roe, Biden will be able to pivot to the issues that have put Tweety behind in the race: his mismanagement of the coronavirus, his divisiveness, his failure to rise to the demands of the office, and on and on.
The President called RBG's grandaughter a liar on national television. Does anyone really want four more years of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Joe Biden can present himself as the pro-RBG, pro-Supreme Court, and pro-Roe v. Wade candidate. And in each of those cases, he will be sitting smack-dab in the center of the majority opinion. Which is most likely a winning place to be.
Because after paying tribute to RBG, presenting himself as someone who respects the Court, and pledging to defend Roe, Biden will be able to pivot to the issues that have put Tweety behind in the race: his mismanagement of the coronavirus, his divisiveness, his failure to rise to the demands of the office, and on and on.
The President called RBG's grandaughter a liar on national television. Does anyone really want four more years of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What will it take, for you to respond to the fact that Biden also keeps flip-flopping on SCOTUS appointments?

How is Biden more "pro Supreme court" than Trump, exactly?

"his mismanagement of the coronavirus"

Biden said the virus wasn't serious enough to limit travel from China.

You're getting very, very desperate.

Trump can say he's better on the economy, better on immigration, better on national defense, way less likely to encourage riots and arson, pro law and order, did more to promote peace in the middle east, and pro life. He's the only candidate in the race who hasn't been called a racist and a rapist by his vice presidential candidate. And also the candidate not suffering from dementia.

[Pete F.]

You claim “they” all do it and therefore it’s acceptable when Tweety does it.
Frequency counts, besides Tweety was a dem for years
Most Americans respect the SC.
You are lying about what Biden said about China, I’ve posted the transcript of that speech before.
Biden was correct a lot more was needed than a travel ban, that’s why we have 200K dead .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You claim “they” all do it and therefore it’s acceptable when Tweety does it.
Frequency counts, besides Tweety was a dem for years
Most Americans respect the SC.
You are lying about what Biden said about China, I’ve posted the transcript of that speech before.
Biden was correct a lot more was needed than a travel ban, that’s why we have 200K dead .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you get one right even by accident? I claim they're all wrong when they do it, and I'd like to see everyone stop doing it.

You claim only republicans do it. At least you refuse to comment on anything related to proof that democrats do it.

"Frequency counts"

I agree! Biden said no appointments in election years, then flip-flopped in 2016, then flip-flopped again in 2020.

The GOP confirmed Ginsburg almost unanimously.

The democrats torpedoed Bork, tried to lynch Clarence Thomas, tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh.

The GOP denied Garland, and is doing a 180 today.

Hows that for frequency, Pete?

"Biden was correct a lot more was needed than a travel ban"

Except back in January, Biden didn't say "the travel ban isn't enough". He said the travel ban was hysterical and xenophobic. The word ":hysterical" makes it pretty clear that Biden thought it was an over-reaction, not an under-reaction.

Nice try, Pete my boy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Most Americans respect the SC.
.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not what I asked. I asked on what basis Biden is more pro-SC than Trump is.

Pete: Biden is more pro-SC than trump.

Jim: how so?

Pete: most Americans support the SC.

I see why you like Biden, you seem to share a similar dementia.

[Pete F.]

Biden is a far more capable politician, that’s why RBG got 94 votes.
People forget that Bork had an activist agenda on social policy and said as much in his hearing, which is why the Dems really did a number of him, though maybe his role in Watergate had a bit to do with it too.

The GOP replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas was a deep insult.

Regardless of who he selects, the mere fact that Trump is the one selecting RBG's replacement is more offensive than Thomas replacing Marshall.

I'm still wondering: 1) Who paid off Kavanaugh's debts? 2) What prompted Kennedy's sudden retirement when he already had clerks lined up for fall? 3) What did 45 say to him that prompted this reaction?
https://twitter.com/eleven_films/sta...790322688?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Biden is a far more capable politician, that’s why RBG got 94 votes.
People forget that Bork had an activist agenda on social policy and said as much in his hearing, which is why the Dems really did a number of him, though maybe his role in Watergate had a bit to do with it too.

The GOP replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas was a deep insult.

Regardless of who he selects, the mere fact that Trump is the one selecting RBG's replacement is more offensive than Thomas replacing Marshall.

I'm still wondering: 1) Who paid off Kavanaugh's debts? 2) What prompted Kennedy's sudden retirement when he already had clerks lined up for fall? 3) What did 45 say to him that prompted this reaction?
https://twitter.com/eleven_films/sta...790322688?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Biden is a far more capable politician, that’s why RBG got 94 votes"

I see!! Biden was so skilled, that's why Ginsburg got 94 votes. Not because both sides were more civilized, it was because Biden was so skilled!

Using your logic then, can we assume Biden lost a few mph off his fastball by 2016, is that why Garland didn't get a vote?

You are hysterical. And very, very, very desperate.

"Regardless of who he selects, the mere fact that Trump is the one selecting RBG's replacement is more offensive "

I felt exactly the same way at the thought of Obama replacing Scalia. Exactly the same way. I was saved by the senate. Perhaps you will have the same fortune. We will soon see.

Unfortunately for you, there's nothing in the constitution which says you have the right to never be deeply offended.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'm still wondering: 1) Who paid off Kavanaugh's debts? 2) What prompted Kennedy's sudden retirement when he already had clerks lined up for fall? 3) What did 45 say to him that prompted this reaction?
https://twitter.com/eleven_films/sta...790322688?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one else is wondering. Take off the tin foil hat, get a dog, take it for a walk.

[Pete F.]

Kudlow is lying in regards to recovery with 30M unemployed without benefits, Barr is declaring cities ‘Anarchist jurisdictions’, Azar is taking control of CDC and stripping data from covid guidelines while we have 200k dead and GOP is planning to install a SCOTUS pick 40 days from election.
You’re claiming the Dems made them do it, some pretty pathetic heroes you have.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Kudlow is lying in regards to recovery with 30M unemployed without benefits, Barr is declaring cities ‘Anarchist jurisdictions’, Azar is taking control of CDC and stripping data from covid guidelines while we have 200k dead and GOP is planning to install a SCOTUS pick 40 days from election.
You’re claiming the Dems made them do it, some pretty pathetic heroes you have.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Barr is declaring cities ‘Anarchist jurisdictions’"

What would you call cities that allow anarchists to set up autonomous zones?

"GOP is planning to install a SCOTUS pick 40 days from election. "

Because a SCOTUS judge died 40 days before the election. Read the constitution. It allows for this. Calm down.

"You’re claiming the Dems made them do it, some pretty pathetic heroes you have."

Damn right the dems made them do it. George W Bush chose to play nice while he was attacked. It didn't work. SO there's no value in fighting with one hand tied behind your back while your opponent uses two hands with brass knuckles. I don't expect them nor do I want them, to hand the keys to a bunch of baby killing, racist, Godless, Marxist freaks who are so screwed up, that they no longer concede genders.

The last places on Earth I look for heroes, are sports, Hollywood, and politics. So I cannot imagine what I ever said, that would lead you to believe I'd call them heroic. But my side does have Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw, Tim Scott, the terrific young AG from KY (watch that kid's star rise). I'll put them up against anyone on the other side, anyone. How do Talib and AOC compare?

[Pete F.]

You’ve already shown who you are.
When a politician praises an all-white audience in a predominantly-white state for their "good genes," you don't get to act like his campaign isn't entirely based around white supremacy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

If the senate flips this move by Mitch will cost the GOP, but I do understand his urgency and the parties hypocrisy is to be expected.