Movie Watcher's Oasis Discussion Message Board Forum

Miscellaneous Discussion Boards => Political Discussion Board => Topic started by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 11, 2018, 01:26:46 pm

Title: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 11, 2018, 01:26:46 pm
Since the Court is unveiling a lot of their termís decisions now, I thought itíd be an opportune time to discuss their implications (and whether weíll be happy if certain justices die or retire).

The Colorado baker case is currently the talk of the nation, having resulted in a 7-2 majority in favor of the baker (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html). I personally think this was a reasonable decision. I understand that it skirts a very fine line between free expression and condoning discrimination (hence why I think there should be no law either way on the issue) the notion that one can be coerced into serving someone doesnít sit well with me at all.

Thereís also todayís 5-4 ruling that Ohioís voter purging policies donít violate federal voter laws (http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-justices-rule-for-ohio-in-voter-registration-dispute/). I still need to do some research there.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 11, 2018, 07:55:45 pm
Since the Court is unveiling a lot of their termís decisions now, I thought itíd be an opportune time to discuss their implications (and whether weíll be happy if certain justices die or retire).

The Colorado baker case is currently the talk of the nation, having resulted in a 7-2 majority in favor of the baker (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html). I personally think this was a reasonable decision. I understand that it skirts a very fine line between free expression and condoning discrimination (hence why I think there should be no law either way on the issue) the notion that one can be coerced into serving someone doesnít sit well with me at all.

Thereís also todayís 5-4 ruling that Ohioís voter purging policies donít violate federal voter laws (http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-justices-rule-for-ohio-in-voter-registration-dispute/). I still need to do some research there.

And the Colorado baker decision was a very limited decision that doesn't really open the floodgates as some people seem to think.  It was really more of a referendum on the CCRC and their inability to stay neutral with respect to religion than a landmark decision against LGBTQ.

I haven't done research on the Ohio ruling either - largely because I vote every election so it's not going to really affect me much.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 11, 2018, 08:40:57 pm
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 12, 2018, 12:36:34 am
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
The important distinction is that the baker was willing to sell the couple any other pastry with the exception of the wedding cake on account of his religious values. The refusal of service in this case was not from a deliberately malicious context but rather personal value, and therefore isnít the type of discrimination seen in, say, the Jim Crow era.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 12, 2018, 05:24:03 pm
Forcing bigots to serve gays effectively forces them to earn money. I'd rather let them be discriminatory, and then allow them to self-destruct through their unsustainable business practices.

Also, aren't like 80% of bakers fags anyway?
The important distinction is that the baker was willing to sell the couple any other pastry with the exception of the wedding cake on account of his religious values. The refusal of service in this case was not from a deliberately malicious context but rather personal value, and therefore isnít the type of discrimination seen in, say, the Jim Crow era.

More than that - it was refusal to make a specific cake for the couple - and SCOUTS acknowledged cake-making as a form of art.  That acknowledgment was a big part of the ruling.  If they had refused to sell the couple an already made cake, that absolutely would have been discriminatory.  But making a brand new cake for an event that goes against his religious beliefs is what was the crux of the decision.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 22, 2018, 07:49:57 pm
In a 5-4 decision, the Court rules that "law enforcement in most cases has to obtain a warrant in order to search and seize long-term cell phone records that would show a person's location." (http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393629-supreme-court-rules-law-enforcement-needs-warrant-to-search?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral) Chief Justice Roberts and the Democrats made up the majority.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 26, 2018, 11:24:17 am
So the Court has more or less upheld the Trump Travel Ban (presumably the one from September)
in a 5-4 decision (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban-n873441). Chief Justice Robertís states that immigration regulation is within executive jurisdiction.

Also, they struck down part of the California Reproductivd FACT Act requiring non-licensed providers to post notices about their being unlicensed with regards to state funded family planning and abortion services (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-california-abortion-notice-law-likely-unconstitutional-n873436). The First Amendment is invoked for this case in a 5-4 majority.

Too bad they keep kicking gerrymandering cases down the road.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 27, 2018, 02:39:27 pm
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Robert Neville on June 27, 2018, 03:39:23 pm
I guess we'll finally see how well Dylan's claim that Trump wouldn't appoint justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade holds up in practice.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on June 27, 2018, 04:09:31 pm
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 27, 2018, 05:21:30 pm
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?

Maybe Paasche will be happy. But all three of those were fine decisions.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 27, 2018, 09:16:35 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 27, 2018, 09:21:33 pm
I guess we'll finally see how well Dylan's claim that Trump wouldn't appoint justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade holds up in practice.

I never said that - don't misrepresent my point.  I never mentioned anything about WHO he would appoint to the Court.  I said (and maintain) that he wouldn't push the Court hard for Roe v Wade to be overturned.  A president can absolutely have influence on what gets heard at the SCOTUS level if he is aligned with the Court "in power" (meaning a Republican President with more conservatives on the bench or a Democratic President with more liberals on the bench).  If Ted Cruz was President and all the same justices were on the bench, he would push hard for the overturning of Roe v Wade every single day.  See, the SCOTUS has absolute discretion on which cases they hear - and a strong push from a similarly aligned president can (not always WILL mind you, but CAN) put cases to the top or bottom of the list. 

So, again, my point is that Trump would not push hard for the Court to overturn Roe v Wade.  If he does (and I don't mean mentioning it once in some road speech, I mean hammering it over and over), then I will stand completely corrected on the issue.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 27, 2018, 10:05:32 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.

This is all based on a new "norm" that Mitch McConnell made up when it benefited him politically. Both parties rammed through their appointments all the time prior to 2016. There was nothing inherently wrong with that. But McConnell participated in some very low political trickery that exploited already-existing loopholes in an unprecedented way. It was not illegal, but it was some of the most dishonest conduct I've ever seen from a politician, and it's made all the more hypocritical by the current situation.

Thus, I don't think it's fair to pretend that the Dems are just as bad, or are "equally partisan hypocrites," because there's no evidence to support that claim. McConnell started this; they're simply responding.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Kale Pasta on June 27, 2018, 10:34:38 pm
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?

Maybe Paasche will be happy. But all three of those were fine decisions.
Citizens United is inexcusable but, for the record, I was not happy when Kennedy died. That was unique to Scalia, as I really felt (and continue to feel) that he was an evil man. I may have disagreed with Kennedy on many rulings, but I never hated him.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Kale Pasta on June 27, 2018, 10:35:50 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 27, 2018, 10:59:59 pm
Prepare for the greatest hissyfit the world has ever seen. You know what I'm talking about.
Are we also going to see people mildly overjoyed at the news as a result of Citizens United, Heller v DC, and the Travel Ban?

Maybe Paasche will be happy. But all three of those were fine decisions.
Citizens United is inexcusable but, for the record, I was not happy when Kennedy died. That was unique to Scalia, as I really felt (and continue to feel) that he was an evil man. I may have disagreed with Kennedy on many rulings, but I never hated him.

Well, Citizens United basically just affirmed the right of private institutions to support candidates. Also, this comment is arguably more embarrassing than the Scalia incident.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 27, 2018, 11:08:16 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 27, 2018, 11:09:16 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 27, 2018, 11:16:26 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.

This is all based on a new "norm" that Mitch McConnell made up when it benefited him politically. Both parties rammed through their appointments all the time prior to 2016. There was nothing inherently wrong with that. But McConnell participated in some very low political trickery that exploited already-existing loopholes in an unprecedented way. It was not illegal, but it was some of the most dishonest conduct I've ever seen from a politician, and it's made all the more hypocritical by the current situation.

Thus, I don't think it's fair to pretend that the Dems are just as bad, or are "equally partisan hypocrites," because there's no evidence to support that claim. McConnell started this; they're simply responding.

Not true.  There is PLENTY of evidence to support my claim.

Joe Biden called for NO SCOTUS appointment in an election year in 1992. 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

And Harry Reid was the one to end the filibuster for most of Obama's nominees.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-nominees-idUSBRE9AK0V920131122


Both of these guys are Democrats obviously.  These are the two precedents that McConnell will use to ram through Trump's SCOTUS nomination. So for you to think that McConnell (a turd) is any worse than Reid (a turd) or Biden (a turd) in this aspect of politics is laughable.  I have provided EXACT proof of this with these 2 instances of the Democrats trumpeting the exact things the Republicans will now use against them.  There is no difference between what was contained in these two instances and what the Senate Republicans will do now.

To recap:  Biden called for no SCOTUS appointment in an election year when it benefited him, but then was all upset when the Senate wouldn't confirm Garland.  Reid eliminated the filibuster to appointees, but now Democrats are upset that the filibuster has been eliminated.  And you want to tell me that the Dems aren't just as bad?  GTFOH.  You're smarter than that.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 27, 2018, 11:18:29 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.

LOL - wrong.  So Dems said "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" in 1992 when a Republican was in office.  But in 2015 Dems said "we must appoint SCOTUS in an election year" when a Democrat was in office.  Now, in 2018 it's back to "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" when a Republican is in office.

This isn't false equivalency.  This is absolutely comparing apples to apples.  It doesn't get more equivalent than that.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Kale Pasta on June 27, 2018, 11:49:30 pm
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.

LOL - wrong.  So Dems said "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" in 1992 when a Republican was in office.  But in 2015 Dems said "we must appoint SCOTUS in an election year" when a Democrat was in office.  Now, in 2018 it's back to "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" when a Republican is in office.

This isn't false equivalency.  This is absolutely comparing apples to apples.  It doesn't get more equivalent than that.
Nah, it's a pretty damn strong example of false equivalency. I'll list off the differences and tell me if you can really claim these are the same:

In 1992, there is no Supreme Cout seat open. Biden said that, should one happen to open up, that Bush should consider delaying his nominee until after the November election to avoid further politicization of the process. Remember, this speech is given on June 25th, just over four months from the election. Here's the piece of Biden's speech I alluded to, "it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not ó and not ó name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Now, in February 2016 (I remembered it being in June, that's my bad on the year-long comment before), Justice Scalia dies. About a month later, Obama nominates Garland and McConnell flatly refuses to even discuss the nominee, invoking what he calls "The Biden Rule". However, this ignores a few key points of context: 1. When Biden made that speech in late June, there was no open seat, so he was speaking hypothetically. In 2016, there had already been an open seat on the court for a month, plus McConnell's speech occurred in March. 2. Biden recommends that Bush not name a nominee until after the election to avoid further politicization of the Court. This is extremely different from the 2016 Senate Republicans refusing to give Garland a hearing. 3. Garland was a moderate. This is a crucial point when considering the original purpose of Biden's speech was to avoid politicizing the Court. In fact, the (deeply conservative) Republican senator Orrin Hatch said at the time that, ďThe president told me several times heís going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I donít believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably wonít do that because this appointment is about the election. So Iím pretty sure heíll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.Ē This quote admits that Hatch wants Obama to nominate a moderate justice, and yet when Obama actually did so, Hatch and his party refused to consider that nominee.

These situations were blatantly not the same and the idea that they were is a ridiculous view espoused by McConnell and other senate Republicans to avoid admitting that they had blatantly and willfully misinterpreted Biden's comments in an effort to sell their ridiculous nominee blocking strategy to the American people.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on June 28, 2018, 08:52:16 am
Figured there would be a thread here.  I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in while I have the chance.

I believe that SCOTUS appointments should be delayed until after the midterms.  I believe this should be a rule - that within the final 6 months of a presidential or midterm election season, that no SCOTUS appointments be made.  Furthermore, outside of that 6 month window, there will be no delaying SCOTUS appointments by the "other side" whoever that may be.

Now, that being said, I am under no delusions that if the roles were reversed and the Dems had full control and the Reps were the minority party at all levels, the Dems would surely ram through "their guy" (much like the Reps will do now), and the Reps would whine and complain about how unfair it is (much like the Dems are already doing now).  Both sides are equally partisan hypocrites when it comes to this type of shit.

So, while I would certainly prefer a delay until after the midterms, I understand that the Reps will not delay just as the Dems would not delay if they had the ball.  We need a rule that fixes this ambiguous talking point, because I believe the newly elected officials should have a voice in this matter.
I mean, this horseshit only started because the Republicans blocked the Garland nomination for over a year...

Of course you would think that...


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/22/biden_in_1992_bush_should_not_name_a_nominee_until_after_the_november_election.html

False. Equivalency.

LOL - wrong.  So Dems said "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" in 1992 when a Republican was in office.  But in 2015 Dems said "we must appoint SCOTUS in an election year" when a Democrat was in office.  Now, in 2018 it's back to "no SCOTUS appointment in an election year" when a Republican is in office.

This isn't false equivalency.  This is absolutely comparing apples to apples.  It doesn't get more equivalent than that.
Nah, it's a pretty damn strong example of false equivalency. I'll list off the differences and tell me if you can really claim these are the same:

In 1992, there is no Supreme Cout seat open. Biden said that, should one happen to open up, that Bush should consider delaying his nominee until after the November election to avoid further politicization of the process. Remember, this speech is given on June 25th, just over four months from the election. Here's the piece of Biden's speech I alluded to, "it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not ó and not ó name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Now, in February 2016 (I remembered it being in June, that's my bad on the year-long comment before), Justice Scalia dies. About a month later, Obama nominates Garland and McConnell flatly refuses to even discuss the nominee, invoking what he calls "The Biden Rule". However, this ignores a few key points of context: 1. When Biden made that speech in late June, there was no open seat, so he was speaking hypothetically. In 2016, there had already been an open seat on the court for a month, plus McConnell's speech occurred in March. 2. Biden recommends that Bush not name a nominee until after the election to avoid further politicization of the Court. This is extremely different from the 2016 Senate Republicans refusing to give Garland a hearing. 3. Garland was a moderate. This is a crucial point when considering the original purpose of Biden's speech was to avoid politicizing the Court. In fact, the (deeply conservative) Republican senator Orrin Hatch said at the time that, ďThe president told me several times heís going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I donít believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably wonít do that because this appointment is about the election. So Iím pretty sure heíll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.Ē This quote admits that Hatch wants Obama to nominate a moderate justice, and yet when Obama actually did so, Hatch and his party refused to consider that nominee.

These situations were blatantly not the same and the idea that they were is a ridiculous view espoused by McConnell and other senate Republicans to avoid admitting that they had blatantly and willfully misinterpreted Biden's comments in an effort to sell their ridiculous nominee blocking strategy to the American people.

No, it's not at all false equivalency.

1 - So what?  The thought process is EXACTLY the same.  It is complete partisan hypocrisy at the highest level.  1992-Can't do it, 2010-Can do it, 2015-Must do it, 2018-Can't do it. 

2 - 2016.  An election year.  The exact thing he said we SHOULDN'T do.  But now it's okay to do it?  Hmmmmmm - wonder why?  It's not that it's a matter of a few months, it's that the roles were reversed.  You can't possibly be arguing that, because it's February instead of June of an election year that changes WHAT HE SAID.  He made no such qualifiers during that speech.  It's hypocrisy plain and simple.  Furthermore, Obama nominated Kagan in MAY of 2010 and she was confirmed in AUGUST of 2010 - and Biden didn't speak out against it then.  So the February to June comparison is moot anyway.

3 - Yes they are the same.  Again, Biden said NOT IN AN ELECTION YEAR.  These are HIS WORDS: 

"It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

I did NOT make up these words.  These are straight from Biden's mouth.  So this notion that McConnell came up with this idea out of nowhere is an erroneous talking point of the far-left who have their panties in a wad because the shoe is on the other foot.  If he had continued with this thought process with regard to Garland, then I wouldn't have a problem with Biden's statements.  But, predictably, he didn't.  Because he's a partisan sheep.  Like ALL of these guys are.


And, again, I think ALL of these guys are equally two-faced.  And, again, I think there should be a RULE that establishes when you can and cannot nominate SC judges in an election year - I floated 6 months, but it could be 3 months or 9 months or whatever.  Just something that is a rule that we all know.  That would stop all this bullshit, and everyone would know the rules and we could stop the hypocrisy on this political point.  But to hang your argument on "well it was a couple of months different", is insanely stupid and extremely partisan as I can guarantee you wouldn't be making this argument if the roles were reversed, especially seeing that May of 2010 (election year) Obama nominated Kagan who was confirmed in August of 2010.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Frankie on June 28, 2018, 09:59:05 am
These elections are always going to be politicized whether we like it or not. Thatís the way the process works and always worked. Every time that a President in question thatís made an appellate nomination during their last year of their Presidency they did, itís an extremely rare occurance but it happens from time to time and every time it has theyíve done it. I donít expect it to change. The same goes for the re-election process.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: cupcake on June 28, 2018, 12:45:59 pm
Reading Dylan's mental gymnastics is really entertaining.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Tut on June 28, 2018, 01:28:14 pm
Reading Dylan's mental gymnastics is really entertaining.

It takes some serious dementia to think that what Biden said and what McConnell did are in any way equivalent.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on July 09, 2018, 12:40:52 pm
Anyone up for predicting who Trumpís SCOTUS pick is? Iím leaning towards Kethledge at the present.
Title: Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on July 09, 2018, 09:26:07 pm
Anyone up for predicting who Trumpís SCOTUS pick is? Iím leaning towards Kethledge at the present.
Whoops. Instead weíre getting Tucker Carlson as our potential next SCOTUS Justice.

I canít be the only one who sees this vague resemblance...

(https://suntimesmedia-files-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/suntimesmedia.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/ap18178797545781-e1531087842833.jpg?w=768&h=575&crop=1)

(http://insider.foxnews.com/sites/insider.foxnews.com/files/styles/1280/public/tucker-carlson.png?itok=ANp33vi0)