+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Total Members: 87
Latest: brewski
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 112813
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0


Who is your favorite SCOTUS Justice?

John Roberts
1 (100%)
Anthony Kennedy
0 (0%)
Clarence Thomas
0 (0%)
Ruth Baden Ginsburg
0 (0%)
Stephen Breyer
0 (0%)
Samuel Alito
0 (0%)
Sonia Sotomayor
0 (0%)
Elena Kagan
0 (0%)
Neil Gorsuch
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 1

Author Topic: The US Supreme Court Thread  (Read 408 times)

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: The US Supreme Court Thread
« Reply #20 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...


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 and not 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, The president told me several times hes going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I dont believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably wont do that because this appointment is about the election. So Im pretty sure hell name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants. 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List


+- Hot Threads

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Kale Pasta
December 14, 2018, 10:13:43 pm

Awards Season by Kale Pasta
December 14, 2018, 10:12:34 pm

The Video Games MegaThread by Charles Longboat Jr.
December 07, 2018, 01:06:29 am

The 2018 US Midterms and Goober-natorial Elections Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 04:19:15 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 03:59:28 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
November 26, 2018, 11:58:34 pm

November 26, 2018, 11:56:39 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm