Jump to content


Republican Party


zoogs

Recommended Posts

This Garland case is different because the death came late into the election year and then Obama didn't submit a nomination until signficantly later still. The Supreme Court term ended a couple months after and there were no cases to heard or argued before any such a late appointee, even if confirmed. As a result, there would be no rationale for any Obama Adminstration nominee being 'last minute' approved by an outgoing Senate. Republicans did the Dems a favor really because they kept the vacancy open so that Hillary (according to the Dems/Media/etal the "Next' President) and next Senate would select. It just so happens that the Republicans won the election and therefore get to make the selection of justice(s) in the next 3.5 or so years. Obviously, it depends on the time of the vacancy. Often they open up with some kind of advance notice as they retire. This gives time to find a pick, submit for 'vetting' and public discussion and in three or so months after, public hearings and so on.

Link to comment

Garland isn't a nominee they don't want. "Anybody nominated by President Obama to replace Scalia" is a nominee they didn't want.

 

There's not even implied responsibility to confirm anybody that a President might nominate. That's different from pre-emptively denying a President consideration, and you can bet the same tactic will be pulled with the shoe on the other foot in the future.

 

Bork's nomination is perhaps more comparable to that of Harriet Miers, in that political opposition over the choice led eventually to an alternative nomination that was confirmed.

 

Yet another thread fully of irony on here. The same people that chastised calling out liberals in another thread are on here bashing Republicans in this thread. As for Garland, both sides have argued the same position on opposing the other party's SC nomination in an election year. In fact Joe Biden is the one who originally pushed this idea.

 

Link to comment

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

 

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

 

There was no nominee to consider.

 

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

 

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

If you believe in the idea as Biden put it, then now would be the time for Congress to move forward on Garland. I'm glad we are in agreement there.

Link to comment

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

 

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

 

There was no nominee to consider.

 

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

 

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

If you believe in the idea as Biden put it, then now would be the time for Congress to move forward on Garland. I'm glad we are in agreement there.

 

 

Lol...when in doubt refer to liberal version of the truth via politifact which has been debunked many times across many different sites. Here is just one of them.

 

http://www.politifactbias.com/

 

And you have to remember than when Biden said this back in 1992, it was in a time when our politics was not as divided and blunt. He was pushing to punt the issue until after the election to see if a Democrat would have won. Believing anything else is just naive.

 

As for Garland, even if there would be hearings, the GOP still controls the Senate and he would never pass in the next 50 days until Trump takes over. Either way its silly to be whining about this now. The SC vacancy was a known issue in this campaign raised by both candidate, and Trump won the election. I'm hoping in addition to Scalia's replacement, he can get 2 more picks in his first term.

Link to comment

Some "Facts" are to politicians (and their supporters) what numbers are to accountants - they can tell whatever story the 'holder' of those facts/numbers want them to say.

We are told to 'check the facts' but what site is free of bias? What facts are left out in telling the story? Most of us don't have the time to do a college thesis to get down to the bottom of the story.

 

Of course their are obvious facts - up is up and down is down, gravity works, my hair is black with gray (too much). Kind of hard to manipulate those facts. But many other 'facts' are manipulated by what is 'left on the cutting room floor'. We have to be honest, each of our most cherished conservative/liberal sites have biases.

 

Sometimes I come wt 'my' facts. Knapp normally tells me I'm wrong :facepalm::P . So then I reconsider if he provided good info. So guys - don't shut each other out - learn. I'm trying to gain from your perspectives as well. Sometimes I'm hard headed and it takes a while and some times I have an 'ah ah' moment :o

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

 

Ideally, what a wonderful thought.

 

Democrats have blocked SC nominees before while in control, Bork comes to mind, this is no different

How can you possibly think Bork is in any way similar to what is happening now? Reagan nominated another person for the same seat. Heard of Anthony Kennedy?

 

 

People who argue this crap need to look inwardly and think how they'd feel if the other "side" did it. If the Democrats did it, you'd think it was wrong. Because it's wrong no matter who does it.

 

The dems strongly opposed Bork, used every avenue to do so, didn't have the numbers and lost. Now, while not even having a hearing on Garland, which is extreme imo, the repubs are using the same mechanisms to keep out a nominee they dont want.

 

 

You do realize that Bork got rejected in committee, the Republicans and Reagan didn't even want to support him post-committee, and that Bork lost by having both Democrats and Republicans vote against him, yes?

Link to comment

The full quote is the best.

 

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

Link to comment

 

Am I talking to a real person?

 

More context -- if you'll read it.

So you move from using a liberal fact checking site as a persuasion tool to a site that claims it offers reporting and analysis from a "progressive perspective"...classic.

The important context emphasized in the second link is *why* Biden was talking about the nominations process in the first place. It wasn't because there was an opening. It wasn't because he had a history of shutting down HW nominations.

 

We need to stop running with this Biden comparison, because it's utter bunk. Indeed, if you look at the full speech you'll find he states that if the President moderates his choices, he would be happy with it. In more ways than one he did not want another round of Clarence Thomas. His political designs were fairly clear, he did not propose an extraordinary blockade, and furthermore he did not execute it.

 

I didn't know these things, but fortunately Google is still a decent resource when confronted with little sound bytes I want to gain a better understanding about.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Ahh...yes....we are back to any site that checks facts is a liberal sink hole of propaganda that needs to be ignored.

 

Lol...coming from a guy that discounts anything reported on Fox, Breitbart, Drudge, or talk radio...

 

As for Biden's comments and intentions, he did set a precedent on now pursuing SC nominations in an election year, and if you believe he really wanted to squeeze in a pick in the few days after the election and before the next POTUS is sworn in, you are being extremely naive. He fully realized that Bush Sr was in jeopardy of winning in 1992, and had their been a SC vacancy, I will guarantee you that the Democratically controlled Senate would NOT have moved forward with Bush's pick post-election. Do you disagree?

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...