741–750 of 1001 posts
This won’t happen. I’m a reasonable person and happy to change my mind with evidence, and don’t say this lightly, but the republicans do not give a crud about any of this. They are the most conniving and soulless individuals that exist. This is coming from a recent former republican. I miss George Will’s Republican party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I wouldn't bet too long on that. McConnell knows how to twist arms, they will crack to pressure and get a solid conservative in there before the election. Of that I'm sure.
I’d say he could also wait until after. Last time, the vacancy motivated Republican more than Democratic turnout — and if Republicans don’t win the Senate again, there’s still time after the election to do the appointment.
Waiting until after the election does nothing to improve their electoral prospects, so for McConnell there's no point in waiting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That's on Obama (and Democrats more generally). Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed w…
Where does this end? What keeps this principle from extending to a President's entire term, as opposed to just the last year? If Democrats ever retake the Senate, why should they ever hold hearings for a single Republican judicial appointment, let alone confirm one? Should judicial appointments just sit vacant until president and Senate are from the same party? I think it's a perversion of the "advice and consent" la…
Why are there life-terms on the Supreme Court? Doesn't that incentivize the justices to hold on past their prime, dying waiting for a new president or resigning in a politically motivated fashion? And don't life terms create a race to the bottom where younger justices are favored for longer remaining life? Why not 20 year limits?
Given the appointment age of most justices, 20 years and life aren't much different. Furthermore, lots of justices resign a couple years before death. RBG was practically begged to resign, but alternately believed Hillary would win and/or thought she could outlast Trump. The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddli…
Both parties are a blight that should never have gotten enshrined the way they are.
Go back 10 years and as apathetic as voters were in much of the developed world, I had a hard time envisioning how these democracies/republics could fall. Boy was I naive. There was a time in the US that as bitter as partisan politics could be there seemed to be a level of decency on both sides and a higher loyalty to the institutions of our government. Nixon resigned in disgrace because it became clear even his own…
All the baggage you speak of was entirely unproven, and unprovable since they were 30 year old accusations. All this in an election year where there was hope that maybe Republicans wouldn't have the votes afterwards. That seems more towards corruption than legal proceedings to me. Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so it's not really a fair comparison (what McConnell did would…
The best any reasonable person can argue is that Kavanaugh was being less than forthright. His demeanour resonated for many with what a guilty man would do if caught. Worse, he seemed to think he was above these proceedings. Consider this exchange [1].
> Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so it's not really a fair comparison
Sure it is. If hearings were held and a vote held on the Senate floor where the nominee failed to secure nomination then that's that.
The problem was that McConnell wasn't sure he could defeat the nomination. Having a vote would put a number of GOP senators in a difficult position to vote down the nomination. So rather than risk a vote he might lose, which would have a political cost, he simply refused to hold hearings let alone a vote.
If you think that's the same thing because the Democrats didn't have a majority you're at best delusional and at worst intellectually dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top. Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for. ~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come…
This is a key aspect of the struggle of civilization and not utopian at all. If we hope to change anyone's mind and reach a level of social consensus on anything then it's imperative we make a safe space for everyone to think and have civil discourse. Knee jerk recriminations for essentially thinking is the recipe for entrenchment of positions and pushing people to the margins where they are more likely to mix with e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.
> with integrity. What exactly do you think politics is?
> According to her granddaughter Clara Spera, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...
Note that "until a new president is installed" means until 2024 if Trump is reelected.
Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?
One possible strategy for Trump (which would be very much out of character) would be to wait out of respect for RBG and/or the Garland precedent. Meanwhile, he uses the empty seat as a campaign issue to keep reluctant conservatives from jumping ship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
McConnell is pretty transparent about his hypocritical political bullshit: > "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi... edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said i…
People are probably reacting to some combination of unnecessary partisanship and the false equivalency. McConnell stated that appointments should not be made near the end of term while the White House and Senate are split between different parties. That is not the case now, so it's hard to see how you can call him hypocritical. You can disagree, but I think you could find a more constructive way to disagree than that…