RIP RBG

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
16,829
10,331
1,743
40
Fairmont, MN
How are you that certain? Kavanaugh didn’t have any Dems vote for him. Gorsuch only got 54 total votes in the Republican controlled Senate.
How was he unqualified? In a normal selection process Gorsuch would have passed easily, but the senate knew he would go through so it was easy for democratic senators to protest vote. Kavanaugh was a victim of politics and with a more traditional president would have been someone who also would have passed easily.

Roberts had 77 votes. Ginsburg had over 90 (and was recommended by Orrin Hatch). I know many older Republicans are still salty about the Bork and Thomas hearings, although both had their merits, but until 4 years ago it was a pretty vanilla process for someone qualified. I fault the democrats as there are bigger battles to fight but that is something new that has been an issue with the Trump administration. Prior to him though, I'm guessing a Garland vote would have been a formally.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,267
945
743
Edmond
How was he unqualified? In a normal selection process Gorsuch would have passed easily, but the senate knew he would go through so it was easy for democratic senators to protest vote. Kavanaugh was a victim of politics and with a more traditional president would have been someone who also would have passed easily.

Roberts had 77 votes. Ginsburg had over 90 (and was recommended by Orrin Hatch). I know many older Republicans are still salty about the Bork and Thomas hearings, although both had their merits, but until 4 years ago it was a pretty vanilla process for someone qualified. I fault the democrats as there are bigger battles to fight but that is something new that has been an issue with the Trump administration. Prior to him though, I'm guessing a Garland vote would have been a formally.
I hear you, everything has changed though. The dynamic in general is just horrible. Everything is too the extreme.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,798
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
I say this with 100% certainty. If the roles were reversed, there is no way in hell that the Dems would wait.....and they all know it. So does every person commenting in this thread.
If you look historically, that simply is not true. Johnson did not get Warren replaces so the shift occurred to Burger. Black and Marshall, liberal justices, retired during a conservative administration. It hasn't always been this way.

But, who knows with the scumbags that run our congress now. What I said is if the roles were reversed I would not support it. I can only speak for myself and my principles.

But, if you feel that supporting or at least tacitly approving the lowest level of sleeze that either party can come up with is OK because you feel that you can say "But they would have done it too!" then we are getting the government that you select.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,066
1,937
1,743
We have a group of not only pundits, but actual congressmen saying that if Dems get control they should “pack the courts”. And somehow moving forward with nominating a new justice (as the procedure is described) is wrong?

Humorous that people want to shout “whataboutism”, but refuse to acknowledge they are playing the same game.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,798
31,782
1,743
oklahoma city
We have a group of not only pundits, but actual congressmen saying that if Dems get control they should “pack the courts”. And somehow moving forward with nominating a new justice (as the procedure is described) is wrong?

Humorous that people want to shout “whataboutism”, but refuse to acknowledge they are playing the same game.
See my post above about pointing to possible sleaze to justify the sleaze you areadvocating. It is the perfect way to get nothing but sleaze.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
23,649
9,973
1,743
Earth
Here is a great take on this issue.
https://youtu.be/9bZl_0XczWg
While I don't disagree with this video, and it has lots of merit...Abortion is a divide as was slavery...one cannot even watch this video if one doesn't have LIFE. One cannot have the liberty and pursuit of happiness unless one has LIFE. I don't think that is unclear to me or anyone else who puts this issue first with everything falling after it. Do they use us with our passion about it? I have little doubt...sadly.

Certainly we are polarized on the issue of life...we should not be, it should be easy and quite cut and dry that we need to protect it, but that is why we are so polarized, WE don't protect it. Also as a R I really don't want the Feds doing CRAP except protecting LIFE followed quite far behind by defending our Liberty and pursuit.

Protecting life means not only protecting the unborn but keeping us free and safe and VERY strong so we can be out of unnecessary wars and be in good relations with one another inside the country...I don't see the right as nearly as manipulated as I do the left in this country. IMHO the left leaning media is a non stop negative Nancy and Debbie downer but only when R's are in control and it results in what we have in our political discord...