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.
Nov 18, 2011
1,733
1,411
743
55
Just my 2 cents, Trump absolutely should fill the seat, but if you are breaking out the apologetics as to why blocking merik garland was right and confirming whoever the nominee is this time is also right then you are a hypocrite, a partisan malefactor and if you don't feel unscrupulous with this juxtaposition then you have lost all principles
You could say the same for those that advocated for seating Garland 4 years ago but are now opposed. That includes Obama, Biden, Hilary, Schumer and even Ginsburg herself based on her reported last wishes. For some reason though people only highlight one side. Hmmmm...
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,872
2,833
743
33
You could say the same for those that advocated for seating Garland 4 years ago but are now opposed. That includes Obama, Biden, Hilary, Schumer and even Ginsburg herself based on her reported last wishes. For some reason though people only highlight one side. Hmmmm...
Yes you are correct, all of those people are guilty the exact same way, there is more on one side on this board though so it gets more of my eye rolling and laughter.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,786
31,781
1,743
oklahoma city
You could say the same for those that advocated for seating Garland 4 years ago but are now opposed. That includes Obama, Biden, Hilary, Schumer and even Ginsburg herself based on her reported last wishes. For some reason though people only highlight one side. Hmmmm...
LOL.

Let's say you start work in January, and your manager says that on odd-numbered months you have to buy his lunch. But, not to worry, because on even-numbered months he is going to buy yours. You tell him this doesn't make any sense and that you think it is a very bad idea. He tells you it is great as you only need to remember money for some months and it is the best way. you hate it, but it is a job and he is your boss so you finally just do it.

So, you buy his lunch every day through January.
February rolls around and he says, "Well, turns out that February is a shorter month and this isn't really similar at all so we aren't doing that plan anymore." You start arguing with him as that isn't fair or reasonable. He then tells you that you are being a hypocrite since you are now arguing for the lunch program that a month ago you argued against.

THAT is the level of stupid logic that you just tried to pull.

@Cody51 won this thread with the post about being a person of principles or a partisan hack. You have clearly chosen your side. The intense rationalization the hacks are trying is good humor. See, I would be saying the EXACT same thing if the roles were reversed here. Those of you arguing for this would not. You have chosen what you are with your words.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
10,072
7,688
1,743
Spring, TX
Sucky situation. Given the possibility of litigation over upcoming election, we need a 9 justice panel. But Dems WILL pack it despite the courts size being 9 since the 1800s. This is far more dangerous than trump, harris, and biden combined.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,872
2,833
743
33
Then tell me the last time an opposite party Justice was confirmed in this situation.
Who cares what is right? We did it this way in the past! Rofl, honestly guys please keep it up, i havent had this much fun on the politics board in a long time
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
8,118
4,834
1,743
Somewhere
Who needs principles when you have “the ends justify the means”
There are very few principled people these days.

All they care about is "owning" the other side. Not how it happens, or more importantly the what the long term consequences of those actions are. Its incredibly juvenile and short sighted.
 

snuffy

Calf fries are the original sack lunch.
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 28, 2007
35,239
30,208
1,743
Oklahoma
Maybe the best (and easiest) solution is to nominate someone that both parties agree on. I would think out of 328 million people there is one the senate could agree on.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,057
1,935
1,743
The partisan argument holds no water. There are zero crocodile tears when the Dems did a major filibuster change to advance liberal judges on federal courts. It just shows that who has political power is VERY important. Dems only had 1/2 the power in 2016, Repubs have all the power now.

But this does show the need, IMO, to require 60 votes for judges. Our country needs and deserves balanced jurists. The Supreme Court is way too important of a position and requiring 60 votes would force a President to select a balanced jurist.
I want a constitutionalist, and I would hope everyone should want that for a SC justice, but surely we can find a candidate that is a constitutionalist and works for all.
 
Nov 18, 2011
1,733
1,411
743
55
LOL.

Let's say you start work in January, and your manager says that on odd-numbered months you have to buy his lunch. But, not to worry, because on even-numbered months he is going to buy yours. You tell him this doesn't make any sense and that you think it is a very bad idea. He tells you it is great as you only need to remember money for some months and it is the best way. you hate it, but it is a job and he is your boss so you finally just do it.

So, you buy his lunch every day through January.
February rolls around and he says, "Well, turns out that February is a shorter month and this isn't really similar at all so we aren't doing that plan anymore." You start arguing with him as that isn't fair or reasonable. He then tells you that you are being a hypocrite since you are now arguing for the lunch program that a month ago you argued against.

THAT is the level of stupid logic that you just tried to pull.

@Cody51 won this thread with the post about being a person of principles or a partisan hack. You have clearly chosen your side. The intense rationalization the hacks are trying is good humor. See, I would be saying the EXACT same thing if the roles were reversed here. Those of you arguing for this would not. You have chosen what you are with your words.
Ha! Talk about gymnastics! Nice attempt with the cute story, but Dems and Obama put forth a nominee so they are on the record supporting that plan whole heartedly. They sure didn’t reluctantly get duped, they just didn’t have the majority to put him through.
I don’t deny that their is some hypocrisy on BOTH sides, that’s typical Washington politics. I confess that I’m principled in my moral and policy beliefs. You’ve made clear you are principled in your Never Trumper opposition and beliefs.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,057
1,935
1,743
There are very few principled people these days.

All they care about is "owning" the other side. Not how it happens, or more importantly the what the long term consequences of those actions are. Its incredibly juvenile and short sighted.
Agree, very few principled leaders from DC. And the few that are...they get attacked by their own party.

I would have loved to see a McCain/Lieberman administration. I might not always agree with their policies, but they were two great moral leaders who did what they thought was right, not just what their party wanted.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,872
2,833
743
33
The partisan argument holds no water. There are zero crocodile tears when the Dems did a major filibuster change to advance liberal judges on federal courts. It just shows that who has political power is VERY important. Dems only had 1/2 the power in 2016, Repubs have all the power now.

But this does show the need, IMO, to require 60 votes for judges. Our country needs and deserves balanced jurists. The Supreme Court is way too important of a position and requiring 60 votes would force a President to select a balanced jurist.
I want a constitutionalist, and I would hope everyone should want that for a SC justice, but surely we can find a candidate that is a constitutionalist and works for all.
Ha! Talk about gymnastics! Nice attempt with the cute story, but Dems and Obama put forth a nominee so they are on the record supporting that plan whole heartedly. They sure didn’t reluctantly get duped, they just didn’t have the majority to put him through.
I don’t deny that their is some hypocrisy on BOTH sides, that’s typical Washington politics. I confess that I’m principled in my moral and policy beliefs. You’ve made clear you are principled in your Never Trumper opposition and beliefs.
And here comes the whataboutism! Who cares what is right and wrong? The other team did a wrong thing! Two wrongs make a who cares right? How utterly predictable. Can any of you say what you know is true? Delaying Garland was wrong.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,057
1,935
1,743
And here comes the whataboutism! Who cares what is right and wrong? The other team did a wrong thing! Two wrongs make a who cares right? How utterly predictable. Can any of you say what you know is true? Delaying Garland was wrong.
Yes, Garland should have received a floor vote.
Was changing the filibuster in 2013 wrong? Whataboutism claims ring incredibly hollow when there was no outrage about that major change.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,872
2,833
743
33
Yes, Garland should have received a floor vote.
Was changing the filibuster in 2013 wrong? Whataboutism claims ring incredibly hollow when there was no outrage about that major change.
No, because I think that non standing filibusters aren't right, a simple majority should be sufficient to pass laws and confirm appointments.
 

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
10,979
5,451
1,743
29
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
The partisan argument holds no water. There are zero crocodile tears when the Dems did a major filibuster change to advance liberal judges on federal courts. It just shows that who has political power is VERY important. Dems only had 1/2 the power in 2016, Repubs have all the power now.

But this does show the need, IMO, to require 60 votes for judges. Our country needs and deserves balanced jurists. The Supreme Court is way too important of a position and requiring 60 votes would force a President to select a balanced jurist.
I want a constitutionalist, and I would hope everyone should want that for a SC justice, but surely we can find a candidate that is a constitutionalist and works for all.
Ha! Talk about gymnastics! Nice attempt with the cute story, but Dems and Obama put forth a nominee so they are on the record supporting that plan whole heartedly. They sure didn’t reluctantly get duped, they just didn’t have the majority to put him through.
I don’t deny that their is some hypocrisy on BOTH sides, that’s typical Washington politics. I confess that I’m principled in my moral and policy beliefs. You’ve made clear you are principled in your Never Trumper opposition and beliefs.
And here comes the whataboutism! Who cares what is right and wrong? The other team did a wrong thing! Two wrongs make a who cares right? How utterly predictable. Can any of you say what you know is true? Delaying Garland was wrong.
If dems aren't going to play by the rules why on earth should Republicans? Being "principiled" is equivalent to being a sucker when going up against the dems. Why do you think they are already talking about expanding the courts, removing the filibuster, giving statehood to dc and Puerto Rico, and giving voting rights to illegals?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,057
1,935
1,743
No, because I think that non standing filibusters aren't right, a simple majority should be sufficient to pass laws and confirm appointments.
So changing decades-long Senate rules are okay near the end of a term to get justice you want are fine.... but nominating and voting upon a SC justice under normal rules is not?

You were correct earlier with your statement that this “thread is really separating the rank partisans from the people with principles”. Just maybe not in the way you were imagining it.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,872
2,833
743
33
If dems aren't going to play by the rules why on earth should Republicans? Being "principiled" is equivalent to being a sucker when going up against the dems. Why do you think they are already talking about expanding the courts, removing the filibuster, giving statehood to dc and Puerto Rico, and giving voting rights to illegals?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I would be curious where your line is. Your thoughts are so petty and shortsighted, I wonder what you would be ok with if it owned the libs in your mind.