I, I, I, Me, Me, Me.Yeah, but what's he say now?
I, I, I, Me, Me, Me.Yeah, but what's he say now?
The specter of the old Merrick Garland thing is going to re-emerge.
yeah but that election was not going to end in a Court Battle
lefties should consider the Court leans to the Right now ...
MY original point was a counter point to both Hijinx and your points that only MEN seated on the USCOTUS are capable of unbiased opinions.
Through the years, Presidents of both parties have chosen male candidates who were in their party and they have turned out to rule much different on some cases.
Where did I say only men are capable of unbiased opinions? I never said that nor would I say that. Stop making things up.
What sex based agenda would the men on the SC have? Example?
These 2 articles definitely changed my mind. Thank you
Let's add this about our friends the anti-Trumpers of The Left and the #NeverTrumpers (now of The Left and formerly of The Right):
--- End of line (MCP)
That's pretty much the point.Yeah, but what's he say now?
This, The Lightbringer has done.
WE know that Obama was not born in the USA...
Let it go.
The specter of the old Merrick Garland thing is going to re-emerge.
What gets me is - does anyone believe that anyone takes a position on this that ISN'T utterly motivated by political expedience?
Of course, we have what was later termed - the Biden rule (ironic, huh) where in 1992 Senator Biden spoke at length about the possibility of nominating a SCOTUS member during a hotly campaigned political season where the White House and Senate would likely flip?
So - when it got brought up in 2016 when Scalia died - the Dems were all over the place indicating their complete opposition to this previously embraced principle - don't do it during a presidential campaign season.
There's little question in my mind - what the Republicans did with Garland was wrong. They should have just let the nomination go through - and voted it down. They reasoned incorrectly that it was more politically advantageous to stop it than go on the record as voting it down. But it's what they should have done.
But you can't have it both ways - the argument NOW is going to be the other way around - again. After vehement denials that there's any such thing as a "Biden rule" - they will invoke it anyway.
Because they know most people have short memories.
I'm right there with you on this. I thought at the time the best way to handle the Garland nomination was to let it come to a vote, and make sure republicans were all on board to vote no. It now comes back to haunt them because it is hypocritical to try to rush through a nomination when they took the total opposite stand on Garland. They can do it because there is nothing constitutionally that prevents them from doing it. But the political capital they could lose with independents who will note that their principles were so easily changed could affect them for years to come.
But if, all of a sudden, things have changed so that he now says that what he said then no longer applies, then it's POLITICS. This, The Lightbringer has done.
I thought at the time the best way to handle the Garland nomination was to let it come to a vote,
In my mind, Roe v. Wade shouldn't have been made "law"
I would follow you into battle any day Sir.That's pretty much the point.
If, as Obama would have liked everyone to believe back then, that what he was saying was a PRINCIPLE, then it should not matter which party, etc. Because, it's a matter of PRINCIPLE. Which means he would still be saying the same thing today even though it would put his party and ideological vision in peril.
But if, all of a sudden, things have changed so that he now says that what he said then no longer applies, then it's POLITICS. This, The Lightbringer has done.
So since this is not PRINCIPLE but rather POLITICS, then cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. All's fair in love, war, politics, and Seventh District corn hole. This time around the GOP has the opportunity to drink the Dems'/The Left's tears so it had better avail itself of the opportunity and do so. The Dems/The Left have already done the same to the GOP/The Right and will do so again in a nano-second (having said so numerous times with their threats to once again change Senate rules, attempt to pack SCOTUS, impeach Trump and Barr in order to derail the SCOTUS nomination, etc.). "I have a phone and pen" someone once said. Well, turnabout is fair play.
We're well past the point where we should hope good behavior on the part of The Right will engender a similar response from The Left. In other words, well past time to invoke Newton's Third Law of Political Motion. Here's to hoping Mitch the Warrior Turtle is able to rally the GOP (especially Mitt the Self-Saintly, Lisa the Lukewarm, and Susan the Line Splitter).
--- End of line (MCP)
You're correct, but don't forget the circumstances at the time. The Republican'ts were terrified that they'd be labelled racists for down-voting Garland. In their teeny, little minds, far better to not let it come to a vote at all than to be smeared in the press for opposing the Won.I'm right there with you on this. I thought at the time the best way to handle the Garland nomination was to let it come to a vote, and make sure republicans were all on board to vote no. It now comes back to haunt them because it is hypocritical to try to rush through a nomination when they took the total opposite stand on Garland. They can do it because there is nothing constitutionally that prevents them from doing it. But the political capital they could lose with independents who will note that their principles were so easily changed could affect them for years to come.