Justice Antonin Scalia

[RallyMo]

46 minutes ago, Jason said:

It’s also interesting how libs here  responded to Scalia’s death as opposed to how the cons responded to RBG’s. Liberals are way to emotionally invested in politics. 

You should change your screen name to Lindsey when posting in this thread.

[angelinkc]

6 minutes ago, wopphil said:

Are you not aware of the position McConnell took in 2016? Or Lindsey Graham’s quotes in 2016 and 2018? Does the complete hypocrisy in their positions not bother you? Do you not think it is dishonest to advocate a position when it helps you, then pull a complete 180 to suit your needs at a later time?

I don’t disagree with the hypocrisy. I do think we are in different times with the crazies on the left. The last minute changes to voting procedures and recent refusals to accept election results make an appointment essential. If Roberts didn’t become an activist judge, we probably don’t see a nomination either. In hindsight, they probably should have just voted against all Obama nominees. I don’t feel sorry for the Dems. Their willingness to disregard procedures and the constitution during the Obama years made this day possible. 

[angelinkc]

1 minute ago, fishbulb said:

You should change your screen name to Lindsey when posting in this thread.

Listen here, Fauci , stick to the Chinese virus thread. 

[RallyMo]

2 hours ago, angelinkc said:

Listen here, Fauci , stick to the Chinese virus thread. 

Can I like your post 18k times?

[Blarg]

Yes, just log into your 17,999 other alias accounts. 

[Jason]

9 hours ago, wopphil said:

Are you not aware of the position McConnell took in 2016? Or Lindsey Graham’s quotes in 2016 and 2018? Does the complete hypocrisy in their positions not bother you? Do you not think it is dishonest to advocate a position when it helps you, then pull a complete 180 to suit your needs at a later time?

I’ve already posted on here that it was wrong then and it’s still wrong. Their hypocrisy doesn’t mean the process is dishonest. You can easily make the case that these elected officials themselves are dishonorable 

[Tank]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

Yes, just log into your 17,999 other alias accounts. 

He only has one alt account.

[Dtwncbad]

23 hours ago, wopphil said:

Are you not aware of the position McConnell took in 2016? Or Lindsey Graham’s quotes in 2016 and 2018? Does the complete hypocrisy in their positions not bother you? Do you not think it is dishonest to advocate a position when it helps you, then pull a complete 180 to suit your needs at a later time?

The mistake McConnell made was not voting on Garland.  They should have just voted him down.  The reality is Garland wasn’t going to get confirmed BECAUSE OF VOTES and McConnell instead postured instead of just going through the process.

But the important point is Garland was never going to be on the Supreme Court because the votes were not there.

It was a mistake to not just have the vote.

In terms of outcomes, and just acknowledging the “system” in place where the Senate majority is instrumental in who gets on the Supreme Court, Trump nominating someone now and getting a vote by the Senate is simply the system we have.

I have no issue with anybody being annoyed that Garland didn’t get a vote.  But what if he did?  He would have been voted down, so what’s the REAL difference?

[arch stanton]

The difference is that McConnell and the senate would have been carrying out their duties in accordance with the constitution and not just in accordance with the party overlords

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

The difference is that McConnell and the senate would have been carrying out their duties in accordance with the constitution and not just in accordance with the party overlords

That still matters?

[Dtwncbad]

17 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Apparently, and correct me if I’m wrong, you believe Garland would not have gotten the votes?

If that is what you believe, perhaps you should have said it 13-14 more times in your message.

I do repeat myself.  I know.  I know that I repeat myself in my posts.  It’s something I am ware of.

[Dtwncbad]

16 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

The difference is that McConnell and the senate would have been carrying out their duties in accordance with the constitution and not just in accordance with the party overlords

I agree.  But I am just saying if the real battle is who actually sits on the court, there really was no impact.

[arch stanton]

55 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I agree.  But I am just saying if the real battle is who actually sits on the court, there really was no impact.

Yet he chose the way that would indicate to the world that his duty to the party far outweighed his duty to uphold the constitution. And he did this because he knew it was without even the remotest consequence and allowed him to shove a middle finger at anyone who thought he might even accidentally do the right thing. In short......

GOD BLESS AMERICA

[Tank]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I do repeat myself.  I know.  I know that I repeat myself in my posts.  It’s something I am ware of.

"are you saying that i'm redundant, that i repeat myself, that i say the same thing over and over?"

- dr. frasier crane

[Tank]

what if trump nominated merrick garland to fill RBG's seat? would dems contest that choice?

[Redondo]

4 hours ago, Tank said:

what if trump nominated merrick garland to fill RBG's seat? would dems contest that choice?

For sure.

Anything opposite of what Trump does.