RBG leaves the stage.

Suddenly said:
I don't care for the "cheating" formulation either. Democrats have been obsessed with these unwritten rules and agreements even though the GOP has spent much of the last 20 years clearly communicating that they have no intention of following those rules if it suits them.

...and they are likely to continue to handcuff themselves in this manner. Which is so frustrating to watch.
Click to expand...

Yea like the Senate vs the Graci brothers in republican rome. They were only violating traditional norms not actually cheating, yet they are used to mark the begining of the end of republican rome.
 
JoeMorgue said:
At this point we just have to accept that when a Republican is presented with proof that they are a hypocrite, some sort of powerful reality warping natural force just prevents the information from being processed by their brain.

Romney is probably going to read your later and send you one back that reads "Thank you for complimenting my haircut!"
Click to expand...

I don't see how they are hypocrites. They've made it clear that their guiding principle is accumulating power. Their acts in 2016 and now are totally consistent with that. The whole nonsense about a rule was just marketing. Did anyone in 2016 honestly think that "If Trump wins and in his last year there is a SC opening, the GOP will respect this rule?"

The difference between Romney and Trump is vulgarity, not substance.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump on fox

"I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff & Schumer & Pelosi? I would be more inclined for the second" -- Trump claims Schiff, Schumer, & Pelosi actually wrote RBG's dying statement, & suggests she'd actually be fine w/him nominating her replacement
Click to expand...

Give Trump another day or so and he'll be telling us RBG called him personally and said, "Sir, I want you to nominate my replacement."
 
Suddenly said:
I don't see how they are hypocrites. They've made it clear that their guiding principle is accumulating power. Their acts in 2016 and now are totally consistent with that. The whole nonsense about a rule was just marketing. Did anyone in 2016 honestly think that "If Trump wins and in his last year there is a SC opening, the GOP will respect this rule?"

The difference between Romney and Trump is vulgarity, not substance.
Click to expand...

Well yeah. I've been saying that for years.

It's not just that the want to accumulate power. They see the power as their inherent right. They don't just crave power, there entire worldview is based around the idea that they are entitled to it. To them cheating their way into power so they can grab more power in order to have more power is... so noble it's pure.

That's why I chastise the Left so much for overly focusing on jumping up and down screaming about the Right's hypocrisy because it's functionally so much noise to them.

They start from the assumption that they, not us, represent the "real" America and everything they do branches off from that.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
According to McConnell in 2016, Obama had no right to expect a SC nominee of his choosing to pass because he was a lame-duck President, and the next President, chosen by the people's voice, should have that expectation; in that way, the people would have a voice in the SC makeup- that's at least an arguably valid position (if a little extra-Constitutional).

Further (and necessary) refining of McConnell's "principle" has been that the midterms of 2014, which gave the GOP a Senate majority, was the voice of the people telling McConnell that he could block Obama's nominees, presumably for the whole two years remaining of his term (that didn't come to a test, so it's hypothetical, but seems at least implied by the argument); and McConnell has said that the further "extension" (I think that was his term) of the GOP senate majority in the 2018 midterm was also an extension of the earlier endorsement by "the people's voice" to pretty much give Trump whatever he wanted.

So, my question is this- suppose (unlikely but possible) Trump wins re-election but the GOP lose their Senate majority? Does that mean that McConnell will concede that the people have decided, by their voice in his (refined) "principle," that now the Dems have the right, for at least the next two years, to block any Trump appointees to the SC? After all, despite Trump's "jokes" to the contrary, he will be as much a lame duck from the first day of his second term as Obama was the last two years of his.

Does McConnell not understand the implications of what he's arguing now for the sake of political expediency? It’s not just that any future president who is ever faced with a Senate majority of the opposing party can’t expect the ability to get a nominee passed, he won’t realistically have the right to even name one. And the one branch of government that absolutely does need to be independent of politics becomes subsumed in it. In the real world, the SC has always been politicized to a degree, but the design was at least to keep it separate. If McConnell's way is followed, the price is to now expressly make the Court political.
Click to expand...
He understands perfectly.
 
At the end of the day absolutely nothing is going to change the fact that we didn't get our Supreme Court nominee in 2016 and Trump will get his in 2020.
 
Suddenly said:
I don't see how they are hypocrites. They've made it clear that their guiding principle is accumulating power. Their acts in 2016 and now are totally consistent with that. The whole nonsense about a rule was just marketing. Did anyone in 2016 honestly think that "If Trump wins and in his last year there is a SC opening, the GOP will respect this rule?"

The difference between Romney and Trump is vulgarity, not substance.
Click to expand...

It's been clear that their guiding principle is power since the '90's. Remember the term limits campaign? Back in the '90's, when it seemed that the Democrats had a permanent lock on Congress, Republicans began supporting campaigns to institute term limits. These often encompassed state or local offices, but clearly their goal was to limit the terms of congressmen and senators, in the hopes that they could gain ground in Congress by forcing Democratic incumbents out. Some states passed term limits that applied to Congress, but these were later ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. Then in 1994, the Republicans actually took control of Congress, and the whole term limit movement evaporated overnight, and a number of Republican congresspeople who had promised to limit the number of terms that they served if elected reneged on those promises.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Is it still hypocrisy if the explanation is post hoc? Clearly they did it in 2016 because they didn't want a liberal justice and they could. They then came up with a reason. Is violating that hypocrisy? Clearly the moral standard was less a claim and more a fig leaf.
Click to expand...


One way to put it is a nihilist is incapable of being a hypocrite.
 
Listen we can sit here and debate the difference between hypocrisy and sparkling self interest if we want, at the end of the day they have a different set of rules for themselves and for the other side, and that means they get what they want more often.

Whatever you want to call it, in politics it doesn't seem to have much of a downside.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not my best work, but just sent to Mitt Romney*:

Senator Romney,

You can’t know how disappointed I am in your decision to push for a selection of a Supreme Court justice prior to the 2020 presidential election - an election in which ballots are already being cast. You were fine denying President Obama his choice almost a year out, but now, hypocritically, forget the principles put forth for by you and your colleagues in 2016. I voted for you in 2012, partly because I assumed you were a man of principles. I guess I was wrong.

I no longer count myself as a Republican, since it has become the party of Trump and abandoned all its principles in that pursuit. Sad.





*For all the good it will do.
Click to expand...

 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not my best work, but just sent to Mitt Romney*:

Senator Romney,

You can’t know how disappointed I am in your decision to push for a selection of a Supreme Court justice prior to the 2020 presidential election - an election in which ballots are already being cast. You were fine denying President Obama his choice almost a year out, but now, hypocritically, forget the principles put forth for by you and your colleagues in 2016. I voted for you in 2012, partly because I assumed you were a man of principles. I guess I was wrong.

I no longer count myself as a Republican, since it has become the party of Trump and abandoned all its principles in that pursuit. Sad.


*For all the good it will do.
Click to expand...


I'm on your side, but the Garland business was in 2016. Romney didn't enter the Senate until 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
 
Lennart Hyland said:
I dont know how it works but they have some sort of majority already?
Click to expand...


Upon a vacancy, the President nominates, then the Senate (total of of 100, 2 from each state) has a hearing to confirm the Justice (or reject).

Approval needs 50+ votes from Senators.

Right now, Trump can nominate and the Republicans will have a potential 53 votes to confirm (unless democrats go against their party, then add them too). One Republican senator has said she will not vote to confirm, so they have 52 left.
If they get down to a tie of 50-50, then Pence has the tie-breaker and the nominee still goes through.
If Senate votes go less than 50 in favor, then the nominee is rejected. Rinse and repeat.

(It used to be 60 votes required but now it is just a simple majority so the power of any senate majority is amplified)
 
Last edited:
The Republicans might not have over 50 votes, but they can easily still have more votes than the Democrats, since there are usually a handful of Democrats who roll over for whatever most of the Republicans want.
 
Delvo said:
The Republicans might not have over 50 votes, but they can easily still have more votes than the Democrats, since there are usually a handful of Democrats who roll over for whatever most of the Republicans want.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! I don't think that will happen this time. If anything the other way around *might* happen with Collins and Murkowski.

That said, it definitely means that packing the court is out of the question as the Dems won't get a majority to do that. Bernie Sanders for one is against it.
 
Suddenly said:
I don't see how they are hypocrites. They've made it clear that their guiding principle is accumulating power. Their acts in 2016 and now are totally consistent with that. The whole nonsense about a rule was just marketing. Did anyone in 2016 honestly think that "If Trump wins and in his last year there is a SC opening, the GOP will respect this rule?"

The difference between Romney and Trump is vulgarity, not substance.
Click to expand...

They are hypocrites. They know that they are hypocrites. And they just don't care. The only people who care about being labeled a hypocrite are between 12 and 17yrs. old. Did your parents care when you accused them of being a hypocrite? Well! Did they? Now go to your room!
 
JoeMorgue said:
Listen we can sit here and debate the difference between hypocrisy and sparkling self interest if we want, at the end of the day they have a different set of rules for themselves and for the other side, and that means they get what they want more often.

Whatever you want to call it, in politics it doesn't seem to have much of a downside.
Click to expand...

I get the sentiment but I really can't think of any examples off the top of my head of Democrats avoiding hypocrisy against their own self interest as a party. Specifically in regards to legislation or a comparable situation as is happening now. They have been more willing to step down due to personal shortcomings as opposed to Republicans though. It is increasingly rare on other side for that as well though.. Guess that counts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom