• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

sunmaster14 said:
Biden on Supreme Court nominations in an election year:



LOL.
Click to expand...

sunmaster14 said:
It's just funny how Democrats act all offended when the Republicans do run-of-the-mill politics. But in the internet age, the Democrats' hypocrisy gets thrown back in their faces within a matter of days.

Perhaps Democrats should think about cutting back on the drama queen shtick about how Republicans are making the country ungovernable. They're just making themselves look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Biden was wrong and is totally irrelevant. He is not nominating anyone, isn't going to be nominated and isn't voting on a nominee.
 
Anyone hear about the email fiasco at Georgetown?

Seems the university sent out an email noting the loss of Scalia. A professor in the law school, correctly, noted that Scalia was a terrible enough of a.....I guess he was sorta human....that no mention could go unchallenged without noting how he was definitely one of history's worst monsters (a view I agree with). This ticked off some others in the law school and it turned into a big back and forth.
 
Travis said:
Anyone hear about the email fiasco at Georgetown?

Seems the university sent out an email noting the loss of Scalia. A professor in the law school, correctly, noted that Scalia was a terrible enough of a.....I guess he was sorta human....that no mention could go unchallenged without noting how he was definitely one of history's worst monsters (a view I agree with). This ticked off some others in the law school and it turned into a big back and forth.
Click to expand...

Ha. I hadn't seen that. I have to say I'm mildly embarrassed that conservatives would adopt the cry-baby strategy of the left in objecting to "microaggressions" which cause emotional "trauma." On the other hand, perhaps it is all just brilliant satire.

What I found hysterical is that the Black Law Students Association had to weigh in to stake out their claim to exalted status among the perpetually aggrieved.

It's like academia has become one big pussy fight.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's just funny how Democrats act all offended when the Republicans do run-of-the-mill politics. But in the internet age, the Democrats' hypocrisy gets thrown back in their faces within a matter of days.

Perhaps Democrats should think about cutting back on the drama queen shtick about how Republicans are making the country ungovernable. They're just making themselves look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's not run-of-the-mill politics. One Democrat doesn't make the rule. Try again.
 
thaiboxerken said:


A little context changes the message that Biden was actually making. Leave it to Republicans to misrepresent another person's position.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...preme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/
Click to expand...

Sorry, I watched the whole clip, and Think Progress's interpretation is total ********. Biden's message was quite clear. That he tried to give it a patina of moderation at the end hardly detracts from that message at all.

And, in case you need reminding, which I suspect you do, Biden was in charge of the Clarence Thomas hearings which turned into a circus when he allowed, at the eleventh hour, a "she said, he said" accusation to be made in front of 100 million people. Whether or not Anita Hill was telling the truth (and, at the time I thought she was, although now I think her accusations were highly embellished), it was completely inappropriate to allow her that forum to humiliate the nominee.
 
elbe said:
I don't know if the framers envisioned a Congress that didn't want to do it's job. I mean, why would you take the job if you weren't interested in doing it?
Click to expand...

They are doing their job. They have advised the president he does not have their consent.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are doing their job. They have advised the president he does not have their consent.
Click to expand...

Their job is to help govern the nation, which includes vetting presidential nominations for the Supreme Court. What they are doing now is abdicating from that responsibility. As such, no, they are not doing their job.

If they were to allow a nominee to be considered they would be doing their job, even if they decided to disregard the nominee from the position.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are doing their job. They have advised the president he does not have their consent.
Click to expand...


What an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

It's the Senate's job to review nominations and accept or reject them by vote. It is absolutely not their job to give or deny the President permission to make that nomination in the first place. They're out of line.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are doing their job. They have advised the president he does not have their consent.
Click to expand...

It's one of those gray areas. Exactly what does "consent" mean? Tradition has meant that there is a vote and the person gets confirmed or rejected by the Senate.

In this case, the Senate is refusing to vote.

I suppose that is kinda sorta doing their job.

I personally think that the filibuster ought to be eliminated. I want one party or the other to finally invoke the "nuclear option". In the not very distant past, a filibuster was an extraordinary measure, only invoked very rarely. It involved an actual, physical, person standing and talking, without ever stopping, while all other Senate business ground to a halt. Now, it's just conventional wisdom that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

It's time for that tradition to go.
 
Meadmaker said:
I personally think that the filibuster ought to be eliminated. I want one party or the other to finally invoke the "nuclear option". In the not very distant past, a filibuster was an extraordinary measure, only invoked very rarely. It involved an actual, physical, person standing and talking, without ever stopping, while all other Senate business ground to a halt. Now, it's just conventional wisdom that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

It's time for that tradition to go.
Click to expand...

I have no problem if they do an actual fillibuster as you described. But the we just won't vote move has to go.
 
Desert Fox said:
Their job is not to even consider his nomination, no matter how reasonable that is?
Click to expand...

If they think total resistance is in the interest of America and they don't violate the Constitution (which almost no one is suggestion) then they have the responsibility to act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom