Originally posted by Bardock42
-
I guess you didn't know the constitution does not say how many judges have to be seated in the supreme court. The court can operate just fine with 8 and there has not always been 9 judges..
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I guess you didn't know the constitution does not say how many judges have to be seated in the supreme court. The court can operate just fine with 8 and there has not always been 9 judges..http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
Of course I knew that the number is not set by the constitution. It is currently 9 however, if Congress would want to make it 8 (a very stupid number, for obvious reasons, imo), they could, but they haven't done so currently, meaning that right now the supreme court has 9 seats, and the vacancy should be filled according to the constitution.
Okay, let me understand this thread...
TI is pointing out that the Democrats are being hypocrites because there are clearly dems who were going to obstruct a Supreme Court nomination from the GOP back in the day?
And now the GOP wants to obstruct any nominations Obama makes and they are crying foul? Do I have it right?
Because this seems like a simple discussion. I can sum it up:
"Democrats and Republicans act like children again."
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, let me understand this thread...TI is pointing out that the Democrats are being hypocrites because there are clearly dems who were going to obstruct a Supreme Court nomination from the GOP back in the day?
And now the GOP wants to obstruct any nominations Obama makes and they are crying foul? Do I have it right?
Because this seems like a simple discussion. I can sum it up:
"Democrats and Republicans act like children again."
TI is trying to point out that Democrats are hypocritical, but the examples he cites have major differences that need to be considered, so the argument falls flat.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wrong again.Just because you say it's different does not make it different.
It is in fact the exact same thing and your either a liar or to stupid to understand it.
I explained to you how it's different, and every source you cited includes how it is different, just because you do not accept this fact does not make it disappear.
He is saying they did it for different reasons. But isn't the point that..it can be done? It doesn't matter why..and it wouldn't be the first time any kind of politician took advantage of a kind of loophole. I'd be surprised if Hilldog has never taken advantage of some kind of legal loophole or something.
Originally posted by Surtur
He is saying they did it for different reasons. But isn't the point that..it can be done? It doesn't matter why..and it wouldn't be the first time any kind of politician took advantage of a kind of loophole. I'd be surprised if Hilldog has never taken advantage of some kind of legal loophole or something.
Maybe just read the thread instead of making inane assumptions?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe just read the thread instead of making inane assumptions?
So just to be clear, you weren't pointing out that they were different because on one side we have people saying they won't support any nominee while on the other it was the specific person they nominated they had a problem with? Since your first post in this thread points out that difference.
Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be clear, you weren't pointing out that they were different because on one side we have people saying they won't support any nominee while on the other it was the specific person they nominated they had a problem with? Since your first post in this thread points out that difference.
That is why one of the examples that TI gave is different, yes. You see that difference, right?
From the man himself
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It would be funny to hear him explain the supposid difference and when he does he realizes it's the exact same thing.The democrats tried to block two justices. Allito and Roberts.
Bardock is just lying through his teeth.
There are three main claims you made
1.
Obama said "I will not vote positively for Judge Alito"
Republicans say "We will not vote for anyone Obama puts forth"
That's different
2.
Schumer said "I urge you not to vote for anyone unless they prove themselves to be in the Mainstream of America"
Republicans say "We will not vote for anyone that Obama puts forth"
That's different
3.
Democrats under Eisenhower wanted to curb recess appointments in the last year of a president's reign.
Republicans say they want to curb any appointments in the last year of a president's reign.
That's different
All the examples you gave fall short of being similar examples of what the Republicans are currently doing.