Originally posted by Bardock42
There are three main claims you made1.
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.
I'm more confused than ever, Bardock42. I'm having a hard time seeing any big differences. It just seems like GOP and Dems are trying to block potential Supreme Court Justices from making it to the SCotUS simply to stop shit from the other party.
Why do you think there is a big difference in #1? It seems very straightforward. And no one should fault either party from wanting to stop a potential Justice, whose politicals ideals could operate in direct opposition to their own political goals, from getting into "office."
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm more confused than ever, Bardock42. I'm having a hard time seeing any big differences. It just seems like GOP and Dems are trying to block potential Supreme Court Justices from making it to the SCotUS simply to stop shit from the other party.Why do you think there is a big difference in #1? It seems very straightforward. And no one should fault either party from wanting to stop a potential Justice, whose politicals ideals could operate in direct opposition to their own political goals, from getting into "office."
there's really no difference. bardock is biased through and through. he makes no attempt to keep it in check.
Obama looked at the candidate and decided he can't recommend him, which is his duty as a US Senator
Many Republicans have outright said they will not vote for any candidate Obama nominates, and in fact might use procedural tools from stopping him to nominate at all, thereby circumventing and preventing their duties as US Senators.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Obama looked at the candidate and decided he can't recommend him, which is his duty as a US SenatorMany Republicans have outright said they will not vote for any candidate Obama nominates, and in fact might use procedural tools from stopping him to nominate at all, thereby circumventing and preventing their duties as US Senators.
Why do you think there is a big difference between the two? Both situations are politicians opposing political actions from an opposing parties.
Also, why is one worse than the other? Why are you making it out to be a big difference? Maybe I should ask: Why should we care about those differences?
Also, is there any hypocrisy taking place from the democrats? Even a little? Don't mistake my position: I think there is hypocrisy on both sides.
I think I have made clear why I think there is a large difference between the two, mainly one doing the job that he is tasked with under the constitution and the others refusing to for political reasons.
If you don't see the difference, fair enough, it's out there for everyone to judge for themselves now.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I have made clear why I think there is a large difference between the two, mainly one doing the job that he is tasked with under the constitution and the others refusing to for political reasons.If you don't see the difference, fair enough, it's out there for everyone to judge for themselves now.
Aren't both parties operating within Constitutional parameters? Is it not the GOP's job to block nominations from the Democrats, under the constitution, as well? Are they not representing their constituents by obstructing nominations from the Dems that would result in some judicial decisions that could dissatisfy their respective voters (and the same for the other way around)?
Originally posted by dadudemonI understand what Bardock is saying and he is right there is a difference. For some it may only be minor for others I can see why it makes a huge difference.
I'm more confused than ever, Bardock42. I'm having a hard time seeing any big differences. It just seems like GOP and Dems are trying to block potential Supreme Court Justices from making it to the SCotUS simply to stop shit from the other party.Why do you think there is a big difference in #1? It seems very straightforward. And no one should fault either party from wanting to stop a potential Justice, whose politicals ideals could operate in direct opposition to their own political goals, from getting into "office."
I've been trying to thank of a decent analogy this the best one I came up with so far.
Imagine you have a group Judges(The Senate) at a Fair with an award given to best animal presented(The Award in this case being the Supreme Court Vacancy).
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is this:
The Republican Judges look at the person bringing the animals and decide to not Judge any of them at all.
The Democrat Judges at least look at the animals presented before saying no to them winning the award.
The difference is that one extra step of actually looking at the candidates before coming to a judgement on them. And that is why Bardock thinks they are different and I agree myself.
You use the words childish to describe both parties but I do think what the Republicans do comes off as slightly more childish. The fact they preemptively said no to any nominees by the President makes this seem so much more politically motivated from the offset.
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand what Bardock is saying and he is right there is a difference. For some it may only be minor for others I can see why it makes a huge difference.I've been trying to thank of a decent analogy this the best one I came up with so far.
Imagine you have a group Judges(The Senate) at a Fair with an award given to best animal presented(The Award in this case being the Supreme Court Vacancy).
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is this:
The Republican Judges look at the person bringing the animals and decide to not Judge any of them at all.
The Democrat Judges at least look at the animals presented before saying no to them winning the award.
The difference is that one extra step of actually looking at the candidates before coming to a judgement on them. And that is why Bardock thinks they are different and I agree myself.
You use the words childish to describe both parties but I do think what the Republicans do comes off as slightly more childish. The fact they preemptively said no to any nominees by the President makes this seem so much more politically motivated from the offset.
you are assuming that the democrats are actually looking at the animals. these republicans always put their foot in their mouth. the democrats know how to play the game better.
their words mean nothing
Owned
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
YouTube videoOwned
i actually appreciate his honesty.
Obama dismisses his own filibuster as GOP threatens to nix nominee
No one can get around this, not even Obama.
Democrats: We have the right to use the constitution
Republicans: So do we.
Democrats: No you dont!