Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe the constitution says that the president appoints the judge with the advice and consent of the senate. The senate refusing to give any advice is blatantly against the constitution.
I guess you forgot all the time Harry Reid would not even allow votes and bills to enter the senate.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama has not even nominated anyone, so you don't get to pick a future you want to see.You already got proven wrong.
I have only spoken about Republicans speaking out right now about how they will not consider any nominee and don't think Obama should be able to appoint anyone. That has already happened.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I have only spoken about Republicans speaking out right now about how they will not consider any nominee and don't think Obama should be able to appoint anyone. That has already happened.
Yet you are still wrong on the democrats being hypocrites, as well as pretty much every news media including MSNBC doing a "Say what" on the hypocrisy. This is just another example of you ignoring all the facts like you did in the Michael Brown case and saying its your way or the highway, to hell with the evidence.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yet you are still wrong on the democrats being hypocrites, as well as pretty much every news media including MSNBC doing a "Say what" on the hypocrisy. This is just another example of you ignoring all the facts like you did in the Michael Brown case and saying its your way or the highway, to hell with the evidence.
So what? I must have missed the part where two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong for Democrats to suggest it but not actually go through with it then, what does that make Republicans for suggesting they will do it now? How does that make what they are doing any better?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what? I must have missed the part where two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong for Democrats to suggest it but not actually go through with it then, what does that make Republicans for suggesting they will do it now? How does that make what they are doing any better?
Simply acknowledging the hypocrisy would be good enough for me. Instead of trying to lie and twist around it. I dont like the republicans any more then the democrats, hence me voting for Trump or Sanders.
But just acknowledge this exists, which no one here on the left will do.
The fact is neither side is actually wrong, this is within the constitution, but the lie that the democrats have never done it is atrocious.
Originally posted by RaisenAt the very least in the scenario they actually physically looked at them.
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
And you could be right. Perhaps the Democrats are just better at playing the game but that is conjecture at this point. Like I said you can say the difference is slight or doesn't matter but there is a difference between the two.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't deny that Democrats are hypocritical. What I am denying is that the three examples that you gave show hypocrisy, because they do not deal with the same subject.
It is the exact same thing, and the examples you gave are meanining less because as of now, the democrats have done this, vs the republicans are just pre bluffing as no actual nominee has been put forth.
We all know the republicans are spineless empty suits that do the bidding of Obama.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
My guess is Obama will nominate a someone as far left as possible because it was Scalia's wish that he hopes the person who takes his place would continue in his originalism (textualism).The next justice will not follow any written law and will judge though personal belief and legislation.
As has been traditional in the US before Scalia.
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.
Your scenario seems accurate but I would make a change. There is a tradition where two families always compete in this fair: Family A and Family B. The judges are roughly split even in their bias towards these two families. The A judges say they will vote against any of the entries the B family brings to the fair, no matter what they bring to the show this year. The B judges say they will vote no to the A family animals this year after seeing the entrants.
The outcome is the same: both A and B judges vote "no."
And the childishness is debatable. From another perspective, we have one saying, "No, I'm not going to like that so don't even try to keep pushing it on me." And the other is saying, "Go ahead and try to push it on me. Okay I've looked: nope!"
Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe the constitution says that the president appoints the judge with the advice and consent of the senate. The senate refusing to give any advice is blatantly against the constitution.
They are not refusing to give advice. They are quite obviously stating a negative vote (similar to a straight ticket vote). Please be honest in representing the discussion: some people are not smart enough to understand what you're doing who may read this thread. 😉
Originally posted by Bardock42
On the contrary, I'm very unhappy about the partisan nature of the US congress, however that has been completely caused by the Republicans refusing to negotiate and compromise with Democrats.
Ugh...this is such a sweeping statement that surely you realize how ignorant it is?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what? I must have missed the part where two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong for Democrats to suggest it but not actually go through with it then, what does that make Republicans for suggesting they will do it now? How does that make what they are doing any better?
I agree. 👆