Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year SC

Really

Gutless spineless coward republicans

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/17/dems-predict-gop-cave-on-scalia-replacement-its-going-to-be-deja-vu-all-over-again/

It's just a prediction, so can you wait on labeling them 'gutless' and 'spineless' until after they spread cheek and offer unrestricted access of anus to Obama? Thanks.

I wouldn't be so sure. The government shutdown actually had huge negative implications every day, so people were outraged. The Supreme Court only having 8 judges will really not affect people clearly for a while.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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!"

As for the childishness factor. To me what the Democrats did is the team staying on the field after the game and saying good game to the other team. Some of them maybe sincere and are actually trying to be objective and sportsmanlike. Even if you believe they aren't sincere it at the very least gives the illusion of compromise and trying to meet in the middle.

What the Republicans did imo is walk off the field and saying no we won't shake the other teams hand no matter what. There is no illusion, no doubt about what their intentions are. And it makes them look like dicks to me.

Originally posted by Newjak
That's fair to add to the scenario.

As for the childishness factor. To me what the Democrats did is the team staying on the field after the game and saying good game to the other team. Some of them maybe sincere and are actually trying to be objective and sportsmanlike. Even if you believe they aren't sincere it at the very least gives the illusion of compromise and trying to meet in the middle.

What the Republicans did imo is walk off the field and saying no we won't shake the other teams hand no matter what. There is no illusion, no doubt about what their intentions are. And it makes them look like dicks to me.

I can agree in a way. However that is the appeal to their people now

Originally posted by Raisen
I can agree in a way. However that is the appeal to their people now

Originally posted by Newjak
I can agree with that. Surtur and I even talked a little about it. That the Republicans probably did this because they want to look good to their voters.

That's the first thing I thought. I don't think it's a good idea either. The dems only feign consideration but it's bs and we all know it

The Donald has everyone talking about insurgency. It's all a game and the establishment is still in the game

Originally posted by Newjak
That's fair to add to the scenario.

As for the childishness factor. To me what the Democrats did is the team staying on the field after the game and saying good game to the other team. Some of them maybe sincere and are actually trying to be objective and sportsmanlike. Even if you believe they aren't sincere it at the very least gives the illusion of compromise and trying to meet in the middle.

What the Republicans did imo is walk off the field and saying no we won't shake the other teams hand no matter what. There is no illusion, no doubt about what their intentions are. And it makes them look like dicks to me.

I forgot to comment that your reply to me is fair and I like it. 👆

Originally posted by dadudemon
I forgot to comment that your reply to me is fair and I like it. 👆

I love civil debates 🙂

I'm wondering how far Republicans are going to push this issue though because I'm sure Obama will nominate a candidate. I wonder if he will try to nominate the most moderate person he can get away with. That way it makes the Republicans seem too uncompromising when they oppose the nominee. Which might make Obama look better.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm wondering how far Republicans are going to push this issue though because I'm sure Obama will nominate a candidate. I wonder if he will try to nominate the most moderate person he can get away with. That way it makes the Republicans seem too uncompromising when they oppose the nominee. Which might make Obama look better.

He will probably nominate someone whom the Republicans overwhelmingly confirmed to another position. That way, they cannot justify a "no" vote this time around. "You unanimously confirmed this person to the federal court, so you cannot have any objections to confirming her to the Supreme Court." It takes away their excuse.

Obama's SC Nominee will fall on death ears as Grassly invokes Joe Biden's 1992 Rule: No lame duck president shall nominate a SC judge.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/

This most likely will give even more power to the republicans now as they now have Obama and Good Time Joe now on record trying to scuttle a SC nominee in the last year of an Presidential Election.

24 Years Later, Joe Biden’s Words Haunt Democrats

YouTube video

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/24-years-later-joe-bidens-words-haunt-democrats.html

Joe Biden should just admit he was wrong to say it then and then everyone moves on.

Its interesting how him and Obama are allowed to use the powers of the senate given by the constitution, but now, 24 years later in this case, suddenly the constitution has some how changed and was re written for democrats, but not for the rest of the country.

YouTube video
YouTube video
YouTube video

Just keeps getting worse for the hypocrites.

So this is a pretty scary set of data to me

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html

I mean Trump has the most supporters right now so when 30% of his supporters say some of this stuff that is a scary percentage to me.

And what does that have to do with OP or the Supreme Court or are you just purely posting in the wrong thread off topic for the given reason of getting at me because I am Trump supporter and you trying to hide the hypocrisy of the democrats.

Nothing in that article nor your opinion has to do with the Supreme Court vacancy.

You are correct the article I posted has nothing to do with the supreme court. I meant to post it in the General Primary thread. I clocked the wrong one.