Politics and stuff

[GeorgesGoons]

Anyone else is what I'm saying that complex? Am I not being clear?

You weren't and I've been drinking all day......

You win this time. See a blind squirrel finds a nut Evey once in a while

[GeorgesGoons]

Good read....

This was written on 7 August.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/ ... xtFL6tAORY

[shel311]

So...what is everyone crying about then if this is the historical precedent through all of time?

History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened once in all of American history.

[GeorgesGoons]

So...what is everyone crying about then if this is the historical precedent through all of time?

History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened once in all of American history.

Because orange man bad

[Crowes]

I posted this earlier obviously no one read it but Shelly jumps all in the conservative nation review take on the situation....

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supr ... ion-years/

According to the article above there is no overwhelming precedent like that georgie's article is trying to assert. You have to all the way back to the 1800s to find anything to resemble what the republicans did to Obama. From 1900 to 2016 all supreme court nominations went thru like normal regardless of if it was a election year. Even had one or two that had the president and senate from different parties and they still got confirmed.

So it all boils down to the republicans created a precedent in 2016 and now don't wanna be held to the same standard. It is what it is

[ReignOnU]

I posted this earlier obviously no one read it but Shelly jumps all in the conservative nation review take on the situation....

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supr ... ion-years/

According to the article above there is no overwhelming precedent like that georgie's article is trying to assert. You have to all the way back to the 1800s to find anything to resemble what the republicans did to Obama. From 1900 to 2016 all supreme court nominations went thru like normal regardless of if it was a election year. Even had one or two that had the president and senate from different parties and they still got confirmed.

So it all boils down to the republicans created a precedent in 2016 and now don't wanna be held to the same standard. It is what it is

They created a precedent or just played really dirty?

Seems like the outlier is '16 and everyone is still salty about it... being salty about '16 seems like a trend.

[Crowes]

Either way you wanna frame it doesn't it give all the uproar a little more substance then just "orange man bad" right?

[dakshdar]

In summary, both sides stopped working together a long time ago and it sucks.

[shel311]

In summary, both sides stopped working together a long time ago and it sucks.

[GeorgesGoons]

In summary, both sides stopped working together a long time ago and it sucks.

Exactly! And the American people have had to deal with it

[GeorgesGoons]

I posted this earlier obviously no one read it but Shelly jumps all in the conservative nation review take on the situation....

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supr ... ion-years/

According to the article above there is no overwhelming precedent like that georgie's article is trying to assert. You have to all the way back to the 1800s to find anything to resemble what the republicans did to Obama. From 1900 to 2016 all supreme court nominations went thru like normal regardless of if it was a election year. Even had one or two that had the president and senate from different parties and they still got confirmed.

So it all boils down to the republicans created a precedent in 2016 and now don't wanna be held to the same standard. It is what it is

22 presidents faced nominating a supreme court nominees 44 times. ALL 22 presidents sent a nominee to the Senate. When the white house and senate were split only one was confirmed. When the white house and senate were the same party ALL justices were confirmed.

So the precedent was set and will be followed here.

Like president Obama said, elections have consequences. And IF the Senate and white house goes left and they create DC and PR statehood then, elections have consequences.

The one thing Democrats haven't figured out over the decades is judiciary appointments are important, and Republicans will vote in troves because of it. They wi swallow the sour taste of it means reelecting Trump because those appointments are important to us on the right

[Crowes]

So you'll be ok when they do figure out the importance of the courts then proceed to expand and pack the supreme court?

You guys really do vote in troves huh? 6 outta the last 7 presidential elections you guys have lost the vote count. I think the Dems will have the last laugh soon enough tho.... Thas why for me personally im not really that bent outta shape over this or if trump wins again I'll happily trade 4 more years of Trump to get next 50 years or so of my life with liberals in control.

[shel311]

We don't know where shit will stand next year but Crowes has the next 50 years pegged.

[Crowes]

We don't know where shit will stand next year but Crowes has the next 50 years pegged.

It's all in the math man all in the math

I keep dangling it out there hoping to get a 10,000 word essay as to why im wrong from reign but I think even he knows the mid to long terms projections for our great country is a very liberal one....

[GeorgesGoons]

So you'll be ok when they do figure out the importance of the courts then proceed to expand and pack the supreme court?

You guys really do vote in troves huh? 6 outta the last 7 presidential elections you guys have lost the vote count. I think the Dems will have the last laugh soon enough tho.... Thas why for me personally im not really that bent outta shape over this or if trump wins again I'll happily trade 4 more years of Trump to get next 50 years or so of my life with liberals in control.

Packing the courts is not the answer. That's backyard football rules of changing the goal line there. But whatever floats the boat of the liberals, they will see that it's not a good thing in the long run.

As far as winning the popular vote...who cares. That's not how our constitution was wrote. It's a good thing SF, LA, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, Portland and Denver don't decide the elections. (caveat, not sure if those cities have enough to outweigh the rest of the country but I believe you are smart enough to get the idea, the top 10-15 democratic cities in population should not control the country)

[Crowes]

Changing the goal line when it's convenient seems to be exactly where both political parties are at in this environment.

[GeorgesGoons]

Changing the goal line when it's convenient seems to be exactly where both political parties are at in this environment.

This environment, 20 years ago....it's the problem with politics, the rules are always changing and their stance can take a 180° turn two days after taking a stance.

[ReignOnU]

We don't know where shit will stand next year but Crowes has the next 50 years pegged.

Shit.. I'm just trying to get to Friday night.

[nick]

I just like that a group of Antifa members (everyone in here) can have conversations daily even if you’re red or blue

[GeorgesGoons]

Just curious from our left leaning partners here. Do you really believe Texas is a battleground state? As a right leaning person I don't think Minnesota is a battleground state like some of the conservative media thinks.