canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Show me your posts from 2003,2006 and 2007 showing us where you excoriated the democrat party for blocking judicial nominations for political reasons. Absent that you are merely expelling crocodile tears
Schumer "block Bush nominees"
- Thread starter J Craft
- Start date
Show me your posts from 2003,2006 and 2007 showing us where you excoriated the democrat party for blocking judicial nominations for political reasons. Absent that you are merely expelling crocodile tears
What happened in 2007 was simply wrong (although an appointment happened in spite of it). The Democrats were plainly guilty of obstructionist tactics. It was partisan politics, plain and simple.
But the real point there is that they did not block nominations, suggested to the President that he should not nominate, and eventually consented to the appointment of Justice Alito.
And that's the difference in this case. Mitch McConnell is not only saying that the President shouldn't nominate, he's saying they should make no move to do their Constitutional duty to "advise and consent" or not give consent. He's saying they should block and not consider any nomination at all.
So it's really a different scenario.
And even if it weren't, what are we dealing with? Are we dealing with petulant third-grade students who don't know any better, or are we dealing with adults who should be able to say to themselves, "You know, two wrongs don't make a right"?
The Democrats were wrong in 2007. Does that really mean the Republicans should get a little payback at the expense of the Supreme Court, the American people who rely on the Court, and the integrity of the Constitution?
But the real point there is that they did not block nominations, suggested to the President that he should not nominate, and eventually consented to the appointment of Justice Alito.
And that's the difference in this case. Mitch McConnell is not only saying that the President shouldn't nominate, he's saying they should make no move to do their Constitutional duty to "advise and consent" or not give consent. He's saying they should block and not consider any nomination at all.
So it's really a different scenario.
And even if it weren't, what are we dealing with? Are we dealing with petulant third-grade students who don't know any better, or are we dealing with adults who should be able to say to themselves, "You know, two wrongs don't make a right"?
The Democrats were wrong in 2007. Does that really mean the Republicans should get a little payback at the expense of the Supreme Court, the American people who rely on the Court, and the integrity of the Constitution?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Like all the whining, sky is falling, personal attacks, and the rest add so much.
Before you tell me now messy my house is, clean yours first.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Which people, seeing as how their expectations are divided??
How can anyone be as stupid as you?
The people do not have to have a lock step view you simpleton moron freaktard.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
How can anyone be as stupid as you?
The people do not have to have a lock step view you simpleton moron freaktard.
Good job of channeling Desh there??
The founders never had to deal with this kind of partisanship. The point is that we all know that hyper partisan conservatives, and liberals, will push for appointments of justices that either see the Constitution as an absolute (conservative), or a maleable guide (liberal). With this in mind, moderates do indeed want a balanced court.
THANK YOU!
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Sorry, but the belated "democrats were wrong in 2007" doesn't fly. Nobody can stop B. Hussein Yobabymama from nominating anyone. Your side made their bed and I hope they lie in it.
I still say it is 50:50 that McCuntell folds
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
There is no such thing as a moderate.
And your first sentence is laughable and shows a complete and utter lack of historical knowledge.
I want a 6-3 court of all Scalia clones. Then we can undo 50 years of unfettered liberalism
Do you pretend that anything you say means anything to anyone other than your fellow piece of shit Liberals?
But you think the Senate should automatically confirm anyone Obama appoints. Typical Liberal that doesn't understand that the answer to a question can be NO.
My first sentence is accurate. We had statesmen who were passionate about their views- not embecilic partisan hacks.
Of course that's the court you want- note my last four words of the previous sentence. The Court was not intended as a means to an end- that you think so shows your "complete and utter lack of historical knowledge".
There are many moderates.
Your response indicates a couple things.
1: Yes, with you I'm dealing with a petulant, third-grade child who thinks two wrongs make a right.
2: You clearly have no idea where I stand politically, as the Democrats are not my side.
Whether or not you think it's belated doesn't matter. What the Democrats did in 2007 was simply wrong. The timing of someone who wasn't involved saying so doesn't make it any less true.
Or did you think I was a Democratic Senator in 2007 and thus am commenting as such (which you'd also have been wrong about).
"I'm dealing with a petulant, third-grade child who thinks two wrongs make a right." - THIS!
You mean thwart the people like Democrats did with Robert Bork under Reagan and Alito under Bush? Obama and the Democrats now want something that Obama himself said should go further when he was a Senator.
You have it all wrong. Democrats had not problem doing things a certain way then when it's done that way and they are on the receiving it, suddenly they are sorry for what they did. Doesn't work that work. I won't say whatever way it's done is right or wrong. What I will say is if someone does something a certain way, when it's done and they are on the receiving end, STFU and be willing to accept the method. They thought it was good enough then. It damn well better be good enough now.