Schumer "block Bush nominees"

evince said:
I want the court the American people voted for



the people picked Obama


more people are more liberal than con

reflect the people NOT JUST YOUR SIDE


your vote is not the only vote that matters
Click to expand...

Which ignores that the people also picked the Senate. There is no rubber stamp and according to Obama "If you want to change things then win elections..." Well, they did.
 
J Craft said:
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.
Click to expand...

No there are not moderates. No such thing. There are many things that weren't "intended", but I gotta live in the reality of what is not some make believe land of kumbaya.

You can sit around on some holier than thou perch while Rome burns, but I say fight fire with fire.
 
Stelakh said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are lying or misinformed. The democrat party blocked through filibuster, the judicial appointments of hispanic Miguel Estrada, female Priscilla Owens, and African American Janice Rogers Brown.

You blithely saying "the democrats were wrong" 13 years later is a day late and a dollar short. The democrat party made their judicial bed, now they can lie in it.

It is laughable that the democrat party is acting so butt hurt that the GOP told Obama not to nominate as if they broke some rule or can really stop him from nominating. He is free to nominate anyone he wants. They are under no requirement to approve.

BTW conservatives shot down one of Bush's appointments too. Remember?
 
Stelakh said:
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).
Click to expand...

Maybe if your democrat party would quit doing the first wrong we wouldn't have this problem. Sorry, but your democrat party can't keep fucking things up and then say "oh but two wrongs don't make a right". I say an eye for an eye.

I understand you wanting to be embarrassed by your democrat party.
 
Jarod said:
"I'm dealing with a petulant, third-grade child who thinks two wrongs make a right." - THIS!
Click to expand...

Have you dug up your posts from 2007 showing your principled stand for the US Constitution and against your democrat party yet?

Do that and I will accept your "two wrongs don't make a right argument".

Absent some proof of your supposed principled position, I see nothing but situational hackery from you

Your democrat party made their bed, now they can lie in it
 
I Love America said:
Have you dug up your posts from 2007 showing your principled stand for the US Constitution and against your democrat party yet?

Do that and I will accept your "two wrongs don't make a right argument".

Absent some proof of your supposed principled position, I see nothing but situational hackery from you

Your democrat party made their bed, now they can lie in it
Click to expand...

Someone should explain to Jarod, although I doubt he is man enough to listen, that in this situation, there is no such thing as right or wrong. Rather, it centers around the concept of if you are going to do something in a certain way, when someone else does it the same way, being willing to accept it. If it's good enough for them, to now say it's wrong shows the typical Democrat mindset on just about every issue.
 
I Love America said:
No there are not moderates. No such thing. There are many things that weren't "intended", but I gotta live in the reality of what is not some make believe land of kumbaya.

You can sit around on some holier than thou perch while Rome burns, but I say fight fire with fire.
Click to expand...

It's not holier than thou to want and defend real Liberty as opposed to enforced free for all or enshrined dictates. You are no different than the radical liberals you oppose.

My moderation isn't one of acquiescence or holier than thou. It's merely the realm of earnest Liberty where my opinions and positions have equal air time as do those I disagree with. As Ginsberg herself said of her contemporary Scalia- his arguments helped to shore hers up and vice versa.

The law must be exposed from all sides to know if it's just-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top