This is a president that in 2016 claimed that Democrats had stolen 3 million votes and who back in September claimed that Democrats were planning on stealing the election.
So he clearly 'knew' about their plans.
He then proceed to appoint the heads of the FBI, the FEC, the DOJ, and Homeland.
He then packed all the courts, including picking 1/3 of the current Supreme Court Justices.
With 4 years lead time and total power to investigate it, he and his appointees were unable to convince any of the judges he appoi
Uhm, were you born yesterday? Remember how a Supreme Court justice died during Obama's term? But the Senate refused to fill it. Just like they had been doing for all judges.
The GOP was NOT filling existing vacancies. They literally spent 2 years refusing to let Obama fill ANY Judgeship. When you fill vacancies that existed TWO YEARS and leave none for the next guy, that is called packing the court.
Nope, but I don't think you've read the constitution.
Remember how a Supreme Court justice died during Obama's term? But the Senate refused to fill it. Just like they had been doing for all judges.
"with the advice and consent of the senate" is a rather critical aspect, and it is, like it or not, fully within the power of the senate to withhold it's consent, and that after the senate advised Obama not to appoint anyone. Garland was by no means the only SCOTUS nominee not to receiv
Do you realize that every time you start an argument with "so", you telegraph that you are putting words into someone elses mouth... right?
Yes, the letter of the constitution allows for actual court packing, increasing the # of seats and filling them, there is a process for that.
Except again, that's not what happened. These seats existed, they were not created for the purpose of being filled. You may not like the way the seats were kept open or filled, but that doesn't constitute packing, unless subscribing
Do you realize that every time you start an argument with "so", you telegraph that you are putting words into someone elses mouth... right?
Those are my words. The fact it's legal is irrelevant. They denied the Dem nomination because it was "too close to an election" then rammed their own through much closer.
Then again you're a Trump supporter which means your main principle is hypocrisy.
Except it is relevant, because if it's not legal, then we things can be done, but if it's legal... then there should be nothing left to talk about... other than your hurt feelings I mean.
They denied the Dem nomination because it was "too close to an election" then rammed their own through much closer.
News Flash: Politicians often say one thing, then say/do something else later. Once upon a time, I remember Obama ridiculing the idea of a health insurance mandate, suggesting
I would tell you how you think, but it's clear you don't.
Your level doesn't seem to have progressed passed "legal= moral" because as you said, if it's legal then there's nothing to discuss. At least this means you won't complain of the democrats win Georgia then appoint a load of new Democrat judges to the supreme court.
I would tell you how you think, but it's clear you don't.
Ad hominems will get you nowhere.
Your level doesn't seem to have progressed passed "legal= moral" because as you said
Except once again, you are making pretty poor assumptions, and you assuming your moral compass is what everyone else has. This comedy sketch reveals more self awareness from a fictional character than yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
B) Yes, doing so would be perfectly legal... however unprecedented to actually do so and open flood gates that you haven't considered. What stops the next Republican President from pointing to the new precedent set by the Biden administration and appointing "a load of new Republican judges to the supreme court"?
but if it's legal... then there should be nothing left to talk about... other than your hurt feelings I mean.
Direct quote from you. It's almost like you don't believe the moronic shite that you spew
but if it's legal... then there should be nothing left to talk about... other than your hurt feelings I mean.
As I said (in part) before, and before you ignored it all:
Let's just ignore the whole political side I've also discussed, not to mention precedent, but then you've demonstrated yourself to time and time again be willing to discount large swaths of both here.
Do please tell me when you are ready to respond directly to what I've said, in full.
Nah it's pointless trying to have an adult conversation with you.
You intentionally make contradictory statements so if I address one, that doesn't apply to the other and you'll crow about it.
I don't know if this I an intentional tactic for trolling or if you're genuinely an idiot who doesn't understand how incoherent he's being. I don't much care.
Garland was by no means the only SCOTUS nominee not to receive a vote, nor even a hearing.
Perhaps, but normally the remedy is to nominate somebody else. This time was different because Republicans straight up refused to consider any nomination made by Obama at that point, and said as much.
Congratulations fool, you have proved that what happened was legal.
Too bad you I never said that it was illegal. I said he packed the courts. Which he did.
If you abuse the system, ignoring the clear and obvious intent by using loopholes to ensure that the judges are those you desire and not what the majority of the country desires, or better yet, fairly split, that is called packing the courts.
But a-holes like you think that just because something is legal means it is ethical and moral. We are not accus
Only if we accept the newspeak definition of the term, which I personally don't, and outside of your bubble, I suspect you don't have that much support.
If you abuse the system, ignoring the clear and obvious intent by using loopholes to ensure that the judges are those you desire and not what the majority of the country desires, or better yet, fairly split, that is called packing the courts.
Except... that's not how the system works, unless again, newspeak. It's a sh
that had held up through bad faith through the end of Obama's administration
You are free to call it whatever you want... however it was constitutional and not without precedent. There is a reason we have midterm elections you know. I'd wager you were pretty happy when the Democrats had a sweep in 2006 and were able to act as a check.
Again, the Senate advised the President not to nominate, then withheld consent. Don't like it? Change Article 1,
You are correct that this isn't "court packing" but your dissent only proves the OPs point. He did appoint 1/3 of the Supreme Court justices who all ruled against him. So it stands that he had all of the power and opportunity and lost due to incompetence.
True... but only if you see words unwritten by me and in invisible ink.
So it stands that he had all of the power and opportunity and lost due to incompetence.
Do tell, how does a competent President (in your mind) maintain control over justices who are supposed to be independent? I guess he could try to only pick people he could blackmail into doing what he wants later... of course if/when that comes out, it tends to look pretty bad and have worse results than just h
Well to quote Donald Trump. “I think it's better if you go before the election because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling, it’s a scam, this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation. If you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be eight-to-nothing or nine-to-nothing, but just in case it would be more political than it should be,” Trump said. He thought he needed ACB on
Well it comes naturally after four years of such statements from Trump. Or to put it in the words of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Roberts) The Supreme Court is “not required to exhibit a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free.” You have to either be completely naive (or feign it) to *not* read between the lines there. In fact reading between the lines comes as naturally to educated people as reading itself does.
Well it comes naturally after four years of such statements from Trump.
Ahh, thank you for acknowledging the application of a single standard.
Or to put it in the words of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Roberts) The Supreme Court is “not required to exhibit a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free.”
... which comes from two and a half years ago. Is your point that Roberts... what? Suggested Trump would disagree with the outcome of this election? Sounds kinda like quote mining.
I have no idea why you felt insulted by my post. Your original statement was "so much reading between the lines" as if "reading between the lines" were a bad thing. I pointed out that it is a very common thing to do and that, even more importantly, the courts engage in it as part of their evaluation of cases. Your argument doesn't seem to be "There is nothing to read between the lines" but rather "Yeah, what you said is there, if you read between the lines, so please don't do it." Not sure how to respon
If I set here and stare at nothing long enough, people might think
I'm an engineer working on something.
-- S.R. McElroy
Insisting he was a Failure, not a Loser. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a president that in 2016 claimed that Democrats had stolen 3 million votes and who back in September claimed that Democrats were planning on stealing the election.
So he clearly 'knew' about their plans.
He then proceed to appoint the heads of the FBI, the FEC, the DOJ, and Homeland.
He then packed all the courts, including picking 1/3 of the current Supreme Court Justices.
With 4 years lead time and total power to investigate it, he and his appointees were unable to convince any of the judges he appoi
Re:Insisting he was a Failure, not a Loser. (Score:3)
No, he filled existing vacancies, that's not 'packing the courts'... unless you subscribe to newspeak.
Re:Insisting he was a Failure, not a Loser. (Score:4, Informative)
Uhm, were you born yesterday?
Remember how a Supreme Court justice died during Obama's term? But the Senate refused to fill it. Just like they had been doing for all judges.
The GOP was NOT filling existing vacancies. They literally spent 2 years refusing to let Obama fill ANY Judgeship. When you fill vacancies that existed TWO YEARS and leave none for the next guy, that is called packing the court.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, but I don't think you've read the constitution.
"with the advice and consent of the senate" is a rather critical aspect, and it is, like it or not, fully within the power of the senate to withhold it's consent, and that after the senate advised Obama not to appoint anyone. Garland was by no means the only SCOTUS nominee not to receiv
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, but I don't think you've read the constitution.
So, the letter of the constitution allows them to pack the courts. Jut because it was legal doesn't mean they didn't pack the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that every time you start an argument with "so", you telegraph that you are putting words into someone elses mouth... right?
Yes, the letter of the constitution allows for actual court packing, increasing the # of seats and filling them, there is a process for that.
Except again, that's not what happened. These seats existed, they were not created for the purpose of being filled. You may not like the way the seats were kept open or filled, but that doesn't constitute packing, unless subscribing
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that every time you start an argument with "so", you telegraph that you are putting words into someone elses mouth... right?
Those are my words. The fact it's legal is irrelevant. They denied the Dem nomination because it was "too close to an election" then rammed their own through much closer.
Then again you're a Trump supporter which means your main principle is hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is relevant, because if it's not legal, then we things can be done, but if it's legal... then there should be nothing left to talk about... other than your hurt feelings I mean.
News Flash: Politicians often say one thing, then say/do something else later. Once upon a time, I remember Obama ridiculing the idea of a health insurance mandate, suggesting
Re: (Score:2)
I would tell you how you think, but it's clear you don't.
Your level doesn't seem to have progressed passed "legal= moral" because as you said, if it's legal then there's nothing to discuss. At least this means you won't complain of the democrats win Georgia then appoint a load of new Democrat judges to the supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominems will get you nowhere.
Except once again, you are making pretty poor assumptions, and you assuming your moral compass is what everyone else has. This comedy sketch reveals more self awareness from a fictional character than yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Let's just ignore the whole political side I've
Re: (Score:2)
B) Yes, doing so would be perfectly legal... however unprecedented to actually do so and open flood gates that you haven't considered. What stops the next Republican President from pointing to the new precedent set by the Biden administration and appointing "a load of new Republican judges to the supreme court"?
but if it's legal... then there should be nothing left to talk about... other than your hurt feelings I mean.
Direct quote from you. It's almost like you don't believe the moronic shite that you spew
Re: (Score:2)
As I said (in part) before, and before you ignored it all:
Do please tell me when you are ready to respond directly to what I've said, in full.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah it's pointless trying to have an adult conversation with you.
You intentionally make contradictory statements so if I address one, that doesn't apply to the other and you'll crow about it.
I don't know if this I an intentional tactic for trolling or if you're genuinely an idiot who doesn't understand how incoherent he's being. I don't much care.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, ad hominems get you know where. It's akin to screaming "racist!" but failing to cite how/why someone/something actually is racist.
I acknowledge your inability to continue to have an adult conversation, have a good day.
Re: (Score:2)
Garland was by no means the only SCOTUS nominee not to receive a vote, nor even a hearing.
Perhaps, but normally the remedy is to nominate somebody else. This time was different because Republicans straight up refused to consider any nomination made by Obama at that point, and said as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations fool, you have proved that what happened was legal.
Too bad you I never said that it was illegal. I said he packed the courts. Which he did.
If you abuse the system, ignoring the clear and obvious intent by using loopholes to ensure that the judges are those you desire and not what the majority of the country desires, or better yet, fairly split, that is called packing the courts.
But a-holes like you think that just because something is legal means it is ethical and moral. We are not accus
Re: (Score:2)
Only if we accept the newspeak definition of the term, which I personally don't, and outside of your bubble, I suspect you don't have that much support.
Except... that's not how the system works, unless again, newspeak. It's a sh
Re: (Score:2)
Scare quotes do not change facts.
You are free to call it whatever you want... however it was constitutional and not without precedent. There is a reason we have midterm elections you know. I'd wager you were pretty happy when the Democrats had a sweep in 2006 and were able to act as a check.
Again, the Senate advised the President not to nominate, then withheld consent. Don't like it? Change Article 1,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True... but only if you see words unwritten by me and in invisible ink.
Do tell, how does a competent President (in your mind) maintain control over justices who are supposed to be independent? I guess he could try to only pick people he could blackmail into doing what he wants later... of course if/when that comes out, it tends to look pretty bad and have worse results than just h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So much reading in between the lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, thank you for acknowledging the application of a single standard.
Re: (Score:2)