andyhinch
Well-Known Member
As with the newly departed one, I hope he doesn’t believe what he types
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter journolud
- Start date
Silva_Spell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 5,287
RBG also said she didn’t want to be replaced until a President is sworn in and I presume you missed the entirety of 2016.....
The Dems aren’t saying a GOP President can’t decide a successor, they’re following McConnel, Lyndsey et al’s lead in saying there shouldn’t be a confirmation in an election year, let alone one month before an election.
Are you completely myopic or just a fucking hypocrite?
I referenced an argument made by RBG. You're referencing a wish and as heroic as she was she is not a monarch.
2016 was pure politics, just like now. Obama didn't have the Senate and Republicans didn't want a moderate taking Scalia's slot. If the charge is hypocrisy both sides are guilty
Stacking the SC you say? And with a straight face? You’re aware it’s about to be 6-3 and even taking it to 11 would mean it would still be 6-5 in favour of Bible wielding Conservatives. And we aren’t talking Boris Johnson conservatives, were talking ‘Earth being 6,000 years old, garden of Eden’ types.
Also, why shouldn’t DC and PR be states out of interest? How can you justify them not being? How is it democrat to actually not make them states?
Roberts, esp., and Kavanaugh aren't particularly conservative, nvm bible-wielding crazies. Recent decisions haven't shown much of a Conservative bent, nvm one that favours fundamentalist Christians
I dunno about PR but DC being a state is a bad idea for the reason outlined in the Federalist papers (Madison). The Fed Gov needs to be as free from influence as possible.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,065
I referenced an argument made by RBG. You're referencing a wish and as heroic as she was she is not a monarch.
2016 was pure politics, just like now. Obama didn't have the Senate and Republicans didn't want a moderate taking Scalia's slot. If the charge is hypocrisy both sides are guilty
Roberts, esp., and Kavanaugh aren't particularly conservative, nvm bible-wielding crazies. Recent decisions haven't shown much of a Conservative bent, nvm one that favours fundamentalist Christians
I dunno about PR but DC being a state is a bad idea for the reason outlined in the Federalist papers (Madison). The Fed Gov needs to be as free from influence as possible.
That’s a weak as shit argument on DC. The Fed Gov is run for and by the lobbyists, not median income families in what should be a state. Glad you’re in agreement PR should be a state given it’s bigger than 14 of the existing ones.
Can we also agree that even with an expanded 11 judge SCOTUS, being 5-6 against can not, in any way, be classed as “stacking” unlike being 6-3 would be.
Hahahaha what? What century is this? What a ridiculous argument.I dunno about PR but DC being a state is a bad idea for the reason outlined in the Federalist papers (Madison). The Fed Gov needs to be as free from influence as possible.
If winning the presidency and a senate majority with a minority of the votes and then using that power to fill court vacancies in the most hypocritical manner possible is within the rules of the game, then you can have no complaints if the next time Dems are in power they break California into three states, admit Puerto Rico and DC, and expand the court. Fair is fair.Threatening to essentially upend the system if a GOP Pres and GOP senate replace RBG is pretty insane. RBG herself warned the Dems not to undermine the SC in such a way
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,065
Silva_Spell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 5,287
If influence over the Fed Gov is already a problem, which most would agree that it is, the answer isn't to make it worse.That’s a weak as shit argument on DC. The Fed Gov is run for and by the lobbyists, not median income families in what should be a state. Glad you’re in agreement PR should be a state given it’s bigger than 14 of the existing ones.
Can we also agree that even with an expanded 11 judge SCOTUS, being 5-6 against can not, in any way, be classed as “stacking” unlike being 6-3 would be.
I said I don't know about PR, not that I agree. Maybe I would, maybe I'd support them becoming their own country, I haven't really looked into it, just as I doubt you have.
Stacking, packing, expanding, call it what you want, non of it will happen anyway, like I said. The Dems know that it would hurt them and the GOP could just come in and stack more justices on top of the ones the Dems added. It's a bluff, a bluff they have threatened before. It's an election...
Silva_Spell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 5,287
Hahahaha what? What century is this? What a ridiculous argument.
The strength of an argument has nothing to do with the century in which it was made.
If winning the presidency and a senate majority with a minority of the votes and then using that power to fill court vacancies in the most hypocritical manner possible is within the rules of the game, then you can have no complaints if the next time Dems are in power they break California into three states, admit Puerto Rico and DC, and expand the court. Fair is fair.
Which rules were broken?
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
Which rules would be broken by adding more seats to the SC, dividing California in to three states, or admitting PR or DC to the union?Which rules were broken?
But time and substantial changes to the realities of the situation being discussed does, which I am fairly sure was @cjn’s point.The strength of an argument has nothing to do with the century in which it was made.
Your argument is based on writings now out-of-sync with the real situation to which you are attempting to apply them.
Silva_Spell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 5,287
Which rules would be broken by adding more seats to the SC, dividing California in to three states, or admitting PR or DC to the union?
Non that I'm aware of but I'm not talking about rules, Cjn is.
Which rules would be broken by adding more seats to the SC, dividing California in to three states, or admitting PR or DC to the union?
But time and substantial changes to the realities of the situation being discussed does, which I am fairly sure was @cjn’s point.
Your argument is based on writings now out-of-sync with the real situation to which you are attempting to apply them.
Nope, time hasn't changed the need for the Fed Gov to be as free from influence as possible. It's a pretty timeless concern