Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
I am frankly astonished by your insistence that we shouldn't take anything Biden, Schumer and Reid say seriously.That is a damning admission that the leaders of your own party are utterly lacking in integrity.
|
Where did I say they shouldn't
ever be taken at their word? But, yes, sometimes politicians say what they think they needs to say in order to get what they want done. This is extremely typical. However, actions are not the same as words.
But the reality of the matter is that Biden said blocking it
should be considered, not necessarily done, Schumer said the candidate should "prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," so clearly he wasn't saying they should oppose any and every candidate but that Bush should do what Obama has done and propose a moderate candidate, and Reid correctly pointed out that they can do this, not that they should or were going to.
And none of this changes the fact that McConnell voted to confirm a nominee in the final year of a presidency, but is now making the claim that the voters should have the choice and wait.
Your position is that hypocritical words are terrible and should be held against people, but hypocritical actions are perfectly acceptable.
Quote:
|
Your whole argument boils down to this – Waaaah! I can't believe those awful Republicans actually have the courage of our convictions! That's not fair! Everyone knows we have no convictions! We were just kidding when we said what we said back then! Waaaah!
|
This is laughable for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, you are commending them for their "conviction" to not compromise.
Second, you've got this ridiculously backwards. McConnell did vote to confirm a nominee in the final year of a presidency, then the democrats said some things he didn't like, now he saying that shouldn't happen. That's the opposite of "courage of convictions." He changed what he does because some other people said that they may or may not do something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Stay on point! We're talking about the grounds for approving or rejecting SCOTUS nominees.
|
No we aren't. We are talking about a party who has made the ridiculous claim that we should wait for the electorate to decide who gets to select a SCOTUS nominee, when the electorate already has already overwhelming decided, by 5 million votes, and 90 electoral votes, who should do that. On top of that, they said they will oppose any nominee, even, as Obama has done, a compromise candidate.
Quote:
|
You rejected a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee by the name of Robert Bork, purely on the basis of ideology. You even turned the nominee's name into a verb, threatening to “Bork” any future Supreme Court nominees that didn't meet your lib-retarded ideological litmus tests. After the Bork precedent, how can anyone blame McConnell for throwing out the old playbook? You're being completely disingenuous when you call him a hypocrite on this issue - and you know it!
|
If the Republicans were opposing a nominee for ideological reasons, I would agree that this is a non-issue. But you and I both know that that is pure BS, as they openly said that they were going to block any nominee by Obama, and that the electorate should decide who picks the nominee (as if they hadn't already done so). It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with petty childishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Straw man. Nobody said Obama is “acting childish” simply by nominating someone to replace Scalia. There are plenty of examples of Obama acting childish. No need for you to make one up.
|
Wrong. It is exactly what bambino explicitly said: "It's Obama who is acting childish here. Serving up Garland as a sacrificial lamb to try to accomplish a different goal."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court is meant to put Senate Republicans on the spot by elevating a well-qualified 63-year-old judge not known as a progressive firebrand.
|
There is no trap. Obama offered up a compromise.
Quote:
|
Judge Garland’s 19-year tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrates a reliable vote for progressive causes, with the arguable exception of criminal law. Two issues in particular make the point: the Second Amendment and deference to the growing power of the administrative state.
|
This article is great. It shows that this guy votes conservatively some ways and liberally others, which is what makes him a compromise candidate, and that makes him a "trap." It's amazing that compromise is now considered a trap by the conservatives.
Quote:
|
But that’s also what President Bill Clinton said when nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. Mr. Clinton said then Judge Ginsburg was a “moderate” who was “balanced and fair in her opinions” and would be “a force for consensus-building on the Supreme Court, just as she has been on the Court of Appeals.” Today, Justice Ginsburg is the most liberal member of the Court and uses her consensus-building skills to keep fellow liberals in lockstep.
|
This is typical for nominees that the way they votes changes after they get that tenure. Cherry-picking one that moved to the left as evidence that this nominee will move to the left when elected is a terrible argument.
Quote:
|
Merrick Garland’s nomination is nonetheless intended to make the Senate’s opposition seem unreasonable and make the battle about the Senate instead of the judge.
|
It was
never about the judge. It has always been about the Senate. FFS, have people already forgotten that they openly said they would block any nominee? If Obama's nominee makes this obvious, it isn't Obama making it about the Senate, it is themselves.
