No. Neither of those is fundamentally emotional, although this bit about “the spirit of the constitution” is highly debatable. One can imagine that the radicals who dressed up as Indians and threw tea into the Boston Harbor would not be bothered by a rather simple parliamentary tactic. Some might. Some would not.
If Roe is not overturned, more fetuses will die.
Now, that’s a different argument, but still rather empty. Most laws that impose restrictions on actions have a disproportionate effect on the poor. That would include things like requiring restaurant owners to meet certain public safety standards or apply for licenses. In any case, if the goal is to minimize the loss of human life, and you think a fetus qualifies, then it’s better to overturn Roe even if it does have a disproportionate effect on the poor.
One needn’t avoid doing what one thinks is good just because the act isn’t perfect.
No. There might be a few who are motivated by that, but they won’t admit it.
Principle is emotional. The reasoning you insist upon can be based only on principle. You’re wrong to do so.
Sorry, Dad, I’ll take a look.
And how do they “not give consent”? In principle, they should vote on it. Again, it all seems a lot of weaseling around the edges. I’ve played games of Monopoly that stick more to rules and precedent than this.
It hasn’t.
If true, that would constitute an historic occasion. :dubious:
Who do you mean by “they” and how do we know what they “chose”? Hint: It was just McConnell, not “the Senate”.
That’s why your failure (or is it refusal?) to get it is no one else’s fault.
A tradition that was upset when George Washington refused to seek a 3rd term. A tradition that was upset by the ideals of democracy our founding fathers worked for.
A tradition that the Republicans desperately are seeking to bring back.
In that case, they did so by not voting. That’s one of the options available to them. It was never a rule that they “must have a vote”. That’s a figment of a few liberals’ imaginations.
How is that a false dilemma? That is the sort of thing that was happening before Roe, why would it be something that wouldn’t happen if Roe were no longer precedent?
And a both situations are bad fallacy? How does that work? On the one hand, women are given agency over their medical decisions, and on the other, women are dying from botched medical procedures.
Both being bad seems disingenuous to me.
See post #127. Hint: the majority of the Senate could have held a vote over McConnell’s objections if they so desired. That they did not is evidence that they did not so desire.
Once again, who is “they” and how do you know the consensus of that “they”?
You don’t, you know the decision of one man.
When and how did this “they” you keep mentioning make that choice?
See my answer immediately above your post.
Right, and that makes sense for the same reason as to why the filibuster was not nuked the very first time it was ever used. If people were going to vote for the bill or the nominee, why would they not vote to overturn tradition and precedent as well?
Do you not understand that these are two completely separate things? That people who would be willing to vote for a rather conservative pick to SCOTUS may not be willing to play parliamentary tricks?
Now we’re getting somewhere, at least. You saw the general simple spinelessness that characterizes the GOP caucus’ rank and file, and somehow declare that to have been a principled, considered, non-spiteful act of statecraft. Well, if the nomination would have failed a vote, why not just take the vote and forestall all the criticism? Or maybe it wouldn’t have failed and McConnell was thwarting democracy and the Constitution just for spite, hmmm … Is that possible, d’ya think?
You agree that the majority could have brought the Garland nomination up for a vote if it desired to do so, yes? That’s what I gather from your post anyways. If you do agree with that, then why continue this charade that it was “the decision of one man”?
So, that’s the bunch you would choose to side with?
Because smart majorities that want to stay the majority do their best to avoid taking votes that are difficult for their members. Democrats do it when they have the majority and Republicans do it when they have the majority. It’s politics.
Also, Kavanaugh just admitted to not returning his sixth grade copy of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
I’m fairly confident that’s not “the bunch [John Mace] would choose to side with”. He’s just a more principled debater than most and doesn’t mind sometimes pointing out the weaknesses in arguments made by his own side.
“They” didn’t do anything. Mcconnell usurped the function of the senate, by making pronouncements on behalf of them.
You can’t abbrogate the responsibility just because: it was already in the cards, or it was a done deal, or it was a cinch, or they see themselves as powerful, or anything else.
There is a big difference between the senate deciding to not hear garland, and Mcconnel going on tv to say that it won’t ever happen, in the future. There is a temporal problem. Mcconnel can’t speak like that for the senate, til he has gauged it. He gave away too much of his game when he admitted on camera that he wasn’t going to gauge it at all. It’s trumpian, in that he admitted it becuase he thought he was invulnerable.
I’m asking for the third time: What is the reasoning behind mcconnell personifying the senate as a body, just by himself, and exercising prior restraint on that body?