Missed edit:
Also, you made the claim that Bork’s seat was stolen so it seems to me it is up to you to defend that claim and not fob it off on someone else.
There’s no point in arguing against Bricker, because he doesn’t argue in good faith, he just acts as the defense attorney for the Republican party. Any tactic, any obfuscation, any distortion, doesn’t matter. And he justifies his tactics to himself, because he’s just acting as an zealous advocate for his client, so anything goes.
Now that I’ve had a chance to think about it, it’s a deal.
In the White House, Nixon’s exhumed corpse and the quite alive Al Gore split the Presidential duties. On the Supreme Court, we replace Justices Gorsuch and Kennedy with Merrick Garland and Robert Bork’s corpse. I’d even let Trump pick Bork’s corpse’s replacement - could be Gorsuch, could be some other Federalist Society-approved judge - before the Nixon/Gore tandem take over.
No. My actual claim was not explicitly stated, but here it is: If Garland’s seat was “stolen,” then so was Bork’s.
Do you understand now?
Translation: “There’s no point in arguing against Bricker, because he beats us like rented mules.”
Then so was every other rejected SCOTUS nominee. Since World War II, that would include G. Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynsworth, but I guess that waters down your argument, reducing whatever significance it might once have had and which I’ve never been able to figure out, personally.
No I do not understand because:
That looks like an explicit claim, by you, that Bork’s seat was stolen. It is not ambiguous and it was not qualified that “if” Garland’s seat was stolen than so was Bork’s. You made a flat statement of fact (that is wrong).
I also noted that Garland’s seat was not stolen. Obama’s nomination was stolen.
Uh… Bricker’s argument is a bit sarcastic.
If Garland’s seat was “stolen,” then so was Bork’s. But it seems that **Bricker **does not believe that Garland’s seat was stolen and, ergo, neither was Bork’s.
Should the Senate have sucked it up and at least had a hearing on Garland before voting him down? Politically, perhaps. **Bricker **has argued that there is really little practical difference between outright refusal to hold hearings and a vote or holding sham hearings before rejection. If the result is pre-ordained then the outcome is the same.
I was one of those rather active in threads shooting down the notion that the Garland treatment was “unprecedented”. It wasn’t. I do think the Senate should have had an up or down vote, but agree the Senate was absolutely within their right not to do so and historically nominees have previously been subjected to such a cold shoulder. And that is a point I believe Bricker is making here again.
But it is unprecedented.
Show when another president was unable to get a SC nominee through senate hearings for a year. The distance between Bork’s nomination and Kennedy’s nomination for the same seat was four months (and there was another nominee in between there too who withdrew). Kennedy took his seat on the bench seven months after Bork being nominated.
So, despite blocking Bork it was understood the president got to nominate a guy on his side and it was all done within a reasonable time frame and Kennedy has been a stalwart conservative on the court so not like they would only confirm a liberal for the court…far from it.
Bullshit. What the fuck is wrong with you? I guess acting as the Republican Party’s unofficial defense attorney is eating you up inside, because you’ve turned into a shriveled prune of a man. You know it’s wrong, yet you can’t help but to defend the indefensible, and that makes you miserable.
The thing is, you’re not the Republican party’s defense attorney. You do not have a professional obligation to zealously defend them. You’re free! You don’t have to keep doing this! Think how much better you’ll feel when you’re able to opine on current events and politics and you’re able to just say what you really think!
Robert Bork the unqualified Watergate stooge didn’t get confirmed to the Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy the qualified judge got confirmed, get this, unanimously. And it was in February 1988, an election year. Think of that!
So please stop peddling falsehoods that even you don’t believe. Trust me, the relief once you release yourself from your self-imposed obligation will improve your life immeasurably.
And you say I paraphrase you badly?
You’re amazingly and explicitly disingenuous in debate when your position is tenuous. Like, spectacularly so. I’d assume you’re proud of your ‘deft debate skills’ - its just counterproductive to the image you image you present to do so.
I mean, the Democrats aren’t always the best at politics, but I think it’s reasonable to give them credit for more savvy than “announce a plan to pack the court while you’re the minority party”.
Bricker’s on record with claims that the Garland and Bork situations are comparable, or at least he’s been happy to refer to what he perceives as the injustice to Bork on several occasions when Garland is mentioned, so it’s unclear to me that he’s being sarcastic or ironical. Maybe he was bitter before, is gloating a bit now, is all.
Then Bricker is working from a faulty premise - the vote wasn’t pre-ordained.
The Garland situation indeed has precedents, but none of them is Bork. Bricker may be upset that he saw an opportunity missed for a justice who would make arbitrary rulings that Bricker likes, as opposed to arbitrary rulings Bricker doesn’t like, but too bad. The Senate did its job then; didn’t in 2016.
It wasn’t a year. But you have a good point. It is unprecedented-- no other nominee named “Garland” was teated thusly.
nm
The idea that there is no difference between the majority of senators casting ‘No’ votes and the senate majority leader deciding there won’t be a vote is ridiculous. There’s a big difference and that difference is accountability.
In both cases, the nominee is rejected. Accountability happens at the ballot box, also in both cases.
Now that is true.
If someone qualifies the claim enough then something unprecedented is always happening.
Similarly, if somebody is murdered or they die of old age, in both cases they’re dead. So there’s clearly no impropriety if you murder people.
The difference is accountability!