Good grief. I’m telling you now that those statement arose in the context of defining Garland’s seat as stolen.
But sure, whatever – to the extent that my statement was unqualified, it was wrong and I retract it. I am only saying “stolen,” in the sense that the 2000 election was stolen and Garland’s seat was stolen. Absent that assertion, I do not independently contend that they were stolen, and I regret and apologize for any confusion that arose from my previous posts.
And I see that in my absence Bricker et al have succeeded in derailing the conversation into hairsplitting arguments about the precise meaning of words. Why do people keep letting him get away with this?
Still, four pages in and no Democrat has yet said that they would be inclined to punish their party at the ballot box for pulling this move. If I were the DNC, I would be at least discreetly commissioning some polls on this.
Because its moronic and unethical. And any proponent of such a proposal would be seen as moronic and unethical.
Why do you think that Trump wouldn’t nominate 10 more justices next week if this idea weren’t moronic and unethical?
If only the voters actually got to choose.
Hard to have faith in the democracy when one side is bending over backwards to be undemocratic.
Democrats got six million more votes in the Senate than republicans did but the senate is controlled by republicans.
Democrats got more votes in the House than republicans as well but the House in controlled by republicans.
Democrats got more votes for president than republicans did yet the presidency is republican.
So yeah, I’d say the voters have spoken but their votes are being ignored.
Are you suggesting that the Senate races have been gerrymandered? How so?
Classic Bricker. You formed an impression of what I said which was incorrect, because I was carefully parsing my words to leave a false impression! I wasn’t conveying my actual opinion! I was just acting as a zealous advocate for my client! It turns out I don’t believe Bork’s seat on the court was stolen! Jokes on you!
Again, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Bork was unqualified due to his role as Nixon’s stooge in Watergate. Oh, he graduated from Yale? Who gives a fuck? Nixon’s Watergate stooge doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court. Bork wasn’t confirmed, because the Senate voted against him. Why wasn’t Garland confirmed? You and I know the real answer, because if a vote had happened, Garland would have been confirmed. You know it, I know it, the American people know it.
The layout of the states wasn’t intentionally created to give a minority party a majority of seats in the Senate, but it has turned out that in fact the demographics of the states have given a minority party a majority of seats in the Senate.
Oh, that’s just the rules? Thing is, the rules weren’t handed down to Moses from Mt Sinai. They are the creation of human beings. And when supposedly facially neutral rules constantly lead to the minority winning, those rules are eventually going to get changed, because you can only thwart the will of the majority so long. At some point angry mobs of disenfranchised people start gathering torches and pitchforks.
The senate does not accurately reflect the population. A state with 10 people gets as many senators as a state with a million people in it. If that 10 person state is red they get two senators same as the million person blue state.
There are more red states but not more “red” population. This skew is only getting worse.
Those are all features of our system. It’s also a bunch of cherry picked numbers, which I’m surprised you’re still putting out there after it’s been shown so many times that the opposite results have happened in the last few years, too. At this point, I honestly think you’re just not paying attention.
As for what the FF would think, I have no idea nor do I care. I, personally, am not a fan of what the GOP did with respect to Garland. I think it was not only a bad precedent, but a bad gamble. But they won, and what they did was not against the rules. I’m happy to vote against them in future elections, but I’m not one to cry about spilt milk.
So republicans have not Gerrymandered districts? Voter suppression/disenfranchisement is not happening across wide swaths of the country?
Seems to me you are the one not paying attention.
Nonsense. If a vote had been taken, it would have gone along party lines, and he would have lost.
You say he was “unqualified” because of his role in Watergate, but that’s simply your opinion. I could just as well say that Garland was unqualified because he was nominated by a President in has last year in office. So: if Bork was unqualified, so was Garland, by the new rule that we-get-to-make-up-rules.
You could just as well say that, but it would a very silly thing to say, so I predict that you will not in fact say it. See, this was just one of your classic rhetorical moves, talk about how you could say something, and then when someone thinks you’re saying it, deny you said it, and assert instead that you were just saying you could say it.
Isn’t that a bit childish?
Do you think Garland was unqualified because he was nominated by a President in his last year in office?
Do you think any candidate Obama may have nominated would have been unqualified because Obama was in his last year in office?
Is there any time frame within which any nomination by a President is automatically unqualified because of how long the President either has been in office, or has left in office?
Bullshit. We’ll never know what would have happened if a vote had been taken. You assert one possible outcome, and that might even be the most likely outcome, but it’s far from a certainty.
That is how the Bork and Garland situations are different in a substantive way.
Optimist.
This made me laugh. Moronic and unethical is the only thing he knows how to do!
Just as the health care bill vote went along party lines, and the democrats lost, right? That is your opinion, that every one of the republicans in congress would have put party before country, but given recent events, it has been shown that there are a few republican senators with an ounce of integrity left.
Given that Mcconnell refused to allow a vote, he also was of the opinion that there would be enough republicans that he could not hold under his thumb that Garland may have very well gotten voted in.
As it was your party that prevented the vote from happening, you don’t get to then say, “Well, if we had allowed the vote, this would have been the result.” If that’s the case, then why didn’t you allow the vote?
Bork was involved in scandals involving a president on his way to impeachment who ultimately resigned, and half his cabinet went to jail. If you think that being in your last year of office is the same as plotting criminal conspiracies and coverups that get you out of office and your colleagues indited, then you need to get your equivalence scale calibrated.
Still doesn’t explain how Reagan was able to then nominate another candidate* who was then confirmed with no issues from the opposing party and still justify rejecting all nominations from Obama.
*yes, we’ve been over stoner ginsburg…
A majority of senators can override the presiding officer and force a vote.
According to you, why didn’t that happen?
Um… to avoid accountability. Do you have me on ignore?
Because that would be seen as a betrayal of their party on a different level than just voting for a qualified candidate.
Voting for a qualified candidate, even if most of the party doesn’t isn’t really precedent setting. Teaming up with the opposing party to actually undermine the senate majority leader, that’s gonna get you into some hot water.
I’m saying that they would have done the right thing, the same thing that senators have done for hundreds of years, you are asking why they don’t go above and beyond to be heroes of the democratic party. You can’t be obtuse enough to think that that is actually a good argument.