No, it’s not like saying that at all. I did not in any way say it was “okay” to confirm these justices.
If you want to use your fire chief analogy, it would be as if everyone knows he’s an arsonist, but the town council had a slim majority who are pro-fire who voted for him fully knowing what his agenda was going to be.
Yeah, which is why it’s a shame that the Republicans have chosen to make such a mess of it.
Do you think that the Republicans are basing anything on truth?
And, thus, I declared the court overly politicized.
No, I mean someone was pretty clearly taking offense to the idea of citing a really old case. And the Garland block wasn’t really particularly unprecedented, they literally removed entire seats from the court so that Johnson couldn’t appoint people. Your post alone is good evidence people were posting frankly wrong things–not opinions I disagree with, but assertions like the Garland claim is factually incorrect. While citation of a 17th century ruling is obviously a matter of opinion, a lot of important American law derives from fairly ancient English common law, so you’d be throwing out a lot of babies with the bathwater if you advocated for such a rule. And pointing out the personal moral failings of the judge? Okay. We live under a constitution written by James Madison–a man who owned hundreds of slaves (slavery was not practiced in England in the 17th century.)
I disagree with this statement. The standards of the people who elect the scoundrels are the issue. We get the government we deserve. People voted for Trump because he’s a scoundrel, just like them. His lying, womanizing, racism, etc. are admirable features. So, that’s who got elected.
If we don’t want awful people to be elected, then good people should stop rewarding them with votes.
This is what I’m talking about. My post is 100% accurate. I said that the issue of refusing to take up a vote on a nomination was unprecedented. I also said that other partisan actions were not unprecedented.
You bring up another partisan action, one that I did not say was unprecedented. Yet, somehow I’m factually wrong.
Similarly, no one was “pretty clearly taking offense to the idea of citing a really old case.” The only mention of such was, and I quote: “If the Supreme Court wants to be taken seriously, perhaps it could start by not basing opinions on a 17th century jurist who presided over witch trials and believed that a husband could not rape his wife.” (bolding mine). So it’s not just about the precedent being in from the 1600s. It’s that they did so in a completely different legal landscape, one that we would no longer tolerate.
Like I said, you seem to be arguing against positions not taken, then ultimately coming to the same conclusion that people did. Another example: You may balk at the word “stolen,” but you agree that the seats were given for partisan reasons.
To me it just seems a confusing way to argue. I had the same impression SenorBeef did, that you were defending actions where you were trying to appear neutral.
Good people don’t. Republicans do.
Democrats never vote for awful people?
Last I checked, the FBI arrested Republican and Democratic politicians at equal rates.
Granted, the last I checked was before Trump was elected to office but, previous to that, all indications were that there was no difference. And that may still be true. The most likely explanation would be that if the Democrats haven’t had their own Trump, it’s either simple luck or superdelegates. But certainly some of the governors and mayors of Democratic cities have been as bad as Trump was, and reelected after getting out of jail.
Where did you check this?
Because, as you know, both sides are always the same, so the chance of getting a Donald Trump is exactly equal for either side. It was just a coin flip that he ended up being a republican with wild support. Democrats would’ve supported his corruption with wild enthusiasm too, because, again, there is no difference between any two people or any moral positions or anything like that, ever.
If there is any excuse weaker than “They do it too!”, it’s got to be “They would do it too if they could!”.
Okay, it may not be a statutory law in many jurisdictions but it’s a recognized doctrine. The Supreme Court has acknowledged it as such. That puts it at a higher level than “just a legal principle”; it’s equivalent to something like presumption of innocence.
Wikipedia is mighty.
Unsurprisingly, criminality isn’t contained to particular geographies. Also unsurprising, putting a letter after your name doesn’t turn you into a saint.
Voters have to do research.
Are you aware that in both 2016 and 2020, Trump came in second place?
Good people voted against Donald Trump. The problem was we have a political system that let’s Republicans be appointed President even when they come in second place (along with the problem of Republicans not allowing a lot of people to vote at all).
.
Any two people, no, but any two random groups of people of sufficient size, yes.
The average Democrat is not an enlightened genius, he’s just as much an idiot and impressionable as the average Republican. That may not be you, but this forum is not a perfect representation of the average voter.
Failing to trust that two groups of 200 million people, mostly selected by geography on a map, are just as capable of the same thought patterns as another 200 million is the exact path to ending up on the same path.
Systems avoid the negatives of human nature. Removing systems and increasing direct democracy just brings those negatives into greater power and perks the ears of populist demagogues.
I just did some research. The article you’re citing shows that twenty-five Republican officials and nine Democratic officials have been convicted since 2001.
So “both sides” may commit crimes. But Republicans commit a lot more crimes.
Given that there’s probably a hundred names on the first page that I linked, I’d suggest that your research was limited.
I went back to 2001 because it was a nice round number.
Did you want me to go back another twenty years and include the Reagan administration in the count? I’ll point out that administration had more members of it indicted than any other in history. Or another twenty years and include the Nixon administration? Or maybe go back a hundred years to the Teapot Dome era? Or maybe all the way back to the Credit Mobilier era?
What time in your imagination exists when Democrats and Republicans were committing equal amounts of crime?
There have been a number of election year nominees who didn’t get confirmed, so it was not really unprecedented, no. You’re quibbling over nonsense now.
I should have written 100 million.