The other thing, in politics, is that they … generally work.
I disagree. The GOP blocked Garland claiming some vague principal of a President in their final year having to wait for another election cycle. This was an obvious lie, and I don’t think it worked. Almost no one believed the claim, even people who pretended to.
Of course, Garland still got blocked. But that’s because there’s enough politicians and voters who agree with the actual reason for blocking him (that they don’t want Obama to chose another Justice), not because they couldn’t see through the transparent lie.
Like the Democrats that made the same claim during a Republican presidency?
How is this meaningful? Are you conceding, then, that the Republicans, right now, are lying and pretending to believe their lies? Thanks. That’s all that’s relevant.
“The other side did it too” is not relevant. Charles Manson killed some people, so I guess it’s okay with you if I do. I get to say, “But he did it too,” and that makes it all okay.
Whenever someone trots out something like this, it makes it pretty easy to see who is a complete partisan.
It’s possible for BOTH to be wrong you know.
Oh, I have no doubt about Trump’s nomination.
Judge Judy Sheindlin
“She’s a smart cookie and she’s tough but fair. She’s like me, she’s not afraid to tell it like it is”. And people KNOW her, She’s not like some of the other contestants- I mean I never even heard of any of those guys.
And more importantly, she’s a WINNER. She’s made more money than anyone at judging, she’s made millions doing the judge thing. I mean some of these other judges, they give me their addresses and I check them out and they’re living in a crappy 3 bedroom house that’s not even in a great area. But I’ve been to Judge Judys house and while it’s no Mara Largo, it’s getting up there…her house is huuuugggee. And classy, just like her. She’s a classy broad and she’s not an actor, she used to be a real court judge. She’s just what we need to fill the 7th seat on the Superman Court."
Why should the Senate act now and not wait until the day after the election? Or a few days before if it appears that Trump will go down in flames.
- It was much farther into the fourth year.
- The SCOTUS had already finished the session and was recessed.
- The SCOTUS convenes the new session on the first Monday in October, one month before the election.
- it was suggested the President not appoint so close to the election. No hard rule or blockage of a nomination was suggested or tried.
- There was no claim the President should not make a nomination during the entire last year of his term.
ETA:6. There was no actual vacancy.
So, not ‘the same’ at all?
Never mind we all knew that anyway!
I don’t mean that Trump is moving to the center because it’s his ideological strategy to do so. As I’ve said before, what makes Donald Trump worrisome as a candidate is that he really doesn’t have an ideology other than making cash for himself. He probably has some loose ideas rolling around in his head that lead him to conclude that the way he makes cash is probably the best prescription for the economy as a whole. He, like most of the super loaded in society, are probably l’aissez faire predatory capitalists. But other than that, he has no driving sense of how the world ought to operate. He just believes he oughtta be the one controlling it for now. Ultimately, Trump is a salesman. He is selling himself and branding himself as the candidate. He will say or do anything it takes to win and he knows that he can’t capitulate to the demands of the republican party. He’s going to do it his own way, GOP’s future be damned. It’s the GOP that’s losing here, not necessarily Trump.
Some back down; some don’t. But until now they’ve been controlled and thwarted by the John Boehners and Mitch McConells who’ve struggled to maintain control of their party. Now Boehner’s gone and McConnell basically just sat and watched Donald Trump win a nomination with almost no support at all from the establishment within the party. There’s nobody to control the radicals who want to fight to the bitter end. The republican party may somehow find a way to preserve its unity, but it’s looking increasingly doubtful.
Absolutely. Obama is president and his nominees deserve to have a fair hearing. But the Dem side needs to drop the holier-than-thou attitude and act like the Pubs are oh so evil for playing the game they started first. So was it wrong when the Democrats did the same thing? Actually the better question for the Dems on this board is are they willing to admit their side was wrong or is it only wrong when the Evil Pubs™ do it?
No. It’s point out the Democratic hypocracy of “When we do it we are right, when you do it you are wrong.” You Charles Manson analogy would more accurately be:
Charles Manson is a Democrat so he gets a pass. Timothy McVeigh is a Republican so he is the evilist animal for what he did.
Hey, Cad, ya missed one:
No, no, no, there are no mitigating circumstances…we must have an excuse!
(Did I mention that that was sarcasm?) 
The Democrats didn’t do the same thing. They might have done something that had some similarities, but they didn’t refuse to hold a hearing for months after a President nominated someone. That’s something that only this Senate has done.
In other words, the Dems are actually, literally, and factually holier than the self-appointed god party GOP. The “holier-than-thou” attitude is perfectly appropriate if the Dems are actually holier
And I don’t see a difference. And no it is not just partisanship. The President has a a right and duty to appoint a Supreme Court justice. I don’t care if it is the day before the election, the day before inauguration or 11:50am EST on January 20th. The Senate should not be telling POTUS to not send forth nominees. For the Dems to come up with reasons why it was OK for them to suggest the President should not make nominations is just bullshit. Simple question Senators, does the President have the right to appoint nominees during their term - yes or no? Anything else is equivocation.
But it doesn’t do anything to establish that the Republicans are right to do it now. At most, it establishes hypocrisy in those who supported the same thing some time ago.
So you want to support a policy that was previously supported by bunch of hypocrites?.
Your reasoning is about as bad as your spelling.
You’re taking a hypothetical (and open to interpretation) versus the actual situation now where the Senate is refusing to hold hearings. It’s a false equivalency.
Even worse and more likely, Judge Jeanine Pirro, Faux Snooze talking head and unmitigated crazy person. I at least kind of LIKE Judge Judy.