Roll your eyes all you want: simply rephrasing the premise that it’s entirely the Democrats’ fault that they lost the presidency while handwaving away significant factors outside the control of the Democratic Party doesn’t make your argument any more credible. Just because you’ve disavowed your use of the word “blame” doesn’t hide the fact that you’re still placing the blame on them.
And I recognize that you don’t want to talk about those other things, but they’re entirely germane to your argument. I mean, why do the people who always say “If Democrats want to win, they should present policies that appeal to more people” (even though Democratic policies are largely aligned to majority opinions nationwide) never say “If Republicans want to win, they should present policies that appeal to more people instead of engaging in widespread voter suppression efforts”? Does it seem like a reasonable and consistent standard is being applied here?
There is no need for the word “technically”. What I said is true, and the rest of your post has nothing to do with what I am saying here, in this thread. I am not disagreeing with the above. But you could have just made that post by itself, no?
I am not handwaving anything away. I clearly said that gerrymandering is a problem. But how about you address what I have said here over and over, instead of changing the subject, however “germane” it may be? That is, the Democrats said McConnell’s “rule” could not be justified, that it had no merit, that it was essentially bullshit, but then they turn around and do the same thing, in attempt to stop Trump doing from what he was elected to do, and that they too in that context are full of shit?
I’m not sure how to say this any other way. And in the overall context of Trump’s SCOTUS nominations, it’s not really all that important now. But I’ll try one more time: The Republicans made up an excuse, and btw, thanks to I believe Sam Stone for pointing out that “rule” is not the word to use. They made up an excuse, and excuses are generally bullshit. Then the Democrats made up an excuse, and it too is bullshit. As for hypocrisy, you are right. But doing the same thing you criticize one for is hypocrisy.
I mean, you can say it in any way you want, but you will be wrong every time. Maybe that’s why you are having a hard time with it.
And you can clearly see that the Democrats did not do the same thing. They did not make up any excuse whatsoever. They did not refuse to hold a vote for the nominee.
They just criticized the Republicans for not living up to the standard that they themselves set, that’s all they did. That’s not doing, and that’s not hypocrisy. That’s just you trying to create a false equivalency out of nothing but your own desire for there to be one.
The Dems were not in power for either example, going either way. In what way are they comparable?
The Dems were responding to an ahistoric assymetric power grab in both cases. The Republicans weren’t. The Dems could not exercise power that they didn’t have against it. The Rs held power and used it as a antidemocratic cudgel over norms in both cases, saying exactly opposite things within 4 years.
The capper is that they invented a “party specific” excuse for this, which says “might makes right, fuck you”
No, and I never said they were in power. But your post, however accurate it may be, has nothing to do with what I have been saying. And thanks, but I’m through trying to get my point across. Barrett is on the court for life, and there are more important things to discuss, like getting Biden elected so this doesn’t happen again, at least for a while.
Someone who looks at “original meaning” will look at the words of the text and try to figure out what people at that time understood those words to mean. And nothing else.
Someone who looks at “original intent” will look at many different kinds of evidence, such as legislative history–speeches, written statements, testimony, committee reports–and other evidence of what the actual legislators who voted on a bill actually said what they thought the legislation would do, what it would mean, and how it should affect the future.
You are welcome. But you still haven’t defended your assertion that the Democrats have done anything hypocritical outside of your own imagination.
Cool, then you should discuss those things, and stop wasting your time accusing Democrats of hypocrisy and bullshitting here in a thread about Barrett.
The first group–the Scalia group–are usually called “textualists.” They pointedly refuse to consider legislative history, which also, by the way, takes into account different versions of bills that were considered, and what language was proposed but rejected.
I don’t think this is the thread to discuss it, but I will say that the idea that pretty much anything a framer ever said about an issue is fair game (is that the way it goes?) when trying to decide if something is constitutional is a bit “strange” to me. I think that there is something to the argument that if it didn’t actually make it to the constitutional text, it’s not relevant. It seems to me that the framers would have taken that into account. And for instance, what if a framer’s writing on something is contradictory. What if he changed his mind. How do we know which particular belief he has is more meritorious? As for “original meaning”, I think it goes without say that that should be adhered to, as meanings of words change over time. All effort should be made to understand the text as it would have been back then.
ETA: So, use the writings to clarify the text, but don’t add meaning to it. I fully admit I don’t know what I’m talking about here, really.
So you won’t engage with me on the both sideism, you just want to do it over and over.
It’s strange to evade the argument about assymetic power in DC, then say it doesn’t matter who is in power, and wave it off as if the party out of power were the problem. And then you don’t want to address that because Barret is already on the court. That’s a recipe for never understanding anything that happens. Is that where you are going?
So are you advocating against any violation of norms by Dems to redress this? It seems so because you don’t believe anything “wrong” happened. Do you think this situation is dealt with in a business as usual way?
Like others, you are bringing up things because you think they have something to do with the very simple thing I said here (which they don’t): If you didn’t like McConnell’s excuse, then IN MY OPINION, since I believe the Democrats did a similar thing when shouting, “oh, no, you can’t nominate Barrett now because it’s too close to an election, let the people have their say”, then one shouldn’t have thought it okay that Democrats did this. That is it, and that is all. If you disagree, fine, but don’t add to what I didn’t say and pretend I said it.
ETA: Believe me, I understand the Dems desire to keep Barrett off the court. I just don’t think this particular argument has any merit
No, they weren’t. The Republicans were the ones acting within the law and historical precedent. As I pointed out in the other thread, there have been 29 Supreme Court vacancies in an election year. The sitting President nominated a candidate before the election in every single case. Of those, when the party of the Presidency held the Senate, they voted through 9 out of 10 before the election (the others being nominated after the election but before the term was over).
So the Republicans were operating within precedent by nominating and confirming a judge in an electiin year.
There were 10 nominations by a President in an election year when that party didn’t hold the Senate. Only ONE justice made it to confirmation in that case. So the Republicans were also operating within precedent when they refused to put Merrick Garland through.
Okay, I was a bit glib in my last response to you, so let me address this: I think I have explained adequately in what I have said here on this issue why I think the Dems did something hypocritical. But maybe not. So, McConnell says, nope, can’t allow Garland nom to go forward, we have an election coming up, the people in that election should have a say. This go-round, Dems say, can’t have a nom for Barrett, it’s too close to the election, must let the people have their say. Key point: with Garland, Dems said McConnell couldn’t do that, for the reasons he stated. But Dem’s reasons are so similar vis-a-vis Barrett, that I find them hypocritical. You don’t. So be it, and I respect that. But I wouldn’t go around saying essentially I know you are wrong, and I am right, as you did.
Textualism isn’t the same as either form of originalism. As an example, consider the Seventh Amendment:
Did the Founders intend that a jury trial should be required, for a suit involving three hours of an unskilled laborer’s time? Would any reasonable person have the time have interpreted that language that way? Of course not: Both of them would have said that three hours of an unskilled laborer’s time would be a paltry amount, and that the Seventh Amendment’s protections shouldn’t apply to such a small amount. But nonetheless, the law quite clearly says “twenty dollars”, and so here we are: A textualist would say that, since the laborer’s time is worth more than $20, the amendment applies, and so a jury is required, regardless of what the original intent or meaning was.
I clearly said that gerrymandering is a problem. But how about you address what I have said here over and over, instead of changing the subject, however “germane” it may be? That is, the Democrats said McConnell’s “rule” could not be justified, that it had no merit, that it was essentially bullshit, but then they turn around and do the same thing, in attempt to stop Trump doing from what he was elected to do, and that they too in that context are full of shit?