I don’t think it was good to filibuster Alito, or vote against Roberts. The main difference is that 24 Democrats sought to block an up-or-down vote on Alito based on his conservative views. Today, fifty-something Republicans don’t even care who the President nominates… video link.
So no, both sides aren’t doing the same thing.
Isn’t that a difference in degree, rather than in kind?
I personally think it’s a bad practice - though it’s hard to fault a group for maximizing their benefit based on the rules in place. I think the Republicans have miscalculated here, and they will lose in November so the issue will be moot. It would be better to set a goal for as moderate a nominee as possible. And you never know - Souter was nominated by Bush I and he voted reliably with the liberal wing. Kennedy is kind of hit or miss too.
He was right, in that in the exact same speech, in full context, that he would consider supporting a moderate nominee.
No, he really said, in the same speech, that if a moderate was nominated, they should consider supporting the nominee. A snippet taken out of context says something different, but in the full context of the speech he was advocating for a moderate nominee, and advocating for denying support for an extreme nominee. That’s very, very different.
Again, that’s spin.
No, it isn’t different.
Regards,
Shodan
Hmm.
I’m not seeing how one can disregard degree.
Let’s say one North Korean solider runs across the DMZ. Or, one million North Korean soldiers run across the DMZ. The difference is the degree, right? Don’t you think the difference of degree is substantive?
Yes. But the degree is the important part.
Suppose a burglar breaks into a house and sees a box full of money, and he steals ten dollars. Suppose another thief breaks into a house and sees a box full of money and steals all of it, say ten thousand dollars. There is no difference in ‘kind’, but certainly the crimes are not equal. When someone says ‘Well, both sides do it,’ the implication (if not stated outright) is that both sides are equally bad. Perhaps there is ’ no degree to sin’, but there are certainly degrees of crimes.
Biden: “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”
McConnell: “LALALALALALA WE’RE NOT LISTENING TO YOU LALALALALA.”
I agree, the difference is substantive. But both sides do the same kind of thing which is the statement you objected to. Just one side is taking it further than the other. The DMZ was encroached upon in both scenario. Both sides are playing politics with nominees in both scenario.
“Be thoughtful, and careful”
“We will obstruct you”
These are the same thing?
“I might slap you.”
“I’m going to shoot you in the head.”
Both threatening statements, therefore both equal.
The other substantive difference is that one side sort-of talked about it. The other side is actually doing it.
To go back to the North Korean example, the Kims repeatedly talked about raining hellfire down on the imperialist Americans and their South Korean lackeys. If we actually launch missiles at North Korea, how accurate is it to say, “Eh, both sides do it.”
I think there is no long game, because this is their swan song. I think they are pulling out all they got, because they sense this could be their end, as a party.
How’s it gonna work? The country is gonna watch them obstruct a SC seat for a full year? I think if Trump’s their candidate there might be a lot of Republicans who just can’t hold their nose and vote for him. Those people will stay home. But the prospect of Trump in the Oval Office will draw every last Democratic to vote, I suspect.
Maybe they are doubling down on the ridiculous because it’s the last gasp, and they know it!
Or gamesmanship on the debt ceiling which was always discussed, but never actually acted on until recently.
I can’t speak for Ravenman, but I’m guessing he’s objecting to the implication (which, IME, is always there) that both sides are equally bad regardless of degree.
Yes. If I poke you in the chest with my finger, you literally pushing your finger through my chest and into my still-beating heart is not the same thing at all, even though your finger and my chest are involved in each case.
It’s hard to field a meaningful rebuttal unfortunately. I would only say that until Obama actually nominates someone, I interpret it as mostly posturing by McConnell and not actually doing anything, yet. I have to assume McConnell isn’t a stupid person so with that in mind posturing makes more sense.
And talking about raining hellfire is worlds different than actually doing it. The question I think Shodan is addressing is, “do both sides play politics with judicial nominees?” and the answer to that is unequivocally yes. It has yet to be seen whether the degree to which both sides do it is the same, sans an actual nominee.
I agree with this. They are a nihilistic warrior band now. I think they got led down the road of short term gains by sniffing Fox news fumes and they are getting hoisted.
Have you seen some of the Trump video mashups?
Even without editing or manipulation Trumps face, isolated from context, looks like a symbol of what you wouldn’t want, like a combination of Stalin, Goofus and Big Brother. And “we” want this…
Right. The full context is spin, but out-of-context snippets are somehow the full truth. :rolleyes:
I’ll add that this is all politics, but that doesn’t mean that one side isn’t more wrong, or putting forth more bullshit, and in this case it’s the side that explicitly says they won’t consider any nominee, whatever their judicial philosophy and experience, from the current president.