Republicans- does it bother you that your party lied to you about the SCOTUS pick in 2016?

BigDelHawk

HR Legend
Jan 9, 2004
11,822
3,655
113
The party in power will use the power.

the bla bla bla is for the sheep.
The Upcoming Election is going to be a cluster****. Likely will be court challenges in its outcome. We need to have a full nine judge court seated, so we do not end up with a 4 to 4 tie. I have zero problem with the appointment proceeding.
 

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
32,595
26,607
113
Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, hotels and casino businesses of his have declared bankruptcy[52] six times between 1991 and 2009 due to its inability to meet required payments and to re-negotiate debt with banks, owners of stock and bonds and various small businesses (unsecured creditors).[53][54]
Do you mean that guy on the radical right is wrong AGAIN? It's been a pattern for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
32,595
26,607
113
The Upcoming Election is going to be a cluster****. Likely will be court challenges in its outcome. We need to have a full nine judge court seated, so we do not end up with a 4 to 4 tie. I have zero problem with the appointment proceeding.
Yeah, because it will help YOUR GUY steal an election has almost no chance of winning. No way in hell he wins the popular vote and the electoral vote is highly unlikely this time.
 

BigDelHawk

HR Legend
Jan 9, 2004
11,822
3,655
113
They had the power to hold it up, so they did. They have the power to push it through now so they will.

Does it bother you, though, that they claimed it was about letting the people have a say? We know now that was just cover for the political play. Claiming that the Senate and President are of the same party now or that Kavanaugh changed the game is just cover now.

Does this make you question whether any of your party's other claims may be a lie? Maybe voter ID pushes and now restricting mail-in voting is really about suppressing voter turnout and not election integrity. Maybe the talk of the deficit isn't actually in good faith once the Dems are back in power. Maybe Biden is going to let antifa move into your suburban home. Is there anything else you are questioning?

To everybody, what are the other political assertions that are clearly bad faith arguments meant to cover the political play?
Who does not have an ID in this day and age? Mail-in voting is a disaster in the making, as is vote harvesting. There is no control over the ballot to ensure that the vote is not tainted.

 

GlenEllynHawk

HR All-State
Gold Member
May 13, 2020
624
503
93
They had the power to hold it up, so they did. They have the power to push it through now so they will.

Does it bother you, though, that they claimed it was about letting the people have a say? We know now that was just cover for the political play. Claiming that the Senate and President are of the same party now or that Kavanaugh changed the game is just cover now.

Does this make you question whether any of your party's other claims may be a lie? Maybe voter ID pushes and now restricting mail-in voting is really about suppressing voter turnout and not election integrity. Maybe the talk of the deficit isn't actually in good faith once the Dems are back in power. Maybe Biden is going to let antifa move into your suburban home. Is there anything else you are questioning?

To everybody, what are the other political assertions that are clearly bad faith arguments meant to cover the political play?
While not a Republican, I'll provide the correct answer:

Unfortunately, the politicization of SCOTUS nominees started way back in the 80's with Bork, continued with Thomas, Garland, and Kavanaugh, and is obviously continuing today. They've all bothered me, but no one in particular more than another.

Did they all bother you?
 

C/Seahawk

HR All-American
Dec 21, 2001
3,478
2,365
113
The Upcoming Election is going to be a cluster****. Likely will be court challenges in its outcome. We need to have a full nine judge court seated, so we do not end up with a 4 to 4 tie. I have zero problem with the appointment proceeding.
You are literally too dumb to realize you are just spouting off Russian propaganda. You are one dumb SOB. Several states have been voting my mail for years and it works just fine. It becomes an issue when you have a foreign adversary working to undermine our election process for the 2nd time with a useful idiot in the White House that screams Russian talking points in just about every public appearance and interview he conducts. Then factor in a a donor inserted into the postal service to cause intentional harm and delays, you talk of a cluster that you morons created. Then you have the army of idiots, including you, that simply want to create chaos to stay in power. you shameless morons are a disgrace.
 

Jan Itor

HR Legend
Jan 31, 2009
22,147
6,863
113
They had the power to hold it up, so they did. They have the power to push it through now so they will.

Does it bother you, though, that they claimed it was about letting the people have a say? We know now that was just cover for the political play. Claiming that the Senate and President are of the same party now or that Kavanaugh changed the game is just cover now.

Does this make you question whether any of your party's other claims may be a lie? Maybe voter ID pushes and now restricting mail-in voting is really about suppressing voter turnout and not election integrity. Maybe the talk of the deficit isn't actually in good faith once the Dems are back in power. Maybe Biden is going to let antifa move into your suburban home. Is there anything else you are questioning?

To everybody, what are the other political assertions that are clearly bad faith arguments meant to cover the political play?
Wow, you people are going off the deep-end on this.

Not sure why you’re so worried. We all know when the Dems take over the Senate in January, they will pack the court with at least four more justices.

Politicians lie most of the time.

The right thing to do would be to wait on the election and if Trump wins, which he won’t, move forward with a pick. If Biden wins, let him nominate.

That’s not gonna happen because these are politicians.

And one more note, if the rolls were reversed, the Dems would push a pick through too. It’s what these kids in DC do
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn

Old_wrestling_fan

HR Heisman
Mar 2, 2009
8,888
7,411
113
Iowa City
So it doesn't bother you? You are fine that they lied because you knew it was a lie and you knew they just needed to convince the dumber people in your party?
If one party was transparent and truthful...always, then you may have a point here. I am bothered, even disgusted, that there is so much dishonesty and lack of transparency in politics. But let's not kid ourselves...integrity is long gone in the political spectrum...for both parties.

What remains is bone on bone conflict. Neither party has the high ground here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn
Feb 9, 2013
9,614
25,245
113
The Upcoming Election is going to be a cluster****. Likely will be court challenges in its outcome. We need to have a full nine judge court seated, so we do not end up with a 4 to 4 tie. I have zero problem with the appointment proceeding.
How do you get 4-4? Are you counting Roberts as voting with the traditional liberal bloc?
 

sober_teacher

HR Heisman
Mar 26, 2007
6,730
6,412
113
but nazis were dem liberals by today's standard. so we want to get rid of socialism and communism and nazis. that is our principal infrastructure. america is great. nazis and liberals are not. liberalism and leftism is evil. nazis were leftists.
C'mon OiT, Nazis were the farthest thing from liberals. Just because socialism is in the name doesn't make them liberal, or are you going to argue North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), is a democracy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992

sober_teacher

HR Heisman
Mar 26, 2007
6,730
6,412
113
How do you get 4-4? Are you counting Roberts as voting with the traditional liberal bloc?
Roberts ticked off conservatives with a couple of the summer rulings (Gorsuch flipped on a couple also) the SC made this year. They conveniently ignore that they mostly involved cases that were horribly argued by Trump's DOJ. Remember last year's census court ruling that the SC ruled against, and the majority opinion essentially boiled down to "lie better"?
 

Barnstormers Hoops

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2005
5,161
4,164
113
If one party was transparent and truthful...always, then you may have a point here. I am bothered, even disgusted, that there is so much dishonesty and lack of transparency in politics. But let's not kid ourselves...integrity is long gone in the political spectrum...for both parties.

What remains is bone on bone conflict. Neither party has the high ground here.
Neither party may have the high ground, but it's clear the Dems are softer and Reps harder. The Reps aren't afraid to get dirty often while the Dems often try to take the high ground when the smarter move would be to play hard too.

Again, none of this surprised me at all. And, it won't surprise me if the Dems don't respond in some fashion if they win the Senate. That said, I have doubts they will go as hard as they could or should as they are often too soft when it comes to playing politics. This is why Reps often win even when in the minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fredjr82

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
36,793
24,093
113
38
but nazis were dem liberals by today's standard. so we want to get rid of socialism and communism and nazis. that is our principal infrastructure. america is great. nazis and liberals are not. liberalism and leftism is evil. nazis were leftists.
The Nazi's were socialists in name only. When a group of them wanted to push harder on the socialism bit, Hitler had them killed.

And quite frankly I don't think there are any goals that you should carry out by any means necessary. This certainly isn't one either.
 

Nipigu

HR Heisman
Oct 31, 2005
8,615
4,801
113
No, it doesn’t bother me. Both parties justify their position based on the moment. I know they’d do the exact opposite later but justify differently.
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
34,410
10,108
113
So it doesn't bother you? You are fine that they lied because you knew it was a lie and you knew they just needed to convince the dumber people in your party?
I'm not a Republican, per se, though I voted that way a lot prior to Trump.....it bothers me, but the reality is that the party with the power is always going to use the power. If 2016 had been different and the Dems had the Senate and Scalia died in September, I have no doubts that the Dems would have made an effort to fill the seat prior to the election (and I'd have been frustrated by that).

Now the real question will be whether there's enough time to actually due appropriate due diligence and confirm the appointee. The average time to confirm is 67 days (median is 71 days). Assuming a nomination Friday based on Trump's comments, the election is 40 days away. Trump's cleanest path would be to fast-track this and get the Senate to confirm before Election Day. After that, election results come into play - if Trump clearly wins and GOP keeps the Senate, then it's smooth sailing for him. If he doesn't, and/or if the Dems take the Senate, things get messy fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,040
16,574
113
@ottumwan in tx

Alex Jones is claiming RBG has been dead for a while He said she has been kept frozen since last year. This sounded a little far fetched. I fear he was high on cocaine and drunk

what is your take on this ?
I haven't heard him much since he went off the radio here in Austin and went on to the internet but this is exactly what he said about Osama Bin Laden also. I will say this it is interesting timing
 
Feb 9, 2013
9,614
25,245
113
Roberts ticked off conservatives with a couple of the summer rulings (Gorsuch flipped on a couple also) the SC made this year. They conveniently ignore that they mostly involved cases that were horribly argued by Trump's DOJ. Remember last year's census court ruling that the SC ruled against, and the majority opinion essentially boiled down to "lie better"?
Yeah, I was wondering if Roberts was a RINO lib in right-wing media circles....
 

ottumwan in tx

HR King
Oct 26, 2002
104,040
16,574
113
You are literally too dumb to realize you are just spouting off Russian propaganda. You are one dumb SOB. Several states have been voting my mail for years and it works just fine. It becomes an issue when you have a foreign adversary working to undermine our election process for the 2nd time with a useful idiot in the White House that screams Russian talking points in just about every public appearance and interview he conducts. Then factor in a a donor inserted into the postal service to cause intentional harm and delays, you talk of a cluster that you morons created. Then you have the army of idiots, including you, that simply want to create chaos to stay in power. you shameless morons are a disgrace.
The Russia stuff never did take off it never grew legs but for you to still be talking about it for 5 years later is astounding
 

sober_teacher

HR Heisman
Mar 26, 2007
6,730
6,412
113
I'm not a Republican, per se, though I voted that way a lot prior to Trump.....it bothers me, but the reality is that the party with the power is always going to use the power. If 2016 had been different and the Dems had the Senate and Scalia died in September, I have no doubts that the Dems would have made an effort to fill the seat prior to the election (and I'd have been frustrated by that).

Now the real question will be whether there's enough time to actually due appropriate due diligence and confirm the appointee. The average time to confirm is 67 days (median is 71 days). Assuming a nomination Friday based on Trump's comments, the election is 40 days away. Trump's cleanest path would be to fast-track this and get the Senate to confirm before Election Day. After that, election results come into play - if Trump clearly wins and GOP keeps the Senate, then it's smooth sailing for him. If he doesn't, and/or if the Dems take the Senate, things get messy fast.
Anytime post-Conventions is pushing it, particularly with Senators who will simultaneously trying to campaign and participate in hearings at the same time. It's far more likely that they'll try to have a vote in the lame-duck session after the election.

Had Scalia died in August/September, I wouldn't have had an issue with GOP holding the hearings up. Even had they held hearings on Garland, but voted him now, I'd have understood. What ticked me off was refusing to hold hearings at all. And now they're trying to forget that every argument they're making to hold a vote now completely contradicts the arguments they made in 2016 to NOT hold a vote then.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
23,753
9,420
113
While not a Republican, I'll provide the correct answer:

Unfortunately, the politicization of SCOTUS nominees started way back in the 80's with Bork, continued with Thomas, Garland, and Kavanaugh, and is obviously continuing today. They've all bothered me, but no one in particular more than another.

Did they all bother you?
That didn't answer the question.

Nominating and going through the confirmation process has always been the right thing to do. It was in 2016 but Mitch McConnell single handedly prevented that based on the rationale that the people of the US should have a voice in this selection. Now that rationale is being ignored and Mitch McConnell again has unilateral control of the process. That's not only bothersome, it's dangerous to have that much power in anyone's hands - least of which Mitch McConnell.

Let's hope this selection has the same sense and maturity to rule based on the law rather than political bias as John Roberts has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place

OutbackBowl2017

HR All-American
Dec 4, 2016
4,517
6,034
113
1). The people did decide in 2016 they did not want the continuation of the Obama era with Hillary Clinton. If Obama was up for re-election then the Senate should of pushed his selection through before the election. But his second term was up and that’s why the phrase, let the people decide was used. They should of said, based off of historical precedence, the Senate will not move forward until after the results of the election with a new President, either Democrat or Republican.

2) If the Democrats had both Senate and Presidency, they would push their selection through regardless. Democrats went down the impeachment road during an election year so the Republicans are returning the favor with this opportunity by kicking dirt in the Democrats eyes to spite them of their actions toward Trump.

I’ve said all along, this was a perfect year for a third party candidate that could bridge the middle ground to help bring this country back together but we are stuck with two people that should not be allowed to be president of this great country because of their age and declining faculties.

No wonder we are watching people act like spoiled rotten children in the streets of this country on a daily basis when their political leaders on both sides eschew the same virtues and we wonder why that is. I won’t be voting this year for any candidate, might even look to leave this country for a Caribbean destination that is free of this type of fighting on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. We no longer see two parties working together to improve the lives of their citizens. Only to burn the other party down and own them. How sad we have become as a society.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
23,753
9,420
113
Wow, you people are going off the deep-end on this.

Not sure why you’re so worried. We all know when the Dems take over the Senate in January, they will pack the court with at least four more justices.

Politicians lie most of the time.

The right thing to do would be to wait on the election and if Trump wins, which he won’t, move forward with a pick. If Biden wins, let him nominate.

That’s not gonna happen because these are politicians.

And one more note, if the rolls were reversed, the Dems would push a pick through too. It’s what these kids in DC do
If the *roles were reversed the Dems would have had a nomination and confirmation in 2016 as should have happened. And it would be happening this year, as it should. But the republicans disallowed that claiming the people had a right to a voice in the discussion via their vote. The issue is the blatant hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell and the republicans who support this type of behavior. It's shameful, yet many will simply shrug their shoulders and ignore it. Self serving assholes who care nothing for democracy or the good of the nation, only power for "their own".
 
  • Like
Reactions: steelhawkeye

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
34,410
10,108
113
Anytime post-Conventions is pushing it, particularly with Senators who will simultaneously trying to campaign and participate in hearings at the same time. It's far more likely that they'll try to have a vote in the lame-duck session after the election.

Had Scalia died in August/September, I wouldn't have had an issue with GOP holding the hearings up. Even had they held hearings on Garland, but voted him now, I'd have understood. What ticked me off was refusing to hold hearings at all. And now they're trying to forget that every argument they're making to hold a vote now completely contradicts the arguments they made in 2016 to NOT hold a vote then.
Agree 100%, particularly on Garland. I thought he was a pretty classically qualified candidate (and at a time when I expected HRC to win, thought he was a gift of a nominee, frankly)....but had they done the hearings and voted him down, fine, that's the process and if you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes. I was most angered by the not taking any action at all. Garland was fairly nominated and deserved a vote.
 

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
27,183
23,422
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
1). The people did decide in 2016 they did not want the continuation of the Obama era with Hillary Clinton. If Obama was up for re-election then the Senate should of pushed his selection through before the election. But his second term was up and that’s why the phrase, let the people decide was used. They should of said, based off of historical precedence, the Senate will not move forward until after the results of the election with a new President, either Democrat or Republican.

2) If the Democrats had both Senate and Presidency, they would push their selection through regardless. Democrats went down the impeachment road during an election year so the Republicans are returning the favor with this opportunity by kicking dirt in the Democrats eyes to spite them of their actions toward Trump.

I’ve said all along, this was a perfect year for a third party candidate that could bridge the middle ground to help bring this country back together but we are stuck with two people that should not be allowed to be president of this great country because of their age and declining faculties.

No wonder we are watching people act like spoiled rotten children in the streets of this country on a daily basis when their political leaders on both sides eschew the same virtues and we wonder why that is. I won’t be voting this year for any candidate, might even look to leave this country for a Caribbean destination that is free of this type of fighting on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. We no longer see two parties working together to improve the lives of their citizens. Only to burn the other party down and own them. How sad we have become as a society.
The only way a third party makes any headway is if there are substantial changes to the electoral college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LBoogie28

GlenEllynHawk

HR All-State
Gold Member
May 13, 2020
624
503
93
That didn't answer the question.

Nominating and going through the confirmation process has always been the right thing to do. It was in 2016 but Mitch McConnell single handedly prevented that based on the rationale that the people of the US should have a voice in this selection. Now that rationale is being ignored and Mitch McConnell again has unilateral control of the process. That's not only bothersome, it's dangerous to have that much power in anyone's hands - least of which Mitch McConnell.

Let's hope this selection has the same sense and maturity to rule based on the law rather than political bias as John Roberts has.
That does answer the question. The answer is that Supreme Court nominees have been political for over 30 years, including nominees from both sides. And this is just a continuation of that politicization. So no I don't like it, but given the history, I also expect nothing less.

And what McConnel said in '16 was, "Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

Finally, you also didn't answered my question.
 

NorthernHawkeye

HR Legend
Dec 23, 2007
19,795
9,044
113
They had the power to hold it up, so they did. They have the power to push it through now so they will.

Does it bother you, though, that they claimed it was about letting the people have a say? We know now that was just cover for the political play. Claiming that the Senate and President are of the same party now or that Kavanaugh changed the game is just cover now.

Does this make you question whether any of your party's other claims may be a lie? Maybe voter ID pushes and now restricting mail-in voting is really about suppressing voter turnout and not election integrity. Maybe the talk of the deficit isn't actually in good faith once the Dems are back in power. Maybe Biden is going to let antifa move into your suburban home. Is there anything else you are questioning?

To everybody, what are the other political assertions that are clearly bad faith arguments meant to cover the political play?
Does it bother you that Biden and Ginsberg have contradicted themselves?
 

ConvenientParking

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2016
14,002
13,323
113
And one more note, if the rolls were reversed, the Dems would push a pick through too. It’s what these kids in DC do
I'm not going to accept this as a fact just because it's the only defense Republicans have that isn't "because we can." Democrats have not done this. Republicans have twice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
27,183
23,422
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
Frankly, all 3 of the candidates being floated around the media and interwebs are sufficiently qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I may disagree with some of their beliefs and/or philosophies, but that doesn't mean they're 'unqualified.'

What I disagree with is the inconsistent application of the senate duties when it comes to judicial confirmations.

I thought Garland deserved a hearing, whether confirmed or not. However, the GOP senate leaders decided the rules are that no SCOTUS nominees will be brought up for a vote during a presidential election year. Okay, I might disagree with that, but as long as that's the rule, and the rule is applied consistently I'm fine with it. I'm okay with no SCOTUS nominees in a presidential election year no matter the party in charge.

Come to 2020 and the application of the rule by the same GOP senate leadership is not followed in a consistent manner. This contributes to the disunity of our country, and appears to be the goal of Trump and his supporters. It's become obvious that Trump is only concerned about himself, and his supporters really don't care about the future of this country.
 
Last edited:

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
23,753
9,420
113
That does answer the question. The answer is that Supreme Court nominees have been political for over 30 years, including nominees from both sides. And this is just a continuation of that politicization. So no I don't like it, but given the history, I also expect nothing less.

And what McConnel said in '16 was, "Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

Finally, you also didn't answered my question.
It didn't, but this time you did. McConnell uttered your quote as an excuse that really had no relevance based on the Constitution. He also said this: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," he said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

I didn't answer or even address your question because it's not pertinent. Politicization of the Supreme Court has been going on since the beginning. The discussion is about the blatant hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell and the republicans who support these incongruous decisions.
 

GlenEllynHawk

HR All-State
Gold Member
May 13, 2020
624
503
93
It didn't, but this time you did. McConnell uttered your quote as an excuse that really had no relevance based on the Constitution. He also said this: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," he said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

I didn't answer or even address your question because it's not pertinent. Politicization of the Supreme Court has been going on since the beginning. The discussion is about the blatant hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell and the republicans who support these incongruous decisions.
My second answer was essentially the same as the first.

And McConnell's comment required no Constitutional relevance because the Constitution specifically does not require the Senate to vote on any nomination.

Last, my question is completely pertinent no matter how much you seek to camaflouge your hypocrisy.