Re: RIP RBG
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:43 pm
Agreed. Wishing and hoping that Republicans would stick to what they said is silly because we all knew they wouldn't, nor frankly should they. They were voted in to serve their constituents and that is what they are doing, just as it was back in 2016.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:16 pm There is no "rule" or "ethics" about this.
There is 1 single example, of the republicans making an excuse for why they weren't going to vote on a supreme court nomimee. It was pure pettiness/politics since Obama was in the last year of his 2nd term. They simply knew they could stall it out and they did it. They also could have just voted no.
Why would the democrats follow a rule that isn't even a rule just because the republicans said so that 1 time? They wouldn't. It would be stupid if they did imo.
Unfortunately they don't have the power to stop this. So there is a chance it is going to happen.
Like RBG said, a president is elected to 4 years. His power in year 4 is the same as his power in year 3. If people in the senate don't think his pick is deserving then they should vote no, just like RBG says.
Not to mention, if he wins again, then all this is pointless. So hopefully people get out and vote.
I think over the next 20 years we could see a major shift in the political parties.twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:56 pmAgreed. Wishing and hoping that Republicans would stick to what they said is silly because we all knew they wouldn't, nor frankly should they. They were voted in to serve their constituents and that is what they are doing, just as it was back in 2016.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:16 pm There is no "rule" or "ethics" about this.
There is 1 single example, of the republicans making an excuse for why they weren't going to vote on a supreme court nomimee. It was pure pettiness/politics since Obama was in the last year of his 2nd term. They simply knew they could stall it out and they did it. They also could have just voted no.
Why would the democrats follow a rule that isn't even a rule just because the republicans said so that 1 time? They wouldn't. It would be stupid if they did imo.
Unfortunately they don't have the power to stop this. So there is a chance it is going to happen.
Like RBG said, a president is elected to 4 years. His power in year 4 is the same as his power in year 3. If people in the senate don't think his pick is deserving then they should vote no, just like RBG says.
Not to mention, if he wins again, then all this is pointless. So hopefully people get out and vote.
Win back the White House, win back the Senate and bury the motherfuckers forever.
But then when they tables of power eventually turn again, like they always do, won't the same thing just happen where the other side (if Republicans as we know them even still exist then) just add 6 or 12 more seats, appointment 40 year olds, and start the cycle over again?
Already well past this point.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:15 pm So let's say trump rushes his pick thru...then dems win presidential election, take back control of senate/house....then they expand the # of supreme court justices....at what point does the integrity of the court become compromised by it becoming far to influenced by partisan politics?
Where does it stop? It gets expanded. Then someday republicans gain back control and expand it again? Just seems like the executive branch will be bleeding over into the judicial branch too much. Maybe we are already there, or about to be. Maybe what should really change is how justices are chosen? Shouldn't it be more about picking great justices and not solely for potential future political purposes? Just thinking out loud here.
Are they actually going against norms?TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:34 am that’s why “rules” was in quotes
we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln
and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support
there may be others, but Lincoln chose not toIllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:53 amAre they actually going against norms?TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:34 am that’s why “rules” was in quotes
we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln
and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support
I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?
Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.
Did he also control the senate?TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:54 amthere may be others, but Lincoln chose not toIllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:53 amAre they actually going against norms?TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:34 am that’s why “rules” was in quotes
we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln
and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support
I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?
Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.
oh reeeeallly?Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened.