Joe unhinged.
I can’t wait to see it.
Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
I can’t wait to see it.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I wish her the best, but it won’t change my vote against Trump.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Good luck with that, given that Trump has a sufficient number of Senate votes (I forgot the exact number)
Last edited:
Less now then when the democrats changed the rules.
The irony is that without that change, her appointment would be nearly impossible.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is the first I have heard this. Did anyone in 2016 make this nuance in their rhetoric? If not, I am afraid it has to be nothing but 2020 spin. Why not just be honest and say that it is only the party that is in power that determines their opinion. At least that would be honest, and really nothing wrong with it. They had no obligation in 2016 to make excuses for not voting. Sure, they would have set a precedent, but that happened anyway.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
See? The Democrats do some good things from time to time!
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
It’s not a winning argument in terms of stopping her appointment. It’s a good argument to pump up the Democratic vote in advance of the election.
I mean, how is the GOP going to respond? If they respond with “tough cookies, we have the votes” then it’s transparently just “we don’t care about the norms we set or any semblance of fair procedure, this is just about the exercise of power.”
Which, fine, I guess. But it’s pretty cynical, not to mention brazenly hypocritical.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The precedent wasn’t set by the GOP, it was set by Joe Biden himself in 1992. The idea being that when the executive branch and Senate are held by different parties, a judge ought not be proposed by the president near to an election, but decided by the electorate. The precedent was even dubbed “the Biden Rule” because it was first proposed by Biden; yet it was ignored by Obama in nominating Garland but followed by McConnell in 2016. Just who thwarted precedent? Obama.Tis_Bearself:
But the Dems don’t have to oppose her on substance. They’re got a pretty solid procedural argument. They can just say “she may be qualified, but we’re opposed because we’re right on the verge of an election and we’re following the precedent the GOP set with Garland.”
The current situation does not fit that precedent because the executive and Senate are held by the same party. I believe a judge has been appointed numerous (19, I believe) times when that has been the case.
The problem with simplistic analysis is that it is just that.
The media is all for simplisticism because they can get out of the chore of researching to back their cherished opinions.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
The bishops of these priests are ok with them publicly appearing with a controversial politician??
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
A random speech Joe Biden gave over a decade earlier is not “precedent” and Biden himself never attempted to enforce it with W’s picks. It’s also not the argument McConnell made to the American people.
Anyway, y’all have fun. I can’t do political threads on CAF anymore. It’s probably my fault for wandering in.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The election, que sera sera. Right now I just want to see an eminently competent judge, who also happens to be a woman and pro-life, make it onto that bench. The world needs to know there are pro-life women out there and they’re not all a bunch of dumb hicks from the sticks.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Is “fairness” an issue in appointing a judge in an election year. I don’t follow.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s not clear if they’re real priests and they don’t talk. He is running one ad that prominently pictures a still photo of a man dressed like a Catholic priest, I believe visiting someone in the hospital. Could be an actor in clerical garb for all we know. But the point is clear. I believe it may be accompanied by a voice-over about Joe’s Catholicism although I haven’t been keeping track, these ads consistenly pop up on my Youtubes when I’m trying to watch true crime and I skip 'em as fast as they pop up.
Last edited:
Correct. A single speech does not establish the precedent.
But it does show that the democratic party was well aware of precedent already established.
The precedent was already in historic record.
Biden’s speech simply put a name on it.
E
Ender
Guest
Well, Obama made a nomination in an election year, and Trump’s action is in keeping with what presidents do. Every time a vacancy has occurred in such circumstances the president has nominated a replacement.
The difference is in what happens in the Senate. Typically when the same party controls both, the nominee is confirmed (seventeen of nineteen times). When control of the presidency and Senate is split, the nominee is usually not confirmed (eight of ten). In this case, the likelihood of nominating justices was a major concern for Trump’s supporters. It’s not clear why he should balk at fulfilling that expectation simply because his opponents want to do exactly what he’s doing.
J
JSRG
Guest
McConnell actually did mention the cross-party issue back in 2016:dochawk:
This is the first I have heard this. Did anyone in 2016 make this nuance in their rhetoric? If not, I am afraid it has to be nothing but 2020 spin. Why not just be honest and say that it is only the party that is in power that determines their opinion. At least that would be honest, and really nothing wrong with it. They had no obligation in 2016 to make excuses for not voting. Sure, they would have set a precedent, but that happened anyway.
Or if you want a more direct link to his remarks:
He does mention the Senate and president being of opposite parties a few times. It’s not really something he puts an emphasis on in general, but he did mention it back in 2016.
D
dochawk
Guest
No, you can actually look up the years and nominations. There have been several articles in the last week or so. But the years of appointment and death/retirement of justices, and which parties held the white house and senate are pretty easy to look up, especially when spotted a couple of the years (1880 was the last cross party confirmation, and FDR made two election year appointments, both confirmed by democratic senates).
I think that the most charitable word for anyone who thinks the parties wouldn’t flip positions if the situation is reversed in for years is “naive”, while the word for anyone who thinks or thought that the other party (whichever it is for them) wouldn’t hold the vote, including in a lame duck session, if it held both is “gullible”.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Nope…We hold the senate majority under a Republican POTUS. Apples to oranges re 2016
Additionally the feigned outrage by the Dems is so obvious. If they were given this opportunity you know darn well they would have confirmed a SCOTUS yesterday. It politics may win some and you lose some…
Additionally the feigned outrage by the Dems is so obvious. If they were given this opportunity you know darn well they would have confirmed a SCOTUS yesterday. It politics may win some and you lose some…
Last edited:
Accepting and caring for a Down Syndrome child, all by itself, is a major “poke in the eye” to the pro-choice forces. The pro-choice solution for a Down pregnancy is very often to terminate that pregnancy. No one can tell me that every woman who welcomes a Down child isn’t a stinging reproach to those who have chosen to abort. The evil one hates things such as this.
I have made another bumper sticker along the “loud-living dogma” theme, and here it is. My “aboriginal conscience” is kind of waffling back and forth as to whether this is gratuitous and prideful self-aggrandization or not. You could argue this either way. I’ll just “throw it out there” and let everyone make up their own minds. Feel free to take it viral, if you can.
The “karma” reference might trip over the fifth paragraph of Nostra aetate, but I’d hope the Buddhists would take it as the little joke that it is. I’d say the Dalai Lama would just chuckle, he seems like a good-natured sort.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The “karma” reference might trip over the fifth paragraph of Nostra aetate, but I’d hope the Buddhists would take it as the little joke that it is. I’d say the Dalai Lama would just chuckle, he seems like a good-natured sort.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
- Status