• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats and extreme obstructionism

Seeing as it shows that it really didn't matter who he chose, because they were going to lose their **** over it anyway. Despite the lack of an actual reason to do so.

It shows that these people are stuck in the "bitch about everything" mode.

I think they had a good reason to bitch, they wanted to preserve 50 years of judicial precedence, and women's right to choose how to handle their own health care needs with respect to choosing whether or not to bear children, to preserve Planned Parenthood funding which help poor women, and the many things the judges on that list are a threat to.
 
Democrats are going to do everything in their power to "stop" him. I don't like it, just like I didn't like Republicans doing anything in their power to stop Garland, but it's the political landscape. I've disliked how SCOTUS justices have been handled in most cases for years now and it's not likely going to change. I just can't get all that upset about it at this point because both parties just wallow in it and I don't really see it likely to change anytime soon.
 
It is the mission of the left to stop anything that might curtail “interpreting” the constitution to further the lefts goals. Generally, conservatives are against open borders and judicial activism, two areas the left uses to alter the legal fabric of the country.

Declaring that corporations are human and therefore endowed with the same constitutional rights and.....

property (money) is speech.....

.....are the two rulings by conservatives that are the most 'activist' rulings in over a century and neither empowerment can be found in the constitution.
 
I guess we just have to disagree. Again, America spoke, and by voting for Trump, they voted against Garland.

America has already voted and they want a speedy hearing for Coach K. Why are Democrats going against the will of the people???

When you think that a majority of Americans voted for Clinton, maybe, just maybe they were voting for Garland.
 
No no no. That wasn't the McConnell Rule. That was the Cryin' Chuck rule.

No, that was McConnell's rule and he said it out loud for everyone to hear. Just because like most Trump cultists you want to believe McConnell and Trump, don't go aroudn the truth.
 
Obama was literally trying to "sneak" in Merrick Garland right before a presidential election. That is completely unheard of in modern politics.

That was nothing close to obstructionism.

LOL! What delusional nonsense. It was all out there in public.

No 'sneaking' going on whatsoever.
 
I think they had a good reason to bitch, they wanted to preserve 50 years of judicial precedence, and women's right to choose how to handle their own health care needs with respect to choosing whether or not to bear children, to preserve Planned Parenthood funding which help poor women, and the many things the judges on that list are a threat to.

Trump has already stated what he wants for RvW, that is already set in stone. This judge on the other hand has already stated that he would not even dare to touch such a precedence and even Trump has said that if they overturn it. That it would still be up to the individual states, which means if these women still wanted it to stay the same. All they have to do is get out and vote to keep it as such.

The way these people are acting is completely insane.
 
Trump has already stated what he wants for RvW, that is already set in stone. This judge on the other hand has already stated that he would not even dare to touch such a precedence and even Trump has said that if they overturn it. That it would still be up to the individual states, which means if these women still wanted it to stay the same. All they have to do is get out and vote to keep it as such.

The way these people are acting is completely insane.


We have many examples of appointee promises who, once on the bench, did not keep their promise. The "list" was vetted by the Federalist Society. You can bet your rooty patooty R v W, etc., is threatened by any judge on that list, promise or not.
 
We have many examples of appointee promises who, once on the bench, did not keep their promise. The "list" was vetted by the Federalist Society. You can bet your rooty patooty R v W, etc., is threatened by any judge on that list, promise or not.

Which is fine, that is the same creed we all abide by.
We live in this country, then the vote carries over to what is going to be changed and what is going to remain the same.

If they overturn it, no bid deal. Individual states can still uphold their own standings and people can still abstain from whining, or they can move states when they don't like it.

These people should be working on their careers instead of crying about something that hasn't even happened yet.

Then again, that is their right to protest and I can't stop them. Nor would I if I had the power.
 
Which is fine, that is the same creed we all abide by.
We live in this country, then the vote carries over to what is going to be changed and what is going to remain the same.

If they overturn it, no bid deal. Individual states can still uphold their own standings and people can still abstain from whining, or they can move states when they don't like it.

These people should be working on their careers instead of crying about something that hasn't even happened yet.

Then again, that is their right to protest and I can't stop them. Nor would I if I had the power.

Why are you bitching? Nothing is more American that protesting. Where do you come off this way?

You're the one who should quit whining about protestors. what do you care about them? Their concerns are legit, given who Trump is and how the right wing court recently reversed years of precedent on a few rulings.
 
Why are you bitching? Nothing is more American that protesting. Where do you come off this way?

You're the one who should quit whining about protestors. what do you care about them? Their concerns are legit, given who Trump is and how the right wing court recently reversed years of precedent on a few rulings.

I have not problem with people protesting, its when the **** doesn't matter or when they don't even know what is going on and they still decided to show up and cry about it, or they follow the same kind of lies that had people in the street through 2016.

Protesting that children were being separated from their parents and put in cages.
1. No children were actually being put in cages and 2. family separations were being performed under the Obama administration as well. Only now that just because its Trump's run that they actually notice.

Protesting that Trump was going to deport all immigrants, was a blatant lie. Yet people poured out in droves along with women's rights groups and BLM groups to protest Trump. Same goes for the people he was going to repeal women's rights and other pro-choice groups who were trying to preemptively protect RvW. The ***** costumes where entertaining, if only a good bit sad to realize these were grown ****ing people.

You haven't had to give therapy to a little girl, who tried to remove her own anatomy with a box cutter. Simply because her mother snapped when Clinton lost and berated her daughter into thinking she wouldn't have a right to her own vagina after that night.

So yes, when these people get so bent out of shape for nothing. It does in fact, piss me off.
 
family separations were being performed under the Obama administration as well.


That is a misleading statement, because it implies equivalency.

there were some separations under previous administrations, for various reasons, but there was NO blanket policy to prosecute parents and, therefore, separate them from their children as is the case with Trump.
 
That is a misleading statement, because it implies equivalency.

there were some separations under previous administrations, for various reasons, but there was NO blanket policy to prosecute parents and, therefore, separate them from their children as is the case with Trump.

The statement is also factually incomplete. (When is it not from these people?) The separations under Obama were the immediate result of a court order preventing the incarceration of children for more than 20 days. The administration realized on its own that the separations were wrong - no one had to tell them, and ended them by freeing the parents, with their children, on a promise to appear in court when their cases came up.
 
Last edited:
The statement is also factually incomplete. (When is it not from these people?) The separations under Obama were the immediate result of a court order preventing the incarceration of children for more than 20 days. The administration realized on its own that the separations were wrong - no one had to tell them, and ended them by freeing the parents, with their children, on a promise to appear in court when their cases came up.


there will be circumstances where kids get separated from parents in the complex world of immigration, that is not at issue.

This is the issue, and I repeat ( now pay attention, please ) :

under prior presidents, there was NO blanket policy to prosecute parents on misdemeanor crossings and, therefore, separate them from their children as is the case with Trump.
(though he had to repeal his own ED due to public outcry )
 
there will be circumstances where kids get separated from parents in the complex world of immigration, that is not at issue.

This is the issue, and I repeat ( now pay attention, please ) :

under prior presidents, there was NO blanket policy to prosecute parents on misdemeanor crossings and, therefore, separate them from their children as is the case with Trump.
(though he had to repeal his own ED due to public outcry )

Are you feeling okay? I didn't disagree with your post. I agreed with you and simply added that in addition to the OP's mischaracterization which you corrected, the OP was factually incomplete, and I provided his factual omission. I hope this exchange has not aggravated an ulcer.
 
Are you feeling okay? I didn't disagree with your post. I agreed with you and simply added that in addition to the OP's mischaracterization which you corrected, the OP was factually incomplete, and I provided his factual omission. I hope this exchange has not aggravated an ulcer.

Thanks, sorry for the misread.
 
That is a misleading statement, because it implies equivalency.

there were some separations under previous administrations, for various reasons, but there was NO blanket policy to prosecute parents and, therefore, separate them from their children as is the case with Trump.

You are arguing on two of the same fronts. The policy stuck with the law as it was supposed to, even Obama was court order to keep the children separated from their parents.

This is still a sing that everyone didn't care about these damn kids when it was the previous administrations and only when it was Trump's turn did they get their panties in a twist. If these people shows a scrap of consistency then I would be okay with how they are treating this. However the screaming, lying, and downright childish acting is becoming tiresome.

By law, we couldn't house criminals, even those under investigation, or being processed for asylum claims, with their children.
 
Obama was literally trying to "sneak" in Merrick Garland right before a presidential election. That is completely unheard of in modern politics.

That was nothing close to obstructionism.

BS...garbage...sounds like a Kremlin narrative if anything.

This is not even hard. Politics is politics and government is government. Folks more used to authoritarianism where PR or more perhaps more accurately propaganda is 24/7 affair don't seem to get this. For example, Trump was running a 2020 campaign as soon as he stepped into the WH. Should we not allow him to make any SC justice picks? How do you distinguish a year remaining from four years remaining if the political campaign lasts as long as the actual term in office. McConnell robbed a SCJ pick from Obama. There is simply no other way to look at it. Politics is politics and government is government at least in this country. We don't elect Presidents for 3.1 years.
 
Last edited:
You are arguing on two of the same fronts. The policy stuck with the law as it was supposed to, even Obama was court order to keep the children separated from their parents.

This is still a sing that everyone didn't care about these damn kids when it was the previous administrations and only when it was Trump's turn did they get their panties in a twist. If these people shows a scrap of consistency then I would be okay with how they are treating this. However the screaming, lying, and downright childish acting is becoming tiresome.

By law, we couldn't house criminals, even those under investigation, or being processed for asylum claims, with their children.

You're missing the point-- prior to the new policy by Trump, class B misdemeanors (first-time border-crossers) were never prosecuted and treated as criminals.
 
You're missing the point-- prior to the new policy by Trump, class B misdemeanors (first-time border-crossers) were never prosecuted and treated as criminals.

Which is why its a sterner policy, yet it doesn't changed the fact that said separations were already happening.
We still have people crossing the boarder illegally and we still have people calling for asylum, even when they know they aren't eligible for it. The faux outrage that all of these people are showing, is rather tiring.

Trump has every right to take a tougher stance on this.
 
Which is why its a sterner policy, yet it doesn't changed the fact that said separations were already happening.
We still have people crossing the boarder illegally and we still have people calling for asylum, even when they know they aren't eligible for it. The faux outrage that all of these people are showing, is rather tiring.

Trump has every right to take a tougher stance on this.

Yeah, well he changed his tune when that policy created a HUGE PR FLAP for him and the GOP. His own people forced him to do it.

Cya in November.
 
Yeah, well he changed his tune when that policy created a HUGE PR FLAP for him and the GOP. His own people forced him to do it.

Cya in November.

What PR flop?
The one caused by administrations passed?

The one that almost no one gave a damn about for nearly two decades until Trump came along, you mean that PR flop?

Good thing we have Trump to solve it, because it was obvious that Obama didn't even care enough to fix it himself.

So you're welcome.
 
What PR flop?
The one caused by administrations passed?


The one that almost no one gave a damn about for nearly two decades until Trump came along, you mean that PR flop?

Good thing we have Trump to solve it, because it was obvious that Obama didn't even care enough to fix it himself.

So you're welcome.


PR FLAP, but you can toss in flop, as well. The public backlash on the policy of prosecuting class B misdemeanor first time crossers resulted in Trump's own people forcing him to reverse his own policy.

There was no such policy before Trump.
 
Obama was literally trying to "sneak" in Merrick Garland right before a presidential election. That is completely unheard of in modern politics.

That was nothing close to obstructionism.

This is either rank ignorance or just shameless lying.

I'll let you choose.

There was nothing "sneaky" about Scalia dying in February 2016, and Obama nominating Garland to replace him 2 weeks later. And election year replacements on the USSC are hardly "completely unheard of".

  • Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED Senate in the middle of the '88 presidential campaign (i.e. Feb '88).
  • Just ONE MONTH before the 1956 presidential election, Dwight Eisenhower appointed William Brennan to assume the seat of USSC Justice Sherman Minter in October (right in the final days of the '56 presidential campaign). Brennan was then approved by a DEMOCRATIC controlled Senate.
  • About 9-1/2 months before the 1940 presidential election, FDR appointed Frank Murphy in January of 1940 (while campaigning during the '40 presidential election) after the death of USSC Justice Pierce Bulter.
  • In January of 1932, 11 months before the '32 presidential election, Herbert Hoover appointed Ben Cardoza to replace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
  • Woodrow Wilson appointed TWO new Justices to the USSC during the middle of the 1916. In January of '16, Louis Brandeis was appointed to replace Justice Joe Lamar (who also died in office), and then in June of '16 Wilson appointed John Clarke to replace Charles Evans Hughes (who retired). BOTH replacements occurred during the middle of the 1916 Presidential election.

So, let's see....that's SIX very similar examples of replacing USSC Justices during an election year.

What McConnell and the Republicans did to the Merrick Garland nomination was entirely unprecedented in the HISTORY of this country.

Period. Full stop.

To argue otherwise (in ANY form) is to be ignorant, brainwashed, or dishonest.

Full stop.
 
PR FLAP, but you can toss in flop, as well. The public backlash on the policy of prosecuting class B misdemeanor first time crossers resulted in Trump's own people forcing him to reverse his own policy.

There was no such policy before Trump.

You mean taking a hard line on the offenders, or just the separations in general?
Because I have seen more than a few people who somehow believe that this business only started with Trump.
 
Back
Top Bottom