• 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!

Time to get over Garland.

Hey y'all, we can't be upset over the Republican Party hijacking a supreme court nomination from a Democratic president because it happened in the 20th century!

Oh and for the record, considering the biggest reason that Fillmore wasn't successful in nominating Bradford to the Supreme Court was due to the fact that Fillmore was a staunch believer against slavery and the Southern, conservative states weren't exactly huge fans of that. So by all means, continue to position yourself on the wrong side of history.
 
trouble13 said:
Your strawman does not interest me

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You brought up Democrats bastardizing the Constitution as McConnellism did, not me.
 
ludin said:
why would you nominate someone knowing that there isn't going to be a vote on it?

ol yea because you are a political hack and trying to use that issue as a political tool.

however at least they just didn't give him a vote.

they don't have to try and dig up 35 year old sex assault accusations that can't be proven.
Click to expand...

Because it was his constitutional duty.
 
Linc said:
You brought up Democrats bastardizing the Constitution as McConnellism did, not me.
Click to expand...
More strawman from you. I didn't make any such claim

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Felis Leo said:
Bingo! MovingPictures, come on up and get your prize!

Seriously, you are correct. However, while you see this as a bad thing, I see this as a good thing. As a conservative, I want as many constitutional originalists and textualists on the Court as possible. I want judges who do their best not to treat laws or Constitutional language as poetry in a college English course to which they bring their personal experiences and interpretation to the text, but instead what the laws were originally meant at the time of their drafting.

I do not think partisanship is bad, per se, as long as it is principled, open, honest and there for all to see. It is intellectually dishonest partisanship rife with double-standards and hypocrisy that I despise.
Click to expand...

Then you despise McConnell’s bastardizing of the Federal Court System, beginning with Clinton’s last two years, with Trent Lott and Bill Frist.
 
trouble13 said:
More strawman from you. I didn't make any such claim

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You said Democrats would have done the same thing as McConnellism did. Your straw.
 
Linc said:
Why do Republicans support raping and bastardizing the Constitution?
Click to expand...

The Senate gets to advise and consent and the Senate makes its own rules in how a nominee gets through committee and to a vote. Constitutionally upheld and SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that Congress makes its own rules in how it governs itself so long as Constitutional rules are followed when mandated.

President "Elections Have Consequences" Obama got hoisted by his own petard with that comment.
 
Democrats have selective memory...

 
Linc said:
Then you despise McConnell’s bastardizing of the Federal Court System, beginning with Clinton’s last two years, with Trent Lott and Bill Frist.
Click to expand...

Yes to some. I do not know what you mean by McConnell "bastardizing" our Federal Court System. What I despise is hypocritical moral grandstanding by Republicans, who can be almost bad as Democrats in that regard, even if I like some of the results that we are given. I want conservative justices on the Court rendering proper decisions based on the proper way of reading the Constitution and Federal Law, and put there specifically because they believe in the Constitution. I do not want our Courts treated as some kind of super-legislature by Liberal/Progressive justices who often seem to view their position as being that of philosopher kings and who prefer to exercise their will rather than their judgment in their rulings. I think if McConnell were open from the beginning and said that, I would be all the happier for it.
 
Last edited:
MovingPictures said:
This is nothing but a load of partisan horse ****.

There has never (as in not even in once) been a SC vacancy held hostage by the opposing party to the WH, simply so they could get a more extreme justice on the court, once they regained the presidency. That's never happened, so stop pretending it ever did.

Republicans made a power grab, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Actually if you had looked into it a bit more Bradford was tabled precisely because of a Presidential election. It was meant to hold the seat vacant until the election between Fillmore and Gen. Pierce was finished. Many thought that Gen Pierce would win the election.
 


Ooooooopsie...

Now...I said THEN and still feel Garland should have been given a hearing and probably been seated. BUT...lets not pretend democrats have any high ground.
 
trouble13 said:
Garland should of gotten a vote. The reason was completely partisan. I'm sure if the situation was reversed the dems would of done the same thing but it does not excuse it. It was wrong.

They should of given him his vote and accepted the political consequences.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, Garland should have gotten a vote. It didn't happen though. And it was nothing new.
 
Praxas said:
Then stop complaining about what is happening to Kavanaugh then. Get used to it since there isn't anything wrong or unprecedented, according to you, with holding up a SCOTUS nominee.
Click to expand...

I don't mind it being held back. I do mind the way that its being done. Just as I minded the way that Garland was held up.
 
Rexedgar said:
E.A. Bradford in 1852? Is this the most current example? We should be ok for another what, 160 or so years?
Click to expand...

Like I said, he was just one of several. So no, not the most current example. Just one of several.
 
Linc said:
You said Democrats would have done the same thing as McConnellism did. Your straw.
Click to expand...
Yup I said that but you felt the need to add in bast arising the constitution and false equivalents. I also said nothing about what the dems are doing now as being the same, you added that on your own. You've created your own argument and are trying to disguise it as a question to me.

Get up on your soapbox and preach but leave me out of it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes, Garland should have gotten a vote. It didn't happen though. And it was nothing new.
Click to expand...
That's fair but dems do have a right to be angered by it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Felis Leo said:
Bingo! MovingPictures, come on up and get your prize!

Seriously, you are correct. However, while you see this as a bad thing, I see this as a good thing. As a conservative, I want as many constitutional originalists and textualists on the Court as possible. I want judges who do their best not to treat laws or Constitutional language as poetry in a college English course to which they bring their personal experiences and interpretation to the text, but instead what the laws were originally meant at the time of their drafting.

I do not think partisanship is bad, per se, as long as it is principled, open, honest and there for all to see. It is intellectually dishonest partisanship rife with double-standards and hypocrisy that I despise.
Click to expand...
Wow.

There it is everyone. Open admission by conservative voters that they want to grab power by any means necessary.
 
Time to get over Garland.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. Let's leave the seat vacant for 300 days or so and wait for the election so that Americans can weigh in. Then Kavanaugh still doesn’t get confirmed. After that, we can all get over it.
 
trouble13 said:
That's fair but dems do have a right to be angered by it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think 2 years is quite long enough don't you? And even then, just because they have a Right to be angered does not mean that they should be acting the way that they are. They're supposed to be adults. Time to pull up the big boy/girl pants and move on.
 
Helix said:
Sounds good. Let's leave the seat vacant for 300 days or so and wait for the election so that Americans can weigh in. Then Kavanaugh still doesn’t get confirmed. After that, we can all get over it.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch needs to go first.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I think 2 years is quite long enough don't you? And even then, just because they have a Right to be angered does not mean that they should be acting the way that they are. They're supposed to be adults. Time to pull up the big boy/girl pants and move on.
Click to expand...

Repubs don’t get to throw the first punch and say the fight is over.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually if you had looked into it a bit more Bradford was tabled precisely because of a Presidential election. It was meant to hold the seat vacant until the election between Fillmore and Gen. Pierce was finished. Many thought that Gen Pierce would win the election.
Click to expand...
Hey, while we're talking about ancient precedents.

The SC has been expanded to up to TEN seats before! That means that if Democrats get the House, Senate, and WH, they could use the McConnell nuclear option to add another seat to the court, and it will be perfectly within the bounds of precedent!

COOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom