• 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!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses court due to illness

bomberfox said:
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year | PolitiFact
There was no biden rule. No scotus nominations were blocked on said “rule” until mcconnel. If you want to just dismiss me dont post acting like it just ignore.
Click to expand...

Of course there was no "Biden rule" as an actual rule which is why I bracketed the term in quote marks (meaning it is so-called). On the other hand, just as there was a so-called "Thurmond Rule" which was an excuse and rationale on behalf of political self-interest, so it was with the so-called "Biden Rule" which was also just an excuse and rationale also employed for opportunistic self-interest. Neither were traditions nor agreements.

By the way, the "Biden Rule" posited by the then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, that the Senate should consider not holding hearings for a vacancy in an election year. He said:

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention. ...It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

It was not the so-called Thurmond rationale that McConnell invoked, it was the so-called Biden rationale - and that stung. It's no fun having to see the opposition hoist you on your own petard, but given that both parties employ the maxim of "depending on whose ox is gored" it is to be expected.
 
maxparrish said:
Of course there was no "Biden rule" as an actual rule which is why I bracketed the term in quote marks (meaning it is so-called). On the other hand, just as there was a so-called "Thurmond Rule" which was an excuse and rationale on behalf of political self-interest, so it was with the so-called "Biden Rule" which was also just an excuse and rationale also employed for opportunistic self-interest. Neither were traditions nor agreements.

By the way, the "Biden Rule" posited by the then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, that the Senate should consider not holding hearings for a vacancy in an election year. He said:

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention. ...It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

It was not the so-called Thurmond rationale that McConnell invoked, it was the so-called Biden rationale - and that stung. It's no fun having to see the opposition hoist you on your own petard, but given that both parties employ the maxim of "depending on whose ox is gored" it is to be expected.
Click to expand...

No nomination was held up before mcconnel based on that thought experiment. You failed again liar. Just come out and say you just dont care about democracy.
 
Mr Person said:
As in, not vote on any nominee until the next president is seated? I'd be gobsmacked if they actually did that.

They had no problem going along with McConnell re: Garland even though it was a pretty naked power grab. There was no rule one way or another, just some quotes from politicians in the past pontificating on what should happen were a justice to leave the bench during an election year. Arguably it established one, but what's a rule that cannot be enforced? Anyway, I see no reason to believe they really thought they were honoring a rule about what happens in those circumstances. They saw an opening and took it because it was there.

I see little reason to think this crop would not break their own newly established "rule" if it meant they could seat another conservative, especially with McConnell at the helm. He'd never say "we refused to vote on Obama's appointee because it was an election year, so we are honor-bound to do the same with Trump's nominee" (assuming she does pass in 2020). I also doubt people who regularly vote Republican would punish them for it. Even if they did, memories are short while justices typically sit quite a long time, so it is undeniably in their strategic interest to seat anyone they can.

I suppose the only thing that might hold them back is fear that this would embolden Democrats to expand the Court if they ever have the chance and stack it the other way, in revenge.
Click to expand...

Sorry it was a sarcastic wonder.
 
bomberfox said:
No nomination was held up before mcconnel based on that thought experiment. You failed again liar. Just come out and say you just dont care about democracy.
Click to expand...

Biden made his threat to Bush in 1992, based on his 'principled' rationale. That he couldn't carry out his threat, not by his own choice, but because Bush did not nominate someone in his last year, is irrelevant. Biden clearly made a threat, and clearly laid out his operative principle on which he and Democrats would ignore a hearing for a President potentially in his last year in office.

McConnell, shrewdly, drank Biden's milkshake - quoting Biden's "principled" rationale as his own rationale, and using it when the opportunity arose.

Being hoisted by your own petard is not atypical in politics. Get over it.
 
To the victor goes the spoils. As long as someone is POTUS, their nominees should be evaluated and accepted or rejected on their merit.
 
maxparrish said:
Biden made his threat to Bush in 1992, based on his 'principled' rationale. That he couldn't carry out his threat, not by his own choice, but because Bush did not nominate someone in his last year, is irrelevant. Biden clearly made a threat, and clearly laid out his operative principle on which he and Democrats would ignore a hearing for a President potentially in his last year in office.

McConnell, shrewdly, drank Biden's milkshake - quoting Biden's "principled" rationale as his own rationale, and using it when the opportunity arose.

Being hoisted by your own petard is not atypical in politics. Get over it.
Click to expand...

There was no actual hold up of any nomination and no rule. Of course he noted this after his claim that this is about precedent was shot to hell. Thats where your justification fails. I know you will make up anything to nustify what the GOP does just like you slavishly defend gerrymandering. McConnel should be careful where he dines.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
There was no actual hold up of any nomination and no rule. Thats where your justification fails. I know you will make up anything to nustify what the GOP does just like you slavishly defend gerrymandering. McConnel should be careful where he dines.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you think making the same unsupported assertion over and over will make it more convincing? It doesn't!

For several posts you have been unable to either grasp my points or make cogent arguments in opposition. Dogmatically asserting that it is "this is just how I think it is" not an argument, its a choice to opt out of a disagreement based on reason.

As you have made no effort to demonstrate that Biden's lack of opportunity to use his own rule (his rationale) has a parsnip of relevancy to McConnel's use I think it pointless to hear you repeat Ipse Dixit for a third time. In other words, if you are unable to keep up and provide actual arguments, rather than hand waving, don't bother replying.
 
Time for RBG to retire. However the supposed non partisan court will not see this because RBG is afraid that Trump will nominate another conservative judge.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Time for RBG to retire. However the supposed non partisan court will not see this because RBG is afraid that Trump will nominate another conservative judge.
Click to expand...

She can be in a coma and is a better justice than kavanaugh
 
maxparrish said:
Perhaps you think making the same unsupported assertion over and over will make it more convincing? It doesn't!

For several posts you have been unable to either grasp my points or make cogent arguments in opposition. Dogmatically asserting that it is "this is just how I think it is" not an argument, its a choice to opt out of a disagreement based on reason.

As you have made no effort to demonstrate that Biden's lack of opportunity to use his own rule (his rationale) has a parsnip of relevancy to McConnel's use I think it pointless to hear you repeat Ipse Dixit for a third time. In other words, if you are unable to keep up and provide actual arguments, rather than hand waving, don't bother replying.
Click to expand...

Because your points are not actual arguments. I told you why democrats not using a non rule is nothing compared to what McConnel did. Its just pathetic apologia after you were caught with your pants down. McConnel not only lied about the biden rule but he also started with the precedent lie then moved the goal post. Ill reply if i want. Suck it.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
Because your points are not actual arguments. Its just pathetic apologia after you were caught with your pants down. McConnel not only lied about the biden rule but he also started with the precedent lie then moved the goal post. Ill reply if i want. Suck it.
Click to expand...

In other words I was correct, you don't even understand what an argument is, do you? Sadly, you can't even grasp the reasons and explanations provided, even as plain spoken as they are? All you do is "say stuff" as hostile characterizations and meander into opaque corners with some added whack-a-doodle gibberish about "caught with your pants down" (whatever that means) repeating a mantra that "just because" McConnell did what Biden said should be done, and that Biden did not have he opportunity, to do so, it means something exculpating that is APPARENTLY known only to you...that is beyond your ability to explain to the rest of us.

LOL...enough already. I gave you repeated opportunities to explain your assertions and hostile characterizations and what they mean argumentatively - you did not and cannot. Moreover you ignored by request to cease replying unless it was something thoughtful rather than your ipse dixit drivel. That too was a disappointment. As you can't resist being an incoherent chattering pest, I will have to block you. To that end, toddles.
 
maxparrish said:
In other words I was correct, you don't even understand what an argument is, do you? Sadly, you can't even grasp the reasons and explanations provided, even as plain spoken as they are? All you do is "say stuff" as hostile characterizations and meander into opaque corners with some added whack-a-doodle gibberish about "caught with your pants down" (whatever that means) repeating a mantra that "just because" McConnell did what Biden said should be done, and that Biden did not have he opportunity, to do so, it means something exculpating that is APPARENTLY known only to you...that is beyond your ability to explain to the rest of us.

LOL...enough already. I gave you repeated opportunities to explain your assertions and hostile characterizations and what they mean argumentatively - you did not and cannot. Moreover you ignored by request to cease replying unless it was something thoughtful rather than your ipse dixit drivel. That too was a disappointment. As you can't resist being an incoherent chattering pest, I will have to block you. To that end, toddles.
Click to expand...

Ive already explained myself with reference and sources. Im glad you approve of corruption and whining to the mods, this is plain for all to see. Block me, then i wont have to deal with your slavish devotion to corruption.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom