It’s two minutes of Democrats making the case that Republicans should allow Obama to select a replacement to Scalia. A Republican friend put it up, because he believes it shows how Democrats who are now saying we should wait for the election are the hypocrites. This friend owns a business, went to college, has healthy smart kids. I am at a a lose, but my response was, “Am I hearing this correctly? You disagree with what McConnell did in 2016 when Scalia died?”
I think you can see this even if you don’t have a facebook account. - Lausten
Need to log in. I don't have a Facebook account. Your comment is convoluted but I gather you find your Republican friend dumb for calling out the Democrats as hypocrites. Guess, I am as dumb as your friend.
In the year 2016, Democrats made the case that a Republican Senate allows Obama to appoint Scalia’s replacement even though Obama was in the last year of his presidency. Mitch said no.
Democrats are now saying we should not allow Trump in the last year of his presidency to replace Ginsburg’s replacement and wait for the election. Mitch says no.
Why is this not hypocrisy on the part of Democrats who wanted a Chief Justice replacement in 2016 but not now?
Same question to you Sree. Republicans said one thing in 2016 and the opposite now. How is that not hypocrisy? Law is based on precedent. What is the precedent?
Same question to you Sree. Republicans said one thing in 2016 and the opposite now. How is that not hypocrisy? Law is based on precedent. What is the precedent? - Lausten
Look, you need both the President (to nominate) and the Senate (granting approval) to appoint a replacement for a Supreme Court Judge. You and I know that the (liberal) Democrats and (conservative) Republicans stack the Court with judges who are ideologically biased in their favor respectively.
In 2016, Obama picked a liberal judge to replace Scalia (conservative). Mitch said no. Now, Trump picks a conservative judge to replace Ginsburg (liberal). Mitch says yes. Is this why you call it hypocrisy? Wow.
I don’t want to argue with you because it will be too painful for me.
You and I know that the (liberal) Democrats and (conservative) Republicans stack the Court with judges who are ideologically biased in their favor respectively. -- Sree
It makes you feel better to see this as Conservatives vs Liberals. But Reagan got Rehnquist, O'Connor and Kennedy, who voted on both sides of that aisles. Merrick Garland was in that vein. That's how Supreme Court judges should be, but we've lost that sense of fairness in the last couple decades.
Mitch said no.
He didn't just say "no". In fact he didn't let it go up for a vote, he didn't use the process laid out in the Constitution, then claimed that he could do that because "the American people should get a chance to weigh in". Now, he's saying the American should not have chance. So, yes, I call picking judges based on the politics of a couple people hypocritical and not at all in the spirit of the framers of the Constitution.
It makes you feel better to see this as Conservatives vs Liberals. - Lausten
It's what it is - a fact of life - regardless of how I feel.
But Reagan got Rehnquist, O’Connor and Kennedy, who voted on both sides of that aisles. Merrick Garland was in that vein. That’s how Supreme Court judges should be, but we’ve lost that sense of fairness in the last couple decades.
True. Back in those good old days when we shared the same fundamentals, the political divide was just a difference of opinion among Americans who didn't see each other as existential threats. Now, your sense of fairness is hard to take.
He didn’t just say “no”. In fact he didn’t let it go up for a vote, he didn’t use the process laid out in the Constitution, then claimed that he could do that because “the American people should get a chance to weigh in”. Now, he’s saying the American should not have chance. So, yes, I call picking judges based on the politics of a couple people hypocritical and not at all in the spirit of the framers of the Constitution.
You have my sympathy and I mean it. It's politics and does get as ugly as a dog fight. Trump is not out of the pit yet. He has been fighting for dear life since day one against not only Democrats but also dogs from the Republican Party - one dog against a pack. As an American, I find that hard to stomach. Kill or be killed. There is no sense of fairness anymore.
From Wiki: Hypocriticism: these individuals are hypocrites who criticize and accuse others about the vice that they are guilty of themselves.
To understand pathological criticism and pathological responses to criticism, it is often not sufficient to see the individuals concerned in isolation – they should be placed in the total context in which the criticism or the response to it occurs. Particular situations can “bring out” the “bad side” of people, which in the normal run of events would not occur. Pathological criticism occurs especially in situations of intense conflict or competition, where the normal internal and external controls on people’s behavior begin to break down.
Logic? Fairness? What has that to do with politics in the USA today? Nothing. Both sides have acknowledged that they are in a war for the soul of the nation. It is quite apparent that both sides are going to use every weapon they have, including “nuclear options” in order to win.
The left took some very big steps towards socialism under Obama and they were, and still are, totally distraught that the right has not just stopped it but has done a lot to reverse it under Trump. Going back to pre-Obama policies is not acceptable to the left and going further into, or remaining in, socialism is not acceptable to the right.
I think the left would be better off if they could acknowledge that they went “a law to far” (to borrow a phrase) and (to borrow another phrase) just “stand back and stand by”. Big changes are best taken in small doses.
On the right, we believe “that government is best which governs the least”. True when Jefferson wrote it, true today.
On the left, for example, Biden calls for national mandates, regulations and standards. Sounds like a push towards totalitarian central government to me.
The Dems seem to want us to forget we are a federation of States and govern by representatives while touting the “popular vote” which is essentially meaningless under the Constitution. Some call many of the left’s actions an assault on the Constitution. I believe it is and the right will fight it.
Remember that you don’t vote in the nation, you vote in your State.
A government who governs least is libertarian and basically, IMO, a do nothing government. IF we had a bunch of libertarians running our government, then we need to get rid of the tax that pays their salary, because they wouldn’t be doing anything in which to get paid for. They’d need a job to support themselves, 'less they become corrupt and steal from the public. My proposal is that we have a society where every vote actually counts, socialized medicine, making sure everyone has basic needs in order to survive, and those running our government get paid only a living wage and not a million dollars (or thousands) a year. It’s ridiculous how much some of our elected officials get paid a year. They shouldn’t be paid that much, especially if they insist on a minimum wage that doesn’t help anyone survive or support healthcare for all, etc etc etc.
mriana: "It’s ridiculous how much some of our elected officials get paid a year. They shouldn’t be paid that much, especially if they insist on a minimum wage that doesn’t help anyone survive or support healthcare for all, etc etc etc."
I'd rather pay them a few hundred thousand a year than many millions to football/baseball/basketball/soccer/cricket/hockey/etc. players. Our society has put entertainers in a stratospheric income level and left those who make the most important decisions on behalf of all of all us in their dust.
Not that I think politicians should make millions, but they should be compensated according to their impact on society. Maybe take the money from investors who sit on their asses and produce nothing but more money through market fluctuations and insider information, or those who make billions of dollars on the backs of millions of people, and instead improve the pay for people who work for all of us a bit more.
Lots of people are obscenely overpaid and lots are obscenely underpaid. I say leave those poor souls in the middle of the pack alone and focus on the extremes. Good politicians will do that… we just need more good politicians!
Lots of people are obscenely overpaid and lots are obscenely underpaid. I say leave those poor souls in the middle of the pack alone and focus on the extremes. Good politicians will do that… we just need more good politicians! - 3point
Why do we need politicians at all? What is wrong with a society of independent people allowed the freedom to make choices in cooperation or competition with each other in the marketplace?
"What is wrong with a society of independent people allowed the freedom to make choices in cooperation or competition with each other in the marketplace?"
Another future inhabitant of "Anarchy Island".
That post is like asking why it’s wrong to punch babies - if you choose to pose the question in a serious way you have already made the decision to not understand the answer.
Another future inhabitant of “Anarchy Island”. - 3point
Why do you have a dim view of your fellowmen? To some extent, America is a land of the free, free-enterprise. This is what makes the US first among equals, and such a distinctive economic powerhouse compared to the rest of the world. The Europeans may disdain us, but we definitely have left them in the dust.
That post is like asking why it’s wrong to punch babies – if you choose to pose the question in a serious way you have already made the decision to not understand the answer.
In a free society, everybody has a choice to be anything in the pursuit of happiness. Choices have consequences. If you choose to be a baby all your life, that's good too as long as you can get tits to suck till you die.
My dim view is reserved for only the very dimmest of my fellowmen.
"This is what makes the US first among equals, and such a distinctive economic powerhouse compared to the rest of the world. "
In every measure of quality of life the US is nowhere near being a contender for top spot. You can hunker down in your expensive sty and say it's a palace, but anyone who looks at the data knows you're full of it.
"The Europeans may disdain us, but we definitely have left them in the dust."
Are you trapped in a bunker with no information getting in to you for the last few decades?
"In a free society, everybody has a choice to be anything in the pursuit of happiness. "
Yes. Especially choices that are to the detriment of others where they have no way to recover. Your statement is too obviously wrong to waste time on.
"If you choose to be a baby all your life, that’s good too as long as you can get tits to suck till you die."
One of us wants to be an adult and cares about everyone. The other one has the emotional IQ of a toddler who only cares about yourself [yup.].
Are you saying that not all humans are unjust and there are people who are inherently good? It may sound pessimistic on my part, but I see mankind as an ill wind that blows nobody any good. ~sree
And then...
Why do you have a dim view of your fellowmen? ~ALSO sree
But hey, those two posts were nearly 2 1/4 hours apart. That is PLENTY of time for sree to come to exactly the opposite conclusion he came to so long ago.
That is PLENTY of time for sree to come to exactly the opposite conclusion he came to so long ago. -- W
I quit keeping track of the evidence for Sree's trolling behavior. I could just wake up in the right state of mind one day and block him. I already have all the reasonable reasons any reasonable person could reason.