Not so, if this was vice versa, and the biden rule was properly applied (back in 1992)Completely ignored the fact a sitting US president openly interfered in another countries election. Of course you do lmao.
Stop being facetious. Its completely relevant. If dems controlled the senate we wouldn't be having this conversation. And you'd still be making the same arguments in January after the election because greg is right, it doesn't matter who or why you're making the arguments you are. You'd be upset and try and stop any conservative judge anyway.
You're right that we wouldn't be having this conversation if Democrats controlled the Senate, but that doesn't make party control of the Senate at all relevant to the standards allegedly set in place for if a Supreme Court appointment occurs in an election year. It also doesn't mean it should be relevant.
The Republican standard was "no," but now it's "yes." The reason? They're willing to be hypocritical to get what they want, which is as many conservative seats as possible. McConnell's reasoning in 2016 had nothing to do with which party controls the Senate, nor should it. Also, please remember that McConnell said that if Hillary won in 2016, the seat would potentially be kept open indefinitely (until either the Senate went Democratic or the presidency went Republican). Are those the new standards? Because that's what it sounds like.
Well, let's see here one was a president pushing for a country not to go through a policy, however said country still had a choice.Or how about the fact Obama flew over to the UK and interfered in the UK brexit referendum. "It'S oKaY wHeN wE dO iT"
I sit eagerly awaiting your condemnation of your then president blatantly interfering in another countries vote, telling us how to vote.
Republicans are playing favorites
To be fair to @Lacius, this is a clarification McConnel provided in 2019, meaning after everything was said and done, but also long before the current debacle. Either way, if the issue was never brought up in front of the Senate then there was no Senate consent. Even if it was brought up before the Senate, it wouldn't pass either way. All of this is hypothetical coulda shoulda woulda, at the end of the day the GOP will take what they can get if the opportunity arises - the reelection is uncertain, the seat is surefire. They could do it tomorrow if they really wanted to, there's nothing stopping them.Even if you exclude the unique circumstances surround each appointment I believe that being a hypocrite is okay if it means that a new Conservative Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court. There's far worse things than being a hypocrite, like breaking the law, starting wild fires, looting, murdering, lying, arson, trying to use Impeachment as an unjustified tool during an election year or voting for these fools who have been running great cities into the ground for decades. I can deal with Mitch being a hypocrite, if that's what was taking place, but @Foxi4 already provided you with a quote that set out the specifics and you just choose to selectively use what makes you sound correct from the quote and ignore the rest. That's a personal flaw, but your willing blindness doesn't change what he said, what he meant, why he said it and what took place back then compared to what's happening now. Though, this topic is boring. Democrats will fight against an appointment and will say anything and do anything regardless of truthfulness to stop it while Republicans will try their best to get a new Judge onto the bench. The lies your side comes up with have no bearing on the situation. It's not like you can lie and cheat your way around the rules.
you should ponder this is it murder if the mother's life is in danger? if you say yes that your as hypocrical as all of you lot maybe worseGood! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.
If they voted on Garland and it didn't pass, that sucks but it's fair (excluding issues with Senate composition being unrepresentative of the population). Elections have consequences. One man stating he's not even going to let anybody vote on him for a single reason (it's an election year) and then contradicting that when it's convenient is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If that's what happens, the Democrats should pack the court. It wouldn't be moral, but it wouldn't be any worse than what McConnell is trying to get away with.To be fair to @Lacius, this is a clarification McConnel provided in 2019, meaning after everything was said and done, but also long before the current debacle. Either way, if the issue was never brought up in front of the Senate then there was no Senate consent. Even if it was brought up before the Senate, it wouldn't pass either way. All of this is hypothetical coulda shoulda woulda, at the end of the day the GOP will take what they can get if the opportunity arises - the reelection is uncertain, the seat is surefire. They could do it tomorrow if they really wanted to, there's nothing stopping them.
you should ponder this is it murder if the mother's life is in danger? if you say yes that your as hypocrical as all of you lot maybe worse
That's what many Republicans are thinking but not saying. Thank you for being honest.I believe that being a hypocrite is okay if it means that a new Conservative Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court.
If they voted on Garland and it didn't pass, that sucks but it's fair (excluding issues with Senate composition being unrepresentative of the population). Elections have consequences. One man stating he's not even going to let anybody vote on him for a single reason (it's an election year) and then contradicting that when it's convenient is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If that's what happens, the Democrats should pack the court. It wouldn't be moral, but it wouldn't be any worse than what McConnell is trying to get away with.
A woman has (and should have) a right to control her body. In addition, abortion isn't murder, since it's not a person.Good! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.
Good! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.
The filibuster was always stupid, even if its removal has been inconvenient at times. Talking filibusters are fine though.Too bad your side nuked the 60 vote requirement to confirm judicial nominees.
Too bad Ginsburg didn't retire before 2106.
Too bad.
The filibuster was always stupid, even if its removal has been inconvenient at times. Talking filibusters are fine though.
Yes, it's too bad Ginsburg didn't retire when we were screaming she should.
None of this changes the blatant hypocrisy on display by the Republicans, and Democrats should still pack the court if Trump gets a third appointment. He should only get two in a fair world (unfairness of the electoral college aside), and court packing would even the playing field in an unfair world.
That's incorrect.You don't want fair. You want the rules changed until you get what you want.
Sounds like a perfect case for the new SC to ponder, I wonder how Justice Amy Coney Barret is going to rule on it. All jokes aside, it sounds like you don't have a standard either if you're willing to respond in a way you know is immoral. We can only hope it won't come to that, I personally find "packing the court" to be a far more egregious move - at least McConnel's following the playbook, you want to rewrite it in your favour. Applying this logic to any other position of importance reveals just how outrageous it is. Let's have 3 Presidents, 5 Attorney Generals and 10 Supreme Court Justices. Hell, sky's the limit, let's have a 100, it's all good because "McConnel was a meanie". It's vindictive and silly, not to mention transparent. Everybody knows it's all about stacking odds in favour of certain outcomes. If it's partisan, there's no shame in that. If it's vengeance then it's petty. Either one is a bad look.If they voted on Garland and it didn't pass, that sucks but it's fair (excluding issues with Senate composition being unrepresentative of the population). Elections have consequences. One man stating he's not even going to let anybody vote on him for a single reason (it's an election year) and then contradicting that when it's convenient is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If that's what happens, the Democrats should pack the court. It wouldn't be moral, but it wouldn't be any worse than what McConnell is trying to get away with.
And, as I said earlier, it was arguably unconstitutional for McConnell not to take up the Garland nomination, even if it was going to fail.
I'm not rewriting a playbook anymore than McConnell is. The difference is I'm not being a hypocrite.Sounds like a perfect case for the new SC to ponder, I wonder how Justice Amy Coney Barret is going to rule on it. All jokes aside, it sounds like you don't have a standard either if you're willing to respond in a way you know is immoral. We can only hope it won't come to that, I personally find "packing the court" to be a far more egregious move - at least McConnel's following the playbook, you want to rewrite it in your favour. Applying this logic to any other position of importance reveals just how outrageous it is. Let's have 3 Presidents, 5 Attorney Generals and 10 Supreme Court Justices. Hell, sky's the limit, let's have a 100, it's all good because "McConnel was a meanie". It's vindictive and silly, not to mention transparent. Everybody knows it's all about stacking odds in favour of certain outcomes. If it's partisan, there's no shame in that. If it's vengeance then it's petty. Either one is a bad look.