[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Foxi4]

I'm not rewriting a playbook anymore than McConnell is. The difference is I'm not being a hypocrite.

If you say that packing the court is immoral and simultaneously support packing the court as means of revenge, you're a hypocrite by definition, you're just open about it. You would condemn anyone doing it, but you want your team to do it because you've manufactured a justification for yourself. You know it's wrong, but you want it done because you feel slighted.

Hypocrite, noun. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

I don't have a problem with that, mind - play to win. I support playing to win. Just own it.

 

[Hanafuda]

That's incorrect.

In addition, McConnell is the one arbitrarily changing the rules to get what he wants. Nice try.

No it's exactly correct. It's how the left plays ball. They couldn't get their judicial nominees confirmed during Obama's first term, so they changed the rules. Now it bites them in the ass, just like McConnell said it would. Reactionary, kneejerk, immature. RBG passes away, hardly a surprise, and leftists are all over twitter the same night threatening to 'burn it all the fuck down' if the President and the Senate do what the law allows them to do. AOC says "let this radicalize you!" Reactionary, kneejerk, immature.

Garland didn't get hearings in 2016 because the Republicans in the Senate had the majority and could stop it. If they were displeased with Mitch for his handling of that situation, they could've voted him out as Majority Leader. But they didn't.

If Democrats hadn't changed the rules for judicial confirmations, this would all be moot. They enabled this moment. Thanks.

And FWIW, McConnell made no rules. There is no McConnell rule. There is no Biden rule.

 

[Lacius]

If you say that packing the court is immoral and simultaneously support packing the court as means of revenge, you're a hypocrite by definition, you're just open about it. You would condemn anyone doing it, but you want your team to do it because you've manufactured a justification for yourself. You know it's wrong, but you want it done because you feel slighted.


I don't have a problem with that, mind - play to win. I support playing to win. Just own it.

You're confusing a desire for fairness with "revenge." It's not revenge. If Republicans are going to hypocritically take Supreme Court seats that don't belong to them, Democrats should do the same to even the playing field. Respectfully, "not rolling over and taking it" is not a difficult concept to grasp. What McConnell is doing also arguably justifies the court packing.

When I say court packing is immoral, I mean without considering the actions of the Republicans.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

No it's exactly correct. It's how the left plays ball. They couldn't get their judicial nominees confirmed during Obama's first term, so they changed the rules. Now it bites them in the ass, just like McConnell said it would. Reactionary, kneejerk, immature. RBG passes away, hardly a surprise, and leftists are all over twitter the same night threatening to 'burn it all the fuck down' if the President and the Senate do what the law allows them to do. AOC says "let this radicalize you!" Reactionary, kneejerk, immature.

Garland didn't get hearings in 2016 because the Republicans in the Senate had the majority and could stop it. If they were displeased with Mitch for his handling of that situation, they could've voted him out as Majority Leader. But they didn't.

If Democrats hadn't changed the rules for judicial confirmations, this would all be moot. They enabled this moment. Thanks.

And FWIW, McConnell made no rules. There is no McConnell rule. There is no Biden rule.

Obama's nominees couldn't get confirmed because the Republicans were filibustering them for no reason other than "we don't want Democrats to appoint judges, despite having a Democratic president and Senate." As I already said, the non-talking filibuster is stupid.

Garland didn't get a hearing because, according to McConnell, "we don't confirm nominations in an election year," although he's hypocritically singing a new tune now that the reasoning no longer benefits his side. In addition, not holding hearings at all was arguably unconstitutional. They had every right to vote "no" though.

 

[Foxi4]

You're confusing a desire for fairness with "revenge." It's not revenge. If Republicans are going to hypocritically take Supreme Court seats that don't belong to them, Democrats should do the same to even the playing field. Respectfully, "not rolling over and taking it" is not a difficult concept to grasp. What McConnell is doing also arguably justifies the court packing.

When I say court packing is immoral, I mean without considering the actions of the Republicans.

That's the nature of justification. If my neighbour shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his wife. It's either moral or immoral - you don't get to pick and choose what's right or wrong depending on how you feel that day. If you want to do something you would normally consider immoral because of the actions of a third party, that's the definition of revenge.

Revenge, noun. an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even.

You seemed to be a stickler for phrasing earlier, but now you are very flexible with it. It's okay to call it vengeance for McConnel's actions, I don't judge, I just think it's funny you feel morally justified to break your own, self-imposed code.

 

[Hanafuda]

Garland didn't get a hearing because, according to McConnell, "we don't confirm nominations in an election year," .

This is where you're wrong. Garland didn't get a hearing because Senate Republicans had the majority and didn't want to waste their time with it when he wasn't getting confirmed anyway.

See: Ostensible justification.

See: Politics.

Both sides play that game all day, every day.

 

[Lacius]

That's the nature of justification. If my neighbour shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his wife. It's either moral or immoral - you don't get to pick and choose what's right or wrong depending on how you feel that day. If you want to do something you would normally consider immoral because of the actions of a third party, that's the definition of revenge.

Revenge, noun. an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even.

You seemed to be a stickler for phrasing earlier, but now you are very flexible with it. It's okay to call it vengeance for McConnel's actions, I don't judge, I just think it's funny you feel morally justified to break your own, self-imposed code.

It's about retribution, not revenge.

If a neighbor shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his dog. That'd be revenge. If a neighbor shoots my dog, he should face lawful consequences, and I should be compensated the value of that dog. That's retribution.

If Senate Republicans are going to use hypocritical and weasley tactics to get three court appointments instead of two, the Democrats should use whatever lawful methods they have to push the Supreme Court to left. The Republicans are doing the same thing to push it to the right. Are you saying the Democrats should roll over?

Are you saying I shouldn't seek the value of my dead dog or press charges against my neighbor?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This is where you're wrong. Garland didn't get a hearing because Senate Republicans had the majority and didn't want to waste their time with it when he wasn't getting confirmed anyway.

See: Ostensible justification.

See: Politics.

Both sides play that game all day, every day.

That's not what happened. See the 2016 comments by McConnell, Graham, etc. It was because they arbitrarily made up a standard where nominations don't get taken up in an election year. They can't change their mind now without being hypocritical.

They could have taken up the nomination and voted no. They didn't because there was a good chance the nomination would be successful.

 

[Foxi4]

It's about retribution, not revenge.

If a neighbor shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his dog. That'd be revenge. If a neighbor shoots my dog, he should face lawful consequences, and I should be compensated the value of that dog. That's retribution.

If Senate Republicans are going to use hypocritical and weasley tactics to get three court appointments instead of two, the Democrats should use whatever lawful methods they have to push the Supreme Court to left. The Republicans are doing the same thing to push it to the right. Are you saying the Democrats should roll over?

Are you saying I shouldn't seek the value of my dead dog or press charges against my neighbor?

I don't care what the Democrats do, I was simply pointing out an inconsistency in your position. Quick clarification - it would be Democrats using weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack the court in their favour because Republicans used weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack it in theirs. Don't put them on a pedestal of moral superiority when they have none, it would be equivalent exchange - you yourself considered both moves immoral a few pages back. Either it's tit for tat or it's not. I won't grill you on it though, it just puts a smile on my face.

 

[Lacius]

I don't care what the Democrats do, I was simply pointing out an inconsistency in your position. Quick clarification - it would be Democrats using weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack the court in their favour because Republicans used weasly and hypocritical tactics to stack it in theirs. Don't put them on a pedestal of moral superiority when they have none, it would be equivalent exchange - you yourself considered both moves immoral a few pages back. Either it's tit for tat or it's not. I won't grill you on it though, it just puts a smile on my face.

I haven't said anything inconsistent.

If Democrats were to pack the court, it would be justified by the actions of the Republicans. If Republicans arbitrarily change the rules to benefit them, the Democrats get to as well. Also, regardless of the actions of the Republicans, it wouldn't be hypocritical.

 

[Foxi4]

I haven't said anything inconsistent.

If Democrats were to pack the court, it would be justified by the actions of the Republicans. If Republicans arbitrarily change the rules to benefit them, the Democrats get to as well. Also, regardless of the actions of the Republicans, it wouldn't be hypocritical.

I guess neither one of us is good at recanting. I can respect that.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

I haven't said anything inconsistent.

If Democrats were to pack the court, it would be justified by the actions of the Republicans. If Republicans arbitrarily change the rules to benefit them, the Democrats get to as well. Also, regardless of the actions of the Republicans, it wouldn't be hypocritical.

I'm just gonna post this meme again.

 

[Lacius]

I guess neither one of us is good at recanting. I can respect that.

I'm perfectly good at recanting. I just don't have to do it very often.

Jokes aside, just so we are clear, I don't like court packing. I stand by it. I also don't like people being arrested. However, in response to the actions of others, these things can be justified.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm just gonna post this meme again.
View attachment 225593

I'm trying to find the part of your post that's relevant. I don't think anybody is arguing supreme court justices should only be replaced under the guidelines in their deathbed wishes.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm perfectly good at recanting. I just don't have to do it very often.

Jokes aside, just so we are clear, I don't like court packing. I stand by it. I also don't like people being arrested. However, in response to the actions of others, these things can be justified.

Oh, I know you have a justification. I also know you consider the method of retaliation, or as you call it, retribution, to be immoral. Like I said, play to win - I wouldn't expect anything less. I just prefer to be a villain openly - it's much more fun this way, IMO.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

I'm trying to find the part of your post that's relevant. I don't think anybody is arguing supreme court justices should only be replaced under the guidelines in their deathbed wishes.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting replaced. She's dead. There is an empty seat that needs to be filled.

 

[Lacius]

Oh, I know you have a justification. I also know you consider the method of retaliation, or as you call it, retribution, to be immoral. Like I said, play to win - I wouldn't expect anything less. I just prefer to be a villain openly - it's much more fun this way, IMO.

As justified retribution, I don't consider court packing immoral.

Murder is immoral, but as an act of self defense, it's not. I'm not inconsistent if the circumstances are different.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting replaced. She's dead. There is an empty seat that needs to be filled.

So I guess you were in favor of the Senate taking up Obama's nomination in 2016? Scalia was dead. There was an empty seat that needed to be filled.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

So I guess you were in favor of the Senate taking up Obama's nomination in 2016? Scalia was dead. There was an empty seat that needed to be filled.

I wasn't into politics back then.

 

[Lacius]

I wasn't into politics back then.

Careful. McConnell might use that excuse next.

 

[Foxi4]

As justified retribution, I don't consider court packing immoral.

Murder is immoral, but as an act of self defense, it's not. I'm not inconsistent if the circumstances are different.

Well, that's not quite right, is it? Murder is the act of an unlawful and premeditated killing, killing someone in self-defense is lawful and not premeditated. Now, it would be different if, say, someone murdered your son, so you murded theirs in kind. Both actions would be immoral, regardless of who started the feud. Remember, we're talking about an exchange of equivalent weasly actions. But that's enough semantic arguments for one night.

 

[Lacius]

Well, that's not quite right, is it? Murder is the act of an unlawful and premeditated killing, killing someone in self-defense is lawful and not premeditated. Now, it would be different if, say, someone murdered your son, so you murded theirs in kind. Both actions would be immoral, regardless of who started the feud. Remember, we're talking about an exchange of equivalent weasly actions. But that's enough semantic arguments for one night.

I was using an example of when an action can be unjustified vs. when an action can be justified. Hypocritically changing the rules back and for with regard to when the Senate takes up a court nomination is unjustified. Court packing in response to an unjustified taking of a court seat is an act of retribution and is justified.

Stealing $100 is unjustified. Being lawfully awarded $100 as an act of retribution after being robbed of $100 is justified.

If Democrats had court packed before 2016, it would have been unjustified.

 

[Foxi4]

I was using an example of when an action can be unjustified vs. when an action can be justified. Hypocritically changing the rules back and for with regard to when the Senate takes up a court nomination is unjustified. Court packing in response to an unjustified taking of a court seat is an act of retribution and is justified.

Stealing $100 is unjustified. Being lawfully awarded $100 as an act of retribution after being robbed of $100 is justified.

If Democrats had court packed before 2016, it would have been unjustified.

That's a lot of provisos, especially if the party awarding the justified retribution and the injured party is one and the same. Don't worry, I know what you mean, I'm just pulling your leg.

 

[Lacius]

That's a lot of provisos, especially if the party awarding the justified retribution and the injured party is one and the same. Don't worry, I know what you mean, I'm just pulling your leg.

I admit there's a problem with the injured party being the judge/jury, but I'm still arguing court packing would be justified.

Frankly, I'm more interested in an end to the Electoral College and the Senate becoming a representative body than I am interested in Supreme Court retribution.