RIP RBG

[saxitoxin]

Oh well, what can 'ya do?

That’s what you want the opposition to think... but there’s plenty we can do.
Starting with voting the Bum out of office.

So you were planning to vote for Trump until Ginsburg died, now you're solidly in Biden's camp? LMAO.

Trump may win or he may lose, but it will have nothing to do with Ginsburg.

When the Democrats had power they wielded it like a 14-inch dildo. It's important to Ginsburg's legacy that we use her passing as a teaching moment. And the Rats will remember the lesson we're about to cram down their throats for the next 35 years.

[saxitoxin]

That time Ginsburg fell asleep during the Blessed Obama's speech ...



The look on Kagan and Kennedy's faces are great. Kagan is like "someone wake dat bitch up!" Breyer be like "I ain't sayin' nathan, dat gonna be me in the next three years."

[jimboston]

Sometimes, I don't agree with saxi.

But in this topic, he has been spot on.

The claims of being hypocritical have been thoroughly proven wrong in this thread.

Your claim that Republican Hypocrisy has been “prove wrong” is evidence of either your stupidity or your complete loyalty to Trump and the Republican Party cause. The Republican plan to rush through a new SCJ appointment is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

At least Saxi* admits this... he just doesn’t care because it’s in his mind a legal and valid political move.

*and by Saxi I mean his present day persona and not necessarily his true beliefs which have morphed over time to guide and analyze this forum.

[saxitoxin]

it’s in his mind a legal

So you think it's illegal now?

[HitRed]

Protests against the nominee, which cause property damage, will likely backfire and help Law and Order Trump.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Your claim that Republican Hypocrisy has been “prove wrong” is evidence of either your stupidity or your complete loyalty to Trump and the Republican Party cause. The Republican plan to rush through a new SCJ appointment is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

As per a usual Jim response, step one is to call the other person stupid. I won't respond to you in kind.

Saxi said it best in one of the initial posts. Circumstances regarding this nomination as compared to 2016 are extremely different. Your claim of hypocrisy only has a basis because you think that somehow the Republicans not voting to confirm the appointee back in 2016 and voting to confirm an appointee at this time is synonymous. It is not.

It’s funny how the Republicans felt it was improper to fill a Supreme Court Vacancy when Obama was President. Scalia passed away in February 2016 and the Senate thought that the best course of action, the “just and fair” course, was to wait 8+ months for an election and another 2 months for a new President to be sworn in.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62446725 ... atters-now

Now the Republican Senate feels the best course is to get a new Justice ASAP, even though the election is less than 2 months away.

Wrong.

NPR is, quite simply, lying to you. The Republicans didn't say that.

In 2016 the Republicans said that a judicial appointment should not be confirmed when two criteria simultaneously exist (a) the president is a lame duck in his final year (not standing for for reelection), and, (b) the government is divided (the White House and Senate are owned by different parties).

These two criteria don't exist today. The incumbent president is not a lame duck and the government is not divided.

See: https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public ... A1154B55D0

This policy was perfectly consistent with custom and was not something the GOP invented in 2016. From the same release -

"... the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888 ...

The Rats want to wipe away 130 years of custom and precedent and reinvent the rules of the game for their own benefit. Tough luck!

Besides, don't you think it is also hypocritical for Democrats to claim the Republicans are POS when the Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to allow simple majority (A.K.A, removing the fillabuster for Supreme Court nominees) and vote for a nominee? If you seriously want to attribute blame, why not start with the rule change that led to this in the first place?

[jimboston]

it’s in his mind a legal

So you think it's illegal now?

I’m pretty sure my whole quote was clear... maybe I missed a comma...

At least Saxi* admits this... he just doesn’t care because it’s in his mind a legal and valid political move.

I maybe used shorthand... in more detail.

I think that you don’t care if it’s hypocritical... because in your mind that doesn’t matter... all that matters is it’s legal and a just a political move.

Appointing a new SCJ is definitely legal... and if the Republicans can pass it... that’s be legal too.

Doesn’t mean it’s not also hypocritical.

[jimboston]

Your claim that Republican Hypocrisy has been “prove wrong” is evidence of either your stupidity or your complete loyalty to Trump and the Republican Party cause. The Republican plan to rush through a new SCJ appointment is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

As per a usual Jim response, step one is to call the other person stupid. I won't respond to you in kind.

Saxi said it best in one of the initial posts. Circumstances regarding this nomination as compared to 2016 are extremely different. Your claim of hypocrisy only has a basis because you think that somehow the Republicans not voting to confirm the appointee back in 2016 and voting to confirm an appointee at this time is synonymous. It is not.

Extremely?

The situations are not identical... there’s no such thing as an ‘identical’ situation, just degrees of likeness and/or difference.

Saying they’re “extremely” different means you’re either lying or an idiot. Which is it?

...oh and yes, I do think the Democrats can be hypocritical too, happens a lot. In this case though it’s the Republicans.

That’s why I said vote 3rd Party in protest in my OP.

[saxitoxin]

Obama’s latest ‘evolution’ on gay marriage: He lied about opposing it, Axelrod says

When President Obama said during the 2008 campaign that he did not support marriage for same-sex couples, he only did so because it was politically expedient, David Axelrod writes in his new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics, according to Time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... evolution/

The GOP didn't lie about SCOTUS judges. Their position evolved.

The Tale of the Tape: Hillary Clinton's Gay Marriage Evolution

This dispute over the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is Hillary vs. Bernie in a nutshell. Is it better to go all in, at every moment in history, or is it better to pull your punches sometimes, for a larger good? Can you trust Hillary Clinton to do what she believes, or will she only do what is politically expedient?

https://www.wnyc.org/story/tale-tape-hi ... evolution/

The GOP didn't lie about SCOTUS judges. Their position evolved.

I could post a thousand of these but I'll stop here.

Again, there was no lying, no hypocrisy, just an evolution.

Any Democrat who claims the GOP is being hypocritical is themselves hypocritical for saying so.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Extremely?

The situations are not identical... there’s no such thing as an ‘identical’ situation, just degrees of likeness and/or difference.

Saying they’re “extremely” different means you’re either lying or an idiot. Which is it?

...oh and yes, I do think the Democrats can be hypocritical too, happens a lot. In this case though it’s the Republicans.

That’s why I said vote 3rd Party in protest in my OP.

Why does your mind first go to hurl insults in a conversation? A liar? An idiot? Again, you prove you can't have a rational discussion, but instead resort to mud-slinging.

Why does saying these two situations are extremely different make me a liar or an idiot? Please explain, O' Wise Sensei Jim.

[mrswdk]

I still think it's hilarious that there is such a thing as 'conservative' and 'liberal' judges in the US. Kinda makes a mockery of the American claim to impartial rule of law, no?

[saxitoxin]

I still think it's hilarious that there is such a thing as 'conservative' and 'liberal' judges in the US. Kinda makes a mockery of the American claim to impartial rule of law, no?

NO

It just means our judges are more sophisticated as different legal theories have developed since they have had judicial review power since 1803 while, in the UK, judges have only had judicial review since like 2017 so no theories have yet developed in their relatively junior system, but maybe over time - in 100 years or so - conservative and liberal theory will develop.

Also our constitution was written in 1787 so we need theory to try to interpret what the writers meant. In contrast, Canada's constitution was written in 1982 so you can just ask Francois what he meant by XYZ when you see him at the nacho stand during the Junior B hockey match and, depending on how much Molson he's had, he might give you a somewhat comprehensible answer after he plays some grab ass with your date.

[jimboston]

Why does your mind first go to hurl insults in a conversation? A liar? An idiot?

Because sometimes there are only two explanations for a person to make a comment and believe that comment.

They aren’t derogatory if they’re demonstrably true.

Again, you prove you can't have a rational discussion, but instead resort to mud-slinging.

Mud-slinging implies lying.

Why does saying these two situations are extremely different make me a liar or an idiot? Please explain, O' Wise Sensei Jim.

Because the situations are very similar. As stated they are not identical... but the similarities are obvious and plentiful. Trying to claim that two similar situations are “extremely” different is either intentional (in which case it’s a lie) or it’s unintentional (in which case you’re an idiot for commenting on a situation in which you are unversed.

You can argue that the situations are similar but “materially different”... which is what Saxi does when he points out a couple ways in which the situations differ; but to just label them as being ‘extremely’ different is disingenuous at best.

[jimboston]

I still think it's hilarious that there is such a thing as 'conservative' and 'liberal' judges in the US. Kinda makes a mockery of the American claim to impartial rule of law, no?

I wouldn’t call it hilarious, because that implies it’s funny and a good source of humor.
This may be the case for non-Americans if they enjoy seeing Americans suffer.

I’d label it as “sad” “disappointing” “dangerous” etc.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Because sometimes there are only two explanations for a person to make a comment and believe that comment.

Incorrect.

They aren’t derogatory if they’re demonstrably true.

Incorrect.

Mud-slinging implies lying.

Correct. And?

Because the situations are very similar.

Incorrect.

As stated they are not identical... but the similarities are obvious and plentiful.

Incorrect.

Trying to claim that two similar situations are “extremely” different is either intentional (in which case it’s a lie) or it’s unintentional (in which case you’re an idiot for commenting on a situation in which you are unversed.

Incorrect.

You can argue that the situations are similar but “materially different”... which is what Saxi does when he points out a couple ways in which the situations differ; but to just label them as being ‘extremely’ different is disingenuous at best.

Ah I see, either agree with Jim, or you're a liar or an idiot. Classic, tolerant, rational, and logical Jim!

[jimboston]

Ah I see, either

The problem is you refuse to ‘see’.

Classic, tolerant, rational, and logical Jim!

Yes...thank you.

[Jdsizzleslice]

The problem is you refuse to ‘see’.

To see what? I already explained the position as to why the two scenarios are different (well saxi did and I just hijacked it because I 100% agree). What is your position? You have yet to explain why these two situations are similar.

Classic, tolerant, rational, and logical Jim!

Yes...thank you.

(stolen from mrswdk)

[saxitoxin]

RBG's Cooling Corpse Continues on Democratic Campaign Parade!

Democrats continue to parade around RBG's cooling corpse as their latest campaign prop, with Speaker Pelosi ordering the decaying and increasingly odorous remains to lay in state in the Capitol, after already laying in repose at the Supreme Court.

If Biden isn't elected, poor old RBG may never get a burial. The Rats will be tying what's left off her to the top of a Prius and making a cross-country tour to every liberal hellhole in America.

[jimboston]

The problem is you refuse to ‘see’.

To see what? I already explained the position as to why the two scenarios are different (well saxi did and I just hijacked it because I 100% agree). What is your position? You have yet to explain why these two situations are similar.

This isn’t preschool.

I have pointed out some similarities which you refuse to acknowledge.
The basic similarities are obvious to anyone with a brain.

YOU have not pointed out anything...you just jumped on Saxi’s bandwagon and basically said “Yeah what he said... but that makes these EXTREMELY different, not just materially different.”

Just because you quote me and say “Wrong” after my point... that’s NOT winning an argument or proving your point.

Your entire argument has basically been “Because my dad (i.e. Saxi) says so.”

Be a man and acknowledge the hypocrisy... own it.
Both. side are hypocrites... jus that in the case of the last SCJ appointment and this one the Republicans are in the position of power.

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats... I just feel this is an obvious case of political hypocrisy and I hope the Republicans pay for it eventually. The sad truth is the the REAL losers in this battle of the extremes are the mainstream voters and taxpayers in the US. The continued degradation of Norms in politics will explode in our collective faces at some point. This is the same path the Romans went down... where laws were followed but Norms were violated and the system couldn’t adapt and create new laws fast enough to adjust for the violating Norms.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I have pointed out some similarities which you refuse to acknowledge.

I read through every one of your posts in this thread. The only argument you make is the time in which the nomination occurs:

It’s funny how the Republicans felt it was improper to fill a Supreme Court Vacancy when Obama was President. Scalia passed away in February 2016 and the Senate thought that the best course of action, the “just and fair” course, was to wait 8+ months for an election and another 2 months for a new President to be sworn in.

The counter to this line of thinking has already been presented, and backed up with historical evidence to counter your initial idea.

The basic similarities are obvious to anyone with a brain.

Extremely condescending. "If you don't think like I do, then you're stupid."

YOU have not pointed out anything...you just jumped on Saxi’s bandwagon and basically said “Yeah what he said... but that makes these EXTREMELY different, not just materially different.”

Your entire argument has basically been “Because my dad (i.e. Saxi) says so.”

Should I repeat someone's viewpoint word-for-word if I 100% agree with them, or explain why I 100% agree with them? I explained why I agree with Saxi.

Saxi said it best in one of the initial posts. Circumstances regarding this nomination as compared to 2016 are extremely different. Your claim of hypocrisy only has a basis because you think that somehow the Republicans not voting to confirm the appointee back in 2016 and voting to confirm an appointee at this time is synonymous. It is not.

Just because you quote me and say “Wrong” after my point... that’s NOT winning an argument or proving your point.

This is literally all that you do. Kettle.

Be a man and acknowledge the hypocrisy... own it.
Both. side are hypocrites... jus that in the case of the last SCJ appointment and this one the Republicans are in the position of power.

I can see that both sides can be hypocritical at times, but in this case, the Republicans aren't being hypocritical. Far more consistent with precedent here than hypocrisy.

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats...

Looks like it to me.

I just feel this is an obvious case of political hypocrisy and I hope the Republicans pay for it eventually.

You do realize it wasn't the Republicans who changed the rules? The Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to get rid of the fillabuster, since they didn't have a majority, and vote in whoever they wanted with simple majority. How can you cry hypocrisy if the Democrats were the ones who are responsible for the situation at hand currently?

"We can't get exactly what we want, so we will change the rules."

• Let's change the rules so all we need is a simple majority instead of 60%.
• Let's change the rules and introduce a bill that imposes term limits of Supreme Court Justices.
• Let's change the rules and introduce universal mail-in voting into a medical relief bill.

The sad truth is the the REAL losers in this battle of the extremes are the mainstream voters and taxpayers in the US.

Could you explain this further?

The continued degradation of Norms in politics will explode in our collective faces at some point. This is the same path the Romans went down... where laws were followed but Norms were violated and the system couldn’t adapt and create new laws fast enough to adjust for the violating Norms.

I wonder why. Could it be that things that are viewed as criminal and horrible acts by an overwhelming majority of people are being broadcast in the MSM as good and peaceful?

[saxitoxin]

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats...

[saxitoxin]

Update - She didn't even get the Rotunda, they dumped her in Statuary Hall!

After she's been above ground for a week, I hope they had plenty of Fabreeze there!

[Jdsizzleslice]

I'm thankful for the support she has gotten over the past week from everyone.

[jimboston]

The continued degradation of Norms in politics will explode in our collective faces at some point. This is the same path the Romans went down... where laws were followed but Norms were violated and the system couldn’t adapt and create new laws fast enough to adjust for the violating Norms.

I wonder why. Could it be that things that are viewed as criminal and horrible acts by an overwhelming majority of people are being broadcast in the MSM as good and peaceful?

I think that’s a degradation of Norms in society, not in Politics.

The masses have always been capable of rioting when presented with a reason (real or fake), and with an opportunity.
I’m not excusing that... but that’s a failure of leadership.

The thing that set This Country apart was that political Norms were (for the most part) honored.

Our political leaders have been ignoring these Norms for years... maybe you can trace it to Nixon, maybe Clinton... but Trump has doubled down of this ‘method of political leadership’ and it has the potential toruń our country.

Regarding all the other stuff... if you can’t recognize what the Republicans are doing as hypocritical I can’t help you. I’m not saying the Democrats wouldn’t do the same if the situation was reversed, they very well might. That’s not the question Right Now... the question Right Now is about the Party in power. The Republicans are abusing their power and it’s all to the benefit of their Party and not the the benefit of the Country.

[jimboston]

I’m definitely not defending the Democrats...

LOL?

I’m not defending the Democrats. I’m criticizing the Republicans.

You can do one without the other.

These Parties have essentially convinced the People that we live in a 2 Party System. We don’t. We only continue to live in this fake system because we allow it and we ‘accept’ that these are out only two options. They aren’t.

The Big Question is... are We the People capable of recognizing this and throwing off the shackles of this Faux 2-Party System?
Or has big money and mass media gotten us so hooked into this false belief that we are incapable of seeing reality?