2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Except that advice wasn't followed in 2016.  Either one set of rules is true or the other set of rules is true.  It can't be both.  But it will be, which is why everything's on the table going forward.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that someone screws up doesn't mean it's now OK for everyone else to screw up. That's Kindergarten level justification. Throw a spotlight on the mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again. Of course that would be the adult approach and politicians are children, so, I get what you're saying. 

8 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that someone screws up doesn't mean it's now OK for everyone else to screw up. That's Kindergarten level justification. Throw a spotlight on the mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again. Of course that would be the adult approach and politicians are children, so, I get what you're saying. 

I don't remember you or anyone else on the right claiming in 2016 that not voting was a mistake.  You're pretending like you think it is now because it's convenient for your position at the moment.

And it will absolutely happen again, no matter what spotlight is shined on it.  Once you open the box, it doesn't close again.  Republicans have shown that no decorum or procedure will be held to.  So, Democrats will do the same.  It's just human nature.

Just now, VanHammersly said:

I don't remember you or anyone else on the right claiming in 2016 that not voting was a mistake.  You're pretending like you think it is now because it's convenient for your position at the moment.

And it will absolutely happen again, no matter what spotlight is shined on it.  Once you open the box, it doesn't close again.  Republicans have shown that no decorum or procedure will be held to.  So, Democrats will do the same.  It's just human nature.

I only remember weighing in once on the subject back then and my position was the same as it is now. A sitting President nominates and the Senate confirms. When those two roles are held by opposing parties, it never gets done, but it should, and that has been my position all along. Do your job. It's what you were elected to do. When those two roles are held by the same party, it happens relatively quickly. 

What you call human nature I call immaturity. I will agree with you that given how replete Washington D.C. is with petulant children, it's unlikely this stupid slap fight ends any time soon.

32 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

 

From a public speech in N.Y.:

On Presidential nominees in an election year - "The President doesn't stop being the President in an election year." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

On the Senate confirming a SCOUTS nominee in an election year - "That's their job." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Her position and opinion is clear: Do your job!

Mr. President- Nominate!   

U.S. Senate - Confirm or don't! 

I agree with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

His name is Merrick Garland

Just now, Dave Moss said:

His name is Merrick Garland

I don't disagree. It should've been done. It wasn't and that was a mistake. Don't repeat the mistake.

2 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I don't disagree. It should've been done. It wasn't and that was a mistake. Don't repeat the mistake.

Tend to agree.  Then expand the Court to 13 in January.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Tend to agree.  Then expand the Court to 13 in January.

Let's expand it to 301 by 2032. Expansion is not the solution we need. That's a runaway train that'll solve nothing. 

13 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

His name is Merrick Garland

And what was the point? They don't have to confirm him and you know darn well they would have voted him down, so you want a circus just to have a circus? Voters in swing states seemed fine with it in 2016.  

19 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I only remember weighing in once on the subject back then and my position was the same as it is now. A sitting President nominates and the Senate confirms. When those two roles are held by opposing parties, it never gets done, but it should, and that has been my position all along. Do your job. It's what you were elected to do. When those two roles are held by the same party, it happens relatively quickly. 

What you call human nature I call immaturity. I will agree with you that given how replete Washington D.C. is with petulant children, it's unlikely this stupid slap fight ends any time soon.

So you think it was immature every time the US added a new state by President after President?  When the court was expanded in the early days of country?  Those were the actions of a petulant child?  I'm not talking about anything illegal or without precedent here.  I'm talking about procedures that have been used countless times in US history.

16 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I only remember weighing in once on the subject back then and my position was the same as it is now. A sitting President nominates and the Senate confirms. When those two roles are held by opposing parties, it never gets done, but it should, and that has been my position all along. Do your job. It's what you were elected to do. When those two roles are held by the same party, it happens relatively quickly. 

What you call human nature I call immaturity. I will agree with you that given how replete Washington D.C. is with petulant children, it's unlikely this stupid slap fight ends any time soon.

We mostly agree, but "advice and consent" doesn't mean confirm. Like you said it never gets done because there really isn't a point. The Dems would have liked it shot down for their political gain and GOP didn't hold a vote for their political gain. Bottom line is the GOP had the power so they carried out their political power move the same way the Dems would have if the roles were reversed. Having a hearing and a vote for something that would have been shot down was pointless outside of depriving Democrats of talking points. 

8 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Let's expand it to 301 by 2032. Expansion is not the solution we need. That's a runaway train that'll solve nothing. 

I disagree.

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So you think it was immature every time the US added a new state by President after President?  When the court was expanded in the early days of country?  Those were the actions of a petulant child?  I'm not talking about anything illegal or without precedent here.  I'm talking about procedures that have been used countless times in US history.

You're making the same argument that because someone else did something in the past, it offers an immediate justification for what you want to do now. That argument doesn't always hold water. Sometimes it makes sense but sometimes it does not. In this instance, my position is it does not. The purpose of our government is to serve our interests to the best of their ability. If they are locked in partisan nonsense, they cannot do their job. forego the nonsense and do your job.

That's my position on this matter. Nominate or don't and confirm or don't. That's what is before them now. The rest is a circus side show.

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

We mostly agree, but "advice and consent" doesn't mean confirm. Like you said it never gets done because there really isn't a point. The Dems would have liked it shot down for their political gain and GOP didn't hold a vote for their political gain. Bottom line is the GOP had the power so they carried out their political power move the same way the Dems would have if the roles were reversed. Having a hearing and a vote for something that would have been shot down was pointless outside of depriving Democrats of talking points. 

Well, 11 times in the past the Nominees have been rejected by the Senate in a roll call vote and that nominee did not get the seat. As far as I know, no nominee has obtained a seat on the SCOTUS after being voted down by the Senate, so to me that is most assuredly a confirmation process. JMO though.

4 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

As far as I know, no nominee has obtained a seat on the SCOTUS after being voted down by the Senate, so to me that is most assuredly a confirmation process. JMO though.

The Constitution doesn’t specify how confirmation is supposed to happen.  It just says the President selects justices and Congress confirms them.

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The Constitution doesn’t specify how confirmation is supposed to happen.

True. There's a federal law that deals with it, which incidentally, is why there's talk of expanding the court for political purposes.

An Amendment would set it relatively in stone and if that amendment also addressed term limits for the Legislative and Judicial branches, that would be good too.

3 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

True. There's a federal law that deals with it, which incidentally, is why there's talk of expanding the court for political purposes.

An Amendment would set it relatively in stone and if that amendment also addressed term limits for the Legislative and Judicial branches, that would be good too.

That’ll be the day.  

8 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The Constitution doesn’t specify how confirmation is supposed to happen.  It just says the President selects justices and Congress confirms them.

No, it says they advise and consent. They don't have to confirm them ask Bork. He wasn't getting confirmed 4 years ago. What was the point other than giving the Dems a talking point? Both sides were making political moves. 

14 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

You're making the same argument that because someone else did something in the past, it offers an immediate justification for what you want to do now. That argument doesn't always hold water. Sometimes it makes sense but sometimes it does not. In this instance, my position is it does not. The purpose of our government is to serve our interests to the best of their ability. If they are locked in partisan nonsense, they cannot do their job. forego the nonsense and do your job.

That's my position on this matter. Nominate or don't and confirm or don't. That's what is before them now. The rest is a circus side show.

Of course it holds water.  Citing precedent is literally how cases are argued.  And admitting states and expanding the court has been a part of the job of our government since it's inception.

Look, I don't care quite frankly if they nominate and approve of a new SC justice.  They're going to do it either way, so it really doesn't matter what I think.  I think it will spell the end for Trump, but even that's marginal because Trump's losing either way.  But the Senate taking a firm stance that they argued from for 8 months and then completely reversing course a few years later and arguing the exact opposite shows that there's no precedent they're going to hold themselves to.  It's a power grab from them.  Dems have 2 options now.  They either continue like they have been and get steamrolled in the courts or they start taking more bold measures like admitting new states or expanding the courts.  I'd much prefer they stayed away from the courts and just admitted new states.  I think that would be both good for the country and (especially in Puero Rico's case) good for the people of the territory.

I do have a bit of an issue with your initial post though, in that you're quoting a dead woman who's dying wish was that she didn't want her seat filled by this President.  If we're talking about what is and isn't immature, quoting her on this when you know that's not how she felt is petulant and petty in it's own right.

The Constitution doesn't spell out what the SCOTUS was supposed to do other than be the final court of appeals and therefore the highest court in the land, The SCOTUS decided what the SCOTUS does, and did so without the objection of either of the other two branches. Talk about precedent!! 

19 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Of course it holds water.  Citing precedent is literally how cases are argued.  And admitting states and expanding the court has been a part of the job of our government since it's inception.

Look, I don't care quite frankly if they nominate and approve of a new SC justice.  They're going to do it either way, so it really doesn't matter what I think.  I think it will spell the end for Trump, but even that's marginal because Trump's losing either way.  But the Senate taking a firm stance that they argued from for 8 months and then completely reversing course a few years later and arguing the exact opposite shows that there's no precedent they're going to hold themselves to.  It's a power grab from them.  Dems have 2 options now.  They either continue like they have been and get steamrolled in the courts or they start taking more bold measures like admitting new states or expanding the courts.  I'd much prefer they stayed away from the courts and just admitted new states.  I think that would be both good for the country and (especially in Puero Rico's case) good for the people of the territory.

I do have a bit of an issue with your initial post though, in that you're quoting a dead woman who's dying wish was that she didn't want her seat filled by this President.  If we're talking about what is and isn't immature, quoting her on this when you know that's not how she felt is petulant and petty in it's own right.

I'd prefer they stay away from the Courts as well. As for adding States? Maybe splitting California north and south might make sense. As for Puerto Rico, I can't imagine anyone there wants to be a State. As it is, the vast majority there get almost all of the benefits without the tax liabilities. Becoming a State would be counterintuitive. 

 

To the 2nd point and I don't mean any disrespect. As told by a 3rd party. That's classic hearsay. I am simply going with what she actually said on the record in public. Maybe that deathbed statement was 100% real. I just don't know if she changed her mind on the matter or not. She was a very responsible Jurist. If she thought it so important, I would've expected it to come out before that moment though. I certainly don't want to disparage her in any way. I have a great deal of respect for the woman and her accomplishments. Her voice was needed on the SCOTUS, particularly in the time she served there. 

In any event, and since there's only one party involved, I suspect they'll push a Nominee through before the election. 

9 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I'd prefer they stay away from the Courts as well. As for adding States? Maybe splitting California north and south might make sense. As for Puerto Rico, I can't imagine anyone there wants to be a State. As it is, the vast majority there get almost all of the benefits without the tax liabilities. Becoming a State would be counterintuitive. 

 

To the 2nd point and I don't mean any disrespect. As told by a 3rd party. That's classic hearsay. I am simply going with what she actually said on the record in public. Maybe that deathbed statement was 100% real. I just don't know if she changed her mind on the matter or not. She was a very responsible Jurist. If she thought is so important, I would've expected it to come out before that moment though. I certainly don't want to disparage her in any way. I have a great deal of respect for the woman and her accomplishments. Her voice was needed on the SCOTUS, particularly in the time she served there. 

In any event, and since there's only one party involved, I suspect they'll push a Nominee through before the election. 

It's about 1/3 for joining, 1/3 for staying the same and 1/3 for becoming an independent nation.  They've had quite a few referendums on it.  They'd immediately see a huge surge in their overall economy and bring in a lot of jobs.  Any additional tax liability would be offset by that and then some.  Long term, they'd likely end up like Hawaii, an amazing but expensive place to live.  They'd lose a lot of their culture though, which is why it splits along those lines.

As for RGB, it was told by her granddaughter.  I realize we live in a post-truth world under Trump, but I think we can all agree that a granddaughter isn't lying about her grandmother's last words.  It's not as if there's any reason to believe she'd be okay with Trump filling her seat anyway.

16 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

It's about 1/3 for joining, 1/3 for staying the same and 1/3 for becoming an independent nation.  They've had quite a few referendums on it.  They'd immediately see a huge surge in their overall economy and bring in a lot of jobs.  Any additional tax liability would be offset by that and then some.  Long term, they'd likely end up like Hawaii, an amazing but expensive place to live.  They'd lose a lot of their culture though, which is why it splits along those lines.

As for RGB, it was told by her granddaughter.  I realize we live in a post-truth world under Trump, but I think we can all agree that a granddaughter isn't lying about her grandmother's last words.  It's not as if there's any reason to believe she'd be okay with Trump filling her seat anyway.

LOL it isn't her seat. It is the people's seat and it's not Make a Wish. Means nothing.

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Tend to agree.  Then expand the Court to 13 in January.

5 Dems, 5 Reps, and they collectively pick the last 5

8 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

LOL it isn't her seat. It is the people's seat and it's not  Make a Wish.

That was a response to Don.  When I'm interested in your opinion I'll either quote you or write @moron_dipsheet

Just now, VanHammersly said:

That was a response to Don.  When I'm interested in your opinion I'll either quote you or write @moron_dipsheet

Awww someone is a wittle bit upset the sad story doesn't mean crap.