KSB2424 3,172 Posted February 17, 2016 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY&feature=youtu.be I'm not sure what Worms is asking. But the above, that was posted already, is very similar rhetoric we're hearing out of some GOP folks. Stonewalling on SCJ nominees or potential nominees is not anything new. But like Skids said, I think a lot of people would prefer to wait and see who is nominated first and not just cry "They did it too" Or "They would do it too!" Even if its true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reality 3,121 Posted February 17, 2016 The GOP will stonewall for a while before buckling under public pressure, pissing off their own constituents and the opposition party. Obummer has been playing the Republican Party like a fiddle for 7 years, no reason to think that won't continue right up to the elections. A fiddle? Probably not, Republicans should be kissing Obama's ring. Since President Obama took office, 85 of 98 state legislative bodies got more Republican https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/26/since-president-obama-took-office-85-of-98-state-legislative-bodies-got-more-republican/ Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy. That's a blood bath my friends. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 I'm not sure what Worms is asking. But the above, that was posted already, is very similar rhetoric we're hearing out of some GOP folks. Stonewalling on SCJ nominees or potential nominees is not anything new. But like Skids said, I think a lot of people would prefer to wait and see who is nominated first and not just cry "They did it too" Or "They would do it too!" Even if its true. Willful ignorance again. Stonewalling is indeed nothing new. And if the republicans were to block obama's nominee once named that would be one thing. Suggesting the president cannot even exercise his constitutional duty of nominating supreme court justices IS something new and entirely different. You'd like to paint it as a simple logical next step in the battle over nominees that has been going on for a while. But it is in fact qualitatively different, and you know it. Just be honest KSB, because nobody buys your bullsh1t Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,172 Posted February 17, 2016 Willful ignorance again. Stonewalling is indeed nothing new. And if the republicans were to block obama's nominee once named that would be one thing. I'm assuming you didn't even watch the posted video clip. Because if you did you would have heard prominent NY Senator calling for the Senate to block ANY Bush nominated person for the SCJ except in some extremely extraordinary situation. Maybe watch something before replying? Again, my personal opinion is that to say Obama should not appoint a SCJ is sorta dumb. He has every right to do so. But the video posted, if you actually watch even the first minute of it, clearly shows a Democrat telling others to not vote in a Bush appointee no matter what, before they are even named. Willful ignorance would be purposely ignoring the video. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 I'm assuming you didn't even watch the posted video clip. Because if you did you would have heard prominent NY Senator calling for the Senate to block ANY Bush nominated person for the SCJ except in some extremely extraordinary situation. Maybe watch something before replying? Again, my personal opinion is that to say Obama should not appoint a SCJ is sorta dumb. He has every right to do so. But the video posted, if you actually watch even the first minute of it, clearly shows a Democrat telling others to not vote in a Bush appointee no matter what, before they are even named. Willful ignorance would be purposely ignoring the video. I did watch it silly. And nowhere in it did he suggest that the president cannot even exercise his constitutional power of nominating a Supreme Court justice. Do you seriously not get the distinction? I'm thinking you are disingenuous more than stupid but perhaps I need to reevaluate I don't support what Schumer said there because every candidate should be evaluated on their individual merit. Nonetheless Schumer did not say that W can't even nominate someone to begin with which is obviously a whole different ballgame Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,836 Posted February 17, 2016 A fiddle? Probably not, Republicans should be kissing Obama's ring. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/26/since-president-obama-took-office-85-of-98-state-legislative-bodies-got-more-republican/ That's a blood bath my friends. Republicans have always done well as an opposition party. Every leader needs a dissenting voice in the room. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,172 Posted February 17, 2016 I did watch it silly. And nowhere in it did he suggest that the president cannot even exercise his constitutional power of nominating a Supreme Court justice. Do you seriously not get the distinction? I'm thinking you are disingenuous more than stupid but perhaps I need to reevaluate Are you saying the GOP is saying the President CAN'T nominate a SCJ? I have not heard that. All I have heard is that some think he should not in his last year, and if he does they will stonewall. I have yet to hear anyone say he somehow doesn't have the legal right to do so. If you can provide me a link to a prominent Senator or higher who says Obama doesn't have the authority to nominate a SCJ then I'll concede. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,836 Posted February 17, 2016 Are you saying the GOP is saying the President CAN'T nominate a SCJ? I have not heard that. All I have heard is that some think he should not in his last year, and if he does they will stonewall. I have yet to hear anyone say he somehow doesn't have the legal right to do so. Suggesting Obunmer should not nominate a SCJ with 9 months left is retarded. Saying you will stonewall his nomination for the better part of a year without even knowing who the nominee is, is deranged. I have no doubt Obummer will flog the GOP with this issue all year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 Are you saying the GOP is saying the President CAN'T nominate a SCJ? I have not heard that. All I have heard is that some think he should not in his last year, and if he does they will stonewall. I have yet to hear anyone say he somehow doesn't have the legal right to do so. That was the GOP's position right out of the gate: that Obama has no right to nominate a replacement because he is a "lame duck" with only a "few months" (actually eleven months) left in office. That's what I'm responding to. If all we were talking about is "hey it seems like the GOP is stonewalling here" that would be par for the course. But that's not the issue no matter how much you'd like to spin it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 Suggesting Obunmer should not nominate a SCJ with 9 months left is retarded. Saying you will stonewall his nomination for the better part of a year without even knowing who the nominee is, is deranged. I have no doubt Obummer will flog the GOP with this issue all year. Nine isn't right either. Nine months til the election when he is actually a "lame duck", but eleven months until the new president is sworn in and the change of administrations actually occurs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,172 Posted February 17, 2016 That was the GOP's position right out of the gate: that Obama has no right to nominate a replacement because he is a "lame duck" with only a "few months" (actually eleven months) left in office. That's what I'm responding to. If all we were talking about is "hey it seems like the GOP is stonewalling here" that would be par for the course. But that's not the issue no matter how much you'd like to spin it Saying the President should not do something is not the same thing as saying he doesn't have the right to do it. Again: I have yet to hear anyone say he somehow doesn't have the legal right to do so. If you can provide me a link to a prominent Senator or higher who says Obama doesn't have the authority to nominate a SCJ then I'll concede. :jeopardymusic: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 Saying the President should not do something is not the same thing as saying he doesn't have the right to do it. Again: :jeopardymusic: Do you realize how stupid you look when you contort yourself into these positions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,836 Posted February 17, 2016 Saying the President should not do something is not the same thing as saying he doesn't have the right to do it. Again: :jeopardymusic: Holy straw man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,172 Posted February 17, 2016 Worms, I thought it was a pretty simple request. I guess you couldn't find any Senator or prominent Republican saying Obama doesn't have the legal right to nominate a SCJ. Again, what I've read and seen is that some GOP folks are saying Obama should wait since its his last year. And if he doesn't they will stonewall. That is not how you are portraying it. And Chuck Shumer above stated something very similar. That if a Bush does nominate a SCJ, no matter who that is, they will stonewall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 Holy straw man. No, no, it's not an ACTUAL straw man because it's made out of bamboo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 17, 2016 Have they? Link please? I feel like I'm dealing with crazy people here didn't see the schumer video eh ? Or the Hillary vote ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,172 Posted February 17, 2016 didn't see the schumer video eh ? Or the Hillary vote ? You don't get it. Worms wants us to show him where the Democrats told a Republican President in the known last year of his presidency that he should not nominate a SCJ but wait until the election is decided instead, and if he does they will stonewall. The problem is that EXACT scenario has never happened in the course of American History by happenstance, so of course you can't point to it. The only other time it 's happened was in 1968 with L.Johnson and he was a Democrat from Texas. But, one can infer that if the shoe was on the other foot the opposing party would react a very similar way. Because, like the Chuck Schumer video illustrates, the Democrats can be and have been just as partisan and just as big of obstructionists as the Republicans. But you can't tell a guy like Worms or MDC that. In their mind, Democrat Politicians are this bastion of truth and knowledge. A party constantly willing to listen to opposing views and give goodwill to the Republicans and work across the party lines. They would never do such a thing. And how dare anyone even say they would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 7,054 Posted February 17, 2016 How is it that SCJs almost never die every 4th year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 17, 2016 How is it that SCJs almost never die every 4th year? breitbart dart Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 You don't get it. Worms wants us to show him where the Democrats told a Republican President in the known last year of his presidency that he should not nominate a SCJ but wait until the election is decided instead, and if he does they will stonewall. The problem is that EXACT scenario has never happened in the course of American History by happenstance, so of course you can't point to it. The only other time it 's happened was in 1968 with L.Johnson and he was a Democrat from Texas. But, one can infer that if the shoe was on the other foot the opposing party would react a very similar way. Because, like the Chuck Schumer video illustrates, the Democrats can be and have been just as partisan and just as big of obstructionists as the Republicans. But you can't tell a guy like Worms or MDC that. In their mind, Democrat Politicians are this bastion of truth and knowledge. A party constantly willing to listen to opposing views and give goodwill to the Republicans and work across the party lines. They would never do such a thing. And how dare anyone even say they would. So you agree the democrats have never done the same thing and republican action here is unprecedented. Great! What this really comes down to is your belief that democrats would do the same thing were they in the position of republicans. And that's fine, maybe you'd even be right. But when you say "but the democrats did it too! " that is, in fact, not accurate. We've finally gotten to the bottom of it after all the twisting, contorting, and goalpost-shifting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,172 Posted February 17, 2016 So you agree the democrats have never done the same thing and republican action here is unprecedented. Great! What this really comes down to is your belief that democrats would do the same thing were they in the position of republicans. And that's fine, maybe you'd even be right. But when you say "but the democrats did it too! " that is, in fact, not accurate. We've finally gotten to the bottom of it after all the twisting, contorting, and goalpost-shifting The Democrats have stonewalled a SCJ nominee. The Democrats have also implored senators to NOT vote for a SCJ nominee even before knowing who it may be because a Repub was in office. We don't know if they would publically wish a GOP president would wait to nominate in their known final year because its simply never happened (by sheer happenstance). But based on the first two sentences any common sense person would say they probably would. What neither party has ever done, that you said they said (your exact own words): Obama has no right to nominate a replacement Nobody, GOP, Democrat, anyone..... ever said that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GutterBoy 2,900 Posted February 17, 2016 Why do they call it the Supreme Court? Does Diana Ross belong on it or something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted February 17, 2016 I think Obama is trolling his own party by not nominating someone. He must be, by the hissy fit going on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,412 Posted February 17, 2016 Nobody, GOP, Democrat, anyone..... ever said that. If nobody said it, how'd you quote...huh...huh??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,908 Posted February 17, 2016 Obama filibustered Alitos nomination. There are no angels in this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,582 Posted February 17, 2016 A fiddle? Probably not, Republicans should be kissing Obama's ring. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/26/since-president-obama-took-office-85-of-98-state-legislative-bodies-got-more-republican/ That's a blood bath my friends. Now that's progress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted February 17, 2016 Obama fibustered Alitos nomination. effective Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,062 Posted February 17, 2016 Obama filibustered Alitos nomination. There are no angels in this. Of course not. But the republican stance on this is still unprecedented Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted February 17, 2016 Shocking? Hardly, since that's a false equivalency. After considering Alito's nomination she voted against, unlike Senator McConnell who has threatened to not bring to a vote any nominations. HAHA. I see another post flew over you head. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted February 17, 2016 The GOP will stonewall for a while before buckling under public pressure, pissing off their own constituents and the opposition party. Obummer has been playing the Republican Party like a fiddle for 7 years, no reason to think that won't continue right up to the elections. Yep. The will cave, but I think it will be almost immediately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,412 Posted February 18, 2016 HAHA. I see another post flew over you head. I like funny, please enlighten me on why you aren't comparing apples and oranges. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted February 18, 2016 I like funny, please enlighten me on why you aren't comparing apples and oranges. I am not comparing shtt. I simply posted a video from CBS news. The funny part is how it confused you so much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,412 Posted February 18, 2016 I am not comparing shtt. I simply posted a video from CBS news. The funny part is how it confused you so much. You post a video with a title "Shock CBS Exposes Hillary’s Hypocrisy on Scalia Replacement" and you don't think there is a comparison being made. You are not very bright. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 18, 2016 Of course not. But the republican stance on this is still unprecedented what Republican stance ? 3 candidates ? Fake outrage much ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted February 18, 2016 You post a video with a title "Shock CBS Exposes Hillary’s Hypocrisy on Scalia Replacement" and you don't think there is a comparison being made. You are not very bright. Never said any of this shtt, I am not sure what the fock you are even talking about, nor do I care. WTH is wrong with you??? Oh that's right, you are upset because I was picked before you in some draft going on here that I knew nothing about. Here is a tip. I did not make the video, CBS did, so take it up with them. HTH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted February 18, 2016 what Republican stance ? 3 candidates ? Fake outrage much ? I must have missed what worms said. What is freaking out about now??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,412 Posted February 18, 2016 Never said any of this shtt, I am not sure what the fock you are even talking about, nor do I care. WTH is wrong with you??? Oh that's right, you are upset because I was picked before you in some draft going on here that I knew nothing about. Here is a tip. I did not make the video, CBS did, so take it up with them. HTH You posted a video claiming hypocrisy on the part of Hillary, I pointed out there was none, because the comparisons were not the same... and you are arguing that I'm the one who doesn't understand, clearly the only thing misunderstood is between you and the definition of hypocrisy. Seriously, it is beyond belief how obtuse you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted February 18, 2016 You posted a video claiming hypocrisy on the part of Hillary, I pointed out there was none, because the comparisons were not the same... and you are arguing that I'm the one who doesn't understand, clearly the only thing misunderstood is between you and the definition of hypocrisy. Seriously, it is beyond belief how obtuse you are. Lets try this again. I MADE NO CLAIM. HTH Yes, you are completely lost, as usual. You are getting very close to worms territory actually, so just knock it off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,412 Posted February 18, 2016 Lets try this again. I MADE NO CLAIM. HTH Yes, you are completely lost, as usual. You are getting very close to worms territory actually, so just knock it off. Gotcha, you post videos THAT MAKE A CLAIM and then when the videos claim is proven untrue, you shrug your shoulders and say "hey that's the video...doesn't represent my views at all." Do everyone a favor then, don't post videos if you don't want people to comment on them or think they might represent your views. HTH. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
