|
Post by robeiae on Sept 21, 2020 7:34:01 GMT -5
Well again, I'd argue that both have been off that road for quire some time. It's just not a new thing, contrary to how it's being presented right now.
And again, I hope some Repubs in the Senate refuse to go along with the rest and thereby prevent a vote. If they do that, they';; stand pretty much alone in my view, will be "better" than not only their fellow Repubs, but also most all of the Dems.
But if a pick is forced through, I'm not gonna lose too much sleep over it, since I'm confident that if all the tables were turned, the Dems would have done the exact same things.
And on the roads: taking the high road means sticking to your principles even if it costs you something. If only doing it because you can get credit for doing it, but are counting on not actually losing anything, you're doing it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 21, 2020 7:44:08 GMT -5
Well again, I'd argue that both have been off that road for quire some time. It's just not a new thing, contrary to how it's being presented right now. No doubt. I'm just pointing out what I see as kind of an order of operations here, with regard to the two roads in this specific scenario. If the Repubs were to decline to take any action on Trump's pick, then the question of whether the Dems would try to block or not block becomes a bit of a moot point, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 21, 2020 20:54:07 GMT -5
If you feel what the GOP did with Garland was unprincipled, shouldn't you follow the principles you espouse even if the other side doesn't. If you threaten to stab me, and I say, "But stabbing people is wrong," and you go ahead and do it anyway, and I respond by twisting the knife out of your hands and stabbing you, can you say "Ah, you hypocrite, you just said stabbing people is wrong"? I guess you could, and in a strict sense, the statement "you just said stabbing people is wrong" would be accurate, but it also seems like a bunch of bullshit casuistry, given the full context. Yeah, but no. That would be called self defense. It's immediate. Back then, Obama to put forward a candidate, and the D's wanted the GOP controlled Senate to allow an up or down vote. The GOP controlled Senate refused. The D's said that was wrong. Now, Trump is going to put forward a candidate. The D's are now saying he should wait until the next administration. The GOP has no intention of waiting. The GOP is being two faced. They should have allowed the vote. If the D's believe that then, why don't they believe that now? The principle is either you wait until the next election, or you don't. If you're accused of a crime, and I presume guilt, that's either okay, or not okay. It doesn't become more or less okay because someone else is accused of a crime and I decide to presume guilt. Is it ironic if that's what happened? Of course, but if your principle that everyone should withhold the judgement, why isn't it now? Two wrongs don't make a rights.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 21, 2020 23:24:00 GMT -5
I think it's more than a bit disingenous to gloss over (or outright ignore) the fact that when Obama nominated Garland there were still 9 months until the election. The senate then sat on the nomination for the rest of the year (10 months, to be exact). That's nearly a year of Presidency left. They effectively tried to neuter Obama for 1/4 of his second term. It was grossly dishonest, hypocritical, and morally repugnant behaviour.
That's a far cry from Trump and the Republicans trying to ram through a nomination less than 45 days before the election. Trying to equate the two as if they're really at all comparable or morally/ethically equivalent situations seems like borderline sophistry.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 22, 2020 0:16:59 GMT -5
Yeah, but no. That would be called self defense. Correct. But self-defense is an example of the larger principle of reciprocal action I was trying to articulate. One can argue that actions are right or wrong in and of themselves, but in practice, I don't think people actually think that way about ethics most of the time. Another example: person A says they believe it's good to give money or food to the homeless. Let's say person A actually follows through on that conviction in many instances. Then one day, they recognize a homeless person on the street as the person who defrauded them in a financial scam several years ago, causing person A a huge amount of distress. The homeless guy asks if person A can spare a dollar or two, and person A says "sorry, but no." You could ask the same question you pose below in the bolded part, and make the same observation about it. If person A believed five minutes ago that giving money to the homeless is good, then why doesn't he believe it now? Either you believe it's the right thing to do or you don't. But in reality, it's more complicated than that. Because ethical choices aren't made in a vacuum; they're often responses to what other people are doing/have done. re: the bolded part: But there's another principle at play here, which is that both sides should play by the same rules. If we're playing pickup basketball and I think we should play 5 vs. 5 and you think we should do 4 vs. 4, the solution is to pick one or the other, not for me to say, "OK, my team will have 5, and your team will have 4, because that was the preference you expressed and you should therefore be stuck with that forever." As you noted, the GOP isn't sticking w/ the principle they had laid out previously. Well, two can play that game, and that seems fair enough, IMO. Especially in politics.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 22, 2020 8:59:55 GMT -5
I think it's more than a bit disingenous to gloss over (or outright ignore) the fact that when Obama nominated Garland there were still 9 months until the election. The senate then sat on the nomination for the rest of the year (10 months, to be exact). That's nearly a year of Presidency left. They effectively tried to neuter Obama for 1/4 of his second term. It was grossly dishonest, hypocritical, and morally repugnant behaviour. That's a far cry from Trump and the Republicans trying to ram through a nomination less than 45 days before the election. Trying to equate the two as if they're really at all comparable or morally/ethically equivalent situations seems like borderline sophistry. I don't think there's any doubt that what McConnell did--and got the other Repubs to go along with--was simply awful. And specific to Supreme Court vacancies, it was an unprecedented awful. And in the vein of reaping what one sows, I'm 100% okay with Senate Dems doing whatever they can to block Repub nominations to the Court, certainly for as long as McConnell remains in office. That douche really has got to go, because there will never be any chance at civility in the Senate as along as he's in power (and ditto for Pelosi and the House, btw, but that's not important here). And I said the same sorts of things as the above when the Garland appointment was made by Obama. I haven't changed my mind. But...I have had time to further consider the culture of the Senate and how both parties routinely block judicial appointments (beyond SCOTUS). Read this: www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/10/16-2-Federal-Judicial-Nominations.pdf Look at figure 2. It shows that the Senate failed to confirm over 40% of Clinton's appointments, almost 60% of Bush's appointments, and over 40% of Obama's appointments. Those are huge numbers, compared to what came before. Dig into the specifics in any case and you'll find a variety of justifications from Senators, but the reality is that the Senate--under the leadership of both parties--has been failing to do its job, has been purposefully holding up appointments in huge numbers across the last three decades or so. But as to jobs, I'd point out that Trump, in nominating a replacement for RBG, will be doing his, just as Obama was doing his in nominating a replacement for Scalia. Trump isn't the problem here, it's McConnell and the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 22, 2020 9:25:44 GMT -5
Well, it looks done and dusted now:
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Sept 22, 2020 9:50:55 GMT -5
I was not expecting that from Romney.
Now I've got to rethink my prognostication concerning this late term SCOTUS pick and confirmation.
BTW, I think it's silly not to expect one side or the other of a group of professionals not to run up the score when given the chance. Term limits might well help with the score padding.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 22, 2020 11:16:54 GMT -5
But as to jobs, I'd point out that Trump, in nominating a replacement for RBG, will be doing his, just as Obama was doing his in nominating a replacement for Scalia. Trump isn't the problem here, it's McConnell and the Senate. I don't disagree.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 22, 2020 18:17:47 GMT -5
But as to jobs, I'd point out that Trump, in nominating a replacement for RBG, will be doing his, just as Obama was doing his in nominating a replacement for Scalia. Trump isn't the problem here, it's McConnell and the Senate. Yep, although I've seen some who seem to be under the impression that Trump is required to submit a nomination, which I don't think is true. (although obviously he can, if he wants to.) If Trump were required to fill empty positions though, he would certainly not be doing his job in that case, as he's left plenty of open seats for all sorts of things. I think Trump took over two years to nominate someone to be ambassador to Australia, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 25, 2020 16:14:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 25, 2020 18:44:04 GMT -5
|
|