@SpecialOlympian, not a problem, with so many posts flying around across so many threads it’s easy to get confused. It’s certainly happened to me.
B0ycey wrote:Of course I did dumbass. I said it was a whataboutism and a piss poor one at that.
Biden playing politics is to be expected from a politician. But a judge should be objective to the law and most definitely consistent. So even if Biden was a hypocrite (which he isn't) it wouldn't stop McConnell being a hypocrite in any case.
You are aware that McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader and so a politician like Biden and not a judge, right? And as I pointed out, going by past statements neither were hypocrites because neither are contradicting their previous statements. Actually Biden is, with his call for the Senate to hold off on the nomination until next year since his previous statement only called for holding off on the nomination until after the election (and therefore during a lame duck session), but considering that Biden’s original statement was in 1992 I think we can give him a pass on that one. I really think past statements by politicians should have unofficial expiration dates.
Then that means the Democrats will have to retaliate once again to even the score and bring things back into balance. The Republicans, not the Democrats are the ones who started this by breaking their own precedent of not appointing a Supreme Court judge so close to an election like they insisted with Obama when it came to the Obama administration wanting to get a vote for Garland. If Republicans don't want a fight then don't start one. I don't think the Democrats are bluffing. I think there will be an answer from the Democrats if Mitch moves forward with a vote on the Senate floor.
Actually, the Democrats started it when they chose to abolish the filibuster for all judges below the level of the Supreme Court, even though they were warned at the time that there was no way it was going to stop there. If they hadn’t done that, it is unlikely that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be on the SC right now. Why would the Democrats think if they choose to abolish the filibuster entirely so they can pack the court that it’ll stop there?
And since we’re talking about the Senate they can’t try to maintain their hold by gerrymandering after this year’s census. They can try to maintain the House that way, though, and if the Senate does
choose to abolish the filibuster then maintaining control of the House becomes absolutely vital for the Democrats as the Senate naturally leans Conservative. Just consider this years electoral environment—as the stats I’ve posted in the Election 2020 thread show, this is about as favorable an environment for Senate elections as Democrats can imagine and they might
take control by two or three votes.
The sad thing is that things are looking more and more like they did before the American Civil War, and if Democrats are unwilling to accept their defeat here and count on the court of public opinion to salvage much of their court-driven agenda, in a decade we could find ourselves facing the same choices as 1861—with either party being the one driving the secession movement, depending on how that decade works out.
Doug64 wrote:giving Republicans permission to...
ingliz wrote:...manipulate the court’s composition to generate specific political outcomes.
What makes you think the Republicans need permission to do that?
So far, the Republicans’ “manipulation of the court’s composition” has consisted of filling empty seats in the prescribed manner and taking the Democrats’ own manipulation to its logical conclusion, as they warned would happen when then-Senate Majority Leader Reid chose to start that ball rolling. I suspect that there are a lot of Democrats cursing Reid’s name in private, whatever they might say in public.
Governments think free speech is a wonderful thing, when “free” is defined as “responsible” and “responsible” is defined by the governments. So do corporations, when they get to set the definition.