Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama should retract the Garland appointment on Nov 8th, giving President Hillary her choice of a justice appointment. It'll likely be a young lib, who will sail through confirmation in a newly Dem controlled senate.
That is not what I stated, using a statementby Biden is a pretty weak excuse for shutting down the nomination system but when you have nothing else.....
Biden WAS the Chairman of the Senate Judicial committee.
As chairman of that committee, what he says goes.
So, I will ask again, If H.Bush HAD nominated someone would the dems do what Biden said he would do?
Biden WAS the Chairman of the Senate Judicial committee.
As chairman of that committee, what he says goes.
So, I will ask again, If H.Bush HAD nominated someone would the dems do what Biden said he would do?
Is your argument that because Biden would, maybe, have done something reprehensible in the past, that the Republicans can now do the same reprehensible thing? or would you have agreed with Biden?
Shouldn't we ask simply whether what the Republicans are doing now is acceptable or not? and to objectively ask the same question when it applies to democrats? I know I am naive, but I hope we increasingly elect people who are willing to at least consider what the other side is saying instead of taking absolute positions on issues before the facts are even known.
Is your argument that because Biden would, maybe, have done something reprehensible in the past, that the Republicans can now do the same reprehensible thing? or would you have agreed with Biden?
Shouldn't we ask simply whether what the Republicans are doing now is acceptable or not? and to objectively ask the same question when it applies to democrats? I know I am naive, but I hope we increasingly elect people who are willing to at least consider what the other side is saying instead of taking absolute positions on issues before the facts are even known.
You cannot give one party a pass while giving the other party grief for the same thing.
You allow it on your side then you have to shut up when the other side does it.
You cannot give one party a pass while giving the other party grief for the same thing.
You allow it on your side then you have to shut up when the other side does it.
Or, maybe he is aligned with most Americans who say it's wrong, no matter who is doing it.
Just another example of partisan politics where party is put ahead of country. They both do it, both are wrong. It's how some wack-job like Trump can get as far as he has. The fact that he's the leading candidate for ANY major party shows just how screwed up we are.
You cannot give one party a pass while giving the other party grief for the same thing.
You allow it on your side then you have to shut up when the other side does it.
First, Biden didn't actually do it, he threatened to do it.
But even if he had done it, if you take this position, then in short time our government doesn't work because everyone feels entitled to repeat and amplify the other party's stupid behavior (maybe we're there already). You seem to be defending McConnell's actions not because you think what he is doing is right in itself, but because Biden threatened to do something similar in the past. Honestly, don't you think this is harmful for our country? Why not have the hearings, and if you find Garland unacceptable, so be it. He is not a flaming liberal judge, he seems at least worthy of consideration.
And call on the democrats when they do something stupid like this too.
Or, maybe he is aligned with most Americans who say it's wrong, no matter who is doing it.
Just another example of partisan politics where party is put ahead of country. They both do it, both are wrong. It's how some wack-job like Trump can get as far as he has. The fact that he's the leading candidate for ANY major party shows just how screwed up we are.
I don't disagree. That's why I always vote Libertarian for anyone going to DC.
But don't go bashing one side when the other side has done the very same thing.
First, Biden didn't actually do it, he threatened to do it.
But even if he had done it, if you take this position, then in short time our government doesn't work because everyone feels entitled to repeat and amplify the other party's stupid behavior (maybe we're there already). You seem to be defending McConnell's actions not because you think what he is doing is right in itself, but because Biden threatened to do something similar in the past. Honestly, don't you think this is harmful for our country? Why not have the hearings, and if you find Garland unacceptable, so be it. He is not a flaming liberal judge, he seems at least worthy of consideration.
And call on the democrats when they do something stupid like this too.
I'm not taking any "position".
Congress let Obama rule by EO and Friday night memo's.
And the left didn't bat an eyelash.
This will come back to haunt all of us one day.
"precdent" got set when the first guy to do it is allowed to get away with it..regardless of party.
And if you allow it for one then the next guy has just as much right to do it as the first did.
I'm a Republican and in the least hold the hearing to give the nominee a chance at being heard instead of acting like children by not holding any hearing for nominees that Obama throws at them. I believe that this will definitely hurt the Republicans come November.
First, Biden didn't actually do it, he threatened to do it.
But even if he had done it, if you take this position, then in short time our government doesn't work because everyone feels entitled to repeat and amplify the other party's stupid behavior (maybe we're there already). You seem to be defending McConnell's actions not because you think what he is doing is right in itself, but because Biden threatened to do something similar in the past. Honestly, don't you think this is harmful for our country? Why not have the hearings, and if you find Garland unacceptable, so be it. He is not a flaming liberal judge, he seems at least worthy of consideration.
And call on the democrats when they do something stupid like this too.
Technically the Republicans have still only "threatened" to do it as well. If they cave at some point in the future then it was only a threat they didn't really follow up on, just held back for awhile. But that's picking a bit too fine into the hairs.
I think another big point is when does the "lame duck" argument halt? If a President isn't "allowed" to do one of their tasks up to a year before they leave office then can't that argument be applied to other things? What about Senators/Reps? Do the Senators that are going up for re-election not get counted votes on things because it's not what the people wanted? Yeah this is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but you set precedence like this and there is a possibility someone extremifies it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
