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.
Instead of starting a new thread, I will put this here:
What is 'an election year'?
I am 65 years old, and growing up and well into adulthood it was a tradition that the 'election season' (as it was usually called) began the Labor Day prior to the November Presidential election.
Here is why: it was not until late August that the two major parties had their conventions and nominated their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.
Likewise, virtually all primaries (with exceptions) for the House and Senate would have been held by Labor Day. Indeed, it is in recognition of the 'election season' that Congress takes an 'election recess' so its members may return home to campaign.
When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland in February 2016, it was an 'election year', for an election was to be held later that year. But at the time, the candidates for each party were months away from being fixed.
If we interpret a 'election year' as beginning when men and women had declared their intention to run for the Presidency, then that would mean that the 'election year' would include 2019, a result I doubt any would agree with.
Indeed, if one adopts such factious reasoning (i.e., filing to run equals the beginning of the election year), then Mr. Trump, whom famously filed his re-election paperwork the afternoon of his inauguration on January 20, 2017, made that year, and each succeeding year, an 'election year'.
"Election season", beginning Labor Day, makes more sense. By that day the tickets are set.
I, of course, was against the reasoning of Senator McConnell in March 2016; at the time, I argued that he had a duty to hold a hearing on the nomination, then vote Mr. Garland down, if so desired. I said then that to declare that it was 'tradition' to not consider a nominee during a Presidential election 'year' was irrational.
Now, of course, the Republicans have discarded Mr. McConnell's reasoning (as he has), and now proclaim that it is proper to consider a nomination during an 'election year'.
I say: it is proper to consider a nomination, save if the seat becomes open during 'election season', or after Labor Day prior to an election. Then, let the new president decide (hence, in the instant case, if President Trump wins reelection, it is entirely proper for the 'lame duck' Senate session to confirm; if Mr Biden, then after January 20, 2021).
By the by, I have read the arguments by Senators Cruz and Grassley. Most of their examples come from the early 1800s, and the remainder from the 20th century did not fall into the 'election season' restriction.
Now that I have most of my vision back (for which I thank those that wrote me), I welcome arguments to the contrary.
I know some did but have some others watched the short video in the OP in its entirety?
People may brush off a lot of what was said and what is going on now and say it has happened before but Lindsey Graham said some prophetic things starting after the 2 minute mark if what was being proposed then (and now) is actually followed through with. Anyone catch what he said?
Obama didn't have the votes in the Senate to confirm his nominee. Trump does. Get over it.
Yeah, they being complaining about this forever, just like the election results of 2016!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Build The Wall. Confirm Amy.
Keep Democrats out of The White House.
Everything else is just noise.
Works for me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
I know some did but have some others watched the short video in the OP in its entirety?
People may brush off a lot of what was said and what is going on now and say it has happened before but Lindsey Graham said some prophetic things starting after the 2 minute mark if what was being proposed then (and now) is actually followed through with. Anyone catch what he said?
I didn't watch the video. I have already heard the Dems complaining on here far too long at this point. The thing is, I'm guessing most people are like me and simply don't care. Hey, I want a conservative on the SC!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
LOL.
bottom line. President and Senate of the same party = confirmation
President and Senate not same party = failed confirmation.
That is the historic reality.
17 of 19 confirmations in the final year when same party
9 of 10 rejected when Pres and Senate are different party.
That's just how it is. Its also utterly constitutional and clearly typical
Dems are into destroying history, not using it to learn from. And, the Constitution? Yeah, they aren't really into that either unless it serves their socialist agenda which it really doesn't.
They were wrong. And the Democrats were dumbasses when they changed the requirements from a 60 vote to a 51. It was short sighted and bad for all of us, at least some bi-partisan support was needed to pass a bill, confirm a judge etc...now well you get ACB and I honestly don't have a clue why anyone would not want her to be a SCOTUS, other than far left activists. She is a qualified candidate, appears to be openminded, fair an all around good person.
Judges should not be "conservative" or "liberal" they should simply judge a case based on the law, not what they believe the law should be.
Point blank, a portion of the Conservatives in the legislative branch would be hypocrites and liars if they rushed a SC justice in one week before an election (see short video in OP). They would be opening a can of worms.
The Conservatives in the legislative branch should not rush in for the power grab to select yet another Conservative SC justice so close to an election.
The Democrats should not follow through on increasing the number of Justices if the Conservatives do rush in yet another Conservative SC justice to put yet another Conservative finger on the ruling scale.
If one has no problem with one of the scenarios above but a problem with the other (when both can be constitutionally done if the opportunity presents itself), they too are being hypocritical. Just because something can Constitutionally be done, does not mean it is the best choice for the future of our country (again referring to both of the scenarios above occurring should the opportunity present itself).
Last edited by txbullsfan; 10-22-2020 at 09:10 AM..
Point blank, a portion of the Conservatives in the legislative branch would be hypocrites and liars if they rushed a SC justice in one week before an election...
They don't care. They're grasping for power, as an end in itself, and appealing to shame is a pointless exercise, because they do not possess it. You may as well ask the local biker gang to ponder the ethical complications in asking for protection money.
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.
Build The Wall. Confirm Amy.
