Republicans: Then and Now

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Lesh, Sep 21, 2020.

  1. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,954
    Likes Received:
    16,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They had the majority then too. In fact they had the majority 6 of Obama's 8 years. Do you not keep up with anything? And please note at least the Republicans didn't try to destroy Garland as the Dems have been trying to do with every Republican nominee since Bork.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
  2. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    32,204
    Likes Received:
    15,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There wasn't a chance to destroy Garland because the Repubs never allowed the nomination to get to that process. The Repubs flat out denied allowing the process to get past Obama voicing his nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year. Do YOU not keep up with anything?
     
  3. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,954
    Likes Received:
    16,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly do what's better to simply not act or to completely trash a man's entire life and career?
     
  4. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    32,204
    Likes Received:
    15,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that's why the Repubs refused to allow Garland to go through the nomination process...:shock:
     
  5. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,954
    Likes Received:
    16,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Republicans had the majority. The Republican Majority had already seated two other Obama nominees.
     
  6. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    32,204
    Likes Received:
    15,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I’m aware they had the majority, hence why they decided to not allow Garland to go through the nomination process so they could wait till a new president stepped in.
     
  7. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,954
    Likes Received:
    16,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then what is you point? That they made Biden's argument in the same circumstance?
     
  8. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    32,204
    Likes Received:
    15,761
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That they are hypocrites. Why aren't they making Biden's argument NOW? Oh right, because it's a Repub in the WH. To recap, in 2016..."hold on...we can't seat a judge in an election year. That should be decided by the people. We need to hold off till new president is elected"
    2020..."we must seat a judge right away in an election year".
     
  9. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,954
    Likes Received:
    16,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course their hypocrites. DC creates hypocrites. They are all hypocrites. That is the nature of power politics. You might as well expect bed bugs not to bite. And if you think the Dems haven't done the same thing in darker ways you're kidding yourself.

    Hell they should have just told the truth in my opinion, "We gave you two appointments you're not getting a third." And left it at that. But the dumb asses were afraid they'd offend some one so they created a paper thin justification, that even the most politically obtuse noob in the country could see through in fifteen minutes if not fifteen seconds.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
    ButterBalls likes this.
  10. EyesWideOpen

    EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The people had their voice, they elected Trump, they voted for Republicans to control the Senate, and in Trump's midterm election cycle, the people voted to increase Republican control of the US Senate by two, and Trump's running for a second term.

    The precedent is: Lame duck presidents who lost control of the US Senate, two midterms in-a-row, don't get their SCOTUS nominees approved during their seventh year in office.
     
  11. EyesWideOpen

    EyesWideOpen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The whole hypocrite thing might work, if this was Trump's seventh year in office, and the Democrats had been in control of the Senate for five years.
     
  12. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bullshit. Moscow Mitch used a non-existent rule to steal a SC seat and then discarded that rule when it was politically expedient to do so in order to grab another and fundamentally alter the balance of the court
     
  13. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    10,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Says the people that have been divisive, making unproven accusations, demonizing any opposing view for the last 4 years.
     
  14. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump fans???
     

Share This Page