The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

@Finn dAbuzz,

If the Koch brothers wouldnt be so fond of publically distributing their plans to strengthen their oligarchy we wouldnt have as much fodder .

So your plans to undue the court may require a rejiggering of the constitution eh?
Dont call me paranoid, you guys wrote the book.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Only if you're oh-so virtuous Democrats can't resist to respond in kind.

You mean by nominating a candidate for USSC associate jutice? (Like it says in the Constitution?)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Wake up Farmerman, the republicans dont use the constitution, they use the Bible.

1 Reply

@engineer,

FM suggested that exactly that would happen.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Wake up Farmerman, the republicans dont use the constitution, they use the Bible.

Excellent comment.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Already? Good!

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

So, maybe ya'll are you own worst enemy. Obama would want to nominate someone who republicans really can't object to, too much. The way the election is going it is looking like Trump is going to be the republican pick for president. I doubt he would win against Hillary in the general. Hillary won't have a reason to be consolatory towards republicans. With the way the supreme court is now, evenly divided, some of the cases coming up will have a better chance being in the liberal favor rather than conservatives.

Reid said the president made it clear he would consider names of potential replacements from the Republicans, but they did not offer any.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

No, i wasn't. That you cherish a paranoid delusion that everyone who doesn't agree with you is obsessed with insulting you is not in fact evidence that that is true. The argument--that you were employing a [tu quoque[/i] fallacy, does not need to be strengthened--it is self-evident.

No, it wasn't a tu quoque fallacy. My argument was that Democrats regularly oppose Republican efforts, I supported that assertion by giving examples of Democrats opposing Republican efforts. How is making an assertion that something occurs and then giving examples of it occurring any kind of fallacy? It would have been a tu quoque fallacy had I asserted that Biden's prior statement demonstrated that his current opinion that Obama's nominations should be considered was false.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

There is a comparison and I made it. I was supporting my assertion that Democrats regularly oppose Republican efforts.

An interesting argument since there was no Republican effort since there was no open Supreme Court seat. Are you arguing the Democrats regularly oppose Republican NON efforts?

Biden stated that any future Bush nomination should not be considered. To me that sounds like opposing Republican efforts. Even the statement, "I will oppose your desires" constitutes opposition in the sense of showing that this is a Democratic position. Are you really trying to support the idea that Democrats do not regularly oppose Republican efforts? If so, you have your work cut out for you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Jeeze, this is not the first time i've done this. Here is what i posted:

Setanta wrote:

Ah . . . you crack me up. Will you please tell us upon what occasion the majority leader of a Democrat-controlled Senate stated publicly that the Senate would not even hold a hearing on any nominee of the President? Then have the courtesy, if you will, of providing us a source for that? I am not buying your BS unless and until you do that.

Now, finding that you cannot answer that, you have retreated into whining about what you said. I asked you a questions, which you have not answered, which is pointedly relevant to the topic of this thread. You cannot answer the question,so you want to attempt to strong-arm the topic, and you apparently still don't understand what a tu quoque fallacy is. Even if you were able to answer my question to your own satisfaction, you woul still be peddling a tu quoque fallacy. This is how people get labelled pig-headed, and with good reason.

It is fallacious, Mr.Science, because the moral failings or turpitude of one person or group does not justify the same failings in others.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Well, to give credit to where it is due, you are correct, Biden did make those remarks. There is a difference of timeline though. It was June 25, 1992 when Biden made those remarks regarding a hypothetical opening, whereas Scalia died Feb, 13, 2016, Obama has 322 days left in office and it usually takes 67 days to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. It is too long a time to leave such an important seat open, it does a disservice for all the people involved in the upcoming cases, plus our country who will have to abide by the decisions made by an unfilled seat.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

So you are arguing that the Democrats opposed the Republican NON efforts. NO GOP President ever had an opening on the Supreme Court that was opposed by the Democrats before there was a nominee.

You are attempting a very obvious false equivalency. One side did it and the other side never did it so they must be equal in your mind.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Why republicans don't understand simple concepts about the selection of a Supreme Court justice is mind boggling. No wonder there's gridlock in congress. They don't understand their responsibilities.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hmmm... Does that suggest Democrats never obstructed Judicial appointments?

1 Reply

@woiyo,

They they ever tell the republicans they can't nominate a SC justice during that time period?

0 Replies

@jcboy,

Other than the fact that I responded to two of your recent posts on topic I could see no reason for your comment using the term 'queen'.

Further investigation of your posts found you responding to a member known as layman. in that thread you cackled about my being a gay republican.

Here we go:
http://www.able2know.org/topic/308013-3#post-6105149

jcboy wrote:

I always knew Sturgis was gay. I never really paid attention to what he posted because he reeked of being a gay republican. I wonder if this will bring him out of the closet now?

No, I am not a Republican. I have never registered as a Republican. I have at times voted for a Republican candidate, the current batch of Presidential candidates on the Republican slate are not people I would vote for. In fact, I have stated on this board,that, if any of these men (Rubio, Cruz or Trump) is the selected candidate for the Republicans, I would vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic choice or for Bernie Sanders should he receive the nod.

If that to you is reeking of being Republican then you need your nostrils flushed.

As for my sexuality, that has never been hidden during my time on this site; so, your detective work wasn't too difficult.

Regarding your post, you made it during a time when I had chosen to step away from this board, so if you hadn't been so vainglorious, I'd likely not have ever seen it.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Dow Chemical just settled a suit saying Scalia's death made it unlikely they could win on appeal, so it is having an effect.

with any luck there will be more similar actions before the Republicans notice what's happening

then (if the Democrats can actually get the vote out in the midterms ) much much much more of the same

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

My argument was that Democrats regularly oppose Republican efforts, I supported that assertion by giving examples of Democrats opposing Republican efforts. How is making an assertion that something occurs and then giving examples of it occurring any kind of fallacy?

When it is posted in a thread about Republican efforts to block Obama's nomination of a supreme court justice. In that context, it clearly suggests that you're excusing the GOP because Democrats have done it too. If, on the other hand, all you were trying to do is prove that some politicians are hypocrites, then congratulations! You've just proven a fact that would be obvious to any reasonably intelligent ten-year-old.

Brandon9000 wrote:

It would have been a tu quoque fallacy had I asserted that Biden's prior statement demonstrated that his current opinion that Obama's nominations should be considered was false.

No. You evidently don't know what a tu quoque fallacy is. Here, this might help.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

When it is posted in a thread about Republican efforts to block Obama's nomination of a supreme court justice. In that context, it clearly suggests that you're excusing the GOP because Democrats have done it too.

If the Left can block John Bolton's nomination to be UN ambassador, that seems reason enough for the Right to block whoever Mr. Obama nominates to the Supreme Court.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

What I find funny in this constitutional loophole is that it can theoretically go on forever. If Hillary or Bernie gets elected as the next president, the republicans can block any of their SC nominations, right? They can if they want to. So the SC could progressively disappear over the coming years, as the justices die one after the other without being replaced.

Well, it is pretty clear that Mr. Trump will be our next president. But if the Democrats did retain the White House, the Republicans would likely confirm Mr. Obama's nominee in a lame-duck session.

0 Replies

The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know